Footage of two black men handcuffed in Starbucks prompts police investigation

[Xellos2099]

What kind of people refuse to leave when being told cops is coming? People looking for headline and causing trouble, How come no one look at this as if they purcahsed anything they will not be forced to leave?

 

[Xellos2099]

Ok let’s go over what is actually going on in this story and this thread.

Starbucks is a public accommodation . That means certain laws apply:


Examples of privately owned/operated public accommodation entities include:

• Restaurants
• Hotels
• Theaters
• Transportation services

Public Accommodation receive extra scrutiny as they are not allowed to to discriminate against historically discriminated against minorities. These are called protected classes.



Now public accommodation law doesn’t mean members of a protected class can’t be removed from the premise it does mean rules must be implemented fairly.



So in this story we have:

• Memeber of a protected class
• In a public accommodation
• Removed by police.

So the question as to whether they were allowed to be removed is were the rules being implemented equally

The evidence we have to suggest that they were removed with discriminatory intent is:

• The CEOs statement that this was not handled correctly
• The bystander who noted the two men were in no way being disruptive.

Which makes more sense

• That this was a discriminatory action by the local Starbucks and suggested by the CEOs comments
• Or Starbucks has an equally applied global policy of removing non paying customers via police that goes directly against their marketing and bottom line as a local comfortable place to come and hang out, use the WiFi and buy coffee.

So why are so many having problems understanding what happened?

It turns out studies have shown that while the majority can identify blatant discrimination, (see @VirtualLarry identifying racism in the South African government), they tend to not notice ambiguous discrimination against minorities.

https://equity.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Salvatore-Shelton-2007.pdf



I covered this study in this post in another thread
Racism is dead!

So TLDR

• Starbucks has the right to remove people from their premises if rules applied equally.
• CEO reactions supported by other customers comments highly suggest they were NOT applied equally
• Most defending their removal are unable to see it as discriminatory due to various well studied psychological reasons

I disagree, they are removed lawfully but ceo have to say something and toss their employee under the bus because people use emotion, not logic

 

[Paratus]

I disagree, they are removed lawfully but ceo have to say something and toss their employee under the bus because people use emotion, not logic

So can you explain to me how your position is supported by logic?

 

[glenn1]

So can you explain to me how your position is supported by logic?

Because “reputation risk” is a real thing and something CEOs care about more than a single employee whose actions are at best going to found legal but ill-advised.

 

[Paratus]

Because “reputation risk” is a real thing and something CEOs care about more than a single employee whose actions are at best going to found legal but ill-advised.

I completely agree that reputation risk a real thing. Most public facing companies, especially in customer centric businesses like Starbucks have rules about how to interact with the public to reduce the risk of damaging the companies reputation.

Per the laws Starbucks agreed to operate under those rules must be applied equally.

Now Xellos said the CEO “threw them under bus” which implies that he thinks the employee who called the police was following standard policy and was not supported by management. Your post supports the same conclusion.

So my question again is how are your arguments logical?

• Does Starbucks have a policy, equally applied, of throwing out potential customers who are waiting for friends. (A policy which would itself have significant “reputation risk” of Starbucks being an unfriendly place for customers.) Followed by upper management scrambling to mitigate that foreseeable risk by throwing the low level employees under the bus.
• Or did one local employee intentionally/unintentionally discriminate against a pair of black customers by unequally invoking their legal right remove patrons and now upper management must mitigate the “reputation risk” caused by the failure of the lower level employee.

I’ve provided my logic and evidence above for the second option.

I’m looking for evidence and logic for the first option from you and Xello. And currently that scenarios appears to be twisted to fit the emotional narrative that discrimination doesn’t happen and anyone complaining of it is a whiner.

 

[esquared]

Law against waiting in Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Target, banks, nail salons, karate dojos, gas stations and EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY. You, as usual, have it bassackward. This isn't a story about police oppressing minorities. It's only a story because the minorities were the ones causing trouble. If it was two white guys who were arrested for loitering in a business after ignoring a legal request to leave then the clueless bleeding hearts wouldn't notice or care.

Of course its a story about minorities. The cops are a secondary issue anyways. It's the employee that called the cops, when there was no need to. People wait/meet for others at Starbucks, all the time, which has been pointed out in this thread and within the comments of the article and with the tweets. You can't have people removed, unless your are enacting this policy across the board. I have seen nothing that supports starbucks was ever doing that. Any other instance would be discrimination and/or profiling.

And the third half who have common sense should smack down the fourth half who think that race had anything to do with this. This is a story about police doing their job properly and protecting businesses who exercise their legal rights to ask non-customers to leave. The fact that the criminals are black is utterly meaningless to anyone with a brain. The fact that the two men were committing a crime and were arrested for it is the ONLY salient point.

The only ones here without a brain, are the people here that still say this has nothing to do with race.

 

[esquared]

Stop bring racist OP.

You want to translate that for me?

