Belleville cops booted from Denny's for toting guns [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Belleville cops booted from Denny's for toting guns


HerrGlock
01-03-2013, 05:54
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/belleville-cops-booted-from-denny-s-for-toting-guns/article_c8d1801b-fe5e-5d8f-9e9d-403f18b38948.html

Yes, they're talking about the standard side arm and the police were on duty on lunch break. They had their badges on their belts or neck chains outside their shirts.

beatcop
01-03-2013, 05:57
Denny's has quite a rep w/cops if I recall...lol

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 06:20
I understand not wanting to create a scene, however if the detectives had simply refused to get up and leave I wonder what would have happened. Would they have called the police? :whistling:

HandyMan Hugh
01-03-2013, 06:23
IMO, Hoplophobia should be declared a legitimate mental illness. Depending on the severity of the "disease", it can be disabling to the "patient", and interfere with the daily lives of others. Those are two of the criteria that help to define a condition as a mental illness. There are huge numbers of people who become mentally incapacitated at the mere sight of or mention of a firearm. They lose their ability to make reasonable decisions, and are gripped by an irrational fear. They are likely to call the police, which then interferes with the life of the gun owner. Very often, even when the police contact the "patient" with the news that the "complainee" is legally well within the law, the response is a horrified "But he has a GUN!

IMO people like that are really ill and need treatment.

JohnBT
01-03-2013, 06:35
I wonder if the officers were black. Denny's never did like black people.

May 25, 1994 – Denny's, a national restaurant chain, agreed today to pay more than $54 million to settle lawsuits filed by thousands of black customers who ...

www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us/denny-s-restaurants-to-pay-54-million-in-race-bias-suits.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us/denny-s-restaurants-to-pay-54-million-in-race-bias-suits.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

John Rambo
01-03-2013, 06:42
Welcome to the world you voted for, Illinois police.

Drain You
01-03-2013, 07:10
Brb, I have a Denny's to rob

DoubleWide
01-03-2013, 07:16
Open Carry would not have helped in this situation.

Seriously, people need to get a clue. If an armed gunman is about to go on a rampage, asking the guy at Denny's to ask them to leave would be the last thing to do.

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 07:20
private property owner's rights. they did not call for public assistance from the police. they did not deny service to the police, just denied them the abiility to carry a gun on their property for non work related service.

is it stupid? yep. is it right? yep.

Bren
01-03-2013, 07:23
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/belleville-cops-booted-from-denny-s-for-toting-guns/article_c8d1801b-fe5e-5d8f-9e9d-403f18b38948.html

Yes, they're talking about the standard side arm and the police were on duty on lunch break. They had their badges on their belts or neck chains outside their shirts.

A Denny's in what, America's 3rd most dangerous city? Yep, kicking out the polcie was a good idea. If I was an officer there, I'd never set foot in a Denny's again. I'm sure St. Louis has plenty of other 24 hour restaurants.

Here, 24 hour places make an effort to attract the police. Common sense.

John Rambo
01-03-2013, 07:31
A Denny's in what, America's 3rd most dangerous city? Yep, kicking out the polcie was a good idea. If I was an officer there, I'd never set foot in a Denny's again. I'm sure St. Louis has plenty of other 24 hour restaurants.

Here, 24 hour places make an effort to attract the police. Common sense.

God, I wish more cops thought like you. Do you know how annoying it is to be a drunken ******* at 4AM at Denny's with your friends when a bunch of fuzz at the tail end of the graveyard shift are sitting down to eat a few tables down? :steamed:

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 07:34
A Denny's in what, America's 3rd most dangerous city? Yep, kicking out the polcie was a good idea. If I was an officer there, I'd never set foot in a Denny's again. I'm sure St. Louis has plenty of other 24 hour restaurants.

Here, 24 hour places make an effort to attract the police. Common sense.


Belleville, IL, is no where near the 3rd most dangerous city in the country. You must be thinking of East St Louis.

NEVRL8T
01-03-2013, 07:36
Here, 24 hour places make an effort to attract the police. Common sense.

Here too. If I were a police officer in that city, and I got a call from that location, I would probably take my sweet time getting there. Once I arrived, I would probably stand outside and tell them I can't enter with my service weapon so you're going to have to get me permission in writing before I do. By the way, there goes a perp shooting up your restaurant".

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 07:42
private property owner's rights. they did not call for public assistance from the police. they did not deny service to the police, just denied them the abiility to carry a gun on their property for non work related service.

is it stupid? yep. is it right? yep.

I am not familiar with the statutes there but I suspect that in any of several states the statutory authority of police to carry guns trumps the private property owner's rights.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 07:52
I am not familiar with the statutes there but I suspect that in any of several states the statutory authority of police to carry guns trumps the private property owner's rights.

Unless the police are there regarding a call for service/investigation, you would be most likely be wrong. Being a police officer is not a "protected class" and a business can/should be able to refuse service to them for being armed or any other reason.

That being said, I agree with Bren, it's stupid of them to do so.

Random
01-03-2013, 08:16
Open Carry would not have helped in this situation.

Seriously, people need to get a clue. If an armed gunman is about to go on a rampage, asking the guy at Denny's to ask them to leave would be the last thing to do.

I got escorted out of a Dennys and detained for a couple hours for open carrying. It's always interesting when you can see that you're telling the officers things they didn't know about the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. Some of 'em know alot. And you wonder how some of them even managed to get their shoes on the right feet.

whoflungdo
01-03-2013, 08:23
I am not familiar with the statutes there but I suspect that in any of several states the statutory authority of police to carry guns trumps the private property owner's rights.


Not necessarily. It depends on if they were responding to a call or working in some other official capacity.

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 08:24
when i lived in Va. before ccw in a place that served booze was legal i had to open carry in a restuarant named Pargo's in Manassas (manasty for the locals).

medium story cut short, its their business, my money, we didnt agree.

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 08:33
Unless the police are there regarding a call for service/investigation, you would be most likely be wrong. Being a police officer is not a "protected class" and a business can/should be able to refuse service to them for being armed or any other reason.

That being said, I agree with Bren, it's stupid of them to do so.

Not necessarily. It depends on if they were responding to a call or working in some other official capacity.


I can tell you here with certainty that they may be able to deny the officers service as they are not a protected class but they could neither refuse them entry nor mandate that the not carry their guns, in uniform or not. Police authority here does not stem from responding to a call. Oddly, or perhaps not, the legislature seems to have reserved that perogative for themselves.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 08:35
I like the line where they got up to leave refusing to pay for their meal.

I wonder what would happen if a "normal person" was asked to leave because of creating a disturbance and refused to pay for their meal. As far as creating a disturbance, it said that other patrons complained, so it was a disturbance.

RussP
01-03-2013, 08:39
Belleville, IL, is no where near the 3rd most dangerous city in the country. You must be thinking of East St Louis.Isn't Belleville about 15 minutes south of E StL?

Mayhem like Me
01-03-2013, 08:44
I like the line where they got up to leave refusing to pay for their meal.

I wonder what would happen if a "normal person" was asked to leave because of creating a disturbance and refused to pay for their meal. As far as creating a disturbance, it said that other patrons complained, so it was a disturbance.

So then you agree that when police get a man with a gun call they should respond and identify the individual, because after all someone thought it was disturbing...:whistling:


If not you are a hypocrite.

Steel Head
01-03-2013, 08:45
Brb, I have a Denny's to rob
You shouldn't have any problems at that one:rofl:

whoflungdo
01-03-2013, 08:46
I can tell you here with certainty that they may be able to deny the officers service as they are not a protected class but they could neither refuse them entry nor mandate that the not carry their guns, in uniform or not. Police authority here does not stem from responding to a call. Oddly, or perhaps not, the legislature seems to have reserved that perogative for themselves.


Can you give specifics? Like codes, statutes, or ordinances? I'm just curious as to how you arrive at your certainty. I'm not being argumentative, just curious.

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 08:47
So then you agree that when police get a man with a gun call they should respond and identify the individual, because after all someone thought it was disturbing...:whistling:


If not you are a hypocrite.

oh snap, the double standard exposed....two shea my good man, two shea.

rj1939
01-03-2013, 08:47
Really.........I mean really, what do you expect from all the knee jerk mentality?

Soon we will have people screaming at the sight of a gun, police or otherwise.

Soon after, we will have lawsuits brought on by people that were "tramatized" by seeing a gun. After all it is all about litigation.

RussP
01-03-2013, 08:56
Soon after, we will have lawsuits brought on by people that were "tramatized" by seeing a gun. After all it is all about litigation.OH SNAP!! Don't give them ideas...

janice6
01-03-2013, 09:00
People are just getting more stupid by the day.....

Must be something in the "Kool Aid".

SC Tiger
01-03-2013, 09:02
private property owner's rights. they did not call for public assistance from the police. they did not deny service to the police, just denied them the abiility to carry a gun on their property for non work related service.

is it stupid? yep. is it right? yep.

Yes and no. Many departments require their officers to be armed at all times.

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 09:03
Yes and no. Many departments require their officers to be armed at all times.

so?
(needed to have at least 5 characters...)

aircarver
01-03-2013, 09:04
People are just getting more stupid by the day.....

Must be something in the "Kool Aid".

One would think the last election demonstrated 'hitting rock bottom' ... No ? ....

