Friend refused exit at Chuck E Cheese

[nonameisgood]

The solution would be to simply have photographic and facial recognition software running to document all comings and goings. It's a private business, and by entering, you accept the conditions of the business, if they are obvious or explained to you. Your freedom to refuse such a reasonable request to identify yourself as the parent ends when you decide to enter.

Assuming you didn't consent (someone else took your child there), and you arrive to find your wayward child, seems like you would say while getting your hand stamped on your way in, "I'm here to pick up my child who arrived with someone else." Easy enough.

Obviously there are people on the forum who won't be going to Mr. Cheese's restaurant for this reason. You are free to go elsewhere for your kid's pizza fix.

And this is NOT a OC or gun topic, so I'm not sure why its here anyway.

 

[LV XD9]

And this is NOT a OC or gun topic, so I'm not sure why its here anyway.

Did you miss the fact that this was posted in the Social Lounge? :banghead:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

you mean you want me to cite that making true statements (stamp doesn't match, combative, won't ID himself, took child from restuarant) to a police dispatcher is not a violation of a law prohibiting "false statements"?

Yeah I'll get right on that......

Well Chuck E. Cheese personal are not public servants so that case don't ad up , why are you saying "false" statements anyway, you are assuming it's not his kid?

Your implied contract don't hold up because he is leaving. Employees have no right to detain him or his child.

The only thing the cop hears is a story from an employee, maybe a reason for a consensual encounter but no RAS.

Please for the love of God don't become a cop.

 

[carolina guy]

Well...as a father of 4...and having been to CeC quite a few times recently

I can tell you there is no signed waiver, so no contract. Further...I do not know what they would really do if you walked out with YOUR child who identifies you as their parent. I think this is largely a non-issue...the father should have simply left either by the front door or by the fire exit and if he was really concerned, be the first to call 911 on the way out to report an attempted false imprisonment. Just my $0.02.

I have left without a matching stamp (washed off in the restroom) and while they started to make noises, I asked the kids and the oldest 2 (the ones who can talk) identified me as "papa".

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well Chuck E. Cheese personal are not public servants so that case don't ad up , why are you saying "false" statements anyway, you are assuming it's not his kid?

Your implied contract don't hold up because he is leaving. Employees have no right to detain him or his child.

The only thing the cop hears is a story from an employee, maybe a reason for a consensual encounter but no RAS.

Please for the love of God don't become a cop.

No the contract would've been made to the adult who brought the child to the Chuck E Cheese, an outside actor cannot nullify that just by saying so.

No that portion you quoted I made in response to someone saying that if the Chuck E Cheese manager reports an abduction, and it turns out there is no abduction, that the employee who called the cops should be charged for making a false report. The law does not provide for that unless the caller knew personally that an abduction was not taking place.

A named report alleging a specific crime is most certainly probable cause. I have no doubt a search warrant could be obtained in that case if the OP had left with that child. probably an AMBER alert issued too, and possibly subjecting the parent to a felony stop.

If I call the police and say "I, Erik ******, Am supervising a group of children, a man took a child alleging it was his, without cooperating with our identification procedures to prevent abduction, and left in a silver car with WA plates ***-***" that is a report of a specific crime in progress with detailed specific information about the suspect and his car. that report is adaquate grounds for a detention of the occupants of a car meeting that description. Children can be intimidated or talked into saying anyone is their parent.

you can of course, avoid all this by using the free market you like so much and picking a different place... that's always an option

 

[carolina guy]

No the contract would've been made to the adult who brought the child to the Chuck E Cheese, an outside actor cannot nullify that just by saying so.

There are no signed waivers when you enter CEC...personal experience from MANY visits with the kids.

No that portion you quoted I made in response to someone saying that if the Chuck E Cheese manager reports an abduction, and it turns out there is no abduction, that the employee who called the cops should be charged for making a false report. The law does not provide for that unless the caller knew personally that an abduction was not taking place.

A named report alleging a specific crime is most certainly probable cause. I have no doubt a search warrant could be obtained in that case if the OP had left with that child. probably an AMBER alert issued too, and possibly subjecting the parent to a felony stop.

If I call the police and say "I, Erik ******, Am supervising a group of children, a man took a child alleging it was his, without cooperating with our identification procedures to prevent abduction, and left in a silver car with WA plates ***-***" that is a report of a specific crime in progress with detailed specific information about the suspect and his car. that report is adaquate grounds for a detention of the occupants of a car meeting that description. Children can be intimidated or talked into saying anyone is their parent.

Do the police then need to do a roadside DNA test to verify parentage?

you can of course, avoid all this by using the free market you like so much and picking a different place... that's always an option

(*thumbs up*)

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There are no signed waivers when you enter CEC...personal experience from MANY visits with the kids.



Do the police then need to do a roadside DNA test to verify parentage?





(*thumbs up*)

Maybe it's Odyssey I'm thinking of that does that.....

But that's also why I factored IMPLIED CONTRACT into the mix.
well not a DNA test. I'm not exactly sure what they would do at the point. their individual procedure is not something I have personal knowledge of, I simply think that an abduction report would be adaquate to investigate someone and detain them for the duration of that investigation.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No the contract would've been made to the adult who brought the child to the Chuck E Cheese, an outside actor cannot nullify that just by saying so.

Yes he can by leaving.
A private business cannot hold you hostage because you don't like the rules. So this is a predicament for your theory. OP's friend leaving rules no longer apply even the one about the kid. He has no authority to detain him, the police have no authority to criminalize, capture and enforce private business rules.

No that portion you quoted I made in response to someone saying that if the Chuck E Cheese manager reports an abduction, and it turns out there is no abduction, that the employee who called the cops should be charged for making a false report. The law does not provide for that unless the caller knew personally that an abduction was not taking place.

Misread it appeared that way though.

A named report alleging a specific crime is most certainly probable cause. I have no doubt a search warrant could be obtained in that case if the OP had left with that child. probably an AMBER alert issued too, and possibly subjecting the parent to a felony stop.

If I call the police and say "I, Erik ******, Am supervising a group of children, a man took a child alleging it was his, without cooperating with our identification procedures to prevent abduction, and left in a silver car with WA plates ***-***" that is a report of a specific crime in progress with detailed specific information about the suspect and his car. that report is adaquate grounds for a detention of the occupants of a car meeting that description. Children can be intimidated or talked into saying anyone is their parent.

Sorry no RAS. You need to cite law being broken, and articulate the facts you think he broke the law not just assumptions and hearsay from a third party. I Rob saw Eric go into his house with a female, he is this built has this color of hair his adress is such and such the female is such and such, I think he is going to sexually assault her........nope....sorry don't work that way. A little stamp on a hand isn't proof he is kidnapping.

Just so you know Wolf is a retired Cop.

you can of course, avoid all this by using the free market you like so much and picking a different place... that's always an option

Yes it is. And I don't like Chuck E. Cheese but if I did, and they treated me this way I would never be back.

You don't like the free market?

You have a real strong desire to water down RAS a legal term defined by a court to "suspicion".....just don't work that way.
Just like a cop can't assume I don't have a CPL when he see's me riding my motorcycle and pull me over to check it.

 

[carolina guy]

Maybe it's Odyssey I'm thinking of that does that.....

But that's also why I factored IMPLIED CONTRACT into the mix.
well not a DNA test. I'm not exactly sure what they would do at the point. their individual procedure is not something I have personal knowledge of, I simply think that an abduction report would be adaquate to investigate someone and detain them for the duration of that investigation.

"Duration of the investigation"?? That could be a Loooooooooooong time since there is almost no way (on the road side) that a parent could "prove" the child belongs to them. My children do not have photo id (muchas must kids do not). I suppose I could take the police office to our house and find some family photos...but that is still no proof.

nah...I think that I would have to decline to provide proof to the police officer other than the children answering from their car seats. Anything other than that, would require proof (or RAS at minimum) that they are NOT my kids.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"Duration of the investigation"?? That could be a Loooooooooooong time since there is almost no way (on the road side) that a parent could "prove" the child belongs to them. My children do not have photo id (muchas must kids do not). I suppose I could take the police office to our house and find some family photos...but that is still no proof.

nah...I think that I would have to decline to provide proof to the police officer other than the children answering from their car seats. Anything other than that, would require proof (or RAS at minimum) that they are NOT my kids.

You must prove they are your kids the guy at Chuck E. Cheese said you didn't obey his orders and thinks your stamps don't match!

 

[carolina guy]

You must prove they are your kids the guy at Chuck E. Cheese said you didn't obey his orders and thinks your stamps don't match!

What stamps? I think a quick wipe on the kids would remove that little black light ink in a couple seconds. ;-)

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes he can by leaving.
A private business cannot hold you hostage because you don't like the rules. So this is a predicament for your theory. OP's friend leaving rules no longer apply even the one about the kid. He has no authority to detain him, the police have no authority to criminalize, capture and enforce private business rules.



Misread it appeared that way though.



Sorry no RAS. You need to cite law being broken, and articulate the facts you think he broke the law not just assumptions and hearsay from a third party. I Rob saw Eric go into his house with a female, he is this built has this color of hair his adress is such and such the female is such and such, I think he is going to sexually assault her........nope....sorry don't work that way. A little stamp on a hand isn't proof he is kidnapping.

Just so you know Wolf is a retired Cop.



Yes it is. And I don't like Chuck E. Cheese but if I did, and they treated me this way I would never be back.

You don't like the free market?

You have a real strong desire to water down RAS a legal term defined by a court to "suspicion".....just don't work that way.
Just like a cop can't assume I don't have a CPL when he see's me riding my motorcycle and pull me over to check it.

I like the concept of a free market. but I don't worship the free market or have pretentions that it is the best possible system. you see alot of big businesses who utilize the "free market" to buy legislators and basically buy laws that help their bottom line. or buy off regulatory agencies, or will claim its not their job to sell safe products and blame government regulatory agencies for selling a product that they knew was dangerous when they put it to market.

I don't trust big business over the government. As I've said before, I view perfect capitalism the same way I view perfect communism, sounds great on the flyer, never seems to work quite as well in real life.

No, I don't want to water down probable cause or RAS, but it's never been a high standard. a court in 1813 held probable cause to be "not enough to condemn someone" I mean the idea of a weak standard of probable cause is not new in anyway. the police cannot use "mere" suspicion or use the fact that you're exercising your rights as probable cause, but PC is not, and never has been, a high standard of cause. the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is for trial. not for a search. as I've cited before, PC was considered adaquate in a case in where the only evidence was someone bringing crates or sugar and feed corn to a building on their ranch and the officers claiming they heard a pump inside. none of these activities is illegal. but combined it created PC to suspect moonshining (althought I'm sure we can agree that particular law is absurd, never the less the probable cause standard was well set in that case.)

 

[Lord Sega]

First, let me say I support protecting my kid (or anyone's) from leaving with a stranger or more likely, a non-custodial parent under restrictions.

That said, from a strictly legal standpoint, 3 items (using Oregon as an example, your state may be different):

1) In Oregon, store security can stop & detain a person for theft. ORS 131.655 IANAL, but I think store security has to go with #2 for other crimes witnessed (ie kidnapping, assault, etc).

2) "Arrest by private person" aka Citizen's Arrest. Could not the employee, due to the stamps not matching, consider that a kidnapping is happening? It would at least allow detainment until LEOs arrive to sort it out. ORS 133.225

3) And last, 2a carriers always say that they carry to defend family, themselves, and (if they feel like it) defend others. So the employee, defending the child from a possible kidnapping has "Use of physical force in defense of a person" does he not? ORS 161.209

My real question is what proof is required by Chuck-e-Cheese (or the LEOs) if the stamps don't match? I can prove my kid is mine, even if I have to run home for the birth certificate, but how do I prove I am not a non-custodial parent under restrictions? I am a single father with full custody of 2 girls (15 & 10), and while it is less rare than it used to be, most people still automatically assume that Dad is the non-custodial (especially with girls).

My question to the OP, what are the ages of the kids? One brother brought the other there, then left. That tells me both boys had to be old enough to explain to the Chuck-e-Cheese employee why their stamps don't match and that yes this is his dad. If the kid was to young to explain that then the older brother never should have left younger brother there alone.

So, short version, this could really turn into a mess if you pick up your kid and take a hard line about being detained while the stamp issue is resolved.
I'm very much 4A, parental rights, and anti-custodial interference as much as 2A, but this is one of the times I would voluntarily work with Chuck-e-Cheese's policy to insure the right kid is leaving with the right parent/guardian.

 

[eye95]

...I have left without a matching stamp (washed off in the restroom) and while they started to make noises, I asked the kids and the oldest 2 (the ones who can talk) identified me as "papa".

This still does nothing to prevent custodial interference, for which CEC might be held liable if they turned a kid over to the non-custodial "papa."

Again, as long as they do not physically stop you, and they call the police in the event a person with a non-matching stamp leaves with a child before CEC can reasonably establish that he should, they are doing that which protects them legally from the custodial parent and from the patron leaving with the child.

When I taught at a private school, each child (under a certain age) was specifically matched with a parent on whom we had a card before that child was released at the end of the day. If someone came to pick him up who was not on the card, the child was not released until the custodial parent could be contacted.

Entities that take custody of children have a legal responsibility to take action to ensure that the child is not released to anyone other than the person who brought him, a custodial parent, or someone the custodial parent has designated. To do anything else is legally foolish.

 

[WalkingWolf]

This still does nothing to prevent custodial interference, for which CEC might be held liable if they turned a kid over to the non-custodial "papa."

Again, as long as they do not physically stop you, and they call the police in the event a person with a non-matching stamp leaves with a child before CEC can reasonably establish that he should, they are doing that which protects them legally from the custodial parent and from the patron leaving with the child.

When I taught at a private school, each child (under a certain age) was specifically matched with a parent on whom we had a card before that child was released at the end of the day. If someone came to pick him up who was not on the card, the child was not released until the custodial parent could be contacted.

Entities that take custody of children have a legal responsibility to take action to ensure that the child is not released to anyone other than the person who brought him, a custodial parent, or someone the custodial parent has designated. To do anything else is legally foolish.

Honestly just how many times a night do you think this takes place? How long before the police get tired of responding and refuse service? The parent is responsible for the child, and if the parent neglects the child they can get arrested, as happened to one woman. CEC own website says that parents are responsible for their children. The whole program is dangerous as it can't be enforced, and it lulls parents into a false sense of security. And it is only a matter of time before a parent is assaulted by either police or the security staff of CEC.

http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2011/07/elizabeth_molne.php

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-Chuck-E-Cheese--parents-notice-morning.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...3-at-chuck-e-cheese-find-out-on-evening-news/

http://thejailreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/augusta-mom-arrested-for-dropping-off.html

http://chuckecheese.com/discover/the-experience"This program is not a substitute for adult supervision."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I like the concept of a free market. but I don't worship the free market or have pretentions that it is the best possible system. you see alot of big businesses who utilize the "free market" to buy legislators and basically buy laws that help their bottom line. or buy off regulatory agencies, or will claim its not their job to sell safe products and blame government regulatory agencies for selling a product that they knew was dangerous when they put it to market.

That isn't a free market then is it?
You do realize your precious Republicans are real complicit in this.
Your last line is simply not very true. A business knows to stay in business and even greedy ones know if they kill off their customers they will loose money.
What your precious government agency does is give the public a false illusion of safety and create a moral hazard for the business by taking some of the responsibility off of them.

I don't trust big business over the government. As I've said before, I view perfect capitalism the same way I view perfect communism, sounds great on the flyer, never seems to work quite as well in real life.

It has worked well often times in history, but of course government propaganda machine and apologists like to distort that history to show the need for themselves. It has been debunked in the threads you started on the subject.

How can you trust government over big business when you just admitted they are bought by big business?

I just can't twist my head around government apologist thinking like this, ultimately you are saying we can't be free because we are bad, but we must obey and trust a government made up of who, "We the people" the bad ones you can't trust to run their own lives are some how magically transformed into angelic creatures who will take care of our every need and selflessly rule us with our best interests in mind?

No, I don't want to water down probable cause or RAS, but it's never been a high standard. a court in 1813 held probable cause to be "not enough to condemn someone" I mean the idea of a weak standard of probable cause is not new in anyway. the police cannot use "mere" suspicion or use the fact that you're exercising your rights as probable cause, but PC is not, and never has been, a high standard of cause. the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is for trial. not for a search. as I've cited before, PC was considered adaquate in a case in where the only evidence was someone bringing crates or sugar and feed corn to a building on their ranch and the officers claiming they heard a pump inside. none of these activities is illegal. but combined it created PC to suspect moonshining (althought I'm sure we can agree that particular law is absurd, never the less the probable cause standard was well set in that case.)

Sorry, you are watering it down more. I am not saying it is a "high standard", I have already said RAS waters down the 4th and unconstitutionally in my opinion. I am just saying it is not as low as you think. Nice who have moved the argument to a moonshining case of known moonshiners over defending what the RAS is for this. You need to cite.

So is it RAS for me to call the cops on you in my stated example?

 

[mohawk001]

You do realize your precious Republicans are real complicit in this.

Thanks for that line. Made it easy to know to ignore the rest of the post because it's all political to you even if the thread wasn't.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Thanks for that line. Made it easy to know to ignore the rest of the post because it's all political to you even if the thread wasn't.

This reply wasn't about the politics of RAS.

It was directed specifically at someone who has helped campaign for Republican candidate for government in our state. And was meant to show there is really no difference of substance between his viewpoints as a Republican supporter than those the Democrats put forth.

But it would be short sighted to think politics have nothing to do with policing and RAS, and all the other things that effect our lives.

So will ignore all posts who point out that Republicans are no better than Democrats?

 

[OC for ME]

In reality, the cops would not be held liable. Though, a quick question or two by the 911 dispatcher could prevent a great deal of trouble for all concerned.

Child abduction is a hot button issue and no LEA will err on the side of liberty and the law. Cops will let a judge and lawyers work out any "misunderstandings" if necessary. No DA will ever charge any cop for violating a citizens rights or the law when the issue of child abduction is involved. If they do please let me know.

you mean you want me to cite that making true statements (stamp doesn't match, combative, won't ID himself, took child from restaurant) to a police dispatcher is not a violation of a law prohibiting "false statements"? <snip>

Where in the OP is it stated or implied that the father was combative? Or that the father did not provide ID. We only "know" that the stamps did not match.

This still does nothing to prevent custodial interference, for which CEC might be held liable if they turned a kid over to the non-custodial "papa."

Irrelevant. If there were matching stamps the kid would have went right out the door and CEC would have said "Have nice day and come back soon, thanks for visiting CEC." The kid could have easily ended up in a water filled ditch at the hands of a person who had a matching stamp, parent or not.

Again, as long as they do not physically stop you, and they call the police in the event a person with a non-matching stamp leaves with a child before CEC can reasonably establish that he should, they are doing that which protects them legally from the custodial parent and from the patron leaving with the child.

Once again, irrelevant. If the stamps match the CEC employee could care less, legally or morally, what the adult/child relationship is.

When I taught at a private school, each child (under a certain age) was specifically matched with a parent on whom we had a card before that child was released at the end of the day. If someone came to pick him up who was not on the card, the child was not released until the custodial parent could be contacted. <snip>

A school (accredited with the state I presume) is different in the eyes of the LE. So to is a school employee (teacher and staff) whether public or private. CEC is not a school. I would imagine that the mere presence of children does not elevate CEC to the status of a school in LE eyes. CEC has this policy, many private firms that cater to children may not.

That CEC apparently enforces that policy aggressively, there by equating that policy violation to a serious felony crime.

While the CEC employee might evade criminal liability, civil liability is a easier hurdle to clear. Not knowing all of the facts regarding the OP, it is unwise to state that the employee did not in fact violate the law or would not have violated the law if he had contacted LE. Once again, a judge and lawyers would sort out that situation.

If I were the father described in the OP, I would immediately dial 911 and report the employee(s) for attempting to unlawfully seize me. He who calls 911 first is the victim.

 

[Mixael]

This still does nothing to prevent custodial interference, for which CEC might be held liable if they turned a kid over to the non-custodial "papa."

Again, as long as they do not physically stop you, and they call the police in the event a person with a non-matching stamp leaves with a child before CEC can reasonably establish that he should, they are doing that which protects them legally from the custodial parent and from the patron leaving with the child.

When I taught at a private school, each child (under a certain age) was specifically matched with a parent on whom we had a card before that child was released at the end of the day. If someone came to pick him up who was not on the card, the child was not released until the custodial parent could be contacted.

Entities that take custody of children have a legal responsibility to take action to ensure that the child is not released to anyone other than the person who brought him, a custodial parent, or someone the custodial parent has designated. To do anything else is legally foolish.

Your third sentence there, about the school, is irrelevant in regards to Chuck E. Cheese and this discussion. You entrust your child to them, and then at the end of the day, your child is returned. With a few exceptions, the parent does not stay with the child. Your last sentence, again, is not relevant, as you are talking about entities that talk custody of your child....schools, summer camps, boy/girl scouts, etc. CEC does NOT take custody. When you enter with your child, they stamp you, you go in, AND RETAIN FULL CUSTODY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID CHILD(ren). It is, at best, a weak attempt to prevent the very bad things from happening. All you gotta do is wait until either there is no one at the counter or its VERY busy. Then just walk out. In my view, it's there more as a "make you feel safer, when you're really not" thing.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever gone there with their kid and REFUSED the stamping of hands?