• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Des Moines coffee-shop owner evicts Occupy protesters

Yes - good for her. People shouldn't have to put up with it just because the OWS'rs are hiding behind the '1st amendment'
 
First amendment doesn't give people the right to **** all over everything or obstruct people's lawful business. You're allowed to associate with anyone you want and peacefully assemble, but if you're destroying property, harrassing people, and interfering in other people's day-to-day lives, you are not peacefully assembling.

These savages should have gotten the hose months ago.
 
"It's puts the lotion on it's skin or it gets the hose again"
 
Whats the issue? Are we going to turn what goes on in a coffee shop into an argument? The owner of course has every right to remove someone from their establishment if they don't wish to serve them, and those two individuals were pretty self-righteous and clearly weren't interested in letting anyone else in that establishment enjoy themselves peacefully.

Personally I hate seeing that kind of arrogance in people, where emotions overrule all logic, its odd but that woman's comments on how "hypocrisy is so pretty" really makes my blood boil, that kind of dismissal and arrogance. Few things get to me more.

But o well its a small coffee shop, and the two people are like most protestors which is completely arrogant and attention grabbing.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - good for her. People shouldn't have to put up with it just because the OWS'rs are hiding behind the '1st amendment'
Click to expand...

The first amendment doesn't give you right to trespass. They are fully in their right to protest, but they have no right to be in an establishment that they have been asked to leave.

Would you be ok if I was in your living room yelling about the type of light bulbs you use?
 
About four or five Occupiers stood chanting in the middle of the crowded coffee shop before they were told to leave.
Click to expand...

Wow, they are like the .0000000000001 percent.

Keep up the good work.
 
It's their business, they may do as they like on their property.
 
Wiseone said:
Whats the issue? Are we going to turn what goes on in a coffee shop into an argument? The owner of course has every right to remove someone from their establishment if they don't wish to serve them, and those two individuals were pretty self-righteous and clearly weren't interested in letting anyone else in that establishment enjoy themselves peacefully.

Personally I hate seeing that kind of arrogance in people, where emotions overrule all logic, its odd but that woman's comments on how "hypocrisy is so pretty" really makes my blood boil, that kind of dismissal and arrogance. Few things get to me more.

But o well its a small coffee shop, and the two people are like most protestors which is completely arrogant and attention grabbing.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree with you more in this post.


j-mac
 
jamesrage said:
Someone should inform these occutards that 1st amendment allows you to peacefully assemble , it does not allow you to harass businesses, trespass, harass people,destroy property or any other **** that occutards are notorious for.
Click to expand...

I watched the video and didn't see any property destroyed. What property was destroyed in that coffee shop?
 
Antiderivative said:
I watched the video and didn't see any property destroyed. What property was destroyed in that coffee shop?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I didn't see any property damaged either. But that is not the point....Other places that OWS has decided to take over have had damage.


j-mac
 
I am a bit confused (what a horrible job of writing the story). Were they just in there getting coffee or were they protesting and whatnot? It's her establishment, so she can do what she wants, but that would be a dick move to kick out patrons just because of their politics.
 
whysoserious said:
I am a bit confused (what a horrible job of writing the story). Were they just in there getting coffee or were they protesting and whatnot? It's her establishment, so she can do what she wants, but that would be a dick move to kick out patrons just because of their politics.
Click to expand...


In the video they were clearly wearing OWS t-shirts and such, and I think the article said they were standing in the middle of the shop chanting their rhetoric. So yeah, as the owner she can absolutely kick them out. And I applaud her for doing such....wiseone had a very good post of the protesters.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
In the video they were clearly wearing OWS t-shirts and such, and I think the article said they were standing in the middle of the shop chanting their rhetoric. So yeah, as the owner she can absolutely kick them out. And I applaud her for doing such....wiseone had a very good post of the protesters.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. Totally expressing your political idealism in public should be punished! Woot!

While it was within their rights to do, less they were causing a scene it's pretty stupid. And I don't applaud stupid.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah I know. Totally expressing your political idealism in public should be punished! Woot!

While it was within their rights to do, less they were causing a scene it's pretty stupid. And I don't applaud stupid.
Click to expand...

Legally a person's personal property is not a public place, you don't have the right to be there doing anything if the owner doesn't want you to. Of course there are certain restrictions on an owner's right to remove someone from their establishment, for example an owner wouldn't have the right to remove someone for being black. However when you are disturbing other customers, and disturbing business, and when the owner has specifically asked you to leave, that's trespassing.

Its just like the police officer says in the video, when the owner tells the man "I will not serve you, you need to leave, you're trespassing." The guy looks at the cop and the cop flat out says, "Sir, you are going to trespass you need to leave." He says going to trespass because he's giving the guy an opportunity to leave, after all he's not trespassing until he's told he's trespassing by the owner. Given the nature of the establishment which is a coffee shop, a reasonable person can assume entrance is permitted without prior approval. It would be different if he jumped a fence covered with signs that said no trespassing. So anyway, now that the officer has informed him that he's going to trespass if he doesn't leave, the man is legally obligated to do so in respects to the property rights of the owner.

I also believe the law requires an opportunity to leave after being informed of a trespass in situations like these where entrance is permitted without approval or entrance is revoked after the party has already entered. Otherwise once the owner said you're trespassing, the officer would have had to arrest him on the spot which wouldn't have been right because there would be no way out for that person to not trespass. (He can't very well instantly teleport himself outside can he)

So in the end a bunch of loud mouths went into a coffee shop, which is a place a reasonable person can assume they are allowed entrance during business hours without prior approval by the owner. Then they started making a disturbance, the owner decided to remove them, once they were informed they had to leave by both the owner and the police officer, they left.

Again, I don't see the issue.
 
Ikari said:
Maybe you should reread what I posted.
Click to expand...

I read kicking someone out of a coffee shop for causing a disturbance by expressing their political ideals is punishment.

Did I miss something?
 
Wiseone said:
I read kicking someone out of a coffee shop for causing a disturbance by expressing their political ideals is punishment.

Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Apparently the last sentence.
 
Ikari said:
Apparently the last sentence.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to be polite about this, if you could restate what you said for clarification we could figure out what the problem is. I did, in fact, read your last sentence, of course I did, I don't know why you thought I wouldn't read the entire post when its only two sentences long, and I thought I addressed your point, apparently I didn't so I didn't get your point. So can you please restate it so I can see where I errored in my understanding?

Are you not saying being lawfully removed is punishment? Are you saying it was stupid of the owner to remove them even through she had every right to do so and they were making a disturbance? Are you saying everyone there is stupid?

You said: "While it was within their rights to do, less they were causing a scene it's pretty stupid. And I don't applaud stupid."

What does "less they were causing a scene it's pretty stupid" mean? Did you mean "lest they were causing a scene" or "even though they were causing a scene" did you mean the owner was causing a scene as well?

I'm not being sarcastic or attempting to mock anything, I really just don't understand what you meant.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...

I've reported you to the mods for changing my words in a quote.

If you dispute what I've said, you are free to express your dispute in your own post. Leave my post alone.
 
She has more balls than most men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom