Man refusing to wear mask breaks arm of Target employee

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: highvein

Lulz.

More power to you for believing what you are typing.

That's the way I saw it too... Customer being assaulted by the store employee. Someone get's in my space liek that they are going to get worse than what they got.

The video shows the customers initiating the contact. If that's your definition of the customers being assaulted then fair enough.

It doesn't matter. Like I said before a few people are giving the customers a pass on ownership of the scenario for reasons the video doesn't back up. The majority are stating based off the video shown the customers are responsible since they started the contact.

in the end people are going to disagree and that's fine.

The problem is people not minding their own darn business. If you want to wear a mask, wear one. My choice not to wear one doesn't affect those who do in the slightest.

If the mask protects you so well, then what business is it of yours who else chooses to wear it or not?

Gryphon,

But I thought these issues (like cake baking) was already established legal fact now?

I hope this is another instance liberals will have to reap the seeds they've sewn, much like their appropriation of Me Too as a political tool/weapon and how badly its back firing on them RE: Biden's provable creepy behavior and current sexual assault allegations (from many sources).

originally posted by: JBurns
The problem is people not minding their own darn business. If you want to wear a mask, wear one. My choice not to wear one doesn't affect those who do in the slightest.

If the mask protects you so well, then what business is it of yours who else chooses to wear it or not?

But didn't the state order it? it's unfortunate they leave businesses, who are just trying to keep it going, to deal with the problem of non compliance.

a reply to: vonclod

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

The trick here is that the government is using a back door approach to forcing the company to enforce a government policy. The government cannot tell Target or anyone else that they have to evict customers who refuse to wear masks. But what they can do, and what they have done, is selectively allow only stores who enforce the policy to open. No, Target does not have to enforce the government order.... but if they don't they can't open either. Public safety, ya' know.

As for those who claim store employees cannot "get in the personal space" of customers... oh, yes they can. If someone comes onto my property and I tell them to leave, I can (and will) get all up in their "personal space" to enforce that if they refuse.

Oh, and Alabama does not require seat belt use for an adult in the back seat. Front seat, yeah, to keep you from throwing your head through a windshield. There's a padded seat in the way if someone is in the back seat. I don't agree with that law, btw... don't need some government trying to protect me from me. It's others besides me that I might somehow need protection from (although not likely there either).

TheRedneck

a reply to: opethPA

You wear a mask to protect others. If you are uninfected, the mask only protects you about 10% of the time. If you are infected, the mask protects others 70% of the time.

You should stay home if you're infected. But about 10-20% of infected people have been asymptomatic (no fever, no cough, no aches).

If someone is refusing to wear a mask, they are trying to infect you. Intentionally or unintentionally.