Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Yet another one more reason>

kecker wrote:

Lenny7 wrote:

She gets it.

The downside is she doesn't vote for another six years.

SultanOfBrunei wrote:

gaygoalie wrote:

Granted, he could've decided against going to valleyfair, but they are, basically, a monopoly on amusement parks, so you don't have as much of an option to tell them with your money as you do, say, a grocery store.

I won't begrudge anyone's right to prevent any sort of activity on their own private property. If there was strong enough opposition to it then they would change their rules or someone else would open up an amusement park.

Apparently too many of our 56k permit holders disarm or disobey signs. Or 56,000 wallets aren't enough to convince some businesses.

jaysong wrote:

I am all for private property right but, if I have a rule that would not allow anyone to wear shoes on my property and someone stepped on a rusty nail and got hurt wouldn't I be to blame some what for not allowing them to wear shoes? If they had shoe on the nail still might have gone through a shoe but may not have been as bad of a foot and rusty nail injury.

SultanOfBrunei wrote:

jaysong wrote:

In today's world, yea you'd have your pants sued off.

In my fantasy world, nope. No one forced you to go there, take off your shoes and walk around. Now, if they held you at gunpoint and literally forced you to patronize their establishment, that'd be different.

kimberman wrote:

Lady Glock wrote:

Bail was set at $40,000 - $60,000 per defendant

That's way too low. PC "racism" at work.

If the victim had successfully defended himself and not been released OR, his bail for assault 2d would have been 10 times this.

EAGSMN wrote:

Guess I'll have to start carring the 15 clip instead of the 10 if rats are roaming in packs or 7 or 8.

Author:	TeamSpringFieldXD [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:
kecker wrote: Lenny7 wrote: She gets it. The downside is she doesn't vote for another six years. At least there is a future!

Author:	jaysong [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:
SultanOfBrunei wrote: gaygoalie wrote: Granted, he could've decided against going to valleyfair, but they are, basically, a monopoly on amusement parks, so you don't have as much of an option to tell them with your money as you do, say, a grocery store. I won't begrudge anyone's right to prevent any sort of activity on their own private property. If there was strong enough opposition to it then they would change their rules or someone else would open up an amusement park. Apparently too many of our 56k permit holders disarm or disobey signs. Or 56,000 wallets aren't enough to convince some businesses. I am all for private property right but, if I have a rule that would not allow anyone to wear shoes on my property and someone stepped on a rusty nail and got hurt wouldn't I be to blame some what for not allowing them to wear shoes? If they had shoe on the nail still might have gone through a shoe but may not have been as bad of a foot and rusty nail injury.

Author:	SultanOfBrunei [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:
jaysong wrote: I am all for private property right but, if I have a rule that would not allow anyone to wear shoes on my property and someone stepped on a rusty nail and got hurt wouldn't I be to blame some what for not allowing them to wear shoes? If they had shoe on the nail still might have gone through a shoe but may not have been as bad of a foot and rusty nail injury. In today's world, yea you'd have your pants sued off. In my fantasy world, nope. No one forced you to go there, take off your shoes and walk around. Now, if they held you at gunpoint and literally forced you to patronize their establishment, that'd be different.

Author:	jaysong [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:
SultanOfBrunei wrote: jaysong wrote: I am all for private property right but, if I have a rule that would not allow anyone to wear shoes on my property and someone stepped on a rusty nail and got hurt wouldn't I be to blame some what for not allowing them to wear shoes? If they had shoe on the nail still might have gone through a shoe but may not have been as bad of a foot and rusty nail injury. In today's world, yea you'd have your pants sued off. In my fantasy world, nope. No one forced you to go there, take off your shoes and walk around. Now, if they held you at gunpoint and literally forced you to patronize their establishment, that'd be different. You are starting to make too much sense. I will stop now before you have me totally agreeing with you. I just think we should not have one without the other. If I am responsible for the rusty nails then VF is responsible for every disarmed victim. We need to change it all to make me happy not just do what is PC and banned guns and not allow banning shoes.

Author:	SultanOfBrunei [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:
The problem is, I don't really know how far I go with this. If they have a faulty escalator that eats a kid, should they be liable? Maybe... If a company hires a guy to use a saw and he cuts his hand, should they be liable? Not really, i guess... It starts to get fuzzy for me. I feel pretty strongly about permits to carry and the responsibilty of places that are posted.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Yet another one more reason> http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9403	Page 5 of 5

Author:	bensdad [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Property rights get fuzzy for me, too. However, I think VF has a high degree of responsibility in this case, for a couple of reasons: 1) They denied a man his lawful means of self-defense 2) They hired people to act as "security" i.e. they knew the place could be dangerous (see 2), told paying customers they'd take care of things (see 1 & 2), and failed to protect this man and his daughter (see handprint on her ass and her dad's x-rays).

Author:	Scott Hughes [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:
kimberman wrote: Lady Glock wrote: Bail was set at $40,000 - $60,000 per defendant That's way too low. PC "racism" at work. If the victim had successfully defended himself and not been released OR, his bail for assault 2d would have been 10 times this. That's the nail hit on the head At 10% bond that's only $4K to $6K apiece. I'm curious, what was Tretow's bond for defending himself against another THUG

Author:	EAGSMN [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:09 am ]
Post subject:
Guess I'll have to start carring the 15 clip instead of the 10 if rats are roaming in packs or 7 or 8.

Author:	jjl78 [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:28 am ]
Post subject:
In this situation I would have to intervene in some way. 1) Not carrying somewhere posted, which is very rare, I would have used whatever I had on me...usually a hidden fixed blade and at the very least a folding pocket knife to help this man. 2) The times I do carry where posted not to (see 1) I would have drawn and told them to back off and that the cops were on their way. If that wasn't enough to scare them off, then I feel alright with my actions to defend this person with any means necessary. I can't believe that there weren't enough people around to really help this guy, let alone security guards at the exit gate. I don't really go places alone, no kids, and I know that my friends and I would have done what we could to help this guy. Seems all of us on this forum would.

Author:	mnglocker [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:06 am ]
Post subject:
EAGSMN wrote: Guess I'll have to start carring the 15 clip instead of the 10 if rats are roaming in packs or 7 or 8. Any reason you're not allready? And what about a spare mag? "One is none and two is one." -The Late Great Jeff Cooper

Page 5 of 5	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/