Greenwood Kroger cop plays intimidation card, draws no response.

[finity]

"1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "


See Bolded part, does not apply here.

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck...

While it may not BE the army if they dress like them & use the same tactics then what is the functional difference.

I think his point still stands.

 

[youngda9]

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck...

While it may not BE the army if they dress like them & use the same tactics then what is the functional difference.

I think his point still stands.

Essence of the law, yes. But not illegal since it doesn't violate the law as written. Would not hold up in a court of law obviously. Exact wording of the law matters...even when it doesn't support our opinions and feelings. We all must remember that.

 

[jeremy]

While it may not BE the army if they dress like them & use the same tactics then what is the functional difference.

Please do not confuse their incompetence with that of the US Military...

Just cause they dress like us, and attempt to use Our Tactics does not make them functional...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please do not confuse their incompetence with that of the US Military...

Just cause they dress like us, and attempt to use Our Tactics does not make them functional...

Yes, that's an entirely different type of incompetence... (officers that is)

 

[ATM]

Narrow? In what way? Trespass is trespass, and what exactly does reasonable force mean, if not physical contact?

Narrow in the sense that it only applies to trespass, not simply ignoring one's rules or policies.

Narrow in the sense that the belief in the necessity of force must be deemed reasonable to immediately prevent or terminate an actual trespass rather than simply to enforce one's rules or policies.

...if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass.

I really have never seen so many "head in the sand" point of views in my life. The Indiana CODE, ie the LAW, states that a private citizen can use "reasonable" force to terminate trespassing. Indiana CODE, again the LAW, states that written notice can constitute a denial of entry. Notice meaning prior to the action taking place.
So one can easily infer that in a person is aware of a written "denial of entry," and chooses to ignore it, then some form of "force" (and yall can decide what that entails) is justified.
I'm not saying that a property owner can beat someone to a bloody pulp because they purposefully ignored a sign. However, the level of force used will be dictated by the offender, NOT the owner.

Keep dreaming that every object someone forbids by policy or sign becomes a denial of entry by law or an automatic justification to use force.

Judge: "Why did you reasonably believe you could use force to throw the plaintiff on his face?"

Defendant: "He was wearing shorts that were too long according to my posted sign. I don't tolerate pants so that means he was trespassing in my grocery."

Judge: "Did the plaintiff refuse to leave? Was he being unruly? Is there any reason you believed immediate force was necessary?"

Defendant: "I don't need no reason. It's the law. I heard it on the internets from a cop, your honor."

Judge: "Decision for the plaintiff. Next case."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Narrow in the sense that it only applies to trespass, not simply ignoring one's rules or policies.

Narrow in the sense that the belief in the necessity of force must be deemed reasonable to immediately prevent or terminate an actual trespass rather than simply to enforce one's rules or policies.

...if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass.



Keep dreaming that every object someone forbids by policy or sign becomes a denial of entry by law or an automatic justification to use force.

Judge: "Why did you reasonably believe you could use force to throw the plaintiff on his face?"

Defendant: "He was wearing shorts that were too long according to my posted sign. I don't tolerate pants so that means he was trespassing in my grocery."

Judge: "Did the plaintiff refuse to leave? Were he being unruly? Is there any reason you believed immediate force was necessary?"

Defendant: "I don't need no reason. It's the law. I heard it on the internets from a cop, your honor."

Judge: "Decision for the plaintiff. Next case."

You're hoping that's what will happen. That still doesnt change the law as written in code. I've cited the code verbatim and it's fairly obvious what it means. If your one meets the qualification of trespassing, then they can be expelled using force.
If you don't abide by a owners "rules" after being given notice.... regardless of what they are, you are trespassing and subject to expulsion.

 

[ATM]

You're hoping that's what will happen. That still doesnt change the law as written in code. I've cited the code verbatim and it's fairly obvious what it means. If your one meets the qualification of trespassing, then they can be expelled using force.
If you don't abide by a owners "rules" after being given notice.... regardless of what they are, you are trespassing and subject to expulsion.

Guess we can just disagree then. Stay safe.

 

[jbombelli]

You're hoping that's what will happen. That still doesnt change the law as written in code. I've cited the code verbatim and it's fairly obvious what it means. If your one meets the qualification of trespassing, then they can be expelled using force.
If you don't abide by a owners "rules" after being given notice.... regardless of what they are, you are trespassing and subject to expulsion.

When you graduate law school, pass the bar, and have a few years of experience in criminal defense, instead of a few hours of sketchy training at ILEA, be sure to let me know.

Until then I will leave it with this: my attorney disagrees with your interpretation, other attorneys who have posted on this previously on INGO disagree with you, and some of the best-known attorneys in the state disagree with you. So I will take all of their collective opinions on this before I pay ANY attention to yours.

 

[thompal]

Essence of the law, yes. But not illegal since it doesn't violate the law as written. Would not hold up in a court of law obviously. Exact wording of the law matters...even when it doesn't support our opinions and feelings. We all must remember that.

