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

[The B]

That's a stretch:

Define "criminal trespass", esp vs ordinary trespass.

you dont have bubblegumin google?

ORS 164.205 – Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270

As used in ORS 164.205 (Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270) to 164.270 (Closure of premises to motor-propelled vehicles), except as the…

oregon.public.law

ORS 164.245 – Crim. trespass in the second degree

A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor…

oregon.public.law

ORS 164.255 – Crim. trespass in the first degree

A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person, (a) Enters or remains unlawfully in a…

oregon.public.law

ORS 164.265 – Crim. trespass while in possession of a firearm

A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters…

oregon.public.law

theres no such thing as "ordinary trespass" - you seem to be confusing the verb for the crime.

if youre trespassing- enter or remain unlawfully- youre guilty of the crime of criminal trespass. theres no ordinary trespass. if you inform someone they are trespassing, you've "trespassed" them.

 

[solv3nt]

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

Out of curiosity, does Washington law allow for bar bouncers to remove unruly patrons?

 

[bbbass]

you dont have bubblegumin google?

The bubblegum law you bubblegumming quoted as allowing bubblegumming physical force to be bubblegumming used to protect bubblegumming property specified "criminal trespass". It was bubblegumming YOUR bubblegumming quoted law, therefore YOU bubblegumming explain it. I don't feel the least bubblegimming obligation to bubblegumming look up what YOU bubbleguming mean.

theres no such thing as "ordinary trespass" - you seem to be confusing the verb for the crime.

if youre trespassing- enter or remain unlawfully- youre guilty of the crime of criminal trespass. theres no ordinary trespass. if you inform someone they are trespassing, you've "trespassed" them.

I'm not confusing anything. "ordinary" is an adjective, and "trespass" is a noun or a verb depending on how it is used. In the sentence I posted, It is used as a noun.

My problem with the statute you quoted originally is that if trespass is automatically illegal, then why did it specify that physical force could be used against "criminal trespass"? It is logical to think that there must be some diff in levels of trespass, since it would otherwise be redundant. If I said "criminal assault" one would wonder what kind of assault is not criminal. But then, I forgot that lawyers use lawyerspeak.

Thanx for the info. Still, you required me to read thru a bunch of legal jargon, when the simpler, and easier for us both , explanation would have been that "criminal trespass" refers to the ordnances where it is defined as illegal entry or remaining after being requested to leave. Which info you eventually provided, perhaps despite yourself, after a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[bbbass]

To nobody in particular:

AFAIK many many stores don't allow LP or any other employee to go hands on with miscreants. Too much liability. Pretty sure it's against Walmart policy, the local one doesn't challenge anybody leaving with merchandise unpaid for, and stores like Walgreen's have long let people walk out w/o paying or do other criminal stuff.

I THINK the policy is to call LE and have them deal with it.

But of course, somebody is going to ask me to prove it. So I'll just state that I am saying what I surmise, what I have heard/read/seen... not what I can prove.

Whatever.

 

[Nosferatu]

To nobody in particular:

AFAIK many many stores don't allow LP or any other employee to go hands on with miscreants. Too much liability. Pretty sure it's against Walmart policy, the local one doesn't challenge anybody leaving with merchandise unpaid for, and stores like Walgreen's have long let people walk out w/o paying or do other criminal stuff.

I THINK the policy is to call LE and have them deal with it.

But of course, somebody is going to ask me to prove it. So I'll just state that I am saying what I surmise, what I have heard/read/seen... not what I can prove.

Whatever.

Back when I worked at home depot, we couldn't touch anybody. Several times we had to literally watch someone walk out the door with $1k+ worth of power tools and all we could do is notify our manager, who would call the police, who would show up several hours later and take a statement.

The thieves know this.

 

[bbbass]

Back when I worked at home depot, we couldn't touch anybody. Several times we had to literally watch someone walk out the door with $1k+ worth of power tools and all we could do is notify our manager, who would call the police, who would show up several hours later and take a statement.

The thieves know this.

One of my grand-daughters worked as a night stocker at the local Walmart during the period when they were open 24/7. She watched people walk out with huge TVs, etc. The orders from mgt were to not try to stop anybody. Report to mgt. (of course they didn't bother.) Not even the mgr was allowed to try to stop anyone from stealing, or any other misbehavior. Call the POPO was the directive from Walmart Central.

This eventually caused our local Walmart to not be open 24hrs anymore. Too much loss.

Now that they only have 1 or two checkers open, one has to wonder how much pilferage is happening at the self-checkout stations... whatever it is, it must be cheaper than hiring more checkers.

