I think it may be fair to say that the highest concentration of those ignorant people can be found in the Connecticut State Legislature.
-
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.
-
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.
Illegal detainment at Starbucks in Old Saybrook
- Thread starter Rich B
- Start date
I think it may be fair to say that the highest concentration of those ignorant people can be found in the Connecticut State Legislature.
Rich B
Regular Member
I will refer you to California.
Rich B
Regular Member
I updated my OP. Patrolman Demarco has called me and confirmed my suspicion that he was the third officer on scene.
Rich B
Regular Member
Spoke to the District Manger Allison today. She apologized again, stated that her stores would certainly abide by the law and Starbucks' national policy.
I requested a letter from her on company letterhead that would indicate I am welcome back in the store in case there is a problem in the future. She indicated she would send that over to me.
She also indicated that there is a district meeting coming up where she will address with the various stores.
I requested a letter from her on company letterhead that would indicate I am welcome back in the store in case there is a problem in the future. She indicated she would send that over to me.
She also indicated that there is a district meeting coming up where she will address with the various stores.
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
Did I miss the part about how she would encourage her baristas not to talk crap and make fun of customers when they get put in annoying situations by said baristas?
Rich B
Regular Member
Both her and the manager said they had handled that situation, although I am not sure what that means.
If/when I get the letter, I will find out if the issue has been corrected or not.
dcmdon
Regular Member
Rich, this is fantastic news. Its refreshing to hear corporate communication that is clear, concise and not full of doublespeak.
I look forward to hearing about that letter. I am a big fan of Starbucks and the OS store specifically and would hate to have to boycott a product I enjoy. (Their bold offerings remind me of the coffee my late grandmother used to make)
Don
p.s. Rich, I'm going to renew my pistol permit today. It expired last week and I've been working so much on election related items that I didn't have a chance to renew it. Once I've got it in hand, I'm thinking of OCing into the Saybrook starbucks just to see if the Ms. Alison's word had been heeded.
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
Letter from Allison Perreault - Starbucks DM
November 2, 2010
Dear Mr. Burgess:
As we spoke on the phone today I wanted to personally welcome you back into our Starbucks location in Old Saybrook, CT as well as all of our locations. I have included our position on carrying guns in our stores below.
Again I apologize for the treatment from our Baristas to you and want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.
Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws
(updated March 16, 2010)
We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.
While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.
At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.
We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.
As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
Sincerely,
Alison Perreault
http://subtlehustle.com/oldsaybrookillegaldetention/letter to richard burgess.doc
November 2, 2010
Dear Mr. Burgess:
As we spoke on the phone today I wanted to personally welcome you back into our Starbucks location in Old Saybrook, CT as well as all of our locations. I have included our position on carrying guns in our stores below.
Again I apologize for the treatment from our Baristas to you and want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.
Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws
(updated March 16, 2010)
We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.
While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.
At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.
We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.
As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
Sincerely,
Alison Perreault
http://subtlehustle.com/oldsaybrookillegaldetention/letter to richard burgess.doc
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
I like having a quiet place to work with free WIFI. The fact they (supposedly) are a freedom-friendly establishment is a nice thing as well and certainly helps me lean towards giving them business.
Of course there is nothing relaxing about sitting there on my laptop getting some work done when LEOs decide to threaten and harass me.
I certainly encourage you to do so. While you are there, look for the manager. He describes himself as a 'heavyset bald guy'. His name is Greg Thompson and he asked me to introduce myself. I encourage any OCers who stop in to introduce themselves if he is there. Hopefully he will see the rewards that happen when you do the right thing in your business.
Now that I have my letter, I will likely be there this weekend as well, although this is going to be a busy weekend so I am not 100% sure when. PM me if you are interested in meeting up.
dcmdon
Regular Member
Sounds good Rich,
As I've said before, I believe that my self defense needs are best served by concealed carry, but believe that you should be able to carry however you want.
I recently took "casual concealed carry" to my furthest extreme with my Glock 34 in a thumb break holster under only a T shirt into Stop and Shop in Old Saybrook.
There was about 3 inches of bbl and slide exposed. Amazingly, I don't think anyone even noticed. Baby steps.
Don
As I've said before, I believe that my self defense needs are best served by concealed carry, but believe that you should be able to carry however you want.
I recently took "casual concealed carry" to my furthest extreme with my Glock 34 in a thumb break holster under only a T shirt into Stop and Shop in Old Saybrook.
There was about 3 inches of bbl and slide exposed. Amazingly, I don't think anyone even noticed. Baby steps.
Don
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
Conceal vs. Open Carry
I believe that individuals with valid permits should be able to carry OPENLY or CONCEALED.
