• 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.

Portland Officer asked to leave cafe

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

What is really worriesome is that 82% of the people polled think it was not OK for the owner to ask the Officer to leave. Unless the LEO was there with a warrent or had a call to investigate a crime in the restaurantthe owner has the right to ask the LEO or anyone else for that matter to leave.

I did this 2 times when I lived in Kalifornia and it stuns the LEO, they both left with out incident or repercussions.
 

cassterr

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
imported post

I just read the whole story here and to me it didn't sound like they asked him to leave just because he was carrying a gun, it was because he was a Portland Police Officer. It seems like almost every month we hear about another unjustified (IMHO) shooting by the Police in the Portland Metro area. Some of the storys that stand out in my mind are: The drunk kid threatening to kill himself who was shot in the back 8 times on his porch steps in front of his parents. The officer who shot and killed a fellow off duty officer who was chasing a bad guy. The officer who walked into a bar, killed his wife, friends and then himself. The illegal search, seizure and "evaluation" of the guy in Salem (I know this isn't metro but its still the west side of the state).
If I owned a cafe it would be called Molon Labe Cafe and I would require all of my employees to open carry. If a police officer from Oregon came in I would promptly serve him or her and ask them to leave just like Langly did. It's not that I dislike cops, it's that they don't have good public relations around here for good reason and unfortunately they don't seem to be doing anything about it.
 

JKelly

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
38
Location
, ,
imported post

Had I been eating there, the owner would have ended up wearing my meal and watching me walk out the door behind the officer. The fact that he took the officer's money and THEN told him to leave shows me that he's nothing more than a common thief.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
imported post

Private property. If the owner thinks you are creating a disturbance or are otherwise affecting his business he can ask you to leave. We all agree that it shouldn't be done, but it's legal so long as you aren't discriminating against a protected class.

Store owner doesn't like people with "I voted for Obama" t-shirts? He has a right to discriminate.
Club owner doesn't think you look flashy enough for his club? Sorry, you don't get in even if you can afford the cover charge.
Cafe owner thinks you're making his patrons feel uncomfortable? There's the door; come back when we can trust you.


It doesn't mean I would do it, but I do agree that the owner of the cafe has the right and the authority to manage his property to his satisfaction.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

1FASTC4 wrote:
Orphan wrote:
I did this 2 times when I lived in Kalifornia


Why?
Both timesLE came intothe business I managed without asking, just walked intothe shopand started grillingan employee. I asked politly if they could question the employee after work and I got a smart remark back from the Officer to the effect that he could do as he pleased (short version). That was the 1st timewhen I asked them to leave. The second time I asked them to leave was as soon as I realized they were there and what they wanted.If it had been an emergency I would have never said or thought a thing about it. The smart mouthcombined with talking downto me = no respect given and resulted in no respect given back.They werewasting my company's money by disrupting my whole shop.Both times it was about thefts that were committed earlier and not by the empolyee they were questioning, all of that could have waited a few hours. It was Ventura PD if you are wondering or care.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
imported post

as a business owner he has the right to refuse service to anyone, he does not have to explain his reasons to anyone. if he does choose to explain them, THEN he must not be discriminating against a protected group.

he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... in this case it would make perfect business sense to cater to your patrons.... word will get around and more people like that will frequent his cafe and he will make more money.... meanwhile the police will talk and stay away from his cafe because they are not welcome there.....

subsequently, when one of his prefered customers decides to pump two into the cafe owner while robbing the now full till, the police will be across town, in a cafe that welcomes them.... one that isnt being robbed by the "oppressed douche bags".

and the community will say...."there is never a cop around when you need one"

:?
 

JKelly

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
38
Location
, ,
imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Seigneur had struck up a conversation with Portland Police officer James Crooker who had just picked up coffee to go
I think you should work on your reading comprehension before you go around calling people thieves.
That fact wasn't in the version that I read. That merely means that he was just common scum, and not a thief.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... "

:?
You, like most police officers naturally assume I take it that anyone who wants to have as little interaction with the police as possible must be a "d-bag"?

Exercise your rights = "d-bag"? Not wanting to talk to the police must = "d-bag"? Refusing to answer questions not specifically required by law makes you a "d-bag"? That is the way many of them feel--is that how you see it as well?
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... "

:?
You, like most police officers naturally assume I take it that anyone who wants to have as little interaction with the police as possible must be a "d-bag"?

Exercise your rights = "d-bag"? Not wanting to talk to the police must = "d-bag"? Refusing to answer questions not specifically required by law makes you a "d-bag"? That is the way many of them feel--is that how you see it as well?
not at all, but then again, i have nothing to fear from the police until the day they come to take away my guns...... but lets behonest, the majority of society has no reason to fear the police and they dont..... the majority of police are good and need not be feared..... the majority of the "oppressed douche bags" are already known to the police in the form of "priors" which makes them fear the further scrutinization because they are "habitual offenders" ..... so i excercise my right to bear arms, i excercise my right to freedom of speech by calling an "oppressed douche bag an oppressed douche bag" and you excercise yours by questioning me.... so i ask you, if i do not fear the majority of the police, if i am in the majority of society, am i oppressing you? are you one of the "oppressed douche bags" here to bait people? i think yes..... enjoy your life and have a great day :D
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... "

:?
You, like most police officers naturally assume I take it that anyone who wants to have as little interaction with the police as possible must be a "d-bag"?

Exercise your rights = "d-bag"? Not wanting to talk to the police must = "d-bag"? Refusing to answer questions not specifically required by law makes you a "d-bag"? That is the way many of them feel--is that how you see it as well?
btw, the police officer, if you recall had not been questioning anyone, no one was answering questions, the police officer was getting a coffee to go..... must have been an intimidating blend huh? :shock:
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
suntzu wrote:
Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... "

:?
You, like most police officers naturally assume I take it that anyone who wants to have as little interaction with the police as possible must be a "d-bag"?

Exercise your rights = "d-bag"? Not wanting to talk to the police must = "d-bag"? Refusing to answer questions not specifically required by law makes you a "d-bag"? That is the way many of them feel--is that how you see it as well?
btw, the police officer, if you recall had not been questioning anyone, no one was answering questions, the police officer was getting a coffee to go..... must have been an intimidating blend huh? :shock:
Again, it comes down to property owner rights--you do respect those yes? You do want your property rights respected yes? If a property owner asks you to leave--do you leave or do you stay? Do you simply take your money (which they need more than you need their product) and do you take your money down the street to another shop that is more welcoming?

The owner of the property had every right to ask the officer to leave--the same way they have the right to ask you to leave. Remember--they need your money more than you need their product--me--I'm more than happy to travel somewhere else and give my money....But hey, that is just me.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
suntzu wrote:
Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... "

:?
You, like most police officers naturally assume I take it that anyone who wants to have as little interaction with the police as possible must be a "d-bag"?

Exercise your rights = "d-bag"? Not wanting to talk to the police must = "d-bag"? Refusing to answer questions not specifically required by law makes you a "d-bag"? That is the way many of them feel--is that how you see it as well?
not at all, but then again, i have nothing to fear from the police until the day they come to take away my guns...... but lets behonest, the majority of society has no reason to fear the police and they dont..... the majority of police are good and need not be feared..... the majority of the "oppressed douche bags" are already known to the police in the form of "priors" which makes them fear the further scrutinization because they are "habitual offenders" ..... so i excercise my right to bear arms, i excercise my right to freedom of speech by calling an "oppressed douche bag an oppressed douche bag" and you excercise yours by questioning me.... so i ask you, if i do not fear the majority of the police, if i am in the majority of society, am i oppressing you? are you one of the "oppressed douche bags" here to bait people? i think yes..... enjoy your life and have a great day :D
So you think I'm a d-bag because I believe the property owner had the right to ask the officer to leave? That is your right--the same way it was the right of the property owners to ask the officer to leave.

You think the majority of the police need not be feared? Again--you put more faith in them than I do. Too many instances lately of abusive conduct by law enforcement--such as the "pre-crimes" thread not long ago.

As for the "oppressed d-bags" as you put them--you are merely jumping to a conclusion based on absolutely no evidence--you assume they have priors with the police, and that must therefore be why they are automatically "d-bags"--MAYBE they just like to be left alone, maybe they want as little interaction with the police as is humanly possible, maybe they believe that the police simply cannot be trusted, maybe they just believe in the Constitution a little more than you do? . Here is a heads up for you---many officers consider OC'ers to be nothing more than "tools" looking for a big payday--while they naturally absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever for the day to day interactions with OC'ers. It is always "the OC'ers fault, because if it wasn't for them--the officers wouldn't have reacted the way they did..."

Me a "d-bag"? No..not hardly--but think as you will, it is entirely your right.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
suntzu wrote:
Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
he obviously has more patrons that fall into the "oppressed douche bags" catergory than the "law abiding citizen" catergory..... "

:?
You, like most police officers naturally assume I take it that anyone who wants to have as little interaction with the police as possible must be a "d-bag"?

Exercise your rights = "d-bag"? Not wanting to talk to the police must = "d-bag"? Refusing to answer questions not specifically required by law makes you a "d-bag"? That is the way many of them feel--is that how you see it as well?
not at all, but then again, i have nothing to fear from the police until the day they come to take away my guns...... but lets behonest, the majority of society has no reason to fear the police and they dont..... the majority of police are good and need not be feared..... the majority of the "oppressed douche bags" are already known to the police in the form of "priors" which makes them fear the further scrutinization because they are "habitual offenders" ..... so i excercise my right to bear arms, i excercise my right to freedom of speech by calling an "oppressed douche bag an oppressed douche bag" and you excercise yours by questioning me.... so i ask you, if i do not fear the majority of the police, if i am in the majority of society, am i oppressing you? are you one of the "oppressed douche bags" here to bait people? i think yes..... enjoy your life and have a great day :D
So you think I'm a d-bag because I believe the property owner had the right to ask the officer to leave? That is your right--the same way it was the right of the property owners to ask the officer to leave.

You think the majority of the police need not be feared? Again--you put more faith in them than I do. Too many instances lately of abusive conduct by law enforcement--such as the "pre-crimes" thread not long ago.

As for the "oppressed d-bags" as you put them--you are merely jumping to a conclusion based on absolutely no evidence--you assume they have priors with the police, and that must therefore be why they are automatically "d-bags"--MAYBE they just like to be left alone, maybe they want as little interaction with the police as is humanly possible, maybe they believe that the police simply cannot be trusted, maybe they just believe in the Constitution a little more than you do? . Here is a heads up for you---many officers consider OC'ers to be nothing more than "tools" looking for a big payday--while they naturally absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever for the day to day interactions with OC'ers. It is always "the OC'ers fault, because if it wasn't for them--the officers wouldn't have reacted the way they did..."

Me a "d-bag"? No..not hardly--but think as you will, it is entirely your right.

of course he as a property owner has the right to ask the officer to leave as stated in the first 2 sentances of my post..... it is his right and i never argued that....

i was however making an observation about his prefered customers based on his interview in the article..... so i stand by my post, prefered "oppressed douche bag" customers over a police officer getting coffee to go, deserves the caliber of patron ..... and i again say you are here to stir up the pot, so you are either a total poser, an anti-government conspiracy theorist, a red neck white sepratist or one of the "oppressed douche bags" ..... and it is ok to actually spell out douche bag..... its not even a bad word

:cool:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Get 'im, SunTzu. :)

Don't forget to pull out your facts, for example:

