Injunction denied for Disney guard fired after bringing gun to ...

[Para Factor]

Swashbuckler wrote:

<quoted text>
Most such agreements have small print that says they can kick your **** out for any reason they want (they'd have to give you your money back though).
Feel free to test your theory at a Disney hotel and bring along a TV crew when you do. I'm guessing that within 30 minutes of showing Disney staff that you have a gun you'll be off Disney property with a trespass warning.

Sorry...no contract clause can circumvent state law. This is not California, thank God. By the way..are you a Disney lackey?

[Informed]

Swashbuckler wrote:

<quoted text>
And the Bush administration never said that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. They just implied it every chance they got...

And I never implied it. I simply asked you to cite your source. Which you still have yet to do.

[Swashbuckler]

Para Factor wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry...no contract clause can circumvent state law. This is not California, thank God.

No f'ing duh! I've already said that several times!

By the way..are you a Disney lackey?

Nope, just a believer in the Rule of Law (even stupid laws).

It's interesting how people often think others have ulterior motives, e.g. by the way..are you an NRA lackey?

[Swashbuckler]

Informed wrote:

<quoted text>
And I never implied it. I simply asked you to cite your source. Which you still have yet to do.

Yeah, you did when you wrote "You're going to need to show me the law that says a property holder can not deny someone the right to park on their property."

[Informed]

Swashbuckler wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, you did when you wrote "You're going to need to show me the law that says a property holder can not deny someone the right to park on their property."

So can you show me that law or court ruling?

[NPC]

Swashbuckler wrote:

<quoted text>
Geesh, you can lead some people to water, but you can't make them THINK. But, I'm going to try anyway.
After making such a spectacle, no jury in their right mind is going to believe that Disney decided to search his car on that particular day for any reason other than looking for a gun.
"(b) No public or private entity may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot OR BY AN ACTUAL SEARCH OF A PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE IN A PARKING LOT TO ASCERTAIN THE PRESENCE OF A FIREARM WITHIN THE VEHICLE. Further, no public or private entity may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private entity to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections."
I highlighted the relevant portion of the law above. What it says is that Disney did not need to SAY that they were searching for a gun, they just had to have the intent to search for a gun. Searching for a gun was CLEARLY Disney's intent.
And I'll say it for you one more time, Disney's employment agreement cannot violate state law, thus that the agreement allows Disney to search employees vehicles is irrelevant if Disney is looking for a gun.

All disney has to say is that they had suspicion the employee was stealing, or had alcohol in his car. Can you PROVE they were looking for a gun? No. And it doesn't matter. If you are an employee and your company has a search provision in the employee handbook you cannot refuse to be searched. If you do, you can be fired. You talk about making people think - try using your head for something other than a hat rack. He is history and there is nothing he can do about it.

[Swashbuckler]

NPC wrote:

<quoted text>
All disney has to say is that they had suspicion the employee was stealing, or had alcohol in his car. Can you PROVE they were looking for a gun? No. And it doesn't matter. If you are an employee and your company has a search provision in the employee handbook you cannot refuse to be searched. If you do, you can be fired. You talk about making people think - try using your head for something other than a hat rack. He is history and there is nothing he can do about it.

In a civil case the standard is a "preponderance of the evidence". That standard can be met without even trying.
Quite frankly, the standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard can be met as well, though that would require a little bit of effort.

[Captian]

Swashbuckler wrote:

<quoted text>
In a civil case the standard is a "preponderance of the evidence". That standard can be met without even trying.
Quite frankly, the standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard can be met as well, though that would require a little bit of effort.

Are you a 'b u t t' pirate?

[Swashbuckler]

Captian wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you a 'b u t t' pirate?

No, I'm not a Republican...