pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Being asked to leave....
#31
IronSight;20034 Wrote:
mikeb0;20028 Wrote:This statement is absolutely 100% incorrect.

"An employee is an agent of the employer."

The law you quote doesn't change that. ...


Dodgy Really now?

Quote:(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains
in any place as to which notice against trespass is given
by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;

Note that there's nothing specifying "communication by an agent of the employer" there in that particular subsection. Your chances of a charge are slim bordering on being improbable, but the statute says what it says and that's the way of it.

Personally I think the entire statute needs a serious overhaul, particularly the fact that defiance of a school's overzealous mall-cop can constitute a prohibiting offence without regards to the reasons why one might be asked to leave school grounds. Just because the law is poorly written in a given area, and just because you aren't likely going to be charged under it, doesn't make it less of a law.

That actual communication to the actor has a legal definition. A communication to the actor by a employee not authorized to make the communication and/or the communication being contrary to the policies of the business would mean there was no legal "actual communication".

Let's try an example.

OC'er goes to walk into Walmart. The greeter says "Hey you can't bring that gun in here!"

OC'er says "Walmart company policy says I can, how about you check with your Manager?"

Greeter calls cops and insists that the OC'er be trespassed.

Is the LEO really going to arrest the OC'er without checking with Management? The LEO knows as does any intelligent human being that the Greeter doesn't have legal authority to speak for the Walmart in question on legal matters.
Reply
#32
IronSight;20049 Wrote:
mikeb0;20035 Wrote:That actual communication to the actor has a legal definition. A communication to the actor by a employee not authorized to make the communication and/or the communication being contrary to the policies of the business would mean there was no legal "actual communication".

Let's try an example.

OC'er goes to walk into Walmart. The greeter says "Hey you can't bring that gun in here!"

OC'er says "Walmart company policy says I can, how about you check with your Manager?"

Greeter calls cops and insists that the OC'er be trespassed.

Is the LEO really going to arrest the OC'er without checking with Management? The LEO knows as does any intelligent human being that the Greeter doesn't have legal authority to speak for the Walmart in question on legal matters.

Got any precedent setting case law on that? Otherwise I'll stick with the plain wording of the statute.

I agree about how it should be, not about how the law is worded though.

When you have this much trouble understanding the "plain wording" and generally accepted business practices involving corporations. I certainly am not going to spend hours researching case law.

See this simple wording that keeps getting left out as people quote what you quoted above.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person.

That other "authorized person" is whom I've been referring to. Not all employees of all business' are going to be authorized for this communication.

All the wording to support my position is right there in plain site.
Reply
#33
I think a good lawyer can make the case both ways.

When an anti judge may be the one deciding if I have a criminal record, I don't want to take a chance on technicalities. Besides, unless you get a lis of every authorized person, how do you know who yoi could legally ignore? Thatvl "cartbpusher" just might be an authorized person filling in for a few min. That's not a chance I am willng to take.

Also, part of how a civil society works is that people know when to stop exercising a right for.the sake of, another or civility...

mikeb0;20062 Wrote:
IronSight;20049 Wrote:Got any precedent setting case law on that? Otherwise I'll stick with the plain wording of the statute.

I agree about how it should be, not about how the law is worded though.

When you have this much trouble understanding the "plain wording" and generally accepted business practices involving corporations. I certainly am not going to spend hours researching case law.

See this simple wording that keeps getting left out as people quote what you quoted above.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person.

That other "authorized person" is whom I've been referring to. Not all employees of all business' are going to be authorized for this communication.

All the wording to support my position is right there in plain site.
Reply
#34
rmagill;20099 Wrote:I think a good lawyer can make the case both ways.

When an anti judge may be the one deciding if I have a criminal record, I don't want to take a chance on technicalities. Besides, unless you get a lis of every authorized person, how do you know who yoi could legally ignore? Thatvl "cartbpusher" just might be an authorized person filling in for a few min. That's not a chance I am willng to take.

Also, part of how a civil society works is that people know when to stop exercising a right for.the sake of, another or civility...

mikeb0;20062 Wrote:When you have this much trouble understanding the "plain wording" and generally accepted business practices involving corporations. I certainly am not going to spend hours researching case law.

