TAM -- I think we are in general agreement here. I wasn't taking exception to your use of "erroneous", but to your use of "Enforcement". They have merely STATED that they will enforce the signs, but they haven't actually arrested anybody for it.The Annoyed Man wrote: I'm not saying it's not erroneous. It is definitely erroneous. I actually know both the chief and the assistant chief of the Grapevine PD...not real well, but I do know them both. I was initially surprised when I heard about this, because neither of them on the surface appear to be "gun-grabber" types. Grapevine is a pretty conservative town, and generally speaking, I think the town's leadership reflects that conservatism. However, it is also a town that does whatever it can to attract businesses and the tourist industry. I think that they are willing to enforce non-compliant signs if it will keep a major contributor to the tax base happy, as long as those signs are almost compliant. In other words, I don't think they would enforce it if they were simple "gunbusters" signs, but even those signs are not strictly compliant, they probably think they are close enough to compliant to enforce. I don't particularly like that, but it's a fact of life here; and this city is very well funded by its corporate tax base. That means plenty of services to the local residents, such as clean streets in good repair, regular and frequent trash pickups, nice parks, etc., etc.
Here's what they are counting on.... I'm sure they know that the signs aren't 100% perfect. I'm sure they know that a decision to prosecute a "violator" would likely go down in flames. I'm sure they know that you won't beat the ride, but you will beat the time. I'm sure they also know that 99.9% of CHLs are not willing to spend the $100K it will take to prove their innocence. So, they have made a choice NOT to educate the mall ownership about proper signage, and they are probably aware that someone charged with trespassing under 30.06 will beat the rap; they get to leave the mall ownership with the illusion that CHLs are banned from the mall, and they get to not throw a law-abiding CHLer into prison. In other words, they've made a deal with the devil. Why? Tax revenue. Follow the money.
I'm not excusing any of this. I'm just explaining it.
As for your second paragraph, I don't believe it would cost anywhere near $100K to defend yourself if arrested -- probably more like $100, if anything at all. Before you could run up that kind of money, you'd not only have to be arrested, but charged and taken to trial. And as the laws are quite clear as to what constitutes legal notice, it is quite unlikely that any DA would prosecute. (He'd ruin his conviction rate.) And if he did, it "should" be a simple matter for your lawyer to get the charges dropped. You might spend a night in jail, but that's free!
Also, once the smoke has cleared, the CHL holder (victim) would be open to pursue a 1983 (?) civil rights lawsuit for false arrest, as they (the popo) have been notified that the signs are not valid.
As to your explanation as to their motives, sounds logical to me...
)
