"No weapons" sign at Ale Emporium?

[Timjoebillybob]

I never said that it was the only option. Only that it was the only legal/moral option.

In fact, while escorting the profanity user off of your property, any attempt to use physical force to silence that person would be an unlawful use of force, and would potentially justify the profanity user to use force in self-defense (assuming, of course, that the profanity user is not using force to resist being escorted off of your property or otherwise acting unlawfully).

That comment was not in regards to escorting the profanity user off my property. And once again I see nothing immoral in silencing them while doing so.

That comment was in regards to someone who comes onto my property armed when they knew that permission to enter was granted on the basis that they were unarmed. If they knew they were denied entry while armed prior to coming on the property, I have the recourse of pressing charges for trespassing. Not just simply forcing them to leave the property.

And why not respond to any of the rest of it?

Do my to example signs allow or disallow entry?

How about my example sign on my back gate?
Do you see the difference between having a sign and not having a sign?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I never said that it was the only option. Only that it was the only legal/moral option.

In fact, while escorting the profanity user off of your property, any attempt to use physical force to silence that person would be an unlawful use of force, and would potentially justify the profanity user to use force in self-defense (assuming, of course, that the profanity user is not using force to resist being escorted off of your property or otherwise acting unlawfully).

Uh guys, you can use physical force to remove an unwanted person from your property. And if that person resists the force you employ, if it's reasonable, you can then escalate. You guys need come out and have a beer with me sometime, I can show you some bouncers who do it day in and day out.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Uh guys, you can use physical force to remove an unwanted person from your property. And if that person resists the force you employ, if it's reasonable, you can then escalate. You guys need come out and have a beer with me sometime, I can show you some bouncers who do it day in and day out.

I thought you could (ETA generally) only use reasonable force if the person was not attempting to leave in an expedient manner after being told to leave? And yes I know/knew some bouncers who do the same, my Mom was a cocktail waitress/bartender for many years. One story I remember was she was at the bar waiting for an order and some guy comes up behind her and grabs her ass. Before she could turn around two of the bouncers had the guy by his arms, air born, heading for the door. They then proceeded to open the door with the guys head. I also dealt in a casino with some old school Vegas/Atlantic city people, I heard some stories from them also.

Although I wouldn't mind taking you up on the offer to meet for a drink. When are you going to be back stateside?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

mispost

 

[Kutnupe14]

I thought you could (ETA generally) only use reasonable force if the person was not attempting to leave in an expedient manner after being told to leave? And yes I know/knew some bouncers who do the same, my Mom was a cocktail waitress/bartender for many years. One story I remember was she was at the bar waiting for an order and some guy comes up behind her and grabs her ass. Before she could turn around two of the bouncers had the guy by his arms, air born, heading for the door. They then proceeded to open the door with the guys head. I also dealt in a casino with some old school Vegas/Atlantic city people, I heard some stories from them also.

Although I wouldn't mind taking you up on the offer to meet for a drink. When are you going to be back stateside?

Got back yesterday

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Got back yesterday

Cool. How was the trip? Hope you had fun. And next time I'm down in your area I'll let you know. Or if you're up in the White/Tippecanoe Co. area let me know.

 

[chipbennett]

Uh guys, you can use physical force to remove an unwanted person from your property. And if that person resists the force you employ, if it's reasonable, you can then escalate. You guys need come out and have a beer with me sometime, I can show you some bouncers who do it day in and day out.

Well aware of that, but that's not what I was talking about (and I even explicitly clarified about that). I'm talking about using physical force to prevent someone from using profanity.

I'd gladly have that drink with you sometime, though.

 

[chipbennett]

That comment was not in regards to escorting the profanity user off my property. And once again I see nothing immoral in silencing them while doing so.

Except, that's exactly what that comment was in regards to. Your words:

"They continue to use profanity in front of my young daughter. They will be escorted to the property line while being silenced using whatever means I need. While possibly illegal, I see nothing immoral about it."

That comment was in regards to someone who comes onto my property armed when they knew that permission to enter was granted on the basis that they were unarmed. If they knew they were denied entry while armed prior to coming on the property, I have the recourse of pressing charges for trespassing. Not just simply forcing them to leave the property.

I'll wait to see a) a police officer actually cite for trespass in those circumstances, and b) the charges actually stick, based only on the verbiage of such a sign. If you confront the person and demand he leave, and he does so: no trespassing charge. If you call the police, and the police come and ask him to leave, and he does so: no trespassing charge.

And why not respond to any of the rest of it?

Do my to example signs allow or disallow entry?

How about my example sign on my back gate?
Do you see the difference between having a sign and not having a sign?

