TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Suing the motel is stupid as can be. How is the business owner responsible for the criminal acts of thugs? That makes as much sense as suing a Macy's because you get robbed walking in from the parking lot.

That's what I was wondering. Are they just supposed to close down if they can't afford to be in a part of town with a lower crime rate?

How is the business owner responsible for the criminal acts of thugs?

The business owner is responsible for providing decent security for his guests no matter what part of town the motel is in.

Yes, he should close down if he is getting “800+ visits from the police in 5 years”. That averages out to a little more than every other day. If you re-read my earlier post, I made the point that suing some of these businesses is the only way to get them to spend the money to improve security.

How can you "provide security" when your guests are causing problems?

Notice that I am not saying this couple caused any problem.

Take care of your own security. Or maybe we should sue the city for not providing the business owner with a safe environment . Where do you want to stop?

Did you read why the motel is being sued? Do you think the motel will provide better security out of the goodness of their heart?

They wouldn’t have what little security they have now if some people didn’t make them pay for not having it. I have always taken steps for my own security but I don’t want to sit up all night with a gun in my lap and check the car every 30 minutes.

I take a certain amount of responsibility for my own safety but businesses that serve the public bear some responsibility to provide a safe environment.

Go somewhere else. No one forces you to stay anywhere. They owe you no security. They pay a ton of taxes. Where is the city PD here?

MONGOOSE wrote:Go somewhere else. No one forces you to stay anywhere. They owe you no security. They pay a ton of taxes. Where is the city PD here?

Where is the city PD? At the Motel, it looks like. You have a city police force with enough officers and enough "initiative" to shut down every crime on every corner, you are not going to like the resulting police state. Everyone else pays "a ton of taxes" too, and not so that the city PD can function as Motel 6's own security force.

Look, that Motel 6 is fully aware of the criminal element that operates on its turf, and yes they have some responsibility to mitigate that, just like a bar has the responsibility to deal any rowdies that cause trouble for the neighborhood, whose very presence is because of the presence of the business. Other businesses have to take care of their problems, so should Motel 6. Just because you should look after yourself doesn't absolve Motel 6 of its responsibilities. As they are about to find out.

You want a nanny state. Take care of your own self. We have no idea what the area was like when the Motel was built.As I said, pick another motel if you are so afraid.

I'm on the side of not blaming others for my mistakes of both choosing a bad motel and for allowing wife to go outside that late. I stayed in a fairly nice comfort suites in a nice neighborhood the other night, still didn't let my wife go out after dark or answer the door.

But just in case I'm missing something, for those that believe the motel should provide security, what would you propose would be adequate??

ELB wrote:One of the reasons they stayed at that particular motel was that it was pet friendly. They had a Weimeraner with them, and Ms. Russell was attacked when she returned from the car with food for the dog.

I didn't read anything further about the dog, but I hope it was ok.

Weims are not a docile breed. We once owned a 95 lb male Weim. If we had been in this situation there is no way the perp would have made it into the hotel room without killing the dog. He was Mrs. Anygun's dog and he was very protective.