Florida Man Banned From Disney For Life

Dulcee;2469749 wrote: You'd be surprised the things people will do with their children present. My husband is a police officer and the things he's seen done, in front of children, is pretty horrific.

If the guy is that upset about it take it to court and have it lifted, assuming you can find a judge who won't think you deserve it for being a moron.

Being a moron isn't against the law, so finding a judge should be pretty easy, and I wish him the best of luck in court.

Ed;2469730 wrote: Actually, yes they do under Florida law. As I mentioned earlier, the trespass notices do not specify a length of time, thereby making them permanent. They can only be modified or canceled by the courts.

Thank goodness we have Article III to remedy such an abusive overreach by the Executive and Legislative branch.

While I understand the argument that a lifetime ban for flippant comment made in jest in a frustrating situation seems like overkill, you have to remember that this particular comment obligated WDW CMs to report and investigate the situation, with police, in the middle of the night. That's beyond just forgiving a flippant comment. Not to mention, how much disturbance and concern did this cause other guests? And, I would still say it's a safe bet that this guy isn't telling the whole story.

If that comment obligates a CM to report the situation, then it's a case of a bad policy...one written in black and white that leaves no room for common sense or human interpretation of a situation.

Mendelson;2469866 wrote: If that comment obligates a CM to report the situation, then it's a case of a bad policy...one written in black and white that leaves no room for common sense or human interpretation of a situation.

Most policy and procedure today tends to be robotic and leave no room for context or judgment. It is an unfortunate turn of events. Our species spent so much time evolving these brains so we could get together and decide to not use them.

Mendelson;2469866 wrote: If that comment obligates a CM to report the situation, then it's a case of a bad policy...one written in black and white that leaves no room for common sense or human interpretation of a situation.

And suppose the CM chose to ignore the comment and the guest HAD built a meth lab in the room, and the makeshift lab exploded. Who would have been responsible for the damage, injuries and/or deaths ? Still a "bad policy" ?

Common sense ain't so common any more. Obviously it was lacking in this guest's case.

Just sayin'....

To be clear, in the state of Florida "do not trespass" warnings can be issued only by the property owners, in this case Disney. These orders do not expire and can only be rescinded by the property owner, again Disney. The courts do not have the authority to rescind these orders. These orders can be issued for any reason and the property owners have no obligation to "show cause". This man used extremely poor judgment in his choice of words which resulted in a disruptive and costly police investigation.
His only recourse is to wait awhile, maybe a year or two, and then throw himself on the mercy of the Disney organization an plead with them to rescind the order.
These orders have been issued by all of the Orlando area parks for much less egregious offenses!

P.S. As an afterthought, I guess the slogan "Unforgettable happens here" really does apply!

But again, the assumption that he was being serious in no way, shape, or form passes a reasonable person test.

If someone sat beside me on a plane and said, "These honey-roasted peanuts are the bomb," and I chose not to do anything and the plane blew up because he in fact had a bomb, well shame on me. But he doesn't have a bomb just because the word passed his mouth and common sense allows me to use context to know that.

Ed;2469869 wrote: And suppose the CM chose to ignore the comment and the guest HAD built a meth lab in the room, and the makeshift lab exploded. Who would have been responsible for the damage, injuries and/or deaths ? Still a "bad policy" ?

Common sense ain't so common any more. Obviously it was lacking in this guest's case.

Just sayin'....

Mendelson;2469889 wrote: But again, the assumption that he was being serious in no way, shape, or form passes a reasonable person test.

If someone sat beside me on a plane and said, "These honey-roasted peanuts are the bomb," and I chose not to do anything and the plane blew up because he in fact had a bomb, well shame on me. But he doesn't have a bomb just because the word passed his mouth and common sense allows me to use context to know that.

I truly do get what you're saying. But obviously, in situations that indicate a potential threat, a large company is going to have guidelines that it expects it's employees to follow, instead of leaving them to judge for themselves. IF the conversation went like this man reported it did, then yes, it would be reasonable to assume he wasn't serious. But, there's no point in blaming the CMs for having a procedure to follow, or Disney for having one. No procedure is ever going to perfectly fit every case.

Either way, it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say and I still have zero sympathy for this guy. Just like I would have zero sympathy for someone getting arrested on a plane for claiming that his honey roasted peanuts were a bomb.

Mendelson;2469889 wrote: But again, the assumption that he was being serious in no way, shape, or form passes a reasonable person test.

If someone sat beside me on a plane and said, "These honey-roasted peanuts are the bomb," and I chose not to do anything and the plane blew up because he in fact had a bomb, well shame on me. But he doesn't have a bomb just because the word passed his mouth and common sense allows me to use context to know that.

Apples and oranges, my friend. There is a huge difference between "These honey-roasted peanuts are the bomb" and "I'm going to build a bomb in the restroom"

This person saying that they were going to build a meth lab in the room, in jest or not, fits the second statement rather than the first. It was a ridiculous statement to make in the first place, and a zero-tolerance policy for such types of threat (IF Disney has such a policy) would call for the actions that were taken.

I still believe that a lifetime ban is/was excessive, but understandable.

There is also a difference between "I'm building a meth lab in my hotel room" and, according to him: "I could have built a meth lab in the length of time it’s taken you guys to answer my question."

It seems that the opposing viewpoints are, the guy is a moron, and Disney over reacted. My opinion? Yes.....to both...:D

:sulley:

TheVBs;2469861 wrote: While I understand the argument that a lifetime ban for flippant comment made in jest in a frustrating situation seems like overkill, you have to remember that this particular comment obligated WDW CMs to report and investigate the situation, with police, in the middle of the night. That's beyond just forgiving a flippant comment. Not to mention, how much disturbance and concern did this cause other guests? And, I would still say it's a safe bet that this guy isn't telling the whole story.

Oh come now. They don't obligate the minimum wage staff to do anything. i've reported all kinds of craziness when I've stayed there, and nothing happened. Purely random and too bad for this guy.

There has to be more to this story if there was a full on police raid at midnight.

texas211;2469931 wrote: Oh come now. They don't obligate the minimum wage staff to do anything. i've reported all kinds of craziness when I've stayed there, and nothing happened. Purely random and too bad for this guy.

Aww. Well, I'm sorry your reports on other people's craziness weren't addressed. But, as pointed out, something that requires the police to be called in clearly is something the CMs are expected to report. Of course they have expected obligations, probably more so than most other places. But that's okay, we can agree to disagree. :mickey: