General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Starbucks thing... [View all]xor
(1,204 posts)First, the video begins toward the end of the situation. So that makes it difficult to gauge how busy the place was at the time. I've also yet to hear information on how long they were at the location. Now, from the video it looks like the place had plenty of seating available when the police were there. This, of course, could have changed as time went by and people left/moved because of the police activity, but from the video alone it didn't look busy. Some video from the Starbucks cameras would be useful in answering that question. The same goes for how long they were there.
In the event that the store was extremely busy and they were there for hours without ordering, then the Starbucks manager wasn't wrong to ask them to leave and perhaps call the police when they refused. Now, had the police arrived and they were trespassed, received a citation, but still refused to leave. Then the police had the choice to either remove them or to simply allow them to stay. If the police did allow them to stay, then I would think Starbucks would have a case against the police. I question if they had to arrest them, though. They did not resist being arrested. Could have the police simply had issued them a citation with a fine and then taken them outside in which they would then be released? Obviously if they came back then that would change the situation. I've seen someone suggest that the police may have a policy that if they handcuff someone then they have to process them. I find it hard to understand why such a ridiculous rule would exist, but let's assume it does. While that may remove the blame from the individual officers, it doesn't remove the blame from the police department as a whole for having such a rigid and stupid rule.
That's one possible scenario. The other is that the place was not busy and there guys waiting were not causing any problems for the establishment. As in, they were literally just waiting a little bit for their friend to show up. But for whatever reason, whether due to racism or just power-tripping, the manager decided they wanted them out. They refused to leave and the police were called to deal with it. I'm not sure how much this changes the situation for the police. Are they allowed to tell a private entity that they have to allow non-paying customers on their premises? Should they ignore the requests of business/citizens if they deem them to not be a problem? If they did that, and it turns out the loiters were in fact casing the place, or looking for marks. What kind of liability would the police have in that situation? Either way, I stick with my assessment that an actual arrest seems unnecessary since they got up and left the premises when handcuffed and escorted out by the officers. Had they returned afterward, then that would change the situation.
In the last scenario, I think the public would have every right to question the motives and even boycott Starbucks if they cannot give a good explanation for why they wanted the guys to leave so bad, and if they did not take action to rectify the problems with their manager. Given the fact the Starbucks corporate responded the way they did, I suspect they may not have a good answer. I also suspect that the place was not that busy and the guys were not there for hours upon hours. Hence why the CEO wants to meet with the guys.