Oh Yeah -- I'd Own The Galveston Bank Of America!!

[InMAGAWeTrust]

2 hours ago, Realville said:

Why don’t you say WILL do time in jail? Because likely it’s a very slippery slope the bank and police officer went down in pushing a issue comparable to jaywalking. Your living in a fantasy world if you don’t see the big picture. Keep worshiping the letter of the law on this BS overblown discretion used in this situation.

I hear you about ignoring or hating laws that are not applicable or are just stupid.. but this is a private business we’re talking about here right?

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Her refusal and resistance is much more than jaywalking. 

Not in his world. If some people don’t like laws, it is a slippery slope. 

I see quite a few slippery slope comments on various forums. Many of the claimed ss situations happened many years ago. One like the SCOTUS decision that agrees with a state’s right (10th Amendment)  to force vaccines is over 100 years old.

 That ss must take a while to gather momentum...  

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

I hear you about ignoring or hating laws that are not applicable or are just stupid.. but this is a private business we’re talking about here right?

That part always seems to go over the heads of some people. I have seen so many threads on this topic and people get emotional about “liberty!”.....

Yet completely ignore the liberty of private property.

Conservatives/libertarians that claim to want less government intervention (and I agree) in this case want the government to step in and force a private property owner to not control access to their own property. I wonder if they believe it should be that way at their home. Anyone that wants to come in, can and you cannot stop them or set rules.

 

[Reagan]

19 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Not in his world. If some people don’t like laws, it is a slippery slope. 

I see quite a few slippery slope comments on various forums. Many of the claimed ss situations happened many years ago. One like the SCOTUS decision that agrees with a state’s right (10th Amendment)  to force vaccines is over 100 years old.

 That ss must take a while to gather momentum...  

You keep skating around my question with the "some people don't like laws."  I've asked numerous times what law did she originally break to get asked to leave.  And all you can say is she was trespassing.  I get the trespassing laws.  But -- again -- if she had an account and went in to do business, there had to be more than just trespassing.  So -- since you keep clouding the issue with"people don't like laws", then tell me what law she broke to be asked to leave a place she had every right to be in in the first place.  And, if you still can't understand the question, I'll keep asking until you do!

[1989NDN]

Initially, she did not break a law. What she did though was disregard a public policy of a private business, i.e., she failed to wear a mask inside the premises of the business.  When asked to comply with the policy, she refused.  Since she refused, the business asked her to leave. The business has that right. She refused to leave. Now, she is committing a crime of trespassing.  All she had to do was comply with the policy or leave. She refused to do both.  Let’s use an analogy. When a patron visits a restaurant, he or she must abide by the restaurant’s policies. For example, no shirt, no shoes, no service. Other high-end restaurants require some patrons to wear a coat and tie. If you refuse, they will ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, you’re committing the crime of trespassing. Just like if you go to McDonald’s with no shirt or no shoes, McDonald’s can ask you to leave.  If you refuse, you’re trespassing.  This lady refused to comply with the bank’s policy of wearing a mask inside the building.  The bank asked her to leave. She refused. That’s criminal trespassing.  If you do not like the policies of the business, do not do business there.  Call them, close your account by phone or online, and have your money wired elsewhere.  No need to go there in person and escalate the situation.  Use common sense.

Go Indians.  Peace.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

You keep skating around my question with the "some people don't like laws."  I've asked numerous times what law did she originally break to get asked to leave.  And all you can say is she was trespassing.  I get the trespassing laws.  But -- again -- if she had an account and went in to do business, there had to be more than just trespassing.  So -- since you keep clouding the issue with"people don't like laws", then tell me what law she broke to be asked to leave a place she had every right to be in in the first place.  And, if you still can't understand the question, I'll keep asking until you do!

Let me ask you this...Do you have to break a law to be asked to leave?

[InMAGAWeTrust]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That part always seems to go over the heads of some people. I have seen so many threads on this topic and people get emotional about “liberty!”.....

Yet completely ignore the liberty of private property.

Conservatives/libertarians that claim to want less government intervention (and I agree) in this case want the government to step in and force a private property owner to not control access to their own property. I wonder if they believe it should be that way at their home. Anyone that wants to come in, can and you cannot stop them or set rules.

 

A voice of reason! Will ya look at that 

[Realville]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That part always seems to go over the heads of some people. I have seen so many threads on this topic and people get emotional about “liberty!”.....

Yet completely ignore the liberty of private property.

