The Starbucks thing...
Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2018, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm having trouble condemning the company and police on this one.
I grant that the store manager might have been a racist, but that is probably something we will never actually know for sure. It is also something that the company probably doesn't know for sure, which means it will be tough to fire them on the basis of this incident alone.
As to the company, if there is a policy where you must buy something in order to hang out (which seems reasonable, btw), then it seems like that policy was being enforced. If that policy is enforced un-evenly then that is a problem, but it is very difficult for me personally to know how it is enforced, since if a white person were removed it wouldn't be in the news.
As to the police, once the store manager says the two guys are trespassing, then the police HAVE TO remove them. That is their job. They could be the most racist/supremacist officers known to man, and it would still be their job to remove the two guys who refused to leave. If the guys refused their order, then an arrest would happen.
What am I missing about this story that is making people talk of boycotts?
UPDATE: The two men are speaking out: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-starbucks-arrest-20180419-story.html)
"Seattle-based Starbucks Corp. has said the location where the arrests occurred has a policy that restrooms are for paying customers only."
"Nelson said they weren't questioned but were told to leave immediately." (by the cops)
- This makes the cops look much worse, like they didn't even try to ask the men to leave before starting to order them around.
= new reply since forum marked as read
since they don't want to serve no niggers, you are supposed to get up and leave.
Mkay.
2018 and they code-talk now - "Trespassing". The "Code: is something that was originally part of what we called "Northern racism" that has gone on here in Philly and other northern cities for centuries and has been adopted nationwide.
I suppose you haven't been around here much.
See Eagles Superbowl festivities. 
the Minutemen are cow tippers! 
How the hell do you define "criminal trespass"? The LEO should correctly decide that based on a preliminary investigation. If they were in the place after closing or had broken in, then you might argue that.
And this is -
"we have the right to refuse service ... blah blah"
At this point that person has the choice to leave or not, if they do not and police are called they will be removed ... by force if needed.
OMFG?
I suggest you read up on a little law that was passed in 1968. There is no "right to refuse service" on a whim unless you want to get sued out of business!
https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html
OMFG.
One more time - there is a thing called "conflict resolution" that was not deployed and should have been.
Fortunately the handkerchief head Police Chief is going to do an investigation because nothing in this instance should have arisen to the level of an arrest. NOTHING.
is a public accommodation.
Uh no.
This is how black people got lynched over the centuries. False allegations of committing some "crime".
If these 2 had been disruptive and harassing customers or damaging property, there are grounds for removal from a public establishment.
The company has already admitted they (the manager at this store) were wrong yet DUers keep doing their Michael Flynn "lock 'em up" chant in these threads.
And these are DEMOCRATS!
You infer that the police will violate law because they were called. Just. Because. They. Were. Called.
But yup, when it comes to black folk, they do do that quite a bit!!!!
Texas Penal Code - § 30.05. Criminal Trespass
(a)?A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1)?had notice that the entry was forbidden; ?or
(2)?received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b)?For purposes of this section:
(1)?“Entry” means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2)?“Notice” means:
(A)?oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
Cop to manager: Did you ask this person to leave?
Manager: I did, and they refused.
Cop to patron: Did he ask you to leave?
Patron: Yes, and I refused.
Prima Facie criminal trespass.
and no charges were deemed needed - both by the Philadelphia D.A.'s office and the company. The bogus "trespassing" assertion failed to meet the test. Yet DUers continue to argue with complete bullshit. It is truly bizarre.
in a public restaurant/theater/swimming pool/bar/lounge does NOT rise to the level of "trespassing". A proprietor can't just throw that charge out there like they did in the old days and expect to prevail. Starbucks (and other places like Denny's) learned that quick fast and in a hurry.
The apologists on DU are simply mind-boggling.
It was the fact that more facts came to light and the situation changed as it developed.
There was no "change in situation".
I think you should quit before you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the non sequitur abyss.
This is why people describe the need for criminal justice reform.
Your idea of "law" being unbendable except for how you interpret it, and very much having some nebulous "original intent" like our GOP literalists on the SCOTUS believe, is truly mind-boggling.
And Dred Scott made sure nothing would "negate property rights" either.
Federal law always trumps state law but you can keep arguing this nonsense despite the fact that there was a reason why no charges were brought based on what you keep spouting about like a broken record.
I.e., you are wasting your time making hypothetical moot arguments.
Please, do go ahead and pick up the phone and dial 911 for being discriminated against.
Go ahead, tell me what they say. Please, do.
There were no charges levied in this case because the actual property owner (starbucks) determined that the manager was acting in contravention of the property owner's wishes.
The basis for trespassing is that someone stays in a place that they have been told to leave by a person with the authority to do so.
Let's remove different items in that sentence:
The patrons leave- no trespassing.
The manager changes their mind- no trespassing.
The manager loses their authority to make such a decision (e.g. the property owner disagrees)- no trespassing.
DAs drop / refuse to press charges for a multitude of reasons- that doesn't mean no crime was committed.
And your use of an analogy of charging police vs charging a civilian is a complete non sequitur with respect to this case.
The "crime" was found not to exist, no charges were filed, the CEO removed the offender who misused 911 and has gone about making amends, the city has multiple agencies reviewing the response and how to improve their practices, and yet you continue to do this -
I am not surprised. Hang it up. It's over.
Perhaps you should as well?
That's classic. As if criminal law enforcement handles civil claims.
"Hello, 911? Yes, I'd like to report some discriminatory lending practices. Please send an officer right away."
"911? I need to report a breach of contract, right away!"
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #417)
and you are right...This was definite bias. The manager needs to be fired or at least "put on notice".
There is a link in this thread confirming it (supposedly "by mutual decision"
.
...business regardless of race, and that the Store Manager and Barista were merely executing Starbucks policy, well, I guess that settles it.
including one here in the Philly area. They finally got taken down.
Uh no. This was not a "private residence" or a "private members only club" that these 2 men were in. It was a PUBLIC facility and there are LAWS that govern that. If the individuals were NOT engaging in illegal behavior or acting violent, unruly, or disturbing the other customers, you can't just randomly tell them to leave.
"Community Policing" requires obtaining ALL info and then attempting to work out a mutually beneficial resolution. A De-escalation.
Apparently NONE of that was done. The now-removed manager and employee told the police to get rid of them and t he cops like the robots this crew were, complied. That is why they are being boycotted and I hope they sue the hell out of all of them (although I expect some settlement will probably happen pretty quickly).
The CEO of Starbucks already said that what was done WAS WRONG -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/16/two-black-men-were-arrested-at-starbucks-ceo-now-calling-for-unconscious-bias-training/?utm_term=.65ee37180a3f
And it is still going on right now - A test case just happened!
Link to tweet
TEXT
Shaun King
✔
@ShaunKing
Here we go again.
Meet Brandon Ward. He was @Starbucks - about to make a purchase - and needed to use the restroom.
They denied him the code.
He then finds a white man, Weston, who came out of the restroom.
He had not made a purchase but they gave HIM the code.
RACISM.
11:05 AM - Apr 16, 2018
White man in Starbucks given the code to the bathroom no purchase, black man denied code. And the white guy is on the recording and the cashier woman starts bullshitting about this being a "private business". OMFG!!!!
How do you define "trespasser"?
Here is the legal definition for here in Pennsylvania -
§ 3503. Criminal trespass.
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an offense under paragraph (1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.
(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.
(b.1) Simple trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense.
<...>
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.035.003.000..HTM
It's a right of the property owner or designated agent to determine who can and cannot be on their property.
To break that is trespassing (a criminal offense.)
If the property owner or designated agent discriminates based on race, religion, etc (a set of certain protected characteristics), then they are in violation of civil statutes. (a civil offense).
Street cops don't enforce civil law. If you were fired from your job because of your race, you don't call the cops, you call an attorney.
this did not rise to any level of "criminal trespass". You can't randomly claim that by racial profiling.
This is a case where everything that one could do wrong to resolve the dispute, was done.
Are you fucking kiddng me? Only "certain" laws are "enforced"? They are supposed to be trained how to handle this sort of thing and the manager abused the 911 system because that is supposed to be reserved for "emergencies" that may impact "life or limb", etc.
There were no weapons involved, no violent words being exchanged or patrons harassed, no property damage occurring, no robbery that happened. Just 2 black men waiting for a white acquaintance to arrive so they could meet and discuss business opportunities.
This situation only required 1 or 2 officers to resolve. Not 6.
Join the Michael Flynn chant "Lock 'em up!!1111!!!!".
making a criminal charge out of what is a civil issue, is acceptable? Christ.
There was no need for police intervention outside of de-escalation and resolution of a non-violent dispute, and that might require no more than 1 or 2 officers to handle. Anything more than that is a complete waste of resources.
Trespassing is remaining in a place (public or private, doesn't matter one fucking bit) after having been asked to leave by a property owner or designated representative (the manager in this case.)
That's black letter law. That's what it says on the tin. A criminal charge.
If a property manager, or designated representative does this based on a membership in a protected class, a civil suit can be brought using the federal or state analogous statute. A civil suit.
here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10506819
You can listen to how a simple "2 gentlemen are refusing to make a purchase and leave" gets escalated into “There’s been a disturbance and a group of males refusing to leave.” And then it further escalates to bringing a supervisor there until you suddenly have 6 cops showing up probably imagining a knock-down drag out shouting match and brawl going on, whereas the reality was 2 guys sitting there quietly waiting for a friend/associate who had no idea the cops were even called.
Thankfully a number of civil rights organizations and Eric Holder are getting involved in putting together training - much of it obviously also needed for posters in this thread.
and saw that other witnesses came forward including some who had been "sitting there for hours but not buying anything" or who had watched a woman "come in and use the bathroom without buying anything", will you update the OP to reflect this new and apparently remarkable info?
Good show! 
Middle aged white woman. Context does matter.
the statement "it almost never happens" is along the line of it being "less common" than the distaff group. The bigger issue being why the disparate impact between groups?
The "facts" are that whites as a whole are less likely to be shot by police than blacks proportionally.
"Because it's not a racial incident..."
You certainly seem invested in that unproven narrative. I get it.
Good luck! 
"trespassing". Yet people are going to keep arguing that in these threads because they say so.
which is why the D.A. said "no".
If we were standing face to face and you suddenly hit me and I yell for the police claiming you "raped" me, and the police believe me despite witnesses looking at me like I lost my mind because they saw a simple battery, it would be no different. It's called being "rail-roaded" with false charges. It's done all the time to black men. Fortunately some police are starting to "think" before they act (or "react" .
As a reminder, it was from me.
And once again, the prosecutors did not believe THIS situation fit those definitions, whether from the letter of the law or based on past court cases and precedent that guides how to handle such situations, which is why they chose not to charge. But I expect you think you know more than the Philadelphia District Attorney's office.
which includes the actual statements from both lawyers and not what you believe was said -
Ben Waxman, a spokesman for the District Attorney’s Office, said prosecutors at the charging unit made the ultimate decision not to press charges based on a lack of evidence. The decision was made within the charging unit without referral to the DA’s office upper management. “Fortunately, we were able to resolve it as quickly as possible,” Wimmer said.
The two men eventually retained Cohen regarding any possible civil actions. Although Cohen has remained silent on whether any civil lawsuits will be forthcoming, Kline & Specter attorney Thomas R. Kline, who is no stranger to bringing high-profile lawsuits against major organizations, said there are several claims the men could pursue against both Starbucks and the city of Philadelphia.
Regarding Starbucks’ liability, Kline said the company could be liable for assault, which includes an act that can put someone in immediate fear of harm, and false arrest, since Pennsylvania law says that even those who cause a false arrest can be liable for the damages. He also said the company could be sued for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. “The key to this claim is that the conduct is extreme and outrageous and outside the bounds of decency. Well, that’s what the protests are about,” he said. Regarding other potential suits, Kline said the officers could be sued directly for false arrest, battery and false imprisonment. While those claims all arise out of state law, he said the men could also bring a civil rights claim under federal law for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. “That claim, if brought, would take the case into federal court, but there is certainly a potential for bringing that claim,” he said.
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/04/16/men-arrested-at-starbucks-have-retained-cohen-placitella-as-civil-counsel/?slreturn=20180318051936
I.e., the article includes potential issues that both Starbucks and the PPD might be liable for including "causing a false arrest", battery and false imprisonment.
Members of our City Council are working on legislation to deal with this egregious type of situation that is sadly all to common, and I applaud their efforts.
Edit to add this article with some stats that need to be put out there -
by Tracy Jan and Rachel Siegel April 17 at 8:09 PM
<...>
The incident illustrates a pervasive bias that can affect even the most mundane activities in U.S. public spaces — in this case, meeting someone for a coffee. The two men were waiting for a business associate when the manager called the police.
Nowhere else in Philadelphia are African Americans more disproportionately stopped by police than in the Center City neighborhood surrounding the Starbucks, two blocks from ritzy Rittenhouse Square, where rents in luxury apartments run as high as $10,000 a month.
While African Americans make up 3 percent of the area’s residents, they account for 67 percent of pedestrian police stops, according to a 2017 analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has monitored racial disparity in Philadelphia policing for eight years. Most of those stopped were never charged.
Similar racial disparities in citations and arrests for commercial trespassing occur across the country, according to lawyers and civic leaders.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/starbucks-arrests-who-gets-to-decide-whether-youre-a-patron-or-a-trespasser/2018/04/17/f0aa99de-41ac-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.027899782f74
regarding the circumstances that are persistent, pervasive, and perpetual, you continue to deny racial profiling exists and how it manifests. This is a clear case of racial profiling. Everyone from the CEO of Starbucks to the Mayor, City Council, NAACP, ACLU, and other legal and civil rights organizations, have provided evidence and statistics that show how this fits right in.
Maybe one day you will finally "get it" but apparently not today.
Is there any "lawyer" in you? Which law school? You do know that what will happen is that the City would settle out of court. This city has paid out millions in settlements - money that could have gone to the rec centers or libraries instead. And this is why changes are being made, including the election of a D.A. who is a Civil Rights lawyer, who has begun to make changes in the D.A.'s office so this sort of thing can be mitigated and the city can stop PAYING OUT MILLIONS to settle racist acts carried out by the LEO here. It is a win-win in terms of cost savings, when a municipality or a business actually stops profiling and violating rights.
And there you have the problem. Manufacturing a "crime of trespassing" out of a simple statement that she made.
The "disturbance" was the men disobeying the request/order to leave the premises.
And what you just described was an escalation that did not reflect what was going on there.
I.e., you have this go on with the call -
<then the caller makes her comment shown above>
Dispatcher: "Alright, the police will be there as soon as possible."
There was no effort whatsoever to get more info from the caller. And so all sorts of imagery goes on in the minds of LEO because there is an incomplete picture of what is happening.
You have tried to define "a disturbance" and the police apparently have some mental image of what that means that resulted in an almost APB for 6-7 cops to show up. Yet nothing that justified that type of response was going on.
This is the type of thing that needs to be addressed.
I cannot emphasize enough how much this distinction doesn't matter in any legal sense. Now I want you to go back and re-read my last sentence, because I really cannot emphasize this enough.
If you walk up to a police officer and claim someone had sex without you without consent, they would treat the matter as a "rape" even though you didn't use that specific word. If you call the cops and say someone is in your home after you told them to leave, the cops wouldn't ask you if that person was "trespassing", they would just assume it from your description.
Here we go. And what you left out in this example when you "believe" they would immediately assume "rape", is when properly investigated, the officer would need to ensure that the claimant is actually describing "rape" vs "sexual assault".
The racially charged cry of "rape" by white women against black men, is historically notorious. Emmett Till was lynched and pretty much chopped up and dumped into a river for "whistling" at a white woman that got transmogrified into a rape.
You might be right. It might have been overkill to call in backup. That said, I believe (and I could be wrong), there were two cops initially, and two men "trespassing". The cops like to have numerical superiority, it might even be a policy, thus the call for backup might have actually been routine and a non-issue. I cannot say for sure, though.
Why would there be a need for a "call for backup" unless their brains went wild due to a LACK OF INFORMATION about what was going on?
Gestapo tactics. Okay.
That's because the called had already stated a set of actions that constitute a crime. In any event, the dispatcher knows that the cops will be the ones getting the info once they get there. I am not sure, but there might even be a policy that the cops MUST respond to any 911 call that is not obviously a prank.
Uh no. People who are trained would be able to assess whether something "was a crime" or not. If I stood on a corner waiting for a bus at a bus stop and there was a store there that had a sign that said "no loitering", in your view, I am committing a "crime" of "loitering" because I was waiting ("loitering" ) for a bus in front of their store because they called the cops when I was standing in front of their store.
This is why trying to randomly manufacture something out of nothing is the hallmark of injustice.
I agree, except I believe the cops were using the word "disturbance" in a technical sense, not in the normal sense you and I would use. The police probably use this word to cover a variety of routine, non-violent situations. Anyway, think of this from the point of view of the property owner: if someone refuses to leave their property, then it would definitely be "disturbing" to the property owner.
What?
Here is their directive for filing a report (updated last year) - http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/D12.11-ComplaintOrIncidentReport.pdf (PDF file)
When you look at pgs 3 & 4, there are things that the police apparently did not do - i.e., corroborate with witnesses. In fact they went out of their way to ignore witnesses (including the guy who there were to meet) - notably when you even hear people in the store trying to intervene with the police. It is possible that the fact that a supervisor came on the scene, may have been because they were not finding anything wrong, so they got a 2nd opinion (per the directive) and so the supervisor decided to ignore them and order them to make an arrest anyway. One of the police conversation transcripts I saw said something like "it's too late".
Further info relevant to this appears starting on pg. 25.
You didn't even read the document I linked to.
Just because a caller calls something in, the police are NOT supposed to instantly "assume a crime was committed". It literally says that in the directive. They are supposed to go to the scene and assess whether this is the case. I.e., to determine whether the call is what they term "Unfounded".
You are now demanding that the police violate their directive. But this is not surprising.
But based on what you just wrote, if the store owner called the police and said "There are 2 men "loitering" in front of my store", they are to assume a crime was committed because the caller "said so". So when they show up to the corner and see that it is a bus stop that is right in front of the store and the bus is just approaching so the 2 men can get on and go about their business, the police will arrest them anyway because the store owner said they were "loitering" and a crime was committed.
That is what you basically just said.
At this point, it's like pulling teeth here and I am apparently wasting my time because I know some will "get it" and others will refuse to do so.
unless your mind is closed to the possibility of this even happening because it doesn't happen to whites. "White" is considered "universal" and the standard. When something deviates from that worldview, it is considered "impossible". The brain has difficulty believing it.
Where did I say that? I said there was an allegation, and the cops MUST investigate. Dispatch cannot investigate, so they pass it off to the cops.
Here -
Here is a quote from USA Today (since I cannot listen to the recording here):
"I have two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave. I am at the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce," the employee said."
This is trespassing. Just because she doesn't use the word "trespassing" doesn't mean that is not what it is. Furthermore, we know that she already asked the men to leave, so we know they were actually trespassing regardless of what was said on the call.
Anyway, as I have stated several times now (please pay attention) IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE COPS CONFIRMED THE CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED BY ASKING THE MEN TO LEAVE AND BEING REFUSED!
and here -
That's because the called had already stated a set of actions that constitute a crime.
----
Ok, did the witness dispute the fact that the cops asked the men to leave and were refused? No, because we know that that happened. Once again, if a cop sees a crime being committed, they can make an arrest even if there are no other "witnesses". Thus, your argument about a third-party witness being necessary is incorrect. In this case, the cop saw the crime when the guys refused to leave once the cops asked them.
The several witnesses tried, as seen in multiple videos, to engage the police TO dispute this and they were ignored. That is what I am saying.
It's real easy for a cop to "manufacture a crime" right on the spot. It's done so much that it is second nature.
They did and they also offered that a "white" woman had just been given the bathroom code without buying anything yet these men were denied. And THAT should have been a red flag to them but it wasn't because they dismissed it.
I am making you acknowledge your past assertions and how they were not valid.
This is the problem, you are discussing a problem that exists (I know it does), but that problem is not the problem I am talking about in my OP.
HERE is your OP. Let's take it apart -
**************************BEGIN OP******************************************
Dozens and dozens of posts are explaining to you WHY you should "condemn the company and the police".
I.e., -
"Racists" will always deny being "racist". Having an incident like this, based on my couple decades as a supervisor/manager, there is usually some form of employee discipline system, where a series of escalated warnings "verbal warnings", then "written warnings", etc., are implemented, along with a means to make amends (training, probation, etc), before taking a step towards "firing" if the behavior persists or arises to conviction of a crime. Of course this is private industry vs government so they can probably fire "without cause", although that depends on their contracts.
There is nowhere on the Starbucks company website that claims this is "company policy". I posted what they DID advertise as their "business model" and "concept" -
<...>
In 1983, Howard traveled to Italy and became captivated with Italian coffee bars and the romance of the coffee experience. He had a vision to bring the Italian coffeehouse tradition back to the United States. A place for conversation and a sense of community. A third place between work and home. He left Starbucks for a short period of time to start his own Il Giornale coffeehouses and returned in August 1987 to purchase Starbucks with the help of local investors.
From the beginning, Starbucks set out to be a different kind of company. One that not only celebrated coffee and the rich tradition, but that also brought a feeling of connection.
Our mission to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.
Expect More Than Coffee
We’re not just passionate purveyors of coffee, but everything else that goes with a full and rewarding coffeehouse experience. We also offer a selection of premium teas, fine pastries and other delectable treats to please the taste buds. And the music you hear in store is chosen for its artistry and appeal.
It’s not unusual to see people coming to Starbucks to chat, meet up or even work. We’re a neighborhood gathering place, a part of the daily routine – and we couldn’t be happier about it. Get to know us and you’ll see: we are so much more than what we brew.
We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.
https://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10505484
What am I missing about this story that is making people talk of boycotts?
Your assertion that "the police have to remove them. That is their job." is not true. The police can de-escalate, keeping in mind the horrid statistics in that particular police precinct and had they listened to the other patrons about what they observed and how the manager's handling was "disparate treatment", AND purportedly per the manager herself who claimed "she didn't think they would be arrested", no arrest might have happened. But none of this was done - even after the acquaintance offered to leave with them to go somewhere else and the cop flippantly responded "too late". What the 2 men basically did was a Rosa Parks and refuse to be treated disparately for doing nothing wrong and behaving no different from other patrons.
**************************END OP******************************************
That's because the called had already stated a set of actions that constitute a crime.
And they did. The technical definition of that is "allegation". Dispatch knew of an allegation, the cops knew of an allegation, and then the cops knew an actual crime was being committed when they ordered the men to leave and were refused.
You didn't call it an "allegation". You came out and said it was "a crime".
The "distinction" is an assertion YOU made initially and have now retracted it.
This is true, but once again the cops had ALREADY SEEN THE CRIME WITH THEIR OWN EYES. Just because some other, uninvolved civilians wanted to dispute it was irrelevant.
And so you dismiss the witnesses like they did and then right on the spot, the cops manufactured a crime by ordering them to leave based on false assertions by the manager.
The cops were not there to arrest or question any "white women who had just been given a bathroom code", they were there for a trespassing call against two men. I admit that the manager might be a racist (as I have stated many times), but that has no bearing on the job that the cops are doing. They questioned the men, were refused and thus had probable cause for an arrest.
And THAT was what should have been investigated because it shows "disparate treatment".
There is an excellent article (published yesterday) that I found in the NYT today (one excerpt) -
“Hi, I have two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave,” said the Starbucks employee who called 911.
But when the dispatcher put out the call to the police, he said: “We’ve got a disturbance there. A group of males refusing to leave.”
Ronal Serpas, a former police chief in New Orleans and Nashville, said it was “troublesome that an arrest occurred,” given the tremendous discretion officers have to handle such situations. “Using every available alternative to a physical arrest, within department policy, should be the goal in a case like this,” said Mr. Serpas, who is now a professor at Loyola University New Orleans.
Jim Bueermann, the president of the Police Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, said that the incident reflected a systemic problem with how the police deal with such episodes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/starbucks-arrest-philadelphia.html
Onsite witness statements were ignored
No attempt is made to broker a solution
No attempt is made to determine if profiling might have occurred
And none of this matters. I have already explained that the police had probable cause when the men refused the cops order to leave.
It DOES matter. That is why additional changes are being made right now - both at Starbucks and in the Philadelphia Police Department. The "probable cause" was not there.
Wrong. I posted a link to the Police Directive that you apparently didn't read. And the dispatch "guessed" at what was going on and magnified the number of people beyond what was actually there. "Two gentlemen" became "a group". Other police chiefs and advisors are pointing this out now.
You see, in the white racist world, more than 2 blacks together = "a gang".
The probably tried, but the men refused to leave. De-escalation in this instance would have been having the men wait outside, that would have been the compromise.
"They probably tried" is a guess. There is actually one video out there that is almost 11 minutes long and the police make no attempt to engage or take statements from the other patrons who were there commenting to them, nor did they even make an attempt to work with the "friend" who offered a solution that would have ended this whole thing.
So instead, they became high-paid bouncers, after which they got bitch-slapped when their arrest went viral with over 10 million views and was all for naught, while being shown all around the world looking like Keystone Cops.
People forget that this is the city where the United States was founded. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution weren't written and signed in Boston or New York or Washington D.C. (the latter which didn't even exist). It was done RIGHT HERE.
Yes, you have found a tiny nit to pick, thanks for that. Ok, it was an allegation. I stand corrected. Now that I am once again completely correct, please tell me why you disagree? Especially because the cops confirmed it was a crime when the guys once again refused to leave.
The cops assumption of a "crime" was thrown out beause there was no evidence found for them to have even made the assertion in the first place. And certainly bringing in the testimony of any witnesses would have surely made them look even worse. But fortunately the witnesses came forward anyway.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I know you understand that a cop can make an arrest if the cop himself is the witness to the crime. I know you understand this. The cops had probable cause due to their own observation. The witnesses of course could not contradict this observation, since it is not even being argued that the guys refused to leave when asked by the cops. NOW STOP TRYING TO SAY ANYONE MANUFACTURED ANYTHING HERE. IT IS WASTING OUR TIME.
The cops manufactured a crime on the spot by making a demand. But they were responding to an assertion from the manager that a crime may have occurred and witnesses disputed that. STOP TRYING TO INVENT JUSTIFICATION.
Please, please tell me just how the beat cops on the scene are supposed to do this? "Disparate treatment" is a statistical concept, the cops are certainly not equipped to determine the history of this store's bathroom policy nor are they required to. The cops saw a crime (the men trespassed right in front of them and refuse to leave), and arrested the guys who did it. The cops should not have been called in the first place, but it was not their fault they were there.
You are in that LA Fitness thread. THAT is how they are supposed to respond. And they should have requested copies of their policies to verify. But white cops will take a white woman's word over a black man's any day. To the point where they will even take the word of a white child before a grown black man.
Once again, this is jargon. Anyway, the cops certainly could have ascertained just how disruptive the guys were being. Since the guys were not charged with disorderly conduct, presumably the cops didn't think they had actually bothered anyone (except the manager, of course).
That "jargon" has "meaning" to a police force, and as multiple sources are now saying, it escalated the situation beyond anything that was reality. And it began with the call operator not asking for more info and not indicating details enough so that the dispatcher wouldn't exaggerate the thing into "a disturbance" by "a group of males", which has a different meaning from "2 gentlemen".
I don't even know how you even managed to wade through to find this one.
That analogy is basically what has happened here when "Stop and Frisk" was instituted. With the end of Michael Nutter's term, that mess pretty much went away, although it still manifests in certain neighborhoods and this is one of them.
thread and I'm sure others who are interested in actually learning and understanding have, as well.
Thanks for all you do!
And your posts have been incredibly cogent and informative as well!
Arrest a manager (an authorized agent of the property owner) for asking the cops to remove a patron?
You gotta be shitting me.
You claim to practice law? Somehow I doubt that. Another attorney in this thread tried nicely to set you straight, but you doubled down on the apparent lack of knowledge of the law and the difference between criminal and civil law.
For fuck's sake.
... there must be people asked to leave Starbucks, across the country, every day - people who are White or non White, people who look "gay" or "homeless".... all kinds of people... this story catching media attention makes me think there might be something to the racism, though. While we don't see the entire incident, it does looks like the management believes Starbucks might have handled the incident improperly.
