-
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.
Put in cuffs at wal-mart
- Thread starter GabrielSchultz
- Start date
GabrielSchultz
Regular Member
My buddy and I are working on it right now. my lawyer told us not to put anything else up but to hold off until this is over with. But once we get a little bit further on this ill will keep you updated on everything. But so far nothing much. just getting the money together for this. and building up everhting
Grimes
Regular Member
It's a magazine, not a "clip".
Last edited:
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
Good golly. Glad to see the OP seeking legal counsel and standing up to this LEO behavior. So far I haven't had an LEO say anything more than "hello" to me while OC and I certainly don't envy the situation however admire the quick response to protect your legal rights.
rickinnocal
New member
No, they were not. They broke the law.
The police are not there to act as servants of a private company. Had a WalMart employee asked the poster to leave, and he had refused, he would then have been committing the crime of trespass, and the police would have been 'just doing their job' to arrest him.
As it was, no crime was committed - or even alleged - so the police had ZERO authority to detain him, let alone cuff him.
Richard
rickinnocal
New member
I'd strongly advise AGAINST any sort of legal action against WalMart.
Remember, it takes only two seconds for a WalMart executive to look at a lawsuit resulting from someone bringing a gun into the store and just simply decide that the the easy way to avoid future issues is to just post a "No firearms" sign on the door of every store.
Richard
sohighlyunlikely
Regular Member
Walmart has every right to put up no "firearms allowed signs", as I have every right to campaign that no one ever shop at walmart again. I do not concur with your logic and it's use to put fear into what ever actions that the OP wishes to do.
Doc
mFonz77
Regular Member
Walmart could have posted if they'd wanted. BUT THEY DIDN'T. And look at the FUBAR that came of it. They and the LEOs were in the wrong and I'm sure they know it. And keep in mind the kinds of people who shop at Wal-Mart...the ammo counter is usually really busy
It's also really easy for the head of legal at a company like Wal-Mart to take one look, realize they have no case, and go "settle, baby."
Last edited:
Wolf0351
New member
Walmart could have posted if they'd wanted. BUT THEY DIDN'T. And look at the FUBAR that came of it. They and the LEOs were in the wrong and I'm sure they know it. And keep in mind the kinds of people who shop at Wal-Mart...the ammo counter is usually really busy
It's also really easy for the head of legal at a company like Wal-Mart to take one look, realize they have no case, and go "settle, baby."
Ok so I am late to this party but there is alot to say I think I will keep it short though. I don't think he would have a case againt Wal-Mart as they have a company policy. If an employee dose something against company policy than you have to give them a chance to do something about it in this case. I meen you could sue but there is no case as the company is not to blame. If the employee had followed company policy there never would have been a problem. Once the LEO is involved anyone else getting envolved just causes more FUBR. You try to fix it when the LEO settles. That is what you all did. Good on you for staying calm. From what I read, the LEO did not identify himself. Did not follow any KCPD policies. I have had a fair share of run ins with them as I have pushed OC since the 90's. With my training if he had come at me from behind and grabded me odds are my reflexes would have taken over. Not a good thing that is why they must identify. If you had been up to no good. How stupid is he to grab one of you and leave the other open, ok sorry off topic.
Medscape
New member
I'll respectfully submit that that's a lot of nonsense. Of course a company is responsible for the actions of its employees, even when they violate company policy. The only way a company can act is through the actions of its employees, and no company has a policy that authorizes employees' negligence or misconduct, so excusing conduct for that reason would mean that companies are never liable for anything. On the contrary, the legal doctrine of respondeat superieur applies - fancy Latin for the principle that the employer is responsible for the actions of the employee who is acting as an employee. That's why companies have systems in place to make sure their employees follow policy, and for disciplining them when they don't, especially where the rights of third parties are involved. As a lawyer I'm not going to try to opine on whether Gabriel has a good a case based on facts put out in a forum posting, but I will go out on a very short limb to say that your analysis is way off.
Point taken councilor, but I am sure that you will concede that an employee not following company policy is not a violation of the law in and of itself and that most such matters are frequently satisfied through contact with upper management.
Medscape
New member
No argument there, but company policy usually goes beyond mere obedience to the law and addresses conduct that might be tortious rather than illegal, and even in the absence of a specific policy an employee's actions can create legal liability. To pick an example out of the air, if the anvil company salesman accidentally drops an anvil on my foot, I have a claim against the anvil company even though it is not illegal to accidentally drop an anvil and there is no specific company policy against anvil-dropping. Here, the question is a more interesting one: if a company COULD HAVE legally restricted the open carry right but by policy does not, and an employee acting contrary to that policy does restrict the open carry right of a specific person, can the company be liable to that person because the employee restricted the right in a manner that the law doesn't allow - by subjecting him to arrest? I think a court could go there.
Private property rights are normally held to be superior to 3rd party personal rights.
Medscape
New member
But in this case the third party is a business invitee. The duty of care owed to a business invitee is very high and the scope of that duty is very broad.
cshoff
Regular Member
With all due respect, an employee can't be held liable for the actions of a police officer. Since it was an officer who made the arrest, any liability for acting in a manner contrary to the policies of the company will rest at the feet of this officer and his department. Based on the limited information given in the OP, it looks to me like Wal Mart will have clean hands in this when it is all said and done.
M
McX
Guest
quite a story! you ever notice how after they trample all over your rights, they try to placate you with some small talk about how they support your rights? they played that bit in Madison on us too.
as for suing, i guess the law protects stupid people from getting sued.
i was also amused how the one cop handled your firearm, and ejected shells all over the place.
as for suing, i guess the law protects stupid people from getting sued.
i was also amused how the one cop handled your firearm, and ejected shells all over the place.
Medscape
New member
No argument with that, and that's why I won't guess about whether Gabriel has a good case. However, the original facts said they were in the store for 30 minutes before the officer showed up. Police don't normally patrol inside private premises unless they are working a secondary for a security company (which many officers do here in STL). If the officers did not witness the "crime," they need a complainant. Who called the police and what did they say? There could be multiple sources of liability; it's like a law school exam question.
Last edited:
cshoff
Regular Member
And it's still a moot point. If I call police on my neighbor and complain about him doing something that is not illegal, the police who respond should know better than to arrest and detain the neighbor on those grounds. If no unlawful act was committed, the officer has no right under any law to arrest. It would be up to the responding officer to make such verification upon arriving at the scene. The onus to determine whether or not a law has been broken is on him/her, NOT the manager of the store.
Medscape
New member
Moot in the sense of debatable -- it's still a fact-intensive inquiry. If you call police and complain about your neighbor doing something that IS illegal, different result. Did the employee make a false report? Did the employee incorrectly state that company policy was not to permit OC? The police have no way to verify those on the spot and will take the "armed men" (plural) report at face value, since when they showed up they did in fact find armed men.
You're saying the police have primary responsibility and I'm not disagreeing. What I'm saying is that the facts don't make it clear that WalMart was an innocent bystander, and if not it could create liability.
Last edited:
cshoff
Regular Member
Still a moot point. Despite what store policy may or may not have been, the officers should have known that the mere act of openly carrying a firearm is not unlawful. Again, the onus was on them. They should have told the store employee that they would approach the men, inform them of the store policy, and ask them to leave. A LEO should know that the breaking of a store policy, absent any unlawful acts, is not grounds for arrest.
Now, I will concede that if the employee reported that the two men had threatened other customers or employees with their guns, then the officers would have had PC to make an arrest, but had that been the case, the situation would have gone down MUCH differently. Clearly, a report such as that did not happen or guns would have been drawn and this would have been treated as a felony stop.