 

[esquared]

Here is an instance of two young men who were not black at a Starbucks having the cops called on them. However, unlike the black dudes, they bailed before the cops got there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMg4IEMMGao

Not sure if you are serious.
Comparing Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure 3 here to the the actual story is not analogous.

 

[esquared]

Well, no, I didn't read them.

I guess my question is, is your reasoning for posting this thread, because: 1) you think that Starbuck's mgmt are assholes, for asking non-customers to leave, who happen to be black, or 2) you think that two men that the cops asked to leave, three times, were arrested, should somehow not be required to follow the law, because they're black, and "everybody knows" (roll eyes) that the law is somehow prejudiced against black people.


Well, I agree that the people that made the decision to ask those black men to leave, were assholes. But that doesn't inherently make them racists, just because of the race of those affected by that decision.
My people of mentioning (several times) that 1) I'm white, I'm part of the "majority", and that 2) I was ALSO asked to leave a "coffee shop". Thus providing a counter-example to this particular example, that suggests that racism, may not be the factor at play here. In fact, my personal example, being that: 1) I actually purchased food and drink from said coffee shop, and was STILL asked to leave, and yet in your example, 2) the black men did NOT buy anything - at least from those two examples, I would counter, that it seems that the dunkins that asked me to leave, was MORE racist, against whites (paying customers!), than that Starbuck's was against the black men (whom were NOT customers).

"Well, no, I didn't read them."
Well, you should have read them. It's content has everything to do with the way starbucks reacted in the first place.

"the black men did NOT buy anything - at least from those two examples, I would counter, that it seems that the dunkins that asked me to leave, was MORE racist, against whites (paying customers!), than that Starbuck's was against the black men (whom were NOT customers)

So you were a victim of racism against whites???
WTF? How is that even possible? How could a white person even claim this?
Absurd.

 

[Thebobo]

OMG scary black people.

Edit: And omg good look at this shiny slacks the cops are wearing,
someone call the fashion police.

 

[WelshBloke]

Maybe coffee places should kick more people out for mooching.

It pisses me off when I buy a coffee and there's nowhere to sit because all the tables are covered with laptops and the seats full of non paying "customers".

 

[Paladin3]

So, is there EVER an instance in which a business can ask two black non-customers to leave and it not be racist? Assuming those non-customers are doing nothing more than sitting quietly at a table without buying anything?

Everyone screaming racism in this thread is doing so because they are ASSUMING with blind certainty that had the two men been white they would not have been asked to leave. Some are citing the CEO tweeting an apology proves the removal was racist, or at least somehow wrong. Of course the CEO is going to apologize since it's a PR nightmare for him now regardless.

Starbucks obviously had the legal right to ask the men to leave. Cops were forced to arrest them when they thrice refused to comply with a legal order to leave. My biggest gripe is those who are ASSUMING racism like they have a crystal ball to look into the hearts of the employee(s) who asked the men to leave or the cops who facilitated the removal. Those same folks ASSUME white customers in the exact situation would never have been asked to leave, without any possible proof of such.

You folks ASSUME racism with such certainty that I don't believe, in your mind, there could ever be a situation where two black men were asked to leave and it not be racially motivated. How can that be right?

 

[senseamp]

Has the person who called the cops on them been identified for public shaming and blacklisting from future jobs?

 

[WelshBloke]

So, is there EVER an instance in which a business can ask two black non-customers to leave and it not be racist? Assuming those non-customers are doing nothing more than sitting quietly at a table without buying anything?

Everyone screaming racism in this thread is doing so because they are ASSUMING with blind certainty that had the two men been white they would not have been asked to leave. Some are citing the CEO tweeting an apology proves the removal was racist, or at least somehow wrong. Of course the CEO is going to apologize since it's a PR nightmare for him now regardless.

Starbucks obviously had the legal right to ask the men to leave. Cops were forced to arrest them when they thrice refused to comply with a legal order to leave. My biggest gripe is those who are ASSUMING racism like they have a crystal ball to look into the hearts of the employee(s) who asked the men to leave or the cops who facilitated the removal. Those same folks ASSUME white customers in the exact situation would never have been asked to leave, without any possible proof of such.

You folks ASSUME racism with such certainty that I don't believe, in your mind, there could ever be a situation where two black men were asked to leave and it not be racially motivated. How can that be right?

It is an assumption to say that it was just them singled out but as chain coffee shops are usually full of people not drinking coffee it's not a bad assumption.

Its pretty rude to just go in and not buy at least one small coffee and make it last though.

 

[Paladin3]

Has the person who called the cops on them been identified for public shaming and blacklisting from future jobs?

Not that I have seen, but when that employee is named there will be a million sheep crying for blood via social media. The only thing that may save them is if they are black too, and confess to only following the orders of their racist, white masters.

 

[Paladin3]

It is an assumption to say that it was just them singled out but as chain coffee shops are usually full of people not drinking coffee it's not a bad assumption.

Its pretty rude to just go in and not buy at least one small coffee and make it last though.

I would hope to heck that if I were to accuse someone of racism that I would have more evidence than stories of how I sat in a coffee shop once and nobody asked me to leave.

 

[senseamp]

Not that I have seen, but when that employee is named there will be a million sheep crying for blood via social media. The only thing that may save them is if they are black too, and confess to only following the orders of their racist, white masters.

Well, if we knew who she was, we could ask her how many white people she denied the use of restroom before purchase and called the cops on, so we don't have to ASSUME anything.
Public shaming is the best deterrent, IMO. I got into some road rage situation, dude wanted to fight or something, but as soon as I got smartphone out, pointed at the moron's face and started recording, he got into his car and left.

 

[Paladin3]

Well, if we knew who she was, we could ask her how many white people she denied the use of restroom before purchase and called the cops on, so we don't have to ASSUME anything.
Public shaming is the best deterrent, IMO. I got into some road rage situation, dude wanted to fight or something, but as soon as I got smartphone out, pointed at the moron's face and started recording, he got into his car and left.

Yeah, public shaming of a person who may have done absolutely nothing wrong is always the best way to solve these things. Toss in a few death threats from wackos, demands that she be fired or jailed, along with threats to boycott any business that employs her. She can keep her head down for a year or so, then change her name and move somewhere nobody knows her. Eventually she'll find a new job and life.

All because she asked two black non-customers to leave. Which absolutely, positively, to anyone with common sense = racism.

 

[ivwshane]

So, is there EVER an instance in which a business can ask two black non-customers to leave and it not be racist? Assuming those non-customers are doing nothing more than sitting quietly at a table without buying anything?

Everyone screaming racism in this thread is doing so because they are ASSUMING with blind certainty that had the two men been white they would not have been asked to leave. Some are citing the CEO tweeting an apology proves the removal was racist, or at least somehow wrong. Of course the CEO is going to apologize since it's a PR nightmare for him now regardless.

Starbucks obviously had the legal right to ask the men to leave. Cops were forced to arrest them when they thrice refused to comply with a legal order to leave. My biggest gripe is those who are ASSUMING racism like they have a crystal ball to look into the hearts of the employee(s) who asked the men to leave or the cops who facilitated the removal. Those same folks ASSUME white customers in the exact situation would never have been asked to leave, without any possible proof of such.

You folks ASSUME racism with such certainty that I don't believe, in your mind, there could ever be a situation where two black men were asked to leave and it not be racially motivated. How can that be right?

This must be really hard for you as its been explained in this thread at least twice what the issue is.

Do you know what racism is? Are you aware of the many forms of how racism can occur?

We get it though, you aren't racist, you are a victim and those that claim to be victims of racism are the real racists.

Keep living in your bubble.

 

[Paladin3]

This must be really hard for you as its been explained in this thread at least twice what the issue is.

Do you know what racism is? Are you aware of the many forms of how racism can occur?

We get it though, you aren't racist, you are a victim and those that claim to be victims of racism are the real racists.

Keep living in your bubble.

You have a bad habit of replying without really saying anything substantive. Insults don't make a cohesive argument. You almost never address the points I make and instead just bellow "WRONG!" as if saying it makes it so.

 

[WelshBloke]

You have a bad habit of replying without really saying anything substantive. Insults don't make a cohesive argument. You almost never address the points I make and instead just bellow "WRONG!" as if saying it makes it so.

I think that the point being made is although it's not unreasonable to ask unpaying "guests" to leave its unreasonable to just ask black unpaying "guests" to leave.

 

[senseamp]

Yeah, public shaming of a person who may have done absolutely nothing wrong is always the best way to solve these things. Toss in a few death threats from wackos, demands that she be fired or jailed, along with threats to boycott any business that employs her. She can keep her head down for a year or so, then change her name and move somewhere nobody knows her. Eventually she'll find a new job and life.
All because she asked two black non-customers to leave. Which absolutely, positively, to anyone with common sense = racism.

They were customers waiting for another man to arrive before ordering, and wanted to use the restroom.
She has no expectation of privacy when calling the cops on them. She should be held accountable for her actions.

 

[Paladin3]

I think that the point being made is although it's not unreasonable to ask unpaying "guests" to leave its unreasonable to just ask black unpaying "guests" to leave.

And do you have any evidence that this was the case? I understand customers spoke up to tell the cops the two men weren't bothering anyone, but that's not why they were asked to leave. I also understand the Starbucks CEO is on a twitter campaign to apologize and pacify his customers for financial and PR reasons. I've still seen nothing to indicate two men were only asked to leave because they were black.

 

[Paladin3]

They were customers waiting for another man to arrive before ordering, and wanted to use the restroom.
She has no expectation of privacy when calling the cops on them. She should be held accountable for her actions.

I didn't read anything about a bathroom, only that they were sitting at a table without being customers. And you are assuming what she did was racially motivated, which I have yet to see evidence of, and that she needs to be punished for it.

 

[WelshBloke]

They were customers waiting for another man to arrive before ordering, and wanted to use the restroom.

customer
ˈkʌstəmə/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who buys goods or services from a shop or business.

Potential customer!