Shiftless2
Well-known member
For my Canadian friends
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Yes.
Chasing a 12 year old could have resulted in something like a traffic death.
And a short chase would have been a successful deterrent.
Chasing into a restaurant is verboten.
That damages everyone in the entire restaurant.
And tripping someone running where they should not be, seems totally appropriate.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Until you're charged with assault.
And if it's in someplace like a restaurant you're endangering everyone sitting nearby - what happens when he lands on top of someone and you're responsible for their injuries as well as his.
I disagree.
What if someone gets up from a table and the guy runs into them?
The restaurant has the obligation to stop runners by any means possible.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Please cite the relevant law (and remember this is in Canada not the US ....)
A restaurant is private property so the employees get to set the rules against running.
Makes no difference in Canada vs US.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
That's not what you said. You claimed that the restaurant has the obligation ....
Or since, as you say, a restaurant is private property, is it a matter of law or corporate policy? And how will that question impact the result of any lawsuits?
Customers, waiters, etc., are all going to be against someone running after a 12 year old in a restaurant.
And what could the man intend if he caught the child?
It would likely be an arrestable offense on the part of the adult chaser.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Right. We believe you. Once again we're overwhelmed by your in depth legal knowledge (of another country's legal system).
Shiftless2
Well-known member
The same logic could just as easily be applied to the US actions in Iran ....
Surely there are examples of good sam's intervening, both in U.S. & Canada.
Any bystander / witness as jaded as me may not wish to intervene, unless a child is being physically assaulted by an adult (possibly a parent, possibly an abductor).
Some may believe a good sam is more safe to intervene if the good sam is armed. Not necessarily.
Even if fully within bounds of law, if a scuffle leads to defensive gunfire, there's a risk
a responding policeman will see a man with a gun (the good Samaritan) and shoot & kill him.
R5,
I think you've identified a significant distinction here.
Even if the restaurant owners may have one preference,
that preference may not be what actually happens in the restaurant's dining hall.
