Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
Was the customer wearing a mask of the style the violent invaders use to hide their faces from legal accountability? If so, then yes it sounds like the restaurant owner should have suspected they were one of the gang and not served them.
If they removed their mask before getting to the restaurant, and the restaurant owner had no other reason to suspect them, then the restaurant owner is in the clear. But hopefully someone took a picture of their face so they can be on the early admission list for Nuremberg 2.
Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was ICE. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
That sounds like maybe not entirely the best idea.
Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
Yes, you appear to see the point I am making.
5 replies →
If only the courts has some experience arbitrating intent and negligence.
You've truly found a loophole.
My point is that the OPs goal of preventing transactions with federal employees is impractical, so I'm not sure what you want me to say here.
1 reply →
Was the customer wearing a mask of the style the violent invaders use to hide their faces from legal accountability? If so, then yes it sounds like the restaurant owner should have suspected they were one of the gang and not served them.
If they removed their mask before getting to the restaurant, and the restaurant owner had no other reason to suspect them, then the restaurant owner is in the clear. But hopefully someone took a picture of their face so they can be on the early admission list for Nuremberg 2.
It's not illegal to support someone who's a terrorist if you don't know they're a terrorist.