Footage of two black men handcuffed in Starbucks prompts police investigation

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think Casanova's point is that we simply don't have all the facts.

There is a timeline here.

Supposedly the manager asked the men to leave - and they refused. The cops were called. That is something I remember reading, did that actually occur? I don't know. We only have video when the cops actually came to the establishment, but you guys want to paint this brilliant manifesto as if you have the last 30 minutes figured out.

If you are asked to leave for not being a paying customer, you're obligated to leave. That is simply a fact - and you're within your right to do such. Now given, Starbucks is an establishment that almost encourages sitting around and using their wifi for 6 hours after ordering one $2.50 drink. Regardless, they have the right to ask anyone to leave for reasons of not being a customer, that is simply a fact. However, if the manager or employees never warned the man before calling the cops, that is an obvious no-no.

Either way, I stand by the statement that it seems incredibly stupid for the manager to do such a thing - but I can also freely admit that there is a time period in which we do not know the details. To declare otherwise is just as ignorant as the manager was.

 

[esquared]

Or a story sounds incredibly absurd, and generally when that’s the case there’s more to it than the side we’re hearing. Not saying the manager isn’t racist or race played a factor. I’m saying it sounds pretty incredible that 911 was dialed within two minutes over absolutely nothing.

Which again, if something sounds too absurd to be true it probably is. The manager saw two black guys in a store and said oh shit I better call 911 just for the hell of it? Makes no sense.

Unless they were causing a disturbance I don’t see a reason why the cops should have been called. Doesn’t sound like they were. But I also don’t buy the idea that someone saw black people so immediately called 911 just for the hell of it. Makes zero sense, even if they are racist.

I think something else did happen, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy to keep it hushed though. No manager calls the cops after two mins just because black people. No idea wtf happened there that day but an overly simplistic narrative of we walked in and were black so they called the cops just doesn’t seem realistic.

Has there been interviews with witnesses, managers, police, etc? I have no idea, haven’t read through 15 pages.

RTFT

I will give you this:
"According to the call (and also surveillance tape) Nelson and Robinson arrived at approximately 4:35 PM—the 911 call was placed at exactly 4:37PM. That means that the manager only waited two whole minutes before she called the police on the two black men who were simply waiting to have a business meeting. TWO MINUTES?! In the call the manager says, 'I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.'''

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...e-investigation.2543371/page-13#post-39391725

 

[mikeymikec]

Police officer weighs in with their two cents and experiences:
http://lawofficer.com/editorial/the-starbucks-incident/

 

[PingviN]

RTFT

I will give you this:
"According to the call (and also surveillance tape) Nelson and Robinson arrived at approximately 4:35 PM—the 911 call was placed at exactly 4:37PM. That means that the manager only waited two whole minutes before she called the police on the two black men who were simply waiting to have a business meeting. TWO MINUTES?! In the call the manager says, 'I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.'''

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...e-investigation.2543371/page-13#post-39391725

I can see the conversation leading up to the police call taking less time than that.

 

[Perknose]

The two instigators/perps cash in, BIG TIME, win big bucks from the city.

Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson chose not to pursue a lawsuit against the city, Mike Dunn, a spokesman for the city of Philadelphia, told The Washington Post. Instead, they agreed to a symbolic payment of $1 each and asked the city to fund $200,000 for a grant program for high school students aspiring to become entrepreneurs.

[...]

Kenney said Nelson and Robinson approached the city as partners “to make something positive come of this.”

"Something positive" happened here as well.

This incident served to smoke out all the folks here whose outlooks are governed by deep seated but personally unacknowledged racist attitudes who absolutely don't think they're racist at all . . . like, NO WAY, you dirty commie libruhl!

 

[sdifox]

Police officer weighs in with their two cents and experiences:
http://lawofficer.com/editorial/the-starbucks-incident/

Good read

 

[darkswordsman17]

I think Casanova's point is that we simply don't have all the facts.

There is a timeline here.

Supposedly the manager asked the men to leave - and they refused. The cops were called. That is something I remember reading, did that actually occur? I don't know. We only have video when the cops actually came to the establishment, but you guys want to paint this brilliant manifesto as if you have the last 30 minutes figured out.

