Kicked out of McDonalds

imported post

wsweeks2 wrote:

I can't say that I disagree with him at all however. If I went somewhere that I knew banned the carry of firearms and wanted to argue, that's on me. If I'm somewhere I know that I'm legal and that company has a policy to follow the laws where the store is located, I'm going to bring that to their attention.

If we all just go along with making others feel good because they don't want us there, we are just caving in and we lose. Others need to learn to accept it because it is legal and if they don't like it, they can leave.

We have all caved in enough to the opposition so why can't they deal with it. If he has a legal right to be there and the parent corp. has no policy against it, how was he wrong?


I do however disagree with his other situation and going from CC to OC in a confrontation.

Click to expand...

To me, leaving at the request of the owner would not have been caving in, it would have been respecting the owners rights.

imported post

PackinVB - since your military I know you've been indoctrinated about sexual harrassment, so let me draw you the parallel. There as in this instance, you were told no, they did not approve of your behaviour. Therefore continuing to do so is along the same lines of harrassment. The bottom line is you had other options available to you to resolve this, and you didn't choose wisely, plain and simple.

imported post

[align=left]Neither OCDO nor the Navy need loose cannons. Agree with HankT![/align]

imported post

Yes, we are continually briefed about sexual harrassment. However, I'd like to point out that Mr. PackinVB's actions, prior to being told to leave,seemed perfectly fine, but his actions after that point were inadvisable. Sexual harassment is wrong, prior, during, and after, any requests to desist.

The subject of sexual harrassment does bring up a good point. Perception Is Reality. It was the owner's perception (via phone call) of the situation, or the entire issue in general,that prompted him to request Mr. PackinVB to depart his premises. One could say that one meant no harm, and that it was legal, and that one wanted to do business with you, but since it is the owner's decision, his perception begets the reality he wants, which is 'no firearms on his premises'.

Yes, this wasn't a wise choice. However, I might have mistakenly inferred that you meant Mr. PackinVB chose the 'lesser of two goods'. I would have implied (if not explicitly stated) that Mr. PackinVB's choice was not the 'good' choice(s), it was one of the 'bad' choice(s).

Carry Long and Foster Positivity!

imported post

Here is one more question I have. After being kicked out of the place, why did he still spend his money there. He said he waited outside for his buddy to bring out their food. I don't think I would have spent a penny there myself. Just my opinion.



Goliath

imported post

About the money...

He might have already paid and was merely waiting in line for his order to be completed.

His buddy might have said, "Don't worry about chow, I got it this time, bro."

If he did pay, I think it's safe to say he's not the brightest bulb in the closet anyways.



TO: bayboy42

Thank you for the meet-n-greet, it was an unexpected pleasure.

imported post

CPL_in_WA wrote:

Yes, this wasn't a wise choice. However, I might have mistakenly inferred that you meant Mr. PackinVB chose the 'lesser of two goods'. I would have implied (if not explicitly stated) that Mr. PackinVB's choice was not the 'good' choice(s), it was one of the 'bad' choice(s).

Click to expand...

When I was in it was once informed, desist. I'm sure many things have changed since then and don't consider myself an expert on current military indoctrination, so I'll go with your assesment. I don't know that going to OC while being CC during the arguement could be construed as a good, as it resulted in a bad and probably always will as it may be perceived as an overtthreat by the other person. That specific point in time as others have stated is where this went wrong. There was ample opportunity to try another solution to the angry bystander problem - otheroptions -that's what I was trying to imply.

I do appreciate the response though and updating me on current training.

imported post

The owner wasn't even there. He was told second hand that the owner wanted him to leave by someone who would have come up with any excuse in the book.

If the rest of you want to be bullied by some anti-gun McDonald's manager, I guess that's your choice.

imported post

I honestly apologize for not being clear.

Yes, training is still 'once informed, desist'. Our chain of command will likely be lenient if a first-time offender is remorseful and takes responsibility for his actions. What I meant was thatunintentional sexual harassment and intentional sexual harassment are still sexual harassment. In this case, if I'm not mistaken, he committed no offense until the owner requested his departure, at which point he committed trespassing (however briefly).

About the CC transition to OC, we are definitely in agreement about this point. Bad, bad, bad. I was attempting to refer to Mr. PackininVB's McDonald's incident. Let me rephrase: I might wrongly infer that since Mr. PackininVB did not choose his course of actionwisely, his course of action was still 'okay'.

Again, we appear to be of equal thought on this. My apologies for the confusion.

imported post

PackininVB,

What would you have done if the cops arrived? Didn't they come within a whisker of arresting you for brandishing at Lynnhaven Mall, instead turning you over to your Navy senior?

What's going to happen the next time they turn you over to your Navy senior? The police may not have records from the previous encounter, but I'll bet your Navy senior does.

Waiting outside for your buddy = still on McDonald's property, something a police officer can twist into a refusal to leave. Especially if you give the police officer some lip. It may not be an arrest or summons within the letter of the law, but there are plenty of police who are happy to make you prove yourside in front of a judge. How does that affect your deployment?

If you want to OC for your own purposes, great. If you want to contribute to the bigger picture, please reconsider your tactics during confrontations.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

CPL_in_WA wrote:

Yes, this wasn't a wise choice. However, I might have mistakenly inferred that you meant Mr. PackinVB chose the 'lesser of two goods'. I would have implied (if not explicitly stated) that Mr. PackinVB's choice was not the 'good' choice(s), it was one of the 'bad' choice(s).

Click to expand...

When I was in it was once informed, desist. I'm sure many things have changed since then and don't consider myself an expert on current military indoctrination, so I'll go with your assesment. I don't know that going to OC while being CC during the arguement could be construed as a good, as it resulted in a bad and probably always will as it may be perceived as an overtthreat by the other person. That specific point in time as others have stated is where this went wrong. There was ample opportunity to try another solution to the angry bystander problem - otheroptions -that's what I was trying to imply.

I do appreciate the response though and updating me on current training.

Click to expand...

[size=-1]
UCMJ ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

I could write up that report chit in about 5 minutes flat.[/size]

[size=-1]HAGND![/size]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

[size=-1]I could write up that report chit in about 5 minutes flat.[/size]

[size=-1]HAGND![/size]

Click to expand...

Lol, I bet you could Senior!

imported post

wsweeks2 wrote:

The owner wasn't even there. He was told second hand that the owner wanted him to leave by someone who would have come up with any excuse in the book.

If the rest of you want to be bullied by some anti-gun McDonald's manager, I guess that's your choice.

Click to expand...

I'd venture to guess that the manager might legally represent the owner in his absence. If any wiser can verify or disprove this, please do so. I could be way off base here. I've only thought about this just now...

Let me make sure I understand correctly:

It is our choice to be bullied by a store manager.

You are absolutely right. If the senior employee requests I vacate the premises, I am legally bound to do so. If I am correct about owner/manager legal relationships, the manager, acting as the owner,is completely in the right.

You will not be bullied by private property owners, while you're on their property.

That sounds suspiciously like an attitude problem from which we thought Mr. PackininVB suffered.

If I am mistaken, and misread your intentions, please clarify. The day I stop learning, is the day my intellect (what little I have) dies.

imported post

I noticed BobCav was called "Senior" by Reverend73. Is that in reference to Senior Chief Petty Officer? If so, I am in better company than I had originally thought.

More than likely, there are a few more punitive articles that this would fall under. 134 is an excellent start. Depending on the Skipper, Mr. PackininVB could('ve) be(en) in for a rough ride.

HAGND?

I am not familiar... possibly refers to type of Discharge?

imported post

wsweeks2 wrote:

The owner wasn't even there. He was told second hand that the owner wanted him to leave by someone who would have come up with any excuse in the book.

If the rest of you want to be bullied by some anti-gun McDonald's manager, I guess that's your choice.

Click to expand...

It's irrelevant whether the excuse was valid or not, the customer was asked to leave from a private place of business. Business owners are allowed to refuse to serve customers/not sell their products. Bars throw drunks out all the time, yet this is not discrimination. The fact was, he was asked to leave. Hanging out is trespassing. The better option is fighting the battle another way, another day.

Would I be happy about it if I was in the situation? No, and I won't be in all likelihood either - especially if I'm with my wife and we can't eat where she wants to and the kids are screaming, but that's the consequence.

CPL_in_WA- we agree, no worries.

Bob - ah yes, the good old "If you screwed up and we don't have something on the books, we have something on the books to slam you" routine. I forgot about that one.

imported post

CPL_in_WA wrote:

I noticed BobCav was called "Senior" by Reverend73. Is that in reference to Senior Chief Petty Officer? If so, I am in better company than I had originally thought.

Click to expand...

What sort of company did you originally think you were in?

imported post

I think this might be a first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority is actually agreeing with HankT?

imported post

wsweeks2 wrote:

The owner wasn't even there. He was told second hand that the owner wanted him to leave by someone who would have come up with any excuse in the book.

If the rest of you want to be bullied by some anti-gun McDonald's manager, I guess that's your choice.

Click to expand...

So then it is your contention that the rights of PackingVB trumpt that of a property owner? Thats insane! It doesn't matter what the excuse was the manager quoted. If you're told to leave. . .you leave. Making a scene on the way out doesn't get you revenge. You aren't protesting the decision no matter what logic you use. You're only reinforcing the sterotype that gun owners are hot headed thugs whoes only courage is placed on their hip.

I don't condone the decision to ban lawfully owned (or carried) firearms, but if the property owner decides such, you have to abide by these decisions. Otherwise you have comitted the crime of tresspass if you don't immedatley leave the property. Youbecome the criminal, not a civic-minded right defending patroit.

Insulting the manager, an authorized agent of the owner just makes you. . .and by proxy the rest of OC/CC community look like loud-mouthed braggard thugs. There are ways to protest the decision of the owner of this business, and calling their employees "fat" isn't the way to go about invoking change. Being verbally abusive is only going to enforce the policy of the owner. Witholding your money, which he wants the most is going to get his attention and our desired response much more effectively.

Seriously, If you aren't mature enough to comprehend this basic concept and how these actions are so seriously wrong, you honestly aren't mature enough to carry that firearm around with you.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

I think this might be a first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority is actually agreeing with HankT?

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. This certainly appears to be a first. :lol:

imported post

bohdi wrote:

I think this might be a first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority is actually agreeing with HankT?

Click to expand...

Hey don't read too much into this, even a broken clock is right twice per day