User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 91516171819
Results 181 to 186 of 186

Thread: Two black men arrested for not leaving a Starbucks.

  1. #181
    Points: 74,571, Level: 66
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 879
    Overall activity: 40.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314970
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,612
    Points
    74,571
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,716
    Thanked 21,087x in 12,282 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Which is exactly why they shouldn't have done anything. In the absence of such a determination, it is an open question as to whether or not the men were, in fact, trespassing.
    Negative. Whether or not they were, in fact, trespassing in no way depended on the state of mind of the employee who called the police and told the men to leave...in no way depended on whether their right to equal treatment was violated by that Starbucks employee, or on anything else other than the fact that they were directed by one with authority to do so to leave the premises and refused.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  2. #182
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Negative. Whether or not they were, in fact, trespassing in no way depended on the state of mind of the employee who called the police and told the men to leave...in no way depended on whether their right to equal treatment was violated by that Starbucks employee, or on anything else other than the fact that they were directed by one with authority to do so to leave the premises and refused.
    It's only trespassing if they entered without permission and without lawful authority. And while it's true that permission for entry may be revoked after the fact, it can only be legally revoked in response to a breach of contract. The agent of the property owner cannot direct lawful occupants to leave for any reason at all. And sitting at a table and waiting for your friends to arrive before ordering is customary, therefore it is not a breach of the contract, which means their occupancy of the property was lawful.
    Last edited by Ethereal; 04-20-2018 at 12:02 AM.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  3. #183
    Points: 174,768, Level: 99
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 2,882
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870666
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,091
    Points
    174,768
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,827
    Thanked 12,929x in 8,807 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    The police in that case acted poorly; the police in the Philadelphia case, on the other hand, were not taking a five-year-old's word for anything, not manhandling anyone unnecessarily, and not acting without evidence that an offense had been committed. They saw the offense first-hand. In fact, in refusing to comply with the officers' repeated command to leave the premises, the two men were probably guilty of another offense. I understand exactly the point you're making, Doc, and no one is angered and upset more than I am by badge-heavy, unreasonable cops. In the situation under discussion here, however, that simply doesn't apply.
    The two men were arrested for not complying with the police request to leave. However, that request was predicated on what? As I suggested many posts ago, if the restaurant was consistent and asked everyone to leave who were not immediately purchasing at least a coffee, then the two men's passive resistance would be out of order and the arrest justified. Except someone else was treated altogether differently in the same circumstances and in the presence of these men. If there was a rule in the restaurant, it went out the window before witnesses. Perhaps I am anal about these things but in other circumstances, a no trespassing sign that stated 'no trespassing unless I like you', would have little validity as knowing whether the occupant liked you are not is entirely subjective.

    I question the right of police to demand that people act simply because the police are saying so when it may be a command issued in a legal vacuum and their right to arrest anyone for not complying with that police command, when the person arrested may be the innocent party. If that innocent party ends up injured or dead because they have an acute sense of justice, then justice and civil rights are meaningless because they are subject to a situation of no rights at all in the presence of police officers who have the power to abrogate every civil right that anyone has for the sake of expediency.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  4. #184

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,308, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,142
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195693
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,309
    Points
    74,308
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,678
    Thanked 27,378x in 15,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It's only trespassing if they entered without permission and without lawful authority. And while it's true that permission for entry may be revoked after the fact, it can only be legally revoked in response to a breach of contract. The agent of the property owner cannot direct lawful occupants to leave for any reason at all. And sitting at a table and waiting for your friends to arrive before ordering is customary, therefore it is not a breach of the contract, which means their occupancy of the property was lawful.
    Okay... that is bull$#@! and completely wrong.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  5. #185
    Points: 445,362, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Common's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    339112
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    66,765
    Points
    445,362
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    8,785
    Thanked 18,315x in 10,924 Posts
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    The two men were arrested for not complying with the police request to leave. However, that request was predicated on what? As I suggested many posts ago, if the restaurant was consistent and asked everyone to leave who were not immediately purchasing at least a coffee, then the two men's passive resistance would be out of order and the arrest justified. Except someone else was treated altogether differently in the same circumstances and in the presence of these men. If there was a rule in the restaurant, it went out the window before witnesses. Perhaps I am anal about these things but in other circumstances, a no trespassing sign that stated 'no trespassing unless I like you', would have little validity as knowing whether the occupant liked you are not is entirely subjective.

    I question the right of police to demand that people act simply because the police are saying so when it may be a command issued in a legal vacuum and their right to arrest anyone for not complying with that police command, when the person arrested may be the innocent party. If that innocent party ends up injured or dead because they have an acute sense of justice, then justice and civil rights are meaningless because they are subject to a situation of no rights at all in the presence of police officers who have the power to abrogate every civil right that anyone has for the sake of expediency.
    People just do not want to understand the role of Police. If that business establishment had never asked any white people to leave who were just standing around not purchasing anything and the Police were NEVER called by an employee then the police have no involvement whatsoever. Now the employee calls on two black men and the Police respond, police DO NOT DEAL IN HISTORICAL FACTS, they deal ONLY with what they are confronted with, in that case they will ask the two men to leave at the behest of the business owner or their representative, if they refuse the police they get arrested.

    Everyone wants to add all kinds of irrelevent details to what the police and their role and their duty is in a situation like this.

    Its up to the two black men to get a lawyer and sue starbucks for never calling the police on white people, then its up to a judge, The police make no such determinations, the cops in this instance did exactly what they were supposed to do.
    LETS GO BRANDON
    F Joe Biden

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Common For This Useful Post:

    Standing Wolf (04-20-2018)

  7. #186
    Points: 4,627, Level: 16
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 523
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Honestbill's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    59
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    51
    Points
    4,627
    Level
    16
    Thanks Given
    20
    Thanked 49x in 26 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Just curious, but are the police allowed to arrest someone who refuses to leave, if the reason for asking them to leave violates the CRA? For instance, we know that there are white skinhead bars. If someone who is a member of a group that is the focus of skinhead bigotry is refused service and asked to leave and doesn't, so police are called, should the police make the arrest? If they do, wouldn't the police also be violating public accommodation laws?
    In the UK the police concern/duty is to remove a person the shop/business wants removing, regardless of the reason because the TRESPASS exists by the wanting of them removed. The reason for removal is only trespass (i/e not carrying a knife or threatened the staff or customers) the police must persuade them to leave or arrest for trespass/public order matter. The matter of a racial incident is a court issue especially if the police officer was not present if say, a race hate incident occurred. The two black men would have to take the case to court. In UK the matter is a win-win for the black lads if they can show racism i/e they were treated differently to other customers (white customers) purely on the colour of their skin. They will win the case guaranteed if that is the reason because it is Statute Law under the Equality Act.
    Last edited by Honestbill; 04-20-2018 at 01:50 AM.
    When you hear the clip-clop of hooves don't think Zebra think Horse, be prepared for a Zebra.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Honestbill For This Useful Post:

    Common (04-20-2018),Standing Wolf (04-20-2018)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts