Man refusing to wear mask breaks arm of Target employee

a reply to: American-philosopher

That should be a violation, the law should read occupants under 18 must comply and the service must be offered to all passengers.

Just goes to show how much leverage insurance companies have over our rights. Look at any law built for stupid proofing I bet an an insurer was behind it.

They're the only benefactors, the public still dies in stupid ways, but they get to offer settlements per basis.

a reply to: TheLead

Just goes to show how much leverage insurance companies have over our rights. Look at any law built for stupid proofing I bet an an insurer was behind it.

That is quite true, but when you dig down to the roots of these precedent setting laws/rules(over reactions sometimes)..it's generally stupid people that made it happen. I'm talking in general of course.

a reply to: vonclod

In a sense yes, it passes through congress's hand, and a person died doing something stupid.

The dead person is just an excuse.

Insurer's and companies with a new safety product leverage the sympathy plea against the public.

Lawmakers love it, they get kickbacks and have new control measures in place. Insurers pay less claims and business has product mandated through regulations.

We're unfortunately the ones that come out looking stupid...

We're just the greyhound at the back of the pack chasing other greyhounds who think they are chasing a rabbit.

a reply to: opethPA

I hope he likes jail food sprinkled with the prospect of Covid?

Ah well, take what he gets, after all your reap what you sow.

a reply to: opethPA

(........watched the video I linked and are somehow trying to absolve the customers of their poor behavior? )


Well Yes . This is Still a Free Country who's Citizens are Protected by the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights . They are Free to Act like A Holes and Maybe Even Get Arrested if they Like , but you Cannot Condemn them for Expressing themselves , Ah , Can You > ? Hmm...........

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: opethPA

(........watched the video I linked and are somehow trying to absolve the customers of their poor behavior? )


Well Yes . This is Still a Free Country who's Citizens are Protected by the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights . They are Free to Act like A Holes and Maybe Even Get Arrested if they Like , but you Cannot Condemn them for Expressing themselves , Ah , Can You > ? Hmm...........

Yes I can condemn them for escalating and acting the way they did.
Voice your opinion, take your business some place else.
Act the way they did in the video and you aren't doing anything to do with the Constitution , you are just being a DB.

They Live was a solid movie by a horror classic in John Carpenter .
That has 0 to do with how the DB acted in that video.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: vonclod

In a sense yes, it passes through congress's hand, and a person died doing something stupid.

The dead person is just an excuse.

Insurer's and companies with a new safety product leverage the sympathy plea against the public.

Lawmakers love it, they get kickbacks and have new control measures in place. Insurers pay less claims and business has product mandated through regulations.

We're unfortunately the ones that come out looking stupid...

We're just the greyhound at the back of the pack chasing other greyhounds who think they are chasing a rabbit.

Part of Nancy Pelosi's 3 trillion dollar bill requires federal loans to lobbyists who write the bills for Congress to pass. Let me repeat that, loan to lobbyists who write the bills for congress to pass.

Why TF do we elect people to serve and make millions during their time of service when they don't even write the laws we the serfs have to abide by?

originally posted by: VeeTNA
a reply to: Boadicea

what about the "essential employees"?

Shall they just refuse to assist the customers who refuse to go by those rules?

Um... do what you gotta do.

They are working because they have to, not because they want to be dictators. Suppose your loved one works there, and some jackass comes in and refuses to comply with that business's policy of WEARING A MASK. If the patrons refuse, that employee can just go home. What if they ALL go home, because reckless, selfish shoppers don't want to wear a freaking mask?

Then there's no one to help them. Cuts both ways.

If you want to shop there, respect the rules. Simple.

Excuse me? Did you not see or just ignore the last line of my comment:

And any customers that aren't happy can shop elsewhere if they so choose.

And to expand on this part of my comment --

...businesses certainly have every right to do so.

-- business have have right to do whatever the hell they want to do. They can demand their employees wear masks and/or their customers wear masks; or they can establish designated times and schedules for those who wish to wear masks, and whose who don't, and for both at the same time. And just like customers can shop elsewhere if they so choose, employees can work elsewhere if they so choose -- within the same company or find another. How your company chooses to deal with uncooperative customers and their employees is between you and them.

I will do whatever I can to avoid wearing a mask, and will make whatever alternate arrangements I can in order to do so. I will do what works for me, respecting other people's rights to do what works for them, including business owners. I won't force anyone else to do a damn thing to protect me.

And as for the essential worker, I've been championing every one since the gitgo, and pointing out frequently that staying safe at home and protected is privilege only possible because of the essential workers keeping the world going and exposing themselves every day.

Finally, your pitiable attempt at emotional blackmail and bullying is neither necessary nor appropriate. And definitely not appreciated.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: opethPA


In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA If Citizens of Said State , they have a RIGHT to Act that Way , and If Necessary , be Arrested for such Actions . Do I Make Myself CLEAR Here ? Question - [snipped]

Really? lulz

I was born in and have lived on the East Coast of America my whole life..16 years of that in Philadelphia, I hear that city had something to do with Independence so really this is me caring about you telling me to GFY about being a US Citizen or not.

No where in my OP or in any subsequent post did I say anything about people not being able to act a certain way..What I said is the customers in that video are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

a reply to: TheLead

I see your point, however I doubt we could ever get the public to wear near hazmat protection.

