Pembroke Mall Now Posted!!!!!!

[LEO 229]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

LEO 229, If a mall posts a no weapons signs as part of their conduct code, as Greenbriar did (it was rule #21) would youissue a summonsto somebody for carrying a knife, a taser or a sword? What about mace?

A knife is a tool depending on size and design.

A taser and mace are defensiveitems to stop an attacker

A sword.... now that is a weapon. This one would get you the ticket but only if the owner requested it. I would not issue it on my own. I would rather admonish you while Iremindyou that this type of activity is not welcomed.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

Ok, but is there an equal protection issue in that the state is being asked to prosecute with discrimination a gun toter while not being asked to prosecute a shoeless person. Isn't this discrimination? Shouldn't the law be equally applied?

In other words the rules are posted, I have little expectation of being arrested for being shoeless, so should I not expect the same for having a gun? That is unless "No firearms" is printed in bold letters with an asterisk that says "We will prosecute with prejudice".

Even in court the same charge from one person to another will not be prosecuted the same. The jail time may apply of less of a fine. Very few laws required a set jail term or fine. It is all flexible and will vary.

Do you discriminate when you go to the store and pick one shirt over another based on price? If you do you are discriminating based on price.

You are in charge and get to decide what you want to invest. Do you want to take it to court or just let it go... Even a cop gets to decide if he wants to give you a warning or a summons. No law that says you shall press charges equally for violations. I know stores that will not prosecute for shoplifting unless it reaches a certain dollar amount.

Could you discriminate? Sure! But then that is a different topic. A store could allow some people in wearing shoes and nobody with guns. But that is their decision. As long as they are doing it based on some personal characteristics... they are within their rights.

Well thought out response, my reply is I thought so. Hope that doesn't hurt your feelings :^). But it makes sense. I once was pulled over by a cop for doing 55 in a 45. While he was writing the ticket someone went by at *least* 75. I pointed this out, he didn't care. Nor did the judge. Apparantly you can only arrest one person at a time. Live and learn.

Of course there still is that SCOTUS decision that said malls are "public" space even though they are private property. I'd like to find that cite again. Lost it, can't find it for some reason. I even cited it my self at some point on this forum.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Well thought out response, my reply is I thought so. Hope that doesn't hurt your feelings :^). But it makes sense. I once was pulled over by a cop for doing 55 in a 45. While he was writing the ticket someone went by at *least* 75. I pointed this out, he didn't care. Nor did the judge. Apparantly you can only arrest one person at a time. Live and learn.

Of course there still is that SCOTUS decision that said malls are "public" space even though they are private property. I'd like to find that cite again. Lost it, can't find it for some reason. I even cited it my self at some point on this forum.

Ya... I have pulled people over and had them point out other in violation.

It is not tag... I have my transaction to finish and then will get the next guy. I have also had people commit violations right in front of my while on my way to a call.... have to let them go... :X

It my be deemed public property but someone still owns it and has control over it.

I would be interested in your finding something substantial to identify the sign is not valid. But as it stands... the code says "sign posted" and the no weapons sign.... is posted.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

We have strayed away from the context of the original issue in this thread. The original issue as I see it is: Do signs worded and posted in an manner such as the one at Pempbroke Mall carry any weight under VA Law?

My answer is still no.

These signs are much different then the "No Trespassing and No Hunting" signs that LEO229 keeps referencing.As such, I do not believe that an individual could be immediately cited by a LEO for not obeying one of these signs since the actual act being committed is NOT illegal in and of itself. Until LEO299 (a.k.a Devil's Advocate )or someone else cites case law confirming this theory, I will stand by this thought.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

We have strayed away from the context of the original issue in this thread. The original issue as I see it is: Do signs worded and posted in an manner such as the one at Pempbroke Mall carry any weight under VA Law?

My answer is still no.

These signs are much different then the "No Trespassing and No Hunting" signs that LEO229 keeps referencing.As such, I do not believe that an individual could be immediately cited by a LEO for not obeying one of these signs since the actual act being committed is NOT illegal in and of itself. Until LEO299 (a.k.a Devil's Advocate )or someone else cites case law confirming this theory, I will stand by this thought.

You know we had this discussion in another thread not too long ago. I wrote a good reply, perhaps my ego has inflated my memory, that had to do with the mall being a pseudo public square. Does anyone remember that thread?

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It my be deemed public property but someone still owns it and has control over it.

