Just got escorted out of Nordstrom/Chandler Fashion Center.

[heresolong]

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

Obviously, if the manager is telling someone that they are welcome to stay, but a janitor is telling that person to go, no one will be charged or prosecuted if they do not go.

Your statement contradicts that of those arguing that you have to leave if any employee says you have to.

In one case, the customer had been personally notified, in writing, that he could shop at their stores with his firearm carried in any manner allowed by law. He was told he had to leave by an employee.

The argument that has been made here is that he therefore has to leave or risk being charged with trespassing.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

Obviously, if the manager is telling someone that they are welcome to stay, but a janitor is telling that person to go, no one will be charged or prosecuted if they do not go.

What happens when corporate (not present) says it's allowed buy the sales clerk (present) says I need to leave?

That is what I was trying to clarify here by asking for either written policy and/or a manager because, for all I knew, this loss prevention guy was making it up on the spot because he was "alarmed, or uncomfortable." I questioned it in the first place because there were no signs on the doors indicating firearms were not allowed.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Kildars wrote:

Hello All,

This occurred in Arizona, but has to do with Nordstroms.

I was shopping with my girlfriend in the mall for an hour with no problems. I walked into nordstroms and I knew there was going to be a problem because the young teenage girl behind the jewelry counter immediately noticed my sidearm. I saw her talk to one of her co workers, then get on the phone. I didn't know if she was calling the police or the security. However, I finished looking and right as I was about to leave Nordstroms, an african american male named "Sam" from loss prevention approached me. He said that I could not carry on nordstroms because it's private property. I asked him if there was a written policy I could reference, or if he was just making this up on the spot without properly knowing policy. He refused to give me a written copy, saying that it's "private property" over and over again. I explained to him there are no signs on the doors either at the front of the store or the entrance leading to the parking lot. Anyways, I was getting no where with him. I left.

As I was leaving, I went into another store and did some shopping and three security guards and a police officer approached me. Only the security officer spoke to me. He said that I needed to leave because they do not allow firearms on the property. I asked him for a written policy as well, he kinda reached into his pocket and grabbed some papers, then his other security officer friend just chimed in and said "This is private property, you need to leave." I kindly explained that there are no signs on the doors, and I have shopped here multiple times with no issues. He didn't care, he said "We don't have to put signs, but you need to leave now."

I got up to leave, and they escorted me out.

By your estimates, how much time elapsed:

a) in your interaction with Sam the Nordstrom LP fellow?

b) in your interaction with the 3 SG/1 LEO group?

Also, why did you have to "get up" to leave? Were you seated in the store?

I'd say 3-5 minutes and yes I was seated.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

Just got this email from the owners of the mall property, WestCor:

Mr. [edited]:

Our Westcor Code of Conduct, posted at various areas of our centers in Arizona, prohibits firearms and other weapons, in the common areas of our centers. The signage that simply prohibits weapons is posted on the lower portions of our common area entrances to the mall. While somewhat nondescript, the signage satisfies State requirements. Please understand we have this policy in place to ensure the safety and security of everyone who visit our centers and our intention is not to limit any individual rights.
Thank you for your feedback on our policy and please feel free to contact me personally should you have any further questions or concerns.


William Harrell| Assistant Vice President for Security and Guest Services
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Westcor
11411 North Tatum Blvd.
Phoenix, AZ 85028
p. 602 .953 .6581
f. 602 .494 .6131


I'm drafting a response to him, any suggestion on input?

 

[Kildars]

imported post

armed citizen wrote:

I talked to Mr. Nordstrom and he told me that it is a company policy that open carry is not allowed on there private property. And if they feel that way It is my policy that i do not have to buy their products or spend my money at their stores.

Thank you for contacting him. I had a line of credit with nordstrom after this incident I paid it off and closed it. I do not plan to shop there unless I absolutely need to.

I hope more people do contact him.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

What happens when corporate (not present) says it's allowed buy the sales clerk (present) says I need to leave?

One more time..........YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, or you can be arrested for trespassing when the Police show up, if you STILL refuse to go!

 

[Kildars]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Kildars wrote:

What happens when corporate (not present) says it's allowed buy the sales clerk (present) says I need to leave?

One more time..........YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, or you can be arrested for trespassing when the Police show up, if you STILL refuse to go!

Do you not think the officer will check with the manager? I'd say that I have a reasonable belief that I am legally allowed to be on the property despite what the employee says.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

I disagree with the "other person empowered" includes any employee. The low level employees are not empowered to do much. What else are they empowered to do?

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

Do you not think the officer will check with the manager? I'd say that I have a reasonable belief that I am legally allowed to be on the property despite what the employee says.

It wouldbe a reasonable for the Officer to check with a manager but, If the employee claims one isn't on site/or available, the employee's wish (for the persion to leave) will becarried outby the Officer. Also, the Officer has no obligation to seek out a manager if he chooses not to.

You will then leave one of two ways. The person walks off on his own, or can be arrested for refusal at that point.

I am running out of ways to explain this concept.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

I disagree with the "other person empowered" includes any employee. The low level employees are not empowered to do much. What else are they empowered to do?

Disagree if you will, but the end result of pushing this situation will always be the same; you will leave one way or another.

I have no idea what else they may be empowered to do (I imagine that would be up to their respective company) but excluding someone from PRIVATEPROPERTY, is well within their means, as they are representatives of said property.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Kildars wrote:

Do you not think the officer will check with the manager? I'd say that I have a reasonable belief that I am legally allowed to be on the property despite what the employee says.

