• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall

Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
boyscout399 said:
In your posed bank situation, though I think it would be a stupid and irresponsible move by the bank, I still contend that the person responsible for the robbery is the robber, not the bank. Is the bank required to not make it easier for a criminal to do his criminal act? They did not hand the gun to the felon, the felon picked it up of his own free will.
Click to expand...

If I own a swimming pool, I am obligated to fence it and lock the gate or being violation of ordinances and face personal liability for injury or death to a second party, even if they were not invited. I must actively protect others, whether they have permission to be there or not.

A bank (or other merchant), on the other hand, assumes no proactive position to protect my safety from criminal injury. They espouse the faulty logic, "just give him what he wants and he won't hurt anybody." Unfortunately, we know how that works out sometimes.

The bank maintains that their losses are covered by insurance. Tell that to your spouse, significant other, or parents when you do not come home.

The banking industry is perhaps the only business type of which I am aware that can make repeated insurance claims for the same kind of incident without having radical increase in premiums or being charged to make improvements to reduce re-occurrence.
 
kennys

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
boyscout399 said:
In your posed bank situation, though I think it would be a stupid and irresponsible move by the bank, I still contend that the person responsible for the robbery is the robber, not the bank. Is the bank required to not make it easier for a criminal to do his criminal act? They did not hand the gun to the felon, the felon picked it up of his own free will.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to split hairs here. I know there is no one place that can guarantee any ones safety 100%, as well I know just carrying a weapon does not give 100% safety. Having said that having a weapon gives you a larger chance of of survival than not. When someone opens their business to the public, I believe they have at least a certain amount of responsibility as to reasonable safety measures. Just as fire codes are enforced as a safety issue, so should other things be taken into account. Like GS said, we are responsible on private property not open to the public for things that could happen to even un invited guests. Why should businesses not be held accountable for minimal standards to the invited public? I guess that I will leave it that we agree to disagree....I almost forgot, yes she could have chosen to go some where else as an experienced informed adult may have, but yet you know how teens can be. Do you really think she thought about what could happen. Most don't even consider it, they are more worried about shopping and other things.
 
B

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
kennys said:
I am not trying to split hairs here. I know there is no one place that can guarantee any ones safety 100%, as well I know just carrying a weapon does not give 100% safety. Having said that having a weapon gives you a larger chance of of survival than not. When someone opens their business to the public, I believe they have at least a certain amount of responsibility as to reasonable safety measures. Just as fire codes are enforced as a safety issue, so should other things be taken into account. Like GS said, we are responsible on private property not open to the public for things that could happen to even un invited guests. Why should businesses not be held accountable for minimal standards to the invited public? I guess that I will leave it that we agree to disagree....I almost forgot, yes she could have chosen to go some where else as an experienced informed adult may have, but yet you know how teens can be. Do you really think she thought about what could happen. Most don't even consider it, they are more worried about shopping and other things.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, however, the intentions of the business that bans weapons is not malicious. They are doing what they believe is the responsible action to protect their customers to the best of their capability. It doesn't matter that they're wrong. Their intentions are positive and not negative. They are not liable just because they were wrong.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
boyscout399 said:
I agree with you, however, the intentions of the business that bans weapons is not malicious. They are doing what they believe is the responsible action to protect their customers to the best of their capability. It doesn't matter that they're wrong. Their intentions are positive and not negative. They are not liable just because they were wrong.
Click to expand...

In most cases, being ill informed (poorly educated on a matter) and even with good intentions is neither a protection under the law nor a shelter from liability.

The primary tenant here is that of personal property rights - something that I support vigorously. I differ from many though in that I believe that when you invite the general public you take on the responsibilities/duties greater than those presently imposed. I good example is non-discrimination of protected classes - you may chose to do so in your private home but not your privately owned business.

Lets really twist this cats tail a bit.....Is not my right to protect my life more important than the color of my skin, my age or my religious affiliation? I submit that it is and if you invite the public.....well you see where I am going with that, I'm sure.
 
kennys

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
boyscout399 said:
I agree with you, however, the intentions of the business that bans weapons is not malicious. They are doing what they believe is the responsible action to protect their customers to the best of their capability. It doesn't matter that they're wrong. Their intentions are positive and not negative. They are not liable just because they were wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree that they may have their own justified reasons. I agree that business owners should have that right to decide, just as we have the right not to do business with them. Where the logic is flawed is in their explanation, and most of the time its misguided, is in the explanation that this is a family place, not a war zone, and a gun is not needed here. We all know shootings by criminals can happen every where no place is exempt. In instances with restaurants that serve alcohol, there is more deaths and injuries because of drunk driving and other alcohol related problems yet people want to regulate or ban fire arms while they are actually inflicting more danger with the difference that they are excepting money doing it.

