Ah negative attention is better than no attention for Starbuck’s

[wabbit]

Let’s see six [6] off-duty, white AZ LEs, allegedly regulars, make a white customer apparently extremely uncomfortable ~ for whatever unknown rationale, who then constantly asks mgmt to ask them to move from congregating right by the store’s entrance; but mgmt adds “or leave”, so the nice LEs pout & leave!

Then the blue band’s union president and their agency’s mgmt institutes a trial by pubic opinion to generate huge sympathy towards the vanquish LEs. Starbucks corp mgmt capitulates and piles on public statements of ‘oh my goodness’ the poor LEs mistreated by the bad mgmt of Starbucks.

What a blatant display of demanding privilege if their not recognized and held above their masters as they whine, pout and public express their displeasure till they get their way and recognition of said privilege.

Starbucks Apologizes After Six Police Officers in Arizona Say They Were Asked to Leave (Published 2019)

A customer complained that the officers’ presence made him feel uncomfortable, prompting a barista to ask them to leave, an organization representing the officers said.

www.nytimes.com

J Q Public citizen carrys in starbucks and is asked by mgmt to perhaps move from the entrance ‘or leave’ and J.Q leaves, where is their union or ‘agency’ to begin a public social uproar where starbuck corp acknowledge J.Q.’s right(s)?

I don't understand this continuing double standard?

 

[color of law]

Though they are actually public servants they have been told by their minions of the people that they are privileged. The problem is we allowed our minions to promote such nonsense.

 

[Ghost1958]

I don't mind LEOs getting some perks if a business wants to offer them.

It's when LE begins,to expect and demand those,perks and gets butt hurt when they don't get them that I have no respect for them at,all.

One,earns,respect . One doesn't get it by demanding it.

 

[gutshot II]

Let’s see six [6] off-duty, white AZ LEs, allegedly regulars, make a white customer apparently extremely uncomfortable ~ for whatever unknown rationale, who then constantly asks mgmt to ask them to move from congregating right by the store’s entrance; but mgmt adds “or leave”, so the nice LEs pout & leave!

Then the blue band’s union president and their agency’s mgmt institutes a trial by pubic opinion to generate huge sympathy towards the vanquish LEs. Starbucks corp mgmt capitulates and piles on public statements of ‘oh my goodness’ the poor LEs mistreated by the bad mgmt of Starbucks.

What a blatant display of demanding privilege if their not recognized and held above their masters as they whine, pout and public express their displeasure till they get their way and recognition of said privilege.

Starbucks Apologizes After Six Police Officers in Arizona Say They Were Asked to Leave (Published 2019)

A customer complained that the officers’ presence made him feel uncomfortable, prompting a barista to ask them to leave, an organization representing the officers said.

www.nytimes.com

J Q Public citizen carrys in starbucks and is asked by mgmt to perhaps move from the entrance ‘or leave’ and J.Q leaves, where is their union or ‘agency’ to begin a public social uproar where starbuck corp acknowledge J.Q.’s right(s)?

I don't understand this continuing double standard?

What double standard? I don't see one. The Police have had the good sense to organize and have their collective bargaining agent fight the battle while gun owners have generally refused to do that and want to fight every battle solo and usually on the spot, if they fight at all. You can't compare the two. The police officers that were not in Starbucks will support the ones that were. Gun owners that aren't involved in an incident like this will call those involved "troublemakers" and leave them on their own. J O Public wants to go his own way and surrenders all of his power.

 

[wabbit]

What double standard? I don't see one. The Police have had the good sense to organize and have their collective bargaining agent fight the battle while gun owners have generally refused to do that and want to fight every battle solo and usually on the spot, if they fight at all. You can't compare the two. The police officers that were not in Starbucks will support the ones that were. Gun owners that aren't involved in an incident like this will call those involved "troublemakers" and leave them on their own. J O Public wants to go his own way and surrenders all of his power.

Lets see whom would you feel to represent J.Q. Public gutshot...
Dr. Lott; or perhaps the 2A foundation; or The late Aaron Zelman’s org - JFPO - now run by 2A; or perhaps USCCA; or the national org you exhaustively bad mouth - NRA; or whom?

You’re right of course gutshot, those privileged folk in the blue, active as well as majority retired under LEOSA, are protected but remember the union folk don’t review past history - the still have no idea where hoffa’s body is.

Starbucks is the one exhibited the dbl std.

 

[Ghost1958]

What double standard? I don't see one. The Police have had the good sense to organize and have their collective bargaining agent fight the battle while gun owners have generally refused to do that and want to fight every battle solo and usually on the spot, if they fight at all. You can't compare the two. The police officers that were not in Starbucks will support the ones that were. Gun owners that aren't involved in an incident like this will call those involved "troublemakers" and leave them on their own. J O Public wants to go his own way and surrenders all of his power.

Apples,to Martian rocks comparison


There is no right to be a,cop in the constitution. Police as we know them didn't exist until much later. And they have no right to be in Starbucks. Starbucks wants them out its,within their right to kick them out.
That isn't what Starbucks did anyway. They asked them to move or leave .
The cops got hurt , left , then set out on a public cry baby " no respect for us" campaign .