If you are asked to leave for not being a paying customer, you're obligated to leave. That is simply a fact - and you're within your right to do such. Now given, Starbucks is an establishment that almost encourages sitting around and using their wifi for 6 hours after ordering one $2.50 drink. Regardless, they have the right to ask anyone to leave for reasons of not being a customer, that is simply a fact. However, if the manager or employees never warned the man before calling the cops, that is an obvious no-no.

Either way, I stand by the statement that it seems incredibly stupid for the manager to do such a thing - but I can also freely admit that there is a time period in which we do not know the details. To declare otherwise is just as ignorant as the manager was.

Well him straight up saying he didn't know fucking anything about it beyond basically the headlines of articles is a funny way to be making that case. Its straight up goddamned stupid to go "we don't have all the facts, oh and by the way, I have basically none of them at all because I've refused to even attempt to get any by reading any of the articles about it myself, but by golly, I'm sure the facts that people are discussing are wrong!"

Any which way, his argument was dumb. Like, so stupid that he should ask mods to remove all his posts in this thread. But then, he's been doing that type of thing quite a lot. Because he sets out with his own beliefs, and then tries to force things to fit that, and when they don't, he just starts pushing whatever nonsense he can to try and get anyone else to support it so he can feel its reinforced enough to keep his bubble from bursting.

He shows rampant ignorance of topics but then wants people to discuss it with him and then says other people are dicks because they point out how stupid his arguments regularly are and dismissing him. I've used this analogy before, but he's like a fucking kid that just learned division that wants to butt his way into calculus class and tell people how they're wrong, and then writes on the board 15/3=12.

Haha, figures you'd be making the same dumbass mistake. Ah yes, because you can't be bothered to read the fucking articles yourself, you're gonna lecture people about ignorance? Fuck off.

 

[WelshBloke]

The two instigators/perps cash in, BIG TIME, win big bucks from the city.



"Something positive" happened here as well.

That's an excellent outcome and the two lads have handled it significantly better than both the police and Starbucks. If starbucks want to grab some corporate good will they should chip in an equal amount!

This incident served to smoke out all the folks here whose outlooks are governed by deep seated but personally unacknowledged racist attitudes who absolutely don't think they're racist at all . . . like, NO WAY, you dirty commie libruhl!

It is a strange situation though. I've been asked to order something or leave many times in my life. I've also been told that the loos are only for paying customers many, many times.
It's weird because they weren't refusing service to these two lads, in fact they were complaining that these two lads weren't asking for service.

 

[sdifox]

The two instigators/perps cash in, BIG TIME, win big bucks from the city.



"Something positive" happened here as well.

This incident served to smoke out all the folks here whose outlooks are governed by deep seated but personally unacknowledged racist attitudes who absolutely don't think they're racist at all . . . like, NO WAY, you dirty commie libruhl!

I don't see ground to sue the police. They were called and did their job.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Police officer weighs in with their two cents and experiences:
http://lawofficer.com/editorial/the-starbucks-incident/

That is a good read. Initially I was critical because they were dismissing the police doing any assessment of the situation (while citing a personal anecdote of a fellow officer doing exactly that for her, but she admits it was because she too is a police officer, if she'd just been a random black woman, he wouldn't have done that), and that she ignored how there's a very noticeable disparity in how police address a situation based purely on race. She does get into that though, so just needed to read on.

Funnily enough, I notice that the two other people who liked your post are people that have tended towards defending police on racism issues. I wonder if they actually read the whole thing or just the initial part that seemingly excused the police response to this. The "they're just following the letter of the law" argument, that ignores how often they don't follow that when the person is white. With black people they almost immediately start an arrest, with white people there will often be an extended period of time where they'll just talk to them. Or, like how "dropping charges" is very different, as for white people they typically just threaten them without even filing them unless they feel vindictive, but with black people they'll actually have done the paperwork already and thus must officially dismiss them. Or how white people might get cuffed but plenty of times won't be charged at all, they'll just let them cool down and then release them. If they're black, unless they're very recognizably famous, they will quickly proceed with arrest. Unless the white person is visibly intoxicated, disheveled (poor or homeless, she even straight mentions that, although even that isn't enough sometimes as she notes with the disheveled white officer later; and she also highlights another aspect, where they feel sad for arresting homeless, but typically police aren't going to be saddened arresting a black person, they're "doing their job, taking a criminal off the street"), making threats, or waving a weapon around, police are going to go in calm and talk to them and not make an arrest unless they resort to any of that. If a black person did any of that, the cops would go in guns drawn (and with even a slight belief of a weapon of any sort - like say they're wearing some cargo pants/shorts, they could be concealing a gun!, be prone to shooting).

