• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

#BlackinAmerica

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Wow. It doesn't matter what she was wearing or why she was wearing it - the police literally mishandled her. So your conjectures serve no purpose but to blame the victim. Wow.

Not blaming the "victim". I was just stating the fact that the top she had on can shift easily and thus is no evidence that police "mishandled" her.
No, you were not, since you were speculating what she might have been doing. So I doubt you are even fooling yourself with that remark, let alone anyone else.

Of course they mishandled her - there was no need to handle her at all.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The article lacks about thirteen critical pieces of information.

It sounds like the course backed up due to a late start due to weather. And then this guy lost his mind. Did he seriously offer membership refunds... on the course? The women might have been playing slowly, but no one really says they were as a source.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The article lacks about thirteen critical pieces of information.

It sounds like the course backed up due to a late start due to weather. And then this guy lost his mind. Did he seriously offer membership refunds... on the course? The women might have been playing slowly, but no one really says they were as a source.
I asked a few of my friends who are avid golfers (most of them are conservatives as well). To a person, they told me that anyone who goes to play golf and expects others to play fast enough to suit their needs is an asshole.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,394
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
a) I am not racist. I am just annoyed by racist double standards in our society.


P.S.: Also, make up your mind. Were they waiting for a friend or a business partner?
1. Yeah, and Nixon was not a crook.
2. P.S. the two things are not mutually exclusive.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
1. Yeah, and Nixon was not a crook.
Yeah, and I thought making up baseless accusations against fellow posters was against the rules. But I guess not.

2. P.S. the two things are not mutually exclusive.
In theory no, but I have seen no claims that they were friends.
 

Mumbles

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
1,585
Location
Maryland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

At least this bit is somewhat refreshing :)
Northern York County Regional Police Chief Mark Bentzel told The Post that when the officers arrived, they learned the reason they were called was because of a dispute between the club’s management and the golfers. After talking with both groups for about 20 minutes, “we determined this was not something that the police department needed to be involved with.”

“We determined this was not a police matter, and we left,” Bentzel said. “Other than people offering their opinion back and forth, there were no problems. No need for us to be there.”

It is - good work on the cops in that case, unlike this one where they harass a black guy for hours for giving change to a beggar.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
No, you were not, since you were speculating what she might have been doing.
I am not speculating what she is wearing, which is the pertinent piece of information when it comes to force necessary to inadvertently expose her breasts during struggle.
As to speculating what she was doing, theoretically, yes, we do not know for sure. Practically, given her attire, lateness of the hour, and the fact that many people go to WH for a bite to eat after a night out, it is not going out on a limb to assume she was partying at a club.
So I doubt you are even fooling yourself with that remark, let alone anyone else.
You are the one always trying to fool people, not me.

Of course they mishandled her - there was no need to handle her at all.
Who is speculating now?
If they asked her to leave and she refused, they did have a need to arrest her which necessitates at least some handling. And if she resists, as she did, it requires more handling.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I am not speculating what she is wearing, which is the pertinent piece of information when it comes to force necessary to inadvertently expose her breasts during struggle.
As to speculating what she was doing, theoretically, yes, we do not know for sure. Practically, given her attire, lateness of the hour, and the fact that many people go to WH for a bite to eat after a night out, it is not going out on a limb to assume she was partying at a club.

You are the one always trying to fool people, not me.

Of course they mishandled her - there was no need to handle her at all.
Who is speculating now?
If they asked her to leave and she refused, they did have a need to arrest her which necessitates at least some handling. And if she resists, as she did, it requires more handling.

It does not necessitate handling. Rational explanation can go far to explaining why and having people listen. In fact, this is recommended for bosses-to explain rationally instead of to rely on hierachy, like "do it because i said so."
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Are you aware that there is absolutely nothing at all indicating that she was in any way intoxicated?
She looks like she just came from a club. Which are places where people tend to consume large quantities of alcohol. t's not exactly rocket science.

This is a speculation that you invented out of whole cloth
Not whole cloth. Pretty skimpy cloth. :tonguea:

in order to justify the reaction of the staff in the store... and seemingly for no other reason at all.
Well, since the only thing we know for sure is that she got arrested and accidentally flashed Waffle House and Tumblr, everything else is speculation. But alcohol would explain her combativeness.