It's when inadvertent exposure of a concealed firearm results in a tactical detainment or arrest that I get upset.
If open carry is permissible, then inadvertent unintentional exposure is perfectly legal.
Connecticut is a state with several seasons, in the winter it's more convenient to conceal a weapon than in the summer months.
I for one believe that people get more upset when they notice a concealed weapon than one clearly being carried openly in a holster.
In my 61 years, I have never seen a criminal or prohibited person walking around with an exposed firearm holstered on their hip or in a shoulder holster.
The Constitutional right to bear arms for self defense is changing across the country including here in CT.
I believe that individuals with valid permits should be able to carry OPENLY or CONCEALED.
It's when inadvertent exposure of a concealed firearm results in a tactical detainment or arrest that I get upset.
If open carry is permissible, then inadvertent unintentional exposure is perfectly legal.
Connecticut is a state with several seasons, in the winter it's more convenient to conceal a weapon than in the summer months.
I for one believe that people get more upset when they notice a concealed weapon than one clearly being carried openly in a holster.
In my 61 years, I have never seen a criminal or prohibited person walking around with an exposed firearm holstered on their hip or in a shoulder holster.
The Constitutional right to bear arms for self defense is changing across the country including here in CT.
Rich B
Regular Member
Absolutely. I respect everyone's choice to carry in whatever manner they choose (within the law). All I ask in return is that the same respect is returned.
Permit holders in CT that only carry concealed need to understand that this fight is every bit in their favor when and if they are ever 'made'.
I hear from people sometimes "You open carrying is going to get it banned". Fact is, the DPS is trying to ban it anyway. Fact is, if we were getting arrested for breach of peace for it anyway when we printed, then we never had it.
You don't have to open carry. You don't have to agree with open carry. Open carry is not for everyone. I understand that.
Just please make sure you support rights and freedom wherever and whenever you can. Always err on the side of liberty.
kwikrnu
Banned
That doesn't make sense. Open carry is bad because cops don't like open carry and the women get frightened.
Rich B
Regular Member
I know. Panics and riots everywhere I go.
(At least according to the Old Saybrook PD.)
dcmdon
Regular Member
Rich,
I couldn't agree with you more. Prior to you and Ed opening my eyes, I would stand in front of a mirror twisting and stretching to see if any little bit of a print could be made out. Invariably I would leave the house with either my LCP or my J frame.
Now that I don't really care if I've been "made" I often carry a 1911 or Glock 34. In addition to these being larger, more powerful weapons, they are the guns I compete with on a regular basis. So I can be sure that if the need ever comes for me to defend myself or my two gorgeous daughters, I will be shooting as well as I can shoot.
These days, the LCP or J frame come out when I'm just not in the mood to carry something bulky. Not because I'm afraid of being seen.
So even though I'm not an OC'er, I REALLY appreciate your efforts.
Don
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
Thanks. Sounds like we are in it for the same reasons even if our behavior is not the same.
mdkoh
New member
Maybe I am missing something here but humor me for a moment. I keep hearing that the open carry movement is about educating the public. Maybe it does happen but, in the last couple of times I have read about instances like this I find a few things amiss.
First, probably the best thing, the only people that seem to be educated is the police officer. It also appears that they are reluctantly complieing to the statutes in a way that comes close to herrassment. They need to know the laws period! The fact you were not disarmed tells me that the officer "knew" you were legal. Had he done so your case for a lawsuit may have been handed to you on a platter. He knew you were legal, he knew you had done nothing wrong, he knew this was a test to see if you knew the facts. This was a move to embarress you in front of friends and unsuspecting citizens.
Secondly, I have yet to see the complaintant ever being brought out to face the accused. In an effort to "educate" it seems to me that the complaintant should have been, at the minimum, advised that what Rich possessed was legal under the current laws of the State. This may have happened behind the scenes but again, I would like to the oppurtunity see the person who put Rich through this confrontation. With respects to Starbucks, at the least I would have asked that the person who complained be required to attend a handgun safety course :banana: as a part of the settlement. They are obviously unfamiliar with guns and their use, time in class may help them over come it. It seems only fair that the person who put Rich into an uncomfortable and potentially embarressing situation (term used lightly) be made to experience the same from the other side. Who knows, maybe there will be a convert in there somewhere.
I am not usually a stiff spined individual but, I find it deplorable that the very people we educate are the ones who have to know the law, and the ones who really need to know the law are the ones who never get it. Instead they derive the pleasure of watching us be disarmed, handcuffed, detained, arrested, and sometimes deprived of property. We need to get at the culprits who pay no price for calling the cops on us in the first place. Those are the ones we need to educate......even if they are unthinking liberal hacks looking for a fight they can't win.
