Chkultr
Regular Member
imported post
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
Nelson_Muntz wrote:
+1
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Asked to leave Greenbrier Mall for OC
- Thread starter vtme_grad98
- Start date
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
Chkultr wrote:
Doctrine of competing harms/doctrine of necessity: a key concept to the affirmative defense of justifiable homicide. It comes from English common law and means you are allowed to break the law in the rare circumstance where following the law would cause more human injury than breaking it.
Chkultr wrote:
Or youadequately defend your actions.
Doctrine of competing harms/doctrine of necessity: a key concept to the affirmative defense of justifiable homicide. It comes from English common law and means you are allowed to break the law in the rare circumstance where following the law would cause more human injury than breaking it.
imported post
Darylvb wrote:
Defense is doctrine of lesser evil as noted by other posters.
Mistaken for bad guy when police arrive? Only if you are alive will it matter. There are ways to communicate your status - been discussed at length.
Yata hey
Darylvb wrote:
Much prefer the phrase "stop the threat" to k*ll the bad guy.
Defense is doctrine of lesser evil as noted by other posters.
Mistaken for bad guy when police arrive? Only if you are alive will it matter. There are ways to communicate your status - been discussed at length.
Yata hey
Lysander
Regular Member
imported post
Now that that's out of the way... Here's a 30 second analysis of how a sign can become a bludgeon.
An argument can be made that the rules for entry posted in the signs are a unilateral contract for entry. Why would a contract for entry be necessary? Absent permission to enter, noone has permission to enter the land of another - and such permission can be conditioned upon certain events. For premises held open to the public - such as malls - most people on that property are considered invitees. Other types of people on property not their own are Licensees and Trespassers. A Licensee, according to Blacks (7th Ed, 1999), is "(2) One who has permission to enter or use another's premises, but only for one's own purposes and not for the occupier's benefit." One with a mere license is tolerated on the property but not asked to leave (e.g. taking a shortcut across a neighbor's property), invited to enter (Invitees), or have passibe consent. A Tresspassor is "one who intentionally and without consent or privilege enters another property. There is tortious tresspass and criminal tresspass - the former does not require police intervention or a prosecution.
How does that interact with signage? It can be argued that the signs provide the "ground rules" (the unilateral contract for permission to enter) by which the occupier of the property grants a license, or invites, the public onto its property. VA Code 18.2-119 begins thus: "If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands...." (Emphasis mine.) A licensee or invitee has authority of law to enter, thus is not a tresspassor.
---
OK, so that took me about 10 minutes, mostly looking up the specific definions.
Remember: this is not legal advice. I am not your attorney, nor am I offering to become your attorney.
This is not legal advice; were this to be legal advice, a bill for services would be attached.
Now that that's out of the way... Here's a 30 second analysis of how a sign can become a bludgeon.
An argument can be made that the rules for entry posted in the signs are a unilateral contract for entry. Why would a contract for entry be necessary? Absent permission to enter, noone has permission to enter the land of another - and such permission can be conditioned upon certain events. For premises held open to the public - such as malls - most people on that property are considered invitees. Other types of people on property not their own are Licensees and Trespassers. A Licensee, according to Blacks (7th Ed, 1999), is "(2) One who has permission to enter or use another's premises, but only for one's own purposes and not for the occupier's benefit." One with a mere license is tolerated on the property but not asked to leave (e.g. taking a shortcut across a neighbor's property), invited to enter (Invitees), or have passibe consent. A Tresspassor is "one who intentionally and without consent or privilege enters another property. There is tortious tresspass and criminal tresspass - the former does not require police intervention or a prosecution.
How does that interact with signage? It can be argued that the signs provide the "ground rules" (the unilateral contract for permission to enter) by which the occupier of the property grants a license, or invites, the public onto its property. VA Code 18.2-119 begins thus: "If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands...." (Emphasis mine.) A licensee or invitee has authority of law to enter, thus is not a tresspassor.
---
OK, so that took me about 10 minutes, mostly looking up the specific definions.
Remember: this is not legal advice. I am not your attorney, nor am I offering to become your attorney.
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
My father in law used to be the mall manager there. Cool guy. Not into guns, but reasonable. Wouldn't matter. Corporate rules driven by lawyers. Never stopped me from going concealed...
My father in law used to be the mall manager there. Cool guy. Not into guns, but reasonable. Wouldn't matter. Corporate rules driven by lawyers. Never stopped me from going concealed...
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Lysander wrote:
O.K., so interesting theory. Any Virginia case law that a rule is a unilateral contract for permission to enter, the violation of which is trespassing?
Do you think such a construct could survive a challenge, especiallyfor a place where the general public is expressly invited and is open to the public, such as a mall?
Lysander wrote:
O.K., so interesting theory. Any Virginia case law that a rule is a unilateral contract for permission to enter, the violation of which is trespassing?
Do you think such a construct could survive a challenge, especiallyfor a place where the general public is expressly invited and is open to the public, such as a mall?