- - - Updated - - -

It does not necessitate handling. Rational explanation can go far to explaining why and having people listen. In fact, this is recommended for bosses-to explain rationally instead of to rely on hierachy, like "do it because i said so."
And if they don't? You assume police arrested her for no reason, but you do not know that.

- - - Updated - - -

I must be doing something wrong. I’ve never accidentally disrobed a person before.

Me neither. But then again, I never had to arrest a skimpily dressed person either.

- - - Updated - - -

Read the article instead of making assumptions. It's actually in there, fairly clearly.
I was on my phone and did not feel like dealing with WaPo's paywall foolishness.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I am not speculating what she is wearing, which is the pertinent piece of information
Yet you felt the need to speculate why she might have been wearing what she was wearing - just to get a little blaming the victim in.
when it comes to force necessary to inadvertently expose her breasts during struggle.
As to speculating what she was doing, theoretically, yes, we do not know for sure. Practically, given her attire, lateness of the hour, and the fact that many people go to WH for a bite to eat after a night out, it is not going out on a limb to assume she was partying at a club.
Doesn't matter what she was doing because that is irrelevant to the issue. But it is reassuring to see you that you cannot help yourself in blaming the victim.
You are the one always trying to fool people, not me.
Nice try.

Who is speculating now? If..
You are. FFS, You really cannot help yourself.
If they asked her to leave and she refused, they did have a need to arrest her which necessitates at least some handling. And if she resists, as she did, it requires more handling.
Including taking her clothes off? Wow.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
twilliams.jpg
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
NSFW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

Another Waffle House story. This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous. The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges. They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff. She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous. One of the cops tells her he is GOING TO BREAK HER ARM. So after an unjust struggle because they wouldn't tell her the charges, they hurt her enough to put handcuffs on her and take her to the station. After all is said and done, they charge her with disorderly conduct because, you know, she made a scene they treated her inconsistently and inconsistent with the rest of society, arrested her without charge, threatened her, and exposed her breasts in front of everyone.

WARNING: be careful of looking at any videos or links at work. NSFW.

Reading the article it's clear she was resisting. You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Yet you felt the need to speculate why she might have been wearing what she was wearing - just to get a little blaming the victim in.
The main part of my point was that her top was easy to inadvertently shift exposing her breasts especially since she didn't have a bra on.
The possible intoxication was just a side point. It would explain her being combative, and is far less speculative than your assumption that police manhandled her for no good reason.

Doesn't matter what she was doing because that is irrelevant to the issue.
Why not? If she was drunk and disorderly, it puts the entire incident in a different light.
But it is reassuring to see you that you cannot help yourself in blaming the victim.
Nice try.
You are the one projecting.

You are. FFS, You really cannot help yourself.
No, you were speculating. And your speculation was far more speculative than thinking she was probably at a club drinking dressed like that at 4AM.
Including taking her clothes off? Wow.

Not even the woman or her friend claims that the police took her top off on purpose. And I already explained that the top she was wearing would shift easily during a struggle.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The main part of my point was that her top was easy to inadvertently shift exposing her breasts especially since she didn't have a bra on.
The possible intoxication was just a side point. It would explain her being combative, and is far less speculative than your assumption that police manhandled her for no good reason.
You interjected your conjecture about intoxication before I made a post. But thanks for proving my point.

Why not? If she was drunk and disorderly, it puts the entire incident in a different light.
Was she arrested or charged with being drunk and/or disorderly? Until you have actual evidence to support your conjecture, you are blaming the victim.



No, you were speculating.
Clearly, you don't know what the word means. When you use the word "IF" you are literally making stuff up. I have not used such a word.


Not even the woman or her friend claims that the police took her top off on purpose. And I already explained that the top she was wearing would shift easily during a struggle.
No, you asserted that without evidence. And I strongly expect from your posting history that you have little personal experience in getting the top off a woman who is not co-operating.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
NSFW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

Another Waffle House story. This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous. The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges. They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff. She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous. One of the cops tells her he is GOING TO BREAK HER ARM. So after an unjust struggle because they wouldn't tell her the charges, they hurt her enough to put handcuffs on her and take her to the station. After all is said and done, they charge her with disorderly conduct because, you know, she made a scene they treated her inconsistently and inconsistent with the rest of society, arrested her without charge, threatened her, and exposed her breasts in front of everyone.

WARNING: be careful of looking at any videos or links at work. NSFW.

