US Cafe Won't Serve Uniformed Police Officers
 

This is a local story for me that is getting national attention.

Cafe owner kicks out police officer - KOINLocal6.com

Cafe owner kicks out police officer

PORTLAND, Ore. - It was early Tuesday afternoon, May 18th, Cornelia Seigneur was having lunch with her daughter at the Red and Black Cafe at Southeast 12th and Oak.

Seigneur had struck up a conversation with Portland Police officer James Crooker who had just picked up coffee to go. Then Seigneur said one of the cafe's owners approached and said something that stunned Seigneur.

"He looked at the policeman and said I'd like you to leave," she said.

The officer left without incident, but Seigneur says she was both shocked and disappointed that an officer was run out of a cafe simply because of his profession.

"I felt just really uncomfortable -- just really uncomfortable about it and I felt many of our customers and co workers would not feel safe in a space with a uniformed police officer with a gun," said Red and Black Cafe co-owner John Langley.

Langley says he's not trying to make a statement. Rather he says he was trying to make the cafe feel safe and comfortable for customers -- many of whom feel preyed upon by Portland Police.

Langley says many customers and co-workers feel Portland Police abuse power. Langley says many people who feel that abuse are customers.

Positive and negative feedback

The Facebook page for the Red & Black Cafe has more than 800 supporters. The page announced the Cafe received more positive than negative phone calls, but there is also a Boycott the Red & Black Cafe page on Facebook (more than 2,500 supporters).

Portland Police Bureau shootings

Aaron Campbell was shot in the back Jan. 29 after refusing to follow orders to lie on the ground. Officers shot non-lethal beanbag rounds at him first, but Campbell still did not comply and actually started to run away from officers when he was shot in the back. He was unarmed.

Jack Collins was shot multiple times by a Portland Police officer March 22 at the Hoyt Arboretum. Collins, a homeless man with mental issues, was using a razor blade knife to threaten people in the park. Collins did not comply to officers' orders to lie down.

Portland Police fired 32 shots at Keaton Otis, hitting the 25-year-old 23 times on May 12. Otis lead police on a chase through many Portland city blocks, refusing to pull over despite flashing lights and multiple orders over a loud speaker. Otis still did not comply after he was Tasered twice. Otis pulled out a gun and shot Officer Christopher Burley twice in the leg. That's when other officers unloaded 32 rounds at Otis, hitting him 23 times.
Officer Crooker's response

Officer James Crooker has been with Portland Police for two years and says he wasn't aware of the prevailing attitute toward police among co-owners of the Red and Black Cafe when he went in for coffee to go and was subsequently asked to leave because he is a police officer.

Crooker says he has mixed emotions about being asked to leave. During his tour of duty in Iraq in 2004, he grew an appreciation, he says, for people's willingness and freedom to challenge authority. In Iraq, says Crooker, people would never confront an authority figure. So in one sense he says he was slightly humiliated and disappointed. On the other hand, Crooker says, he's appreciative of a country that allows people to question who ever they want -- concerning what ever they want.

Right to Refuse Service

According to LegalZoom and LegalMatch, places of business like restaurants and cafes have the right to refuse service for specific reasons.

LeagalZoom cites the Unruh Civil Rights Act from 1959 as protection against discrimination by business owners. The law was named for Jesse Unruh, who wrote the law. According to LegalZoom, “business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.”

LegalMatch says that even though restaurants may be privately owned, “the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws.”

Seeing those stories, it's understandable why these people fel a little uncomfortabe with a police who's proffession has had such a bad reputation around there, which leads to his humiliation being understandable- since the people of the area he protects are uncomfortable with him . . .Also it's good these people feel able to be this honest.

From the crazy police from the examples given, one could sum up this situation by calling it a sad good ol' example of that old but wise phrase/moral with apples and a barrel.

That is ridiculous. The owner of the cafe was not justified in kicking the officer out. He treated the officer like a criminal. Frankly, he should have more respect for the police. Police officers have one of the toughest professions on this planet. They have to deal with things that most of us will never have to. I can't believe this happened.

I agree with Parapara. This is ridiculous and discrimination.

I think he was very much justified. The police have a bad reputation, and he wanted to make sure his customers weren't uncomfortable or in any danger.

