![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted: Your analogy would be correct however, apples to apples would be your Gardner is mowing your lawn. You are out of town. A disgruntled ex employee of the Gardner comes on your property and argues with your Gardner. Your Gardner tells his ex employee to get the fuck off his lawn, he’s working. Neither parties own your property so can they kick one another off your land? View Quote If the gardner was left in charge of that part of the property in my absence, then yes. If it was my house sitter / buttler that told someone to leave then absolutely yes, but nothing in your hypothetical conveyed that authority to the gardner in my absence. Regardless, if the gardner told them to leave, they refused and the cops were called and the police believed the gardner was working under my athority as owner then he could in fact be cited for tresspass. Police can't sit there and verify ownership, call board meetings when it's corporatley owned, etc... they take the word of the one apparently working under authority of the owner(s) and enforce that. |
|
Quoted:
Lets flip the script: Pro-Trump store clerk No manager on duty Hillary shirt wearing person comes in Clerk asks the person to leave Hillary supporter refuses I can almost guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of the people on this site would say that the clerk should call the police and have person cited for trespassing and a large group of people here would say that it is ok to physically remove the Hillary supporter. If I were the clerk I would: Call the police Tell them the police person is trespassing as they are refusing to leave Have the police tell them to leave or be cited The Hillary supporter chooses their own fate I go on with my life YMMV View Quote ![]() |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lets flip the script: Pro-Trump store clerk No manager on duty Hillary shirt wearing person comes in Clerk asks the person to leave Hillary supporter refuses I can almost guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of the people on this site would say that the clerk should call the police and have person cited for trespassing and a large group of people here would say that it is ok to physically remove the Hillary supporter. If I were the clerk I would: Call the police Tell them the police person is trespassing as they are refusing to leave Have the police tell them to leave or be cited The Hillary supporter chooses their own fate I go on with my life YMMV ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
Quoted:
Most likely this whole display of human stupidity would be resolved by Trump shirt leaving. Case closed. On to more important things. If they both wanted to pursue it (and both are clearly morons) then two citations resolves it for the time being. Please post links to me being a nevertrumper. Feel free to pull from any portion of this site. You know that whole ASSuming thing? I'm up for awhile tonight. I'll wait. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Gee guy, I know this already. I was responding to the bake a cake assertion which you seemed to double down on. It is not the same i.e. not a true analogy if the store owner doesn't want people barred from service for wearing a Trump shirt. Reading is fundamental. Clearly you aren't reading my posts. It's hard to have a conversation with someone if they don't read what you actually say. Please post links to me being a nevertrumper. Feel free to pull from any portion of this site. You know that whole ASSuming thing? I'm up for awhile tonight. I'll wait. |
|
His store his rules. The cashier is wrong about his Trump allegations, but that doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Quoted: Your analogy would be correct however, apples to apples would be your Gardner is mowing your lawn. You are out of town. A disgruntled ex employee of the Gardner comes on your property and argues with your Gardner. Your Gardner tells his ex employee to get the fuck off his lawn, he’s working. Neither parties own your property so can they kick one another off your land? View Quote Gardener was hired to do a job. He's working for the homeowner. He has the authority over the scope of his work. The lawn is the scope of his work. Therefore, in your absence he has authority over it. He can order the ex-employee off the lawn. Now, let's go a step further. Gardener shows up to mow the grass. Housekeeper is inside the home cleaning. Gardener has no authority to order the housekeeper out of the house any more than the housekeeper can order the gardener off the lawn because the housekeeper's scope of authority is inside the home and the garder's scope of authority is outside the home. Now if the housekeeper and the gardener get into an argument and start ordering each other around, we can only assume they must be ARFCOMMERS. |
|
Quoted:
That's not apples to apples at all. If the gardner was left in charge of that part of the property in my absence, then yes. If it was my house sitter / buttler that told someone to leave then absolutely yes, but nothing in your hypothetical conveyed that authority to the gardner in my absence. Regardless, if the gardner told them to leave, they refused and the cops were called and the police believed the gardner was working under my athority as owner then he could in fact be cited for tresspass. Police can't sit there and verify ownership, call board meetings when it's corporatley owned, etc... they take the word of the one apparently working under authority of the owner(s) and enforce that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Your analogy would be correct however, apples to apples would be your Gardner is mowing your lawn. You are out of town. A disgruntled ex employee of the Gardner comes on your property and argues with your Gardner. Your Gardner tells his ex employee to get the fuck off his lawn, he’s working. Neither parties own your property so can they kick one another off your land? If the gardner was left in charge of that part of the property in my absence, then yes. If it was my house sitter / buttler that told someone to leave then absolutely yes, but nothing in your hypothetical conveyed that authority to the gardner in my absence. Regardless, if the gardner told them to leave, they refused and the cops were called and the police believed the gardner was working under my athority as owner then he could in fact be cited for tresspass. Police can't sit there and verify ownership, call board meetings when it's corporatley owned, etc... they take the word of the one apparently working under authority of the owner(s) and enforce that. Most Gardners come to the home, garden, then leave. I’ve never given my Gardner permission to have any authority on my property. Neither own my land and have not been authorized to do so. |
