Do you agree with this WV state court decision on assault claim?

Question

i forget the exact names of ppl involved but heres the deal.

There was a 39 year old woman who entered a small tobacco store and raised h**l on the cashier/owner (aged 18) about some store policy she had a problem with that i dont remember exactly what it was. The store owner (18) told the woman (39) to get off his property, when she refused and kept arguing he took hold of her firmly and dragged her out of the store.

she called the police claiming assault, but the police did not arrest the guy, and when she took it to the state's top court, they agreed with the police and the store owner was ruled to have never commited a crime under state law. this is the conclusion that the police made and the court later upheld:

1. the woman was given a verbal warning by the owner (or renter) to leave his property, when the woman refused to leave AFTER her verbal warning was received, she became a tresspasser.

2. Because the woman was in fact a tresspasser and was refusing to leave peacefully, the store owner used neccesarry but not eccessive force to remove a tresspasser from his property which is legal.

my question is, what do you think of the case?

Answer 1

I think the owner was correct. If it upheld in court than he couldn't have used more force than was necessary. It seems like as long as he's not really hurting her then he was just protecting the good name of his store which you should be able to do.

Answer 2

It says he simply dragged the miscreant out of the store after telling her to leave.  So, no crime here - stores *are* private property, legally.

I'm glad the store owner wasn't charged.

Answer 3

I think that it sucks that the man had to remove this woman but She didn't leave his store and if is was private property then she should have left or not b*tch about being removed!!!!!

Answer 4

Yes, the store owner was within his rights.

Answer 5

the courts got it right  

Answer 6

There is always a danger in making a judgment from a summary this short, but it sounds like the right decision was made. For one, if she actually got the case to the "top court", that means it went in front of several courts first. As it appears there were consistent findings, then it appears the decision is in line with established laws for the state it took place in. The store had a right to refuse the woman on their premises, and if the clerk had called the police first, they would have removed her from the property. And there is nothing in this summary to suggest the removal was excessive in its force.

Answer 7

I think the store owner was correct in what he did. As were the police for refusing to accept the charges.

Answer 8

well as you have explained the happenings i have no problems with the ruling..

the woman started verbal agression first. and was in the property of the agressed.

he warned her to get off.

soo what 's the problem?