Footage of two black men handcuffed in Starbucks prompts police investigation

[senseamp]

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.

I am not assuming anything. I want her identified so she can tell us why she called the cops. You are ASSUMING she is not racist, just like I ASSUME that you ASSUME a lot of racists crap is not racist.

 

[VirtualLarry]

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

Have the SJWs all been sent to Sibera yet?

Edit: Civilized society has rules AGAINST "Vigilantism" for a reason....

 

[senseamp]

But I am more talking to people who may be in position of taking the video in the future. Don't just film the situation, film and clearly identify the person who caused it. That's the only way to stop such stuff.

 

[WelshBloke]

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.

But you'd agree with the principle of my post? That its unreasonable to just ask black moochers to leave if you let all the other moochers stay, all other things being equal.

 

[WelshBloke]

She should be held accountable for her actions.

Shes accountable to the cops and her manager in this situation. She's not accountable to you.

 

[senseamp]

Have the SJWs all been sent to Sibera yet?
Edit: Civilized society has rules AGAINST "Vigilantism" for a reason....

Public shaming and job blacklisting is not vigilantism. It's freedom of speech and association. Learn it quick, or you may have to move to Siberia to find a job.

 

[senseamp]

Shes accountable to the cops and her manager in this situation. She's not accountable to you.

If the person taping the video pointed it at her, she would be accountable to everyone.

 

[WelshBloke]

If the person taping the video pointed it at her, she would be accountable to everyone.

No she wouldn't. Theres no requirement for her to explain her actions to you.

 

[Paladin3]

I am not assuming anything. I want her identified so she can tell us why she called the cops. You are ASSUMING she is not racist, just like I ASSUME that you ASSUME a lot of racists crap is not racist.

I fall back on the concept that folks are innocent until proven guilty. If you find fault with this concept...

 

[senseamp]

No she wouldn't. Theres no requirement for her to explain her actions to you.

It would be in her interest.

 

[senseamp]

I fall back on the concept that folks are innocent until proven guilty. If you find fault with this concept...

For the purposes of jailing, yes, not for the purposes of forming an opinion.

 

[Paladin3]

But you'd agree with the principle of my post? That its unreasonable to just ask black moochers to leave if you let all the other moochers stay, all other things being equal.

Heck yes! If you show me evidence that is what happened I will join you at that Starbucks and we can take turns punching the employee in the nose. We'll have to buy something while we are there, though, and promptly leave when they ask us too. Cops may also eventually be involved.

 

[WelshBloke]

It would be in her interest.

No it wouldn't. If that actually happens it would be in her interest not to comment on it at all.

 

[WelshBloke]

Heck yes! If you show me evidence that is what happened I will join you at that Starbucks and we can take turns punching the employee in the nose. We'll have to buy something while we are there, though, and promptly leave when they ask us too. Cops may also eventually be involved.

Calm down, it was a simple question.

 

[WelshBloke]

Hmmmmm. I appear to have both sides of this argument against me!

 

[senseamp]

No it wouldn't. If that actually happens it would be in her interest not to comment on it at all.

We'll see. I have a feeling her identity will leak out and she'll have some splainin' to do.

 

[glenn1]

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.

I’m guessing that Starbucks probably has a corporate wide policy on asking people to leave and/or involving police via invoking trespassing laws.

That being said, I’m sure those policy statements are probably fairly generic and provide a good amount of discretion to the local store manager who is normally expected to typically de-escalate the situation.

The policy then probably provides examples of increasingly more vigorous steps which can be invoked. All likely come with the expectation for the local manager to use good judgment and principles of hospitality while reserving the right to ask a customer to leave as a last resort.

I’m guessing SBUX corpororate would probably only expect the “asked to leave” / trespassing option to be invoked by a local manager when a customer is behaving in a disruptive or violent fashion and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. The very real possibility this was also a case of discrimination might also lead corporate to make the statement that this was not a justified removal as well.

If more evidence turns up later (e.g. video footage etc) corporate can also apologize to the store manager later. Or give them a legal settlement in private which would almost certainly be less costly then the lost sales and reputation damage had they not proactively denounced this as a public relations matter.

 

[Paladin3]

Public shaming and job blacklisting is not vigilantism. It's freedom of speech and association. Learn it quick, or you may have to move to Siberia to find a job.

Anyone who uses those tactics to attack another person better be damn well sure they are correct and justified in the application. It's a huge responsibility to declare yourself judge and jury and attempt to ruin another person's life. I'm stunned at how cavalier so many are with the responsibility, and when used wrongly there are often no consequences.

 

[WelshBloke]

We'll see. I have a feeling her identity will leak out and she'll have some splainin' to do.

If she's got any sense she'll leave all the public comments to corporate PR.

 

[senseamp]

If she's got any sense she'll leave all the public comments to corporate PR.

Which will proceed to fire her and wash their hands of the entire mess.

 

[senseamp]

Anyone who uses those tactics to attack another person better be damn well sure they are correct and justified in the application. It's a huge responsibility to declare yourself judge and jury and attempt to ruin another person's life. I'm stunned at how cavalier so many are with the responsibility, and when used wrongly there are often no consequences.

She declared herself the judge and jury of those two men and got them arrested, and she should face the consequences you long for.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Says the guy that has continued to ignore what people have stated the issue is.

Maybe if you want your points to be addressed you should address the points people are making (hint: your points were already addressed).

Now continue on, mr victim.

 

[WelshBloke]

Which will proceed to fire her and wash their hands of the entire mess.

Maybe. But as shes actually accountable to them and they probably won't go as far as death threats it's still the best option.

 

[glenn1]

She declared herself the judge and jury of those two men and got them arrested, and she should face the consequences you long for.

This I’ll strongly push back against. Once a business asks you to leave then asks the police to assist, you go from customer to trespasser. Sue the business later for violating public accommodation laws or whatever but you still need to respect the law yourself. Refusing to cooperate to the point where the police need to remove you in cuffs is just creating another bad situation from the first.

 

[WelshBloke]

She declared herself the judge and jury of those two men and got them arrested, and she should face the consequences you long for.

She has no powers of arrest and no power to make the police arrest anyone. She was neither Judge nor Jury in this situation. If the police did wrong when thats on them.