|
Quoted: Actually, he can. If a business is open to the public & the buyer is holding up his end of the sale, then the store is in fact violating the law. View Quote I mean, we all know a place of business open to the public is subject to the exact same legal and legislative rules, policies, and standards as the owners house, right? |
|
Quoted:
It was a question due to them outing themselves in every thread about anything involving Trump with intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. It would be much easier and better police work if the cop showed some initiative and solved it right there given time and opportunity. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Gee guy, I know this already. I was responding to the bake a cake assertion which you seemed to double down on. It is not the same i.e. not a true analogy if the store owner doesn't want people barred from service for wearing a Trump shirt. Reading is fundamental. Clearly you aren't reading my posts. It's hard to have a conversation with someone if they don't read what you actually say. Please post links to me being a nevertrumper. Feel free to pull from any portion of this site. You know that whole ASSuming thing? |
|
Quoted:
The guy wasn't trespassing, he was in a public business trying to buy a product. The insane clerk assaulted him on video. No Georgia LEO would ticket him for trespassing. The clerk would be the one in trouble. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE View Quote |
|
https://m.facebook.com/pg/xhalecity/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0
He got fired |
|
Quoted:
Ex-employee has no say in anything. In the context of this incident, he's nobody. Gardener was hired to do a job. He's working for the homeowner. He has the authority over the scope of his work. The lawn is the scope of his work. Therefore, in your absence he has authority over it. He can order the ex-employee off the lawn. Now, let's go a step further. Gardener shows up to mow the grass. Housekeeper is inside the home cleaning. Gardener has no authority to order the housekeeper out of the house any more than the housekeeper can order the gardener off the lawn because the housekeeper's scope of authority is inside the home and the garder's scope of authority is outside the home. Now if the housekeeper and the gardener get into an argument and start ordering each other around, we can only assume they must be ARFCOMMERS. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Your analogy would be correct however, apples to apples would be your Gardner is mowing your lawn. You are out of town. A disgruntled ex employee of the Gardner comes on your property and argues with your Gardner. Your Gardner tells his ex employee to get the fuck off his lawn, he’s working. Neither parties own your property so can they kick one another off your land? Gardener was hired to do a job. He's working for the homeowner. He has the authority over the scope of his work. The lawn is the scope of his work. Therefore, in your absence he has authority over it. He can order the ex-employee off the lawn. Now, let's go a step further. Gardener shows up to mow the grass. Housekeeper is inside the home cleaning. Gardener has no authority to order the housekeeper out of the house any more than the housekeeper can order the gardener off the lawn because the housekeeper's scope of authority is inside the home and the garder's scope of authority is outside the home. Now if the housekeeper and the gardener get into an argument and start ordering each other around, we can only assume they must be ARFCOMMERS. He only gardens. Unless a previous agreement was made. |
|
Quoted:
https://m.facebook.com/pg/xhalecity/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0 He got fired View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
https://m.facebook.com/pg/xhalecity/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0 He got fired To our friends and customers,
Tonight, we had an employee act improperly toward a customer. Xhale City does not tolerate this kind of behavior from its employees. When we identified the employee at fault, we fired him immediately. We've also spoken to the customer and apologized. We value our clients and treat them with respect and dignity, regardless of their political views. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Put up or shut up. You made the accusation. Now prove it. Or, withdraw it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Gee guy, I know this already. I was responding to the bake a cake assertion which you seemed to double down on. It is not the same i.e. not a true analogy if the store owner doesn't want people barred from service for wearing a Trump shirt. Reading is fundamental. Clearly you aren't reading my posts. It's hard to have a conversation with someone if they don't read what you actually say. Please post links to me being a nevertrumper. Feel free to pull from any portion of this site. You know that whole ASSuming thing? |
|
Quoted:
I'll bold the important parts for you. clerks do have the apparent authority to act for the owner View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: He absolutely would not be trespassing in Texas. Do you know for a fact that he would be in Georgia? Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass.