Lysander
Regular Member
imported post
Thundar wrote:
If I were advising a client facing a trespass charge under 18.2-119 for carrying where there was a "no firearms" sign, I'd spend more time than that on their behalf to make sure that scenario doesn't play out. I presently don't have any clients facing a trespass charge under 18.2-119 for carrying where there was a "no firearms" sign.
----
There are typically five categories of people in relation to real estate: Owner, Occupier (which may be the owner, or not), Invitee, Licensee, and Trespassor. (There may be more depending on circumstance, but these are the typical ones, and I haven't done any further research.) One can "grant permission" for himself to be there (Owner), three have been granted permission to be there (Occupier, Invitee, and Licensee), and the last does not have permission to be there. Any of the three middle categories can lose their permission at any time - for example, one my be an Invitee at 10 AM when the shop is open, but I wouldn't routinely argue that he is still an Invitee at 10 PM after the shop closed.
Another <10 minute review.
[sup]
This is not legal advice; were this to be legal advice, a bill for services would be attached. I am not your attorney, nor am I offering to become your attorney.[/sup]
Thundar wrote:
I spent, at best, 10 minutes on it; and most of it was spent getting up, getting the dictionary from the conference room, coming back, and looking up definitions so I could do exact quotes rather than off the top of my head.
If I were advising a client facing a trespass charge under 18.2-119 for carrying where there was a "no firearms" sign, I'd spend more time than that on their behalf to make sure that scenario doesn't play out. I presently don't have any clients facing a trespass charge under 18.2-119 for carrying where there was a "no firearms" sign.
----
There are typically five categories of people in relation to real estate: Owner, Occupier (which may be the owner, or not), Invitee, Licensee, and Trespassor. (There may be more depending on circumstance, but these are the typical ones, and I haven't done any further research.) One can "grant permission" for himself to be there (Owner), three have been granted permission to be there (Occupier, Invitee, and Licensee), and the last does not have permission to be there. Any of the three middle categories can lose their permission at any time - for example, one my be an Invitee at 10 AM when the shop is open, but I wouldn't routinely argue that he is still an Invitee at 10 PM after the shop closed.
Another <10 minute review.
[sup]
This is not legal advice; were this to be legal advice, a bill for services would be attached. I am not your attorney, nor am I offering to become your attorney.[/sup]
imported post
Lysander wrote:
Many members feel that you must be told in person first and the signs do not count. Even more so if they lack the word "Trespassing".
I know for a fact.... thatpeople who play on park fields where a sign saying nothing more than "Field Closed" have been charged with trespassing and found GUILTY!!
A sign posted is a condition on your being there. You may bewelcome to be there but your willful act in the violation of the posted rule makes you a trespasser. No verbal warning is required.
Would you not agree Lysander?
Lysander wrote:
I have postedthe code section on this as well in regards to the signs being posted. It did not go over well and many REFUSE to believe it.
Many members feel that you must be told in person first and the signs do not count. Even more so if they lack the word "Trespassing".
I know for a fact.... thatpeople who play on park fields where a sign saying nothing more than "Field Closed" have been charged with trespassing and found GUILTY!!
A sign posted is a condition on your being there. You may bewelcome to be there but your willful act in the violation of the posted rule makes you a trespasser. No verbal warning is required.
Would you not agree Lysander?
Lysander
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I practice in NoVa... I may be running a counter-argument some point in the future.
LEO 229 wrote:
It's a good thing I had finished my sip of coffee before reading your post....
I practice in NoVa... I may be running a counter-argument some point in the future.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
You're sounding more and more like an anti every day, L229.
You just might be a Brady Buncher in disguise for all we know. And a secret Obama supporter too!
Citizen was probably right about you. Oh, why did we not listen to him...
LEO 229 wrote:
Gun rights trump property rights!!
You're sounding more and more like an anti every day, L229.
You just might be a Brady Buncher in disguise for all we know. And a secret Obama supporter too!
Citizen was probably right about you. Oh, why did we not listen to him...
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
A sign that says "Field Closed" IS effective notice. No Chewing Bubblegum IS NOT effective notice. Effective notice IS an element of the crime of trespassing in Virginia. It IS a standard of proof that must be met in order to have a prima facia trespassing case.
VCDL President
Centurion
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Thundar wrote:
I wouldn't doubt that "after hours" is probably a special exception that police can enforce. Perhaps a precedent in case law?
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Parks are marked "Closed at dark" and may not even say anything about trespassing.You are free run run, play, and frolic during the day.
But when you go back at night.... and you do the same thing and you are trespassing.
Grapeshot wrote:
It would not be trespassing during "business" hours.Does a"No Tresspassing After Hours" sign mean that I can tresspass during their business hours?
Yata hey
Parks are marked "Closed at dark" and may not even say anything about trespassing.You are free run run, play, and frolic during the day.
But when you go back at night.... and you do the same thing and you are trespassing.