First, probably the best thing, the only people that seem to be educated is the police officer. It also appears that they are reluctantly complieing to the statutes in a way that comes close to herrassment. They need to know the laws period! The fact you were not disarmed tells me that the officer "knew" you were legal. Had he done so your case for a lawsuit may have been handed to you on a platter. He knew you were legal, he knew you had done nothing wrong, he knew this was a test to see if you knew the facts. This was a move to embarress you in front of friends and unsuspecting citizens.
Secondly, I have yet to see the complaintant ever being brought out to face the accused. In an effort to "educate" it seems to me that the complaintant should have been, at the minimum, advised that what Rich possessed was legal under the current laws of the State. This may have happened behind the scenes but again, I would like to the oppurtunity see the person who put Rich through this confrontation. With respects to Starbucks, at the least I would have asked that the person who complained be required to attend a handgun safety course :banana: as a part of the settlement. They are obviously unfamiliar with guns and their use, time in class may help them over come it. It seems only fair that the person who put Rich into an uncomfortable and potentially embarressing situation (term used lightly) be made to experience the same from the other side. Who knows, maybe there will be a convert in there somewhere.
I am not usually a stiff spined individual but, I find it deplorable that the very people we educate are the ones who have to know the law, and the ones who really need to know the law are the ones who never get it. Instead they derive the pleasure of watching us be disarmed, handcuffed, detained, arrested, and sometimes deprived of property. We need to get at the culprits who pay no price for calling the cops on us in the first place. Those are the ones we need to educate......even if they are unthinking liberal hacks looking for a fight they can't win.
Last edited:
Welcome to OCDO mdkoh
You point out one of the more frustrating elements of satisfying a bad encounter. Sometimes the initial caller is completely innocent of any wrongful intent. At the opposite end is the person that has malicious, trouble-maker designs. Add to that the occasional LEO that wishes to stress his anti-self defense, only-us personal feelings and you have a tough situation.
While most of us have harbored the wish to "straighten out" our accusers, the approach needs to be a bit more of a gloved hand response. The street is likely not a good place or time for mano-a-mano conversation/education. A good and thoughtful LEO might take the opportunity to correct a misinformed complainant - that is always good.
The courts have proven reluctant to single out such people unless criminal intent could be shown and yes even they are entitled to benefit of the doubt.
IMHO we are winning this battle and preempting a vast majority of such trouble makers. Educating the LE community as well as the public is the key - overall we are doing a very good job. We just can't quit now, but we are on a roll.
You point out one of the more frustrating elements of satisfying a bad encounter. Sometimes the initial caller is completely innocent of any wrongful intent. At the opposite end is the person that has malicious, trouble-maker designs. Add to that the occasional LEO that wishes to stress his anti-self defense, only-us personal feelings and you have a tough situation.
While most of us have harbored the wish to "straighten out" our accusers, the approach needs to be a bit more of a gloved hand response. The street is likely not a good place or time for mano-a-mano conversation/education. A good and thoughtful LEO might take the opportunity to correct a misinformed complainant - that is always good.
The courts have proven reluctant to single out such people unless criminal intent could be shown and yes even they are entitled to benefit of the doubt.
IMHO we are winning this battle and preempting a vast majority of such trouble makers. Educating the LE community as well as the public is the key - overall we are doing a very good job. We just can't quit now, but we are on a roll.
Rich B
Regular Member
Complaint filed against officers
I filed a complaint Saturday morning against all three of the officers who detained me.
An interesting thing happened when I approached the desk/dispatch officer (James Shake Jr.) to make the complaint. He tried to ID me.
I found this incredibly odd and I told him so. He replied he needed to get my driver's license and 'run it' before he could call a supervisor in to take my complaint. It was 'policy' of course.
Naturally, I said no, I would not be IDed just to file a complaint. That is just ridiculous. They still gave me the forms which I filled out and submitted to Master Sergeant Robbert van der Horst.
Luckily I recorded the whole event. I will post it as soon as I truncate the rest of the day's adventures.
What is going on with Old Saybrook PD?
I filed a complaint Saturday morning against all three of the officers who detained me.
An interesting thing happened when I approached the desk/dispatch officer (James Shake Jr.) to make the complaint. He tried to ID me.
I found this incredibly odd and I told him so. He replied he needed to get my driver's license and 'run it' before he could call a supervisor in to take my complaint. It was 'policy' of course.
Naturally, I said no, I would not be IDed just to file a complaint. That is just ridiculous. They still gave me the forms which I filled out and submitted to Master Sergeant Robbert van der Horst.
Luckily I recorded the whole event. I will post it as soon as I truncate the rest of the day's adventures.
What is going on with Old Saybrook PD?