• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

So, racism by Starbucks or just two guys who wouldn't buy a cup of coffee?

ctwo said:
Is that bit of twist intentional? Let's take the entire quote, please...?

Unless the "nothing wrong" was what he said initially.

"I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law and not that they didn’t do anything wrong,"

Not explicit...so what was it that they didn't not do wrong?

"Robinson told ABC News that police never read them their Miranda rights and that they were held in custody for eight hours."

Isn't that also adding unlawful detention?
Click to expand...

Unlawful detention for what? Also, Miranda is only required if both custody and interrogation are present. If they weren't questioning them, no Miranda rights are required, contrary to what you've seen on TV.
 
I thought about accusations that the Zeitgeist is homophobic when they threw out 2 lesbians.

Here is the Zeitgeist's response:
Regarding this incident that everyone is referring to; the two ladies were asked to leave because they were highly intoxicated and became aggressive with other patrons and our staff. It had absolutely nothing to do with their sexual orientation. We are very disappointed and saddened that someone would throw around an accusation of this magnitude without the actual facts. Hopefully, this will be the last post regarding this issue.
Click to expand...

http://sfist.com/2013/03/29/zeitgeist_noted_mission_bar_accused.php

You may question what happened there, but the manager who called the cops has not defended herself, nor has Starbucks either.
 
295566 said:
Unlawful detention for what? Also, Miranda is only required if both custody and interrogation are present. If they weren't questioning them, no Miranda rights are required, contrary to what you've seen on TV.
Click to expand...

I don't know the actual fact, but the quote implies they taken into custody and held for 8 hours. Miranda was just part of the quote, not my point.

If they were not questioning (and do we know that), why were they holding, and for so long? Is that normal and acceptable? Is it acceptable in light of the commissioner apologizing and suggesting the officers acted wrongly and that policy needs a change?

Even in another context, let's say an HOA manager enters a resident's property and cops are called. Is that a case where it is acceptable to hold the manager for 8 hours and then release without any charges? Without questioning and Miranda?
 
sanjuro said:
You may question what happened there, but the manager who called the cops has not defended herself, nor has Starbucks either.
Click to expand...

Is it possible the manager and SB could face some sort of repercussions and are just engaging due diligence to mitigate any possible damages? Has the manager been charged with a crime or something that should be defended? If I was her I would just want to disappear, no statements, no pictures... SB probably advised her.
 
ctwo said:
I don't know the actual fact, but the quote implies they taken into custody and held for 8 hours. Miranda was just part of the quote, not my point.

If they were not questioning (and do we know that), why were they holding, and for so long? Is that normal and acceptable?
Click to expand...

I believe the police can hold someone for 24 hours before they either have to charge or release them. Every situation is different. It's acceptable, yes.

ctwo said:
Is it acceptable in light of the commissioner apologizing and suggesting the officers acted wrongly and that policy needs a change?
Click to expand...

Where did that happen? I didn't see the commissioner admitting wrongdoing, only apologizing for exasperating the situation. That's very different than saying they acted incorrectly and policy needs changing.

ctwo said:
Even in another context, let's say an HOA manager enters a resident's property and cops are called. Is that a case where it is acceptable to hold the manager for 8 hours and then release without any charges? Without questioning and Miranda?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're going with this but here goes... 1) why is the HOA in another resident's place to begin with? Is that the reason the cops were called? Trespassing complaint? 2) The officers would presumably hold someone either in a holding cell or a holding room at the station or substation. Depends on the circumstance. Additionally, juveniles require their own separate treatment. 3) Miranda and questioning, again, have nothing to do with this. Just because you're held doesn't mean you need to be questioned immediately. Just because you're held doesn't mean you need to have your Miranda rights read to you.
 
Eldritch said:
Dear god, so many times every single day in this nation. Have you ever been to a DUI checkpoint?
Click to expand...

Just cause something doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen... Those instances just aren't as click-baity as cases such as the current topic of discussion.
 
