Man asked to leave restaurant for OC.

[Hornett]

Sorry!

I just pasted a pic like I have a zillion times before and got a mile of code.
The image showed up in the preview window but when I submitted it, there was just code everywhere.

Edit to add. THANKS Scutter!


As I was saying...

I would have to hear from the manager himself.
I am not so sure that a security guard has the authority to tell me to leave the restaurant property.
IS that wrong?

 

[schafe]

That was a very well done response! I liked the effort made to define terms which might be misunderstood, or misrepresented later.

 

[Expat]

As I was saying...

I would have to hear from the manager himself.
I am not so sure that a security guard has the authority to tell me to leave the restaurant property.
IS that wrong?

The security guard is representing the property owner. Why wouldn't he have the authority to kick you off his employer's property? Unless they have something funky in the lease, which you are not going to be privy too, I would think he can remove you from the premises.

 

[Jack Burton]

Can you explain that difference to me in regards to Indiana Law?

Sure... as soon as you provide the Indiana law that gives a security guard the power to override a management prerogative and ask a law abiding citizen to leave an area when there is no legal controlling authority such as a sign prohibiting specific behaviour.

A security guard only legally acts withing the bounds of law or within the bounds of authority given him by the management. If he just stated to me that he was acting outside both law and the bounds of authority given to him by management (which was my original point, remember) then I certainly have the right to ask clarification from management.

 

[Jack Burton]

The security guard is representing the property owner. Why wouldn't he have the authority to kick you off his employer's property? Unless they have something funky in the lease, which you are not going to be privy too, I would think he can remove you from the premises.

He may be representing the property owner, managment or staff in this case... then again he may not be. It is worth asking him the difference. If he acknowledges that he is not... then a clarification with the management is quite in order.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sure... as soon as you provide the Indiana law that gives a security guard the power to override a management prerogative and ask a law abiding citizen to leave an area when there is no legal controlling authority such as a sign prohibiting specific behaviour.

A security guard only legally acts withing the bounds of law or within the bounds of authority given him by the management. If he just stated to me that he was acting outside both law and the bounds of authority given to him by management (which was my original point, remember) then I certainly have the right to ask clarification from management.

It'd be like me sitting in starbucks, sipping my coffee... and a customer coming up to me and asking me to leave right now.

... I'm not going to do it. IF the guard had no management ask him to make me leave, then the guard is no more than a civilian/customer. You can't make someone leave who isn't breaking a law or trespassing

 

[Mr. Habib]

If he works for the mall, he represents them, not necessarily the restaurant. The restaurant owns or leases their portion of the mall and therefore could set their own rules. Also remember that the patron was never asked to leave and was in fact ask to stay and eat for free by the manager. Neither the mall ninja or the manager have any legal authority to compel the patron to remove his weapon. They may request that he does, but their only authority is to ask him to leave which they did not do.

 

[Hornett]

Here is what bothers me.

IMO To be correct, the manager needs to be present before I can believe that he actually sent the security guard to ask me to leave.
Now, if the manager comes over with a security guard and asks me to leave, I will.
I will not trespass on his property.
But if the manager comes over and asks me to leave, then I will leave.
The security guard really plays no role (as far as legally) in whether I leave or not.
His only useful purpose is to be there is the gun carrier becomes belligerent or refuses to leave after being asked by the manager.
At that point, you need the police anyway, security is not equipped to handle this situation.
Unless he is Gecko45, of course.

The main point is that calling the security guard is an insult to the gun owner no matter how you look at it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Guys check out the IC on this, I don't have it in front of me and I'm at work or else I would look it up.

The law states that ANY representative of the property owner can tell you to leave. Period. It does not have to be a manager. It does not have to be posted either because private (business) property rights still apply and they can change their rules at any time.

Its true you aren't in violation of any laws even WITH a sign, and no they can't make you disarm. Their only option is to make you leave. I good comeback for some of us has been "are you asking me to leave?". Let's face it a security guard doesn't know the law even like a cop does and we all know that they can't know all of them all the time.

If you stay around waiting for a manager while a security guard is asking you to leave/disarm/whatever it may be the cops instead and they will be assuming you are trespassing.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent; (3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or
ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

 

[Jack Burton]

Here is what bothers me.

IMO To be correct, the manager needs to be present before I can believe that he actually sent the security guard to ask me to leave.
Now, if the manager comes over with a security guard and asks me to leave, I will.
I will not trespass on his property.
But if the manager comes over and asks me to leave, then I will leave.
The security guard really plays no role (as far as legally) in whether I leave or not.
His only useful purpose is to be there is the gun carrier becomes belligerent or refuses to leave after being asked by the manager.
At that point, you need the police anyway, security is not equipped to handle this situation.
Unless he is Gecko45, of course.

The main point is that calling the security guard is an insult to the gun owner no matter how you look at it.

The manager or his representative can ask you to leave. There are many times when a manager might not be on duty in a business. While I would always ask first for the manager to clarify you cannot refuse to leave just because it is some employee other than a manager asking you. It is the same with the security guard. That is why I would ask, point blank, if the guard is acting under the expressed desires of the management. If he says no, and there is no manager to appeal to, then I would still leave quietly and without fuss... and deal with the manager later.

 

[Jack Burton]

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent; (3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or
ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

Which is my point... asking the guard if he is acting on his own or as an "agent" of the owner/management is a fair question.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Bonefish is good, I dont care if they make me disarm, its worth the risk. Well that and I would just CC anyway.

 

[Mordred]

Im not for open carry. If you are in a place where you need to open carry, then you need to leave or reenlist. I have no faith in people...especially people who think they should open carry.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Im not for open carry. If you are in a place where you need to open carry, then you need to leave or reenlist. I have no faith in people...especially people who think they should open carry.

There is a Sticky by ATM that is for OC/CC debating.

 

[Expat]

Bonefish is good, I dont care if they make me disarm, its worth the risk. Well that and I would just CC anyway.

It is good, but IMHO overpriced. Their portion size on the fish just isn't that big for the price.

 

[youngda9]

There is a Sticky by ATM that is for OC/CC debating.

I was wondering when one of those posts would show up. I'm really surprised it took so long.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You and me both. I was holding breath and turning blue!

 

[youngda9]

23 hours...this has to be a record around here.

 

[finity]

I have no faith in people...especially people who think they should open carry.

Did you even stop to wonder how many people you just unecessarily insulted by that statement?

Nah, probably not...