Does she and has she uniformly enforced this policy?

I live one block away. The answer is no.

sued by those that she harassed.

about this Store. Hunch was confirmed. Watch for a Corporate Crisis Team to be all over the Philly Stores. People will be replaced.

Starbucks needs to make an example of her.
Fire her.
Then, hold a press conference and Offer those she harassed lifetime free coffee ☕️ or something.

the victims were wrong and should have had their prima facia behinds arrested because Dred Scott v. Sanford is now the law of the land once more. Thus they have no rights that are recognized and granted under the Constitution of the United States. Therefore any white person can yell "trespassers" and there is no recourse because "negroes" are not "citizens" let alone "humans".

that white "managers" are the supreme authority and no other examination of the situation is necessary or required in order to summarily charge an individual.

Many, including me, feel that when a person use private facilities, they should buy something as a simple courtesy.

in a whole bunch of apologist posts.

And again this is not a "private" establishment. If this were your residence or a "members-only" club then yes.

The point of the controversy is the disparate treatment of Black customers and White customers regarding the "loitering policy". It became about consumer etiquette when the focus should be on why Black people are more likely to have the police called on them and then arrested. There were White people arguing with the police on the video and none of them were detained for interfering with the police, but you can make a very safe bet that if another Black person started arguing with the police there would have been a 3rd or 4th person arrested for "resisting".

That is the problem no whether you should buy something at Starbucks.

But you and BumRushDaShow apparently did. For that part, I apologize. But I still say that when people go into a PRIVATE business for any stay, it is courteous to buy something. BTW, unless something is government owned, it is private, whether that be a club, coffee shop, whatever. But, private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based upon race or any other marker.

And there could be all kinds of reasons they didn’t purchase anything. Maybe they were waiting for their colleague to get there to order. Maybe they were meeting there and then going somewhere else.

But one thing for sure - as a business practice, arresting potential customers is pretty stupid since one way to be sure people don’t buy anything from you is to call the police on them and have them handcuffed and perp-walked out of your establishment.

I can imagine she wishes she hadn't called the police now.

is to make up for the fact that the cafes serve as "community hubs"

but when I have, I have done a courtesy purchase, if only a bottle of water or something that I don't want then, but can use later. So, I have to disagree with you on what is curteous.

I trashed it early on when someone else said the obvious (even if you aren't going to blame the officers or corporate, the manager applied any policy in a racist way, as witnesses said, and needs to lose job and corporate needs to clarify policy) and I saw people still were going to keep embarrassing us by debating the point.

Certainly not everyone here feels that way.

And if some are more likely to want this racist manager fired and clarification from corporate about that alleged "policy" (and fix it, SB's big draw that often makes people buy is their free wifi) than to give up addictive caffeine, that's not saying even those DUers don't think people of color are human beings deserving of equal rights.

It's more likely that they can't think until they've had four shots of espresso in the morning, and by then they've already fed the monster that day.

the term "DUers" was explicitly put in quotes exactly to distinguish the "if the shoe fits wear it" crowd from the rest.

I am certainly heartened by the enlightened and supportive posters and offer many kudos to them.

(sorry it has taken long to respond but I am on an iPad in a car dealership getting my car inspected and right when I'm almost done typing I accidentally hit a key and everything in the box gets wiped out )

Good luck with car and tech... don't ever feel like instant response is required. We love ya and know you love us, but it's just a message board. If you were just venting however... all I can use is a touchscreen so I feel ya. Hates them, hates I do, but my wrists don't hurt so bad now that I converted.

but since I don't take this iPad out that much (end up using the phone instead) I figured I wouldn't need it for this trip, but alas...

please.

"DUers" is explicitly in quotes. See this - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10504569

The argument is that when called by the person responsible for the property to report trespassing, the police responsibility is to check with the person responsible for the property to confirm who is deemed as trespassing and then remove said people.

The individual manager being potentially motivated by racial animus is actually utterly irrelevant to the duty of the police in the moment. The various bystanders don't actually have any legal right to grant permission to access the property. What with it isn't their property. If the manager was motivated by racial animus, the correct approach is to file a lawsuit.

I'm not sure if the argument is too nuanced for you or just isn't emotionally rabid enough, but accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being supportive of Dred Scott would be insulting if it weren't so laughably stupid. It's not an opinion that deserves to be treated seriously. It's making up an argument to "triumphantly" refute it.

Wow right there.

There are multiple issues going on here, and progressives should be bright enough to hold more than one thought in their mind at a time.

Not every offense has a remedy in every venue. The fact that the proper venue for remedies is through civil suit (court of public opinion, etc.) is not even close to saying,

"hyperbole", often used to make a point, so bravo for wasting time arguing nonsense about this situation that the Philadelphia District Attorney's office concluded did NOT meet the criteria needed to bother filing charges and prosecuting!



This is why the residents of this city elected a Civil Rights Attorney (Larry Krasner) to be our District Attorney because he knows exactly about this type of bullshit. During his first weeks in office, he cleared out many prosecutors and has been bringing in a new team of prosecutors who will start making some positive changes to the criminal and civil justice system here in this city.

and the prosecutor have already acknowledged to be indefensible.

Things that make you go “ Hmmm.”

although fortunately it appears to only be a small (although vocal) few, relative to the many many here who do "get it".

There was an entire OP I think.

"And if that policy is violated, then management has the discretion to ensure it’s enforced, even if it means calling the police."

As manager she had the discretion as to whether the policy was enforced or not!!

It appears that this was a corporate policy for SB locations in that specific area...now the ball is back in their court!!!

Their policy in Center City Philly has been that loitering can only be done by racial minorities. Pretty young white things never loiter. Damn it, Starbucks, just tell us the truth. And trash those awful "scones."

The lemon pound cake.

I have never seen a business produce such visually appealing desserts/snacks exhibited behind glass, but yet when you order and taste it, it's extremely disappointing.

and didn't order who was Black and she was asked to order...she asked the manager why the white girl wasn't being asked to order...and the manager just left...the manager is a racist. I am glad she was fired.

situation "uniformly."

The DA's office investigated and found “it was completely inappropriate to engage the police.”

Completely isn't a word that would be used frivolously here.

They specifially design their stores as to be comfortable hangout spots, but if too many people hang out too long, it hurts their sales. So, it falls to the franchisees to somehow magically make that not happen. Add racism into this mix and you get what we just got.

A Starbucks in a Target, hospital, airport, etc is usually not owned by Starbucks. For instance we have Starbucks at work, but it's licensed to Aramark or whomever runs the cafeteria. But you're correct they don't franchise, so your neighborhood store is owned by Starbucks.

who carry Starbucks name, must adhere to the rules same as the stores.

of hanging out versus moving on (I'm addressing this issue only), it is a balancing act for these stores. The city stores are uniformly crowded most times of the day. Suburban stores, not so much. The city stores are generally smaller and have a larger clientele. For people, any people, prolonged hanging in city locations can cost the store business. Were I a city Starbucks manager, I would be inclined to keep people moving no matter what their color. I have walked into many a Starbucks in Center City and turned around and walked out again without buying because there was no place it sit. This rarely happens in the suburbs, so there is one big reason for different enforcement. I would also enforce the bathroom policy more in the city, as more users means more mess. Not paying users? Not a ticket for running a nice and attractive business. Such is life in the big city.

If they accept that role, then everyone is invited. Loitering can be a problem, but millennials bent over their laptops for hours nursing one latte are loitering, too. Open the doors to everyone close the doors.

Isn't 75% of their business "grab and go"? And, even if not, is it that common that if there are no chairs someone would simply decide not to buy their coffee when already in the store? Seems most unlikely.

crowded. So, yes, taken seats can cause them money. In big cities, rents are enormous. 40 customers who would have spent $10 each walking on after seeing a full or nearly full coffee shop, costs $12,000 a month in lost sales, that is material given that rents in prime locations like Center City can run $16,000-$20,000 per month.

Sorry, not buying it

You can provide data to contest what I wrote. Declarative statements on an issue like this are pretty easy, data is another deal entirely.

But, you're the one making the contention, so i will request you provide the following data:
In high traffic areas in big cities what is the smoothed out average percent of seats occupied at a Starbucks, 6 to 10, 10 to 3, and 3 to 7?

What is the percentage of paying customers who stay to drink their beverage, as opposed to the % who grab and go?

What does it cost to let someone sit in a seat not otherwise occupied?

What does it cost to let someone sit in a seat where standing room is available.

BTW: What you provided was not data. It was a collection of random information not remotely connected to anything i wrote or asked previously.

I rather clearly stated that my information was from observation and discussions with a friend who owns a big city restaurant.

from me and probably other likeminded people. Whether that’s enough to make a difference I have no idea. I used to frequent an independent coffee house in Center City that served food. They would tolerate a certain amount of hanging depending on the time of day and day of the week. Go in there mid morning on a weekday and hang to your heart’s content. Sunday brunch time, take your time but do the dissertation at home.

My local Starbucks stores sometimes have local bands, singers, performers, etc - I've seen people come just for the performance and never order anything.

Sorry - as a black consumer, they have lost my business until they fix this. And no I don't want free coffee. We are in perilous times, when black people lose their lives when a trigger happy cop shows up.
I have met friends, dates etc at Starbucks over the years. I have arrived before they have, they have arrived before I have depending on the circumstances. I was leaving work earlier, later, or whatever, who would think one could face arrest or maybe death. This is outrageous!!

The loiter thing is get POC out.

she is not "fired" but moved elsewhere. So in that case, she can keep on targeting black prey in another location.

Little boys.

it also happens to teachers who mistreat and insult little black children too (as I have been a victim of, which resulted in my mother proceeding to write letters of complaint regarding the issue to the teacher, with copies sent to the school's department head and Principal, and to the District Superintendent, and finally the School System's Superintendent - all simultaneously).

and the Catholic Church; move those bad apples around, with no consideration of the impact on the victims.

Having been a supervisor for some time before retiring, usually it takes something much worse than this to fire. So what usually happens is a suspension, transfer, counseling and/or imposition of some sort of training requirement (for something like this), and then a probationary period. Do something wrong the next time (in some cases a 2nd chance might be given) and bye bye.

has been contradictory. I expect this is being purposely done so she is not stalked.

The latest as of today says this -

I was hoping you were okay... Although I know despite it being a small island, it is stlil a big island when you are there and I saw stories about flooding (although it was probably not "everywhere" there)!!

Here is one story about her whereabouts - https://whyy.org/articles/starbucks-ceo-hopes-to-meet-with-men-arrested-in-philly-shop/

And, your concern for our Island!

It's been a disaster area and a state of emergency for the North Shore.. I personally don't live anywhere near there. But, my son sent me pics of all the rain up there and it's been horrible for the people who do live around Hanalei. They say it's the worst floods that have happened there.

It's been raining a lot here for a long time too.. we don't see much Sunshine these days. Very unusual Spring.

The article seems good.. but just says she doesn't work at the store.. vague. It was a dumb call to the police.. reeked of racism.

Toure: Black Coffee and White Fear Make a Toxic Mix

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10503946

I feel so bad for the island.

When I was there in 1986, it was just a few years after Iwa and the Fern Grotto had been completely torn out but was slowly recovering. I was on a little tour that went to the north side (I think we had lunch at the Hilton) and I was fascinated by the gekkos on the walls (we were told they were good for getting the mosquitos ). Ironically when you mention the rain, the day I was there back then, was one of the rare days that the peaks of Waiʻaleʻale were not obscured with clouds and were completely clear and visible!

And mahalo for the link to that thread. I saw it early this morning and didn't get back to it again until now!

keep with eating bugs!

Nice description of your trip here, BRDS.. I remember when Iwa happened I was house sitting for a family who took a trip to Kauai during it. It was just a distant Island then.. not having a clue I would be there for the next hurricane in '92

Wonderful you got to see the peaks of Waiʻaleʻale .. I don't think I have.

Glad to hook you up with Effie's OP by Toure'

Wow. For no reason?

Even if there’s a black manager?

What the heck?

For calling 911? This clearly wasn’t an emergency. When I had loud neighbors making a huge racket at night, I found the regular police line and called that.

It comes up all the time at CAPS meetings.

If you need police dispatched you call 911. If you call the non emergency number 311 and say you need police for a non emergency you get transferred and the next voice you here is “911 do you need fire or police?”

311 has no ability to dispatch police. They only transfer.

311 only handles city services. Like garbage cans and street lights. Though I do think they take police reports for insurance purposes.

It looks like when police presence is requested for ongoing issue with “offenders” still on scene, 911 is preferred method in Chicago so probably applies to other cities like Philly.

One of the problems with wholesale use of 911 is that it burdens officers to respond to nonsense like what happened in this case and in some instances, if the caller lies and exaggerates, a med unit might be dispatched at a significant cost to the city. This is why the 311 (before 311, it used to be "231-3131" here). The City Controller has dinged the city for this very issue.

It would be interesting to hear the 911 call and whether there was some hysterics going on with it.

The dispatchers triage the call, so if you're calling about a loud party they rate it accordingly. An officer will attend to it when they can.

At my last house. If you called the regular police line, they referred you to 911 for anything that would summon the police.

In the beginning, the technology was unable to handle a large load of 911 calls, so it was asked that 911 only be used for emergency.

That was a long time ago. 911 technology is able to handle just as many calls as any other call technology. But some policies persist.

to see if the friend shows up. And totally disagree with her calling the police. Center City Philadelphia should have signs posted notifying customers of Starbucks loitering policies.

When I first moved to L A I would spends hours on my lap top at Starbucks while nursing a coffee or two.

excessive loitering.'

Whatever it is, it's unlikely these men were guilty of it since they weren't there very long.

Advice to budding 'journalists': Never make yourself or your actions or emotions or beliefs (political, religious, or otherwise) part of the story.
Never make judgements unless you work on the editorial page.
Keep it to Who, What, When, Where, and SOMETIMES Why.

They are in an untenable situation. I suspect that they are going to be inundated around the clock by daily protests of people loitering around for hours & not buying anything, thus making it impossible for paying customers to be seated.

Shame for the people that worked there that might lose their jobs

post, loitering is the Starbucks business model. Every Starbucks I go to, and I go every day, has people loitering about, not drinking coffee or tea or chai or anything. She called the police because she is a fucking racist. Fuck her.

Kind of implies that loitering is okay. They just don’t like excessive loitering. Maybe excessive is determined by the color of ones skin.