DIVAS BAR
Please click onto the title of this post for a Pioneer press story concerning violence on the street outside DIVAS BAR.
The plans to give bar owners a "3 strike and your out of business" policy is just another attempt at making innocent people responsible for those who commit crime.
I am convinced that the people in power currently grew up in a home where all the siblings were punished when one sibling broke a rule. What happened to individual responsibility?
The plans to give bar owners a "3 strike and your out of business" policy is just another attempt at making innocent people responsible for those who commit crime.
I am convinced that the people in power currently grew up in a home where all the siblings were punished when one sibling broke a rule. What happened to individual responsibility?
posted by Bob at Monday, November 13, 2006
12 Comments:
The insurance rates these bars pay is punishment.
I am not going to debate the merits of closing the place down or not, but the situation does raise a policy question:
1) If public safety is the first role of an established government, doesn't the government have a role in mitigating the potential threat to safety (closing the bar). I realize there are causal and corrilary relationships, I just think the question should be raised.
I have mixed feelings on the issues at Diva's. One is if I were the owner of an establishment where a shooting occurred I would be more than willing to work with the law enforcement to help convict the offender, surrendering the film from surveilance camera's should of been a priority issue as a responsible business owner to do. My feeling is there is more to this story just like all stories. Public safety has to be priority and as a business owner if your not going to be concerned for the safety of your own customers I feel there is a problem. Many bar owners have installed metal detectors or pat down customers as they come through the door, it is a shame the society has come to the point where such precautions are needed but the fact is society is out of control and there are certain safety measures that are needed where alcohol is served, as I stated earlier I am sure there is more behind this story than we know so this is just my opinion from the bits and pieces of the story I know of.....I actually thought that neighborhood was perfect now that the city moved me out, guess moving me didn't clean the neighborhood as good as they anticipated....
Nancy(formerly of St.Paul)
First off, the shooting happened outside the bar. Secondly, the cops and the city have been out to get her, and I think you know how that feels Nancy. So now this guy is shot that has nothing to do with Deb, and along come these good for nothing cops (who obviously left the city in another dangerous situation by turning their attention away from landlords) and they want Deb to help them. As in your case Nancy, i wonder if they said something like "if you don't help us we will make sure you go out of business." Remember when they told you they would make it so you could not fix your house if you did not do what they want? I wouldn't spit on a cop if he was on fire. When they want to start going after law breakers and quit picking on innocents, then maybe I will have a different opinion, but when they decided to stand with Andy Dawkins thats, the day I lost all respect for them. They are just another bunch of thugs.
8:24; Yes I remember all the details of my ordeal with the city of St.Paul/law enforcement that is why I stated twice that I feel there is more to this story than what we are being told of.......The media as we all know only picks up the points they feel are of interest to the public, not the facts. I just don't understand why she wouldn't want to turn the tapes over, I am thinking more in the terms of the family of the victim and having the offender arrested. It doesn't matter if it was inside or outside if there is evidence that will determine who fired the shots I feel it is an obligation to produce to the tapes. I know there are many corrupt law officials but thats no excuse to let the offender go.. I am sorry but I am looking at this from more of a realistic point of view not my personal feelings towards some of the city officials.
Nancy (formerly of St.Paul)
Hi All,
Personally I don't know how it's possible to determine whether someone is going to be civil or not after a few drinks.
No bar owner wants trouble. People do get 86ed from bars all the time.
Is Deb Johnson associating herself with roughens and therefore attracting them to the bar? Under these circumstances I think she would have some responsibility. I am not hearing this with the information we have.
A Comparison- I have a relative who has anger issues. He is not welcome in my home. In the past he has broken numerous windows in fits of anger at my home, and relatives. If I allow him to visit and he breaks a window, I share responsibility because I am aware he has this potential for violence.
Now, if any of you met my cousin and you weren't aware of his potential for violence and you invited him into your home and he flipped off the handle and broke windows would you feel responsible for his behavior? I think not. You would have learned something about someone and not allowed them to come over again. Lets say after he had an incident in your home and broke windows he went down the block and waited for the person he was mad at to leave the house, and then he shot this person. Are you as a home owner responsible for having him at your home prior to the shooting?
If this person who done the shooting is a regular at the bar with a history of trouble, then there maybe some responsibility of the bar owner.
Maybe we should require bars to have social workers on hand available to help people work out their differences. ;-)
3:03-1) If public safety is the first role of an established government, doesn't the government have a role in mitigating the potential threat to safety (closing the bar). I realize there are causal and corrilary relationships, I just think the question should be raised
Response- Public safety will be served with the prosecution and conviction of the perpetrator.
If public saftey is the frist role of an established government, then they should start acting like they are interested in public saftey instead of going after everyone who is not responsible just so they can build statistics to get elected on again.
Why is it that the City of St. Paul is only interested in "mitigating the potential threat to saftey" when they can punish the law abiding people and pick their pocket. That's what it's all about folks, it's the money! Arresting the real problem and creating a REAL deterrent will cost money. Jamming up property owners makes them money, so do the math.
And to answer your question Bob....the homeowner will be responsible some day for the guy that leaves someone else's home and then shoots someone. First it was the landlords that were held responsible for the actions of others, now it is the bar owners. After they establish the precedent, then they will say this is the same as that and so you are responsible. If you don't like it and complain, they'll just send out some of their dirty cops to wreck whatever else you happen to have left of your life.
Nancy makes a good point about the video. Maybe Deb Johnson feared the content of the video would support actions the City wanted to take against her (video of the perp leaving the bar for instance) and she with held the video under her 5th. amendment rights to not incriminate herself. If this is the case we have the City trampling all over her civil rights.
I will make an attempt tomarrow to contact Deb Johnson.
Once again, I believe in individual responsibility.Innocent people should not under any circumstances be held for the actions of criminally minded people. What it does is create a divide, a laclk of trust between the government and it's citizens. The divide can last for generations handed down through discussion from one person to the next.
We've already seen the city (inspectors and police), permitted to come and "look" at whatever evidence or building problem that be. We've all seen them lie, cover-up, use their power against the innocent, steal (magner), cheat, scheme, and so on. They will use the tapes for their purpose of doing what their plan is and that is it. If they are planning to shut down this bar, there is nothing the owner can do about it now as their plans are already done!
Two people shot within a few months of each other, one dead, one in serious condition. You think after the first death she would make some changes, she didn't and should pay the penalty.
How many of you would accept this in your neighborhood? How about it happening within a stones throw from a school?
And you might want to check out the other complaints about the bar patron's violence and sexual actions...
You'd think that the city of st.paul would make some changes too and arrest and keep in jail those that offend and deal in drugs. But they don't they slap their hand and let them lose and then blame everyone else on the rise in crime. Why can't they do their job?
Speaking of bar patrons, I'm sure all who go there know exactly what kind of a bar they are going to. They are not innocent people being victimized. You go Sodom and Gomorah and that is what you get!
The bar owner isn't responsible for the actions of others. She didn't raise them to be abusive and aggresive and didn't give them the gun. "The bar patron's violence and sexual behavior" is no better than a lot of police, senators and their families, ETC! The only difference is that it doesn't seem so dirty and disgusting if you have influence and power within the system. Why aren't these people who frequent this bar locked up if there is criminal activity going on? Even by being at this bar would result in jail if they are on probation. I think the police would rather follow them home and make sure others suffer in their way of fighting crime by punishing the building, business, innocent children, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home