Tempe Police Officers are asked to leave Starbucks because people felt unsafe

[Curious George]

No, I'm saying that as a patron who doesn't feel safe around those who don't feel safe around cops, I have the right to ask the employees to have those people leave, and by this precedent, the employees should comply with my request.

The employees needn't comply based on precedent. Why would you even think they are bound to such precedent?

Yes, you have the right to ask the employees to refuse service to cop haters. They are in control of to whom they refuse service.

 

[rosends]

The employees needn't comply based on precedent. Why would you even think they are bound to such precedent?

Yes, you have the right to ask the employees to refuse service to cop haters. They are in control of to whom they refuse service.

Perfect -- so the employees can pick and choose whose complaint to follow. If this is driven by their own agenda then it presents another layer of difficulty here. I'm not saying that they are bound, only that a refusal to be bound smacks of hypocrisy or reveals a different motivation.

 

[Cooky]

Here's my concern (ignoring whether anyone likes or trusts policemen, or whether Starbucks makes good coffee, or any other noise on this thread):

If a customer is made uncomfortable by the presence of a police officer and that becomes grounds to ask the policeman to leave (assuming no overt act, simply presence) then who is next? Will the homeopath, the faith healer or the Christian Scientist feel threatened by the presence of a doctor? Will the devout and modest man feel threatened by the presence of a scantily clad woman? Will the (insert racial group here) feel threatened by the presence of (insert other racial group here)? Does a store reserve the right not to serve people who make other people feel uncomfortable? I feel threatened by the presence of people who don't want the cops to be around!

Where does it end?

Of course, this is assuming the cops were innocent, and not a disturbance to the good customers.

 

[Cooky]

So why didn't the Starbucks staff ask the complainers to leave?
Tom

Most likely the police were being disruptive on private property.

 

[rosends]

Of course, this is assuming the cops were innocent, and not a disturbance to the good customers.

I had that in parentheses as a ground rule for my argument

 

[Cooky]

I had that in parentheses as a ground rule for my argument

My mistake.

I hope the 'other side' of the story comes out, and not just the biased tweet by the Tempe Police Association.

 

[columbus]

Actually i think mine is closer to rational risk assessment than yours.

Why?
The statistics concerning violent crime are easy to find.
Young black men commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than similar demographics. Much higher.
It's just that it's politically incorrect to point that out.
Tom

 

[columbus]

They could have.

But they didn't.
Why?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Most likely the police were being disruptive on private property.

You think that's "most likely"?
Why?

I personally don't put much stock in this kind of agenda driven "journalism" until more evidence is available.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

You think that's "most likely"?
Why?

I personally don't put much stock in this kind of agenda driven "journalism" until more evidence is available.
Tom

Exactly, we only have one side of the story so far, which extends from the tweet by the Tempe Police Association... And they expect us to boycott a business based on their totalitarian, one-sided perspective?

...They're acting just like those protesters who often accuse the police on a one sided basis.

 

[columbus]

Of course, this is assuming the blacks were innocent, and not a disturbance to the good customers.

I just changed your post a tiny bit.
Want to respond to that?
Tom

 

[Cooky]

I just changed your post a tiny bit.
Want to respond to that?
Tom

I've been in this exact position before on forums, and said the same thing -that we need to hear both sides of the story.

...And people got mad at me!

...Called me a racist.

 

[columbus]

And they expect us to boycott a business based on their totalitarian, one-sided perspective?

Frankly, I can't boycott Starbucks any more than I already do.
Rather like Nike, I just don't bother buying their overpriced products where I'm paying more for the image than the stuff.
Call me a conservative old curmudgeon if you want. It'll put a smile on my face.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Ive been in this exact position before on forums, and said the same thing -that we need to hear both sides of the story.

...And people got mad at me!

...Called me a racist.

Well,
You failed to put in the apostrophe, so you're obviously wrong.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

Frankly, I can't boycott Starbucks any more than I already do.
Rather like Nike, I just don't bother buying their overpriced products where I'm paying more for the image than the stuff.
Call me a conservative old curmudgeon if you want. It'll put a smile on my face.
Tom

You and me both.

...Their coffee is horrible.

 

[Cooky]

Well,
You failed to put in the apostrophe, so you're obviously wrong.
Tom

Fixed.

 

[Curious George]

Perfect -- so the employees can pick and choose whose complaint to follow. If this is driven by their own agenda then it presents another layer of difficulty here. I'm not saying that they are bound, only that a refusal to be bound smacks of hypocrisy or reveals a different motivation.

What is that motivation?

I imagine that were I a starbucks owner i would want to please the most customers as possible.

 

[Curious George]

Why?
The statistics concerning violent crime are easy to find.
Young black men commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than similar demographics. Much higher.
It's just that it's politically incorrect to point that out.
Tom

Because job and club are closer than job and race.

 

[Cooky]

Has anyone ever noticed that the police copy all the time? First Blue Lives Matter, now the poor officers probably just wanted to use the bathroom while waiting for their buddy's at starbucks. Awe...

...

 

[Curious George]

But they didn't.
Why?
Tom

I assume because doing so would involve upsetting more people in the instance.

If you were a business owner and a group of 6 hells angels walked in and you were approached by numerous people saying that their presence was making them uncomfortable would you ask the hells angels to leave?

I personally would not. But I can understand if someone would. Is that discrimination? Absolutely. But discriminating based on a chosen trait is very different than discriminating based on an immutable trait.