Wimpy cop suing Starbucks.

[theliq]

A Sergeant of the NYPD is suing Starbucks. Not because they served him bad coffee, or something like that. But because they give food to homeless people, and a nut got violent, and the Sergeant was injured. Seriously.

EXCLUSIVE: NYPD Sgt. Suing Starbucks After Violent Encounter In Busy Midtown Location Speaks Out

The Wimp says he warned Starbucks that their giving free food to homeless, some with emotional issues, was going to cause problems. Yeah, because feeding hungry people is a terrible idea. The cop is pissed because the security guard didn’t help out. Yeah, because the guard knew what he was supposed to do.

In New York, the authority of the guard is limited. By Law. Unlike a cop, he doesn’t have absolute authority to do pretty much whatever he wants. https://www.radianttraining.com/training/security_manual.pdf

We all know that New York has a number of mental hospitals. The Sergeant is blaming Starbucks for the mentally disabled individual. Yet, there is a problem there. You see, taking the lunatic to the asylum is not the job of Starbucks. It is the job of the ..... Police.

Under NY Law, the police officer can order a person transported to the Mental Hospital, New York City has several, as an emergency case. Mental Hygiene Law - Admissions Process

But that takes time. You see, they have to wait for the Doctor, and talk to the Doctor about what the person was doing, and it’s just a lot easier to toss the lunatic in jail and go have a beer and complain that nobody likes them and it’s unfair. Worse, the Police have to have someone there ready to accept the individual if the Mental Hospital says that the lunatic does not quality, because then the actions of the lunatic need to be considered by the justice system. The funny thing is that the NYPD didn’t mind tossing one of their own into the insane asylum. This guy committed the mortal sin of recording the cops talking about lying to break the law, and when the other cops found out, they had him committed.

Adrian Schoolcraft - Wikipedia

Nowhere in this process does Starbucks, or a Security Guard have any authority, or responsibility, at all. Their job is to notify the police when a problem arises. You know, because we have laws against vigilantes.

Now the Sergeant says he is suing because his career might be over. He dislocated his shoulder, and it hurts. Yeah. Are you kidding me?

View attachment 190740

Note to Starbucks. Fight this shit right to the end, and when you win, demand payment of legal expenses by the jackass. Don’t settle, and if his legal fees land him on the street living out of a cardboard box, so much the better.

Funny you left this bit out.



"On September 28th, 2017, Wall responded to a call for “a disturbed and violent individual” at the popular coffee shop at 39th Street and 8th Avenue. It’s a spot Wall says is notorious for complaints of harassment from disorderly men.

“Assaults at the location, drug use in the bathroom,” he said.

On that particular day it was a 24-year-old homeless man who was making threats, unhappy with the free croissant he had just gotten from employees.

“He said he wanted to kill everyone at the location,” Wall said. “He went to grab the bag stating he was going to kill everyone… We didn’t know what was in the bag, so we couldn’t take the risk.” "


So, Starbucks created the situation, despite being warned, and then,it went bad, just like they were warned.



The cop could have a case.

Pfui. First Starbucks committed no crime in feeding homeless. Second, Starbucks made strides to minimize the problems from the neighborhood and the homeless by hiring a security guard. In other words, they did the most that could reasonably be expected.

But a Security Guard’s job is not to enforce the law, but as I posted by the training manual above, to protect the property, and people, of the business. His limited authority ends at the property line. Sort of like how a cop in New York, has no authority in Virginia. Other cops in Virginia may give him some professional courtesy but that is all the authority he has. The Security Guard’s first duty is to observe, and report.

So the Sergeant is hoping for a quick settlement, and some free money. Pfui. If I was the person in charge of Starbucks, I’d tell the Legal Staff, which far outstrips anything that the Sergeant can afford, to pull out the stops and bankrupt the Sergeant with legal fees. I’d bury him in paperwork, all of which has to be answered, and then I’d insist that we start discovery to start interviewing witnesses and examining the documents.

When Starbucks wins, and realistically they pretty much can’t lose, then the Sergeant is going to be liable for the legal fees of Starbucks. That surprise always pisses the people off who think they can get free money. Remember the Cheaper than Dirt case, where a family of one of the victims in Aurora California tried to sue gun makers, and sellers, for actually making and selling guns.

Judge Orders Aurora Victim’s Family and Lawyers to Pay for Suing Gun Dealers

The family not only lost the suit, but had to cough up the cash for legal fees to the people they sued. The Sergeant is gambling, and is going to lose. He would have been better served if he had taken the money he is spending on a lawyer, and let it ride on a Roulette table putting everything on 32. He might have actually won then.

1. I did not accuse Starbucks of committing a crime.

But to win at a lawsuit, you have to show wrongdoing, and if your argument is that charity is the equivalent of wrongdoing, you’re only coming off as a jackass before the world. Whenever someone, private or public, goes after a group or individual for feeding the homeless, they come off looking like assholes.

When the cop shows that the dangerously crazy person showed up, because of the free shit being handed out, that will be Starbucks shown to do something wrong.


Your bleeding heart for the homeless is noted and dismissed.

2. To minimize the problem, they would not have actively worked to attract dangerously crazy people into their store.

Nonsense. Starbucks business is not feeding the homeless. However, when the occasional one would come in, they would give him food. Charity, which is the same as someone giving a homeless person a little change, or a couple bucks. You and the wimpy Sergeant are actually hoping to convince the Jury of a lawsuit that Starbucks was inviting the Homeless in as part of their business model? Get real.

There is nothing about showing it is part of their business model.

3. YOur support of rich corporations using legal fees as a weapon against working class Americans is noted. I consider that, a gross injustice.

Hi, welcome to America. You have just described every single lawsuit against a corporation by everyone in history. You have just described every single criminal case our courts have handled. A successful legal defense can cost tens of thousands of dollars, seriously. A successful lawsuit can easily cost the same. By your logic, Cheaper than Dirt should have paid the families of the shooting victims in Aurora. Otherwise it is a mean old corporation spending the working class into bankruptcy right? Sure, Cheaper than Dirt did nothing wrong, but hey, it’s just not fair that they can afford legal fees is it?

What kind of jackass would even make that kind of an argument? Is it unfair that people have to pay lawyers? What are you a communist?
......[/QUOTE]



I said what I said. Your response had nothing to do with what I said. YOu may try again if you want. Or not.[/QUOTE]
..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What I have noticed reading your interplay with Savannah,is what crap,people litigate for,,,and how incredibly they often get paid out.....There is something Mentally wrong with most Americans,well I suppose it is the decaying days of the Empire...bring on the Death throse,,,and end it once and for all

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The cop will probably get a hundred thousand dollar a year disability pension but needs some law suite money to buy a nice house with a boat on a lake in upstate NY.

He will move to Fla and get another Police job. Patrolling schools

 

[harmonica]

good--- I hope the white cop gets the $$$$$$$$$

 

[SavannahMann]

good--- I hope the white cop gets the $$$$$$$$$

Yeah, because racism is all the justification you need.

 

[harmonica]

good--- I hope the white cop gets the $$$$$$$$$

Yeah, because racism is all the justification you need.

there's that word again
Racism is a popular word with blacks/libs/etc

 

[SavannahMann]

good--- I hope the white cop gets the $$$$$$$$$

Yeah, because racism is all the justification you need.

there's that word again
Racism is a popular word with blacks/libs/etc

You were the one who decided the “white” cop should get the money. Deciding things based upon race is the literal definition of racism. If you had said we should pay the cop because he is a dedicated defender of society. I would have laughed. But I would not have called it racism.

Here is the trick. A trick that has eluded you thus far. Don’t bring up race as part of your argument and chances are people will forget you are a racist jackass. Oh they will probably still think you are a jackass. But they won’t think you a racist jackass. A minor improvement, granted. Obviously more than we can hope to reasonably achieve.

 

[harmonica]

good--- I hope the white cop gets the $$$$$$$$$

Yeah, because racism is all the justification you need.

there's that word again
Racism is a popular word with blacks/libs/etc

You were the one who decided the “white” cop should get the money. Deciding things based upon race is the literal definition of racism. If you had said we should pay the cop because he is a dedicated defender of society. I would have laughed. But I would not have called it racism.

Here is the trick. A trick that has eluded you thus far. Don’t bring up race as part of your argument and chances are people will forget you are a racist jackass. Oh they will probably still think you are a jackass. But they won’t think you a racist jackass. A minoir improvement, granted. Obviously more than we can hope to reasonably achieve.

hold it right there----you don't even know the definition of racism
so you are part of the problem
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

racism | Definition of racism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dictionaries are written and edited by white men.

..a lot of the blacks of SS Africa didn't even have a written language

For many white people, the “definition of racism” offers them a safeguard so that they no longer feel the need to check their privilege

Dear White People, Your "Dictionary Definition" of Racism is Wrong

These are just some of the reasons why the “dictionary definition of racism” is invalid

.....this author is the definition of a racist--according to her definition--and a lot of members here