Reading the article it's clear she was resisting. You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Asking the police why they are arresting you is the same as resisting arrest?
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,233
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well, since the only thing we know for sure is that she got arrested and accidentally flashed Waffle House and Tumblr, everything else is speculation. But alcohol would explain her combativeness.

Holy fuck, Derec. Look - I can understand and empathize with your perspective on race and gender issues; I don't agree with it at all, but I can understand where you're coming from. But fucking hell, man, you have GOT to remove some of the filters you're using!

SHE didn't flash anyone at all. Casting this as her flashing anyone is ridiculous - it's absolutely narrative crafting rhetoric with no basis in reality. And seriously... "combative"? I swear it's almost like you're trying to rewrite reality so it better coincides with what you want it to be.

Your whole response here is absurd.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Yes, actually, you do. They cannot arrest you without reason. People have rights in the US, regardless of their ethnicity.

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
NSFW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

Another Waffle House story. This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous. The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges. They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff. She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous. One of the cops tells her he is GOING TO BREAK HER ARM. So after an unjust struggle because they wouldn't tell her the charges, they hurt her enough to put handcuffs on her and take her to the station. After all is said and done, they charge her with disorderly conduct because, you know, she made a scene they treated her inconsistently and inconsistent with the rest of society, arrested her without charge, threatened her, and exposed her breasts in front of everyone.

WARNING: be careful of looking at any videos or links at work. NSFW.

Reading the article it's clear she was resisting. You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Asking the police why they are arresting you is the same as resisting arrest?

She was demanding an answer before she would cooperate with being cuffed. That's resisting arrest.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Yes, actually, you do. They cannot arrest you without reason. People have rights in the US, regardless of their ethnicity.

There is a quite limited period of time they have to bring charges but they are not required to do so at the moment they arrest you.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You don't get to pull the "what are the charges" crap when a cop tries to arrest you.

Yes, actually, you do. They cannot arrest you without reason. People have rights in the US, regardless of their ethnicity.

You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,990
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
Actually, NO, they were never asked to leave by the Starbucks employee. They were not asked to "buy" anything by the police. It's fucking racism. Why so hard for you to accept?
Because

1. because the business model of coffee shops like Starbucks is to have people linger while using the free wifi, meet up with friends, and buy coffee drinks or smoothies, not just buy a cup of coffee and leave.

2. white people waiting for friends aren't kicked out

3. if the shop decides to ask a customer to leave, the normal procedure is to do so politely and only call the cops if they refuse or are disruptive or threatening

4. white people who remain polite and cooperative aren't taken out in handcuffs and held for 8 hours but those two polite and cooperative black men were.

5. people keep making stupid arguments in defense of shitty customer service, apparent racism, and cops arresting people who were in no way causing any problems at all.




They were there 2 minutes before the cops were called. The manager hadn't ask them to leave. The other customers told the cops that the two guys hadn't done anything and objected to how the men were being treated. The guy they were meeting showed up as the 2 were being placed in handcuffs and told the cops about the planned meeting. So why the arrests? Even the police chief is saying it was uncalled for, but you're claiming the laws against loitering apply to Starbucks customers holding off on ordering drinks until their friends arrive?

I usually go to a nearby Starbucks on Saturdays and to meet up with family and friends. I don't always order a latte the moment I arrive. Do you think they're going to call the cops 2 minutes after I arrive if I don't?

They were arrested because they were asked to leave or buy something and did not. They would not have been arrested even after the police arrived if they just left. The present moral panic is embarrassing.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.
Do tell how you came to that conclusion.
[LP]Police officers don't act inappropriately and all of their decisions are above the board, therefore if they did something there must be good reason for what they did.[/LP]
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
You're right, they need a reason. Depending on the state, they might not have to tell you but regardless it's good policy because not saying so can create escalations. Besides that, as already written, probable cause is needed and a 911 phone call from WH management because a customer complained is inadequate. It's frivolous, even.

I keep thinking of the lady in the McDonald's who ordered something and didn't get the right thing but McDonald's took her money so she called 911. Loren and Derec had some good laughs about it, but essentially she was confusing a civil issue with a criminal one in a similar way to WH "confusing" a customer management issue with a criminal one. "Confusing" here is really the best case scenario, not the worst which is pure racism.

If you're told to leave and don't you're trespassing. That's enough to be arrested. If the reason she's told to leave is invalid then perhaps she has a civil case against McDonalds, but that doesn't change their ability to order her to leave.