 

[Paladin3]

I don't see ground to sue the police. They were called and did their job.

I'm sure Philly would rather pay them each $1 then defend against any suit, even one they would most likely win.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's an excellent outcome and the two lads have handled it significantly better than both the police and Starbucks. If starbucks want to grab some corporate good will they should chip in an equal amount!



It is a strange situation though. I've been asked to order something or leave many times in my life. I've also been told that the loos are only for paying customers many, many times.
It's weird because they weren't refusing service to these two lads, in fact they were complaining that these two lads weren't asking for service.

They seem to have done so. They had an "undisclosed financial settlement" with them, and it says they're looking for ways to help promote business ideas of the two men.

I've maybe had that happen once in my life, and that was because the person working was a cranky asshole and I was younger. Likewise, the only places that I've seen be that way (bathroom for customers only) are ones that are shitty places that I wouldn't have been stopping at if I didn't need to go to the bathroom (with the expectation that I would maybe order something after seeing what they offered). Places that are that big of dicks about it tend to be relatively worse with regards to customer service in general, so I will decide to leave rather than be a paying customer. I tend to use the bathroom before purchasing something too.

The thing is, if they were aware that they were waiting for someone before ordering, they essentially were refusing service if they were asking them to leave instead. That is hardly some uncommon thing (to wait for other people before ordering) and I've never seen someone make a fuss like that. Considering a whole ~2 minutes had elapsed, its basically impossible to defend the Starbucks, even if they had been the only two people in the place, and not many others saying that they had been doing the thing the men were asked to leave over.

The thing that makes it strange is that people act like loitering and coffee shops, and Starbucks in particular are not linked in popular culture. It became such a joke, that the joke actually became people that commented about people doing that. And Starbucks absolutely benefited from that. They became so well known in common culture, that they're a landmark, a place people go to specifically to meet up for other reasons than going to that place for what it offers. It benefits them because of the brand recognition (kinda like how brands don't mind when their brand is associated with the product they make, so people go "get me a Kleenex" or "I need a Xerox"). I don't drink coffee myself, but I've been to Starbucks probably two dozen times (not even talking about the countless times I've been at a place that had a Starbucks inside). I think I've ordered something from there maybe 3 of those times. The rest of the time I loitered and didn't order anything. At least once I loitered without buying anything for close to an hour. Not even a sideways glance from anyone. A few of the times I went there just to use the bathroom, and then loitered around waiting for other people I was with to finish using the bathroom. Even if this wasn't racially motivated, I'd sure as hell stay away from Starbucks entirely (meaning there's then zero chance of me buying anything from them) if they're going to be that antagonistic towards people doing that.

If Starbucks was trying to get loiterers away, they should have sent out press releases, and asked nicely for people to maybe not use them as their meeting/hangout place. Or, for the individual places, I don't know, put up a big fucking sign saying not to loiter, and then actually apply it to people equally? Not let many other people loiter and then call the cops once two black men do it.

I don't see ground to sue the police. They were called and did their job.

I would guess they were suing the city over discrimination and would argue that there is a clear disparity in how police act in situations that can be directly attributable to race. And the city likely views this as a much better deal. Dealing with almost certain protest over the issue alone probably was going to cost more than the settlement, let alone the legal costs, even if they felt they could win. Furthermore they're viewing it as an opportunity to build a bridge, and are actively reaching out to help a cause.

 

[senseamp]

I don't blame the police here. This is all on Starbucks.

