[H]ow would the store owner know the perpetrator was only engaging in "mischief"?
I'm not sure there is or was a 'perpetrator,' to be honest.
But, with respect to your question: the store owner couldn't know, any more than he could know if an individual fitting the model of the perfect citizen, beaming from ear-to-ear, carrying a briefcase and wearing a double-breasted suit entered with utter maliciousness, theft, or multiple homicide on his mind.
*****
Wearing a ski mask, in and of itself, is not an act of aggression or an attempt at coercion any more than wearing ski gloves or an old army jacket is. A reason for suspicion? Definitely. A reason for eviction from the store? I'd certainly say so, and at the very least I'd say that it's within the property right of any store owner to evict anyone entering their store for any reason whatsoever.
A reason for making the mask-wearer quake in his boots, staring down the barrel of a .357 under strict, clearly-stated orders to quickly and quietly leave the premises or meet Gabriel? Yes, I'd accept that too. Certainly.
But I take issue - that is, when considering the information in the news article, which may be incomplete (words, gestures, and the like could certainly sway my opinion) - with the state's assertion that wearing a ski mask constitutes a "threat," let alone one of "terroris[m]".
LPS5 |
