• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Starbucks

nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
275
Location
Winchester, Virginia, USA
So, the ultra-liberal Starbucks now has an open door policy. Who wants to check how open their doors are? Who wants to be in a bunch of open carriers in an open carry sit-in at the local Starbucks? Get a bunch of OCers and go to it!

I love it when they have to take their own medicine.

Nemo
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
So, the ultra-liberal Starbucks now has an open door policy. Who wants to check how open their doors are? Who wants to be in a bunch of open carriers in an open carry sit-in at the local Starbucks? Get a bunch of OCers and go to it!

I love it when they have to take their own medicine.

Nemo
Why? Is there a reason to be hard headed?

Starbucks has become more conservative. Better I think to build on that than to rub their nose in a good decision.
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,332
Location
804, VA
Personally, I'd rather go somewhere I'm welcomed by name, where the coffee tastes a LOT better and costs a LOT less. Having, several years ago, watched a friend of mine who managed a starbucks almost have a mental breakdown due to the stress of working for that company, I will NEVER buy any of their products nor grace them with the incredible honor of my presence.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Even if they don't say anything to kick you out, when a company makes it known that you aren't welcome, why would you waste your time and money there?

Are there no other coffee alternatives in your area?
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Even if they don't say anything to kick you out, when company makes it known that you aren't welcome, why would you waste your time and money there?

Are there no other coffee alternatives in your area?
Don't think it was a company/corporate thing.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Don't think it was a company/corporate thing.
It's widely known and was discussed at length here that Starbucks has made it known they do not welcome firearms. They just don't post signs. They also have not had my business since. Plenty of coffee houses out there.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,357
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Starbucks whole business plan is based of theory that a sucker is borne every minute. The plan has proved to be very successful. I bought a coffee at Starbucks once. I live on the theory of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
http://www.ibtimes.com/starbucks-ce...s-stores-does-not-impose-outright-ban-1407486 Sept 2013, Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz responded with an open letter to the public, stating: “We are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where 'open carry' is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Schultz said Starbucks is not imposing an outright ban on firearms because “we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request... and because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He added that the company “cannot satisfy everyone” and said that the presence of a weapon in its stores is “unsettling and upsetting” for its customers.

unquote.

Personally haven’t seen where Starbuck’s CEO has changed his mind like he has about lounging waiting for friends or using his store’s restrooms ~ just saying mind you![/FONT]
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
http://www.ibtimes.com/starbucks-ce...s-stores-does-not-impose-outright-ban-1407486 Sept 2013, Quote:
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz responded with an open letter to the public, stating: “We are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where 'open carry' is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”
Schultz said Starbucks is not imposing an outright ban on firearms because “we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request... and because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on.”
He added that the company “cannot satisfy everyone” and said that the presence of a weapon in its stores is “unsettling and upsetting” for its customers.

unquote.

Personally haven’t seen where Starbuck’s CEO has changed his mind like he has about lounging waiting for friends or using his store’s restrooms ~ just saying mind you!
Disappointing, but not the end of the world.
He makes his own bed and he is welcome to it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
Defending property can be a little tricky.

"...as we will see, the use of force to protect property is much more limited than the right to use force to protect oneself or other people."
https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/protection-of-property
Please cite statute(s) for your jurisdiction. I'll go first. Then research case law for your jurisdiction.

For example, RSMo 571.030.1(2), Unlawful use of weapon, setting a spring gun unlawful.

Defense of Persons: http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031&bid=33873&hl=
Defense of Property: http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.041&bid=29220&hl=
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Please cite statute(s) for your jurisdiction. I'll go first. Then research case law for your jurisdiction.

For example, RSMo 571.030.1(2), Unlawful use of weapon, setting a spring gun unlawful.

Defense of Persons: http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031&bid=33873&hl=
Defense of Property: http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.041&bid=29220&hl=
https://tort.laws.com/defenses-to-intentional-interference/defense-of-property

https://www.tmwilsonlaw.com/criminal-law/self-defense

This might be a subject for another thread, but is off topic here.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Defending property can be a little tricky.

"...as we will see, the use of force to protect property is much more limited than the right to use force to protect oneself or other people."
https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/protection-of-property
I live in a castle state. It's pretty straightforward.

In your rather long missive, the crux of the matter is this: "Please note also that force to protect property must be used either at the moment of the wrongful intrusion or near the time of the wrongful intrusion."

That's true here in Colorado, as well.

However, your missive errs when it states, "At common law, deadly force could be used in the defense of one’s dwelling if it reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent a forcible intrusion into the dwelling and if a warning had first been given to the intruder not to enter."

That's not at all true here in Colorado. Our state, as do most castle law states, makes the reasonable assumption that anyone who gains forceable entry into your home has committed at least two crimes (robbery and tresspassing) and is presumed to be dangerous to any occupants. You're clear to open fire without any verbal warning whatsoever.

Having said that, I'm likely to arm, aim, call 911, and give reasonable verbal warnings in that order. "As I train, so shall I perform."
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
I live in a castle state. Snipppp...
Actually since9, there is no statutory guidance for castle doctrine in CO!

what you actually have on CO’s statutory books is a “make my day” statute, CRS 18-1-704.5. [intruder MUST be in the home and all force is applicable]

to enlighten you further, there is no ‘duty to retreat’ statutory guidance either, so without statutory guidance it must be legal for citizens to defend themselves and others from great bodily injury, death, kidnapping, robbery and sexual assaults as defined in 18.1.704(2).

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/07/...ord-rights-to-those-shooting-in-self-defense/

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
solus, perhaps you weren't aware, but I do not read your posts. That's my choice and I'm sticking to it. Thus, if you're responding to me thinking I'll read your response, as the high frequency of posts you make immediately after mine, you might consider re-purposing your time.

You're absolutely free to respond, of course,but please consider your audience. I am not your audience. I can't even see your posts, also my choice.

Enjoy your day.

solus-on-ignore-list.jpg
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
solus, perhaps you weren't aware, but I do not read your posts. That's my choice and I'm sticking to it. Thus, if you're responding to me thinking I'll read your response, as the high frequency of posts you make immediately after mine, you might consider re-purposing your time.

You're absolutely free to respond, of course,but please consider your audience. I am not your audience. I can't even see your posts, also my choice.

Enjoy your day.

View attachment 13467
Yet you do add to the cataloged list by posting a response. Further, as we should all know, if another user/member quotes him there, it is not blocked.

Better I think to remain silent and not try to have the last word......until next time.
 
Last edited:
Top