Just got told by a patron at Starbucks that I should leave...while in uniform.

[kparker]

Cite?

AFAIK, not every jurisdiction requires a manager to 'say' don't come in. It depends. Are you sure you can't be charged a priori? IANAL, though I know a Latin phrase, or two.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.080

He didn't say "manager", he said "manager or employee".

And yes, he's right: a sign posted by the entrance with blah blah blah on it, does not override the wording of RCW 9A.52.090 (2) that says "The premises were at the time open to members of the public ..."

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

contempt writ small

I assure you, there is no small amount of contempt. :lol:

 

[Maverick9]

He didn't say "manager", he said "manager or employee".

And yes, he's right: a sign posted by the entrance with blah blah blah on it, does not override the wording of RCW 9A.52.090 (2) that says "The premises were at the time open to members of the public ..."

You're missing the point. Not every means in order to give advice the poster, Mr Canaby should say

1. In Starbucks;
2. In Washington State where "No firearms signs do not have force of law"

“No Firearm” signs in Washington have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is
specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry.
If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you
refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged.
Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who
may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

in Addition the code continues with "...and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or..." IN WASHINGTON.

People reading this advice in 'New Posts' may not be aware, nor may the responder be aware that his comments may, or may not apply universally.

That's why I asked him for a cite. You provided a partial cite and quibbled over WHOM is asking, not IF asking trumps signage (in Washington State it does), nor, if you can be arrested because the officer is a recent transplant and doesn't know the law (see above).

HTH

 

[MAC702]

Its all a moot point anyways. He's law enforcement on his way to work. ...

I missed where he is a LEO. I've been assuming armed security guard, because I seriously doubt a LEO would cause a customer to say something.

Either way, they should be treated no differently, though Starbucks policy probably makes an official exemption for the LEO.

 

[Primus]

I missed where he is a LEO. I've been assuming armed security guard, because I seriously doubt a LEO would cause a customer to say something.

Either way, they should be treated no differently, though Starbucks policy probably makes an official exemption for the LEO.

I was under the impression he was campus police based on the duty belt and striped pants and the location of the starbucks. He cleared it up and said he works private security. The letter they posted by the CEO does say Leo is exempted from their "soft ban" or whatever you want to call it.

There were a few assumptions until he cleared it up. My assumption was close but wrong.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What difference would it make if he was a cop or not?

 

[Primus]

What difference would it make if he was a cop or not?

Leos are exempted. The thread went to the "there is a ban so why are you there" branch. So I pointed out (under the wrong assumption) that he was Leo so it didn't count. The letter someone else posted from the CEO clearly says LEOs are exempted from his soft ban. So.. if he was then the whole thing would have been moot as to whether he could be there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[mikeyb]

What difference would it make if he was a cop or not?

Come to think of it, the letter from Schultz says "authorized law enforcement personnel" which is left undefined. As words have meaning, that seems to open a whole slew of definitions. Authorized by whom? State? Federal? Schools? Constitution?

Are we all not in law enforcement of ourselves? Do we not teach our children laws? Do we not enforce the law upon our person by following the laws?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This has got hashed out so many times and the arguments resulting are dumb.

you are not trespassing if you enter starbucks to make a purchase, if you think starbucks is evil and anti constitution and bad becasue the CEO doesn't like guns (c'mon, like that was a huge surprise ) then don't drink coffee at starbucks.

if you couldn't care less what the CEO said, and you're not asked to leave, and you like starbucks, then have a coffee at starbucks. the LEO v Civilian is a distraction, starbucks is open to the public, no anti gun signs were posted, and no one with any authority has said that people will be trespassed from starbucks.

I still drink coffee from starbucks (well ok, from a kiosk in a grocery store and not an actual starbucks store but still), evil me, shame on me, whatever. do whatever you want that's safe, legal and responsible....

 

[Primus]

This has got hashed out so many times and the arguments resulting are dumb.

you are not trespassing if you enter starbucks to make a purchase, if you think starbucks is evil and anti constitution and bad becasue the CEO doesn't like guns (c'mon, like that was a huge surprise ) then don't drink coffee at starbucks.

if you couldn't care less what the CEO said, and you're not asked to leave, and you like starbucks, then have a coffee at starbucks. the LEO v Civilian is a distraction, starbucks is open to the public, no anti gun signs were posted, and no one with any authority has said that people will be trespassed from starbucks.

I still drink coffee from starbucks (well ok, from a kiosk in a grocery store and not an actual starbucks store but still), evil me, shame on me, whatever. do whatever you want that's safe, legal and responsible....

+1

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DocWalker]

This has got hashed out so many times and the arguments resulting are dumb.

you are not trespassing if you enter starbucks to make a purchase, if you think starbucks is evil and anti constitution and bad becasue the CEO doesn't like guns (c'mon, like that was a huge surprise ) then don't drink coffee at starbucks.

if you couldn't care less what the CEO said, and you're not asked to leave, and you like starbucks, then have a coffee at starbucks. the LEO v Civilian is a distraction, starbucks is open to the public, no anti gun signs were posted, and no one with any authority has said that people will be trespassed from starbucks.

I still drink coffee from starbucks (well ok, from a kiosk in a grocery store and not an actual starbucks store but still), evil me, shame on me, whatever. do whatever you want that's safe, legal and responsible....

+2

(you might want to try decaf or add another shot...lol)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Leos are exempted. The thread went to the "there is a ban so why are you there" branch. So I pointed out (under the wrong assumption) that he was Leo so it didn't count. The letter someone else posted from the CEO clearly says LEOs are exempted from his soft ban. So.. if he was then the whole thing would have been moot as to whether he could be there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I wasn't talking about Starbucks policy.

 

[Primus]

I wasn't talking about Starbucks policy.

? Ok. In the context of the thread and your short question it appeared that way. Did you want to clarify?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

SVG you should know that in Primus world LE are citizens with special privileges, and people are subjects to obey and worship the LEOs. Shame for him in the real world they do not get worshiped, though some of them abuse those special privileges.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG you should know that in Primus world LE are citizens with special privileges, and people are subjects to obey and worship the LEOs. Shame for him in the real world they do not get worshiped, though some of them abuse those special privileges.

:lol: I do know that but it's good for conversation to get them to justify that position, especially in a supposed free society where government and the officials are to be restricted not the people.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

? Ok. In the context of the thread and your short question it appeared that way. Did you want to clarify?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Why should a uniform make any difference to any one being OC? Why is a gun suddenly less scary carried by someone in any uniform? Why should people in any uniform have any sort of special treatment and exceptions? ETC....

 

[Primus]

Why should a uniform make any difference to any one being OC? Why is a gun suddenly less scary carried by someone in any uniform? Why should people in any uniform have any sort of special treatment and exceptions? ETC....

No idea. Ask the CEO why he made that exception. Its his company to make policy. Email him and get back to us.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[tombrewster421]

Seriously people? To all that justify spending your money where you're not truly welcomed, do you seriously not realize that the instructions for the baristas to serve you and not ask you to leave was an INTERNAL MEMO that was leaked? It was not meant for us to see. If you never saw that memo tell me how welcome you would feel and how confident you would be about not being hassled. No it's not an outright ban. The only effing difference between a request and a ban is that the CEO made the request so the employees won't have to because he's afraid that if his employees have to ask us to leave then one of us will lose it and shoot up the place.


WE ARE NOT WELCOME! I do not spend my money there any longer.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Seriously people? To all that justify spending your money where you're not truly welcomed, do you seriously not realize that the instructions for the baristas to serve you and not ask you to leave was an INTERNAL MEMO that was leaked? It was not meant for us to see. If you never saw that memo tell me how welcome you would feel and how confident you would be about not being hassled. No it's not an outright ban. The only effing difference between a request and a ban is that the CEO made the request so the employees won't have to because he's afraid that if his employees have to ask us to leave then one of us will lose it and shoot up the place.


WE ARE NOT WELCOME! I do not spend my money there any longer.

I don't spend the money at Starbucks, I spend it at Albertsons, to Albertson's employees....

I don't shop at starbucks owned stores, but people have a right to do legal voluntary business with another person. no reason to interfere with that....

 

[tombrewster421]

I don't spend the money at Starbucks, I spend it at Albertsons, to Albertson's employees....

I don't shop at starbucks owned stores, but people have a right to do legal voluntary business with another person. no reason to interfere with that....

You do realize that any time you buy something with the Starbucks name on it that you are in fact supporting that company financially right. It doesn't matter where you buy their product, it's still their product.

Eta of course you are abiding by their policy so I guess it's just a personal choice for me that I don't wish to support them any longer.