It's just that is has become a distinction without a difference. The law was written to guarantee that a military force would not be used against the citizens, and would not be involved in law enforcement.

It's kind of the same path they took with the National Guard. It was created to augment the militia in its role as a force between the standing army and the citizens. Then, the authoritarians claimed that since the National Guard existed, there was no need for a militia, therefore the 2nd Amendment should only apply to the National Guard. THEN, it was worked so the National Guard could be federalized, thereby becoming the federal standing army.

So now, the police resemble a military force much more than they do officer friendly, except their BDUs say "police" on them instead of US Army.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Look Jack, I've made some comments on this thread so i'm just gonna go ahead and speak my peace and be done with it. Somehow I think things get missconstrued and blown out of proportion. I myself and some of the other posts i've seen have been portrayed as wanting to be lawless armed thugs just running around looking to cause trouble and disrupt somebodys business and get into fights with property owners and refuse to leave when asked to do so. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I've never heard about anything like that being posted or have any personal knowledge of someone attempting to do so. Most of it boils down to a dissagreement on what constitutes a trespass and what does'nt. So I have a hard time getting why someone else on the other side of the issue just automatically feel the need to get all bent out of shape and feel it's justified going all hands on from the get go when in all reality it's not warrented or even nessecary. For the record, if you had a business, whether it's a hypothetical one or not, and you asked me to leave I would do so no questions asked because I know at that point if I did not then I would deffintly no doubt about it be subject to a trespassing charge.

The situation escalates just like this thread does only a lot quicker in person or is just blows aways just as quick.

It starts with a guy who get's looked at funny and doesn't like it so he wants to cost they guy who looks at him funny his job.

The guy doesn't get fired because a guy who owns a grocery store thinks they are both a couple of fools and they should get back to work doing the job he pays one of them for. Because he has bills to pay and grocery to stock. He wants to sell groceries to people who want to buy them. The rest of this crap is nothing but a PITA for him.

The campaigner is made because he acted the fool and was treated like one so now he's thinks he's got to show he's not a fool and he is really right so now the guy who wants to sell groceries has a new pile of crap to listen to and even though he owns every square inch of this store he get's lip from the francise head quarters.

This is where if I'm that guy I'll fix that crap right now. Doesn't matter if it's gun, gang bangers, pets, or smokers. No more, stay out, shop some where else. A clear and concise sigh goes up, security is informed "zeroe tolerance" "I don't care, I don't want to hear about it, do your job and keep it out, or get a new job."

Now is where these dum dums want to start back pedaling. The whole topic is they DELIBERATELY IGNORE THE WRITTEN WARNING EVERY ONE IN THE STORE HAS TO WALK RIGHT PAST and THEY ARE ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. They can tall all the "I've got rights waa" they want but that's the point they are on borrowed time and every thing but a face plant is a gift and attitude is going to determine if they turn around and walk back out or get to learn what getting duck walked is like.

If I'm the store owner I am not going to play games or debates in my store or in front of the rest of my customers with some armed belligerant nitwit on a mission. I'm going to have a plan and the means to back it up from the minute the sign goes up an little patience for the fools who forced it. Gang bangers, pet owners, smokers, or internet lawyers "in my house" I make the rules and every thing that happens next is just the crap that may or may not come next but I know exactly what is going to happen right now and it's not going to involve me taking crap on ground I own. It never has and it never will, home/something I own is as far as "get along" goes.

The prisons and the gutters are full of people with rights and lawyer shoulda beens who are going to sue me, you, or some one else for something. They always have been, they always will be. They can have at it but they won't be doing it while they are standing on something or in something that I own.

 

[jeremy]

Somebody kill this thread already...

 

[USMC_0311]

Am I the only one that want's to have an OC gathering at Jacks place?

 

[jeremy]

Nope, kinda sounds like fun to me...

 

[ATM]

A clear and concise sigh goes up...

Yeah, I think I heard it.

Sigh...

But it was in a different thread so I'll repost it here.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Am I the only one that want's to have an OC gathering at Jacks place?

I like Jack. at first when I came here i didnt understand him, but i have grown fond of him. If I ever visited jacks property and he asked me to not carry I would actually respect his wishes (yeah, i know, shocking coming from me huh?). because i respect him and I know he's have me covered, also I think he would at least let me wear my tomahawk

 

[USMC_0311]

I like Jack. at first when I came here i didnt understand him, but i have grown fond of him. If I ever visited jacks property and he asked me to not carry I would actually respect his wishes (yeah, i know, shocking coming from me huh?). because i respect him and I know he's have me covered, also I think he would at least let me wear my tomahawk

Jack has a special place in my heart also.

I should have used purple.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Jack has a special place in my heart also.

I should have used purple.

i understood your sarcasm

 

[ATM]

Jack has a special place in my heart also.

I should have used purple.

Yes you should.

Here: This guy's kinda purple.

 

[public servant]

Shhhhh...I think they are bonding.

 

[USMC_0311]

Yes you should.

Here: This guy's kinda purple.

Don't worry you are still my favorite.