New Procedures at huntington bank

[clgustaveson]

You sure like that rolling eyes icon. Rather arrogant of you, don't you think?

If you don't like something someone says in this thread, may I suggest either debating it, or ignoring it, instead?

I am more arrogant than I would like to be, but that is a smilie face eye rolling. You were implying lawyers aren't wrong... I found that funny and decided to bite.

 

[Roadie]

No I am pretty sure you are correct.

IC 33-35-6 provides for the detention of a shoplifter only upon PC by the owner or agent. Even then that detention is limited under tht law.

Otherwise, I can't find any other provision for detention by a private party (which a business owner obviously is) to detain someone outside of the regular citizens arrest law.

ETA: Dang, scooped again.

Now that you mention it, I seem to recall that IC being brought up in a thread about the Wal Mart door nazis trying to detain people that refuse to show their receipt. At least, I think that was here, lol.

 

[finity]

can you name a case where anyone was charged & convicted of tresspass for breaking a rule posted on a sign , in Indiana and without being asked to leave & not being given a chance to leave ?

Exactly.

Thanks for the assist.

You (clgustavson) told me before to read the case law. I was just asking you to point us to it so we can all learn what you say you know. If you do & it supports your claims then I will bow out & apologize immediately.

 

[clgustaveson]

Isn't what I said, and the IC, the same thing?

He gets a thumbs up and I get an eye roll? lol
You are something else..

I wasn't rolling my eyes at the content of your post, only your qualifier.... is that better (only problem I am a mann...) or is that better?

 

[Roadie]

I am more arrogant than I would like to be, but that is a smilie face eye rolling. You were implying lawyers aren't wrong... I found that funny and decided to bite.

Ah, mea culpa.

It is my experience that IANAL isn't meant to imply Attorneys are right, just that I, as a simple poster, am not one, and therefore may have less of an understanding than they are supposed to have. Key word being, supposed.

 

[clgustaveson]

can you name a case where anyone was charged & convicted of tresspass for breaking a rule posted on a sign , in Indiana and without being asked to leave & not being given a chance to leave ?

Ok let me preface this by saying I KNOW that she was released, however the point here is that in this case the sign "No Trespassing" acted as an agent to deny entry. The reason the case was overturned was because she did not enter beyond that point.

No.?18A04-0402-CR-120. - BLAKNEY v. STATE - IN Court of Appeals

Now this is the same situation, this individual did enter beyond that point and the conviction was upheld.

No.?18A02-0402-CR-192. - ALVES v. STATE - IN Court of Appeals

 

[singlestacksig]

Ok let me preface this by saying I KNOW that she was released, however the point here is that in this case the sign "No Trespassing" acted as an agent to deny entry. The reason the case was overturned was because she did not enter beyond that point.

No.?18A04-0402-CR-120. - BLAKNEY v. STATE - IN Court of Appeals

Now this is the same situation, this individual did enter beyond that point and the conviction was upheld.

No.?18A02-0402-CR-192. - ALVES v. STATE - IN Court of Appeals

IN both those cases it was a blanket NO tresspass sign.. IT was not a conditional sign..
yes, lots of people have been convicted of tresspass when the sign was to all persons no tresspass, but can you show a case where someone was convicted of tresspass based on a condition listed on the sign ? such as no booze, no guns, no bare feet ??

 

[williamrights]

I did not read all the threads but a local bank here put up a no gun sign I said why while closing my accounts. The manager said it was to cut down on robberies. I then said why not just put up a no robbery sign. The look on his face was priceless. As if well that is stupid. He did not realize that sign would have no weight with criminals.

 

[clgustaveson]

IN both those cases it was a blanket NO tresspass sign.. IT was not a conditional sign..
yes, lots of people have been convicted of tresspass when the sign was to all persons no tresspass, but can you show a case where someone was convicted of tresspass based on a condition listed on the sign ? such as no booze, no guns, no bare feet ??

You are failing to see a fundamental point, a "No Weapons" sign is not what we are discussing. A sign indicating NO Weapons is not the same as a sign that indicates no entry with weapons.

We are arguing over moot point as there are likely no cases because density scanners are the only way, and it is unlikey someone with those scanners would allow the person to enter, and doubtfuly ever pushed it.

The sign clearly indicates you should be advised there will be consequences if you attempt to enter. The bank has squashed the threat and there is no need for them to waste time and PR by pressing that issue.

The sign is the equivelant of a no trespassing sign, not the equivelant of a no weapons sing.

 

[singlestacksig]

You are failing to see a fundamental point, a "No Weapons" sign is not what we are discussing. A sign indicating NO Weapons is not the same as a sign that indicates no entry with weapons.

We are arguing over moot point as there are likely no cases because density scanners are the only way, and it is unlikey someone with those scanners would allow the person to enter, and doubtfuly ever pushed it.

The sign clearly indicates you should be advised there will be consequences if you attempt to enter. The bank has squashed the threat and there is no need for them to waste time and PR by pressing that issue.

