Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 189
  1. #31
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clay Pigeon View Post
    Joe Citizen doesn't have Qualified immunity, LEO do.
    I'm not sure how qualified immunity would be involved here?

  2. #32
    Expert Clay Pigeon's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    I'm not sure how qualified immunity would be involved here?
    I didnt post that it was,
    Kut posted that LEO were not a protected group as far as civil rights go. Its not true..
    "Too much agreement kills a chat." ~Eldridge Cleaver

  3. #33
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clay Pigeon View Post
    I didnt post that it was,
    Kut posted that LEO were not a protected group as far as civil rights go. Its not true..
    Okay, but "as far as civil rights go" with respect to criminal trespass at a place of business, how is LEO qualified immunity involved? (Especially considering that they were off-duty...)

  4. #34
    Grandmaster Fargo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    So, the cited case is an irate bank customer who demanded services not provided by the bank, by policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on someone who purchases product for consumption from a restaurant.
    Irate and policy don't have anything to do with the statute. The trigger is "contractual interest". If bank customers who are in a contract allowing them to use branches of the bank they have given their money to don't have such an interest, restaurant customers are likely SOL.

  5. #35
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Imagine if somebody was wearing a rainbow themed whatever and were asked to leave because someone was not comfortable around homosexuals. How would that fly?

  6. #36
    Grandmaster Kutnupe14's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ultra...good View Post
    Imagine if somebody was wearing a rainbow themed whatever and were asked to leave because someone was not comfortable around homosexuals. How would that fly?
    It wouldn't, assuming the person vocalized the "homosexual" complaint.... but if it's just a rainbow themed shirt (not the rainbow flag), in theory, it could fly, as rainbows aren't necessarily indicative of being a homosexual. The shirt just might be ugly.
    I Have the Worst Crew Ever

  7. #37
    Expert Clay Pigeon's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ultra...good View Post
    Imagine if somebody was wearing a rainbow themed whatever and were asked to leave because someone was not comfortable around homosexuals. How would that fly?
    So you can tell who is a homosexual just by them wearing something " Rainbow Themed "... Thats some awesome gaydar you have.
    "Too much agreement kills a chat." ~Eldridge Cleaver

  8. #38
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clay Pigeon View Post
    So you can tell who is a homosexual just by them wearing something " Rainbow Themed "... Thats some awesome gaydar you have.
    I cannot, just a hypothetical question.

  9. #39
    Grandmaster Rookie's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Fargo View Post
    Yeah, the closest I know of supports Kut's argument.

    https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinion...06291201bd.pdf

    If you find Ct. Of Appeals decision overruled in the above, it largely adopted Chip's argument. I think the INSCt. got it wrong, but it is what it is.
    Not making any argument, but here is the only time I've seen contractual interest being used as a legitimate defense.
    https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana...23101-ewn.html

  10. #40
    Grandmaster chipbennett's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Fargo View Post
    Irate and policy don't have anything to do with the statute. The trigger is "contractual interest". If bank customers who are in a contract allowing them to use branches of the bank they have given their money to don't have such an interest, restaurant customers are likely SOL.
    Understood. But in the cited case, the account holder was asking for services not offered by the bank. Thus, there was no contractual interest regarding the requested services. Had the account holder been asking for services offered by the bank and thus services to which he was entitled by virtue of holding an account at the bank, then the question of contractual interest likely would have been answered differently.

    I pose the same question to you: if someone has been served a meal at a restaurant, does that person have a contractual interest in the real property, for the purpose/duration of completing the meal?


Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge