Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF Pigs brutalize homeles outside Burger King
Below is posted a COPWATCH report posted to our MAYDAY DC list from a DC homeless activists visiting SF. This shit with Booger King, BTW, reminds me of a McDonald's in DC that earned themselves a mass cockroach release(Toilet Liberation Front action) for treating the homeless like shit and locking their tolilets
Okay, did not make it to Oregon. Hithched across the country to Barstow
California in Seven days then got stuck in the middle of the Mojave
desert. Finally made it to Sacremento with a combination of Grehound,
Mexican Buses and hitching. Then Bailed and took a Grehound to San
Francisco.
I am in the Homeless system here. There are tons of homeless people here.
The system is a bit better than DC but the Cops are major assholes.
On my 15th hour in town, I did a Copwatch.
Two Officers, Male and Female in Car 2170 stopped a homeless man
demonstrating with a sign requesting a boycott of Burger King for not
letting Homeless Customers use the Bathroom. He was told he needed to
file for a permit and wait several days. He tried to maintain his right
to demonstrate and was threatened. He gave in but the cops stopped him
and ran him for priors and found a warent. he was taken away cuffed.
Several people have been complaining about brutality by the Burger King
Security Guard. The Cops did not seem interested in This. I interviewed
a man who was Pan Handling on the scene and is familier with the problem.
He gave me permission to use his name: Gabriel Navaro.
According to Gabriel the security Guard at the Burger King does not allow
homeless to use the bathroom even if they are customers. He knocked the
Soda out of one Womans hand and Chased her down the street. He is
reported to have beaten numerous homeless people including a 65 year old
woman. He broke her bag and sprayed her with pepper spray. This was
reported to the police but they did nothing.
According to Gabriel, the security guard was released from prison only one
year ago and is a drug addict.
Love, Solidarity and Magic from San Francisco.
Jesse
California in Seven days then got stuck in the middle of the Mojave
desert. Finally made it to Sacremento with a combination of Grehound,
Mexican Buses and hitching. Then Bailed and took a Grehound to San
Francisco.
I am in the Homeless system here. There are tons of homeless people here.
The system is a bit better than DC but the Cops are major assholes.
On my 15th hour in town, I did a Copwatch.
Two Officers, Male and Female in Car 2170 stopped a homeless man
demonstrating with a sign requesting a boycott of Burger King for not
letting Homeless Customers use the Bathroom. He was told he needed to
file for a permit and wait several days. He tried to maintain his right
to demonstrate and was threatened. He gave in but the cops stopped him
and ran him for priors and found a warent. he was taken away cuffed.
Several people have been complaining about brutality by the Burger King
Security Guard. The Cops did not seem interested in This. I interviewed
a man who was Pan Handling on the scene and is familier with the problem.
He gave me permission to use his name: Gabriel Navaro.
According to Gabriel the security Guard at the Burger King does not allow
homeless to use the bathroom even if they are customers. He knocked the
Soda out of one Womans hand and Chased her down the street. He is
reported to have beaten numerous homeless people including a 65 year old
woman. He broke her bag and sprayed her with pepper spray. This was
reported to the police but they did nothing.
According to Gabriel, the security guard was released from prison only one
year ago and is a drug addict.
Love, Solidarity and Magic from San Francisco.
Jesse
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
COP 1: "Well how many heads did ya break this week?
COP 2: "Including the 2 Nuns for Suspicion of Jay Walking, the Black Motorist for Suspicion of Speeding, and the 3 Antiwar Demonstrators who disagreed with President Bush, these 2 Transients make 8."
COP 1: "Sissy! I shot that many in one day."
COP 2: "Including the 2 Nuns for Suspicion of Jay Walking, the Black Motorist for Suspicion of Speeding, and the 3 Antiwar Demonstrators who disagreed with President Bush, these 2 Transients make 8."
COP 1: "Sissy! I shot that many in one day."
What crap. I saw the whole thing as I was passing by during lunch. This asshole is there everyday, sleeping in front of the BART station where he habitually blocks the way. He's abusive, with filthy hair and clothes and he stinks. OF COURSE they aren't going to let him use the bathroom. He can walk a fucking block and use the sidewalk toilet. He can get a free token from the Coalition. Or he can just shit in the street like the rest of them do. Time for these guys to leave. They are no longer welcome here.
You're the true scab on the face of this earth
or is our downtown "worker" a lying scumbag? How dare you desire apartheid conditions in San Francisco! I don't even believe anybody should have to buy something to use a bathrooom in a place of public accommodation. (It should be part of their being allowed to do business--similar to a tax--Do you know how much money each Burglar King makes for this billion dollar corporation?) But for sure, ANYBODY who buys something should have the right to use their bathroom. They shouldn't even have security guards. I bet you if you dress up in a suit and tie and go to to use the BK bathroom, they won't even ask if you bought anything.
And to our downtown "worker" himself (even tho he doesn't identify hismelf, aren't these abusive perverts always 'him's?):
Hey shithead, you don't know who uses the street unless you're going around watching everybody like the big brother pervert you probably are. Why don't you attempt to help people rather than put them down?
And to our downtown "worker" himself (even tho he doesn't identify hismelf, aren't these abusive perverts always 'him's?):
Hey shithead, you don't know who uses the street unless you're going around watching everybody like the big brother pervert you probably are. Why don't you attempt to help people rather than put them down?
This can't possibly be for real. Even the lunatics of SF's left can't honestly belive that some filthy scumbag has some inalienable right to use a PRIVATE bathroom in a PRIVATE business anytime he wants.
notice the word 'private'.. there is nothing 'private' about this, these 'private' places are making a profit, selling their garbage in 'public' places--they shouldn't have rights of personhood under the constitution--they should all be considered public, accountable to the public
but you aren't here to have a meaningful discussion, you are just another coward troll, I'm sure.
but you aren't here to have a meaningful discussion, you are just another coward troll, I'm sure.
Ignatius prefers to step in human feces on the public sidewalk.
Please, please <i>please</i> contact the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services as indicated below to complain and get this security guard's licenses pulled for gross misconduct. This is the kind of asshole who gives security officers a bad name.
Yes, you can complain about either a private security guard or a police officer working off-duty as security, and yes, off-duty police must have a state license to work security, and yes, if the BSIS pulls someone's license -- including a cop's -- he CANNOT WORK SECURITY ANY MORE.
Pepper spray is an intermediate defensive weapon. It is only to be used by private persons in self-defense. You can no more use pepper to chase someone out of your property than you can use a baton to smack someone because you feel like it.
There are three ways to file a complaint:
1. Call our Consumer Information Center at 1-800-952-5210 to have a complaint form mailed to you, OR
2. File your complaint online by selecting the Mediation Center nearest to you: https://app.dca.ca.gov/gencomplaint/gconline-hay.htm
OR
3. Select the Mediation Center nearest to you, download (print) a complaint form, complete the form with as much information as possible, and mail it to the address on the top of the form.
Hayward:
2030 West Winton Avenue
Hayward, CA 94545
(510) 785-7554
Business Hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time
Yes, you can complain about either a private security guard or a police officer working off-duty as security, and yes, off-duty police must have a state license to work security, and yes, if the BSIS pulls someone's license -- including a cop's -- he CANNOT WORK SECURITY ANY MORE.
Pepper spray is an intermediate defensive weapon. It is only to be used by private persons in self-defense. You can no more use pepper to chase someone out of your property than you can use a baton to smack someone because you feel like it.
There are three ways to file a complaint:
1. Call our Consumer Information Center at 1-800-952-5210 to have a complaint form mailed to you, OR
2. File your complaint online by selecting the Mediation Center nearest to you: https://app.dca.ca.gov/gencomplaint/gconline-hay.htm
OR
3. Select the Mediation Center nearest to you, download (print) a complaint form, complete the form with as much information as possible, and mail it to the address on the top of the form.
Hayward:
2030 West Winton Avenue
Hayward, CA 94545
(510) 785-7554
Business Hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time
"notice the word 'private'.. there is nothing 'private' about this, these 'private' places are making a profit, selling their garbage in 'public' places"
Everything about them is "private". They are under no social or legal or ethical contract to provide services to the homeless. They probably do anyway to some extent.
That they make a profit is to their credit. Profits, contrary to dimwitted leftist fools who don't work to begin with are what keep businesses afloat and provide wages for all the romantic "workers" you're always clamoring on about yet only understand from a distance.
These businesses are no less private, profits from the CHOICES of customers in the public notwithstanding, then your home.
How about, for once, thinking about something before spouting off with the same old tired anti profit, anti-business, pro scumbag rhetoric that paints you as a complete and utter fool.
Everything about them is "private". They are under no social or legal or ethical contract to provide services to the homeless. They probably do anyway to some extent.
That they make a profit is to their credit. Profits, contrary to dimwitted leftist fools who don't work to begin with are what keep businesses afloat and provide wages for all the romantic "workers" you're always clamoring on about yet only understand from a distance.
These businesses are no less private, profits from the CHOICES of customers in the public notwithstanding, then your home.
How about, for once, thinking about something before spouting off with the same old tired anti profit, anti-business, pro scumbag rhetoric that paints you as a complete and utter fool.
Choice, that's funny. We have no choice but to be inundated/indoctrinated/assaulted w/ corporate advertising from birth. It is well known(from a pscyological as well as sociological viewpoint) that if you repeat the message over and over (and over) that you will persuade a majority of the folks you are targeting (not all, of course, but you don't need them all) (see last presidential election, polls indicating 70% of the people who watch Fox thoought Saddam was connected to 9-11 for a couple of glaring examples of this, this is another example of marketing a product)
Do you actually believe that this is a free market system?
It is apparent you have become a product yourself.
Since 1886, when it was decided that corporations essentially have personhood, and the rights written in the constitution for an INDIVIDUAL, there have been problems. Now many, like yourself, believe in this so-called 'private' right. Burger King is not a person and shouldn't have the rights of an individual, being that they are far more powerful than the individual (i.e. see the many 'free-speech' cases in favor of corporations in regards to political/campaign contributions for numerous examples of how lop-sided it is)
These (albeit crap-filled) fast-food places have a duty to the public. Period. So before you ignorantly label me 'leftist' because I don't fit into your simple right-wing, naive viewpoint, think again. Think. That's something your flip-flopper in chief would prefer you not to do.
Do you actually believe that this is a free market system?
It is apparent you have become a product yourself.
Since 1886, when it was decided that corporations essentially have personhood, and the rights written in the constitution for an INDIVIDUAL, there have been problems. Now many, like yourself, believe in this so-called 'private' right. Burger King is not a person and shouldn't have the rights of an individual, being that they are far more powerful than the individual (i.e. see the many 'free-speech' cases in favor of corporations in regards to political/campaign contributions for numerous examples of how lop-sided it is)
These (albeit crap-filled) fast-food places have a duty to the public. Period. So before you ignorantly label me 'leftist' because I don't fit into your simple right-wing, naive viewpoint, think again. Think. That's something your flip-flopper in chief would prefer you not to do.
Must I continue to teach you the same lesson over and over again.
Here's the deal dummy.
Regardless of your silly socialist whine of a worldview, a business IS private whether you like their marketing or success or not.
Get used to it.
As such, they have the absolute right to allow who they want to use their facilities. If it's some bothersome, shit covered bum coming in and out, they ABSOLUTELY have the right to have him removed.
Now just try and grasp that simple fact and take a break from all this silly socio-economic blaming and moaning you so love to indulge in.
Here's the deal dummy.
Regardless of your silly socialist whine of a worldview, a business IS private whether you like their marketing or success or not.
Get used to it.
As such, they have the absolute right to allow who they want to use their facilities. If it's some bothersome, shit covered bum coming in and out, they ABSOLUTELY have the right to have him removed.
Now just try and grasp that simple fact and take a break from all this silly socio-economic blaming and moaning you so love to indulge in.
I understand that you are brainwashed with your right-wing drivel and can't really answer a question
Do you believe that we have a free market here?
Do you believe that we have a free market here?
Do I belive that this is a free market economy.
Clearly, in a the large sense it is. Now it's certainly not what Adam Smith might have envisioned. Goverment subsidies and bailouts not to mention restrictions hardly allow for a complte and unfettered economy, but still, by and large, the fundamentals of supply and demand still hold true.
Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a business is a private enterprise and is under no obligation to provide bathroom services for nonpaying, feces covered bums with mental illness.
What's you're next question? (Although I suspect that you're still wrestling with this one)
Clearly, in a the large sense it is. Now it's certainly not what Adam Smith might have envisioned. Goverment subsidies and bailouts not to mention restrictions hardly allow for a complte and unfettered economy, but still, by and large, the fundamentals of supply and demand still hold true.
Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a business is a private enterprise and is under no obligation to provide bathroom services for nonpaying, feces covered bums with mental illness.
What's you're next question? (Although I suspect that you're still wrestling with this one)
This is a straw man argument. The guy was picketing in protest of Burger King not letting certain *customers* use the bathroom. Nonpayers are a separate issue.
"This is a straw man argument."
Uh, no it's not. It is the most salient point of this entire discussion. Whether this guy was picketing or not is irrelevant. What he was doing was trying to say that Burger King, a PRIVATE entity, has some obligation to provide PUBLIC services to the homeless.
It simply doesn't.
Furthermore, the very notion that someones homelessness entitles them to services from their choice of private individuals, groups or businesses is ludicrous.
Of course, personal accountability is clearly frowned upon around here, I know.
Uh, no it's not. It is the most salient point of this entire discussion. Whether this guy was picketing or not is irrelevant. What he was doing was trying to say that Burger King, a PRIVATE entity, has some obligation to provide PUBLIC services to the homeless.
It simply doesn't.
Furthermore, the very notion that someones homelessness entitles them to services from their choice of private individuals, groups or businesses is ludicrous.
Of course, personal accountability is clearly frowned upon around here, I know.
At least you know who Adam Smith is, that's a start.
You're right, we don't have anything close to the utopian ideal of a free market economy that Adam Smith envisioned. We have--as you mentioned--corporate subsidies, bailouts (WELFARE), special 'incentives' and enormous tax loopholes, monopolies and oligopolies that make the notion of a remotely 'free market' laughable. If there was a lack of regulation that Adam Smith envisioned, we'd be a total disastor. Corporations have, repeatedly throughout history, shown us that we cannot (the public) trust them to responsibly self-govern, and while there certainly is some ind./personal responsibility to inform ourselves as public/consumers--it would be impossible to arm ourselves w/ the virtual cornucopia of minutiae required for us, as citizens, to defend ourselves from the predatory nature of corporations--on our environment, our pocket books and our health---see all of history for examples of powerful institutions left unchecked abusing their power.
So, in the spirit of dialogue, I'll give you that it is reasonable that a place can refuse--in the extreme circumstance of someone who is 'shit-covered-service. But in general they have a responsiblity to serve the public, as, at least technically, the people allow them to do business in our space.
You're right, we don't have anything close to the utopian ideal of a free market economy that Adam Smith envisioned. We have--as you mentioned--corporate subsidies, bailouts (WELFARE), special 'incentives' and enormous tax loopholes, monopolies and oligopolies that make the notion of a remotely 'free market' laughable. If there was a lack of regulation that Adam Smith envisioned, we'd be a total disastor. Corporations have, repeatedly throughout history, shown us that we cannot (the public) trust them to responsibly self-govern, and while there certainly is some ind./personal responsibility to inform ourselves as public/consumers--it would be impossible to arm ourselves w/ the virtual cornucopia of minutiae required for us, as citizens, to defend ourselves from the predatory nature of corporations--on our environment, our pocket books and our health---see all of history for examples of powerful institutions left unchecked abusing their power.
So, in the spirit of dialogue, I'll give you that it is reasonable that a place can refuse--in the extreme circumstance of someone who is 'shit-covered-service. But in general they have a responsiblity to serve the public, as, at least technically, the people allow them to do business in our space.
"But in general they have a responsiblity to serve the public, as, at least technically, the people allow them to do business in our space."
But the public doesn't "allow" them to do business. There is no concept of the public deeming it permissable for a private enterprise to exist within the public's "space". The proximity of the public to a private enterprise doea not connote granted permission from the public.
All that said, the public does, ultimately, have the power.
If a business is utterly callous to the needs and desires of the community that supports it, people will and should stop using it. In that sense the public allows private enterprises to exist by virtue of it's right to "vote with it's wallet".
I for one, wouldn't be to keen on giving money to any business that routinely gave the homeless the cold shoulder. But that is their right and hopefully the public will judge and respond.
But the public doesn't "allow" them to do business. There is no concept of the public deeming it permissable for a private enterprise to exist within the public's "space". The proximity of the public to a private enterprise doea not connote granted permission from the public.
All that said, the public does, ultimately, have the power.
If a business is utterly callous to the needs and desires of the community that supports it, people will and should stop using it. In that sense the public allows private enterprises to exist by virtue of it's right to "vote with it's wallet".
I for one, wouldn't be to keen on giving money to any business that routinely gave the homeless the cold shoulder. But that is their right and hopefully the public will judge and respond.
if the majority of the public, due to systemic failures, isn't aware of that power--and therefore doesn't excercise it--isn't that the same as them, in all practicality, not having said power?
I'ts beyond this specific issue re: the homeless guy
It' sthe issue that we are indoctrinated to of a business, having 'rights'
yes the individual business owner has rights, but the entity shouldn't, and really didn't under the constitution, as that is truly unequal--i.e. a businees is far more powerful than a single person, putting them on unequal footing if they are granted rights of personhood, thus creating dominant/subordinate relationship in which information/discourse is contained w/in the framework that suits the 'dominator' in the relationship
I.E. the fact that individuals actually defend those 'rights'...
I'ts beyond this specific issue re: the homeless guy
It' sthe issue that we are indoctrinated to of a business, having 'rights'
yes the individual business owner has rights, but the entity shouldn't, and really didn't under the constitution, as that is truly unequal--i.e. a businees is far more powerful than a single person, putting them on unequal footing if they are granted rights of personhood, thus creating dominant/subordinate relationship in which information/discourse is contained w/in the framework that suits the 'dominator' in the relationship
I.E. the fact that individuals actually defend those 'rights'...
the public indeed *allows* businesses to operate
all businesses must file articles of incorporation with secretaries of state. there are certain responsibilities that go along with being approved by state government for incorporation, not to mention the regulations, taxes, and so forth noted above
unfortunately, this "approval" is all too often just a rubber stamp and the public, through their pubic officials, fail to request much in return for this approval. I believe the public needs to hold their government officials accountable and demand more from businesses in return for their *privilege* to operate and make a profit
all businesses must file articles of incorporation with secretaries of state. there are certain responsibilities that go along with being approved by state government for incorporation, not to mention the regulations, taxes, and so forth noted above
unfortunately, this "approval" is all too often just a rubber stamp and the public, through their pubic officials, fail to request much in return for this approval. I believe the public needs to hold their government officials accountable and demand more from businesses in return for their *privilege* to operate and make a profit
>What he was doing was trying to say that Burger King, a PRIVATE entity, has some obligation to provide PUBLIC services to the homeless.
That's a lie. What he was doing was saying that Burger King has an obligation to provide the same public services to *all* its customers, whether they are homeless or not.
"Customer": it's a noun. Look it up.
That's a lie. What he was doing was saying that Burger King has an obligation to provide the same public services to *all* its customers, whether they are homeless or not.
"Customer": it's a noun. Look it up.
So Jesse when did the cops "brutalize" this guy? You said he had a warrant and was cuffed. Where is the brutality? What color is the sky in your little world, Jess? Maybe DC is a better place for you where people may actually give a shit about your conspiracy theories and exaggerations.
Is this the same Burger King that is near the civic center on Market? The last time I was in SF in 2002 I had breakfast there. Before I left I attempted to use the restroom there. never in my life have I seen such an utterly filthy, disgusting restroom. Toilet completely stopped up with paper towels and cigarette butts, with shit and piss on the seat, the floor the sink, everywhere. The sink and the urinal both full of shit, piss, cigarette butts and paper towels. Burn marks on the tiles from who knows what. Broken pipes. Hinges on the door broken. Graffitti everywhere. I turned and left to use cleaner facilities elsewhere. I don't know what else a business owner can do to protect health and sanitation of their employees and customers. If people, homeless or not, don't have enough self respect to abide the barest modern sanitation etiquette, I don't see why anyone whould be compeled to allow them to use the facilities.
Luke, are you the same Luke from D.C. who founded an anarchist group with a white supremacist?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network