It's like kicking a "suspicious" looking guy out of a resturaunt, or any public establishment. He may not be a bad guy at all, but the owner is more concerned with the rest of his customers, their safety and their comfort, than one guy who looks like he could be there to stir up trouble.

Legally justified? Probably not, since the guy was doing no harm.
Justified in the sense that he wants to protect his customers? I would think so.

The incidents in the examples happened during certain criminal situations; officer-suspect confrontations. Unless a criminal situation had the potential of unfolding in the café, the customers shouldn't have had anything to worry about. And if it did, that would have justified him being there in the first place.

The collective concern should be of the officers' use of their firearms at crime scenes, not of their general possession of firearms, which is what this officer was kick-out for. The reasoning behind it seems pretty absurd to me.

This is kinda ridiculous. I mean, sure there can be crooked cops, but there are honest hard working ones too. I would feel safer with a uniformed police officer, than a random off-duty cop to carrying a weapon....

Their money is the same as everyone else's. If you are in business, this should be your main concern.

While I do believe businesses and owners should have the right to kick anybody out, there needs to be a justifiable reason for doing so. Despite the bad reputation the police seem to have (clearly the department needs to be held more accountable for use of their firearms), just being in the cafe in uniform is not enough of a reason.

As an isolated incident I guess it is not that big of a deal, but there is no way I would stand for him putting out a sign that says "no police in uniforms allowed".

I think if the owner made a point about the gun making people feel uneasy rather than the police officer then Id be on his side...

But he didnt and so Im not.

I'm not surprised it happened in Portland. I can see the officer being a bit surprised at being handed his coffee in a togo cup at the counter and being asked to leave with it but if I look at the demographic of the customers it is better for them $$$ as a small independent hippie vegan co=op cafe to preserve the feeling of their regulars. It's not like the officer can't get coffee if he doesn't go there.

And if the officer doesn't even care that much I don't know why I should.

I agree to an extent, because there are to Manny corrupt cops..Not necessarily that they break the law...But they're morals and way of handling things lack to compassion for people as they used to in the good ol days.I'm talking about pre-70's era.

Now cops throw around they;re power more often than not when its not necessary.

There still are good cops out there, I think that was a little extreme to kick him out just because he is a cop.

If I were a police officer in the area and I got a call to this coffee shop about a robbery or fire I would probably take my time getting there. And once I arrived I wouldn't be too careful about actually looking for the robbers. I'm pretty sure that firefighters might take a little extra time getting their hoses hooked up and organized before actually using them to put out the fire.

"Professional Courtesy" is an expression used between police and firefighters as both professions work together on a daily basis, and they help each other out both on and off duty. A police officer in a car wreck is going to get quick help from the fire department, and a firefighter who gets pulled over driving home after a few too many drinks is not going to get a DUI. Any business who raises the ire of either organization can count on never getting timely service from either.

The shop owner didn't really care about the gun, he is just a counter-culture nut who dislikes police officers and needed some kind of excuse for his action. If I was the officer in this situation and I was asked to leave you can be sure that I would do so happily, and never return, even if the owner called 911 and begged for me to come back. I would take my time driving to his shop using a roundabout route, and just before getting there my patrol car would somehow get a flat tire, and I would ask that another unit from the district be dispatched instead. And you can be sure that the next unit wouldn't be breaking the speed limit to get to the call either.

I guess I am glad you are not a police officer or fire fighter in my town, as I wouldn't want my local police or fire fighters "playing favorites" in ways that can seriously affect people's lives.

As a translator, no one is going to lose their life by the decisions I make. However, if a cop decides to let a drunk firefighter continue his drive home, then his decision certainly can lead to the loss of life.

If a firefighter decides to take his time showing up to a fire because he doesn't agree with the politics or policies of the victim, then that can lead to neighboring businesses or houses being damaged.

Those police certainly have the right to protest the policies of the business. They can choose not to go there and buy coffee. They can choose to write letters to the local paper, and they can choose to tell their friends of the store's policy.

However, what they should not choose is not do their job as diligently as they pledged to do just because they don't agree with the businesses policies. Then they make themselves as bad, if not worse, as the business itself.

Agreed.
Having lived in towns where there were som problems with police abusing their authority, I know what its like to feel uncomfortable when they walk into a business. But the tensions and reputations are not helped by simply removing someone who makes you uncomfortable. It didn't work when racial segregation was legal and it won't work in this case.

The owner needs to treat the officers like any other customer and set a better example for his customers. Then the customers would have a better chance of knowing who on the force to trust when they need them.

Well said. That is exactly what I think to. I don't think that the officer should take his time helping out the shop if they need help though. Personally, I would not hold a grudge like that, and I don't think most police officers do that.

What I am wondering is why would the customers be nervous of the police officer if they had nothing to hide. The people in the stories seemed to have at least given the officers probable cause to shoot or at least detain them.

They weren't scared, just the manager speaking out . . .

Hmm . . .

Cafe owner kicks out a police officer, really, I wonder why?

There have been a handful of police shootings in Portland over the past couple years. In each case it was determined to be justified, if looked at reasonably. No police have been punished. For example, in the most recent case a man was pulled over. When asked to show ID he pulled out a gun and shot a cop. He was then shot and killed by other police officers. It's hard to say that isn't a justified use of force.

Omg! This clearly shows that all police officers are out to harass the public. I know what to do. Since police officers are the largest street gang in America, we should just get rid of them all together. Our cities would be a lot safer if there were no cops. It makes total sense. *sarcasm*


And jeez, just show him your freaking drivers license. What is so hard about that. That dude was definitely hiding something.

I am not saying that every police officer is a saint and does no wrong. However, crooked cops are the minority not the majority.

Sometimes I feel like IM in the minority among teens when I show respect for and applaud police officers.

So angry right now!:mad:

Deep breaths...

Better now.
:vsign:

Segment 1: Disagreement over possessions.
Segment 2: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 3: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 4: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 5: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 6: (Too vague to judge)
Segment 7: Criminal Incident.
Segment 8: Criminal Incident.
Segment 9: Criminal Incident.

The first segment is iffy. I'm not sure there was an appropriate reason for an arrest, aside from the disruptive behavior (which, even then is questionable). I could be convinced that was an illegal arrest. Though, it's somewhat difficult to know what they're arguing about, exactly...

Segment 2 to 5 show various scenarios in which officers request ID and are not shown one. I would've thought it was common sense to know that refusing to cooperate with officers does not make you look good to them -- or to the law -- regardless of how "uncomfortable" you may feel. I would be more concerned if a suspect could simply walk away when an officer requested identification.

Why withhold ID for any reason other than to hide something or make a political statement? When you refuse to identify yourself you may be obligating them to further investigate your person... In one of the videos, the individual taping sounded like he was in fact hiding something.

The last three segments are obviously criminal. Those cops are disgraceful, and should be punished.

On another note: It's a good strategy to mix questionably legitimate incidents (1-6) with obviously illegal incidents (7-9) to prove a point. I'm not sure whether it was intentional, but nevertheless...

There were 9 clips that included approximately 14 accused "corrupt" officers. What ratio of "corrupt" officers would that represent in comparison to the entire Law Enforcement body.

All of the clips included in the video were only segments of complete cases... Which - correct me if I'm wrong - did not take place in Portland. And, if they did, they were still incidents that unfolded in result of a probable cause (excluding 7-9), which is unrelated to the situation in the café.

[Refer to my first post] Unless someone was hiding something, the officer had no potential of causing a scene. It seems he was simply following the nature of his job: making a presence.

In regards to the cafe in Portland, there is really no talk or complaints in Portland of "Police corruption". The only issue now is the officer involved shootings that have happened in recent years. Several of the cases (including the most recent one, where the driver of a stopped vehicle shot a police officer in the leg before being shot to death) involve people with mental issues. Really that's it.

again sorta not
 

just a cursory glance at Portland Ore. PD recent shooting incident regarding Aaron Campbell Jan. 29,2010 latest police shooting ( unarmed and with hands above his head and in full compliance with police - was shot in the back by police after being shot with a bean bag,...) especially revealing is the just released grand jury testimony transcripts and police logs from that night. A federal civil rights investigation is ongoing.
The Portland Ore PD's handling of the homeless in the downtown area is also of note because it falls so far below the publics radar ?
Not counting the beating death of James Chasse a homeless man beat to death by Portland PD so severely that 16 of his ribs were broken all recorded on video tape Feb,2008.

The video doesn't have any particular connection with the cafe incident besides the fact the any cop whether he's on duty or not can be a potential trouble. A cop is just another customer, and the owner has a right to kick him out, just like any other customer if he has his reasons. The 7 & 8 segments of the video made me understand why the owner would want the officer to leave.

Also, I recommend watching all 6 parts. They have even more shocking footages.

Any person in any job can be potential trouble. There is corruption and simply "bad people" in any industry, and law enforcement is no exception. However that seems like a pretty weak excuse to exclude ALL members of that profession from your business. Certainly the owner has the right to make that decision, as long as it isn't based on race, etc. that are protected. And I have the right to say I think that makes him look foolish.

Unlike in other industries, for those in law enforcement it's easier to get away when they break the law, so there is a difference.
I agree, it might seem foolish of him, but if he feels safer when there are no cops around, then that's his choice.

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean that police officers are more or less corrupt than people in other industries.

On the other hand, when corruption, illegalities, or simple mistakes are discovered the police as a whole often get blamed...even on other cities around the country.

Anyone can be potential trouble. People, in general, are prone to misbehaving. However, kicking someone out of a public establishment when they haven't made any apparent mistakes seems pretty unfair to me. Which leads to the matter of whether the officer was even doing anything wrong? Not from what I understand, at the moment. Simply being in or associated to a (legitimate) profession, which essentially seems to be the owner's reason, is grounds for kicking him out? That, to me, meets the definition of discrimination.

And, oh yes, I know quite well how bad cops can be. I've seen most of the videos on the net, and have also witnessed, first-hand, corrupt law enforcement. However, I also know well enough not to judge the entire Law Enforcement body by those bad apples.

There seems to be an eagerness to oppose authority somewhere in all of this, and it's not necessarily a romantically good thing. (Not referring directly to you, that is)

The officer was upset but even he had to admit that it is a great thing to live in a country where you can approach a uniformed and armed man of authority and politely ask him to leave your shop. In many places that would be the equivalent of asking to be harassed, beaten or even arrested. Rather than pitying the officer or mocking the cafe owner (and it's a co-op so everyone who works there is an owner), look at the action as a sign that people can exercise their rights without fear of brutal reprisal. It is a great thing.

I also trust that the cafe knows it's demographic. The people who are boycotting it are not their clientele in the first place, their regular clientele is happy about the cafe's choice and their actions may cause people of like mind to now patronize them to show support. Their sales may increase.

Assuming the police in Portland are good people, they will still respnd to calls from that address because they are professionals. Even if they disagree with the cafe it doesn't mean they wish harm on the cafe. :vsign:

Where are you reading the officer was upset?

Crooker says he has mixed emotions about being asked to leave. During his tour of duty in Iraq in 2004, he grew an appreciation, he says, for people's willingness and freedom to challenge authority. In Iraq, says Crooker, people would never confront an authority figure. So in one sense he says he was slightly humiliated and disappointed. On the other hand, Crooker says, he's appreciative of a country that allows people to question who ever they want -- concerning what ever they want.

I agree with the rest of your post, for the most part. I don't agree with the fact that they took the police officer's money before asking him to leave, though.

I don't mean upset as to cause emotional distress but as in to force something out of it usual position. To cause an upset.

Sorry for being unclear.

But the officer addressed exactly what you are saying in the article I quoted in the OP.

I hope you read it all the way through.

:confused: 1. I'm a little interested in your definition of corrupt? Can you elaborate?

2. Pre-70's era was the good ol days? Not even close. Policing used to be so out of control that a 14th amendment was needed to incorporate the protection guaranteed in the bill of rights and applied to state law enforcement. It was thought before this that the safeguards in the US Constitution only applied to federal law enforcement so at that time federal law enforcement officers could ask state and local officers to do searches for them without probable cause.

3. "Now cops throw around they;re power more often than not when its not necessary." Are you really sure about this one? You know there is something called the "Steps of de-escalation?" It's a guideline that explain what level of force is necessary for each situation. However, steps can be skipped depending on the situation at hand. There isn't a one size fits all when it comes to this.

You are assuming and I'm sure that being that you are not a legal expert or well versed in the criminal justice system that it is highly likely that you occasionally mix up the differences between criminal behavior, status offenses, deviant behavior, violation of departmental policies, and actions that can lead to a civil suit.

Many people do this unfortunately.