Originally Posted By Tinkerbell819 <a href="http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_9287Couple" target="_blank">http://www.mickeynews.com/News /DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_9287Couple</a> I apologize if this is in the wrong section, I thought this was an interesting article that was in my email today.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut I dont blame the PD but if there was discrimination it would be on Disney's part. POs tend to go rough on people if they believe they have a gun. No matter what their skin color or sexual orientation.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<When they answered that it had not gone well because they had been harassed by security personnel, van de Mark said the crew member told them, "Well, in fact, you're still being followed," and pointed to plainclothes security officers in their midst.>> bad cast member. bad.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I'd like to know exactly what the "hand gesture" looked like. I mean, come on!
Originally Posted By peeaanuut I can see how 2 people holding hands could do the finger pointing thing, but really, who holds a gun right there really?
Originally Posted By mele No kidding. His hand was supposed to look like a real gun? That's some skill.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think it has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with cops being power crazy.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost This makes no sense at all. Not only is Disney a preferred destination for gay folk, a large number of CM's are gay as well. Why would a company that had that type of reputation ever be considered homophobic. Come on, something happened that isn't coming out (no pun intended). In the immortal words of Paul Harvey..."and now, the rest of the story!" I would sure like to know what it is.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I'd like to know exactly what the "hand gesture" looked like. I mean, come on!>> <<No kidding. His hand was supposed to look like a real gun? That's some skill.>> A few years ago, I ended up being the jury foreman on a case that dealt with the robbery of a local McDonald's store. It was a precedent-setting case in Michigan. The guy pleaded guilty; there was never any question that he robbed the store. The big question was whether he could be convicted of ARMED robbery, given that he did not, in fact, have a gun on him during the commission of his crime. According to the law, we found him guilty of armed robbery. He used hand gestures (including putting his hand inside a jacket pocket and "pointing" his alleged weapon toward the clerk) to convincingly indicate that he had a weapon. <<It has to do with cops being power crazy.>> If Disneyland Resort security had ANY reason to believe that this guy had a weapon, they should have erred on the side of making sure that he couldn't use it. Doing what needs to be done to ensure that the rest of the guests at DTD are safe is not being "power hungry" in my book. These days, you need to err on the side of caution.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 "One of Kenney's friends at Disneyland was Brian van de Mark, the owner of a communications and marketing firm that focuses on social-justice issues. Van de Mark, who is serving as Kenney's media representative..." Imagine! A group that includes a guy whose PROFESSION is to become indignant about the way gay people are treated in society goes to Disneyland, makes a visible point of being gay, and... ends up making a claim of discrimination! Amazing how that could happen! What are the chances?!
Originally Posted By Mr X **According to the law, we found him guilty of armed robbery. He used hand gestures (including putting his hand inside a jacket pocket and "pointing" his alleged weapon toward the clerk) to convincingly indicate that he had a weapon.** Hmm... SO, by that theory, if someone walks into a place and says "I have a weapon"...that's armed robbery? I don't really buy it. Having a more severe penalty for armed robbery does make sense, when someone actually packs a weapon...it's a greater danger to the public of course...but just "pretending"? To me that's like a drunk person threatening to drive a car while drunk, who then gets arrested for drunk driving.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut I agree with the high penatly for the people that fake it. If you fake it you should get the high penalty for being a retard. By faking it you are specifically asking for trouble. Strong arm robbers is just as effective with the right target, you just need to pick a better targer. Someone who fakes it is lazy and should be hit harder with the penalties.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's all about intent. If the perpetrator intended for the victim to believe he was armed, then it's armed robbery. The victim was put under the fear they were faced with a weapon and reacted accordingly. The perp can't later say "sorry! it was only a toy" or something similar and get away with it.
Originally Posted By Mr X To me, that seems like a different sort of crime compared to ACTUALLY brandishing a weapon...where the "intent" there is to cause serious harm if people don't cooperate. I'm not saying it's not a factor in the crime, just that they seem different to me. Almost more like fraud, somehow. But whatever.
Originally Posted By jonvn "if someone walks into a place and says "I have a weapon"...that's armed robbery?" yes
Originally Posted By Mr X By definition, that doesn't make sense. It isn't "armed robbery", despite the desire to tie they threat into the actual crime of packing a weapon...it should be called something else is my only point. "fraudulent threat to use a weapon" or something.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost As humans that are laughingly trying to be so politically correct we tend to venture into the absurd every now and then. At work we have a level of disciplinary action that is entitled (and they speak of this with a straight face) a Written Verbal Warning. Now in my admittedly feeble little mind something is either written or it is verbal, it cannot be both. That's why I don't run the company, I guess. I have suggested about a gazillion times that changing it to "Documented Verbal Warning" would be more accurate and would be infinitely less stupid sounding. So what that got me was a Written Verbal Warning about the dangers of referring to the governing body as "stupid". You know if you look at life as if it is totally serious...you will miss a lot of Stupid Human tricks and they are amusing. Ah, yes! Three more years and I can retire. I may be eating out of dumpsters but I won't have to deal with the idiots what am in charge.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the actual crime of packing a weapon..." I think the idea is that by making other people feel the fear of you having a weapon is the same as having it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I think the idea is that by making other people feel the fear of you having a weapon is the same as having it." Exactly. Intent.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "At work we have a level of disciplinary action that is entitled (and they speak of this with a straight face) a Written Verbal Warning. Now in my admittedly feeble little mind something is either written or it is verbal, it cannot be both. That's why I don't run the company, I guess." Sounds like Target.
