If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS January Giveaway ***Hi-Point 995TS Carbine***
Remind me again who stated they were not welcome in the business ?
You are not answering the question and seem to want it both ways.
That's not how real life works.
Is your take on it that they should violate the wishes and rights of the owner and go in anyway ?
In any other case you would be screaming JBTs ! , JBTs !
Only in your world would someone in authority actually respecting the wishes of the citizen become a bad thing.
So it should follow that people have the right to request the police not to enter their place of business to enforce crimes against them or their business. This seems fair to me. I as a taxpayer pay for the service of police. If I request they do not perform that service for me, what is the issue?
Before their apology, San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott had said the following:"We made a mistake and apologize for the unfortunate incident on Friday when we asked members of the San Francisco Police Department to leave our restaurant," co-owners Rachel Sillcocks and Kristina Liedags Compton wrote in statement posted to Instagram Sunday afternoon. "We are grateful to all members of the force who work hard to keep us safe, especially during these challenging times."
"The San Francisco Police Department stands for safety with respect, even when it means respecting wishes that our officers and I find discouraging and personally disappointing. I believe the vast majority of San Franciscans welcome their police officers, who deserve to know that they are appreciated for the difficult job we ask them to do—in their uniforms— to keep our neighborhoods and businesses safe."
I thought their request was armed and/or in uniform. I was (over)simplifying on the idea that the uniform includes the firearm. Regardless, I agree with you.Well, armed actually. But either way, it's not clear to me that the business owner is deliberately deciding to remove the premises from police intervention in the case of a crime.
Some posters here believe it's hunky-dory for the police to make that decision unilaterally. I'm not sure what theory of policing backs that up.
Well, the original post said they were not welcome in the restaurant while on-duty, in their uniform and with their weapons. How do you interpret that as asking them to continue providing policing?They're not requesting that the cops withhold policing services from their restaurant, though. They're simply requesting that the cops not eat there. There's a difference.
Well, the original post said they were not welcome in the restaurant while on-duty, in their uniform and with their weapons. How do you interpret that as asking them to continue providing policing?
I actually don't disagree with your initial premise that they 100% should not provide a different level of police service to this restaurant because it is the right thing to do. That is what good police and good people do.
You are incorrect however if you believe they are required to do so. Police are, for good or bad, given the leeway to do as much or as little as they want while doing their job. See Town of Castle Rock vs Gonzales. I am not defending these actions. It is however further evidence that you are in charge of your own safety. It just expands the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...or more...if they show up."
Then we agree on what should happen. I think I just take it to the conclusion it was a dumb move. But their place, their rules. And they have paid the price for that.Yes, that's why I based my comments not on legality, but on professionalism.
And I interpreted the original post as the restaurant's subsequent statements have clarified: they're not welcome to eat there because one of their employees was triggered by their Evyl Gunzz. That's a FAR cry from saying the restaurant is opting out of police services. Seems obvious to me, but maybe it's not as clear as I thought it was.
(To be fair), except for any stand-down orders from the brass.You’re never going to agree on this garbage. It’s not even worth it. The cops will respond to their calls there if needed.
I am far from an expert. But looking at the Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales it sure seems it. Lady had a restraining order against her ex husband that covered her and the kids, he came and kidnapped the kids, she reported it repeatedly, like every hour that night. Police decided kids were with dad, no need to enforce restraining order. Dad shows up at the police station and starts shooting and commits suicide by cop. They find the 3 murdered girls in the dad truck. Police had no responsibility due to their failure to act on a violated restraining order and reported kidnapping.Is the discretion to not act absolute?
You butt hurt people should start a Facebook page on all this.
The cops did nothing but try and get a damn coffee and were told they were not welcome on the the property.I'll try to be clear: I don't buy that a taxpayer's expectation of police services ought to be based on whether the cops like them or not. Do you disagree?
The cops did nothing but try and get a damn coffee and were told they were not welcome on the the property.
The owner said "I DON"T WANT YOU HERE ."
There are only five words there in quotes. Which one is hanging you up ?
Is it one word in particular or the sequence they are in ?
You bet.It's the circumstances under which they're said, and you know it well.
easy.It is appalling, but in a free society how do you balance a duty to enforce with an ability to use discretion. I appreciated discretion the other day when I was pulled over for a taillight and no sticker and got a verbal warning. It I not an easy choice but I think most would agree there are times you need to act, you just can't write that into a black and white law.
In, show me this magical placeeasy.
a "free society"doesn't have malum prohibtum laws that cause officers to apply their discretion. Only criminalize things with actual victims, and you won't get pulled over for inspection stickers and out taillights.
I'll keep this one for the next time a cop inserts himself where he's not wanted and you're bashing away .
Years ago I had to explain the good neighbor policy to a young man who moved in down the street and made himself the street dickhead right off the bat.
If you're a good neighbor and i hear someone from your house yelling Help Help, I rush over to help call the police , whatever.
If your a bad neighbor , I turn up the TV.
If your a good neighbor and I see smoke coming out the windows of your house I call the fire department , rush over to help , whatever.
If your a bad neighbor I grab a lawn chair and a cold beverage and watch the show.
I think i made my point.
I love my neighborhood.