 

[WelshBloke]

They seem to have done so. They had an "undisclosed financial settlement" with them, and it says they're looking for ways to help promote business ideas of the two men.

I've maybe had that happen once in my life, and that was because the person working was a cranky asshole and I was younger. Likewise, the only places that I've seen be that way (bathroom for customers only) are ones that are shitty places that I wouldn't have been stopping at if I didn't need to go to the bathroom (with the expectation that I would maybe order something after seeing what they offered). Places that are that big of dicks about it tend to be relatively worse with regards to customer service in general, so I will decide to leave rather than be a paying customer. I tend to use the bathroom before purchasing something too.

The thing is, if they were aware that they were waiting for someone before ordering, they essentially were refusing service if they were asking them to leave instead. That is hardly some uncommon thing (to wait for other people before ordering) and I've never seen someone make a fuss like that. Considering a whole ~2 minutes had elapsed, its basically impossible to defend the Starbucks, even if they had been the only two people in the place, and not many others saying that they had been doing the thing the men were asked to leave over.

The thing that makes it strange is that people act like loitering and coffee shops, and Starbucks in particular are not linked in popular culture. It became such a joke, that the joke actually became people that commented about people doing that. And Starbucks absolutely benefited from that. They became so well known in common culture, that they're a landmark, a place people go to specifically to meet up for other reasons than going to that place for what it offers. It benefits them because of the brand recognition (kinda like how brands don't mind when their brand is associated with the product they make, so people go "get me a Kleenex" or "I need a Xerox"). I don't drink coffee myself, but I've been to Starbucks probably two dozen times (not even talking about the countless times I've been at a place that had a Starbucks inside). I think I've ordered something from there maybe 3 of those times. The rest of the time I loitered and didn't order anything. At least once I loitered without buying anything for close to an hour. Not even a sideways glance from anyone. A few of the times I went there just to use the bathroom, and then loitered around waiting for other people I was with to finish using the bathroom. Even if this wasn't racially motivated, I'd sure as hell stay away from Starbucks entirely (meaning there's then zero chance of me buying anything from them) if they're going to be that antagonistic towards people doing that.

If Starbucks was trying to get loiterers away, they should have sent out press releases, and asked nicely for people to maybe not use them as their meeting/hangout place. Or, for the individual places, I don't know, put up a big fucking sign saying not to loiter, and then actually apply it to people equally? Not let many other people loiter and then call the cops once two black men do it.

Oh I'm not defending starbucks in this case, they definitely treated those two lads differently to all their other customers and contrary to their usual policy of letting people just hang about making the place look untidy.
I dont go to Starbucks mainly because I dont like their coffee and, ironically, I can never get a seat because it's full of people dicking around on their laptops not drinking coffee! The places I've been asked to order or leave were independent cafes and pubs back in the day but theres not so many independent cafes left now.

 

[HomerJS]

Police officer weighs in with their two cents and experiences:
http://lawofficer.com/editorial/the-starbucks-incident/

Everyone NEEDS to read this

 

[JEDI]

The two instigators/perps cash in, BIG TIME, win big bucks from the city.

"Something positive" happened here as well.

This incident served to smoke out all the folks here whose outlooks are governed by deep seated but personally unacknowledged racist attitudes who absolutely don't think they're racist at all . . . like, NO WAY, you dirty commie libruhl!

I am shocked they settled for $1.

yeah, I agree with the officers for arresting them for refusing to leave when they're not buying anything at the store.

but there have been NUMEROUS times I've seen people not buy anything and use the store as a meeting place.

they could have squeezed a lot more out of starbucks, especially since the Starbucks CEO said the arrests were reprehensible.

wonder why they didn't?

and yes, I suspect there will be a backlash against those 2 for only settling for $1.

 

[mikeymikec]

I am shocked they settled for $1.

yeah, I agree with the officers for arresting them for refusing to leave when they're not buying anything at the store.

but there have been NUMEROUS times I've seen people not buy anything and use the store as a meeting place.

they could have squeezed a lot more out of starbucks, especially since the Starbucks CEO said the arrests were reprehensible.

wonder why they didn't?

and yes, I suspect there will be a backlash against those 2 for only settling for $1.

Can you imagine the amount of people who'd accuse them of entrapping the manager / Starbucks (or something similar that suggests the whole thing is their fault) if they had made a significant amount of money out of it...

 

[brycejones]

I am shocked they settled for $1.

yeah, I agree with the officers for arresting them for refusing to leave when they're not buying anything at the store.

but there have been NUMEROUS times I've seen people not buy anything and use the store as a meeting place.

they could have squeezed a lot more out of starbucks, especially since the Starbucks CEO said the arrests were reprehensible.

wonder why they didn't?

and yes, I suspect there will be a backlash against those 2 for only settling for $1.

The shitstorm that would erupt if they settled for more is vastly larger than the number of people who will complain about them settling for $1. They are able to maintain the moral high ground by taking a small settlement. It shows they weren't in this for the money.

Good on them.

 

[brycejones]

Can you imagine the amount of people who'd accuse them of entrapping the manager / Starbucks (or something similar that suggests the whole thing is their fault) if they had made a significant amount of money out of it...

Uglygoatboy would jump on it like Trump on a Russian hooker as the "missing" facts.

 

[pauldun170]

Everyone NEEDS to read this

Many will stop at the 5th paragraph and skim the rest (at best)

 

[Victorian Gray]

I am shocked they settled for $1.

yeah, I agree with the officers for arresting them for refusing to leave when they're not buying anything at the store.

but there have been NUMEROUS times I've seen people not buy anything and use the store as a meeting place.

they could have squeezed a lot more out of starbucks, especially since the Starbucks CEO said the arrests were reprehensible.

wonder why they didn't?

and yes, I suspect there will be a backlash against those 2 for only settling for $1.

It was $1 "and a promise from officials to set up a $200,000 US program for young entrepreneurs."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/black-men-arrested-starbucks-settle-philadelphia-1.4645205

 

[esquared]

The Starbucks CEO will mentor the two young men involved in the Philadelphia arrest incident.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-arrested-philadelphia-cafe-article-1.3969682

 

[Lanyap]

The Starbucks CEO will mentor the two young men involved in the Philadelphia arrest incident.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-arrested-philadelphia-cafe-article-1.3969682

Good to see this. These two young men were interested in being real estate entrepreneurs from the beginning.

 

[Lanyap]

Change in Starbucks policy. Anyone can sit in the cafes and use their restroom. It will be interesting to see how they handle incidents when the homeless want to use the restroom to take a bath or sit in the cafe to take a nap. That's one of the reasons they installed locks on the restrooms. Maybe this will help Seattle in its struggle dealing with the large homeless population. They just started a head tax on workers of larger companies.

https://apnews.com/2305a7e4e6de4b71bdd38631882c7bd4

Starbucks announced a new policy Saturday that allows anyone to sit in its cafes or use its restrooms, even if they don’t buy anything.

The new policy comes five weeks after two black men who hadn’t bought anything were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks.

Company executives have said its previous policies were loose and ambiguous, leaving decisions on whether people could sit in its stores or use the restroom up to store managers.

Starbucks said it has told workers to consider anyone who walks into its stores a customer, “regardless of whether they make a purchase.”

The company said anyone can use its cafes, patios or restrooms without buying anything, but it noted workers should still call the police if someone is a safety threat.

“We are committed to creating a culture of warmth and belonging where everyone is welcome,” Starbucks said in a statement.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Change in Starbucks policy. Anyone can sit in the cafes and use their restroom. It will be interesting to see how they handle incidents when the homeless want to use the restroom to take a bath or sit in the cafe to take a nap. That's one of the reasons they installed locks on the restrooms. Maybe this will help Seattle in its struggle dealing with the large homeless population. They just started a head tax on workers of larger companies.

https://apnews.com/2305a7e4e6de4b71bdd38631882c7bd4

This will last a month or two tops. Total number of businesses in the history of the world so far that have been successful providing unlimited free shelter to homeless: 0

In winter in some locations the store will be 100% filled 10 seconds after the door opens and not one person will be a paying customer.