Taking guns totally out of the equation however. In a tool isle, end cap or even at a register, there is a potential for danger, but I can understand these areas not being monitored 100% of the time. Than again these areas often are because of money loss from shoplifters. Now with all the pervs and deviates out there take a simple dressing room. Often off to the side, thin doors that often don't always go to the floor or are even just curtains where people are undressing and trying on clothing, and that is not important enough to monitor. I will say it is a dumb thing to do, but I have seen parents have their kids wait in the dressing room while they go across the isle to find another size. They are not thinking, there is no warning sign there to deter them from doing this. Disaster waiting to happen that should be obvious to any shop owner. Add loud music and say a rack of clothing in front of the doors even worse..
 
B

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
kennys said:
I agree that they may have their own justified reasons. I agree that business owners should have that right to decide, just as we have the right not to do business with them. Where the logic is flawed is in their explanation, and most of the time its misguided, is in the explanation that this is a family place, not a war zone, and a gun is not needed here. We all know shootings by criminals can happen every where no place is exempt. In instances with restaurants that serve alcohol, there is more deaths and injuries because of drunk driving and other alcohol related problems yet people want to regulate or ban fire arms while they are actually inflicting more danger with the difference that they are excepting money doing it.

Taking guns totally out of the equation however. In a tool isle, end cap or even at a register, there is a potential for danger, but I can understand these areas not being monitored 100% of the time. Than again these areas often are because of money loss from shoplifters. Now with all the pervs and deviates out there take a simple dressing room. Often off to the side, thin doors that often don't always go to the floor or are even just curtains where people are undressing and trying on clothing, and that is not important enough to monitor. I will say it is a dumb thing to do, but I have seen parents have their kids wait in the dressing room while they go across the isle to find another size. They are not thinking, there is no warning sign there to deter them from doing this. Disaster waiting to happen that should be obvious to any shop owner. Add loud music and say a rack of clothing in front of the doors even worse..
Click to expand...

Yes a dressing room is a higher risk area, but I contend that it's still the individual's responsibility to ensure their own safety and not the shop owners responsibility to ensure your safety in the dressing room. Bring a friend and have them stand outside the dressing room.
 
B

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Grapeshot said:
In most cases, being ill informed (poorly educated on a matter) and even with good intentions is neither a protection under the law nor a shelter from liability.

The primary tenant here is that of personal property rights - something that I support vigorously. I differ from many though in that I believe that when you invite the general public you take on the responsibilities/duties greater than those presently imposed. I good example is non-discrimination of protected classes - you may chose to do so in your private home but not your privately owned business.

Lets really twist this cats tail a bit.....Is not my right to protect my life more important than the color of my skin, my age or my religious affiliation? I submit that it is and if you invite the public.....well you see where I am going with that, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I would argue that, when it comes to private property, protected classes make for privileged classes, and there should be no protections on private property. While I think it's morally reprehensible to discriminate against someone based on the color of their skin, it is the property owner's property and if he doesn't want a certain type of people there, it's his place, his rules. The gov has no business forcing them to allow certain people on their property. (disclaimer: I'm not racist and I think it would be awful for any business to do that. I merely defend the RIGHT of the property owner to have that view)
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
boyscout399 said:
I would argue that, when it comes to private property, protected classes make for privileged classes, and there should be no protections on private property. While I think it's morally reprehensible to discriminate against someone based on the color of their skin, it is the property owner's property and if he doesn't want a certain type of people there, it's his place, his rules. The gov has no business forcing them to allow certain people on their property. (disclaimer: I'm not racist and I think it would be awful for any business to do that. I merely defend the RIGHT of the property owner to have that view)
Click to expand...

Understand your reasoning and thinking, but until we change the Constitution and BoR, a violation of protective classes will potentially get you a 1983 Civil Rights suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top