See this simple wording that keeps getting left out as people quote what you quoted above.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person.

That other "authorized person" is whom I've been referring to. Not all employees of all business' are going to be authorized for this communication.

All the wording to support my position is right there in plain site.

I've never once argued in this thread that any employee should be ignored. I've stated that they shouldn't in several posts.

My argument has been that when an encounter happens at a business where a manager can reasonably be expected to be on the premises that asking for a manager is entirely appropriate vs. just walking away. Especially when it can be reasonably thought that the person communicating the policy would not have the authority which led the the "cart boy" example which was not a phrase introduced by me.

Unfortunately the thread seems to have gotten hung up with certain people that think every single employee at every business has the authority to press criminal charges for something like trespass which just isn't true.
Reply
#35
mikeb0;20062 Wrote:
IronSight;20049 Wrote:Got any precedent setting case law on that? Otherwise I'll stick with the plain wording of the statute.

I agree about how it should be, not about how the law is worded though.

When you have this much trouble understanding the "plain wording" and generally accepted business practices involving corporations. I certainly am not going to spend hours researching case law.

See this simple wording that keeps getting left out as people quote what you quoted above.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person.

That other "authorized person" is whom I've been referring to. Not all employees of all business' are going to be authorized for this communication.

All the wording to support my position is right there in plain site.

[youtube]42b-Inq6l6E[/youtube]
TheWolff, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#36
IronSight;20129 Wrote:
mikeb0;20062 Wrote:When you have this much trouble understanding the "plain wording" and generally accepted business practices involving corporations. I certainly am not going to spend hours researching case law.

See this simple wording that keeps getting left out as people quote what you quoted above.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person.

That other "authorized person" is whom I've been referring to. Not all employees of all business' are going to be authorized for this communication.

All the wording to support my position is right there in plain site.

ETA (Editing for wording): Either you can't read statutes or you're just too arrogant to actually look at the fact that you are quoting a completely different subsection and trying to use it to discount another subsection within the same statute when the wording of it doesn't do such. You aren't even quoting the only part of it that DOES apply in the 'cart boy' situation.

Go ahead, pretend you're the smartest person in the room, but this post makes it clear to me that you fail to understand the difference between common practice and plain wording of the law. You can pass off your ignorance with condescension but you don't get a free pass for doing so.

[edit]

After reading once more I may have quoted a different section. I apologize for that.

I will reply again after another look.
Reply
#37
TheWolff;20142 Wrote:[youtube]42b-Inq6l6E[/youtube]

Timely.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt
Reply
#38
mikeb0;20145 Wrote:
IronSight;20129 Wrote:ETA (Editing for wording): Either you can't read statutes or you're just too arrogant to actually look at the fact that you are quoting a completely different subsection and trying to use it to discount another subsection within the same statute when the wording of it doesn't do such. You aren't even quoting the only part of it that DOES apply in the 'cart boy' situation.

Go ahead, pretend you're the smartest person in the room, but this post makes it clear to me that you fail to understand the difference between common practice and plain wording of the law. You can pass off your ignorance with condescension but you don't get a free pass for doing so.

[edit]

After reading once more I may have quoted a different section. I apologize for that.

I will reply again after another look.
I quoted the entire statute. The portion you just quoted states that actual communication by the owner or authorized agent makes it jump from a summary offense to a M3, which means actual communication may be made by someone other than the owner or authorized agent, which would only be a summary offense. Words have meanings, and specific uses of words can, and do, imply other things to be given. What cops will or won't do, has zero effect on the meaning of a statute. Ironsight explained it well enough.
headcase, bitch-slapping gun myth perpetuators since 2006.
Reply
#39
Don't mind me I'm just looking around for some hairs to split.
If told to leave by the cart boy ask for a manager. If he insiist you bugger off, do it. Call the manager from across the street if you are sure you're correct.
Reply
#40
Mitch10mm;20184 Wrote:Don't mind me I'm just looking around for some hairs to split.
If told to leave by the cart boy ask for a manager. If he insiist you bugger off, do it. Call the manager from across the street if you are sure you're correct.
This is the clearest practical application of the statute yet. Exactly correct.
headcase, bitch-slapping gun myth perpetuators since 2006.
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.