Kroger Follows Walmart

a reply to: Identified

A BB gun, while a toy that I also had as a child and still own, I never once pointed it at anyone or any animal because it actually shot BBs which can "put your eye out". When I said I pointed with toy guns I meant Cowboy Revolvers cap guns, squirt guns and even - gasp- laser guns! Those don't shoot anything and kids and parents weren't scared of them back when I was a kid. It was called having an imagination.

Playing cops and robbers, or any such game, is an exercise for home, a friend's home, a playground... not for inside a store. I commend you on how you handled the kid who was playing in the store; I would have likely done the same. Had it been my child, I would not have permitted that kind of activity there.

Face it; we don't live in the same world that once was. Back in the old days, there were trucks in the school parking lot with loaded guns in the gun racks. After school and during breaks, some of us would walk out to the parking lot and show off our new rifle or shotgun to our friends. No one cared. The police, if they ever had to arrest a kid, would call their father out of earshot and ask if he needed some help... quite often, they would take the kid in, talking about how his father had said he was tired of dealing with him and if he did the crime, he should do the time. They'd lock him up for the night and the next morning, when the father showed up, the kid was harboring a much different attitude. That put so many kids back on the right path, I can't begin to count them all.

Today, guns of any sort, heck, drawings of guns, pointy fingers that look like a gun, anything that could resemble a gun, are all prohibited from anywhere near a school, with the penalty for possession being expulsion and imprisonment. The police do not call parents any more, except to let them know their kid has been locked up and where they can make bail. It's a different world, like it or not (I do not) and we have to live in it.

Next post:

True I was being hyperbolic. But I would suggest in today's world with Red Flag idiots you not broadcast your thoughts on kids playing with guns.

A fair enough suggestion, but to be honest, there is enough 'dirt' on me out there for anyone who wants to to socially hang me already. I really have no reason to worry about something that is already a done deal.

At least I'm old now, so there's a limit to what anyone can do to me.

No, Crawford wasn't a kid. Crawford also never once pointed it at anyone. He was swinging it with one arm at some points, much like you would with an umbrella if you are absentmindedly playing with it.

OK, so he was swinging it? I thought he raised it, but you corrected me that he didn't. Seems to me that is an exercise in semantics... could one of those swings been in the general direction of someone else?

I just think we need to look at this from the viewpoint of all involved. What were the police supposed to do? Confront him or not? They didn't know he was playing with a toy... they had information that he was armed and possibly dangerous. If they had waited about confronting him and he had been swinging a real gun around and shot someone, they would be responsible. If they confront him, and he makes a move, intentional or not, that is reasonably interpreted as a threat, they are now trigger-happy.

You can't have it both ways. Either the police get to intercede where they think it is needed, or they don't.

Again, the real culprit here is the caller. Crawford is guilty of not thinking... hardly a capital offense, but it does have consequences. The police are guilty of not properly assessing the situation... not exactly something that one can be expected to do perfectly every time. But the caller is guilty of causing the whole damn mess.

It's getting ridiculous in this country that kids have to be scared of playing.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.

A few years back, just before my son moved out, he and a couple of his friends (who I knew) wanted to target shoot. They walked away from the house to the middle of a hay field and shot up into the mountain. While they were shooting, a car pulls up on the road and starts yelling at them that they were endangering people! This is on our land away from any neighbors (and the next neighbors all target shoot themselves), far outside any city limits!

My son told the driver to mind his own business and he apparently left. When I found out about it when they got home, though, my first question was "Is he still there?" I will not allow that crap to enter my home and my land. If that meant dragging his sorry meddling butt out of that car and beating him senseless on the pavement, so be it. My damn land.

There's you something the social justice warriors can use against me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Cops aren't legally responsible to ever stop someone from committing a crime so I don't subscribe to that damn if they do damned if they don't.

I'm more of the camp that people need to stop thinking police are the answer to society's problems.

I don't know what the 911 callers game was. Maybe racism combined with embarrassment that he got scared by a toy and then embellished and outright lied about what Crawford was doing so he didn't look stupid and could be a hero. Whatever his problem he definitely should have had some sort of legal ramifications.

a reply to: Identified

Seems to me I heard that the cop who sat outside cowering when Parkland School was shot up is in some legal jeopardy now... as he should be. Anyway...

The police are there for two reasons: they are the power muscle when a situation is too much for an individual to handle, and cleanup after the fact. The problem seems to be that no one wants to engage any issue themselves... just call the cops and all will be well.

No, it won't. Life just don't work like that. Another thing we seem to agree on.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The same type of people that determine which potholes get repaired get to decide when/if I am to be protected? Let me just sign right on up for that.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think the Parkland guy is being charged for child neglect. I'm not sure in light of Warren v. District of Columbia how that is playing out unless they claim as a School Officer he had a special duty to protect because his particular assignment created the duty. Like in a prison where they have a care of duty.

I bet that this will give quite a few folks pause when deciding to be school resource officers...

He also is getting perjury charges which a crime more cops could easily get when they lie in police reports to cover for their mistakes.

Shouldn't private businesses be allowed to have a say in what is allowed into their premises.

I don't want guns in my house. Can gun owners say "Eff you, I can legally carry so I can bring whatever I want in your home."?

I'm okay if people feel they need weapons on themselves for whatever reasons, but gotta admit many gun onwers are selfish and inconsiderate.

But I guess it's like anything these days, when does your rights and feelings supersede mine?

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

How are many gun owners selfish and inconsiderate?

If someone has a concealed weapon how does that not hurt your feelings more than someone open carrying next to you?

