• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hows that working again. OOOPPS

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust

Pat Gardner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Plummer Id
Well i just read the article and i think that Howard Schultz needs to reconsider his position on not letting Law abiding Gun Ocing citizens carry in the stores while enjoying coffee and such..
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
People who were there should sue SB for not providing security when they just disarmed them ...

mental stress
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Apparently GFSBX held up by man with > > > > a gun.

So how is that no guns thing working out?

Just give them what they want........and hope they don't take more.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
Well i just read the article and i think that Howard Schultz needs to reconsider his position on not letting Law abiding Gun Ocing citizens carry in the stores while enjoying coffee and such..

Why would you or ANYONE want to be "security" for a business that is (being anti-gun) against what you stand for? And why would you want to spend your money there making the owner richer, and even possibly putting your life on the line -- if a crimes takes place while you're there (and you intervene) -- for an anti-gun corporation? And do all of this for FREE?

Besides, by the time one has arrived at one's political orientation (let's say conservative or liberal to keep the example simple) -- especially deciding on one or the other road as an older adult and after living life and giving it all much thought -- one is probably NEVER going to change, as one believes he/she has finally found the "truth." So even if CEO Shultz DID change his policy, he still would remain anti-gun, yes?

So why EVER patronize a Starbucks in the future, regardless of any future policy change?

Once this "We'll still serve you gun-people but we'd rather not" policy was stated, I have not gone back (I used to OC at 2 of them here in the NE part of 'The Springs') -- and even decided against going anyway but carrying concealed (so "no one would know"), like some OCers are doing. And when I found out his liberal stance on OTHER issues, that pretty much nailed it. At least for ME: I will never go to a Starbucks again. Ever. At least as long as it's owned by a anti-gun liberal with a corporate/boardroom anti-gun environment.

So personally, I don't care if he DOES change his policy although I think it'd take a WHOLE LOT of such robberies before he changed anything. I mean weren't 2 Starbucks employees killed back in 1997 in DC? And IIRC, there've been other instances of violence outside various Starbucks if not in them. Any changes made to store security after the 1997 murders? No...but he's just like all the other businesses and even public schools: They refuse to hire armed security to protect employees and customers, yet also refuse to let employees and customers have the means (tools) to protect themselves. And no one sues them for their criminal negligence, and the businesses & schools get away scott-free after every "tragic" incident. As they have for decades now every time this has happened. Same will be true for the next incident, and the one after that, and the more to come after those.

Whatever, since Shultz has already been outed (in more ways than his position on armed citizens) for the through-and through flaming liberal he is, so let him and his business be.

Forget Starbucks and move on...
 
Last edited:

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
No the CEO didn't really declare SBUX a gun-free zone. Read the announcement carefully, including the part about not booting out people who don't follow his request.

It's really a request to make SBUX a "don't make use the focal point of your dispute" zone, and can you blame him???
 

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)
No the CEO didn't really declare SBUX a gun-free zone. Read the announcement carefully, including the part about not booting out people who don't follow his request.

It's really a request to make SBUX a "don't make use the focal point of your dispute" zone, and can you blame him???

Yes he did. He may have not made it an enforced policy, but let's turn the tables. Say he said "We don't like whites being in our stores. We won't kick them out, we'll still serve them, but we'd rather they just not come." Yeah, that made you really happy and felt all warm and fuzzy about going if you're white. Or not.

Fact is he openly and unnecessarily stated that legally owned guns are not welcome in his stores. And then tried to make everyone happy by not have enough backbone to own up to his childish tantrum.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Yes he did. He may have not made it an enforced policy, but let's turn the tables. Say he said "We don't like whites being in our stores. We won't kick them out, we'll still serve them, but we'd rather they just not come." Yeah, that made you really happy and felt all warm and fuzzy about going if you're white. Or not.

Fact is he openly and unnecessarily stated that legally owned guns are not welcome in his stores. And then tried to make everyone happy by not have enough backbone to own up to his childish tantrum.

Since the CEO has announced his unfriendliness for lawful gun owners they have been visited by unfriendly gun owners ... that'sa tooo bad.
 

Zohan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
34
Location
US Navy
And no one sues them for their criminal negligence, and the businesses & schools get away scott-free after every "tragic" incident. As they have for decades now every time this has happened.


The problem with this logic is that it is flawed. There is no standing expectation or legal precedent that states places in the public sector have a duty to provide security from the possibility of these types of tragedies happening.

The logic is also flawed because for one to prove the other party is criminally negligent in your implied scenario (the creation of a gun free zone), one would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there would have otherwise been a law abiding citizen with a firearm in the vicinity and prepared to take action...the problem is that on any given day at any given time the business owner or their agents cannot predict if a LAC with a firearm or other weapon for that matter would be present or not...so it is nearly impossible to prove criminal negligence in this type of matter based on what you imply.

Don't get me wrong though, I am "rubbed the wrong way" about the exclusion of LACs with firearms from areas where the public are generally accepted just as much as anyone can be but my sentiments about the matter do not equate to a binding legal precedent nor should yours.

-Z
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
Z,

If home-owners are liable for someone getting injured on said homeowner's property -- even if just slipping and falling -- then SO MUCH MORE should business-owners be liable for employees/students/customers being maimed/killed while on said business owners property.

Nothing wrong with THAT logic whatsoever.

That said, I will not "debate" this further as I'm done here, but just will add that I still disagree with you (for what my opinion is worth, which is nothing, so it doesn't matter anyway -- it's just here for the record).
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Z,

If home-owners are liable for someone getting injured on said homeowner's property -- even if just slipping and falling -- then SO MUCH MORE should business-owners be liable for employees/students/customers being maimed/killed while on said business owners property. Period.

That said, I will not "debate" this further, but just will add that I disagree with you (for what my opinion is worth, which is nothing, so it doesn't matter anyway -- it's just here for the record).

Two different animals - one involves possible negligence of property owner and the choice of cheaper to pay than to litigate by the insurance carrier.

The other involves an action by a 3rd party - the one directly causing the harm.

Then consider criminal conduct vs civil and the position becomes more convoluted.

Would I like businesses that invite the public to be treated as if they were public for these purposes? You bet I would.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
It is stupid on the CEO's part to endanger his employees by removing the only people who were insuring their safety. What a idiot!
 
Last edited:

JamesB

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
703
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
The problem with this logic is that it is flawed. There is no standing expectation or legal precedent that states places in the public sector have a duty to provide security from the possibility of these types of tragedies happening.

The logic is also flawed because for one to prove the other party is criminally negligent in your implied scenario (the creation of a gun free zone), one would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there would have otherwise been a law abiding citizen with a firearm in the vicinity and prepared to take action...the problem is that on any given day at any given time the business owner or their agents cannot predict if a LAC with a firearm or other weapon for that matter would be present or not...so it is nearly impossible to prove criminal negligence in this type of matter based on what you imply.

Don't get me wrong though, I am "rubbed the wrong way" about the exclusion of LACs with firearms from areas where the public are generally accepted just as much as anyone can be but my sentiments about the matter do not equate to a binding legal precedent nor should yours.

-Z

Actually, this is precisely the logic being followed in the case going forward against the Aurora theater. They disarmed the people inside and failed to make accommodations for security based on it.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
As an injured party from a holdup in a gun free zone and someone who would otherwise would have been carrying I think your second point about the chance of a LAC on hand to resist the attack is moot. The plaintiff would be the otherwise armed citizen.
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
I have a hard time considering theStarbuck's unenforced policy to be anything but a store policy prohibiting guns. The public notice is out there, property owners/possessors are entitled to ban guns from their property and anyone carrying a gun would be liable for criminal trespass under the laws of many states. Don't go tempting fate on that one.

Good luck trying to win any sort of premises liability case against Starbuck's based on their GFZ policy...unforeseen/sudden criminal acts of third parties are pretty far outside Starbuck's duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment for their customers. The key is that Starbuck's would have to have NOTICE of the particular danger...and to my knowledge stickup men don't phone ahead.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Since the CEO has announced his unfriendliness for lawful gun owners they have been visited by unfriendly gun owners ... that'sa tooo bad.

I kinda like the way you put that. 'Since the CEO has announced his disdain for FRIENDLY lawful gun owners, they have been visited by UNFRIENDLY gun owners' would have been cherry.

Yeah, I just can't understand the idea 'oh some employees were killed in a robbery, let's ban guns' mentality. I mean it's so totally emotional. It's like saying 'some guy got run over crossing the street, let's ban crossing the street'.
 
Last edited:
Top