Quote:
Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen
I guess that the law regarding trespass is different in the US; here in the UK trespass is a civil matter and I believe that the police cannot intervene unless a criminal act is also being committed.
|
Loitering is when you occupy a place of business and are not involved in business activities there. its basic definition is to "stand or wait about idly with no apparent purpose." many cities in the US have loitering laws which state quite specifically that you cannot simply occupy a place for the sake of occupying it. generally this is in reference to a place of business, for example, i cannot just go sit at McDonalds for a length of time and flip through facebook on my iPhone. it is totally different if i go to McDonalds, order a Big Mac, and sit flipping through facebook on my iPhone while i nibble at my food.
I have not been able to ascertain what the charges filed against the men were... because there were none pressed by starbucks.
why were they lead out by authorities? because when you loiter, that is generally the result. You are asked to make a purchase, or leave the store, shop, shoppe, delicatessen, etc. if you refuse, then you can be removed from the location by the authorities.
By accounts, the men occupied the starbucks for a matter of at least one hour but not more than two. they claimed they were "waiting for a friend"
what i find interesting is, the "friend" arrived the minute the handcuffs came out.
was it a setup of some kind? who knows?
the real question is... what precedent gets set now?
Lets say i own a coffee shop, or sandwich shop or whatever, and two black men walk in, order nothing, and just camp at one of my tables for 2 hours.
what rights have i at this point?
am i a racist klansman if i ask them to make a purchase or vacate the store?
if they refuse, and i summon the police, does my store end up on national news?
do i come to work in the morning greeted by a large crowd of protesters bent on
"making sure i don't earn a dime today."
EDIT: a large part of the fuss is that the men claimed (as did the protestors) that someone who hadnt purchased any product was allowed to use the bathroom... however he had only just arrived, and it is not known whether he intended to do business with starbucks after doing business with their toilet. The men however had occupied the store for an hour or two, making it clear they had no intention of making a purchase. pretty open and shut if you ask me