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. (b) For purposes of this section: (1) “Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body. (2) “Notice” means: (A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner; (B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock; (C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden; (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are: (i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width; (ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and (iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than: (a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or (b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or (E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry. (3) “Shelter center” has the meaning assigned by Section 51.002(1), Human Resources Code. (4) “Forest land” means land on which the trees are potentially valuable for timber products. (5) “Agricultural land” has the meaning assigned by Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code. (6) “Superfund site” means a facility that: (A) is on the National Priorities List established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Section 9605); or (B) is listed on the state registry established under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code. (c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances. (d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about the actor’s person during the commission of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if: (1) the offense is committed: (A) in a habitation or a shelter center; or (B) on a Superfund site; or (2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his person during the commission of the offense. (e) A person commits an offense if without express consent or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing or other form, the person: (1)enters or remains on agricultural land of another; (2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary of the land when apprehended; and (3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or received notice to depart but failed to do so. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and (2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying. That depends. Not all employees have oral or written authority to kick out customers. That’s up to the manager. In most cases, a manager or the police can do that. Again, it’s up to the authority of the owner. So in the video, we do not know for sure if the employee has the power to have him leave. So we don’t know if he was trespassing or not. Worker was fired so I’m guess no. Also, the employee assaulted the customer, it is now a criminal investigation. Don’t know if trespassing laws still apply? |
|
Quoted:
https://m.facebook.com/pg/xhalecity/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0 He got fired View Quote ![]() |
|
|
Quoted: Well gee, I guess he wasn't acting on the wishes of his employer after all. ![]() View Quote You still don't get it. He was the agent of the owner, the apparent only one at the time. He told the man to leave. Said man refused. Said man therefore was trespassing under the law. Period. Does not matter what the owner stated later about how he wished HIS CHOSEN agent should have acted. |
|
Quoted: How certain are you about that? Trespass laws are very different all over the country, and they're different for businesses than they are for residences in most of those places. May you should post the exact Georgia law that pertains if you want get all self-righteous, so we can see if you know what the hell you're talking about or not. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: Cashier cannot kick out customers, the manager/owner can. It would seem by the ginger's answers, the manager is telling him to serve the guy. And the ginger is saying no. |
|
Why am I not surprised so many of you are faulting the customer and white knighting the REEEEEEEEsistor?
![]() |
|
Quoted:
Lets flip the script: Pro-Trump store clerk No manager on duty Hillary shirt wearing person comes in Clerk asks the person to leave Hillary supporter refuses I can almost guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of the people on this site would say that the clerk should call the police and have person cited for trespassing and a large group of people here would say that it is ok to physically remove the Hillary supporter. If I were the clerk I would: Call the police Tell them the police person is trespassing as they are refusing to leave Have the police tell them to leave or be cited The Hillary supporter chooses their own fate I go on with my life YMMV View Quote If the Hilary shirt wearer just wants to buy something, sell it and move on. That is the problem here. If either one of the political shirt wearing people want to demonstrate or protest, trespass them immediately. Capitalism. |
|
Quoted:
LMAO You still don't get it. He was the agent of the owner, the apparent only one at the time. He told the man to leave. Said man refused. Said man therefore was trespassing under the law. Period. Does not matter what the owner stated later about how he wished HIS CHOSEN agent should have acted. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Well gee, I guess he wasn't acting on the wishes of his employer after all. ![]() You still don't get it. He was the agent of the owner, the apparent only one at the time. He told the man to leave. Said man refused. Said man therefore was trespassing under the law. Period. Does not matter what the owner stated later about how he wished HIS CHOSEN agent should have acted. ![]() |
|
Quoted: LMAO You still don't get it. He was the agent of the owner, the apparent only one at the time. He told the man to leave. Said man refused. Said man therefore was trespassing under the law. Period. Does not matter what the owner stated later about how he wished HIS CHOSEN agent should have acted. View Quote That is why the owner fired his stupid antifa ass. ![]() |
|
|
From the Facebook thread..."looks like Trump created another job". Lmao!
|
|
|
Quoted:
I think we probably need to cut and paste this right here in each and every one of these "buh ma pravate prapahty" threads. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: How certain are you about that? Trespass laws are very different all over the country, and they're different for businesses than they are for residences in most of those places. May you should post the exact Georgia law that pertains if you want get all self-righteous, so we can see if you know what the hell you're talking about or not. ![]() |
|
|
This thread has the most ignorant comments/bad legal advice I've seen this year.
CONGRATS GD! |
|
Quoted:
Uh oh....looks like the snowflake overstepped his bounds. Something tells me that a bunch of liberals will now protest in front of this business, because snowflake got fired. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
Quoted:
Cashier cannot kick out customers, the manager/owner can. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
Quoted:
Jesus you're dense, have you read any of my posts or are you just frothing at the mouth? You're as pedantic as they come which you revealed by that stupid and disingenuous walmart post, my point was no it wasn't trespassing if the owner or manager could be contacted, which given the weird and extreme nature of this incident and the behavior of the clerk should definitely be attempted before putting the customer on notice. Because we have to determine the intent of the owner, I am pretty sure they would've have preferred that. No, you just want to cite the customer and move on in your myopic analysis of the situation. You do realize cops do this right? They investigate things. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Well gee, I guess he wasn't acting on the wishes of his employer after all. ![]() You still don't get it. He was the agent of the owner, the apparent only one at the time. He told the man to leave. Said man refused. Said man therefore was trespassing under the law. Period. Does not matter what the owner stated later about how he wished HIS CHOSEN agent should have acted. ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.