A mask will stop a percentage of spoken and other form of droplets. Its not perfection by any means. Any reduction is helpful. I have seen some of the crappy masks in used and I’m sure they are barely functional.

If the idea is to reduce the initial viral load transmitted, I think masks can be helpful .

a reply to: spacedoubt

I have no doubt proper equipment could be helpful, but as you say most are extremly inadequate.

Its the principal that you can be forced to wear something that doesn't protect you or those around you for the perception of safety.

Especially when you consider the possible transmission through your eyes that we're not trying to negate.

As i said in another thread the mask most are using do little to prevent transmission, it just gives them a sense of comfort that leads to complacency.

The only nominal change likely to be seen is the uptick in bacterial infections.

Its the wear your mask or your a murderer crowd along with the healthcare professionals that are acting as PPE nazi's that spurred my intrigue to see how many actually know anything about what they fear.

With the pee joke meme, the double layer of protection is an N-95, but we're talking about freeballing in fishnets for all intensive purposes. They dont want you to wear the mask that MAY be somewhat helpful.

a reply to: opethPA


Really ? You sound a Little bit Philadelphian Liberal Commieish to me . Oh , and by the way . you Did Not Happen to Opine your Views on the Constitution And The Bill Of Rights that I Mentioned coming from OUR Country's Seat Of Liberty and ALL . I Wonder Why > ? Hmm............

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: opethPA


I see a guy trying to stop another guy from walking up on him, the other security guard then pushed the customer into the shelving. The customer's friend comes to the rescue of the assaulted customer. All over a freaking mask. Some people can't wear masks because of asthma or other ailments. Is Target going to deny them service?

Some on here will argue that Target has a right to deny service, and they do, but when they assault their customers it becomes another issue entirely. Could you imagine the implication that would have been thrown around if the Christian wedding Cake maker would have assaulted the gay couple?

Ummm...I have asthma...and am allergic to just about every environmental allergen on the planet...and I wear masks...

I wear them traditionally when I mow the lawn because of the numerous allergens off gassed by grass and weeds as their cut and mulched...I wear them when I do woodworking...and I also use respirators...

I always use the 3M N-95...with the valve in the front...asthma sufferers have difficulty...exhaling...thus the valve...

Much better than the N-95...is the N-100 filter for respirators...for both organic vapors and chemical gas...


As for the rest of your post...I try not to live in what if land...although it is fun to speculate on different scenario’s...

YouSir

Some people with asthma can't breath through masks. There are people who have panic attacks when something covers their mouth. Not everyone is the same.

What if land is where some great ideas are born.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: opethPA


Really ? You sound Commieish to me . Oh , and you Did Not Mention your Views on the Constitution And The Bill Of Rights that I Mentioned . I Wonder Why > ? Hmm............

LOL, whatever floats your boat.
I really could care less what I do or dont sound like to you.

a reply to: opethPA


FREEDOM is a Terrible Thing to TASTE , eh > ?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: opethPA


FREEDOM is a Terrible Thing to TASTE , eh > ?

The hell does anything you are saying have to do with the purpose of this thread?

a reply to: Phoenix

Local is my preference but being knew in this part of Georgia sometimes I have no choice, big thing for me is while I am not overly concerned personally I dont know other peoples issues and while I will go far to accommodate people with underlying issues or the elderly when push comes to shove I will go out and get whats needed for my family period full stop.

This is actually a pretty simple situation.

Target or any store privately owned can establish any requirements they choose for people to enter their property, as long as that requirement does not violate Federal law; if they require customers to wear neon yellow water wings, the customers have to wear neon yellow water wings or shop somewhere else. Burdman mentioned the ADA and he is correct that requiring someone who has a medical reason not to, to wear a mask is quite probably illegal. However, having such a condition does not grant the offended party the right to use force in defending their position. Instead, someone who is denied entry can seek damages against the company through the court system.

That means that the customers were in the wrong. Period. No question about that.

The only place it gets tricky is that this policy was not implemented by Target. It was implemented by the local government by Executive Order. That is unconstitutional. Target was placed in a position of having to enforce a regulation that in itself was not based on law. A case could be made therefore that this requirement was not due to Target's choice, but to an illegal regulation.

Of course, once the arm was broken (actually after the first punch was thrown) that defense was long gone.

The only way this restriction from the government could be considered legal is if the legislature passed an ordinance that survived court muster (this is where the ADA comes in). This is why we don't legislate by executive decree in the USA: people don't like it and it leads to violence. In this case, it led to a broken arm; will the next time see lead flying? Knives at the ready? Death by blunt force trauma? How far are these outlaw governors willing to go and how much righteous anger are they willing to let fester into violence to fuel their lust for power?

You have just watched one spark. There will be more. Which one will ignite the powderkeg? Inquiring minds apparently want to know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

On the fourth page of this thread I posted a picture of a sign requiring masks outside a New Jersey Target.
I then linked to executive order 122 and posted the specific sections around masks.

TL;DR of that in NJ is
1. People have to wear masks in stores
2. Unless you have a medical condition preventing it
3. Stores cant ask for proof of that medical condition.

Seems pretty simple to me, lie to the stores and shop without a mask .