The sign is the equivelant of a no trespassing sign, not the equivelant of a no weapons sing.

IF a no guns sign = a blanket no tresspass sign a bank still can not hold you for any amount of time.. you can not detain someone for just tresspass..

 

[clgustaveson]

IN both those cases it was a blanket NO tresspass sign.. IT was not a conditional sign..
yes, lots of people have been convicted of tresspass when the sign was to all persons no tresspass, but can you show a case where someone was convicted of tresspass based on a condition listed on the sign ? such as no booze, no guns, no bare feet ??

Go drive your car down the Monon Trail, past where it says "No Motor Vehicles Beyond This Point"... Tell me if that does not hold the same weight. It is the perfect example of a conditional No Trespassing.

 

[clgustaveson]

IF a no guns sign = a blanket no tresspass sign a bank still can not hold you for any amount of time.. you can not detain someone for just tresspass..

Quit bringing this in a full circle. With the gun there is reasonable suspicion of threat.

 

[Roadie]

I did not read all the threads but a local bank here put up a no gun sign I said why while closing my accounts. The manager said it was to cut down on robberies. I then said why not just put up a no robbery sign. The look on his face was priceless. As if well that is stupid. He did not realize that sign would have no weight with criminals.

Isn't that amazing! and sad..

Licensed Gun Owners are statistically among the most law abiding citizens, but these businesses think by keeping US out, they keep criminals out too. Ludicrous.

Do they honestly think THIS is what will happen?
]

 

[Roadie]

Quit bringing this in a full circle. With the gun there is reasonable suspicion of threat.

From the afore mentioned case:

The simple act of trespass, without the threat of imminent violence or destruction of property, or actual violence or destruction of property on the part of the trespasser, does not sanction the use of unreasonable force by a landowner or his agent to terminate the trespass.

Therefore, if a threat of use of force against property is to constitute a breach of the peace, that threat must be immediate. This is in accord with our supreme court’s most recent pronouncement in Price.

(emphasis mine)

If I read that correctly, your example of "reasonable suspicion" would not fly. You are still operation under the assumption that carrying a gun is considered, in and of itself, a threat. Can you provide any case law backing up your premise?

Simply carrying a gun is no more a threat, than driving a car is cause for suspicion of intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. The gun is an inanimate object, which takes the actions of an individual to MAKE it a threat.

 

[singlestacksig]

Go drive your car down the Monon Trail, past where it says "No Motor Vehicles Beyond This Point"... Tell me if that does not hold the same weight. It is the perfect example of a conditional No Trespassing.

Has there been a case of someone being arrested for that, under tresspass law , with out being asked to leave ?
Or under the many motor Vehicle laws that cover this ?
most likely a person would be given a moving violation, and asked to leave..

edit; IC 14-16-1-23 puts force of law behind "No Motor Vehicles Beyond This Point" sign...

 

[clgustaveson]

From the afore mentioned case:

(emphasis mine)

If I read that correctly, your example of "reasonable suspicion" would not fly. You are still operation under the assumption that carrying a gun is considered, in and of itself, a threat. Can you provide any case law backing up your premise?

Simply carrying a gun is no more a threat, than driving a car is cause for suspicion of intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. The gun is an inanimate object, which takes the actions of an individual to MAKE it a threat.

Can you break any law and carry a gun?

IMHO every measure you state is met.

 

[Roadie]

Anyone have a copy of that Indiana Gun Laws book??? lol

 

[Roadie]

Can you break any law and carry a gun?

IMHO every measure you state is met.

Sure can. Does a traffic stop change into "threatening a police officer" because of the presence of a gun??

You still havent proven how merely carrying a gun is a threat. It is an OBJECT and does not play into any legal situation unless USED, either by simply pointing it at someone, or pulling the trigger. There isn't even a brandishing law in Indiana, so if it is not illegal to simply pull your gun out of your holster, how could it be considered threatening to have one holstered??

 

[williamrights]

I want to find the article from Minnesota they published a few years after they got concealed carry. It was full of numbers like non permit holders were something like 40 times more likely than permit carriers to have a DUI. I am nut sure of that exact number but they were all grossly emphasizing how law abiding gun owners were. If anyone finds that article pm me with it I want a copy.

 

[clgustaveson]

Sure can. Does a traffic stop change into "threatening a police officer" because of the presence of a gun??

You still havent proven how merely carrying a gun is a threat. It is an OBJECT and does not play into any legal situation unless USED, either by simply pointing it at someone, or pulling the trigger. There isn't even a brandishing law in Indiana, so if it is not illegal to simply pull your gun out of your holster, how could it be considered threatening to have one holstered??

A traffic stop is not always a violation of the law. That being said, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a law abiding citizen with no intent to cause harm would not violate a posted sign. Thus, it is reasonable IMO for the security force to assume a threat, if it were my house, depending on who you were, I might.