Civil Rights Violation by Law Enforcement

[Support2ndAmend]

Birmingham, Alabama

I am a member of a civil rights group which supports the 2ND Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We meet at Starbucks every Sunday. We open carry our pistols, which is legal in Alabama and Starbucks supports open carry at every location where it it legal. The owners of this particular location know us by name as we meet every week to discuss our events, which we host. We were forced to leave the area by the police because a police officer was "scared" about our firearms. The three of us were legally carrying and doing nothing more than sitting at a table drinking coffee.
If no law was broken, we cannot be forced to depart from the area because someone was scared. Even better, I have a 32 minutes video of the event which the officers did not know I was recording. The officers state their names and admit that we did not break any laws but we must leave immediately.

I need a lawyer to take this case and represent the 3 of us. We are located in Birmingham, Alabama.

Any help would be very appreciated. Thank you in advance.

 

[tranquility]

How were you hurt?

In dollars and cents. What were your damages?

 

[CdwJava]

They may not have a legal authority to compel you to leave, but you might want to understand their concern:

'Horror scene' as 4 Lakewood police officers shot, killed | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News | Local & Regional

Remember the ambush of 4 Lakewood, WA officers while at a coffee shop last year?

If you feel the officers were out of line, contact their supervisor and ask that he or she speak to the officer(s) involved.

Why do you need an attorney? Have you been charged with a crime? Or do you really think you have a lawsuit worth pursuing here? If the goal is to educate the public - and maybe even the police - on the open carry law, then the complaint would probably do. But, if it's about money, well ...

Remember, all because you might have the lawful right to sue does not mean you have to or even should.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Starbucks supports open carry at every location where it it legal.

Actually, that is not a fair assessment of Starbucks' view on the matter. Not the way I'm reading their press release.

Starbucks Newsroom: Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws

^That^ to me suggests that if Starbucks had a choice, they would not allow you there and the only reason why they don't kick you out, is because by doing so, they "would be forced to require [their] partners [(employees)] to ask law abiding customers to leave [their] stores, putting [their] partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position".

Additionally, Starbucks' press release adds: "As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue."

The owners of this particular location know us by name as we meet every week to discuss our events, which we host.

The "owners" of Starbucks store (almost any US location) are the shareholders of SBUX stock... And I could only guess that a few of them disagree. So again, your generalization is quite misleading.

 

[TheGeekess]

Lawyers don't troll message boards looking for clients.

 

[justalayman]

the police had no right to act outside of the desire of the operator of the store unless you were breaking the law. If you have not verified if the operator of the store requested you be removed, you need to know that first.

We were forced to leave the area by the police

How did they force you? and asking isn't forcing you.

 

[justalayman]

Actually, that is not a fair assessment of Starbucks' view on the matter. Not the way I'm reading their press release.
.

their press release is about as non-committal as one can get. While they ask that they not be put in the middle of the situation, they end that same paragraph with a statement that they believe that supporting local laws is the right way to ensure a safe environment.

Would laws that allowed open carry be a local law?

Even with that, they said they would be forced to require their partners to ask law abiding customers to leave their stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

To me, that sounds like they actually fear the gunslingers and believe that asking them to leave could be a problem with them and cause there to be an unsafe situation.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

their press release is about as non-committal as one can get. While they ask that they not be put in the middle of the situation, they end that same paragraph with a statement that they believe that supporting local laws is the right way to ensure a safe environment.

Which I'm reading to mean "we don't want to ask you to leave (they have the right to refuse 'service' to anyone), so we'd rather you not be here"...

They're just being super delicate and diplomatic about it.

 

[justalayman]

Which I'm reading to mean "we don't want to ask you to leave (they have the right to refuse 'service' to anyone), so we'd rather you not be here"...

They're just being super delicate and diplomatic about it.

but the part about supporting the local laws. That sounds like the support the right to carry. That paragraph seems to be contradicting itself.

Basically, I just think they do not want to piss off some caffeine juiced guy with a 45 on his hip by telling him he freaks the hell out of them and the want him to leave. Personally, I have a problem with open carry. Not because I am anti-gun but carrying a gun on your hip is dumb for so many reasons.

 

[Support2ndAmend]

Ok ok

I was not trying to generalize the Starbucks issue. That was not the point. The owner of this specific location asks the officers to leave and stop hassling her customers. Also, one of you posted a link to a couple police shootings. That is irrelevant. Not everyone with a firearm is a criminal and they cannot force us to leave if we did not break any laws. If they can do that, where does it stop? Should it be OK to force all the Mexicans out of my neighborhood because my friend sometimes visits and she doesn't like them? NO! People cannot be hassled by the police because we follow the law. That doesn't make any since at all. Some of you are not making any since...

 

[Zigner]

That doesn't make any since at all. Some of you are not making any since...

Sense when?

 

[justalayman]

The owner of this specific location asks the officers to leave and stop hassling her customers.

so, how did they force you to leave?

 

[tranquility]

If it is the policy and practice of the police to violate certain constitutional rights, an injunction can be had against them.

If it is the error of the officers on this day, the question becomes, how much were you hurt in dollars and cents?

 

[CdwJava]

I was not trying to generalize the Starbucks issue. That was not the point. The owner of this specific location asks the officers to leave and stop hassling her customers.

The owner of Starbucks is in Washington state, so the "owner" did not ask the officers to leave. In fact, I seriously doubt the manager or supervisor asked them to leave at all.

Also, one of you posted a link to a couple police shootings. That is irrelevant. Not everyone with a firearm is a criminal and they cannot force us to leave if we did not break any laws.

You are correct. And I agreed that they could not. However, you stated that the officers stated that your presence made them feel unsafe. While it might not be rational, I asked that you understand it from THEIR perspective and understand why they might be concerned. Officers are a target these days, and with an ever increasing number of ambush shootings on officers, emotions often take precedence over legal propriety.

Some of you are not making any since...

That's, "sense," and yes they are. I suspect you and your pals are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

If you feel you were asked to leave improperly, then bring this up to their supervisor(s). Unless they unlawfully detained or arrested you, you don't have much of a civil rights case against them. Asking you to leave is not the same as forcing you to do so.