Bellevue, WA - Confrontation over mask policy: Customer pulls gun on Bellevue gas station employee

[Member 53328]

Yes, you're right. But that's not the discussion point from what I posted. The discussion point was whether the store clerk, absent any threat to his life or property, had the right to physically accost the Karen as a de facto agent of the state to enforce the mask mandate.

Personally I'm all for people using physical force as long as it is limited to the minimal degree needed to neutralize the issue. People need to start feeling consequences for their tantrums left and right. I could care less. We know the police cant enforce anything nowadays. I'm not advocating violence on eachother but if you need to grab someone's wrist and apply some joint manipulation to remove someone from your private business (whatever the issue-mask, belligerent, intoxicated, harassment, etc. ) after every verbal avenue has been tried and failed. I'm ok with it. People need to learn that actions have consequences. With that being said the minute you go hands on with someone you have to assume the risk you are taking whether it's violence or criminal/civil court. Read the situation and make a decision. But you own that decision. Both parties own the reward/consequence for the actions they decide to take. That whole responsibility thing is a real b!tch. Haha.

 

[Alexx1401]

how the hell is anyone in here criticizng the employee, let alone saying he's guilty of anything, LET ALONE A FELONY? once he told her to put a mask on or leave, and she didnt, he had every right to put hands on her and i would have done the same. thats the goddamn law, people -

That big talk is fun. If you actually put those words into action you are going to get an education in how the law works real fast. WA law does not allow you to assault someone because you told them to leave the place you work. I suspect you know this maybe not. If you really believe what you are saying let me know how it works out when you put it to the test

 

[Alexx1401]

Well, you got a reference to a law that says he had 'every right to put his hands on her' if she did NOT leave ?

And I am asking for specifics - not just conjecture.

I highly doubt anybody has the right to put their hands on someone unless they were physically aggressed by a person first.

Not to mention there is NO WAY an employer would allow this. It would leave them open to a HUGE liability pay out when someone gets hurt. I suspect this clerk is already gone. His employer if they let him stay will end up having to pay out when he loses his temper and can not control himself.

 

[Member 53328]

That big talk is fun. If you actually put those words into action you are going to get an education in how the law works real fast. WA law does not allow you to assault someone because you told them to leave the place you work. I suspect you know this maybe not. If you really believe what you are saying let me know how it works out when you put it to the test

Just out of curiosity…. If that's the case then why did the LEOs say that he was within his rights and did not use an abusive amount of force to remove her? Or does each agency dictate the letter of the law differently?

 

[VanceInWA]

Just out of curiosity…. If that's the case then why did the LEOs say that he was within his rights and did not use an abusive amount of force to remove her? Or does each agency dictate the letter of the law differently?

That's a good question, and looking forward to Alexx's answer. But two considerations that may play into the way the officer on the scene spoke. First, police always have discretion. Second, being a police officer does not mean he or she actually "knows" the law. Leave that to the lawyers, and even then it may not be finally determined until a court decides.

 

[Alexx1401]

Just out of curiosity…. If that's the case then why did the LEOs say that he was within his rights and did not use an abusive amount of force to remove her? Or does each agency dictate the letter of the law differently?

If you want to get the WRONG info on a law, ask a Cop. Anyone who wants to "believe" that because some Cop claimed the clerk was ok, by all means try it. Make sure you have REALLY good insurance first. If you do it where you work you are going to be out of a job.

 

[Member 53328]

If you want to get the WRONG info on a law, ask a Cop. Anyone who wants to "believe" that because some Cop claimed the clerk was ok, by all means try it. Make sure you have REALLY good insurance first. If you do it where you work you are going to be out of a job.

Kinda scary. The people who enforce the laws don't know them. I personally have dealt with this first hand as well. I appreciate the honest answer.

 

[BAJ475]

That big talk is fun. If you actually put those words into action you are going to get an education in how the law works real fast. WA law does not allow you to assault someone because you told them to leave the place you work. I suspect you know this maybe not. If you really believe what you are saying let me know how it works out when you put it to the test

From what I understand, WA law does allow a person to use force to eject a trespasser. But that does not answer the question of when the amount of force becomes unreasonable and therefor battery. Furthermore, B seems convinced that the customer was a trespasser. There seems to be no dispute that the clerk asked her to leave if she were not going to wear a mask. So the question is did she have the right to refuse, given that he had not provided her with the receipt she requested?