Conservatives/libertarians that claim to want less government intervention (and I agree) in this case want the government to step in and force a private property owner to not control access to their own property. I wonder if they believe it should be that way at their home. Anyone that wants to come in, can and you cannot stop them or set rules.

 

If someone’s access to their bank account was at my house an they had a signed agreement to have access their money before the mask nonsense started then I would expect them to come to my house an get their money. You don’t get to change the rules after the agreement was signed. I doubt there was a mask clause in the agreement. Since you agree with the clown rules why don’t the bank make it to where you can only be wearing a mask and a thong to enter the bank. I mean a thong is just as effective against the China Virus as a Mask is in my opinion. What if every member of that bank decided they were tired of the clown rules. Do you call the police on all of them. But but technically the letter of the law against trespassing says blah blah blah...

[Realville]

15 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

A voice of reason! Will ya look at that 

Says the voice that can never answer a question when presented with fact or truth.

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Let me ask you this...Do you have to break a law to be asked to leave?

No.  But the the rules have to be posted.  And can somebody be "violently" arrested for being ask to leave when no law was broken.  If it say you can't come in without shoes.  Can you legally be arrested for doing so?  Maybe.  But I doubt it would stand up in the end.  

Anyway, back to case at hand.  Are you saying she didn't have an account there and didn't have business in the bank?  And that she was just walking down the street and then decided to enter this bank to start problems?  Then they said she was trespassing and then they "violently" arrested her.  Is the what you are saying happened?  Is so, I would agree with.  But -- I think there's more to it than that.  What say you?

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, Reagan said:

You keep skating around my question with the "some people don't like laws."  I've asked numerous times what law did she originally break to get asked to leave.  And all you can say is she was trespassing.  I get the trespassing laws.  But -- again -- if she had an account and went in to do business, there had to be more than just trespassing.  So -- since you keep clouding the issue with"people don't like laws", then tell me what law she broke to be asked to leave a place she had every right to be in in the first place.  And, if you still can't understand the question, I'll keep asking until you do!

I haven’t skated anything. I have answered the same question twice in the previous page. 

I will answer it again. She did not violate any law prior to trespassing. There is no legal requirement to justify telling someone not to be on your property. There is no requirement to tell the person, officer or DA the reason. 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, Realville said:

If someone’s access to their bank account was at my house an they had a signed agreement to have access their money before the mask nonsense started then I would expect them to come to my house an get their money. You don’t get to change the rules after the agreement was signed. I doubt there was a mask clause in the agreement. Since you agree with the clown rules why don’t the bank make it to where you can only be wearing a mask and a thong to enter the bank. I mean a thong is just as effective against the China Virus as a Mask is in my opinion. What if every member of that bank decided they were tired of the clown rules. Do you call the police on all of them. But but technically the letter of the law against trespassing says blah blah blah...

Her contract with the bank doesn’t mention masks. It probably doesn’t mention clothing either. What does that have to do with anything? 

I will answer this again since a couple of times doesn’t seem to be enough. There is no contract that allows her access to the bank lobby with no rules. The Americans with Disabilities Act says that you can deny access if it is for safety of other patrons of the business but even in this case, she made no such claim of a disability. Her only stance was and is, I don’t have to.  If they denied a person access because the person was in a wheelchair or walked with crutches, that would violate the ADA because it cannot have an effect on someone else. She was denied for not wearing a mask which is a health concern for other people.  The bank is required to make reasonable accommodations. That could be walking up to a drive through since she claimed to be pulling a rig or they could have brought the papers outside to her. 

But again, she never claimed that she couldn’t wear a mask, only that she didn’t have to comply. 

Her response should have been to leave and discuss it outside.  She chose instead to violate the law, which she already had before the officer arrived. Even on the police body cam, she was making no contractual demand. She said the governor told her through his executive order that she could stay. She was wrong, the officer told her she was wrong and she could have stepped outside to discuss it. She chose to stand on her ignorant of the law ground.

There is no constitutional or Texas legal grounds for her to demand being on that property.

But I can feel the response that coming.... what if you don’t like the law...

[Realville]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Her contract with the bank doesn’t mention masks. It probably doesn’t mention clothing either. What does that have to do with anything? 

I will answer this again since a couple of times doesn’t seem to be enough. There is no contract that allows her access to the bank lobby with no rules. The Americans with Disabilities Act says that you can deny access if it is for safety of other patrons of the business but even in this case, she made no such claim of a disability. Her only stance was and is, I don’t have to.  If they denied a person access because the person was in a wheelchair or walked with crutches, that would violate the ADA because it cannot have an effect on someone else. She was denied for not wearing a mask which is a health concern for other people.  The bank is required to make reasonable accommodations. That could be walking up to a drive through since she claimed to be pulling a rig or they could have brought the papers outside to her. 

But again, she never claimed that she couldn’t wear a mask, only that she didn’t have to comply. 

Her response should have been to leave and discuss it outside.  She chose instead to violate the law, which she already had before the officer arrived. Even on the police body cam, she was making no contractual demand. She said the governor told her through his executive order that she could stay. She was wrong, the officer told her she was wrong and she could have stepped outside to discuss it. She chose to stand on her ignorant of the law ground.

There is no constitutional or Texas legal grounds for her to demand being on that property.

But I can feel the response that coming.... what if you don’t like the law...

You still never answered my question. If every member of that bank decides to close their account in the same manner this woman did because of the fake fear rules does the bank call the police on all of them?  A business should not be able to enforce fear mongering to the public especially after the fake mandate was lifted. She could have been pulled off to the side an peacefully allowed to close her account. You also never answered my question about a business making the public wear a thong and mask only in their business to do business? I know it’s silly but where does this idiocy stop? This bank will end up settling in the end with this lady and her attorney for their inability to resolve this issue peacefully off to the side. I believe there is more to this story than meets the eye. I agree it could have been handled differently but you don’t get to yell fire in a theater like this bank did when there is no fire. Maybe she should have just  said she was a illegal alien an she would have been  left alone or better yet put in $395 night hotel for 6 months at the taxpayers expense. We enforce all laws or no laws. We don’t get to pick an choose. The hypocrisy of the laws in this country is nauseating.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Realville said:

You still never answered my question. If every member of that bank decides to close their account in the same manner this woman did because of the fake fear rules does the bank call the police on all of them?  A business should not be able to enforce fear mongering to the public especially after the fake mandate was lifted. She could have been pulled off to the side an peacefully allowed to close her account. You also never answered my question about a business making the public wear a thong and mask only in their business to do business? I know it’s silly but where does this idiocy stop? This bank will end up settling in the end with this lady and her attorney for their inability to resolve this issue peacefully off to the side. I believe there is more to this story than meets the eye. I agree it could have been handled differently but you don’t get to yell fire in a theater like this bank did when there is no fire. Maybe she should have just  said she was a illegal alien an she would have been  left alone or better yet put in $395 night hotel for 6 months at the taxpayers expense. We enforce all laws or no laws. We don’t get to pick an choose. The hypocrisy of the laws in this country is nauseating.

You keep making political arguments and I have not played politics.

On page 2 of the governors executive order he specifically said that a private business could enforce mask and trespassing laws apply.

You can say it’s fake news, you can say it’s fear mongering or you can call it anything you wish. It is legal, it is a routine trespassing call for police officers for everything else and she was given multiple warnings. She stated there and she stated on the news media interview that her intent was to uphold her rights per the governors order. For one she has no such right and the second thing is, that is not what the governor said. 

Because she chose to get her news off the Internet, she is in this trouble.

I can just about assure you that if this was anything except a mask, you would not be on her side. All we would do is have to change the new story to she came in topless or she was making threatening comments or she was being loud and obnoxious and some of the same people would say good, arrest her. They toss it the word mask and all of a sudden it’s something else. 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Realville said:

You still never answered my question. If every member of that bank decides to close their account in the same manner this woman did because of the fake fear rules does the bank call the police on all of them?  A business should not be able to enforce fear mongering to the public especially after the fake mandate was lifted. She could have been pulled off to the side an peacefully allowed to close her account. You also never answered my question about a business making the public wear a thong and mask only in their business to do business? I know it’s silly but where does this idiocy stop? This bank will end up settling in the end with this lady and her attorney for their inability to resolve this issue peacefully off to the side. I believe there is more to this story than meets the eye. I agree it could have been handled differently but you don’t get to yell fire in a theater like this bank did when there is no fire. Maybe she should have just  said she was a illegal alien an she would have been  left alone or better yet put in $395 night hotel for 6 months at the taxpayers expense. We enforce all laws or no laws. We don’t get to pick an choose. The hypocrisy of the laws in this country is nauseating.

And you ask a hypothetical question, what if more people did the same thing or all at once. I don’t know I’m not the manager of that bank. Maybe they would have the masses against them and they would give up or maybe they would lock the door and let one person in at a time if they were a mask. You would have to ask the bank manager what he would do, not me. 

[InMAGAWeTrust]

Such a stark divide between the normal and sane republicans like TVC... and then the new trumplican crazies who believe everything they see on Facebook 

[Realville]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You keep making political arguments and I have not played politics.

On page 2 of the governors executive order he specifically said that a private business could enforce mask and trespassing laws apply.

You can say it’s fake news, you can say it’s fear mongering or you can call it anything you wish. It is legal, it is a routine trespassing call for police officers for everything else and she was given multiple warnings. She stated there and she stated on the news media interview that her intent was to uphold her rights per the governors order. For one she has no such right and the second thing is, that is not what the governor said. 

Because she chose to get her news off the Internet, she is in this trouble.

I can just about assure you that if this was anything except a mask, you would not be on her side. All we would do is have to change the new story to she came in topless or she was making threatening comments or she was being loud and obnoxious and some of the same people would say good, arrest her. They toss it the word mask and all of a sudden it’s something else. 

Why did the Governor do away with the mandate? Is that sneaky virus on going to select businesses like the that particular bank? Most businesses are giving customers to choose what they think is best for them. You still failed answer some of my previous questions.

Fully vaccinated people are testing positive for Covid. The whole thing is a stupid joke of epic political proportions. But please continue to tell us about the black letter law of the clown rules. 

 

[Realville]

1 hour ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Such a stark divide between the normal and sane republicans like TVC... and then the new trumplican crazies who believe everything they see on Facebook 

tvc is most likely in some  type of law enforcement who sucks off the taxpayers teat an never LOST a pay check or business due to the clown rules so he is required to obey the clown rules in order to keep sucking.

[InMAGAWeTrust]

44 minutes ago, Realville said:

tvc is most likely in some  type of law enforcement who sucks off the taxpayers teat an never LOST a pay check or business due to the clown rules so he is required to obey the clown rules in order to keep sucking.

Wow I must be in bizarro world.. first it was CB, now the krazies are coming for TVC lol

[Realville]

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

And you ask a hypothetical question, what if more people did the same thing or all at once. I don’t know I’m not the manager of that bank. Maybe they would have the masses against them and they would give up or maybe they would lock the door and let one person in at a time if they were a mask. You would have to ask the bank manager what he would do, not me. 

You know the silliness that I am getting at you just don’t want to admit or your just that gullible. Lol

[bullets13]

not sure how i missed this before... but in response to the title of the thread:  no, you wouldn't.  

[bullets13]

On 3/17/2021 at 4:48 PM, Realville said:

If mask are truly effective an everyone else was wearing one then what was the problem. The discretion used by the bank was over kill. They should have just let her close her account an give her money an be done with it. Maybe she had a medical reason we don’t know that.  She obviously is a member of a bank whose rules she does not agree with that’s why she’s closing her account. She’s not buying a bag of potato chips. She’s going get her money from a private bank that she is a member of whose making money off of her money. Now the bank is about to pay a lot more than what she had in there. I hope she sues the 💩 out of them. Mandate my rear end.

Sues them for what, exactly?  Enforcing rules in their private business?  Getting hurt while resisting arrest for trespass in their private business?  I don't follow.  She has several other options to get her money out of the bank.  She was not there for that purpose, she was there trying to become a martyr.  It's refreshing that for once only the simplest minded are supporting her, and that most folks with any common sense at all think she's a moron.  

[bullets13]

On 3/16/2021 at 8:14 PM, Realville said:

Why are we vaccinating a virus thats curable?

because for some it becomes incurable?  I know (knew) 3 people that died before getting a chance to take the vaccine.  And these weren't feeble 85-year-olds wasting away in nursing homes.  

[bullets13]

On 3/21/2021 at 7:32 AM, Realville said:

Locked up for going get her own money from a bank that she is a member of....seriously? Seek help.

you're delusional.  you sound exactly like the liberals who say stuff like "he was murdered by police for selling a little weed" about some criminal who gets shot by police after resisting arrest and pulling out a weapon when they try and arrest him for selling a little weed.  she wasn't arrested for trying to get her money out of the bank.  she was arrested for trespassing in an attempt to make a political statement.  she's a moron.  quit apologizing for her stupidity.  

[5GallonBucket]

She should ve just said she has asthma

or walk in with a drink in hand