Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
You are repeating things I already addressed, which makes no sense.
I am making you acknowledge your past assertions and how they were not valid.
unless your mind is closed to the possibility of this even happening because it doesn't happen to whites.
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.
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******************************************
I'm having trouble condemning the company and police on this one.
Dozens and dozens of posts are explaining to you WHY you should "condemn the company and the police".
I.e., -
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.
"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.
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.
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" -
Our Heritage
<...>
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
<...>
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
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?
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******************************************
You refuse to acknowledge that what the two guys did was in fact a crime. They we in a private business, were asked to leave (by the cops, no less), and refused to leave. That is a crime. Now, it is not be prosecuted, which is a good thing. That said, I do not blame the cops for arresting the two men for the crime that the cops saw with their own eyes. Furthermore, the history of discrimination has nothing to do with these particular facts.
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.
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 you are pointing out (whether people knew of a crime before the police arrived) doesn't have any relevance. Stop worrying about it because it has nothing to do with anything.
The "distinction" is an assertion YOU made initially and have now retracted it.
The several witnesses tried, as seen in multiple videos, to engage the police TO dispute this and they were ignored.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) -
Audio of the 911 and dispatch calls, released on Tuesday, also raised questions about how those calls may have affected the officers as they responded to the call.
“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
“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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
493 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