IIRC the USSC justice was not making a ruling but was merely pointing out there was some legitimacy to the idea. As was the NJSC justice in his ruling about free speech inside a mall. The mall can regulate but not ban protests. In the same way IMO a mall could say you must CC or some such, as long as it was a must issue state I would not have a problem with that too much.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I will ask the prosecutor the next time I go to court and see what they say.

I will also check with the magistrate and see if they would issue a warrant based on the situation.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

It seems to me that PEOPLE can trespass, not certain actions or wholesale behaviors that are otherwise legal.

Since the mall is private property, but completely relies on public access to exist, they want $$$. Depending on the public's ability to feel safe there while spending money,they will never wholly disallow an entire group of individuals as that is discrimination. Simon properties would go toe-to-toe with VCDL, GOA, JPFO, NRA and 80 millionConstitutionally supported and law abiding citizens called gun owners and they wouldn't dare. The $$ cost would be far too high. Signs like "Gun Carriers are Trespassing"are no different that "Gun Carriers are Trespassing"being in effect discrimination,and both are a far cry different that these "Rules of Conduct" signs that we know and love.

You cannot make actions that are otherwise lawful; unlawful merely because of private property/mall property/etc. That actionof lawfully carrying a gun itselfremains lawful, but it is then the PERSON who has decided to intentionally ignore the property rights of the owner, that only when askedand refuses becomesguilty of tresspass. It is not theirgun that is a problem, it is their intentional disrespect of the property rights.

You can only declare that certain activities, while otherwise lawful, are not welcome on that private property. Failing to then acknowledge that, that particulat INDIVIDUAL is then guilty of trespass.

The reasons for those signs and policies is now and foreverto justify the existence of some admin weenie's existence and make thesheeple feel safe and feel like spending money.

It's always about the money.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

BobCav - Would you stop one-upping me and so eloquently describing what I want to say. How about I just start sending you my bullet points and you can weave it into a nice post :lol:

LEO229 - you have either intentionally or unintenionally ignored this statement:

It doesn't look like you saw it because I'm sure you would have commented on it, but over on the thread regarding Patrick Henry Mall, Mike brings up a good point: "Informing folks about, or enforcing, private property policies is not the proper function of the police" This comment goes directly against your theory of have trespassing really works......how would you counter Mike's point?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

...snipped....
It doesn't look like you saw it because I'm sure you would have commented on it, but over on the thread regarding Patrick Henry Mall, Mike brings up a good point: "Informing folks about, or enforcing, private property policies is not the proper function of the police" This comment goes directly against your theory of have trespassing really works......how would you counter Mike's point?

Of course....

The police do not enforcematters on private property unless asked to do so by the property owner.

It is up to the property owner to calland request the police to do their part in either having the person removed or give them a ticket to go to court.

 

[paramedic70002]

imported post

I'll restate a previous question:

Is there any case law on this?

If not, I'm willing to take the chance hit. Caught or not, seems the odds are pretty good.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

bayboy42 wrote:

...snipped....
It doesn't look like you saw it because I'm sure you would have commented on it, but over on the thread regarding Patrick Henry Mall, Mike brings up a good point: "Informing folks about, or enforcing, private property policies is not the proper function of the police" This comment goes directly against your theory of have trespassing really works......how would you counter Mike's point?

Of course....

The police do not enforcematters on private property unless asked to do so by the property owner.

It is up to the property owner to calland request the police to do their part in either having the person removed or give them a ticket to go to court.

But wait a second....that totally contradicts your entire argument.....

 

[BobCav]

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

BobCav - Would you stop one-upping me and so eloquently describing what I want to say. How about I just start sending you my bullet points and you can weave it into a nice post :lol:

Hehe....sorry..?? But thanks. When I'm passionate about something it comes easily.

Sadly, I've found that when it comes to most things in America as of late, if you follow the path to the money, you have the reason behind almost everything. It's all about self-preservation, protecting investments, increasing profits and returns.

No one does anything anymore, good OR bad,unless there's something in it for them.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

bayboy42 wrote:

...snipped....
It doesn't look like you saw it because I'm sure you would have commented on it, but over on the thread regarding Patrick Henry Mall, Mike brings up a good point: "Informing folks about, or enforcing, private property policies is not the proper function of the police" This comment goes directly against your theory of have trespassing really works......how would you counter Mike's point?

Of course....

The police do not enforcematters on private property unless asked to do so by the property owner.

It is up to the property owner to calland request the police to do their part in either having the person removed or give them a ticket to go to court.

But wait a second....that totally contradicts your entire argument.....

If you say so. I think you had the wrong idea the entire time.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

:banghead::banghead: