An interesting if seemingly mundane story that originates out of the drive-thru lane of a Florida Taco Bell is actually very instructive as to how the news media in America is extremely out of touch.

The story has gathered some widespread attention probably primarily due to the amazingly interesting mug shot of a man with oddly colored hair, some forehead bruising, and a frown that makes him look like the saddest man on the planet.

Here follows the basic Story from the Huffington Post, effectively templated across Florida and America by our press that loves to tell fables without any moral at the end:

"A man who attempted to order food from a drive-through window while on his bike ended up being driven in a police car straight to jail.

Gabriel Harris, 33, was arrested early Sunday morning after allegedly getting into a fight with police at a Taco Bell in New Smyrna Beach, Florida.

Harris and a female friend rode up to the fast food restaurant on their bikes and attempted to order a meal at the drive-through window as it was closing.

When they were denied drive-through service because they were on bikes, Harris and his companion refused to leave, according to the Associated Press.

Employees called 911 and when officers arrived at the Taco Bell, Harris was still on his bike near the menu speaker.

As police were asking Harris to leave, one officer spotted a red Swiss Army knife on Harris’ belt loop and tried to reach for it.

The suspect allegedly grabbed the officer’s wrist, which led to a tussle. Harris was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed, suffering a scraped forehead in the process, according to the Daytona Beach News-Journal.

Harris was booked into Volusia County Branch Jail and charged with resisting arrest with violence. He was released on $1,000 bond, but only after posing for his mug shot with a big frown.

             Harris was arrested at this Taco Bell restaurant in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, just after 3am on Sunday

The underlying story has three interesting motifs regarding the disregard of Gabriel Harris' basic rights: 

1)  A restaurant's drive-thru arbitrarily refusing to serve food to a man (and his wife) just because they're on a bicycle 

2)  A police encounter where the officer makes an aggressive move towards a man, he reacts defensively, and then gets driven to the ground and arrested for resisting arrest with violence

3)  An unsympathetic local and national media that does what amounts to one-sided reports

1)  Back in my college days when I lacked a motor vehicle, I would make some late night runs to restaurants, including Taco Bell, for food.  Frequently this was after the dining rooms were closed and they only offered drive-thru service.  As a pedestrian or cyclist never was I denied the ability to make a late night order just because I lacked a gas tank.  The worst indignity was not being recognized at the ordering spot because I wouldn't trigger the sensing mechanism that were meant for cars.

Taco Bell employee, Aron Tobler, said he refused service to Harris and his girlfriend because “they placed an order on bicycles” in the drive through window, the police report states.  Their initial arrival at the drive-thru was before 3:00 AM (police report says 2:58 AM), when the restaurant closed.   If the company or this franchise had a strict rule against serving people on bicycles (or on foot) coming through the drive-thru  perhaps for safety and liability purposes, they should have it noted and followed fairly.

But safety purposes and liability really should play no factor here.  If it's not deemed dangerous for  bicycle in a street lane with cars passing at 55 miles an hour, how can it be dangerous in a parking lot with autos traveling less than 10 miles an hour?  There are fewer safety issues than on an average street.  And why would this issue not ever come up regarding motorcycle riders using drive-thru services?

Besides if this was the policy, why did some stories report both the girlfriend and the employees saying that the manager offered the pair two free tacos if they would just leave.  If that is true, the restaurant was probably in the process of closing and had limited menu items available just before the restaurant's official closure.  Without a written policy in effect, this Taco Bell Restaurant has left themselves and their parent company open to some serious liability issues in this incident.

In a later report a Taco Bell spokesman said the drive-through restriction is in place for two reasons.  “First and foremost, our priority is the safety of our customers and team members, so our drive-thrus are limited to registered vehicles to be used on roads and highways,” spokesman Rob Poetsch wrote in an email. “In addition, our drive-thrus include technology and sensors that are specifically designed and built to only serve our customers who are in vehicles.”

Could someone explain to me how this rationally applies?  Aren't we as a society supposed to be adapting to a more bikable and walkable community?

2)  All articles and the police report are in agreement that a police officer saw a Swiss Army knife attached to the man's belt (on a carabiner clip), and that Gabriel was not aggressive towards the officers on their arrival or when they asked him to leave.  They also point out that the officer made the attempt to reach in to get Gabriel's utility knife without asserting any authority to do so, which is itself an aggressive act.  Consider what we would think if Gabriel reached to get the officer's gun, for example. 

The officer's action, which should have never happened and could be considered an unlawful assault on Gabriel given the facts in the police report, was met by a defensive grab, which the police countered by a full-fledged attack that left him with scars on his face and other physical damage. 

Instead of glibly commenting about how sad he looks because he never got any late-night burritos and reporting that he was charged with any credible crime like 'resisting arrest with violence', the media ride shotgun with the brutish law officers who could have very easily defrayed the situation if they weren't afraid for their life because Gabriel had a phillips screwdriver, a magnifying glass, and a nail file on his belt. 

           Wife Sarah Haliburton said the officers pushed her husband into his bicycle, slammed his head onto the concrete

  

3)  Literally hundreds of news outlets including left and right leaning ones have come out with tongue-in-cheek stories making fun of Gabriel's actions that night and his comical mug shot.  But you have to go to the international press and a lone Florida source to get his side of the story, or more precisely, his wife's.  The above picture was featured in the British Daily Mail Online from a video the wife took of what happened once things got ugly (as yet unpublished).  The Daily Mail not only got the police report but also got the other side-- how bloody novel of them. 

The ultimate truth of the matter, if it's ever achieved, may come from the (also unreleased) Taco Bell franchise's own video and audio footage.  Until then, presume the ultimate sad face frown comes from a man who was denied his food and his rights in the middle of the night in a run to the border.  Here is what we learn about the incident from her:

The wife of a man whose sad mugshot captured media attention this week is claiming police used excessive force against her husband after they went to a Taco Bell drive-through on bikes... Sarah Haliburton says the pair had not been drinking and that police were unnecessarily brutal.

She said officers pushed the 33-year-old into his bicycle and slammed his head onto the concrete.  She said her husband's glasses were bent and ended up on the ground next to his blood.  Harris, she said, has had constant headaches since the altercation at the weekend and she is preparing papers to file a complaint about the officer's behavior and actions.

She also says she believes the restaurant discriminated against the pair because they were on bikes.  'It was discrimination,' Haliburton said.  'We don't choose to drive a vehicle. The bicycles are our vehicles.' 

 

'They had two tacos ready and they said they would give it to us for free if we leave,' Haliburton said.  'I told them I want my complete order and that we would pay for it.'

In a 9-1-1 call employees can be heard in the background saying the pair were shaking and trying to open a window.  They are also heard saying the couple were taking pictures of the employees with a phone and they refused to leave when asked, according to the caller to 9-1-1.

In the police report, an Officer Adkins said he told the couple the employees called them because they wanted them to leave Taco Bell's property. The officer said the couple would be given a trespass warning if they did not leave. What Harris said to Adkins was redacted from the report, but Adkins said he then noticed a pocketknife attached to Harris' belt. Adkins did not give any reason for his action in the report but said he tried to reach for the knife he described as a weapon but that Harris grabbed his wrist and he had to forcefully wrestle him to the ground, the report states.

Haliburton said Harris was trying to move his hand out of the way so the officer could get the pocketknife when the officer suddenly just lunged at Harris, grabbed him and slammed him into the ground.

Haliburton, a self-employed seamstress, said she was working late and had not prepared anything to eat. Being vegetarians, they knew they could go to the Taco Bell where they arrived at 2:50 a.m. and ordered bean tacos and a bean burrito.

Views: 446

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There were 3 bad decisions made during this situation. The first one was the cyclists refusing  to leave when asked. The second was the idiot officer reaching for the knife and the third was the idiot officers escalating a situation to the extreme. If the couple did not like Taco Bells policy then they should have taken up the banner to have it changed. Instead, by  refusing to leave it just made the situation worse. What can be said about another over reacting police officer? They really need to be retrained on how to deal with people because this could have really gotten out of hand if the cyclists had been of a violent nature and would have reacted just like the police.

Those poor decisions all precipitated from a bad decision by the restaurant not to serve them based on being on a bicycle in the first place.  If the employees were in the process of closing and weren't able to make the specialty item, they should have used that as their reason. 

If a restaurant's drive-thru is to remain open after their dining room facilities close, someone's method of mobility should not be a factor of whether they will be served, it is an arbitrary factor that can be challenged and should be.  Refusing to serve because it's within ten minutes of closing time is another matter, see this link:  http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-...

I don't think the anti discrimination laws cover this situation. That policy of not providing service to people who walk up or bicycle up to a drive in window has been around a long time and is what most restaurants do. The employees were only following orders as required by the restaurant and I bet the policy is chain wide for Taco Bell. Like I say if they disagreed with it then challenge it legally.

I would simply argue it thus:  restaurants are considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws.  Legally, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service.

Closing the dining room, but keeping the drive-thru open for general business does not change its primary purpose.  So unless there is traffic control which prohibits bicycles and/or pedestrians from the drive-thru lane, they should be able to ride or walk through this section of modified parking lot and place an order. 

In researching some of this I came across a woman who was denied drive thru service at TB when she was on her wheelchair and rammed her wheelchair in frustration against the front door shattering the glass.  Having been served at two different Taco Bell drive-thrus myself while on a bicycle after hours, I know I would have similar frustrations as these two if I was denied service. 

It's a dumb policy business-wise by Taco Bell if it is mostly universal, which is why I sent an E-mail asking for clarification from TB earlier tonight, and some justification for any such policy.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service