.

OctoberRust
01-03-2013, 09:05
Concealed carry would have prevented this.

SC Tiger
01-03-2013, 09:07
so?
(needed to have at least 5 characters...)

I suppose they were within their rights, but if I were the Denny's I would hope to #### I wasn't robbed. The police response might be a little slower.

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 09:07
Isn't Belleville about 15 minutes south of E StL?


South and east, yep. Trust me, it is NOTHING like E StL. Nothing.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/belleville/crime/

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/east-st-louis/crime/

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mo/st-louis/crime/

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 09:08
I suppose they were within their rights, but if I were the Denny's I would hope to #### I wasn't robbed. The police response might be a little slower.

they have to live by their own choices....:whistling:

devildog2067
01-03-2013, 09:13
two shea my good man, two shea.

Please, please tell me you don't actually think "touché" is spelled this way.

devildog2067
01-03-2013, 09:14
Sounds to me like it was just one idiot manager. The restaurant general manager and all of the corporate people are trying to fix the damage; the general manager tried to do so before the cops even left.

Sometimes idiots get hired. It happens.

whoflungdo
01-03-2013, 09:17
they have to live by their own choices....:whistling:

Exactly. And LEO have long memories. I'm not suggesting for one minute that a call for service at that Denny's would be purposefully delayed. However, I'm sure that would factor in when prioritizing multiple calls at the same time. There is only a finite amount of resources available.

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 09:19
Please, please tell me you don't actually think "touché" is spelled this way.

no, but i dont have a french keyboard for the accent over the e.:rofl: dont want anybody to misunderstand my write so i do it phoneticaly when needed.

like resume and resume, which is witch?:whistling:

Boot Stomper
01-03-2013, 09:19
The town of Belleville IL butts up against East St. Louis, IL. If you are not familiar with East St. Louis it is one of the worst crime ridden cities in America. The town looks and feels like a war zone.

I can not imagine the stupidity of refusing to serve cops or harassing officers. Every criminal in the area is going to see Denny's as a cop free/ gun free zone. I will laugh when Denny's gets robbed. I'm sure the Belleville IL cops will respond all the same. It is a great Department with many excellent officers.

whoflungdo
01-03-2013, 09:20
Sounds to me like it was just one idiot manager. The restaurant general manager and all of the corporate people are trying to fix the damage; the general manager tried to do so before the cops even left.

Sometimes idiots get hired. It happens.

I think it maybe too late for it to be repaired. The Chief or at least someone hire up has forbidden any officer to go into a Denny's on or off duty... I know that can be changed, but the damage has been done...

Hummer
01-03-2013, 09:21
I predict the store manager will be back to busing tables before long. Such depth of stupidity isn't a temporary affliction.

Gareth68
01-03-2013, 09:22
If you believe in making your premises gun free, why should officers expect an exception?
Either allow all your customers to carry, or none.
Personally, I would allow carry by any law abiding citizen.

janice6
01-03-2013, 09:24
Concealed carry would have prevented this.


I and my wife carry in there all the time. But, if this gets to be "Policy", I can find someplace else to eat. Someplace where cops are welcome too.

I'm not much alone, but I do support Police.

NMG26
01-03-2013, 09:30
LOL

Read the thread.

Cops got half a free meal out the deal.

One manager makes a bad choice. Really it would have been better to tell the person complaining that the cops get to carry here, if you don't like it here is a complaint card.

If I am asked to leave the a restaurant half way through a meal there is no way I am paying. Good for a laugh, and that is about it.


.

RussP
01-03-2013, 09:56
South and east, yep. Trust me, it is NOTHING like E StL. Nothing.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/belleville/crime/

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/east-st-louis/crime/

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mo/st-louis/crime/I know the area. We use to have an interest in the Grand Marais Golf Club in Centreville.

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 10:04
Can you give specifics? Like codes, statutes, or ordinances? I'm just curious as to how you arrive at your certainty. I'm not being argumentative, just curious.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0943/0943ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=%2D%3E2012%2D%3EChapter%20943

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0901/0901.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/0112.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=%2D%3E2012%2D%3EChapter%20790

WarCry
01-03-2013, 10:20
If you believe in making your premises gun free, why should officers expect an exception?
Either allow all your customers to carry, or none.
Personally, I would allow carry by any law abiding citizen.

In Illinois (for the time being), the cops are the ONLY ones that could carry legally in there. If they don't want the good guys with guns in there, they can feel pretty confident the next guy that comes in, armed, won't be nearly so friendly or civil.

It does sound like a bad call by one guy, not a corporate policy change or anything, so that's a plus.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 10:23
So then you agree that when police get a man with a gun call they should respond and identify the individual, because after all someone thought it was disturbing...:whistling:


If not you are a hypocrite.

What causes as disturbance in private property is much different than what a disturbance is in public places.

As an example, you can be talking in a movie theater, causing a disturbance and will be asked to leave. You are trying to mix a legal term of disturbance with a non-legal term. In fact you are trying to make "disturb" equal to "disturbing the peace"

But let me help you

dis·turb
[dih-sturb]
verb (used with object)
1.to interrupt the quiet, rest, peace, or order of; unsettle.

Once again, there is not legal aspect of the word "disturb"

The Fed
01-03-2013, 10:27
I emailed Denny's to tell them I'm nit eating there anymore.

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 10:37
I know the area. We use to have an interest in the Grand Marais Golf Club in Centreville.


Ah, I see. What was your impression of Belleville? Doesn't seem any more dangerous to me than most other small midwest towns.

I travel back and for to Scott AFB every week for work. I stay downtown St Louis. I get my hair cut at a barber shop in Belleville and we eat lunch in that town frequently.

elsolo
01-03-2013, 10:40
Jeez guys, it was one idiot night manager that made a bad call.

What did all the other independent franchise owners do to deserve a boycott?

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 10:52
If you believe in making your premises gun free, why should officers expect an exception?
.....


Because the legislature allows them to be armed most anywhere and the legislature allows the Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs latitude to decide what the subordinates do and how and they often mandate that the subordinates be armed and take action when necessary.

RussP
01-03-2013, 10:55
Ah, I see. What was your impression of Belleville? Doesn't seem any more dangerous to me than most other small midwest towns.

I travel back and for to Scott AFB every week for work. I stay downtown St Louis. I get my hair cut at a barber shop in Belleville and we eat lunch in that town frequently.The big concern for Belleville is that short, quick drive on 15 and I-64 from north of I-255. Yes, it is quieter, but every time LE north of 255 cracked down on the bad guys, the bad guys look elsewhere for targets. Collinsville, Fairview Heights, Belleville, O'Fallon, all have more activity when crackdowns occur.

We looked into that area to see if advertising there would increase traffic for the golf course. Consensus was, "Hell no, we are not going into that hell hole.":supergrin:

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 10:58
The big concern for Belleville is that short, quick drive on 15 and I-64 from north of I-255. Yes, it is quieter, but every time LE north of 255 cracked down on the bad guys, the bad guys look elsewhere for targets. Collinsville, Fairview Heights, Belleville, O'Fallon, all have more activity when crackdowns occur.

We looked into that area to see if advertising there would increase traffic for the golf course. Consensus was, "Hell no, we are not going into that hell hole.":supergrin:


Ha! Well, I certainly wouldn't call it a hell hole. It is below the national median for crime and below the IL state average, as well. Seems like there are much WORSE places to advertise within the state.

CAcop
01-03-2013, 11:10
I havent eaten at a Denny's in 15 years. The one in town is full of junkies and drunk tourists. It is no place for a cop unless you are hard up for arrest stats.

jay-bird
01-03-2013, 11:12
I havent eaten at a Denny's in 15 years. The one in town is full of junkies and drunk tourists. It is no place for a cop unless you are hard up for arrest stats.


"you gotta dollar, man?"

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 11:42
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0943/0943ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=%2D%3E2012%2D%3EChapter%20943

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0901/0901.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/0112.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=%2D%3E2012%2D%3EChapter%20790

Could you be a little more specific? These are just lists of various sections and statutes, in Florida, that deal with law enforcement and firearms.

Can you point out the one that says that an armed law enforcement officer, on private property(but in a public place), can't be told leave by the owner/owner operator of the property providing that officer has no other legal right or obligation to be there? And if told to leave, the officer can legally ignore it, particularly without civil, criminal or, most likely, departmental repercussions?

Thanks.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 11:46
I havent eaten at a Denny's in 15 years. The one in town is full of junkies and drunk tourists. It is no place for a cop unless you are hard up for arrest stats.

Denny's = 537(a) PC

GasTurbine
01-03-2013, 12:17
I understand not wanting to create a scene, however if the detectives had simply refused to get up and leave I wonder what would have happened. Would they have called the police? :whistling:

It does not matter. It is private property. A business owner can make any rules he wants, as long as its not prejudice. They would have been guilty of trespassing if they didnt leave.

Of course, the more ridiculous rules you impose, the less business you will garner, so regardless, it will come back and bit the business in the ass.

CAcop
01-03-2013, 12:37
"you gotta dollar, man?"

Nah, they don't panhandle. Denny's would kick them out for that. They shoot up in the bathrooms and pass out at the tables.

In Denny's defense it is next to the "Heroin Highway" in our town.

They could fix it up but even if they emptied a can of Simonize it would still be a turd.

CAcop
01-03-2013, 12:39
Denny's = 537(a) PC

Actually they don't dine and dash there much. Too stoned to move fast enough.

The tweakers who go to the diner down the street that was on Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives dine and dash there.

RussP
01-03-2013, 12:41
Ha! Well, I certainly wouldn't call it a hell hole. It is below the national median for crime and below the IL state average, as well. Seems like there are much WORSE places to advertise within the state.Not Belleville, the course is in Centreville.

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 13:10
Ah, gotcha. Sorry, I misunderstood. I'm with ya now. :embarassed:

el_jewapo
01-03-2013, 13:38
like resume and resume, which is witch?:whistling:

Any idiot with a third grade reading level can tell you resume is the one on the left.

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 14:52
Could you be a little more specific? These are just lists of various sections and statutes, in Florida, that deal with law enforcement and firearms.

Can you point out the one that says that an armed law enforcement officer, on private property(but in a public place), can't be told leave by the owner/owner operator of the property providing that officer has no other legal right or obligation to be there? And if told to leave, the officer can legally ignore it, particularly without civil, criminal or, most likely, departmental repercussions?

Thanks.


How about FSS 843.01 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0843/0843.html

Of course that only works if one is willing to presume that an officer can execute process and that patrolling in the jurisdiction is part of the legally executed duty.

Refusal to serve them food is a civil matter if there is any standing at all. Refusing to allow the police to an area where the public has a right to be might be a different matter.

It does not matter. It is private property. A business owner can make any rules he wants, as long as its not prejudice. They would have been guilty of trespassing if they didnt leave.

....

I am uncertain that a business owner can decide whether or not the police can be armed; I think at least in this state that is the authority of the legislature.

And I remain unconvinced a business owner can exclude the police from an area where the public can go. Could a mall, for instance, mandate that the police not go into the mall unless they had a call? Could a convenience store or a fast food restaurant or an
apartment complex with muliple buildings and parking areas tell the police that they cannot patrol the parking areas? How about the hallways of the buildings?

Wouldn't there be a possibility that at least some of the places that do not want the police there are harboring criminal activity? How would a court decide which places merely do not want the police there and which ones are harboring crime?

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 14:52
Actually they don't dine and dash there much. Too stoned to move fast enough.

We have one right next to a major interstate highway on ramp. It was 537 every night, pretty much guaranteed.

WarCry
01-03-2013, 15:10
And I remain unconvinced a business owner can exclude the police from an area where the public can go. Could a mall, for instance, mandate that the police not go into the mall unless they had a call? Could a convenience store or a fast food restaurant or an apartment complex with multiple buildings and parking areas tell the police that they cannot patrol the parking areas? How about the hallways of the buildings?


The problem with this assertion is the part about "where the public can go", because that's not the same as a public area.

By that, I mean that if I go into the mall and - for whatever reason - I'm told to leave, I have to leave. My right as a part of the public to "be there" is still dependent on the will of the owner.

My mall has a deal with the police department to patrol - in fact, they have a substation in the mall - but if they didn't, and they were asked to not come in other than on official business, I don't know what right the officers would have to stay or argue.

Police officers have police power and authority when acting under the color of law. If they're just hanging out on lunch break or something, they're the same as you and me.

Now, I don't think it's a smart idea to tell cops they can't bring their guns in. Frankly, I'd be going out of my way to encourage them to come and hang out any time they want, on or off duty. But if that's what a private business/property owner decides, I don't think there's anything that gives officers special authority OUTSIDE of the course of police work.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 15:14
How about FSS 843.01 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0843/0843.html

Of course that only works if one is willing to presume that an officer can execute process and that patrolling in the jurisdiction is part of the legally executed duty.

Refusal to serve them food is a civil matter if there is any standing at all. Refusing to allow the police to an area where the public has a right to be might be a different matter.

While I don't know much about FL law, best I can tell, that section would only apply if the officer was carrying out a specific legal duty related to his job inside the business, like serving a warrant or summons or investigating a crime or whatever. Eating, while important, is not a legal duty related to a peace officer's job, especially in the context of this law. Plus, this section deals with violent resistance or obstruction and I'm pretty sure a Denny's manager wouldn't threaten or attack a bunch of armed Detectives.

Refusing to serve them would, indeed, be a civil matter. Failure on their part to leave the premises when requested to do so by the owner or person in charge, like a manager, may or may not constitute criminal trespassing, state statutes vary, however I guarantee a call to their supervisor would result in their leaving.

I suppose if Denny's had a liquor license or the local PD does the health and/or safety inspections, they could force the issue that way but then they'd be performing a legal duty related to their job.

In this case, they had no legal right to eat there or, for that matter, be there if it was requested that they leave.

mrmedina
01-03-2013, 15:14
Brb, I have a Denny's to rob

Let me know which one, so I can place a Grand Slam order for pick up. Thanks.:wavey:

DanaT
01-03-2013, 15:15
Police officers have police power and authority when acting under the color of law. If they're just hanging out on lunch break or something, they're the same as you and me.

Very good statement.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 15:23
I am uncertain that a business owner can decide whether or not the police can be armed;

That this isn't about whether the police can be armed, this is about whether a business can restrict access to government agents(or pretty much anyone else for that matter) who have no specific legal authority to be there. The answer is pretty much, yes.

In fact, last time I checked, Disneyland, Disney World, Magic Mountain and bunch of other very large, very crowded businesses that are open to the public will not let the cops in with guns unless they are there for a specific, duty related reason. Unless that's changed in the past 3 to 5 years???

:dunno:

whoflungdo
01-03-2013, 15:28
How about FSS 843.01 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0843/0843.html

Of course that only works if one is willing to presume that an officer can execute process and that patrolling in the jurisdiction is part of the legally executed duty.

Refusal to serve them food is a civil matter if there is any standing at all. Refusing to allow the police to an area where the public has a right to be might be a different matter.



I am uncertain that a business owner can decide whether or not the police can be armed; I think at least in this state that is the authority of the legislature.

And I remain unconvinced a business owner can exclude the police from an area where the public can go. Could a mall, for instance, mandate that the police not go into the mall unless they had a call? Could a convenience store or a fast food restaurant or an
apartment complex with muliple buildings and parking areas tell the police that they cannot patrol the parking areas? How about the hallways of the buildings?

Wouldn't there be a possibility that at least some of the places that do not want the police there are harboring criminal activity? How would a court decide which places merely do not want the police there and which ones are harboring crime?

You are incorrectly equating patrolling with patronizing. They are not the same thing as noted below by the other responses...

The problem with this assertion is the part about "where the public can go", because that's not the same as a public area.

By that, I mean that if I go into the mall and - for whatever reason - I'm told to leave, I have to leave. My right as a part of the public to "be there" is still dependent on the will of the owner.

My mall has a deal with the police department to patrol - in fact, they have a substation in the mall - but if they didn't, and they were asked to not come in other than on official business, I don't know what right the officers would have to stay or argue.

Police officers have police power and authority when acting under the color of law. If they're just hanging out on lunch break or something, they're the same as you and me.

Now, I don't think it's a smart idea to tell cops they can't bring their guns in. Frankly, I'd be going out of my way to encourage them to come and hang out any time they want, on or off duty. But if that's what a private business/property owner decides, I don't think there's anything that gives officers special authority OUTSIDE of the course of police work.

While I don't know much about FL law, best I can tell, that section would only apply if the officer was carrying out a specific legal duty related to his job inside the business, like serving a warrant or summons or investigating a crime or whatever. Eating, while important, is not a legal duty related to a peace officer's job, especially in the context of this law. Plus, this section deals with violent resistance or obstruction and I'm pretty sure a Denny's manager wouldn't threaten or attack a bunch of armed Detectives.

Refusing to serve them would, indeed, be a civil matter. Failure on their part to leave the premises when requested to do so by the owner or person in charge, like a manager, may or may not constitute criminal trespassing, state statutes vary, however I guarantee a call to their supervisor would result in their leaving.

I suppose if Denny's had a liquor license or the local PD does the health and/or safety inspections, they could force the issue that way but then they'd be performing a legal duty related to their job.

In this case, they had no legal right to eat there or, for that matter, be there if it was requested that they leave.

pizza_pablo
01-03-2013, 15:34
Sometimes idiots get put in charge. It happens.
Fixed it, for ya! :wavey:

Fox
01-03-2013, 16:01
Hoplophobia is a mental disorder.

mingaa
01-03-2013, 16:54
Belleville, IL, is no where near the 3rd most dangerous city in the country. You must be thinking of East St Louis.
Belleville is 19 miles from St. Louis. The media loves to abuse statistics. St. Louis performs poorly in crime stats because it is one of the few major municipalities that has not merged the city with the county SO instead of leveling the playing field and using the population of 2,882,932 (in the greater region)making it the 15th-largest in the country they focus on the 'center city' population of 318,069 - then the 58th-largest U.S. city.

East St. Louis and it's adjoining hellhole communities are across the river in ILLINOIS - where I cannot carry. Belleville has a range and gunshop that will never get any of my business. They have since opened a branch in St. Louis County.

When convenient for a news story we are way up the STD lists as well. ARG!

St. Louis MO is a wonderful green city with great culture, food and a very livable place AND I LIVE IN THE CITY PROPER.