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

It seems to be a common misperception that cops are allowed to act as bouncers for a business without having to follow the laws regarding probable cause to make an arrest. We saw the same thing when United Airlines employees called on airport security to remove Dr. Dao from his seat, and very recently when the cops arrested the two men at Starbucks because the manager wanted them gone.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

It seems to be a common misperception that cops are allowed to act as bouncers for a business without having to follow the laws regarding probable cause to make an arrest. We saw the same thing when United Airlines employees called on airport security to remove Dr. Dao from his seat, and very recently when the cops arrested the two men at Starbucks because the manager wanted them gone.

Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

For clarity, general Trespass can only occur if you violate a legally issued trespass warning. A Legally issued trespass warning can only be given by a police officer, and in written form is the most acceptable... verbal is weak, but technically counts.

A civilian (property / business owner - doesn't matter) cannot issue a trespass warning... they can warn a customer that they will call the police and the police will issue a warning if they feel it is appropriate. If the person violates that order then the police can be called back to actually enforce the trespass warning, and even arrest for violating that warning.

So, if you work at a waffle house, just be aware that you do not have the power to declare a person a trespasser, unless you know a cop has already issued that person a warning.

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.
 
Last edited:

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true. Once you have been asked to leave by the owner or actor of the owner to leave property and you don't then it's defiant trespassing in that state. It's a misdemeanor.

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -

This issue is a red herring.

She was not asked to leave. They called the police because she disagreed with them about a charge and asked for a district manager's phone number. They didn't even tell her they were calling, they said they were getting the district manager's card.

I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

Cops can't just walk up to you and say "get out" and then arrest you if you don't immediately comply. They can threaten you with a citation that will require you to appear in court and might result in a fine, but they can't just haul you out in handcuffs. You have civil rights and civil liberties that the cops are not allowed to violate.

For the cops to act lawfully in removing a customer from the premises, a Notice of Trespass has to be given. Not in an informal, casual "you have to leave now" kind of way, but as an official notice. The second requirement is probable cause. There must be probable cause to believe a person who has been given a notice of trespass is currently violating it before an arrest for violating a notice of trespass can be made.

You guys arguing that citizens must immediately comply with police officers or be arrested on the spot are pretty scary. Not because I fear you personally, but because your ideas about the powers of police officers to incarcerate citizens are like something out of a Franz Kafka novel.


ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
Except that wasn't the case either. The law is easy. If the owner of a piece of property asks you to leave and you don't, it's trespassing. Whether it's a misdemeanor a felony crime depends on the intent to stay on the property.

- - - Updated - - -



I thought it was referring to the StarBucks case and not the lady. In her case it wouldn't be trespassing unless they asked her to leave and she didn't.

The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

Cops can't just walk up to you and say "get out" and then arrest you if you don't immediately comply. They can threaten you with a citation that will require you to appear in court and might result in a fine, but they can't just haul you out in handcuffs. You have civil rights and civil liberties that the cops are not allowed to violate.

For the cops to act lawfully in removing a customer from the premises, a Notice of Trespass has to be given. Not in an informal, casual "you have to leave now" kind of way, but as an official notice. The second requirement is probable cause. There must be probable cause to believe a person who has been given a notice of trespass is currently violating it before an arrest for violating a notice of trespass can be made.

You guys arguing that citizens must immediately comply with police officers or be arrested on the spot are pretty scary. Not because I fear you personally, but because your ideas about the powers of police officers to incarcerate citizens are like something out of a Franz Kafka novel.


ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

If you are on someone else's property, they have asked you to leave by the way of the cops and you refuse to leave then it is trespassing. The written note is incredibly dumb because let's say that you are walking toward your apartment and hear someone in your apartment that shouldn't be there. By your reasoning I would have to go in my apartment, tell the person to leave and if they don't then I would have to go down to the courthouse and get paperwork saying that the person in my apartment isn't wanted in there and then come back. That's hoping the court house is open. Or I walk past, call the cops, they ask the person to leave and if they refuse to leave the apartment, they are arrested.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
The Starbucks manager didn't ask the men to leave, or tell them they had to order something if they wanted to stay, or anything like that. She called the cops without giving any indication there was a problem. That's why the men and the other customers were so astonished. They had no idea why the cops were there or why the men were being put in handcuffs.

Even if the Waffle House and Starbucks managers, acting on behalf of the owners, had asked their customers to leave, that alone isn't sufficient for the police to make an arrest. The police can't just violate your civil liberties on an informal, possibly offhand comment. The business owner or the police have to give the customers an actual Trespass Notice (verbally or in writing but one that can be formally filed) and the customers must appear to be violating it before there's probable cause to make an arrest for trespassing.

Except that the cops did come and tell them that they needed to leave, they argued for several minutes and then were arrested when they refused to leave. That's the verbal warning to leave the property.

Cops can't just walk up to you and say "get out" and then arrest you if you don't immediately comply. They can threaten you with a citation that will require you to appear in court and might result in a fine, but they can't just haul you out in handcuffs. You have civil rights and civil liberties that the cops are not allowed to violate.

For the cops to act lawfully in removing a customer from the premises, a Notice of Trespass has to be given. Not in an informal, casual "you have to leave now" kind of way, but as an official notice. The second requirement is probable cause. There must be probable cause to believe a person who has been given a notice of trespass is currently violating it before an arrest for violating a notice of trespass can be made.

You guys arguing that citizens must immediately comply with police officers or be arrested on the spot are pretty scary. Not because I fear you personally, but because your ideas about the powers of police officers to incarcerate citizens are like something out of a Franz Kafka novel.


ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

If you are on someone else's property, they have asked you to leave by the way of the cops and you refuse to leave then it is trespassing.

The cops are not employees of private businesses and should not act as their bouncers. They are law enforcement officials. They are a part of the government. Legally they can only act in accordance with the laws they are sworn to uphold.

The written note is incredibly dumb because let's say that you are walking toward your apartment and hear someone in your apartment that shouldn't be there. By your reasoning I would have to go in my apartment, tell the person to leave and if they don't then I would have to go down to the courthouse and get paperwork saying that the person in my apartment isn't wanted in there and then come back. That's hoping the court house is open. Or I walk past, call the cops, they ask the person to leave and if they refuse to leave the apartment, they are arrested.

If someone is in my apartment who shouldn't be there, then there is reason to believe the crime of breaking and entering has been committed. That's probable cause for an arrest. But a customer waiting for a friend before ordering hasn't committed a crime, and one who hasn't been given notice of trespass can't be charged with violating it.

Cops aren't 'muscle' for business.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

And most cases are like that. The police ask you to leave the restaurant, you leave and not get arrested.


The cops are not employees of private businesses and should not act as their bouncers. They are law enforcement officials. They are a part of the government. Legally they can only act in accordance with the laws they are sworn to uphold.

Except legally the are the bouncers, that's their job. They get to use force if someone doesn't want to leave a property where a bouncer can't use force if they don't comply

If someone is in my apartment who shouldn't be there, then there is reason to believe the crime of breaking and entering has been committed. That's probable cause for an arrest. But a customer waiting for a friend before ordering hasn't committed a crime, and one who hasn't been given notice of trespass can't be charged with violating it.

Cops aren't 'muscle' for business.

I partially agree with you in circumstances here. But the probable cause, the store calling police and asking them to leave is half of the probable cause, the second half is informing the person that the store asked them to leave. And it's the failure to leave on the part of the person is the trespass. The lack of probably cause would be the first part, that the store did not want them to leave. Was there any doubt in this case the store wanted them to leave?
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
And most cases are like that. The police ask you to leave the restaurant, you leave and not get arrested.




Except legally the are the bouncers, that's their job. They get to use force if someone doesn't want to leave a property where a bouncer can't use force if they don't comply

No, they're not bouncers. They aren't employed by businesses, they are public servants empowered by the state to enforce the law. And even though they are authorized to use force in situations where ordinary citizens are not, they are required to follow the law just like everybody else. They need probable cause before they can use their authority to detain or arrest someone.

If someone is in my apartment who shouldn't be there, then there is reason to believe the crime of breaking and entering has been committed. That's probable cause for an arrest. But a customer waiting for a friend before ordering hasn't committed a crime, and one who hasn't been given notice of trespass can't be charged with violating it.

Cops aren't 'muscle' for business.

I partially agree with you in circumstances here. But the probable cause, the store calling police and asking them to leave is half of the probable cause, the second half is informing the person that the store asked them to leave. And it's the failure to leave on the part of the person is the trespass. The lack of probably cause would be the first part, that the store did not want them to leave. Was there any doubt in this case the store wanted them to leave?

