quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

Texas law states that establishments can’t deny service to an officer or special investigator who is carrying a weapon on the premises, as long as they are authorized to carry the weapon.

So find the douchbag who tossed the officer out, arrest and charge him with violating state law and send him to jail. Publicize this.

Maybe more SJW idiots will think twice before doing this again.

Do you think these SJW assholes can/do actually think?

I do not! All they can do is sit in mommy's basement and wonder why they don't have it better.

As to starbuck's, I/we drink a LOT of coffee. Had a cup of starbuck's many years ago on a flight to the states from Germany. Could not drink it. Tasted like shit. Would not bother me a bit if they closed up.

Sounds like another employee attempting to enforce a policy that was not made clear. I see it all of the time in employee handbooks "no weapon policies".

quote:

“They would have been in the right if it was just a private citizen carrying like that, but the law is very specific when it comes down to a police or peace officer,”

Well that's interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

“They would have been in the right if it was just a private citizen carrying like that, but the law is very specific when it comes down to a police or peace officer,”

Well that's interesting.

Yes it is, a1a...that is a VERY subjective statement. Unless the place of business has posted a LEGAL 30.06 and/or a 30.07 sign (State of Texas Statutes), I can carry all day long in that establishment and there's not thing one ANYONE can do about it.

I've seen too often the sign stating "The unauthorized possession of weapons on these premises is strictly prohibited" or some such verbiage that has ZERO bearing on my right to carry in said establishment in the State of Texas, openly or otherwise.

If this was someone OTHER THAN the manager doing the ousting, I think that employee needs a SEVERE reprimand. As an employee, the first thing I would do is get the manager. This has so much FAIL in it that it's really not funny anymore.

quote:

Yes, I know: That doesn't hurt *$'s, because they already have the money. But I just cannot get interested in redeeming the thing.

Give it to a local LEO so they can have free coffee there... I doubt they'll kick them out in your neck of the woods.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
If this was someone OTHER THAN the manager doing the ousting, I think that employee needs a SEVERE reprimand. As an employee, the first thing I would do is get the manager. This has so much FAIL in it that it's really not funny anymore.

I heard on the Houston news and found 2 stories saying it was the manager who illegally asked the officer to leave.

Links:

Newsweek

San Antonio Current

In other words, the PR generated apology is misleading (not a surprise) and it was no mere “team member” or employee. It was the decision maker on-site who booted the LEO illegally. Toss the manager’s ass in jail for breaking the law.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

quote:

it was the manager who illegally asked the officer to leave

So to determine whether or not the manager was acting within the scope of their employment, we need to see the employee manual that governs what the corporate policies are.

IF the policy on weapons excludes police officers, then we are clearly dealing with a SJW. But most that I have seen do not exclude anybody, and the odds are very good that the manager was acting according to the policies, as written, that they will get fired for not implementing.

quote:

Toss the manager’s ass in jail for breaking the law.

quote:

arrest and charge him with violating state law and send him to jail

Do you guys even listen to what you're saying or apply any logic beyond emotion? I'm asking this question respectfully.

First, I seriously doubt this is the law. I'm assuming they are speaking about law enforcement being exempt from laws that govern the banning of weapons from property. IF there was a law forcing a private business to not only do business with those of a particular occupation, let alone government agents, I doubt it would pass Constitutional muster.

Should bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gays be jailed? Who else should be jailed when we get upset? Sounds like what I hear from the left.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
First, I seriously doubt this is the law.

Your computer is obviously attached to the Internet since you're posting here so you could have searched with less keystrokes than posting your wild assed guess.

quote:

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - CRIM P Art. 2.1305 Art. 2.1305. Carrying Weapon on Certain Premises

(a) An establishment serving the public may not prohibit or otherwise restrict a peace officer or special investigator from carrying on the establishment's premises a weapon that the peace officer or special investigator is otherwise authorized to carry, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon.

(b) For purposes of this article:

(1) “Establishment serving the public” means:

(A) a hotel, motel, or other place of lodging;

(B) a restaurant or other place where food is offered for sale to the public;

(C) a retail business or other commercial establishment or an office building to which the general public is invited;

(D) a sports venue;  and

(E) any other place of public accommodation, amusement, convenience, or resort to which the general public or any classification of persons from the general public is regularly, normally, or customarily invited.

(2) “Sports venue” means an arena, coliseum, stadium, or other type of area or facility that is primarily used or is planned for primary use for one or more professional or amateur sports or athletics events and for which a fee is charged or is planned to be charged for admission to the sports or athletics events, other than occasional civic, charitable, or promotional events.

I am going to go buy 10 gift cards from Starbucks tomorrow, and then head down to Alvernon Park and give them out to the homeless

quote:

Your computer is obviously attached to the Internet since you're posting here so you could have searched with less keystrokes than posting your wild assed guess.

Seems my guess was 100% correct. I must be psychic!

As you so kindly posted, an establishment may not prohibit an officer from carrying a gun inside their establishment like they can the general public. They can however refuse to serve them and ask them to leave....which is apparently what happened.

I don't see any of this in there:

quote:

Texas law states that establishments can’t deny service to an officer or special investigator who is carrying a weapon on the premises,

Because if any of that were true, then cops could just go wherever they want and do whatever they want, right? No need for a warrant even. Says right there that public places "can't restrict" them. A officer could head right back to the office and start going through paperwork if he wanted...and any "restriction" would be illegal.

I believe this falls under personal property rights and what is (or should be) the right of those who control the property to do business with (or not) whomever they wish.

That's really besides the point though, because this seems to be a company policy issue and not a legal issue. But should it end up being a legal issue, I wouldn't think it would stand up. At least not in this case. After all occupations are not protected classes of persons, and we still live in what's supposed to be a free country where we reserve the right to refuse service to whomever we wish, regardless of how misguided that may be.

This wasn't a mistake, a misjudgment or a lack of education/training. Nobody asks a uniformed on-duty police officer to leave their premises unless they are anti-cop and trying to make a political statement.

quote:

Nobody asks a uniformed on-duty police officer to leave their premises unless they are anti-cop and trying to make a political statement

He wasn't on duty or in uniform. He was displaying his badge.

I'm still trying to figure out why corporate manuals don't specifically exclude officers in writing. That would certainly prevent honest mistakes (which you can bet your ass do happen), as well as give the corporations the specific grounds to terminate those ask them to leave. No?

It seems to me, in my experience with restaurants, that the owners are more anti-gun (or not) than anti-cop. But the police get caught up in these "no weapons on the premises" policies that don't (but could easily) exclude them.

This isn't much different than anything else corporate America. Mom and Pop type establishments actually tend to have the owners on or around the premises. You're not dealing with people in multiple layers of bureaucracy attempting to apply policies out of a 500 page binder.

This is an operations manual for a small food franchise (everybody would likely recognize the name) that would be located in a strip center and would likely employ fewer than 20 persons. Those running these stores are expected to know every single thing on every one of those pages and apply them to business operations. Failure to do so can result in termination or loss of the franchise agreement. It's really easy to say "well they should have done" something different when that something may very well be contrary to the written policy. These are corporations. Employees are not supposed to be thinking for themselves or applying their own opinion.

An LEO was allowed in this Hagerstown MD store.

https://www.heraldmailmedia.co...5c-cbdb248a3f8b.html

Man charged with exposing himself in Starbucks

By Don Aines daines@herald-mail.com 2 hrs ago

A homeless man is being held without bond on accusations he exposed himself to women last week in the Starbucks on Garland Groh Boulevard.

Michael Anthony Myers, whose address was listed as unknown, was charged with one count of indecent exposure in the Oct. 11 incident.

The manager reported a customer's complaint to Hagerstown police and asked that Myers, who was still sitting inside, be issued a no trespass order, the charging document said.

As the officer was getting a trespass form from the police cruiser, the manager came out and said a second customer complained that Myers exposed himself.

At a Washington County District Court bond hearing on Tuesday, Deputy State's Attorney Joseph Michael suggested to District Judge Mark D. Thomas that Myers should have a competency evaluation performed.

Michael said any criminal record Myers has appears to date from the 1960s and 1970s. Myers does have an open trespass case from 2018 and online court records show three bench warrants were issued for him this year for failing to appear in court on that charge.

Assistant Public Defender Thomas Robins said he did not believe competency to be an issue for Myers and asked Thomas to release him on his own recognizance, a request Thomas denied.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Michael Anthony Myers...

Uhhhhh...isn't that THIS dude?!?!?!?