It wouldbe a reasonable for the Officer to check with a manager but, If the employee claims one isn't on site/or available, the employee's wish (for the persion to leave) will becarried outby the Officer. Also, the Officer has no obligation to seek out a manager if he chooses not to.

You will then leave one of two ways. The person walks off on his own, or can be arrested for refusal at that point.

I am running out of ways to explain this concept.

I understand you feel you're correct and everyone else is wrong. However, your interpretation of the statute posted has not had been tested. I would disagree that the "other persons empowered" in that statute includes all other (and any) employees. It would need to be someone empowered to make decisions about the property. So I do not believe a low level employee has authority to remove anyone.

Can you provide evidence (other than your opinion) to argue the point?

Especially if I had already spoken w/ corporate (or even a manger in the past). I would have a reasonable belief the manager/owner would have licensed me to be there.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Kildars wrote:

Do you not think the officer will check with the manager? I'd say that I have a reasonable belief that I am legally allowed to be on the property despite what the employee says.

It wouldbe a reasonable for the Officer to check with a manager but, If the employee claims one isn't on site/or available, the employee's wish (for the persion to leave) will becarried outby the Officer. Also, the Officer has no obligation to seek out a manager if he chooses not to.

You will then leave one of two ways. The person walks off on his own, or can be arrested for refusal at that point.

I am running out of ways to explain this concept.

I understand you feel you're correct and everyone else is wrong. However, your interpretation of the statute posted has not had been tested. I would disagree that the "other persons empowered" in that statute includes all other (and any) employees. It would need to be someone empowered to make decisions about the property. So I do not believe a low level employee has authority to remove anyone.

Can you provide evidence (other than your opinion) to argue the point?

It is not MY interpretation. This is how Every Police Dept. I am familiar with, Prosecutors, Judges, andDept. Attorneys interpret it.

Also, if you've been following the thread, you will see thatMANY others agree with my position. I am not trying to be argumentative, but this is how it has been, and will continue to beenforced by Police Dept's.

Btw, it has been "tested" thousands of times on the street and courtrooms,and it still works!

 

[Kildars]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Kildars wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Kildars wrote:

Do you not think the officer will check with the manager? I'd say that I have a reasonable belief that I am legally allowed to be on the property despite what the employee says.

It wouldbe a reasonable for the Officer to check with a manager but, If the employee claims one isn't on site/or available, the employee's wish (for the persion to leave) will becarried outby the Officer. Also, the Officer has no obligation to seek out a manager if he chooses not to.

You will then leave one of two ways. The person walks off on his own, or can be arrested for refusal at that point.

I am running out of ways to explain this concept.

I understand you feel you're correct and everyone else is wrong. However, your interpretation of the statute posted has not had been tested. I would disagree that the "other persons empowered" in that statute includes all other (and any) employees. It would need to be someone empowered to make decisions about the property. So I do not believe a low level employee has authority to remove anyone.

Can you provide evidence (other than your opinion) to argue the point?

It is not MY interpretation. This is how Every Police Dept. I am familiar with, Prosecutors, Judges, andDept. Attorneys interpret it.

Also, if you've been following the thread, you will see thatMANY others agree with my position. I am not trying to be argumentative, but this is how it has been, and will continue to beenforced by Police Dept's.

Btw, it has been "tested" thousands of times on the street and courtrooms,and it still works!

There's also a lot of people who disagree with you in this thread. If so many judges/attorneys agree with you -- surely you can find some case law supporting it?

 

[Thundar]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Their internal business structure is none of our business and should have no bearing on our conduct. We should obey all lawful rules of conduct when we are informed of them by anyone representing the private property owner.

Does anyone disagree that the private property owner or their representative (any employee) has the full legal authority to make up lawful rules of conduct when and where they see fit, and to refuse service to anyone at any time?

In places where public access is granted in Washington, is it legal to discriminate and violate civil rights?

Would it be O.K. to discriminate based on race or gender or age?

(Just so you know, I think a private property owner should have these rights, even if they appear "wrong")

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Corporations empower employees to do a lot more than just sit there and look stupid. When I worked in retail management every employee was empowered to look after the security and safety of the property, this included removing someone at their will. It was up to me as a manager to determine, once a complaint was filed by the customer, if the ejection was warranted.

Until that time the employee was assumed to be right and looking out for the companies best interest.

If the employee was wrong then they had some disciplinary action to face. You as a customer have no option, unless verbally told by a manager that you can stay, to leave when requested. You can then file the complaint with management and let them decide if the employee was in the wrong.

Asking for a manager is always a good thing to do because most of the employees are at the level they are for a reason. But if they refuse to get one then you still need to leave.

 

[Vandal]

imported post

I will say this again. Private property=you have to leave if asked. If you want others to respect our rights, you must respect theirs.

If you asked someone to leave your home and they refused, I bet good money you would call the police and have them escorted from your property. The same applies to stores, businesses, etc. Private property rights apply to businesses the same as they apply to your home.

And having worked retail, even the lowliest part time, seasonal employee can ask you to leave. I have done it. If they don't want you there, they can make you leave. You can ask for a manager, but that doesn't mean sh!t. Ask all you want, but they don't have to get one for you to confront. Managers don't normally give a rat's hind end about you, just the bottom line and I hate to be the one to tell you, they don't need the money of one person.

As for case law, go pick a business trespassing case where a person was trespassed from a business for (insert whatever reason here)