COPS NOT WELCOME! Cafe Owner Bans Police From His Business

[SkyDaddy7]

Run time: 00:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-geofKDngLs   Posted on YouTube: June 07, 2010 By YouTube Member: MoxNewsDotCom Views on YouTube: 301   Posted on DU: June 07, 2010 By DU Member: SkyDaddy7 Views on DU: 3209

 
AWESOME! If only more businesses would stand with this man maybe then the cops would get a clue! I laugh how cops get on camera and use the sweet innocent face and soft voice and act like they are shocked anyone could be mad at them...After all they "Protect & Serve"!

This man owes cops NOTHING! The Cops owe this man security because they are paid by this man's taxes! So, they will have to pander for free coffee somewhere else!

[DWilliamsamh]

1. ???

I guess I missed the part of the report where the cop asked for free coffee.

And despite your perception (and the news reports of all the "bad cops") for every bad, harassing, jerk off cop there are at least twenty cops who do protect and serve and do the job (that YOU WON'T do) for the "right" reasons - to serve the community by making it safer.

[SkyDaddy7]

3. Don't give me that crap!

I am a disabled vet, and you? You have no fucking clue who I am where I have worked or what i do so why play psychic? Just furthers the lack of respect your comment deserves!

There is a growing problem in this country that is causing the public to not trust the police! If you want to play stupid and act as if there is not then you are doing a good job of it!

[DWilliamsamh]

19. All the anger and exclamation points in the world

Doesn't change the fact that the perception of corruption and mistreatment of the public at the hands of the police doesn't match the actual level of corruption or abuse. If you want to believe that the majority of police are abusive and corrupt that is your choice. You are entitled to be wrong. My pointing out that the level of corruption and abuse is nowhere near as high as it is portrayed, and therefore your generalized anger and hatred toward the police is unjustified, in no way indicates that I think there is no problem at all.

Think of it this way - how angry do you get when someone starts throwing around charges that "soldiers are purposely killing civilians," or are rapists when reports of such incidents hit the media?? You know that the generalized statement is horribly wrong and in no way justified by the actual numbers of such incidents, and you defend the military against such general hatred - even while you acknowledge that such things do happen and must be investigated and the offenders summarily drummed out of the service. Does that mean you are hiding your head in denial? I think not.



Thanks for your service, from one vet to another.

[bc3000]

26. You're wrong

The "good" cops cover for the bad cops which makes it a criminal conspiracy. Any "good" cops that helps enable bad cops by keeping their mouth shut does not count as a good cop.

[DWilliamsamh]

36. Again - you are making an assumption that isn't born out by reality

I know from first hand experience on the job. What's your source?

[Supply Side Jesus]

53. and youare a cop who knows this first had?

I doubt it, seriously.

Love,
A good cop who does not tolerate real corruption.

[SkyDaddy7]

39. I fully understand where you are coming from...

However, I worked in the Criminal Justice System here in Georgia and the police do get away with way too much...Lying on the stand, changing police reports, discussing testimony during an ongoing trial and YES physical abuse! Judges do not do their jobs and police chiefs & Mayors always use the same excuse that cracking down would ruin moral if they even admit there is a problem in the first place. There is a culture of bad behavior! And the good cops we both know are out there will not tell on the bad cops! They know what it means to be labeled a snitch...I have no idea how close you are to the Law Enforcement or if you are a cop but this stuff is real.

Anyway, it appears this is not isolated to just the Atlanta area. It is going on everywhere! WHY? Well, because we do exactly what you have said and exactly what I use to do, defend police every time something happens.


Seriously, for every beating or racial slur being yelled that is caught on video who knows how many are not!

I know these men & women have a very hard job to do but there needs to be a reform take place...Professionalism needs to come back into Law Enforcement. Protect & Serve has been lost.

One very good example of Law Enforcement going out of control is Tazers. Tazers were sold to the public as a last resort measure to be used in cases where cops would otherwise have to shoot someone. You know, people with knives or high on drugs or trying commit suicide by cop, etc. However, cops will use their tazers on anyone! For refusing to sign a ticket, on kids, the elderly, pregnant women...I mean it is disgusting how often they use tazers on the public.

As far as the military goes I am sad to say some of my friends that have done multiple tours over there have told me some really heart breaking stories of what they had done as well as others! I have a friend who is torn up about some of the stuff he did! He has had several meltdowns! He is getting the help he needs. They said that they did not differ civilian from true enemy that in their minds they were all bad. (This is in Iraq) I know war is pure hell but there has to be a change in attitudes from our military leadership! We hear all this "Hearts & Mind" talk but that is not getting to the troops on the ground!From what I am gathering their has been this change in attitude in Afghanistan to try and repair the damage done that has caused the Afghans to not like us being there. I have a friend who is a Black Hawk Pilot who has done tours in Iraq & Afghanistan he said there is a world of difference between the two wars as far as attention being focused on interaction with civilians and preventing civilian deaths...I think it is General McChrystal's policies that are responsible for this change in attitude. Regardless it is good to hear!

I know not all cops or our military are bad but there is problems and as long as we just shrug it off as "not all are bad" or do things like allowing cops to "resign" instead of getting fired so they can just go a county over and get rehired...This problem will continue to grow! And we will see more people turning against the police like this shop owner and even worse with violence! I don't want to see this happen!

I have stopped donating to my state police after doing so since I was financially able too. I hope one day I can return to supporting the police both in word and via donations. One last bitch and I will stop...Firefighters get treated like CRAP! It should be a Federal Law that both cops & police make the same pay. The only reason the pay is not the same is the police bring in revenue and will refuse to write tickets! Again, the police are spoiled and are not policed like they should be.

[DWilliamsamh]

43. Actually I agree that the abuses are too frequent...any amount are unacceptable

I am just making the point that the generalized hatred and flame throwing at all cops everywhere is not actually justified by the actual numbers of abuse among law enforcement. My ONLY point is that the vast majority of cops do not engage in such abuses and do not cover these things up - no matter what NYPD Blue or Law and Order makes it look like. The sensationalism has fueled an unwarranted level of hatred of the police - in much the same way the sensationalism of military abuses during the Vietnam era fueled an unwarranted hatred of the military that we are still living with to this day.

All that having been said - I AGREE that abuse by cops (especially the escalating unwarranted use of tazers in completely lazy even sadistic ways) has GOT to be addressed and I rail against such abuses as much as the next guy. I just don't generalize my anger to all of law enforcement. I am only urging some reasoned restraint.

[SkyDaddy7]

55. Just in case you have not seen this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8506764

[SkyDaddy7]

40. I forgot...

thank-you for your service and thank for acknowledging my service! means a lot!

[DWilliamsamh]

44. NP -- If I was a former Marine....

I'd say Semper Fi, but as a dog face I will just say HOO-AHHH!

[The Wizard]

6. Most cops are not of the rogue variety

yet they will defend another cop's bad behavior until overwhelming evidence make the defense of them untenable.
Where I used to live they defended fellow officers caught on tape loading up a police cruiser with stolen booty from a business where an alarm went off. Their excuse was they were gathering evidence.
Only one went to trial and jail. The others pleaded out for probation and lost their jobs. They have an us against them mentality, and those not carrying a badge are "Them."

They commit minor offenses with regularity. How many cops get busted for driving while intoxicated in the face of their high rate of alcoholism?
I was in a friend's car one day when he was trying to park in a legal parking place, only to be ordered to leave. The officer then waved to his friend who was double parked on the other side of the street to take the vacated space. My friend had handicapped license plate because of ALS.
That action was not only illegal, but immoral.
How many of us have been wrongfully harassed by law enforcement?

[stlsaxman]

7. EVERY place i've worked behind a counter has had "police discounts" like free coffee...

he may not have "asked" for the coffee for free (they never have to) but if they pay for it out of pocket- that's the last you see of them in your little store, pal.

[safeinOhio]

9. Only one cop in 20

shun the concept of "professional courtesy". I say give them a nickel raise and fire or jail any cop that ever adheres to the concept of "professional courtesy". That concept is the gateway to corruption and needs to be stopped and made illegal.

[midnight]

2. I guess many of us are aware that this type of situation goes on.

I wonder why the police solicit area businesses to pay for their gala once a year? I don't know of any other profession that does that? I guess what is worrisome about this situation, is what and how do poorer communities cope with this issue?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. "The Cops owe this man security because they are paid by this man's taxes!" - WRONG.

There are several established cases and precedents showing that cops have NO obligation to protect or attempt to save anybody not in their direct custody. That's just how it is.

[kirby]

14. Server & Protect is just PR I guess?

Why have them then.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. The "Serve and Protect" is only a misnomer

if you make the assumption that they are there to serve and protect EVERYONE.
They do serve and they can protect... but they cannot (and are not required to) protect everyone.

