Removed from Walmart in Spokane

[David.Car]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

Hypothetical: gas station owner hires 3 people to run shifts around the clock. The graveyard shift cashier gets murdered with no witnesses, no blood, no signs of a struggle, the body is stripped of the uniform, and put in the broom closet. Some OCer comes in, sociopath now wearing the uniform doesn't like that, calls the cops who don't know that's the wrong person behind the register, and trespasses them.

This is the 3rd most retarded hypothetical you have spit out in this thread.

Why would the sociopath try and stick around and act as a gas station clerk?

And if he did, why wouldn't he just let the OC make his purchase and leave? Not like the OC guy came in and wanted to stay all night.

And yes, in that situation the LEOs would use all common sense that states the person stating they are an employee and wearing the uniform is most likely an employee. They would assume this until something else led them to believe other wise.

For example... You knock on someones door... You assume that the person who answers lives there. You don't automatically go hey, this guy might have killed someone and threw them in the closet, I better check the deed and his photo id...

 

[David.Car]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

All I'm saying is that if you reasonably believe that the OWNER of the business would allow you to be on the property you can not be cited/convicted for trespassing. Period. That's it.

And you are completely wrong. Period. That's it.

You will be cited. It is then up to you to prove the owner did something to give you reason to believe you were empowered to be on their site.

And oh, by the way, as stated, if any employee told you that you needed to leave the property before calling the police. You no longer can use that defense. Because once you are told you need to leave, you no longer can state you believed you were allowed to be there, because you were just told you weren't.

But please, go test this. Right now. So we can stop arguing over this stupid point you don't seem to comprehend.

Go test it. Please.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Hypothetical: gas station owner hires 3 people to run shifts around the clock. The graveyard shift cashier gets murdered with no witnesses, no blood, no signs of a struggle, the body is stripped of the uniform, and put in the broom closet. Some OCer comes in, sociopath now wearing the uniform doesn't like that, calls the cops who don't know that's the wrong person behind the register, and trespasses them.

This is the 3rd most retarded hypothetical you have spit out in this thread.

Why would the sociopath try and stick around and act as a gas station clerk?

And if he did, why wouldn't he just let the OC make his purchase and leave? Not like the OC guy came in and wanted to stay all night.

And yes, in that situation the LEOs would use all common sense that states the person stating they are an employee and wearing the uniform is most likely an employee. They would assume this until something else led them to believe other wise.

For example... You knock on someones door... You assume that the person who answers lives there. You don't automatically go hey, this guy might have killed someone and threw them in the closet, I better check the deed and his photo id...

You're asking sociopaths to abide by the logic of common criminals? Now that's...

Maybe the OCer is a regular and suspects something is up when he doesn't see the regular cashier, so instead of just going in and paying for gas, he pretends to browse the convenience store looking for clues, and the sociopath wants him out to continue the roleplaying without the body being discovered.

Now that the police are summoned without the OCer necessarily knowing (quiet phone call, out of the room, panic button activated), OCer becomes the badguy, and even if he tells the police his suspicions and to call the owner, they don't have to, and boom, he's outta there.

As far as your last paragraph, apparently you haven't read the stories about police asking for ID of residents. This will not necessarily match a resident to the residence, but checking government-issued ID of a supposed employee will almost certainly not prove he works there unless he has a professional license that tracks his employer and that database is queried.

Hell, a burglar could pick his way into an industrial facility, throw on the best-fitting uniform in the locker room, and go to work on building whatever, and claim to be an employee for trespassing purposes.

That is why it only makes sense to call the owner on property crimes.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Hypothetical: gas station owner hires 3 people to run shifts around the clock. The graveyard shift cashier gets murdered with no witnesses, no blood, no signs of a struggle, the body is stripped of the uniform, and put in the broom closet. Some OCer comes in, sociopath now wearing the uniform doesn't like that, calls the cops who don't know that's the wrong person behind the register, and trespasses them.