Climber said:
The original story didn't say that they were only there for 2 minutes, as people are saying in later posts, before the store manager asked them to leave, I had assumed that it was a much longer period of time.

Two minutes in a coffee shop is far too short of a time to be asking somebody to leave, that was completely out of line.
Click to expand...

Thought I read earlier that they were repeat customers? Maybe they never bought anything several times in a row, and that's what ticked off the "manager" (oh excuse me, "team leader" (even though being a manager doesn't mean you know how to lead)).
 
295566 said:
Just cause something doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen... Those instances just aren't as click-baity as cases such as the current topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

Dude, white people's civil rights violations happen all the time and they often get into the news. It seems like 4th Amendment Violations are the most common.
 
bojangle said:
Plus, if police were used as pawns to assist the manager in violating civil rights under the guise of enforcing trespassing laws, that's not a good position to be in, even if the police did nothing illegal or against policy.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent way to put it.
 
295566 said:
I believe the police can hold someone for 24 hours before they either have to charge or release them. Every situation is different. It's acceptable, yes.



Where did that happen? I didn't see the commissioner admitting wrongdoing, only apologizing for exasperating the situation. That's very different than saying they acted incorrectly and policy needs changing.



Not sure where you're going with this but here goes... 1) why is the HOA in another resident's place to begin with? Is that the reason the cops were called? Trespassing complaint? 2) The officers would presumably hold someone either in a holding cell or a holding room at the station or substation. Depends on the circumstance. Additionally, juveniles require their own separate treatment. 3) Miranda and questioning, again, have nothing to do with this. Just because you're held doesn't mean you need to be questioned immediately. Just because you're held doesn't mean you need to have your Miranda rights read to you.
Click to expand...

Well, I looked on findlaw and they say CA is 48 hours before charges or release...

I provided the entire quote from abc news. You can interpret how you wish, but I take it as a binary matter in full context and am less interested in the PC end of it. It seems your officers either don't act wrongly and you defend that or they don't act correctly and you apologize. I would have found a better way to point to the policy rather than the officers.

I was referring to the creepy HOA topic. I'd rather we be discussing the HOA manager's 24 hour detainment...
 
TylerW said:
Has a white person's civil rights ever been violated?
Click to expand...

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=355749

Buckle up, it's a long ride. :laughing

ctwo said:
Is that bit of twist intentional? Let's take the entire quote, please...?

Unless the "nothing wrong" was what he said initially.

"I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law and not that they didn’t do anything wrong,"

Not explicit...so what was it that they didn't not do wrong?

"Robinson told ABC News that police never read them their Miranda rights and that they were held in custody for eight hours."

Isn't that also adding unlawful detention?
Click to expand...

The article claims he said the police did nothing wrong in an earlier statement. Then, after seeing the protests and media frenzy over this case, he apologized for his statement making things worse...not that his statement was untrue. Just that he regretted saying anything.

As already addressed, Miranda only applies to in custody interrogations. It looked like they were questioned before arrest, so the police likely didn't need to question them anymore after the arrest. Miranda wouldn't be necessary. As a side note, on occasion, I've have people I arrested get absolutely furious with me because I did not, and would not read them Miranda. :laughing

See below for the 8 hours.

ctwo said:
I don't know the actual fact, but the quote implies they taken into custody and held for 8 hours. Miranda was just part of the quote, not my point.

If they were not questioning (and do we know that), why were they holding, and for so long? Is that normal and acceptable? Is it acceptable in light of the commissioner apologizing and suggesting the officers acted wrongly and that policy needs a change?
Click to expand...

Seems perfectly normal to me. They were arrested. I'm familiar with California law, and laws can vary, but, like you found below, when someone is held in jail on a charge, the DA has 48 hours, not including weekends or holidays, to file a complaint with the court. If that is not done in time, the prisoner has to be released without charges (though charges can still be filed after the fact). Police, obviously, want to make sure this doesn't happen, especially for major cases.