 

[BAJ475]

Not to mention there is NO WAY an employer would allow this. It would leave them open to a HUGE liability pay out when someone gets hurt. I suspect this clerk is already gone. His employer if they let him stay will end up having to pay out when he loses his temper and can not control himself.

Very good point. While others have posted that they think that the clerk was authorized, I have serious doubts.

 

[RVTECH]

he didnt physically force her to put a mask on, nor did he physically force her from the store for not wearing a mask. he physically forced her from the store because she was being a bïtch and refused to leave when ordered to.

However was there any other reason (other than the mask issue) she was 'being a bltch' ?

It appears the reason he 'forced her from the store' was precipitated by the fact she would NOT put on a mask - which ultimately resulted in her (and wrongfully so) becoming a 'bltch'.

 

[The B]

That big talk is fun. If you actually put those words into action you are going to get an education in how the law works real fast. WA law does not allow you to assault someone because you told them to leave the place you work. I suspect you know this maybe not. If you really believe what you are saying let me know how it works out when you put it to the test

we just witnessed those words put to the test.

 

[BAJ475]

If you want to get the WRONG info on a law, ask a Cop. Anyone who wants to "believe" that because some Cop claimed the clerk was ok, by all means try it. Make sure you have REALLY good insurance first. If you do it where you work you are going to be out of a job.

Actually, some of them have a decent understanding. But as VanceInWA stated, you will only know when the court rules.

 

[The B]

dude was well within his rights. ive done the same - and much "worse" - dozens of times and not only was i never questioned by law enforcement, more applicable: i was never sued.

 

[RVTECH]

ive done the same - and much "worse" - dozens of times and not only was i never questioned by law enforcement

This is pretty bold talk - care to describe a couple (from your 'dozens' of times) you did 'much worse' ?

 

[Knobgoblin]

This mask mandate is nothing more than Democrat Sharia Law.

Refusing entry to a building that is open to the public based solely on your lack of political/religious garb is discrimination.

Also, if the brandisher were a POC, then there would be a dozen activists picking outside the Quickie Mart. "How dare he disrespect our Queen" "Never put your hands on a WO-MAN!"

Brandishing is more of a white folks move. If we're racially profiling here.

Other persons let the metal holla as soon as they pull.

And yes , there's plenty of "data" to back this. Especially lately, lol

 

[BAJ475]

dude was well within his rights. ive done the same - and much "worse" - dozens of times and not only was i never questioned by law enforcement, more applicable: i was never sued.

You have just been lucky or the facts were significantly different. And to any others who think that the clerk did not use unreasonable force consider the following. Yes, he had the right to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser. That is WA law. But did he use more than reasonable force? I think that the answer is clearly yes. All he had to do to get her to leave was give her the receipt she had requested, no need to touch her. Therefore, any level of force beyond that becomes excessive and unreasonable. The lady customer may have been a bubblegum or Karen but that does not mean she will not be able to find a lawyer that will sue the clerk for battery based on the use of excessive force and the store on the basis of respondeat superior. Given that his act was intentional, there probably is no insurance coverage.

 

[The B]

This is pretty bold talk - care to describe a couple (from your 'dozens' of times) you did 'much worse' ?

no, it's not really - this isn't even particularly unusual stuff for people who work in loss prevention in urban areas. during the time i spent at our "flagship store" downtown and MOST of my contacts made with the public as an LP was removing problem people - not popping shoplifters. we did plenty of that too, but removing problem people- mental problems, drug zombies, drunk and obnoxious, otherwise irate about our return policy, whatever, didn't matter the reason - was a regular task. the policy was that once they've already disturbed the peace of the store, there's nothing for it but to remove the source of the commotion as swiftly as possible. we did it the same way every time: ask you to leave once, twice, and then give the third with a warning "last time i ask; im about to physically remove you," and if you didn't shut up and head to the door, we went hands-on. once the decision was made to eject, there's no more discussion about it, no calming down and staying, no concessions granted - you're asked twice, warned, then you're grabbed... and how much fight you put up only determines whether you're physically escorted to the front door, or to the security office in handcuffs.

we didn't always have to go hands on with irate people, but several times a week, at least, we'd get some asshat that wanted to plant and scream profanities at you- we snatched em up, and they usually didn't like it, so it usually got rough. we absolutely had some people leave in ambulances - not a lot, but yea every once in a while.

i could tell lots of stories - but what's the point? i might be making it up anyway. my argument that this dude was within the law stands on independent evidence. the law authorizes businesses to eject customers and authorizes them to use force if necessary. he executed a swift ejection, she's now going to jail and he's not.

there just isn't much else to argue about. im not hypothesizing, im summing up what happened.

 

[BAJ475]

no, it's not really - this isn't even particularly unusual stuff for people who work in loss prevention in urban areas. during the time i spent at our "flagship store" downtown and MOST of my contacts made with the public as an LP was removing problem people - not popping shoplifters. we did plenty of that too, but removing problem people- mental problems, drug zombies, drunk and obnoxious, otherwise irate about our return policy, whatever, didn't matter the reason - was a regular task. the policy was that once they've already disturbed the peace of the store, there's nothing for it but to remove the source of the commotion as swiftly as possible. we did it the same way every time: ask you to leave once, twice, and then give the third with a warning "last time i ask; im about to physically remove you," and if you didn't shut up and head to the door, we went hands-on. once the decision was made to eject, there's no more discussion about it, no calming down and staying, no concessions granted - you're asked twice, warned, then you're grabbed... and how much fight you put up only determines whether you're physically escorted to the front door, or to the security office in handcuffs.

we didn't always have to go hands on with irate people, but several times a week, at least, we'd get some asshat that wanted to plant and scream profanities at you- we snatched em up, and they usually didn't like it, so it usually got rough. we absolutely had some people leave in ambulances - not a lot, but yea every once in a while.

i could tell lots of stories - but what's the point? i might be making it up anyway. my argument that this dude was within the law stands on independent evidence. the law authorizes businesses to eject customers and authorizes them to use force if necessary. he executed a swift ejection, she's now going to jail and he's not.

there just isn't much else to argue about. im not hypothesizing, im summing up what happened.

Thank you for your reply. As I see it what you are describing is significantly different such as people with mental problems, drug zombies, drunk and obnoxious and otherwise disturbing the peace. Also, you are describing a scenarios where you are politely requesting a person causing a commotion to leave. Not once but three times. You are not describing a situation where you initiated the ruckus or went hands on with a person that was merely and calmly requesting a receipt. Based on what you posted above, I withdraw may comment about you being lucky, because you are now describing a person acting in a professional manner. You are also not describing situations where you are using more force that necessary.

 

[The B]

Thank you for your reply. As I see it what you are describing is significantly different such as people with mental problems, drug zombies, drunk and obnoxious and otherwise disturbing the peace. Also, you are describing a scenarios where you are politely requesting a person causing a commotion to leave. Not once but three times. You are not describing a situation where you initiated the ruckus or went hands on with a person that was merely and calmly requesting a receipt. Based on what you posted above, I withdraw may comment about you being lucky, because you are now describing a person acting in a professional manner. You are also not describing situations where you are using more force that necessary.

well i guess my response to that is these sorts of distinctions are probably gonna be addressed under tort law, not criminal law. that's why i brought up having never been sued. it's entirely possible to be liable- guilty, essentially- of something civilly but not criminally. what constitutes excessive force in criminal law is a higher threshold than in civil law. this is how stores can get sued by people their LPs beat up where a criminal investigation was done and no charges were filed... but a simple majority of civil court jurors decides was too much.

 

[Alexx1401]

Actually, some of them have a decent understanding. But as VanceInWA stated, you will only know when the court rules.

The operative word there was "some" People want to take what one supposedly said and say "see, I can grab someone I told to leave and physically remove them." As I warn people all the time. Do something because someone "told you" it was ok and end up in front of a black robe? The black robe will care none what you were told no matter who told you. If you want to get really bad info on laws, ask a Cop. Most of them ARE NOT lawyers.