Starbucks shop boots police officers because customer ‘did not feel safe’...

[hoosierdoc]

It wouldn't, assuming the person vocalized the "homosexual" complaint.... but if it's just a rainbow themed shirt (not the rainbow flag), in theory, it could fly, as rainbows aren't necessarily indicative of being a homosexual. The shirt just might be ugly.

hate to break it to you but a rainbow isn’t a gay symbol. It’s actually a Christian symbol though. A bunch of colors together, THAT is a gay symbol

 

[Fargo]

I pose the same question to you: if someone has been served a meal at a restaurant, does that person have a contractual interest in the real property, for the purpose/duration of completing the meal?

My personal opinion is that yes, a contractual interest does exist. However, the current opinion of the Indiana supreme court is likely that it does not.

If you go back and read the court of appeals opinion on the Lyles case, they make almost exactly the same argument that you are. That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. I believe it was wrongly rejected, but it is what it is.

 

[Kutnupe14]

hate to break it to you but a rainbow isn’t a gay symbol. It’s actually a Christian symbol though. A bunch of colors together, THAT is a gay symbol

If you re-read my post, we are in agreement.

 

[chipbennett]

Not making any argument, but here is the only time I've seen contractual interest being used as a legitimate defense.
https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1998/123101-ewn.html

This is an interesting point in the case you cite.

"[FONT=&quot]1194, 1996 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (belief that one has right to be present on property of another will preclude liability for trespass, so long as belief has fair and reasonable foundation). [/FONT]"

It seems to go back to this statutory reference, which would reasonably be at issue in the Starbucks situation:

"See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 (2004). “The belief that one has a right to beon the property of another will defeat the mens rea requirement of the criminal trespassstatute if it has a fair and reasonable foundation.”"

...which is, coincidentally, what I originally argued. (I can't find this reference in the current statutes. Is it still in effect?)

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is an interesting point in the case you cite.

"[FONT=&amp]1194, 1996 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (belief that one has right to be present on property of another will preclude liability for trespass, so long as belief has fair and reasonable foundation). [/FONT]"

It seems to go back to this statutory reference, which would reasonably be at issue in the Starbucks situation:

"See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 (2004). “The belief that one has a right to beon the property of another will defeat the mens rea requirement of the criminal trespassstatute if it has a fair and reasonable foundation.”"

...which is, coincidentally, what I originally argued. (I can't find this reference in the current statutes. Is it still in effect?)

Right... the question that is undetermined, if a person has a "right" to be on the property. In this particular case, and others, the question is "does a patron that has purchased something have the right to stay on the property of business where the item was purchased." I think the question get even more confusing in the answer, if the business refunds the money of the person who is potentially trespassing. Does that person still have a contractual interest in the property?

 

[MarkC]

A lot of verbiage here has focused on whether the officers would have been trespassing under Indiana law, had this occurred in Indiana. I believe Fargo is right, there is not a "contractual interest" in the real property just because the officers purchased coffee.

As a practical matter, Kut is correct; the officers did the correct, professional thing by politely leaving and having their union take it up with corporate.

This is just yet another reason to stay away from Starbucks. They appear to be mired in SJW-land, where nonsensical or impractical decisions based on their being "woke" or pandering to group of the week result in the reasonably expected consequences. However, I suspect the kind of people who want to buy a Starbucks franchise or manage one of their corporate stores have fully bought in to whatever the belief-of-the-day is.

 

[chipbennett]

Right... the question that is undetermined, if a person has a "right" to be on the property. In this particular case, and others, the question is "does a patron that has purchased something have the right to stay on the property of business where the item was purchased." I think the question get even more confusing in the answer, if the business refunds the money of the person who is potentially trespassing. Does that person still have a contractual interest in the property?

In this circumstance, I think we'd both agree that any prior contractual interest would no longer remain? "I need you to leave, and I'm refunding your money for your purchase" would obviate any expectation regarding services rendered/products purchased.

 

[chipbennett]

My personal opinion is that yes, a contractual interest does exist. However, the current opinion of the Indiana supreme court is likely that it does not.

If you go back and read the court of appeals opinion on the Lyles case, they make almost exactly the same argument that you are. That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. I believe it was wrongly rejected, but it is what it is.

I'll go back and read it, for interest. However, if Starbucks keeps up the SJW nonsense, it will only be a matter of time before there is a more directly applicable case before the courts.

 

[Sylvain]

Starbucks policy is pretty clear, they don't allow open carry in their stores, unless the folks who open carry are police officers.