At the time the cops showed up at Starbucks, there was plenty of doubt. The manager had not asked the men to leave. Even now in hindsight there's doubt Starbucks, the corporation and business owner, wanted the men removed from the premises. Starbucks has apologized profusely for the way their customers were treated. So yes, there was doubt that the owners of that business had declared the men to be trespassers. The men and the nearby customers had no clue why the cops were there. All of them were shocked that the cops were arresting the men for just sitting there waiting for their associate to arrive.

At the time the cops showed up at the Waffle House, there was doubt. The staff had not asked the women to leave. She thought they'd gone in back to get the phone number she requested so that she could lodge a complaint. In hindsight it looks like they did want her to leave but were too cowardly to actually tell her to her face. They wanted the cops to do it. But the cops did it wrong. They didn't issue a notice of trespass, they just went for the handcuffs.
 
Last edited:

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.

The notice doesn't have to be written but it must be official. It has to be something that can be filed as part of the documentation of the probable cause that led to the arrest. An informal chat with the manager is no substitute for a clear statement to the customers putting them on notice that staying on the property could lead to a misdemeanor charge and possible fine. Having it written down in the form of a citation is even better than delivering it verbally, and the cops certainly had enough time to do that.

The two men at the Starbucks were ordinary customers doing what a lot of customers do, waiting for someone to join them for coffee and a business meeting. People do that at Starbucks all the time. They don't suppose that they can be arrested for trespassing, because Starbucks wants them there. Starbucks is happy it's a meeting place for people engaged in those activities. Starbucks has gone out of it's way to promote its stores for exactly that sort of social activity. What happened there was extraordinary, unexpected, and shocking to customers who witnessed it.

The cops who responded to that call skipped over the part about needing justification for calling what the men were doing trespassing. They wound up arresting a couple of customers without probable cause. That should concern us all, but what concerns me here is the apparently widespread belief that the cops can haul us off to jail whenever they feel like it, and that cops do the bidding of business owners. They can't, and they shouldn't. They're supposed to uphold the law, and you can't do that if you're not following it.
 
Last edited:

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.

The notice doesn't have to be written but it must be official. It has to be something that can be filed as part of the documentation of the probable cause that led to the arrest. An informal chat with the manager is no substitute for a clear statement to the customers putting them on notice that staying on the property could lead to a misdemeanor charge and possible fine. Having it written down in the form of a citation is even better than delivering it verbally, and the cops certainly had enough time to do that.

The two men at the Starbucks were ordinary customers doing what a lot of customers do, waiting for someone to join them for coffee and a business meeting. People do that at Starbucks all the time. They don't suppose that they can be arrested for trespassing, because Starbucks wants them there. Starbucks is happy it's a meeting place for people engaged in those activities. Starbucks has gone out of it's way to promote its stores for exactly that sort of social activity. What happened there was extraordinary, unexpected, and shocking to customers who witnessed it.

The cops who responded to that call skipped over the part about needing justification for calling what the men were doing trespassing. They wound up arresting a couple of customers without probable cause. That should concern us all, but what concerns me here is the apparently widespread belief that the cops can haul us off to jail whenever they feel like it, and that cops do the bidding of business owners. They can't, and they shouldn't. They're supposed to uphold the law, and you can't do that if you're not following it.

Can you please cite case law defending your position that it must be official and what defines official?
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.

The notice doesn't have to be written but it must be official. It has to be something that can be filed as part of the documentation of the probable cause that led to the arrest. An informal chat with the manager is no substitute for a clear statement to the customers putting them on notice that staying on the property could lead to a misdemeanor charge and possible fine. Having it written down in the form of a citation is even better than delivering it verbally, and the cops certainly had enough time to do that.

The two men at the Starbucks were ordinary customers doing what a lot of customers do, waiting for someone to join them for coffee and a business meeting. People do that at Starbucks all the time. They don't suppose that they can be arrested for trespassing, because Starbucks wants them there. Starbucks is happy it's a meeting place for people engaged in those activities. Starbucks has gone out of it's way to promote its stores for exactly that sort of social activity. What happened there was extraordinary, unexpected, and shocking to customers who witnessed it.

The cops who responded to that call skipped over the part about needing justification for calling what the men were doing trespassing. They wound up arresting a couple of customers without probable cause. That should concern us all, but what concerns me here is the apparently widespread belief that the cops can haul us off to jail whenever they feel like it, and that cops do the bidding of business owners. They can't, and they shouldn't. They're supposed to uphold the law, and you can't do that if you're not following it.