Don't get me started!! :wow:

janice6
01-03-2013, 17:06
no, but i dont have a french keyboard for the accent over the e.:rofl: dont want anybody to misunderstand my write so i do it phoneticaly when needed.

like resume and resume, which is witch?:whistling:


Yes you do!

http://french.about.com/od/writing/ss/typeaccents_8.htm

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 17:18
I say good for them. This should be avdvertised more. Heck, it should be on billboards and on televsion adds that they are a gunfree, and law enforcement free zone. I suspect the response time for incidents there will be a low priority, or something else pressing will come up.:rofl:

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 18:06
...

My mall has a deal with the police department to patrol - in fact, they have a substation in the mall - but if they didn't, and they were asked to not come in other than on official business, I don't know what right the officers would have to stay or argue.

.... Would patrol be considered official business?

While I don't know much about FL law, best I can tell, that section would only apply if the officer was carrying out a specific legal duty related to his job inside the business, like serving a warrant or summons or investigating a crime or whatever. Eating, while important, is not a legal duty related to a peace officer's job, especially in the context of this law. Plus, this section deals with violent resistance or obstruction and I'm pretty sure a Denny's manager wouldn't threaten or attack a bunch of armed Detectives.

Refusing to serve them would, indeed, be a civil matter. Failure on their part to leave the premises when requested to do so by the owner or person in charge, like a manager, may or may not constitute criminal trespassing, state statutes vary, however I guarantee a call to their supervisor would result in their leaving.

I suppose if Denny's had a liquor license or the local PD does the health and/or safety inspections, they could force the issue that way but then they'd be performing a legal duty related to their job.

In this case, they had no legal right to eat there or, for that matter, be there if it was requested that they leave.
I agree that they have no right to eat there. However I also do not think Denny's can request they not be armed there; that rests with the legislature, especially when they are on duty. I believe that Denny's would be within their authority to not serve them. If they were on duty and in their jurisdiction, however, I think requesting/telling them to leave is an uphill battle. And my guess is that one or three supervisors might not be quite as quick to direct a subordinate to leave.
That this isn't about whether the police can be armed, this is about whether a business can restrict access to government agents(or pretty much anyone else for that matter) who have no specific legal authority to be there. The answer is pretty much, yes.

In fact, last time I checked, Disneyland, Disney World, Magic Mountain and bunch of other very large, very crowded businesses that are open to the public will not let the cops in with guns unless they are there for a specific, duty related reason. Unless that's changed in the past 3 to 5 years???

:dunno: My contention is that if the business is at the time open to the public, patrolling is within their legal authority. Lunch, not so much. On the other hand they are still on duty while they have lunch if they are in their work day. I doubt there would be many courts that would entertain trespassing charges against an officer who was in an open business within his jurisdiction.


Any idea what is Disney's policy, for instance, regarding on duty officers in their jurisdiction versus off duty officers who are clearly there as paying guests?

DanaT
01-03-2013, 18:18
My contention is that if the business is at the time open to the public, patrolling is within their legal authority. Lunch, not so much. On the other hand they are still on duty while they have lunch if they are in their work day. I doubt there would be many courts that would entertain trespassing charges against an officer who was in an open business within his jurisdiction.


Any idea what is Disney's policy, for instance, regarding on duty officers in their jurisdiction versus off duty officers who are clearly there as paying guests?

Because a business is "open" doesnt mean police can "patrol". What is likely is that they can "patrol" is where the public is allowed. Places I have worked, if an an officer wants to have a look around the place past the receptionist, they better have been invited or have a warrant.

WarCry
01-03-2013, 18:19
Would patrol be considered official business?

My contention is that if the business is at the time open to the public, patrolling is within their legal authority.

Patroling a street and checking on the business is one thing. Even driving through the lot is different.

For instance, our local police department don't cite for accidents that happen in a parking lot unless there is MASSIVE amounts of damage, injuries, or drugs/alcohol involved. Everything else is just an issue between the drivers and the property owner.

Our mall has a deal that the police can and do patrol the parking lot, but if the mall wanted to revoke that, they could, because it's their property.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 18:22
I agree that they have no right to eat there. However I also do not think Denny's can request they not be armed there; that rests with the legislature, especially when they are on duty. I believe that Denny's would be within their authority to not serve them. If they were on duty and in their jurisdiction, however, I think requesting/telling them to leave is an uphill battle. And my guess is that one or three supervisors might not be quite as quick to direct a subordinate to leave.

You may think that, but you'd be incorrect. You'd also be wrong about the police supervisors. The very first thing they'd do is tell the Detectives to leave, they would then brief their LT or whatever equivalent they had and it would go up from there and be handled administratively(if at all), just like it was in this situation.

My contention is that if the business is at the time open to the public, patrolling is within their legal authority. Lunch, not so much. On the other hand they are still on duty while they have lunch if they are in their work day. I doubt there would be many courts that would entertain trespassing charges against an officer who was in an open business within his jurisdiction.

Any idea what is Disney's policy, for instance, regarding on duty officers in their jurisdiction versus off duty officers who are clearly there as paying guests?

Also, if a business requested that on duty, uniformed officers NOT patrol within their business, then on duty uniformed officers will NOT patrol within their business unless there is some other controlling factor, such as a liquor license or public safety issue.

Regarding Disneyland, I believe Anaheim PD has on duty units within the park at all or most times as standard practice as well as Disney's own security. The other places, I got no clue but I'm certain that some on-duty, armed Joe Cop from Agency X who just wants to walk around a theme park for no other reason than it's a "public place" would not be admitted.

lpo
01-03-2013, 18:37
I like the line where they got up to leave refusing to pay for their meal.

I wonder what would happen if a "normal person" was asked to leave because of creating a disturbance and refused to pay for their meal. As far as creating a disturbance, it said that other patrons complained, so it was a disturbance.

"Normal people", or not, if you tell someone to stop enjoying your services ( or in the case of Denny's, barely sucking down that hot mess you call grub) before being able to complete it, they should not be responsible for paying for it.

If other customers complain, then you need to decide who's money you want more, but you can't have both if both aren't satisfied customers.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

ERASER
01-03-2013, 18:40
Update:


Chief Bans Eating At DENNY'S After Cops Kicked Out For Being Armed...

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/dennys-kick-out-belleville-police-for-being-armed/

DanaT
01-03-2013, 18:45
Our mall has a deal that the police can and do patrol the parking lot, but if the mall wanted to revoke that, they could, because it's their property.

Liar. That cannot possibly be true. Ask TBO.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 18:48
"Normal people", or not, if you tell someone to stop enjoying your services ( or in the case of Denny's, barely sucking down that hot mess you call grub) before being able to complete it, they should not be responsible for paying for it.

If other customers complain, then you need to decide who's money you want more, but you can't have both if both aren't satisfied customers.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

So if I rent a hotel room, throw a party, disturb other people and they kick me out, I shouldnt have to pay because I did not get to finish enjoying my room?

Rabbi
01-03-2013, 19:17
G-d bless TEXAS

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03
do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under
Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section
prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a
weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state
serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the
officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

*ASH*
01-03-2013, 19:36
SOME STATES have different laws , personally i think if i own a business , i can ask anyone including cops not to have firearms in my business. seems like here the tone of some replies cops think they can go and do as they please. NOT THE CASE AT ALL.

BUT on same hand , if someone robs your business , cops aint coming til they finish eating at Hardees .

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 19:48
G-d bless TEXAS

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03
do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under
Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section
prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a
weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state
serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the
officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

This section says it isn't a crime for TX to LE to carry their guns into places that are prohibited to others however I didn't see where it said that they could carry their guns into a business over the objection of the owner or operator, emergencies/warrants/investigations/official duties/etc. notwithstanding.

Did I miss it in there Rabbi?

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 19:53
This section says it isn't a crime for TX to LE to carry their guns into places that are prohibited to others however I didn't see where it said that they could carry their guns into a business over the objection of the owner or operator, emergencies/warrants/investigations/official duties/etc. notwithstanding.

Did I miss it in there Rabbi?

Oh, I completely agree. If I were the Chief of Police, I would bar any of my officers from frequenting that resturant on or off duty. I would also hold a press conference with all the local media that we would gladly respect the wishes of the owner, whose name, and adress I would gladly announce to one and all. Also, I would pull out my resources from that area, as they would be needed elsewhere, which would unfortunately reduce response time. Sorry, for the inconvenience.:steamed:

ray9898
01-03-2013, 19:56
Why do I have the feeling if this was about Joe the law abiding gun owner we would not have so many that are apparently as understanding about him getting kicked out because their legally carried gun caused a "disturbance"?

I thought it was well decided on here that a gun itself could not cause a "disturbance" and anyone who reports simple possession is a rights trampler.

Matter of fact. I guarantee if someone requested LE to respond for a "disturbance" because someone was carrying while eating at Denny's no one would support the contact. They would blast LE, Denny's and the frightened 'sheep' who called for trampling a Constitutional right.

WarCry
01-03-2013, 19:56
SOME STATES have different laws , personally i think if i own a business , i can ask anyone including cops not to have firearms in my business. seems like here the tone of some replies cops think they can go and do as they please. NOT THE CASE AT ALL.

BUT on same hand , if someone robs your business , cops aint coming til they finish eating at Hardees .

