Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[jbombelli]

My heels, my heels!

Lol. The cry of the man who can't back up his words.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's not what the statute says, says they need to have previously been denied

That's exactly what is written in the statue. When they say "previously," they mean before entry into the property. The posting acts as the notice of denial prior to entry.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Lol. The cry of the man who can't back up his words.

Ankles too?

 

[jbombelli]

Ankles too?

I've already eaten your lunch. You want me to eat your dinner too? I'm also still waiting for you to post the text from the Constitution that says the Founding Fathers approved of background checks in order to possess firearms.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've already eaten your lunch. You want me to eat your dinner too? I'm also still waiting for you to post the text from the Constitution that says the Founding Fathers approved of background checks in order to possess firearms.

...and I'm waiting on you to find a girlfriend so you don't follow me all over the place, eating my dinner and lunch. Trust me girls are better company.

 

[cobber]

Maybe Kut can post the cause number of the case where he made such a Trespass arrest, so we can see where the case went once the PA's office got hold of it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This arrest has 'no file' written all over it. Or maybe a Motion to Dismiss as a Matter of Law, if some DPA is credulous enough to follow along...

Very possibly. I have no qualms in saying that an officer that made an arrest for Trespass, that followed code, if the person was willing to leave, is a doucher. I'm not arguing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it, only that the code allows for signage, alone, to enact an arrest.

 

[jbombelli]

Maybe Kut can post the cause number of the case where he made such a Trespass arrest, so we can see where the case went once the PA's office got hold of it.

Good luck with that. LOL.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Very possibly. I have no qualms in saying that an officer that made an arrest for Trespass, that followed code, if the person was willing to leave, is a doucher. I'm not arguing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it, only that the code allows for signage, alone, to enact an arrest.

Do you ever talk to your local prosecuter? If so, would you mind asking them what they thought?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you ever talk to your local prosecuter? If so, would you mind asking them what they thought?

Actually, I did exactly that.

 

[cobber]

Very possibly. I have no qualms in saying that an officer that made an arrest for Trespass, that followed code, if the person was willing to leave, is a doucher. I'm not arguing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it, only that the code allows for signage, alone, to enact an arrest.

Well. Not exactly. The 2004 near-miss may mean what you think it does, but I wouldn't be too sure the IC allows an arrest.

And if it's an arrest that won't be filed, however, then what exactly would be the point?

Might be a good case for the officer to call: 1) mall management and 2) the prosecutor, first, before deciding he's gonna enforce that sign, b'God!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hey, I posted a scenario, containing all the elements of code, and asked if an arrest would apply. I'm assuming most read it. Though I'm not so sure if it's either being ignored because of fragile pride, or people simply don't understand it.

I would say it's disheartening, the lack of responses. Seems that "men," today simply to want to admit being wrong, or that there are faults with the stance. But then again, this is a new era, "men" tend to be poor imitations of the what men once were. If, I'm wrong, I have no qualms admitting it, and I have done so plenty of times here on INGO, it a trait often lacking due to certain masculine 21st Century vanities.

If a person doesn't want to answer simply say it, better that than hiding like a child. If you have a post of mine, you want to challenge, post it up, and I'll tell you the weaknesses of my stance. I challenge lots of posts, and I explain why, so I'm totally open to having my thinking challenged.

Surely, I don't scare members that much.... it is the interwebz, after all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well. Not exactly. The 2004 near-miss may mean what you think it does, but I wouldn't be too sure the IC allows an arrest.

And if it's an arrest that won't be filed, however, then what exactly would be the point?

Might be a good case for the officer to call: 1) mall management and 2) the prosecutor, first, before deciding he's gonna enforce that sign, b'God!

Hence why you never see such arrests. What elements of the IC do you think weaken the possibility for arrest?

 

[jbombelli]

Hey, I posted a scenario, containing all the elements of code, and asked if an arrest would apply. I'm assuming most read it. Though I'm not so sure if it's either being ignored because of fragile pride, or people simply don't understand it.

I would say it's disheartening, the lack of responses. Seems that "men," today simply to want to admit being wrong, or that there are faults with the stance. But then again, this is a new era, "men" tend to be poor imitations of the what men once were. If, I'm wrong, I have no qualms admitting it, and I have done so plenty of times here on INGO, it a trait often lacking due to certain masculine 21st Century vanities.

If a person doesn't want to answer simply say it, better that than hiding like a child. If you have a post of mine, you want to challenge, post it up, and I'll tell you the weaknesses of my stance. I challenge lots of posts, and I explain why, so I'm totally open to having my thinking challenged.

Surely, I don't scare members that much.... it is the interwebz, after all.

I did. And instead of addressing it in any way you deflected away from what I asked and came after me instead.

Still waiting on that case law and the quote from the Constitution.

 

[JimboCX]

Does any of this support the argument of trespassing?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10091201lmb.pdf

 

[Kutnupe14]

I did. And instead of addressing it in any way you deflected away from what I asked and came after me instead.

Still waiting on that case law and the quote from the Constitution.

Bump the thread, and I'll apply, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Since you typically use hyperbole, and misrepresent, I'll have to see my original post. But I WILL respond.

 

[stephen87]

Hey, I posted a scenario, containing all the elements of code, and asked if an arrest would apply. I'm assuming most read it. Though I'm not so sure if it's either being ignored because of fragile pride, or people simply don't understand it.

I would say it's disheartening, the lack of responses. Seems that "men," today simply to want to admit being wrong, or that there are faults with the stance. But then again, this is a new era, "men" tend to be poor imitations of the what men once were. If, I'm wrong, I have no qualms admitting it, and I have done so plenty of times here on INGO, it a trait often lacking due to certain masculine 21st Century vanities.

If a person doesn't want to answer simply say it, better that than hiding like a child. If you have a post of mine, you want to challenge, post it up, and I'll tell you the weaknesses of my stance. I challenge lots of posts, and I explain why, so I'm totally open to having my thinking challenged.

Surely, I don't scare members that much.... it is the interwebz, after all.

This one?

So....

Let's say I own a one entrance widget shop, that is typically open to the public; it is a private commercial business. At that entrance there is a posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

-the posting is one that follows code and denies persons carrying firearms with entry

Now, Let's say, you are A person who:
(1) does not having a contractual interest in the property, and you knowingly or intentionally enters the real property via the main entrance, open carrying a firearm.

Even though I have not said a word to you, have you committed criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.

Or have you not made any criminal action?

You're going to have to be more specific on your bolded parts. You can't just paste the text of the IC into a post and expect us to disagree that's what the IC says.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Does any of this support the argument of trespassing?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10091201lmb.pdf

Not really, but that story is hilarious!

 

[Kutnupe14]

This one?

You're going to have to be more specific on your bolded parts. You can't just paste the text of the IC into a post and expect us to disagree that's what the IC says.

Why? Are you saying that you don't understand the IC? I posted the elements of code, generally. If you understand the code, then you should have an opinion. If not, then your particular opinion, is seriously weakened.

 

[stephen87]

I understand the code, but how can you argue against the exact wording of the code. Where is sign located? What does it say? How big is it? What do you consider "non contractual agreement? The list goes on. Clarity, man. Clarity!