Businesses can do what they want within the limits of the Constitution and State Laws.

My Rights and Liberties ALWAYS supersede your feelings. ALWAYS.

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

My Rights and Liberties ALWAYS supersede your feelings. ALWAYS.

Supersede my feelings, but do your rights and liberties take priority over mine?


Also thought OP was about OPEN CARRY not CONCEALED. I sure as hell didn't mention concealed weapons.

ATS, where cherry picking and changing things to suit ones self is a way of life. lol

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

What Rights or Liberties of yours am I Infringing on when I exercise my Rights?

Just give me one example.

I mentioned concealed because these requests do not stop or ban concealed weapons. They only request no open carry and I can not understand the logic of how people think stopping people from "seeing" the gun somehow makes it less scary or dangerous.

You didn't answer my question about how gun owners are selfish and inconsiderate.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Do you think you have the right to determine if others should carry a gun?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe if they were not distracted by making political statements, While disarming the public, business forgets to do their job...

a reply to: Bluntone22

About 700 Americans a year are killed by not drinking alcohol, alcohol withdrawal, and that has to be more than the number killed by "SBRs" because all rifles combined are used in fewer than half that number of homicides. Not drinking is about twice as deadly as rifles of every type combined.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Do you think you have the right to determine if others should carry a gun?

TheRedneck

No, I think a society as a whole should determine that.

But I think when it comes to private property, owner of said property should have complete control over what does or does not enter said property.

If a store doesn't want firearms or other weapons in their store, then they shouldn't be in the store regardless of their reasons why.
Gun owners have the 'right' to shop elsewhere if this is a problem for them.

If you owned a business or even in your own home, would you be happy if you had people dictating to you how you ran things? Would you be okay if you were forced to comply with their wishes despite your rules not harming anyone except for maybe hurting their ego's?

Is someones rights to bare arms, more important than your right to run something you built and owned the way you want to?

Where's the line? Who gets to draw it?

a reply to: Identified

See my reply to redneck.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

But I think when it comes to private property, owner of said property should have complete control over what does or does not enter said property.

But a property owner does not have complete control of who enters their property, particularly when that property is public use. Imagine a store denying entry to anyone who has dark skin. Imagine a store demanding that gay people not enter (we have already seen what happens just for not baking a custom cake). Imagine a store that demanded that police were not allowed to enter the premises.

Now, where the private property is a residence, the property owner can deny access to anyone they wish for any reason, with the sole exception of a police officer with a warrant. Therefore, yes, in the case of a private residence, demand that people not carry weapons all one wants. If someone can get a warrant from a judge to allow them to enter with a gun, fine, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

On private property designated by the owner for public use, like a store, the property owner has given up the right to refuse service unfairly. Even a business which proclaims "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" can only successfully refuse service with a reasonable explanation. The sign is only partly true; the rest of it is a bluff. Show a pattern of refusing service to black people and see how long that lawsuit takes to get filed.

There is even less control when the offers of the business are products instead of services. Unruly? Sure, they can be evicted and banned from the property. Thief? Yep, same thing. Random guy who wears a MAGA hat? Nope, you can get your butt sued off for that. That's why the police are called whenever someone is banned from the store: as documentation of cause.

So here is my position: a police officer should not have a greater right to self-protection than a citizen. Therefore, if police are allowed to enter the property on a regular basis, as is the case for Walmart and Kroger, there can be no prohibition against similar weapons of self-protection being similarly carried by citizens. If a police officer cannot enter at will, neither can anyone else and the property owner can set whatever standards they wish.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Supersede my feelings, but do your rights and liberties take priority over mine?

When they are in no way harming you? Yes, they do, or at the very least, are certainly just as valid as yours. Aren't they?

My using my rights in no way infringe upon you, or your rights.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Comparing skin colour to carrying a weapon?

Yeah I couldn't read past that terrible argument.

Call me when people can leave their skin at home or in the glove box.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Call me when you can bother to read.

TheRedneck

Well , where I live Krogers /Smith stores have serious problems with their customers being assaulted. A Few months ago man drove his truck though the front doors. This man gets out holding a knife swinging at people with it.

I'm another incident at Krogers - Smiths there was a drug deal gone bad ( in the store! ) that lead to shoot out in the parking lot. At that very store the next week police shot and killed a man threatening customer with his knife and bat

Then there was a drive by shooting that involved store employees that were the target. Many cars in parking area had bullet holes in them. People are always being assaulted at Krogers and Walmarts where I live.

I'm not making this up . The City is Albuquerque , NM. Land of crime. If anything you lean living here you either open carry or conceal carry, but you carry something to defend yourself . Ever paper spray is very effective . The other reason for crime at these stores is Albuquerque has very little police manpower. Which seems to be another problem.

Walmarts are #1 for crime in parking lots muggings , kidnappings, Rapes
There is even a Facebook page dedicated to crime at Walmarts and Krogers here in Albuquerque. There are some horrific stories told by customers . My jaw just dropped hearing about this women escaped being abducted. The parking lot security driver did nothing. Police never came either.


I don't shop at either of these stores anymore. I shop at the local air force base commissary. My wife calls it the ultimate gated community .
she loves it when the security forces do training and set up the big 50-Cals, on tripods at gate entrance. Says she's the safest shopper on the planet earth.

If any thing these stores need customers to be armed. Especially Walmart. And Krogers.

a reply to: Identified

I live in Indiana I was just in Kroger 2/3 of the people were open carrying two men were talking to a manager with guns on their hips they were not police the manager was laughing and carrying on so apparently it depends where you live