I think you're making an assumption on what police think based on internet posts that are likely not from cops. I think some PEOPLE believe that cops have the right to be places, and cops might not be in any rush to dissuade them of that belief, but that doesn't mean the cops are advocating it, either.

Rabbi
01-03-2013, 19:57
This section says it isn't a crime for TX to LE to carry their guns into places that are prohibited to others however I didn't see where it said that they could carry their guns into a business over the objection of the owner or operator, emergencies/warrants/investigations/official duties/etc. notwithstanding.

Did I miss it in there Rabbi?

It is an interesting question.

For example

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law

If an agency requires someone to carry a gun, as the all do on duty, in theory, you cant kick an officer out, even while he is just "eating" (or buying gummy bears or whatever)

In theory, if the agency, as some do, require off duty carry, the same would apply. It is exercising an authority imposed.

I guess you could "kick" them out for another reason and that wouldnt be covered under law and the Police would have to go

I am not going to be the test case and if asked to leave, I would. Even if I was on duty, as long as I was not actively engaged in a duty. If I am engaged in a duty, I'll arrest someone if I have to if they have a problem with me being armed.

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 20:03
Belleville is 19 miles from St. Louis. The media loves to abuse statistics. St. Louis performs poorly in crime stats because it is one of the few major municipalities that has not merged the city with the county SO instead of leveling the playing field and using the population of 2,882,932 (in the greater region)making it the 15th-largest in the country they focus on the 'center city' population of 318,069 - then the 58th-largest U.S. city.

East St. Louis and it's adjoining hellhole communities are across the river in ILLINOIS - where I cannot carry. Belleville has a range and gunshop that will never get any of my business. They have since opened a branch in St. Louis County.

When convenient for a news story we are way up the STD lists as well. ARG!

St. Louis MO is a wonderful green city with great culture, food and a very livable place AND I LIVE IN THE CITY PROPER.

Don't get me started!! :wow:

Hey, I'm on your side. I've been coming to STL every week for nearly two years now. I work out at Scott AFB but I stay downtown - 4th and Olive. I work out in Soulard. We eat at Rosalitas, Mosaic, Bridge, Epic Pizza/ITap and the Schlafly Taproom all the time. I love St Louis.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 20:07
It is an interesting question.

For example

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law

If an agency requires someone to carry a gun, as the all do on duty, in theory, you cant kick an officer out, even while he is just "eating" (or buying gummy bears or whatever)

In theory, if the agency, as some do, require off duty carry, the same would apply. It is exercising an authority imposed.

I guess you could "kick" them out for another reason and that wouldnt be covered under law and the Police would have to go

I am not going to be the test case and if asked to leave, I would. Even if I was on duty, as long as I was not actively engaged in a duty. If I am engaged in a duty, I'll arrest someone if I have to if they have a problem with me being armed.

Thanks for that info, that's as close as I've seen so far. I agree that the operative words in this section that are important are exercising authority imposed or granted by law. I still think that if push came to shove, the business/property owner/operator would "win" in the legal sense, but not the public opinion sense for sure.

As you succinctly stated though, a business could just say "we don't serve or allow cops on the premises" and, short of some type of lawful duty or authority, no cops would be there.

This is all just academic chatter anyway. No sane business would make a policy that the Denny's employee thought was posted by the door.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:11
Why do I have the feeling if this was about Joe the law abiding gun owner we would not have so many that are apparently as understanding about him getting kicked out because their legally carried gun caused a "disturbance"?

If Denny's doesnt want Joe in their establishment because he has a gun, that is their prerogative.

ray9898
01-03-2013, 20:14
If Denny's doesnt want Joe in their establishment because he has a gun, that is their prerogative.



I think that fact is obvious but it is never a supported position on here. It ruffles freedom feathers every time.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:14
I thought it was well decided on here that a gun itself could not cause a "disturbance" and anyone who reports simple possession is a rights trampler.

Matter of fact. I guarantee if someone requested LE to respond for a "disturbance" because someone was carrying while eating at Denny's no one would support the contact. They would blast LE, Denny's and the frightened 'sheep' who called for trampling a Constitutional right.

There is a difference between the legal definition and the common definition of "disturb." As I mentioned earlier in the thread, talking during a movie is disturbing others and you will be asked to leave but is not an illegal act.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:16
I think that fact is obvious but it is never a supported position on here. It ruffles freedom feathers every time.

I just supported it therefore, buy definition you are wrong about "never" and futhermore wrong about every time as it doesnt ruffle my feathers.

ray9898
01-03-2013, 20:18
I just supported it therefore, buy definition you are wrong about "never" and futhermore wrong about every time as it doesnt ruffle my feathers.

Why did I know I could count on you?

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:19
If an agency requires someone to carry a gun, as the all do on duty, in theory, you cant kick an officer out, even while he is just "eating" (or buying gummy bears or whatever)

I can refuse to serve them. I guess he could just stand there waiting for a table?

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 20:21
I can refuse to serve them. I guess he could just stand there waiting for a table?

The irony is, that if this happened to military personnel, you would probably have a anuresim of rage and deficate down your leg.

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 20:22
I can refuse to serve them. I guess he could just stand there waiting for a table?

I am curious who else you would not serve? The elderly? Because, they demand a senior discount? What about black people, because you think they are noisy?

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 20:22
I can refuse to serve them. I guess he could just stand there waiting for a table?

Yes...........?

Rabbi
01-03-2013, 20:28
I can refuse to serve them. I guess he could just stand there waiting for a table?

Yeah, pretty much.

My point, using Texas law, is this.

Texas law is very clear, someone who is a Peace Officer can carry a weapon pretty much where ever he wants and being a Peace Officer is the only qualification. It doesnt matter what he is doing or his status on or off duty.

Also under Texas law, if an authority is imposed on a Peace Officer, someone can be charged with a crime for getting in the way of that.

The first obvious (and well vetted) conclusion we can draw from that is, a Texas Peace Officer can not be charged with *anything* for being armed someplace that doesnt want them armed. The law is clear. There is no criminal liability, even if the property owner doesnt want them there or warns them in advance not to do it.

What isnt really so clear is, how do you get rid of a Texas Peace Officer who is armed and you dont want them there? It would seem that the law states you cant kick them out for being armed. You would have to have another reason. It could be anything but it cant be because they are armed. So it is a verbal paperwork shuffle issue. You can get the result you want (I dont want the Peace Officer here) you just have to invoke any reason but the fact the Peace Officer is armed.

Whitey1
01-03-2013, 20:30
If Denny's doesnt want Joe in their establishment because he has a gun, that is their prerogative.

What if he was ghey, a minority, or Muslim? Just curious as to why some freedoms are ok, while others are not?

hooligan74
01-03-2013, 20:33
What if he was ghey, a minority, or Muslim? Just curious as to why some freedoms are ok, while others are not?

If it's a protected class, it's not OK to refuse them service. Last time I checked being an LEO wasn't a protected class.

Kilrain
01-03-2013, 20:36
If it's a protected class, it's not OK to refuse them service for being a member of a protected class. Last time I checked being an LEO wasn't a protected class.

Fixed that for you. Much like Rabbi's point, you can just shuffle the reason or give no reason at all and refuse service........

ray9898
01-03-2013, 20:36
If it's a protected class, it's not OK to refuse them service. Last time I checked being an LEO wasn't a protected class.

On that note don't forget neither is a gun owner. That never seems to stop the outrage on here though.

RussP
01-03-2013, 20:39
Isn't there a coffee shop, maybe in Seattle, that refuses to serve anyone in LE?

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 20:41
I don't know. But, I know one thing. I won't ever eat at a Dennys ever again. I do eat a lot of Chick Filet, however.:supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 20:43
If it's a protected class, it's not OK to refuse them service. Last time I checked being an LEO wasn't a protected class.

But, apparently sex offenders and convicted felons are allowed to eat there. Which one are you?

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:45
What if he was ghey, a minority, or Muslim? Just curious as to why some freedoms are ok, while others are not?

Because its different.



The real answer....our wonderful court system that interjects itself in private matters.

Dukeboy01
01-03-2013, 20:46
In KY the detectives could have simply thrown a napkin over their gun and told the manager to go screw.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/527-00/020.PDF

KRS 527.020 Carrying concealed deadly weapons

Subsection 3
The director of the Division of Law Enforcement in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, conservation officers of the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, and policemen directly employed by state, county, city, or urban-county governments may carry concealed deadly weapons on or about their person at all times within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, when expressly authorized to do so by law or by the government employing the officer.

When you're in plainclothes, concealed carry saves you a lot of hassles. I very, very rarely have an exposed weapon when I'm in public, even when I'm working. My primary method of carrying a G26 while at work is either on my ankle or IWB in my MTAC with a shirt tucked over it. On most of my boring "doing paperwork around the office" days, that's all I have on me the whole shift. even if I leave the office for lunch.

If I'm leaving the office to take enforcement actions (serve a search warrant or pick somebody up for questioning, to give a couple of examples) I'll throw on my G17 in a paddleback Safariland holster that I normally keep locked up in my car before we leave the garage.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:49
On that note don't forget neither is a gun owner. That never seems to stop the outrage on here though.

Lets be honest. That is because its a gun board.

It doesnt take long on GT to find defenders screaming about their 2A rights thinking that people of the "wrong" religion should be killed.