This is the 3rd most retarded hypothetical you have spit out in this thread.

Why would the sociopath try and stick around and act as a gas station clerk?

And if he did, why wouldn't he just let the OC make his purchase and leave? Not like the OC guy came in and wanted to stay all night.

And yes, in that situation the LEOs would use all common sense that states the person stating they are an employee and wearing the uniform is most likely an employee. They would assume this until something else led them to believe other wise.

For example... You knock on someones door... You assume that the person who answers lives there. You don't automatically go hey, this guy might have killed someone and threw them in the closet, I better check the deed and his photo id...

 

You're asking sociopaths to abide by the logic of common criminals? Now that's...

Maybe the OCer is a regular and suspects something is up when he doesn't see the regular cashier, so instead of just going in and paying for gas, he pretends to browse the convenience store looking for clues, and the sociopath wants him out to continue the roleplaying without the body being discovered.

Now that the police are summoned without the OCer necessarily knowing (quiet phone call, out of the room, panic button activated), OCer becomes the badguy, and even if he tells the police his suspicions and to call the owner, they don't have to, and boom, he's outta there.

As far as your last paragraph, apparently you haven't read the stories about police asking for ID of residents. This will not necessarily match a resident to the residence, but checking government-issued ID of a supposed employee will almost certainly not prove he works there unless he has a professional license that tracks his employer and that database is queried.

Hell, a burglar could pick his way into an industrial facility, throw on the best-fitting uniform in the locker room, and go to work on building whatever, and claim to be an employee for trespassing purposes.

That is why it only makes sense to call the owner on property crimes.

So these things happen so often that you think it necessitates the officer taking time to track down a private number and call an owner to prove to them that the person who says he is employed really is?

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Hypothetical: gas station owner hires 3 people to run shifts around the clock. The graveyard shift cashier gets murdered with no witnesses, no blood, no signs of a struggle, the body is stripped of the uniform, and put in the broom closet. Some OCer comes in, sociopath now wearing the uniform doesn't like that, calls the cops who don't know that's the wrong person behind the register, and trespasses them.

This is the 3rd most retarded hypothetical you have spit out in this thread.

Why would the sociopath try and stick around and act as a gas station clerk?

And if he did, why wouldn't he just let the OC make his purchase and leave? Not like the OC guy came in and wanted to stay all night.

And yes, in that situation the LEOs would use all common sense that states the person stating they are an employee and wearing the uniform is most likely an employee. They would assume this until something else led them to believe other wise.

For example... You knock on someones door... You assume that the person who answers lives there. You don't automatically go hey, this guy might have killed someone and threw them in the closet, I better check the deed and his photo id...

You're asking sociopaths to abide by the logic of common criminals? Now that's...

Maybe the OCer is a regular and suspects something is up when he doesn't see the regular cashier, so instead of just going in and paying for gas, he pretends to browse the convenience store looking for clues, and the sociopath wants him out to continue the roleplaying without the body being discovered.

Now that the police are summoned without the OCer necessarily knowing (quiet phone call, out of the room, panic button activated), OCer becomes the badguy, and even if he tells the police his suspicions and to call the owner, they don't have to, and boom, he's outta there.

As far as your last paragraph, apparently you haven't read the stories about police asking for ID of residents. This will not necessarily match a resident to the residence, but checking government-issued ID of a supposed employee will almost certainly not prove he works there unless he has a professional license that tracks his employer and that database is queried.

Hell, a burglar could pick his way into an industrial facility, throw on the best-fitting uniform in the locker room, and go to work on building whatever, and claim to be an employee for trespassing purposes.

That is why it only makes sense to call the owner on property crimes.

So these things happen so often that you think it necessitates the officer taking time to track down a private number and call an owner to prove to them that the person who says he is employed really is?

Computers, so difficult and time-consuming, you can't possibly make it an instant automated query sent over the MDT with the other dispatch info... or even have the owner's phone connected to the responding officer's cellphone or another radio channel as soon as he accepts the call or confirms on-scene.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

joeroket wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Hypothetical: gas station owner hires 3 people to run shifts around the clock. The graveyard shift cashier gets murdered with no witnesses, no blood, no signs of a struggle, the body is stripped of the uniform, and put in the broom closet. Some OCer comes in, sociopath now wearing the uniform doesn't like that, calls the cops who don't know that's the wrong person behind the register, and trespasses them.

This is the 3rd most retarded hypothetical you have spit out in this thread.

Why would the sociopath try and stick around and act as a gas station clerk?

And if he did, why wouldn't he just let the OC make his purchase and leave? Not like the OC guy came in and wanted to stay all night.

And yes, in that situation the LEOs would use all common sense that states the person stating they are an employee and wearing the uniform is most likely an employee. They would assume this until something else led them to believe other wise.

For example... You knock on someones door... You assume that the person who answers lives there. You don't automatically go hey, this guy might have killed someone and threw them in the closet, I better check the deed and his photo id...

 

You're asking sociopaths to abide by the logic of common criminals? Now that's...

Maybe the OCer is a regular and suspects something is up when he doesn't see the regular cashier, so instead of just going in and paying for gas, he pretends to browse the convenience store looking for clues, and the sociopath wants him out to continue the roleplaying without the body being discovered.

Now that the police are summoned without the OCer necessarily knowing (quiet phone call, out of the room, panic button activated), OCer becomes the badguy, and even if he tells the police his suspicions and to call the owner, they don't have to, and boom, he's outta there.

As far as your last paragraph, apparently you haven't read the stories about police asking for ID of residents. This will not necessarily match a resident to the residence, but checking government-issued ID of a supposed employee will almost certainly not prove he works there unless he has a professional license that tracks his employer and that database is queried.

Hell, a burglar could pick his way into an industrial facility, throw on the best-fitting uniform in the locker room, and go to work on building whatever, and claim to be an employee for trespassing purposes.

That is why it only makes sense to call the owner on property crimes.

So these things happen so often that you think it necessitates the officer taking time to track down a private number and call an owner to prove to them that the person who says he is employed really is?

Computers, so difficult and time-consuming, you can't possibly make it an instant automated query sent over the MDT with the other dispatch info... or even have the owner's phone connected to the responding officer's cellphone or another radio channel as soon as he accepts the call or confirms on-scene.

Yea that is a good use of my tax dollars.

 

[deanf]

imported post

The problem with these hypotheticals is that the story teller can weave the story (as has been done in this thread) in any way he chooses, so as to buttress his (erroneous) argument as he sees fit. They are not worth responding to.

You can't argue with fiction, nor can you use fiction as an argument.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

joeroket wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

David.Car wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Hypothetical: gas station owner hires 3 people to run shifts around the clock. The graveyard shift cashier gets murdered with no witnesses, no blood, no signs of a struggle, the body is stripped of the uniform, and put in the broom closet. Some OCer comes in, sociopath now wearing the uniform doesn't like that, calls the cops who don't know that's the wrong person behind the register, and trespasses them.

This is the 3rd most retarded hypothetical you have spit out in this thread.

Why would the sociopath try and stick around and act as a gas station clerk?

And if he did, why wouldn't he just let the OC make his purchase and leave? Not like the OC guy came in and wanted to stay all night.

And yes, in that situation the LEOs would use all common sense that states the person stating they are an employee and wearing the uniform is most likely an employee. They would assume this until something else led them to believe other wise.

For example... You knock on someones door... You assume that the person who answers lives there. You don't automatically go hey, this guy might have killed someone and threw them in the closet, I better check the deed and his photo id...

You're asking sociopaths to abide by the logic of common criminals? Now that's...

Maybe the OCer is a regular and suspects something is up when he doesn't see the regular cashier, so instead of just going in and paying for gas, he pretends to browse the convenience store looking for clues, and the sociopath wants him out to continue the roleplaying without the body being discovered.

Now that the police are summoned without the OCer necessarily knowing (quiet phone call, out of the room, panic button activated), OCer becomes the badguy, and even if he tells the police his suspicions and to call the owner, they don't have to, and boom, he's outta there.

As far as your last paragraph, apparently you haven't read the stories about police asking for ID of residents. This will not necessarily match a resident to the residence, but checking government-issued ID of a supposed employee will almost certainly not prove he works there unless he has a professional license that tracks his employer and that database is queried.

Hell, a burglar could pick his way into an industrial facility, throw on the best-fitting uniform in the locker room, and go to work on building whatever, and claim to be an employee for trespassing purposes.

That is why it only makes sense to call the owner on property crimes.

So these things happen so often that you think it necessitates the officer taking time to track down a private number and call an owner to prove to them that the person who says he is employed really is?

Computers, so difficult and time-consuming, you can't possibly make it an instant automated query sent over the MDT with the other dispatch info... or even have the owner's phone connected to the responding officer's cellphone or another radio channel as soon as he accepts the call or confirms on-scene.

Yea that is a good use of my tax dollars.

Already being done in some cases, so tax dollars can either be spent breaking it down, or expanding it to give property owners back their rightful control over their own property and business. Unless you think they don't mind losing business from boycotts started because of their derelict, profit-hating, pro-criminal safety, employees.

 

[deanf]

imported post

Already being done in some cases, so tax dollars can either be spent breaking it down, or expanding it to give property owners a say in whether they lose business from boycotts started because of their derelict, profit-hating, criminal-loving employees.

Dude, you have some serious issues. And please don't quote the whole thread when making replies - only the relevant part. It's basic message board etiquette.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Already being done in some cases, so tax dollars can either be spent breaking it down, or expanding it to give property owners back their rightful control over their own property and business. Unless you think they don't mind losing business from boycotts started because of their derelict, profit-hating, pro-criminal safety, employees.

Dude, you have some serious issues. And please don't quote the whole thread when making replies - only the relevant part. It's basic message board etiquette.

If the message board allowed quote management without messing it up in both Firefox and Safari, I would. Don't ask the impossible (which includes using browsers not even available for OSX).

That's all for this thread. /unwatch topic

 

[deanf]

imported post

Why don't you try Chrome?

 

[Kildars]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

Kildars wrote:

All I'm saying is that if you reasonably believe that the OWNER of the business would allow you to be on the property you can not be cited/convicted for trespassing. Period. That's it.

And you are completely wrong. Period. That's it.

You will be cited. It is then up to you to prove the owner did something to give you reason to believe you were empowered to be on their site.

And oh, by the way, as stated, if any employee told you that you needed to leave the property before calling the police. You no longer can use that defense. Because once you are told you need to leave, you no longer can state you believed you were allowed to be there, because you were just told you weren't.

But please, go test this. Right now. So we can stop arguing over this stupid point you don't seem to comprehend.

Go test it. Please.

Yes because you're a criminal court judge -- you know the law. Your opinion of what the law is the absolute! Fun having a discussion with close minded people.

Here's the facts: You have NO evidence, no CASE law, no OPINION, no cases at all to prove your assertion.

At least deanf kept an open mind, in some ways.

 

[.45ACPaddy]

imported post

So what ever happened to the part about Wal-Mart?

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

Board members, in regards to N6ATF, if you check his profile and comments on his webpage, put that together with his Californicate address, you will understand his posts a little more.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

Kildars wrote: It is like arguing with a piece of wood... I wash my hands of this. You have been given the information necessary, if you still refuse to accept it, well that is your own ignorance getting in the way.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

Kildars wrote: It is like arguing with a piece of wood... I wash my hands of this. You have been given the information necessary, if you still refuse to accept it, well that is your own ignorance getting in the way.

You have given your opinion, nothing else, which means nothing to me.