There is a RTKABA that the law,of the land says shall not be interfered with. Huge difference. Gun owners do need to weed,out the middle of the road groups that claim to represent them both on a state and fed level, get on the same page of no infringement tolerated and demand their RTKAB with one voice. Instead of relying on big and small groups with large mouths trading away out birthright to appease the anti gun parasites.

 

[color of law]

None of the alphabet organizations, despite their arrogance, have no desire to or understanding how to do "community organizing." I clearly understand gun activists individualism, but their problem is that many of them refuse to conform to an appearance or image that projects a uniform demand or purpose. Yes, I mean like the mad mommies' T-shirts, but not to that extreme. Wearing camo sends the wrong message. We are our own worse enemy.

 

[solus]

Around 1913 ghost and as some have pointed out...is the concept constitutional?

 

[solus]

None of the alphabet organizations, despite their arrogance, have no desire to or understanding how to do "community organizing." I clearly understand gun activists individualism, but their problem is that many of them refuse to conform to an appearance or image that projects a uniform demand or purpose. Yes, I mean like the mad mommies' T-shirts, but not to that extreme. Wearing camo sends the wrong message. We are our own worse enemy.

As has been my position for at least 20 years...the firearm advocacy at community, or state level grassroot mentality will not work and now across the country it is a profit generating center only mudding the water.

The founding leaders of the initial GLBT movement understood that mentality and took individual out of the equation and went with a ‘what is the national group missing’ and progressed from zero written statutory rights to s/s marriage, occupation, etc., etc., constitutional rights!

Oh in less than 50 years i might point out! [hummm BoR’s clauses still not clarified out after 278 years]

BTW bloomies’ mommy group follows the same basic strategy laid out by GLBT movement to roll over the grassroots advocacy idiots!

 

[OC for ME]

Nitwit starbucks employee chose a single paying customer over six (supposedly) paying customers...I'd fire his azz too.

Cops routinely complain when they are on the receiving end of a citizen exercising their private property rights...and knowing their isn't a dang thing they can do about it. Trespassing laws apply to cops on duty too.

 

[JTHunter2]

Trespassing laws apply to cops on duty too.

Are you sure about that? During the performance of their duties, they frequently have to cross property lines, esp. in a chase.
Now, OFF-duty is a whole 'nother situation.

 

[FreedomVA]

Don't feed the wild animals

 

[FreedomVA]

Are you sure about that? During the performance of their duties, they frequently have to cross property lines, esp. in a chase.
Now, OFF-duty is a whole 'nother situation.

I like to know the answer to this too....i still like to believe that "No one is above the law" in the great USA.

 

[solus]

I like to know the answer to this too....i still like to believe that "No one is above the law" in the great USA.

Which part of which question?

Yes Dorothy...you are still in OZ, which color [red or yellow] is the road you on while going to visit Alice and the Queen of Hearts & mad hatter... where even in fairy tales even the king in their new clothes violates the law...

 

[OC for ME]

Are you sure about that? During the performance of their duties, they frequently have to cross property lines, esp. in a chase.
Now, OFF-duty is a whole 'nother situation.

I'm fairly confident that those six cops' "duties" do not include stopping by a starbucks and grabing a overpriced cup of crappy coffee..."on duty" does not necessarily equate to "[in] the performance of their duties."

 

[Ghost1958]

Are you sure about that? During the performance of their duties, they frequently have to cross property lines, esp. in a chase.
Now, OFF-duty is a whole 'nother situation.

The ONLY time a police officer may cross private property lines, against a landowners wishes, is in direct pursuit (in sight of) a suspect.
Or with a warrant.

The exception in some states , including mine , is a,fish and wildlife officer in performance of his duty.

These whiners weren't even told to leave, just asked to move.

 

[OC for ME]

In MO, surveyors and utility workers (includes the cable guy) may enter private property while in the performance of their duties...I have no issue with hard working regular folks doing their job...cops, in my view do not reside in these categories.

ETC: spelling

 

[color of law]

Let's be careful with these so called exceptions. State laws cannot just permit who they choose to enter the curtilage of ones home.

And game wardens, fish and wildlife officer, do not have the power they think they have in KY.

 

[FreedomVA]

Think 3rd Amendment.....it's only a matter of time before this amendment get corrupt also

 

[Ghost1958]

Let's be careful with these so called exceptions. State laws cannot just permit who they choose to enter the curtilage of ones home.

And game wardens, fish and wildlife officer, do not have the power they think they have in KY.

Fish and wildlife officers can't enter a dwelling or loiter around in ones yard.

But they can , definitely, cross property lines at will in the performance of their duties.

Example. You are poaching deer on your own land . Fish and wildlife officer in ky, can , has many times , and usually will , enter your land , arrest you, confiscate your firearm and vehicle if your using a vehicle .

Used to happen all the time in Lewis county especially. Been challenged in court countless times. Challenges all lost. Pretty much settled here.

Now all that said. Poaching isn't the problem here it used to be. Mostly now a Game Warden won't be on private property unless called to be for a reason.