 

[The B]

The bubblegum law you bubblegumming quoted as allowing bubblegumming physical force to be bubblegumming used to protect bubblegumming property specified "criminal trespass". It was bubblegumming YOUR bubblegumming quoted law, therefore YOU bubblegumming explain it. I don't feel the least bubblegimming obligation to bubblegumming look up what YOU bubbleguming mean.



I'm not confusing anything. "ordinary" is an adjective, and "trespass" is a noun or a verb depending on how it is used. In the sentence I posted, It is used as a noun.

My problem with the statute you quoted originally is that if trespass is automatically illegal, then why did it specify that physical force could be used against "criminal trespass"? It is logical to think that there must be some diff in levels of trespass, since it would otherwise be redundant. If I said "criminal assault" one would wonder what kind of assault is not criminal. But then, I forgot that lawyers use lawyerspeak.

Thanx for the info. Still, you required me to read thru a bunch of legal jargon, when the simpler, and easier for us both , explanation would have been that "criminal trespass" refers to the ordnances where it is defined as illegal entry or remaining after being requested to leave. Which info you eventually provided, perhaps despite yourself, after a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

youre just missing the distinctions, and they are kind of confusing. theres the word "trespass" by itself, which has a definition in the english language. but then theres the CRIME - and that crime is titled "criminal trespass." why they bothered to add the word "criminal" as if it makes a distinction, im not entirely certain. the criminal code has lots of statutes that are oddly and sometimes confusingly labeled.

it is possible to be trespassing and not be aware of it, and if youre earnestly unaware of it, you ARE trespassing, but not criminally trespassing. so the "criminal" part is likely there to emphasize that this person was not only where they werent supposed to be, they were criminally liable for it.

once youve been informed youre trespassing, if you dont immediately leave, youre now criminally trespassing.

 

[Nosferatu]

whatever it is, it must be cheaper than hiring more checkers.

plus self-checkouts don't call in sick or get pregnant.

 

[The B]

To nobody in particular:

AFAIK many many stores don't allow LP or any other employee to go hands on with miscreants. Too much liability. Pretty sure it's against Walmart policy, the local one doesn't challenge anybody leaving with merchandise unpaid for, and stores like Walgreen's have long let people walk out w/o paying or do other criminal stuff.

I THINK the policy is to call LE and have them deal with it.

But of course, somebody is going to ask me to prove it. So I'll just state that I am saying what I surmise, what I have heard/read/seen... not what I can prove.

Whatever.

this has been the trend for the last couple decades. even when i was doing it, a lot of stores were moving away from actual apprehensions, and i dont even know if i store i did LP for still does it. 50/50 odds id say.

i do still know some people in LP and know for a fact some of the smaller chains and plenty of independent stores still do it... and yea, they are exposing themselves to liability in doing so. better train your muscle well! we went through sit down classes on criminal and civil law and did 6 months of field training before we were "released" to do LP in stores... as such, we had very few lawsuits. but they did happen. i even caused one - but it wasnt for excessive force. the perp tried to claim he hadnt stolen the thing we arrested him for stealing. i personally wasnt named in the suit, but i understand they ended up settling out on it for some chump change.

 

[Nosferatu]

this has been the trend for the last couple decades. even when i was doing it, a lot of stores were moving away from actual apprehensions, and i dont even know if i store i did LP for still does it. 50/50 odds id say.

i do still know some people in LP and know for a fact some of the smaller chains and plenty of independent stores still do it... and yea, they are exposing themselves to liability in doing so. better train your muscle well! we went through sit down classes on criminal and civil law and did 6 months of field training before we were "released" to do LP in stores... as such, we had very few lawsuits. but they did happen. i even caused one - but it wasnt for excessive force. the perp tried to claim he hadnt stolen the thing we arrested him for stealing. i personally wasnt named in the suit, but i understand they ended up settling out on it for some chump change.

Geko45? Is that you? Glad to see you made it out of the mall alive!

 

[The B]

Geko45? Is that you? Glad to see you made it out of the mall alive!

eh? i is not a geko45

 

[bbbass]

plus self-checkouts don't call in sick or get pregnant.

And they show up for work and do what they are told, mostly... er, much of the time.... er, sometimes.

 

[Alexx1401]

Imagine if that were a black person brandishing.

Out of curiosity, does Washington law allow for bar bouncers to remove unruly patrons?

If you mean like in the "old days" of literally tossing them? Then no. They can try to work someone out the door and if the person being intoxicated takes a swing at them? Then it becomes a different story. They still have to be VERY careful here. Have not been into the club scene for a long time so no idea what its like now. The main driver is insurance. Few insurance companies are going to offer coverage for a place to hire people to act like that clerk did. For obvious reasons. Many bars that have a large crowd will now employ off duty Cops for this.

 

[Alexx1401]

One of my grand-daughters worked as a night stocker at the local Walmart during the period when they were open 24/7. She watched people walk out with huge TVs, etc. The orders from mgt were to not try to stop anybody. Report to mgt. (of course they didn't bother.) Not even the mgr was allowed to try to stop anyone from stealing, or any other misbehavior. Call the POPO was the directive from Walmart Central.

This eventually caused our local Walmart to not be open 24hrs anymore. Too much loss.

Now that they only have 1 or two checkers open, one has to wonder how much pilferage is happening at the self-checkout stations... whatever it is, it must be cheaper than hiring more checkers.

Its all a balancing act. There is a camera at each check out and its filming your hand movements as well as you from a couple angles. It is kind of interesting when one of the self checks calls the worker and she reviews to see what made it stop. I am sure someone monitors roughly how much free stuff goes out the door. From that someone decides what works and what does not. Before the holiday I stopped one day at the Fredies, had a cart full of bags. Get to the door and an employee is there wanting to see the receipt. Had I known they would ask I would have had it on top. I had dropped it in one of the many bags. I just told the girl its there, help yourself. She looked flustered and started to look. I was counting slowly in my head to 5. If I had got to 5 I was going to turn to the customer service, find the receipt and take a snap shot. Tell them take this back off my card, by, and walk out. Now if they had put a sign up where I came in clearly saying they were going to check I would have been fine. They did the next time I was there have a LARGE sign saying someone was going to be checking. I have to guess others did what I almost did.

 

[Knobgoblin]

plus self-checkouts don't call in sick or get pregnant.

Or organize . Or ask for raises. Or seek medical benefits through employer.
At least the machines are made in the USandA . Unlike most of the cheap, lead soaked, Chinese trash that wallyworld sells.

Can't tell I hate that place, huh?

 

[Alexx1401]

Or organize . Or ask for raises. Or seek medical benefits through employer.
At least the machines are made in the USandA . Unlike most of the cheap, lead soaked, Chinese trash that wallyworld sells.

Can't tell I hate that place, huh?

Tech never sleeps. Yes its sad so many are losing jobs to it but, no putting the genie back. When self check first hit I LOVED it. I have never treated shopping as and outing for social hour. I get what I want, I want to just pay and go. All my life I sat in lines watching people chatting up the clerk, showing pictures of the kids, the when it was all done start looking for their checkbook. Like they just remembered they had to pay
The self checks will eliminate a lot of jobs. Its just the way it goes. We no longer pay people to sweep the street by hand any more either like they did when I was a kid. I do not want to go back to that just to make jobs.

 

[American123]

Its all a balancing act. There is a camera at each check out and its filming your hand movements as well as you from a couple angles. It is kind of interesting when one of the self checks calls the worker and she reviews to see what made it stop. I am sure someone monitors roughly how much free stuff goes out the door. From that someone decides what works and what does not. Before the holiday I stopped one day at the Fredies, had a cart full of bags. Get to the door and an employee is there wanting to see the receipt. Had I known they would ask I would have had it on top. I had dropped it in one of the many bags. I just told the girl its there, help yourself. She looked flustered and started to look. I was counting slowly in my head to 5. If I had got to 5 I was going to turn to the customer service, find the receipt and take a snap shot. Tell them take this back off my card, by, and walk out. Now if they had put a sign up where I came in clearly saying they were going to check I would have been fine. They did the next time I was there have a LARGE sign saying someone was going to be checking. I have to guess others did what I almost did.

Yeah…. Absolutely will not comply with that action since I did not agree to a contract to be able to shop at that store (Costco I did). For starters - if someone truly is shoplifting, they won't give two bubblegums and just walk past. This is the typical bologna that inconveniences the law abiding and the criminals continue without a care.

 

[Certaindeaf]

The 10% of truckers pouting are a concern, but at least 90% are on the road performing one of the most important services in any country.

#thankthe90percent

As long as you get yours, huh?

 

[American123]

The 10% of truckers pouting are a concern, but at least 90% are on the road performing one of the most important services in any country.

#thankthe90percent

Pouting is a strange verb to describe protesting for bodily autonomy. Having the government have what can amount to ownership of your body isn't really what the constitution promotes.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

All of that over a gas receipt?