The sobering truth is that ultimately YOU are responsible for you.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away (if they decide to show up at all).

[kirby]

25. Let me guess...

Based on your reply to me, you must frequent the Gun Forum here? I have a strong suspicion that is the case.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. meaning?

[herbm]

57. To self serve and protect self interests. The other words are small case.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. The Chicago Police replaced their motto with "What the fuck are you lookin' at!?!?!"

For all the whiners crying discrimination:

The cafe isn't "discriminating" against a person. They are discriminating against a uniform, badge and gun. An on-duty official.

To deny that having an armed uniformed official in an establishment does NOT send a message to other patrons and potential patrons is idiotic. Why do you think some convenience stores and other businesses offer free-bees and discounts to coppers? Those particular businesses desire enjoy the benefit of their presence - The cafe in the OP does not.

If you want to get your panties in a knot over this particular business decision highlighted in the OP you should ALSO get your knickers in a twist over discounts and free-bees offered to policemen and women. Both are engineering a business climate through the presence or non-presence of cops - Though the discounts/free-bees accepted by cops often times violate ethics and laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Gonzales vs. Castle Rock.

The police have no legal duty to protect you. 'Serve and Protect' is a mission statement, not something they can be held liable for failing to do, even through negligence.

Sorry if the world is a little colder and crueller knowing that.

[sabrina 1]

45. Sorry that you think a colder an crueller world is something

to be proud of. Glad you are very much in the minority.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. What are you talking about?

If you're going to make things up, make them up about someone else.

[SkyDaddy7]

32. LOL! Keep thinking that!

I would love to see the cases where cops just turned their back on a crime and allowed it to take place especially when someone is at risk of bodily harm! Just because they could! LOL!

I don't doubt cops do that for one minute but that is not protected by case law.

I have heard some really ridiculous cop defenders but yours tops the list! Thanks!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. I never said cops actually do it just because they can...

most cops and other public servants do their job because they want to help people and keep the peace. However, they are certainly not legally bound or obligated to protect those who are not in thier custody. Said otherwise, if someone is harmed because an officer fails to act THEY (police) are not liable for any damages or legal recourse.

Yes there is case law which outlines this. Warren v DC, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, DeShaney v. Winnebago Co...
One of the most decisive is the Warren case:

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

[ooglymoogly]

33. you are speaking gibberish...If there was such a case it would have been

very narrowly and on very narrow grounds decided, as judges almost always find a way to protect the police no matter what game they play, be it homicide robbery, shakedown or whatever and no matter the evidence. Have you ever listened to a police radio...robbery in progress...homicide on 4th st. add infinitum. That is their job. The mayor, the commissioner and police chief would soon lose their jobs if that were not the case; Though in many towns, I suspect its only the "better" neighborhoods and blond teenage runaways that truly qualify for their undivided attention and protection; But I seriously doubt that is codified, as you say, by law and by the courts.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. Please, feel free to do some research.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose >> Court Opinion
http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/51629

Colored and bold emphasis are mine.

The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.

...
(Ultimately, the court establishes that no "special relationship" existed between this lady and the cops obligating them to her protection. Therefore the cops are not liable for gross negligence via inaction.)
...

(Justification of decision: )
In all the cases in which governmental liability is established despite the fact that the act or omission complained of fell within the realm of "discretionary immunity," there was present "the critical element ... of a special relationship between employee and plaintiff that justified reliance by plaintiff on the employee's statement or promise." ](McCarthy v. Frost (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 872, 875 <109 Cal.Rptr. 470>. See McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 252 <74 Cal.Rptr. 389, 449 P.2d 453>; Connelly v. State of California (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 744 <84 Cal.Rptr. 257>; Sava v. Fuller (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 281 <57 Cal.Rptr. 312>; Morgan v. County of Yuba (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 938 <41 Cal.Rptr. [46 Cal.App.3d 10> 508]. See also the summary of the nature of these special relationships in Antique Arts, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 593.) (Stated otherwise, the victim was under police custody/observation or police actions have resulted in the victim's involvement in the events... "special relationship")

The common theme running through these decisions is the voluntary assumption by the public entity or official of a duty toward the injured party. Even though there is initially no liability on the part of the government for its acts or omissions, once it undertakes action on behalf of a member of the public, and thereby induces that individual's reliance, it is then held to the same standard of care as a private person or organization.

This is but one one court opinion describing that unless the cops put you in a situation or you are in their custdy/observation... they are not liable for your safety or protection. Plain and simple. Also, many states DO CODIFY that police are not liable for inaction or failure to protect. For example: California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846... "Neither a public entity or a public employee (may be sued) for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

[TheEuclideanOne]

41. Clearly, you would be one of the cops that falls into the "asshole" category.

That group is the type that will drive others to shoot and kill a police man. You know how it works, right? A policeman with a mentality like yourself, acts in such a way that it causes everybody in their path to hate cops. One day, somebody who has encountered enough of people like you shoots a police officer as a result. The police officer that gets killed may be one of the good ones, but he is dead nonetheless. On a smaller scale, it brings people to the point of craziness that they do things like this guy is doing in the video. People like you should apologize to the police officer who can't buy his coffee. Then apologize to families of the fallen police officers.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. You're gonna have to outline the path from which you drew your conclusion.

I made a factual statement: "Cops have no liability for your safety without special relationship"
I offered no personal stance or opinion on the subject.

Your response: "People like me are the reason cops get shot and can't order their coffee."
Have you even managed to surmise that I am a Police Officer? Impressive, I say!

LOL WUT? Could somebody please explain that line of reasoning? :eyes:

[TheEuclideanOne]

46. Sure, be happy to

If a police officer approaches his job with the viewpoint that he has no special obligation to help, he won't. If I am understanding the case from 1972 that you quoted, where the lady died because the police did not show up when she called them. The argument presented by their lawyer was "It was because they had no liability to do so". That is total bullshit in my book and if somebody I loved died because the police hid behind the "We have no liability to protect you", I would absolutely be inclined to hate the police. I could care less if the lawyer for the police found them not guilty based on this line of reasoning. I would still hate the cops. I have seen a number of video tapes where the police has done something atrocious and ended up being found not guilty. The cop may be found not guilty, but his/her actions still generate many, many people who see them doing what appears as getting away with the crime. Those people are very likely to hate the police and a foew of them may snap one day and kill a police officer.

So, sure if you have the mentality that you have no liability for the safety of the people that are paying your taxes, YOU will be the one demonstrating the behavior that breeds hatred for cops.

[TheEuclideanOne]

47. Let me put it a different way

The rogue police officers that get away with their crimes over and over again know how to beat the system. Even when they are caught on video tape, they often get away with their crimes because they know about the court cases that will get them off on a technicality. If your actions are focused on ways to avoid helping people because you know that "Cops have no liability for your safety without special relationship" based on some case in 1972 where a scumbag lawyer prevented a cop from going to jail, then how will you conduct yourself on a day to day basis. I bet you know all of the loopholes and that is why you fall into the category of the asshole cop that gets future cops killed.

Did that bridge the line of reasoning for you?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. How about this line of reasoning...

I merely pointed out the actual law and erroneous assumption made in the post I had responded to.
Such action does not convey my support for the actual law. I never voiced support for the info I gave.
I'm not a cop nor do I behave that way. I needn't apologize to anyone.

Secondly...
Those precedence are in place for a reason. Cops cannot physically protect everybody. There is simply not enough officers to be everywhere at once. If cops were liable for any individual's safety that would put them on the hook for a multitude of events completely out of their control. That's not very fair. So, in response to this cops cannot be held accountable for anyone not in thier direct control or anyone whose safety has been compromised by the direct result of police intervention (aka "special relationship"). If you dial 911 and the nearest cop is 10 minutes away or dealing with some other problem at the moment - you'll have to wait and it is not their fault. This has nothing to do with a good cop vs. bad cop. It's a logistical problem of not having an infinite supply of cops (good or bad).
I doubt many, if any, officers would go out of their way to ignore helping anyone.

[TheEuclideanOne]

49. Starting with your second point....

Your description makes perfect sense on the surface, after all, "cops can not be everywhere". So in theory it makes perfect sense, but in the case you used as an example, it was not a matter of the police not being available. It wsa described as "She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived." She died because the cops refused to come until the murderer was right there.

So, the law protects the cops because "they can not physically protect everybody". This may be overly lenient to allow cops to do their job, but even if the law protects them, it does not prevent people who know that the cops are "protected" from hating the cops as a result. In the case that you cited (your example, not mine), the family and friends of that victim add to the people that are likely to hate cops.

[stray cat]

5. Rand Paul Libertarians - businesses can choose whether to serve groups of people

I suspected many progressives really agreed with Rand Paul - they just needed it to discriminate against a group they hated

[jaxx]

10. Who's next?

Teachers? Women? Not good to discriminate in any way....ever.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. not a big fan of cops...

but I agree, this is wrong.

[ooglymoogly]

34. Normally I would agree; Certainly I would agree

if it were on prejudicial grounds, color, race, etc. But as the proprietor stated, he catered to the homeless and downtrodden who are often mistreated and harassed by the bored, roving constabulary, and who would be uncomfortable around the police possibly looking around for a collar or someone to harass as he sips his free coffee and munches on free dough nuts. The police do not have a stellar reputation on this subject; Police come in all colors so it is not prejudicial as to race etc...I can see his point of view.

[The_Commonist]

8. This seems like a dumb idea.

The cafe owner is just asking for trouble.

[lefty2000]

11. It's His Business

My wife's grandmother operated a beer joint in Chatsworth, Georgia until her death in the 60's. She never allowed lawmen to hang out there. I am sure she had her reasons.

[no limit]

12. So you're in favor of business deciding who gets to use their services?

[lefty2000]

15. Not In All Cases

I catch your drift, but race was not an issue in the case in point.

Racial discrimination in public accomodations places an unfair burden on members of a minority group. Government officials are not members of a disadvantaged minority and they are volunteers.

Policemen can go armed where the rest of us cannot, they can use force at their own discretion. It can be dangerous to have them around when you don't need them. Good old boys drinking beer might not be so free with their money with a deputy sheriff sitting at the bar.

[no limit]

16. So you want to discriminate based on occupation not race? How about political ideology?

You cool with businesses deciding they don't want democrats on their property?

And if you are okay with discrimination based on occupation why is race out of the question? It's ok to assume all cops behave some way while it's not ok to assume all blacks behave a certain way?

[tiny elvis]

13. holy mother of god

i never thought i would see my tiny hometown mentioned on this board
if i asked my parents a few questions i could figure out exactly who you are
but i won't
y'all take care

[davidwparker]

17. Is this man a relative of Rand Paul? I was prepared to learn that the cop

did something wrong and asked not to return. But this was not the case.

The cop, as well as anyone who wants to go there, should be allowed.

[SILVER__FOX52]

20. Cops destroyed their own credibility.

They have no one to blame but themselves. With the help our Politicians they have militarized themselves. Most people have no idea how corrupt our local police are and if they do, they wallow in their prejudice thinking that this is patriotic. It is this arrogant mindset that destroys the public perception of policing. Cops are utility providers not soldiers and most of them, because of their youth, are immature and dangerous.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

21. +100

Succinct and effective analysis. Thanks.

[ooglymoogly]

22. In many red states and cities, law and order has come to mean keeping odd looking

or "misscolored" (unless properly uniformed) folks out of neighborhoods with hummers parked in front of 3 car garages or buildings or businesses with doormen, or any "good" neighborhood. As for the rest, the police may bust down your door without warning or warrant and shoot your pets and maybe you and members of your family and get off scot free on just about any old excuse with the word drugs or marijuana in it. All in the cause of "THE DRUG WARS!!!!!!! Cha ching

[kuroman992]

24. what if

someone opened a head shop that sells bongs and things of that nature and the owner didnt want cops coming in scaring all of the customers away? would the same "everyone should be allowed to be a customer" rules apply?
this is a tough issue and requires an honest debate.

[bongbong]

27. Personal anecdote

The father of an ex-GF of mine was a NYC cop for 9 years but quit. Why?

He pulled a gun on a fellow officer who was beating a black suspect for no reason and wouldn't stop. After that, he was called a "nig--- lover" and felt his life was in danger. He quit shortly afterwards.

[proteus_lives]

52. What has that got to do with anything?

Besides nothing, that is.

[tqla]

29. I dunno. I think this cafe owner missed an opportunity to

get to know the officer and maybe enlighten him on the subjects that concern him. Maybe he would have learned that not all police officers fit his prejudice. Yes, there are a-holes in every industry, policing included, but I don't think you just can't brand entire groups.

[Supply Side Jesus]

54. +1

their seclusion does all dis-service.

[jjewell]

37. I'm no fan of the cops, but...

A business that is "open to the public" cannot decide what portion of the public it is open to.

[proteus_lives]

51. Bigot.

[herbm]

56. I think he's right, especialy since the donut crowd expects to be compted.