When it comes to misdemeanors, they are often handled by having the person sign a promise to appear in court, which is why one has to sign a ticket, or be taken into custody and before a magistrate. In certain cases, misdemeanor crimes will be booked into jail instead of cited. Trespassing and refusing to leave would be one such case, since there is a likelihood the crime will continue without a booking in jail.

Generally, for misdemeanor cases booked into jail, prisoners are not held 48+ hours until arraignment, or forced to post bail for released. They are generally going to be released from jail later that day/night without posting bail, on their own recognisance with a date to appear in court a few weeks or months down the road. 8 hours from time of arrest to transport, booking, fingerprints, photos, to time of O.R. release from jail seems totally normal. Kinda move along, nothing to see here, normal.

But people who don't know legal process will use these things like 8 hours and Miranda to try and make some misinformed point about something or other. I've seen it plenty of times.

ctwo said:
Well, I looked on findlaw and they say CA is 48 hours before charges or release...
Click to expand...

Yup, not including weekends or holidays.
 
Well, I was asking about the detainment. I could easily imagine that going overnight for something as silly as refusing to sign a traffic ticket.

I think I feel just as bad for the officers as I do for the other gentlemen subjects over all the circumstances.

I do not know how to feel about the manager. As a manager, I've been subject to false accusations and claims, and attempts at public assaults on my character. Unfounded of course, but defensible to no positive outcome so I left it alone. Actually, because it was SB, the manager handled it very poorly. (I only struggle with this a bit because I extrapolate such a case on a broader scale, I mean there is a related societal problem with this sort of thing - bathroom use).
 
Intelligent police work could
Have defused this whole thing...talking to the mgr, asking “do you Really want to do this?”
 
ctwo said:
Well, I was asking about the detainment. I could easily imagine that going overnight for something as silly as refusing to sign a traffic ticket.

I think I feel just as bad for the officers as I do for the other gentlemen subjects over all the circumstances.

I do not know how to feel about the manager. As a manager, I've been subject to false accusations and claims, and attempts at public assaults on my character. Unfounded of course, but defensible to no positive outcome so I left it alone. Actually, because it was SB, the manager handled it very poorly. (I only struggle with this a bit because I extrapolate such a case on a broader scale, I mean there is a related societal problem with this sort of thing - bathroom use).
Click to expand...

If she kicked them out / had them arrested for being black, then fuck her. And if it was initiated only 2 minutes after they arrived, that doesn't look good for her, unless they really were causing a disturbance.

But like I pointed out earlier, the source I read was tabloid news source that quoted a disgruntled former employee. So take it with two grains of salt.

enki said:
Intelligent police work could
Have defused this whole thing...talking to the mgr, asking “do you Really want to do this?”
Click to expand...

The vast majority of times I've ever been called to a business to help with a trespassing issue, we get them to leave without a report or arrest. But who knows what she told the police. And, ultimately, if we're called to enforce, and the business owner / representative is going to do a private person arrest, if they don't leave at that point there will be an arrest. But that's why I always put it back on the person requesting assistance. If they're not willing to do a private person arrest, then I think we're done here. I mean, I'll try to convince them to leave, but upon refusal, I'll be getting a private person arrest before I make anything happen.
 
SFSV650 said:
Who was lynched? You know what that is, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know exactly what it means. Starbucks and the police are being lynched for asking people who had not purchased anything to leave, then arrested for a misdemeanor, for refusing to leave when being told to by the police.
 
msethhunter said:
Yes, I know exactly what it means. Starbucks and the police are being lynched for asking people who had not purchased anything to leave, then arrested for a misdemeanor, for refusing to leave when being told to by the police.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source on that?
If people have been kidnapped, tortured, and murdered, over coffee, that's truly awful and should be better reported.

If you're seriously equating criticism with mob abduction and murder, then you're either dangerously stupid or transparently disingenuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top