Me personally, I am mostly of a libertarian point of view. That said, when rights conflict, then there must be an order of what right trumps another.

Property owner rights are very high on rights that need to be protected.

DanaT
01-03-2013, 20:52
I am curious who else you would not serve? The elderly? Because, they demand a senior discount? What about black people, because you think they are noisy?

You are assuming I would refuse to serve police. Why would I do that (if I had a restaurant)? If I had a 24hr restaurant, I would do everything I could to encourage police to dine there.

But I would refuse to serve French people. They would just biotch about how bad the food is anyway.

*ASH*
01-03-2013, 20:53
But, apparently sex offenders and convicted felons are allowed to eat there. Which one are you?

and here we go again :rofl::rofl: , :rofl: cops vs gng part 3,5066 name calling a-gain


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/KK_Koala/uglycry_zps2595e4ef.gif

Rabbi
01-03-2013, 20:55
In KY the detectives could have simply thrown a napkin over their gun and told the manager to go screw.



Yes, it seems like you have the right to carry there and suffer no criminal liability...but there is no mechanism that forces them to serve you.

Dukeboy01
01-03-2013, 21:07
Yes, it seems like you have the right to carry there and suffer no criminal liability...but there is no mechanism that forces them to serve you.

True, but in this case they had already served them and they were halfway through their meals. Paper napkin over the Glock and keep shoveling down the all you can eat pancakes. :supergrin:

WarCry
01-03-2013, 21:12
True, but in this case they had already served them and they were halfway through their meals. Paper napkin over the Glock and keep shoveling down the all you can eat pancakes. :supergrin:

They have a right to carry, but that's not the same as a right to disregard a private-property owner's request that you leave their property UNLESS the cop is there in the course of official business. Ordering and consuming a Grand Slam is not official police business.

certifiedfunds
01-03-2013, 21:12
I am curious who else you would not serve? The elderly? Because, they demand a senior discount? What about black people, because you think they are noisy?

The elderly are the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. The fact that they've managed to run this senior discount scam for so long is remarkable.

Rabbi
01-03-2013, 21:19
They have a right to carry, but that's not the same as a right to disregard a private-property owner's request that you leave their property UNLESS the cop is there in the course of official business. Ordering and consuming a Grand Slam is not official police business.

Again, it is not that black and white in some places. The reason would have to be anything BUT the gun in Texas.

The other side of that is...what LEO in his right mind would insist on eating at a place that he KNOWS doesnt want him there?

In Uniform, there are very few places I will eat anyways. I will and have walked right out of places that give me cause to do so.

certifiedfunds
01-03-2013, 21:22
I am curious who else you would not serve? The elderly? Because, they demand a senior discount? What about black people, because you think they are noisy?

Lets be honest. Truly any business owner should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason: race, age, religion, handicap or body odor.

I don't personally agree with doing so but it should be a business owner's prerogative.

*ASH*
01-03-2013, 21:23
They have a right to carry, but that's not the same as a right to disregard a private-property owner's request that you leave their property UNLESS the cop is there in the course of official business. Ordering and consuming a Grand Slam is not official police business.

wait,,, WUT ... AH ok :dunno::dunno::rofl:

*ASH*
01-03-2013, 21:28
Lets be honest. Truly any business owner should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason: race, age, religion, handicap or body odor.

I don't personally agree with doing so but it should be a business owner's prerogative.

i run a family farm , 3rd generation , now i will add to that , ive had folks come on my farm to buy crops before , and they cop an attitude then they are told to leave and not come back .

it never fails every strawberry season , we got idiots who cant read the "NO CHECKS " SIGN . AND OR ARGUE DOWN THE ROAD THEY ARE CHEAPER " and then im out doing other work , then i get call to come to the berry shack to coddle someone who dont like the prices

then my workers know to say " well drive down the road and get some .

i make damn good money on strawberries but dealing with idiots i dont have time for .

and yes i dont care who ,what , you are , if you are told to leave , you will leave .

Bruce M
01-03-2013, 21:30
...

Our mall has a deal that the police can and do patrol the parking lot, but if the mall wanted to revoke that, they could, because it's their property. So the agreement to investigate traffic crashes is between the police and the mall, or are there statutes involved? A few times over the years I have seen instances in which someone decided they did not want the police to enter a parking lot. Any of several times the officers did not enter the parking lot because they were busy completing some paperwork before they transported the person to jail.

You may think that, but you'd be incorrect. You'd also be wrong about the police supervisors. The very first thing they'd do is tell the Detectives to leave, they would then brief their LT or whatever equivalent they had and it would go up from there and be handled administratively(if at all), just like it was in this situation.



Also, if a business requested that on duty, uniformed officers NOT patrol within their business, then on duty uniformed officers will NOT patrol within their business unless there is some other controlling factor, such as a liquor license or public safety issue.

.... Again perhaps this varies in different areas. As I said, any of several times I have seen or read of the results of someone who decided they did not want the police at the location. Not that long ago I remember hearing an incident unfold at a sporting event here. The officers advised that someone did not want to let them through a gate. The radio response was to the effect of don't ask him, tell him, and if he stops you arrest him.

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 22:04
and here we go again :rofl::rofl: , :rofl: cops vs gng part 3,5066 name calling a-gain


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/KK_Koala/uglycry_zps2595e4ef.gif

Sorry, I didn't mean to interupt your video and make you cry:

Domestic Uprising: Defenders of the constitution, Rise of the American Patriots... - YouTube

:upeyes:

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 22:08
Lets be honest. Truly any business owner should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason: race, age, religion, handicap or body odor.

I don't personally agree with doing so but it should be a business owner's prerogative.

If that were the case, a lot of black folks couldn't get served any meals in states like Mississipi. White people wouldn't be able to be served anywhere in South Texas. I could keep going. But, you see the point.

Rabbi
01-03-2013, 22:11
If that were the case, a lot of black folks couldn't get served any meals in states like Mississipi. White people wouldn't be able to be served anywhere in South Texas. I could keep going. But, you see the point.

Nah, who would do that? One or two places? People see green and everyone else wouldnt want to BE seen in such a place.

I also dont think South Texas is as racist against White people as you imply....even deep South Texas.

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 22:29
Nah, who would do that? One or two places? People see green and everyone else wouldnt want to BE seen in such a place.

I also dont think South Texas is as racist against White people as you imply....even deep South Texas.

I spent quite a bit of time in South Texas, they are proudly in your face so.

certifiedfunds
01-03-2013, 23:12
If that were the case, a lot of black folks couldn't get served any meals in states like Mississipi. White people wouldn't be able to be served anywhere in South Texas. I could keep going. But, you see the point.

The best restaurants in Mississippi are owned by black folks. This is one of my favorites and just a short ride from the deer camp:

Mr D Old Country Store Lorman MS - YouTube

I think the behavior would be despicable. Personally, I would use my own economic pressure to impart change in the business owner's policies. However, the government shouldn't have any place in telling a business owner who they must serve, no matter the reason.

In the end, today, business is so damned competitive -- all businesses -- that the problem would correct itself.

Kilrain
01-04-2013, 00:11
Again perhaps this varies in different areas. As I said, any of several times I have seen or read of the results of someone who decided they did not want the police at the location. Not that long ago I remember hearing an incident unfold at a sporting event here. The officers advised that someone did not want to let them through a gate. The radio response was to the effect of don't ask him, tell him, and if he stops you arrest him.

Are you saying that police officers can get free entrance to paid sporting events or the like simply because they are police officers? Man, I've been doing it wrong all these years.........

:supergrin:

*ASH*
01-04-2013, 01:20
Sorry, I didn't mean to interupt your video and make you cry:

Domestic Uprising: Defenders of the constitution, Rise of the American Patriots... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n0c9vM44x8)




:rofl::rofl: was not posting for me Chief , you are the one :crying::crying:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/KK_Koala/blooper.gif

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/KK_Koala/urk.gif

Kilrain
01-04-2013, 02:04
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/kilrain/FDR/output_0EcvlE_zpse42d9c03.gif

Can I play the gif game too?..........?

Kingarthurhk
01-04-2013, 04:22
The best restaurants in Mississippi are owned by black folks. This is one of my favorites and just a short ride from the deer camp:

Mr D Old Country Store Lorman MS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlljb2DnrLI)

I think the behavior would be despicable. Personally, I would use my own economic pressure to impart change in the business owner's policies. However, the government shouldn't have any place in telling a business owner who they must serve, no matter the reason.

In the end, today, business is so damned competitive -- all businesses -- that the problem would correct itself.

You would think, or hope, anyway. But, if you are open to the public, it means you are open to the public. Though, society seems to regulate itself, and not necessarily for the positive.

A partner of mine and I were in the deep south. We were of different races. Not that it mattered a whit one way or the other to either of us. He decided he was in the mood to hit up a Waffle house, because that was what he was in the mood for.

The minute we walked in, everyone stopped what they were doing and stared. Plain clothes, no uniforms, no indication of anything other than one of us wasn't white.

After a few seconds of cold stares from the "Joe Dirt" mullet crowd, where you could hear a pen drop and you could cut the tension with a knife, we opted to go elsewhere.

Sometimes society regulates itself, and not in a postive way. That is why places are required to not discriminate based on race, religion, or gender.

They may have been obligated to serve us as customers, but there was no way it was worth eating there. The explanation of a fight at a Waffle House wasn't worth it. It wasn't because we were intimidated, we just didn't want the inevitable fight one or more of them would start.

Kingarthurhk
01-04-2013, 04:37
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/kilrain/FDR/output_0EcvlE_zpse42d9c03.gif (http://http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/kilrain/FDR/output_0EcvlE_zpse42d9c03.gif)

Can I play the gif game too?..........?

Sure:

http://mkozo.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sparta_8b901e_1863522.gif?w=640

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 05:24
I am uncertain that a business owner can decide whether or not the police can be armed; I think at least in this state that is the authority of the legislature.

The owner did not say police could not be armed per se, but rather, he doesnt allow guns in his business...period.

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 05:26
Would patrol be considered official business?

Not on private property, no.

Bruce M
01-04-2013, 06:37
Are you saying that police officers can get free entrance to paid sporting events or the like simply because they are police officers? Man, I've been doing it wrong all these years.........

:supergrin:
Nahh they were working the event. The masterbadge expired a generation ago.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/kilrain/FDR/output_0EcvlE_zpse42d9c03.gif (http://http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/kilrain/FDR/output_0EcvlE_zpse42d9c03.gif)

Can I play the gif game too?..........?:rofl::rofl:

certifiedfunds
01-04-2013, 06:38
You would think, or hope, anyway. But, if you are open to the public, it means you are open to the public. Though, society seems to regulate itself, and not necessarily for the positive.

A partner of mine and I were in the deep south. We were of different races. Not that it mattered a whit one way or the other to either of us. He decided he was in the mood to hit up a Waffle house, because that was what he was in the mood for.

The minute we walked in, everyone stopped what they were doing and stared. Plain clothes, no uniforms, no indication of anything other than one of us wasn't white.

After a few seconds of cold stares from the "Joe Dirt" mullet crowd, where you could hear a pen drop and you could cut the tension with a knife, we opted to go elsewhere.

Sometimes society regulates itself, and not in a postive way. That is why places are required to not discriminate based on race, religion, or gender.

They may have been obligated to serve us as customers, but there was no way it was worth eating there. The explanation of a fight at a Waffle House wasn't worth it. It wasn't because we were intimidated, we just didn't want the inevitable fight one or more of them would start.

So the law effectively did nothing anyway.

Think of it this way: racism probably saved you from an afternoon of diarrhea

Bruce M
01-04-2013, 06:38
Not on private property, no.
So the police can respond for calls but not patrol on private property?

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 06:48
So the police can respond for calls but not patrol on private property?

Duh. What do you think they will do if there is a murder in your house, not come in??

Its a no-brainer...police should never patrol private property, but still maintain the obligation to respond to a crime.

badge315
01-04-2013, 07:42
I like the line where they got up to leave refusing to pay for their meal.

I wonder what would happen if a "normal person" was asked to leave because of creating a disturbance and refused to pay for their meal. As far as creating a disturbance, it said that other patrons complained, so it was a disturbance.

Applying your contorted logic, the LEOs were creating a "disturbance" as soon as they entered the premises. If creating a disturbance is grounds to eject patrons from the property, the officers should have been asked to leave before even being seated. Since they were not asked to leave at that point, the restaurant implicitly agreed that the officers being visibly armed did not, in and of itself, constitute a disturbance. So there goes your argument about creating a disturbance. The fact that some dunderhead customer was bothered by it does not give the restaurant the legal authority to demand payment for services not rendered.

John Rambo
01-04-2013, 07:49
A partner of mine and I were in the deep south. We were of different races. Not that it mattered a whit one way or the other to either of us. He decided he was in the mood to hit up a Waffle house, because that was what he was in the mood for.

Maybe they didn't like homosexuals? :dunno:

whoflungdo
01-04-2013, 08:04
Mississippi has similar laws that allow LEO to carry just about everywhere not prohibited by federal law. However, this does not give them the ability to defy private property owners wishes for no firearms on their property. They will not be charged criminally, but they can be denied entry.

This is an older opinion by the AG, but I believe it is still valid:

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?action=Search&cfid=1&cnt=DOC&db=MS-AG&eq=search&fmqv=c&fn=_top&method=WIN&n=1&origin=Search&query=Security+Mall+Firearm&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT26892054841&rltdb=CLID_DB958241954841&rlti=1&rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL2.92&service=Search&sp=msag-1000&srch=TRUE&ss=CNT&sskey=CLID_SSSA18241954841&vr=2.0

from the opinion: In response, please see the attached MS AG Op., Graham (November 21, 1997) which states that a constable has the authority to carry his weapon everywhere he goes while he is on official duty. However, private property owners may restrict the possession of weapons on their property. In such a case, a constable may enter such premises with a weapon only in the performance of his official duties, i.e. service of process, apprehending a criminal, etc.... A constable may be required to remove his weapon if he is going into the mall strictly for purposes other than the performance of his official duties.

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 08:07
Applying your contorted logic, the LEOs were creating a "disturbance" as soon as they entered the premises. If creating a disturbance is grounds to eject patrons from the property, the officers should have been asked to leave before even being seated.

Im not sure I agree with this. While Im not contending there was a "disturbance" in this case, I can see a "disturbance" escalating as more patrons become aware.

DanaT
01-04-2013, 08:13
Maybe they didn't like homosexuals? :dunno:

The are not a protected class everywhere

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 08:28
I can tell you here with certainty that they may be able to deny the officers service as they are not a protected class but they could neither refuse them entry nor mandate that the not carry their guns, in uniform or not.

Your missing the point...the issue has nothing to do with "mandating" a LEO not to carry, its about property owners rights. If a LEO(s) are NOT responding to a crime, a property owner may indeed restrict entry of ANYBODY carrying a firearm. Its their property, and its their right.

With that said, I do think its ignorant to exercise this right against LEOs...Im merely trying to make my point about private property.

badge315
01-04-2013, 08:59
Im not sure I agree with this. While Im not contending there was a "disturbance" in this case, I can see a "disturbance" escalating as more patrons become aware.

Even if that was true, the restaurant invited the officers in by seating and serving them. In any case, restaurants are not free to fabricate reasons to eject patrons and subsequently demand payment for services that were not rendered.

I'm not arguing whether or not Denny's was within their rights to ask the officers to leave. I was simply taking issue with DanaT's contention that the officers were somehow wrong for refusing to pay for the meals that they weren't allowed to consume. Using that logic, any restaurant could put a plate of food in front of you, then fabricate a reason to kick you out before you even took a bite and still demand payment.

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 09:16
In any case, restaurants are not free to fabricate reasons to eject patrons and subsequently demand payment for services that were not rendered.

I dont think anybody is saying otherwise.

I was simply taking issue with DanaT's contention that the officers were somehow wrong for refusing to pay for the meals that they weren't allowed to consume.

I did not see DanaT's post to that effect. If he does feel the officers should have paid after being asked to leave without finishing their meals, hes, well...a moron.

hooligan74
01-04-2013, 09:29
But, apparently sex offenders and convicted felons are allowed to eat there. Which one are you?


Neither, why? :dunno:

I also don't eat at Denny's and haven't for years - which has absolutely nothing to do with this scenario in IL.

Why the personal attack?

DanaT
01-04-2013, 10:32
I did not see DanaT's post to that effect. If he does feel the officers should have paid after being asked to leave without finishing their meals, hes, well...a moron.

What I said.

I like the line where they got up to leave refusing to pay for their meal.

I wonder what would happen if a "normal person" was asked to leave because of creating a disturbance and refused to pay for their meal. As far as creating a disturbance, it said that other patrons complained, so it was a disturbance.


So, again, what would an officer do if they were called to a Denny's because someone refused to pay for a meal since they were asked to leave because they were causing a disturbance? Would said non-LEO (i.e. "normal person") be charged with theft or would they not be charged with theft?

The point is, if a non-LEO would be charged with a crime, then the LEO should be charged. If non-LEO wouldnt be charged, then the LEO shouldn't be charged. I am not aware of any special exceptions in the law for LEO when it comes to theft.

I have looked at some of the trespassing laws in the state I live. It gives Police and Fire exceptions to trespassing when performing actions "acting in the course of his or her employment".

Here is how our laws are written:

As used in this section, "private property" means and includes private property where the public is a business invitee. A person who enters or remains in or at premises which are open to the public does so with license until such license is withdrawn. A license to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public.

It is very clear by our laws, you essentially are granted a "license" to be on in the public areas of a business open to the public until you are asked to leave at which time you are no longer invited. There is no requirement that a reason for the revocation of the invitation be given.

Someone eating lunch is not acting in the course of his or her employment.

eaglefrq
01-04-2013, 10:34
Isn't there a coffee shop, maybe in Seattle, that refuses to serve anyone in LE?

I believe that was the incident in Portland.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-officer-shown-the-door-at-anarchist-cafe-95584079.html

Mayhem like Me
01-04-2013, 10:44
What I said.




So, again, what would an officer do if they were called to a Denny's because someone refused to pay for a meal since they were asked to leave because they were causing a disturbance? Would said non-LEO (i.e. "normal person") be charged with theft or would they not be charged with theft?