Asking police officers to leave a store is against Starbucks policy.

“Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”

“I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.”

[FONT=&amp]-Howard Schultz, Starbucks Chairman, President, and CEO[/FONT]

They don't mention what to do when customers find "the presence of a weapon upsetting" even when the person carrying is an "authorized law enforcement personnel."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Starbucks policy is pretty clear, they don't allow open carry in their stores, unless the folks who open carry are police officers.

Asking police officers to leave a store is against Starbucks policy.



They don't mention what to do when customers find "the presence of a weapon upsetting" even when the person carrying is an "authorized law enforcement personnel."

I'm not sure the sidearms came into play. Simply having the uniform on is enough for some people.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I'm not sure the sidearms came into play. Simply having the uniform on is enough for some people.

Halloween must be a disaster for them then.

 

[chipbennett]

Halloween must be a disaster for them then.

Normal life is a disaster for most of such people, being perpetually aggrieved due to their delicate sensibilities.

 

[Sylvain]

I'm not sure the sidearms came into play. Simply having the uniform on is enough for some people.

True.
But I guess the gun is part of the uniform for a police officer, in the US anyway.

 

[Ziggidy]

Let me understand this correctly. If I am in a place of business and there happens to be an individual or group of individuals that I don't like, I can tell the waitress (or whomever) that I am uncomfortable with them here and she can make them leave?

It can be a guy with a beard, female dressed lewdly, santa claus? As long as it is not a protected group (i.e. ethnicity, gay....)? One person can determine who can sit quietly in their place of business, minding their own business?

At some time the insanity MUST be challenged and put to an end.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let me understand this correctly. If I am in a place of business and there happens to be an individual or group of individuals that I don't like, I can tell the waitress (or whomever) that I am uncomfortable with them here and she can make them leave?

It can be a guy with a beard, female dressed lewdly, santa claus? As long as it is not a protected group (i.e. ethnicity, gay....)? One person can determine who can sit quietly in their place of business, minding their own business?

At some time the insanity MUST be challenged and put to an end.

The insanity, is the notions that people are offended by. But I standby the idea that a business should be able to deny service or expel anyone for any reason (with only a few exceptions).

 

[chipbennett]

The insanity, is the notions that people are offended by. But I standby the idea that a business should be able to deny service or expel anyone for any reason (with only a few exceptions).

No exceptions. Either "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", or else "equal accommodation for all". The middle ground will always lead to unequal protection under the law.

I'm good either way, but like you, I prefer the former.

The problem is: we're long past that point, and have no viable path to return to it. So, what then do we do, while ensuring equal protection under law?

 

[hoosierdoc]

If you re-read my post, we are in agreement.

My understanding was you said a rainbow outfit doesn’t mean you’re gay. I’m saying a rainbow is not in any way associated with being
gay. Not that wearing one either does or does not make you gay, which I thought was your point.

a rainbow has seven colors. Gay pride symbol is a collection of six colors

i’m just reclaiming ownership of a very traditional symbol

 

[Denny347]

Joe Citizen doesn't have Qualified immunity, LEO do.

No we don't. We CAN qualify for it but the it certainly isn't automatic. It's a common misconception that Qualified Immunity is some blanket protection that we all hide behind. We do need it. Example, I'm currently fighting a lawsuit that names me personally. Did nothing wrong and all was above board but they want my house, car, and ANYTHING I make in my paycheck...for DOING MY JOB to the best of my ability. Federal Judge denied my qualified immunity (she doesn't like officers having it) and now we have to appeal to the 7th Circuit in Chicago. This lawsuit has been going on for YEARS with no end in sight. If I knew my arrests would likely end this way (no protections for doing my job), I'd stop making them.

 

[Expat]

No we don't. We CAN qualify for it but the it certainly isn't automatic. It's a common misconception that Qualified Immunity is some blanket protection that we all hide behind. We do need it. Example, I'm currently fighting a lawsuit that names me personally. Did nothing wrong and all was above board but they want my house, car, and ANYTHING I make in my paycheck...for DOING MY JOB to the best of my ability. Federal Judge denied my qualified immunity (she doesn't like officers having it) and now we have to appeal to the 7th Circuit in Chicago. This lawsuit has been going on for YEARS with no end in sight. If I knew my arrests would likely end this way (no protections for doing my job), I'd stop making them.

I would not be surprised if that is the goal. Many in our society no longer want police to do police stuff.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I would not be surprised if that is the goal. Many in our society no longer want police to do police stuff.

I'm in favor of the Police doing Police stuff.