Why not respond to the rest of it? Because we can't even come to agreement on this point, so there's no real need to debate the minutia. And that point gets to the fundamental misunderstanding many have about property rights somehow superseding the rights of others.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Cool. How was the trip? Hope you had fun. And next time I'm down in your area I'll let you know. Or if you're up in the White/Tippecanoe Co. area let me know.

It was more work than play. I know Berlin like the back of my hand, so nowadays I just get bored if I'm by myself. If I have new people with me, I love showing them around. Yeah, let me know bro and we can catch some suds.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well aware of that, but that's not what I was talking about (and I even explicitly clarified about that). I'm talking about using physical force to prevent someone from using profanity.

I'd gladly have that drink with you sometime, though.

I got nothing but time right now Chip. You get some free time, I'm totally game.

 

[chipbennett]

I got nothing but time right now Chip. You get some free time, I'm totally game.

Let me know if you're ever near the west side. I'm only home on weekends right now, so it's really difficult to get too far away from home base.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Except, that's exactly what that comment was in regards to. Your words:e ning immoral about it.


I'll wait to see a) a police officer actually cite for trespass in those circumstances, and b) the charges actually stick, based only on the verbiage of such a sign. If you confront the person and demand he leave, and he does so: no trespassing charge. If you call the police, and the police come and ask him to leave, and he does so: no trespassing charge.

Why not respond to the rest of it? Because we can't even come to agreement on this point, so there's no real need to debate the minutia. And that point gets to the fundamental misunderstanding many have about property rights somehow superseding the rights of others.

No it was not. And yes those are my words, except they are not the ones that immediately precede that comment. Here are my words that preceded it.

The difference between someone who knows I don't allow profanity on my property vs someone who knows they are denied entry if they are in possession of a firearm is this. They started using profanity after I allowed them entry. The person in possession of a firearm was disallowed entry. Since I initially allowed entry to the person using profanity my only legal recourse is to revoke that permission. The person with a firearm never had said permission to enter so they are trespassing with prior notice and as such can be arrested/prosecuted.

ETA Same with let's say a person I invited over showing up and swearing while coming towards my property line. I tell them they are not allow to use profanity or they are not allowed on my property. They continue swearing while crossing my property line, they were denied entry before they came onto my property.

The partial quote was in response to your statement of this.

Yes, I'm quite sure. There is a difference between making rules, and enforcing those rules. Making rules is perfectly legal and moral. However, any enforcement of those rules, outside of trespassing a rule-breaker, is illegal and immoral.

And my full response to that was this.

Yes, yes you did. Is not forcing them off your property enforcing the rules? Heck someone knows that I don't allow profanity in my home, they start cussing like a drunken sailor and I tell them to stop or leave. They continue to use profanity in front of my young daughter. They will be escorted to the property line while being silenced using whatever means I need. While possibly illegal, I see nothing immoral about it.

Sorry if you can't follow along...

So someone goes past a "no trespassing" sign that is the only option? What is the difference between that and any other sign that specifically denies entry? Now without a sign I would agree.

And BS, you simply don't wish to answer because you know that those signs specifically deny entry. And someone has the right to enter my property against my wishes?

It was more work than play. I know Berlin like the back of my hand, so nowadays I just get bored if I'm by myself. If I have new people with me, I love showing them around. Yeah, let me know bro and we can catch some suds.

Sounds good, unfortunately I don't make it down to the Indy area very often. Might have to make a special trip, my wife can take my daughter to the zoo or something... Perhaps we can make it a meet and drink. Wouldn't mind meeting Frank, Phylo, Denny, CM, and all the others down there. Heck Frank still owes me the violation he offered...

 

[lazarus0213]

They had an issue with a patron. I am very familiar with the ale and several of its employees as well as its owners. They had a n issue with one patron and after much thought the pro gun owner decided to take a position. I do not agree with his decision but I dont have to, its his and not mine to make. here is the response I recieved when I ask a manger friend of mine there what had happen.


"ownership/management has not changed.there was a minor incident with a very intoxicated guy carrying a gun. it was not brandished but found on him as he was being escorted out by management with the assistance of an off duty impd officer. he was allowed to leave the property with his gun. after the owner , a gun owner himself decided to put these stickers up, a decision he did not come to lightly. as a bar manager that has to engage intoxicated patrons i dont assume that these stickers actually keep guns out of the bar , it merely gives me a course of action if there is an incident"

 

[Sylvain]

They had an issue with a patron. I am very familiar with the ale and several of its employees as well as its owners. They had a n issue with one patron and after much thought the pro gun owner decided to take a position. I do not agree with his decision but I dont have to, its his and not mine to make. here is the response I recieved when I ask a manger friend of mine there what had happen.


"ownership/management has not changed.there was a minor incident with a very intoxicated guy carrying a gun. it was not brandished but found on him as he was being escorted out by management with the assistance of an off duty impd officer. he was allowed to leave the property with his gun. after the owner , a gun owner himself decided to put these stickers up, a decision he did not come to lightly. as a bar manager that has to engage intoxicated patrons i dont assume that these stickers actually keep guns out of the bar , it merely gives me a course of action if there is an incident"

It looks like the problem was the fact that this person was drunk, not that he was armed.
Unarmed drunk people can get violent as well.
I think bars can refuse service to drunk people.It might be evel illegal to serve alcohol to a drunk person.

The owner could have a sign that says intoxicated people are not welcome.

Like this gun range did ...

You're welcome with a gun, but not if you're drunk.

 

[rhino]

They had an issue with a patron. I am very familiar with the ale and several of its employees as well as its owners. They had a n issue with one patron and after much thought the pro gun owner decided to take a position. I do not agree with his decision but I dont have to, its his and not mine to make. here is the response I recieved when I ask a manger friend of mine there what had happen.


"ownership/management has not changed.there was a minor incident with a very intoxicated guy carrying a gun. it was not brandished but found on him as he was being escorted out by management with the assistance of an off duty impd officer. he was allowed to leave the property with his gun. after the owner , a gun owner himself decided to put these stickers up, a decision he did not come to lightly. as a bar manager that has to engage intoxicated patrons i dont assume that these stickers actually keep guns out of the bar , it merely gives me a course of action if there is an incident"

I submit that the decision proves that the owner is not pro-gun rights.

Owning a gun doesn't necessarily make someone respectful of the individual RKBA and in fact there are large numbers of gun owners who enjoy their rights, but do not feel that others deserve the same.

As our friend Sylvain suggested, the problem in your example was that of intoxication, not of carrying a weapon.

I won't be going there again. Their pizza is excellent, but not as good as Union Jack and way too far to go, especially to support a business who posts a sticker like that.

 

[chipbennett]

They had an issue with a patron. I am very familiar with the ale and several of its employees as well as its owners. They had a n issue with one patron and after much thought the pro gun owner...

Note: "gun owner" and "pro-gun" are not synonymous, as the owner of the Ale Emporium demonstrates.

...decided to take a position. I do not agree with his decision but I dont have to, its his and not mine to make. here is the response I recieved when I ask a manger friend of mine there what had happen.


"ownership/management has not changed.there was a minor incident with a very intoxicated guy carrying a gun. it was not brandished but found on him as he was being escorted out by management with the assistance of an off duty impd officer. he was allowed to leave the property with his gun. after the owner , a gun owner himself decided to put these stickers up, a decision he did not come to lightly. as a bar manager that has to engage intoxicated patrons i dont assume that these stickers actually keep guns out of the bar , it merely gives me a course of action if there is an incident"

What course of action does the bar manager think that said stickers give him, that was not available to him without the stickers?

If someone is acting the fool, drunk in a bar, the bar manager can kick the person out. It doesn't matter if the person is armed or unarmed. (And, interestingly, it doesn't seem like the firearm played any role whatsoever in this "minor incident".)

 

[chipbennett]

I submit that the decision proves that the owner is not pro-gun rights.

Owning a gun doesn't necessarily make someone respectful of the individual RKBA and in fact there are large numbers of gun owners who enjoy their rights, but do not feel that others deserve the same.

I should have just said, "what Rhino said".

As our friend Sylvain suggested, the problem in your example was that of intoxication, not of carrying a weapon.

I won't be going there again. Their pizza is excellent, but not as good as Union Jack and way too far to go, especially to support a business who posts a sticker like that.

Yep, this would be exactly the type of establishment to send "I won't be patronizing your business" cards to. I might do that, too. I'm always looking for excellent wings, but it looks like I won't be trying them at Ale Emporium.

 

[hpclayto]

If you don't like it then don't go? Or is that too logical?

 

[Sylvain]

Note: "gun owner" and "pro-gun" are not synonymous, as the owner of the Ale Emporium demonstrates.

Yep.

Just like those politicians who only support gun rights when it comes to their own security detail, but want other people disarmed.

 

[rhino]

I should have just said, "what Rhino said".



Yep, this would be exactly the type of establishment to send "I won't be patronizing your business" cards to. I might do that, too. I'm always looking for excellent wings, but it looks like I won't be trying them at Ale Emporium.

Yep.

Just like those politicians who only support gun rights when it comes to their own security detail, but want other people disarmed.

AMEN!