Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "" video.

He's absolutely correct though. He has the legal right to stand in the right of way for as long as you wants to. Especially when it comes to waiting for his bus. This is significant overreach and if they actually do call the cops, CVS would be on the losing end of that lawsuit. What if he was waiting for a ride and the driver was stuck in traffic? With how traffic can be around there, it could be a rather long wait, especially if the traffic is being halted by a crash.
7
@tynao2029 Or, we live in a society where healthcare isn't considered to be a right and he had gum disease that he couldn't afford to get treated.
5
Whether he's a thief or not CVS does not have the right to dictate what goes on in the right of way. All they can do is prevent him from being on the premises, or call the cops if they think he's actually broken any laws. But, simply standing on the sidewalk is not a crime, the public has the right to use the right of way, barring a specific court order or law saying otherwise. If people couldn't use the right of way, it would be extremely difficult to get around the city.
4
Doesn't justify breaking the law. I work at a grocery store and we get tons of stuff stolen, but we don't tell people they can't stand on the public sidewalk. We have neither the legal right, nor the time to do so.
3
CVS doesn't get to break the law and if they actually called the cops, they'd likely be on the hook for a rather lucrative lawsuit for it. The public has a right to use the sidewalk for most purposes, as long as there isn't a specific law saying they can't do it, it's a public right of way.
2
But, his rights are being violated. CVS does not have a monopoly over what goes on in the public right of way. If they saw something illegal, they are free to call the cops, but they would be on the hook for a lawsuit if the cops came and anything happened. Or even if nothing other than the cops coming as they don't have the legal right to dictate who is and isn't allowed on the sidewalk there.
2
@verreal Precisely, and I work in a grocery store and from what I can tell, if you even bother to try to get the cops out, they won't come out unless there's a felony involved. So, threatening the staff would likely get a police response promptly, but theft probably not. And most of them no that if they leave immediately that by the time the cops come, if they even bother at all, they'll be long gone. It's mostly the same characters every week doing the bulk of the stealing. A company illegally expanding it's rights to encompass dictating who is and isn't on the sidewalk isn't going to make a difference one way or another. It just means they immediately go in, steal their stuff and then immediately leave when they're done stealing.
2
Doesn't matter, CVS does not have the right to dictate who can be on the sidewalk. If you disagree, feel free to write your representatives about getting a change made to the law.
1
You're right we shouldn't. I'm far more concerned by the various people I see in this comment section that see CVS' illegal coopting of the sidewalk adjacent to their property as being acceptable. It's the public right of way, if he's not committing an actual crime sufficient to justify calling the cops, then they should STFU and just leave him alone. Taking any of the actions that they were threatening would likely have resulted in an expensive lawsuit.
1
Honestly, that is the thing to do and then if the cops come, get yourself a nice lawyer and sue the crud out of the store for the violation of your rights. Stores have a limited right to call the cops and generally there has to be some sort of crime going on. Simply being outside is not likely to lead to anything that the police have any rights to. I know this because I used to work security, and once they're off the property, there's not much you can do about it. Now, if you've got evidence and reason to believe that they committed a crime while on or near the property, you can call the cops and file a report, but typically private security is restricted to operating on the property.
1
You'd also likely get you sued for harassment.
1
@camelfilters3224 And 75% of Americans live in constitution free zones. It's high time we stopped accepting the SCOTUS as the abitrators of what is and isn't constitutional. That role itself is one that they gave themselves in Madison v. Marbury. It's not one that the constitution gave them.
1