Can you please cite case law defending your position that it must be official and what defines official?

Title 18
(b) Defiant trespasser.--

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(i) actual communication to the actor;

(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;

(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or

(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.

(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;

(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.

The statutes refer to actual notice:

actual notice
1 : actual awareness or direct notification of a specific fact, demand, claim, or proceeding [had actual notice of the meeting] called also express notice

If there was any uncertainty about whether the two customers were given a notice of trespass, then the cops and the manager didn't do it right. The law requires a direct communication of fact. And if a customer reasonably believes that Starbucks wants him to make their coffee shop a place to meet with associates to conduct business, then that is a defense against the allegation he was trespassing.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
For trespassing you have to show these things

1) You are not the owner of the property
2) The owner of the property doesn't want a person on the property
3) The person is aware of number 2
4) If already on the property and 3 gets known, they are given a chance to safely leave the property or if 3 and they enter the property anyways

In the case of someone breaking into a house all 4 apply.

Talking about the Starbucks case only, when the cops arrive only 1) is known. So they could not arrest the person right then just based on 1. However with the 911 call and I bet they talked to the manager or employee prior to talking to the two guys then 2 is met

So now it's just 3 that needs to be met. Again they can't arrest them right away because they don't know if #3 is met. However once they talk to them and say, "You've been asked to leave by the store, please do" 3 has been met. Then it's on to 4, and again they could not arrest them if they tried to leave safely. But once they didn't leave 4 is met. So now we have all 4 conditions met and it's trespassing and they can be arrested. The police are following the law by following all those steps. A written notice is for making step 3 easier, but not a necessity.
As a nitpick, Starbucks is almost certainly not​ the owner of that property.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

I think you're confusing the situation here. A trespass notice means they can immediately arrest you for being on the property in the future.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

I think you're confusing the situation here. A trespass notice means they can immediately arrest you for being on the property in the future.

The notice of trespass must be given before they can arrest you for trespassing. First the horse, then the cart.

The police officer I watched could have made an arrest for trespassing if the people refused to leave once the notice had been presented to them, which he explained to them when he gave it to the guy who had invited in the others. The cop was very clear in his explanation of what it was, what it meant, and what they guy could do about it if he really did have a right to be there.

In the Starbucks case, it does not appear the men were given clear, unambiguous notice by the manager or the cops that they could be charged with trespassing if they remained in the store. The other customers who can be heard protesting the arrest don't seem at have heard any such thing. Without actual, express notice being given and therefore no possibility the men had disregarded a notice of trespass, there was no grounds for arresting them.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

I think you're confusing the situation here. A trespass notice means they can immediately arrest you for being on the property in the future.

The notice of trespass must be given before they can arrest you for trespassing. First the horse, then the cart.

The police officer I watched could have made an arrest for trespassing if the people refused to leave once the notice had been presented to them, which he explained to them when he gave it to the guy who had invited in the others. The cop was very clear in his explanation of what it was, what it meant, and what they guy could do about it if he really did have a right to be there.

In the Starbucks case, it does not appear the men were given clear, unambiguous notice by the manager or the cops that they could be charged with trespassing if they remained in the store. The other customers who can be heard protesting the arrest don't seem at have heard any such thing. Without actual, express notice being given and therefore no possibility the men had disregarded a notice of trespass, there was no grounds for arresting them.

Except under section b(2) it iterates that it is a misdemeanor if the offender defies an order to leave after personally communicated to him by the owner or authorized person. It doesn't say, if it defies a notice of trespassing outlined in this X steps. It just says leave. So if the officer has a probable belief that the person was told to leave and didn't then they can arrest them for trespassing. Not only was there cause they believed the people were told, the also reiterated that that they needed to leave and they didn't. So yes they could have been charged with trespassing and upheld. Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law unfortunately.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,293
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
The notice of trespass must be given before they can arrest you for trespassing. First the horse, then the cart.

The police officer I watched could have made an arrest for trespassing if the people refused to leave once the notice had been presented to them, which he explained to them when he gave it to the guy who had invited in the others. The cop was very clear in his explanation of what it was, what it meant, and what they guy could do about it if he really did have a right to be there.

In the Starbucks case, it does not appear the men were given clear, unambiguous notice by the manager or the cops that they could be charged with trespassing if they remained in the store. The other customers who can be heard protesting the arrest don't seem at have heard any such thing. Without actual, express notice being given and therefore no possibility the men had disregarded a notice of trespass, there was no grounds for arresting them.

Except under section b(2) it iterates that it is a misdemeanor if the offender defies an order to leave after personally communicated to him by the owner or authorized person. It doesn't say, if it defies a notice of trespassing outlined in this X steps. It just says leave. So if the officer has a probable belief that the person was told to leave and didn't then they can arrest them for trespassing. Not only was there cause they believed the people were told, the also reiterated that that they needed to leave and they didn't. So yes they could have been charged with trespassing and upheld.

If it was just "he said, she said" that argument might fly. But in this case it was "she didn't actually say she said, they (the two men) said she didn't say, and they (multiple customers) confirmed she didn't say".

The law requires actual notice aka express notice. The person suspected of trespassing must have actual awareness or been given direct notification of a specific fact, demand, or claim. If there's any confusion as to whether actual notice was given, it wasn't.

Anyway, the cops are supposed to know the law better than a random coffee shop manager or the general public. They're supposed to know when they can make a lawful arrest, and when they can't. They could have given the notice of trespass themselves, just to make sure everybody was on the same page and understood the situation. But instead, they just put the two customers in handcuffs and hauled them away. That's a violation of civil rights and denial of civil liberties.

Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law unfortunately.

Did you miss the part of the statutes regarding defenses?

(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;

(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.

That Starbucks was open for business. The men were customers. They weren't doing anything out of the ordinary. They were doing what hundreds? thousands? millions? of customers do every day. They had a reasonable belief that Starbucks, Inc. wanted them to have their business meetings over a coffee in a local Starbucks shop and didn't mind that they were politely waiting for their associate to join them.

They were not told to leave the premises before the cops arrived. That point bears repeating so let me say it again, in red this time. They were not told to leave before the cops arrived. They were not given any indication the manager was displeased with their presence. All indications are they were not given actual notice of trespass. They should not have been arrested.

I keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm not sure where the breakdown in communication is happening. Is there really any confusion over the fact that American citizens have civil rights and civil liberties, and that the police aren't allowed to deny or interfere with them unless conditions specified by law and statute are met? Or is the breakdown over what constitutes actual notice? Perhaps there's some confusion as to whether the manager told the men to leave before or after calling the cops.

What exactly is the point in dispute here?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,352
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm not sure where the breakdown in communication is happening. Is there really any confusion over the fact that American citizens have civil rights and civil liberties, and that the police aren't allowed to deny or interfere with them unless conditions specified by law and statute are met? Or is the breakdown over what constitutes actual notice? Perhaps there's some confusion as to whether the manager told the men to leave before or after calling the cops.

What exactly is the point in dispute here?
The issue is that for some conservatives and some erstwhile "libertarians", the property rights of businesses and/or the "authority" of the police trump civil rights. Hence the facts of these cases really don't matter: the police must be OBEYED no matter what, and the property rights of the business must be UPHELD no matter what.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Except under section b(2) it iterates that it is a misdemeanor if the offender defies an order to leave after personally communicated to him by the owner or authorized person. It doesn't say, if it defies a notice of trespassing outlined in this X steps. It just says leave. So if the officer has a probable belief that the person was told to leave and didn't then they can arrest them for trespassing. Not only was there cause they believed the people were told, the also reiterated that that they needed to leave and they didn't. So yes they could have been charged with trespassing and upheld. Ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law unfortunately.

And note that by asking the cop to get them out of there the cop temporarily becomes an authorized person. Thus the cop saying that they have been asked to leave is enough--if they don't leave it's trespassing.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
I keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm not sure where the breakdown in communication is happening. Is there really any confusion over the fact that American citizens have civil rights and civil liberties, and that the police aren't allowed to deny or interfere with them unless conditions specified by law and statute are met? Or is the breakdown over what constitutes actual notice? Perhaps there's some confusion as to whether the manager told the men to leave before or after calling the cops.

What exactly is the point in dispute here?
The issue is that for some conservatives and some erstwhile "libertarians", the property rights of businesses and/or the "authority" of the police trump civil rights. Hence the facts of these cases really don't matter: the police must be OBEYED no matter what, and the property rights of the business must be UPHELD no matter what.

Of course police are there to protect property rights. And there is no legal requirement that a restaurant must provide facilities (bathroom, table seating) for non customers.
 
Top Bottom