  • no-knock raids verifiably killing 40 innocent people (See Overkill by Radley Balko)
  • the militarization of police
  • the 200+ DNA exonerations by the Innocence Project
  • the midwest governor who shut down death row because 25% of its inmates were shown to be innocent
  • civil asset forfeiture creating "policing for profit" with 40% of chief's surveyed saying asset forfeiture was an important source of funding for police budgets...
  • the recent searches,arrests, andharassment of people who recorded on-duty police through the deliberate misapplication of wire-tap laws
  • the New Jersey judge who wrote that policeoften lied in his court
  • the former cop, Dale Carson, who writes to the effect that police lying in court is so common the police made up a word for it: testilying.
  • The video commentary by former cop Barry Cooper about how cops intimidate and cheat during traffic stops, and how drug dogs are made to falsely alert.
  • comparatively recent examples of police misbehavior recorded and uploaded to YouTube.
  • the open acknowledgement of police abuse in Terry v Ohio.
No sense pretending sheepdogs aren't turning on the sheep.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Get 'im, SunTzu. :)

Don't forget to pull out your facts, for example:

  • no-knock raids verifiably killing 40 innocent people (See Overkill by Radley Balko)
  • the militarization of police
  • the 200+ DNA exonerations by the Innocence Project
  • the midwest governor who shut down death row because 25% of its inmates were shown to be innocent
  • civil asset forfeiture creating "policing for profit" with 40% of chief's surveyed saying asset forfeiture was an important source of funding for police budgets...
  • the recent searches,arrests, andharassment of people who recorded on-duty police through the deliberate misapplication of wire-tap laws
  • the New Jersey judge who wrote that policeoften lied in his court
  • the former cop, Dale Carson, who writes to the effect that police lying in court is so common the police made up a word for it: testilying.
  • The video commentary by former cop Barry Cooper about how cops intimidate and cheat during traffic stops, and how drug dogs are made to falsely alert.
  • comparatively recent examples of police misbehavior recorded and uploaded to YouTube.
  • the open acknowledgement of police abuse in Terry v Ohio.
No sense pretending sheepdogs aren't turning on the sheep.

all of this from ONE cop buying a cup of coffee to go? :shock:

if you can condem an oregon cop buying coffee for the actions of a new jersey cop lying to a judge...if you find NO wrong in that....we as a group are predestined to lose our individual rights.... we will be held up as examples of extremists each time someone with a gun goes on a rampage.... its the same thing... wrong of them to do to us, wrong of us to do to the cops.....

i joined this group to support and excercise open carry, not to bash individual cops .... i totally support invesigating the police who initiated the "david pyle raid".... but for all cops everywhere to me help accountable for bad cops anywhere..... i am out, have your group, as a founding member, i say shame on you
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Teddybearfrmhell wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Get 'im, SunTzu. :)

Don't forget to pull out your facts, for example:
  • no-knock raids verifiably killing 40 innocent people (See Overkill by Radley Balko)
  • the militarization of police
  • the 200+ DNA exonerations by the Innocence Project
  • the midwest governor who shut down death row because 25% of its inmates were shown to be innocent
  • civil asset forfeiture creating "policing for profit" with 40% of chief's surveyed saying asset forfeiture was an important source of funding for police budgets...
  • the recent searches,arrests, andharassment of people who recorded on-duty police through the deliberate misapplication of wire-tap laws
  • the New Jersey judge who wrote that policeoften lied in his court
  • the former cop, Dale Carson, who writes to the effect that police lying in court is so common the police made up a word for it: testilying.
  • The video commentary by former cop Barry Cooper about how cops intimidate and cheat during traffic stops, and how drug dogs are made to falsely alert.
  • comparatively recent examples of police misbehavior recorded and uploaded to YouTube.
  • the open acknowledgement of police abuse in Terry v Ohio.
No sense pretending sheepdogs aren't turning on the sheep.
all of this from ONE cop buying a cup of coffee to go? :shock:
No, from the 40,000 OCDO users reading post after post by cop sycophant apologists and chamberlain-water carriers.
 
Top