Posted on 07/19/2022 5:44:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz
The good Samaritan who shot and killed the gunman who opened fire in the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana on Sunday afternoon reportedly broke the property's policy against weapons.
The suspected shooter entered the mall on Sunday carrying a rifle and multiple magazines and opened fire in the food court, killing at least three and injuring three before he was shot to death. Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said the suspected shooter was killed by a "good Samaritan with a handgun."
The mall is owned by Simon Property Group, and the group's code of conduct, last updated in April of 2020, lists "No weapons" as number three.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
There are no charges to press. Unless he was previously asked to leave the premises and refused, he can't even be charged with trespassing in Indiana. The "no gun" signs in Indiana have no weight of law behind them beyond trespassing. It is literally no difference, legally, than a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.
Of course they can, restaurants enforce dress codes all the time. No tie? Get out.
Cops? You’d have to be a special kind of stupid to think a cop on duty with official business can’t go anywhere with his weapon.
And as far as your last point, Yes, you can set standards if you’re the owner but you can’t discriminate by the usual things or violate the ADA doing it. Of course you’re shooting yourself in the foot by doing so, demanding all men where pants to enter the store is actually not illegal, but it’s a guaranteed to close your doors.
Go into a upscale diamond cutter/ designer outlet wearing flip flops and cutoffs, you’ll be asked to leave before you take a step in there, and they are a public outlet. I know this because I saw it happen 33 years ago buying my wife’s designer wedding ring.
As of July 1st, 2022, Indiana is a “Constitutional Carry” state. I do still have my lifetime CCW, but it is not needed any longer.
“Your constitutional rights end when you are in someone else’s place of business. “
You go to far.
1. The US Constitution records rights which pre-exist the US Constitution.
2. I have the free speech right to say “No” when in someone else’s place of business.
3. I have the liberty right to leave when in someone else’s place of business, all else being equal.
4. I have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures when in someone else’s place of business.
5. They certainly can’t quarter soldiers in my house in time of peace without my permission when I’m in someone else’s place of business.
What’s a place of business?
Hang on to it, in fact I’m making my son get one anyway.
What can be done can be undone, if there are too many problems they can change it back again.
But he’ll be OK. Breaking rules for the greater good is OK. You know, like burning buildings during a peaceful protest. Wait, that was a LAW...
(Alinski says make them abide by their own rules...)
Clarification - he’s a HERO, and unless there’s a big sign on the door saying it’s a felony to bring a gun in, mine would have been on my hip, too. (Until it was needed.)
In Indiana, property rules are not laws. You do not have any legal jeopardy in ignoring them unless you are asked to leave by the property owner and then you disobey them when asked to leave. Simons were not enforcing their so called rules.
This may not be the case in every state but in Indiana it is. Same goes with masks. If a business says you have to wear a mask even if there is no law that says you do, then you can ignore them unless asked to wear one or leave.
No, he actually won't. This is Indiana and the Greenwood area (just south of Indianapolis) is pretty conservative. He's already been cleared by FBI and Local Police. Our Stand Your Ground laws protect the Good Samaritan from legal action once the shooting is deemed justified.
Good Samaritan laws will protect Dicken from any charges. Right?
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.
***lists “No weapons” as number three.***
So, would they allow an armed cop on the premises? Then why not a civilian with a CCW permit?
Good thing there was an armed civilian there to stop this madness.
So the implication is that, “Only the police should shoot a mass murderer... and then we have an anti-police riot.”
The only way for the property owner to enforce their “rules” is for them to employ armed guards at their entrances along with metal detectors and employees assigned to search all bags, purses and packages carried by their customers into the store. Without those efforts they can not ensure that no weapons will be brought into the establishment. I would love for the families of the victims in this incident to sue the mall for failure to provide proper security to them since they have a “rule” that customers can not have weapons on their property. Once they restricted the ability to self defense by banning weapons they assume the responsibility to provide adequate security/protection to their customers.
The “rule” is not a “law” so no harm no foul plus the CCW carrier proved this rule is really stupid.
Here in Texas, “No Guns Allowed” signs are legally unenforceable unless they meet the strict posting standards of the Texas law.
Known as 30.06 (concealed carry) and 30.07 (open carry) signs, they must have specific size contrasting lettering and be posted at all entrances to the establishment before it can legally be enforced.
Any other sign is a policy sign and the owner can ask you to leave or secure in your vehicle.
The Simon properties I have seen here have only a natty little sign with a list of rules at the entrances to the parking lot, one of which is “No Weapons.”
Of course there are exclusion places identified by law (Bars, Schools, etc).
(Do I need the /sarc?)
I read the post, and the OP was infuriating, but read the responses as well.
I agree with about 75% of them, which is a new record over there and makes me think that there are a whole lotta people like Freepers hiding out there.
The OP pretty much got toasted, as did the idiots who wanted the agenda furthered by the good guy with a gun not being there, even though they didn’t have the testicular fortitude to say it outright but it was plain as day under the surface fo what they wrote.
A clarification, please. Did you mean to imply at your place of business or even extending to wherever such employee might be on company time. Perhaps you meant in more limited fashion, directly while doing activities to accomplish company's mission?
Do the Company's wishes for employee conduct also properly limit any and all rights the employee might otherwise have while away from Company's place of business? What would apply absent a mutually-signed Employment Agreement, which, of course could bind a multitude of other not otherwise enumerated activities.
That is because here is no constitutional right to wear or not wear a particular kind of clothes in a restaurant. However, if the restaurant has a dress code which does cause actual constitutional rights to be impacted then the restaurant cannot enforce that aspect of the dress code.
A dress code which says ties required for men will probably pass scrutiny. A policy which says "no yarmulkes" is clearly illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.