The point is, if a non-LEO would be charged with a crime, then the LEO should be charged. If non-LEO wouldnt be charged, then the LEO shouldn't be charged. I am not aware of any special exceptions in the law for LEO when it comes to theft.

I have looked at some of the trespassing laws in the state I live. It gives Police and Fire exceptions to trespassing when performing actions "acting in the course of his or her employment".

Here is how our laws are written:

As used in this section, "private property" means and includes private property where the public is a business invitee. A person who enters or remains in or at premises which are open to the public does so with license until such license is withdrawn. A license to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public.

It is very clear by our laws, you essentially are granted a "license" to be on in the public areas of a business open to the public until you are asked to leave at which time you are no longer invited. There is no requirement that a reason for the revocation of the invitation be given.

Someone eating lunch is not acting in the course of his or her employment.

Nor would I make anyone who is allowed in then asked to leave mid meal pay for the meal that is a civil matter . Civilian cop or whomever. And my 30 years of handling these calls in this way backs up my assertion

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

GasTurbine
01-04-2013, 10:45
So, again, what would an officer do if they were called to a Denny's because someone refused to pay for a meal since they were asked to leave because they were causing a disturbance?

Nothing, since no law was broken.

Would said non-LEO (i.e. "normal person") be charged with theft or would they not be charged with theft?

They would not be charged as long as they didnt get an opportunity to finish their meal. They arent prepared to pay 50% of the meal they were served, nor even 95%...if they didnt get to consume 100% of the meal, its on the house.

The point is, if a non-LEO would be charged with a crime, then the LEO should be charged. If non-LEO wouldnt be charged, then the LEO shouldn't be charged. I am not aware of any special exceptions in the law for LEO when it comes to theft.

Since there is no crime, you point is moot.

I have looked at some of the trespassing laws in the state I live. It gives Police and Fire exceptions to trespassing when performing actions "acting in the course of his or her employment".

Having lunch is not one of them, and this point has already been made.

It is very clear by our laws, you essentially are granted a "license" to be on in the public areas of a business open to the public until you are asked to leave at which time you are no longer invited. There is no requirement that a reason for the revocation of the invitation be given.

Aside from some discrimination laws, yes.

Someone eating lunch is not acting in the course of his or her employment.

Im not sure what your argument is here. You lost me.

TBO
01-04-2013, 10:50
He has bias, but no working knowledge of the law, much less real world experience.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

DanaT
01-04-2013, 11:07
He has gray matter, but none of it functions correctly.

TBO
01-04-2013, 11:41
Im not sure what your argument is here. You lost me.
Recognize it for what it is, agenda.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

RussP
01-04-2013, 11:51
I believe that was the incident in Portland.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-officer-shown-the-door-at-anarchist-cafe-95584079.htmlYes, that's it.

Thank you...

JuneyBooney
01-04-2013, 14:04
Denny's has quite a rep w/cops if I recall...lol

They seem to call 911 on a frequent basis for service if I remember correctly....lots of action there after midnight. :rofl:It just shows how one jerk can make trouble for anyone.

rdm1962
01-04-2013, 18:59
I spent around 20 years as a Restaurant Manager. I was an Manager for Denny's for 6 of them. My best friends on a Friday and Saturday night bar rush were the cop's. They got me out of more than one fight with a drunk a-hole. As a matter of a fact one of these coppers is still an acquaintance and a great guy.
Ralph

GasTurbine
01-05-2013, 07:09
He has gray matter, but none of it functions correctly.

Thanks for confirming you are indeed a moron.

Take care, and good luck in life...you certainly need it.

GasTurbine
01-05-2013, 07:13
He has bias, but no working knowledge of the law, much less real world experience.

Yeah. Its obvious he is "slow" or something. Its actually sad...some people can get online and post to forums, but then lack even one tick of common sense.

Oh well.

Ermytraining
01-05-2013, 21:53
Should have asked the Manager to summon the police, then finish their meal, respond to the call, and told the manager they do not need to leave because they are in the act of fulfilling their duty. Problem solved.

eccho
01-05-2013, 22:11
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/belleville-cops-booted-from-denny-s-for-toting-guns/article_c8d1801b-fe5e-5d8f-9e9d-403f18b38948.html

Yes, they're talking about the standard side arm and the police were on duty on lunch break. They had their badges on their belts or neck chains outside their shirts.

Who would have that much of a problem with law enforcement eating at their restaurant? Money is money, and having cops hang around is basically free security in my opinion.

If it were my restaurant I'd give a discount to LE and permit holders :D

jkglock32
01-09-2013, 12:30
i was always under the impression that an officer who is on duty, is in fact on duty till there shift is over? is this not correct, this is a legitimate question, i am not being factious.

GasTurbine
01-09-2013, 13:02
i was always under the impression that an officer who is on duty, is in fact on duty till there shift is over? is this not correct, this is a legitimate question, i am not being factious.

These were plain clothes detectives, not uniformed officers. Either way, eating lunch is not part of their duties.

Bruce M
01-09-2013, 13:11
While eating lunch is not part of their duties, it appears they were on duty and within their jurisdiction. If there were, for instance a robbery while they were eating, would they be obligated to take action?

m2hmghb
01-09-2013, 13:58
These were plain clothes detectives, not uniformed officers. Either way, eating lunch is not part of their duties.

Eating lunch would mean they were on call and able to respond to incidents, at least around here.

TBO
01-09-2013, 20:52
On duty = on duty period, regardless of eatting lunch.

In my state, and others, a LEO has full powers on/off duty in their jurisdiction, period.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

Kilrain
01-09-2013, 21:27
On duty = on duty period, regardless of eatting lunch.

In my state, and others, a LEO has full powers on/off duty in their jurisdiction, period.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

My state also however that doesn't mean that a privately owned business is required to serve you and/or allow you to enter/remain in/on their property barring some legal reason for you to be there..........

This thread is silly.....

*ASH*
01-09-2013, 21:33
My state also however that doesn't mean that a privately owned business is required to serve you and/or allow you to enter/remain in/on their property barring some legal reason for you to be there..........

This thread is silly.....

truth be told ,lol

and yeah on my property and i tell ya to leave , you will leave .
happily or sadly .

Peace Warrior
01-09-2013, 21:56
It's all about the bottom line and has nothing to do with guns.

The denney's manager didn't want to give the Cops a discount, or the denney's was located "up north" and the Cops were black. I mean we all know how them northern denney's is with black folk.

Ohio Copper
01-09-2013, 22:34
I happened to be walking into a restaurant to eat my late night dinner when a waitress told me the two men who just walked out pulled a Dine n Dash.

I found them trying to leave in their car and they were both were arrested and charged with theft.

2913.02 Theft.

(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:
(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;
(2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;
(3) By deception;
(4) By threat;
(5) By intimidation.


It is petty theft.:upeyes:

Ohio Copper
01-09-2013, 22:35
It's all about the bottom line and has nothing to do with guns.

The denney's manager didn't want to give the Cops a discount, or the denney's was located "up north" and the Cops were black. I mean we all know how them northern denney's is with black folk.


I just wanted to tell you that you are never a let down.

Peace Warrior
01-09-2013, 22:56
I just wanted to tell you that you are never a let down.
I do what I can, when I can. :whistling:

GasTurbine
01-10-2013, 05:22
While eating lunch is not part of their duties, it appears they were on duty and within their jurisdiction. If there were, for instance a robbery while they were eating, would they be obligated to take action?

Are you slow? Of course our law enforcement would react, even if at lunch. Hell, even in my job I would have to react if TSHTF while at lunch. The only folks that wouldnt, would be like hourly rate factory workers that have a set lunch time, or the like.

Common sense is your friend.

Gallium
01-10-2013, 05:27
Are you slow? Of course our law enforcement would react, even if at lunch. Hell, even in my job I would have to react if TSHTF while at lunch. The only folks that wouldnt, would be like hourly rate factory workers that have a set lunch time, or the like.

Common sense is your friend.


Buddy, easy, this is GNG. Not sure how you made it to 1/2 doz years if your turbines get so easily bent.

When you are in GNG, common sense is your friend. :tongueout:

GasTurbine
01-10-2013, 05:31
Buddy, easy, this is GNG. Not sure how you made it to 1/2 doz years if your turbines get so easily bent.

Sorry, but I have had seemingly brain dead conversations with Mike before. Some will just never get it...I shall ignore him.

Gallium
01-10-2013, 05:42
Sorry, but I have had seemingly brain dead conversations with Mike before. Some will just never get it...I shall ignore him.


Just yanking yer chain. :supergrin: After 32 hrs of uptime I tend to get a bit ...silly. 1hr 17 min before shut-eye time. :faint:

Bruce M
01-10-2013, 06:26
Are you slow? Of course our law enforcement would react, even if at lunch. ....


If I had a dollar for every time my lunch was interrupted, cancelled, or cut short over the last three decades, I could buy the S&W 952 I want. I however consider myself fortunate that I nearly always have been able to have lunch ruined someplace other than at Denny's.


I also wish I had a few video clips of people over the years as the expression on their face changed from when they were convinced that they would not let me in or stay to when they realized that for a while their porcelain convenience was actually going to be a seatless stainless steel version.

Gallium
01-10-2013, 07:02
If I had a dollar for every time my lunch was interrupted, cancelled, or cut short over the last three decades, I could buy the S&W 952 I want....


I think those were discontinued...:faint: