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.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Its basic principles.
First of all, we do not want adults chasing children.
We not only want to defend children, but physical assault on a child is very dangerous.
But chasing a child into a restaurant harms all those who are eating or working there.
The country has no choice over what the laws have to be in those situations.
I disagree.
It is Kyiv who started deliberately murdering over 30k ethnic Russian natives of the Ukraine, and it the Ukraine who should be sanctioned for the crimes they started.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
The country (the entity that passed the laws in the first place) have no choice??
This looks to me like a distinction between law, and practice, Venn diagram as follows: O O
Laws are supposed to be based on basic human morality and instincts.
If a country violates those principles with bad legislation, it has not really changed what is legal, but has just caused the whole country government to then become illegal.
Some deviation between law and practice is always going to happen, but when the government become too deviant, it has to be destroyed and we start over.
I doubt we're very far apart philosophically here R5.
Daylight between us may be more semantic than ideological.
I'm not skilled enough to prevent my attempt to debate / clarify the term -illegal laws-,
too great a risk of it devolving into profitless squabble.
I offer the following insight: for good or ill, if conduct is supported by statute, it's legal.
Arguably the only entity duly empowered to declare a statute illegal is a law court, SCOTUS in the U.S.