Footage of two black men handcuffed in Starbucks prompts police investigation

[greatnoob]

If anecdotes count for anything: a month ago when I was flying out from Singapore, I "loitered" around for 10 mins or so at a Starbucks nearby to the airport. I was blocking the queue and just checking my work email on my phone. Surprisingly, I wasn't kicked out, wasn't told to move and nobody seemed to care that I was using the Wifi the entire time without ordering a (frankly) below-average coffee a good 15 mins later. Apparently not being a nuisance at Starbucks is a problem worth calling the authorities for, or at least in the US it is.

 

[Perknose]

People like Perknose don’t carry a chip on their shoulder, but a boulder. The left’s equivalent of the bigoted xenophobic conservative. These two groups have virulent hatred for each other. I used to get angry at such people but now to me they are boring, intellectually vacuous. In one word: dull.

To the more reasonable folks, I can see where you are coming from. Trust me I do. I don’t doubt your sincerity. 20 to 25 years ago, maybe even less, I too would have been outraged. So yes been there done that. But since then much has happened, I’ve seen and experienced much. I can’t possibly articulate such things in a few paragraphs. And it’s not even possible to

There is a reason I keep mentioning one word: bubble. Life is very simple, black and white (no pun intended) in it.

Thank you all

What's worse than a bigot so blind he cannot see his own bigotry?

A pompous one!

 

[Noah Abrams]

Some of you guys are amusing, I have to give you that Thank you for the smiles

 

[Noah Abrams]

What's worse than a bigot so blind he cannot see his own bigotry?

I suppose you don’t realize that a bigot is by definition blind to his bigotry.

I gather you aren’t a spring chicken. Don’t you think my friend you should have acquired at least SOME level of intellect in all these years? But don’t lose hope. You can still. All you have to do is to have an open curious mind and expose your mighty self to creatures lower than you. You know, outside the affluent white echo chamber

 

[Perknose]

I suppose you don’t realize that a bigot is by definition blind to his bigotry.

I gather you aren’t a spring chicken. Don’t you think my friend you should have acquired at least SOME level of intellect in all these years? But don’t lose hope. You can still. All you have to do is to have an open curious mind and expose your mighty self to creatures lower than you. You know, outside the affluent white echo chamber

^^^ Yup, a pompous one is the worst!

Your level of presumption regarding the arc of my life is as amusing as it is wrong. So far wrong it should hurt. But for you, your ignorance is bliss.

Hey, perhaps your pompous ignorance stems from projection . . . or maybe it's just exactly as it presents, as laughably pompous ignorance.

You must be a ton of fun at parties, Chief.

 

[elitejp]

I still just dont get why they wouldnt order a coffee! Personally I would be embarrassed to not order something after being asked to, or I would wait outside till my friend arrives. Reasonable people act this way. They dont wait for the police to show up and then refuse to be obedient to the police. By such actions you give the police absolutely no alternative but to arrest you. The two black people could have just as easily asked for the managers name and filed a complaint. But they chose to escalate the situation.

[The problem with current media is...
Its easy enough to find witnesses to say whatever you want them to say.
You can then only report the narrative that you want to get the reactions that you want while still not being false (however its not entirely correct either)]

I dont know what is in the heart of any of these 3 people so its hard to say what the motivations were. But the media will certainly jump in and yell "racism" any chance that they get. So everyones guess is just as valid as anothers.

In any case starbucks has taken this opportunity as a chance to teach tolerance and company policy. Starbucks isnt in the business of excluding customers(racism not allowed) and they are definitely not in the business of running a board house (paying customers only).

 

[darkswordsman17]

I suppose you don’t realize that a bigot is by definition blind to his bigotry.

I gather you aren’t a spring chicken. Don’t you think my friend you should have acquired at least SOME level of intellect in all these years? But don’t lose hope. You can still. All you have to do is to have an open curious mind and expose your mighty self to creatures lower than you. You know, outside the affluent white echo chamber

What? Seriously, where are you getting that "by definition" bigots are blind to their bigotry? That is straight up just factually wrong, not to mention outright nonsensical considering the amount of evidence of bigots very keenly aware of their bigotry.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Hitler was keenly aware of his bigotry towards Jews. If not, then, wow, I mean, how do you come up with a plan to systematically eradicate them without, you know, being aware that you were bigoted towards them? Was he like "hey, let's kill all the, you know" and then does a ridiculous over the top caricature of Jewish people. And then Himmler was like, "let's kill all the Jews?" and then Hitler was like "What?!?! No way, I'm not bigoted towards Jews! I have many many Jewish friends!"

Seriously, what the fuck? I can't stop laughing about how incredibly stupid what you just posited is, and that you seemingly think highly enough of yourself that you thought people wouldn't call you on such absurdity.

But then based on this singular post, you fit perfectly in with other people that tout "logic and reason" or "open mind" while explicitly not actually using any of those things yourself (in spite of your desperate claims that you do). I know you think you probably dupe people by not being a mouth breathing cretin, but that's hardly a new foil for people espousing the garbage that you are.

So let's see. Literally wrong about basic facts? Check. Desperately trying to change definitions of words to suit your belief? Check. Projecting that you're actually being the most rational and considerate, in spite of you trying to do that while effectively flowering up 2nd grade level insult? Check. Its almost like I've seen this exact method before or something...

At least you went out of your way to admit that you've adopted a very, simplified manner of thought. Black and white. That sounds awfully...close minded to me though...

I'd say you have a "curious" mind, but not for the reason you believe. But that's not even true. You're ridiculously typical.

 

[Ackmed]

I'll admit to not reading the whole thread.

This seems pretty simple to me. If a manager asks them to leave, when they did not buy anything, they should leave. At that point it becomes trespassing. Cops come, and really don't have a choice if the manager wants to press charges and they still refuse to leave. I think we have all seen signs of no loitering if not ordering, bathrooms are for paying customers only, having a key to use them. Seems pretty fair to me, I wouldn't expect a business to let me occupy space that a paying customer can use.

If the manager, or this particular Starbucks does this at a disproportionate rate to black people over white people, then there is a problem. If the manager typically lets white people hang out and not order anything, then the manager and Starbucks deserves all the backlash it is getting. With multiple managers, they probably don't handle it all the same way. All we really have is hearsay about how other people were allegedly treated. If cops were called on multiple occasions, maybe some transcripts of the calls can be had. Until more facts are present, the arguing is pretty pointless. Although I did take enjoyment for a brief moment of a liberal on liberal fight, but then my senses kicked in and its not right no matter what.

Since we're ranting about space, a big fuck you to the people who take up booths that clearly state, "Please reserve booths for two or more guest". Then sit their ass in a booth by themselves. Meanwhile families are struggling to sit at tiny ass tables.

I suppose you don’t realize that a bigot is by definition blind to his bigotry.

I gather you aren’t a spring chicken. Don’t you think my friend you should have acquired at least SOME level of intellect in all these years? But don’t lose hope. You can still. All you have to do is to have an open curious mind and expose your mighty self to creatures lower than you. You know, outside the affluent white echo chamber

perknose is the typical liberal lefty hypocrite. Then faced with facts, he can't handle the truth. Thinks he is so much better and smarter than both, yet he is not. No reason to go back and forth with his type.

 

[aigomorla]

ok i'm gonna play middle man.

i understand both camps..

Camp one: they were asked to leave, didnt leave, so they were arrested.
This makes sense, because it became a issue of trespassing.

Camp two: they were singled out because they were black.
This also makes sense, because on many many occasions i have went into starbucks, to grab a table first and then waited for my friend. Never have i been kicked out, nor have i seen others getting kicked out for doing something similar.
Ive even seen some people just go into starbucks to borrow the wifi, and not order anything.

Were they mooching off the sugar and milk?
Were they doing anything destructive?
Did they inform the employee's that they are waiting for a friend to arrive before making an order?
Did the clerk just freak out seeing two black people inside the business checking out where security cameras are, and counting the cash at the register?

I think these general questions need to be asked first before we can toss any side.

But i can tell you this right now, starbucks probably wont be kicking out anyone anymore anytime soon after this incident, and your going to have a lot of idiots trying to get themselves kicked out so they can get extra likes on facebook, or some other form of social media outlets.

Edit:
The employee was asked to leave, and no longer works at starbucks.
LOL...
So the company probably gave her a package to leave / resign, to calm the fallout which this will cause on business.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/us/starbucks-philadelphia-arrest.html

 

[LevelSea]

Maybe the homeless will start to hang out at Starbucks now.

 

[Linux23]

what's sad is that the head of the company condemned the behavior and yet the racist hillbilly's on this forum are still making excuses. smdh.

 

[Starbuck1975]

what's sad is that the head of the company condemned the behavior and yet the racist hillbilly's on this forum are still making excuses. smdh.

A PR move born of necessity.

Prior to this incident, Starbucks’ only problem was an inconsistently enforced policy of nonpaying customers gaining access to their facilities. There are enough anecdotes to demonstrate this problem is not a function of race.

For this one incident it escalated unnecessarily.

After all their implicit bias training and all the consultants get paid, they will probably still have a policy issue.

 

[1prophet]

Don't know which is more hilarious, liberal Starbucks employing racists or conservative Starbucks haters defending Starbucks.

Just in case any one doubts which way Starbucks leans.

Trump supporters vow to boycott Starbucks over CEO's plan to hire refugees

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2...tarbucks-over-ceos-plan-to-hire-refugees.html

 

[HomerJS]

I still just dont get why they wouldnt order a coffee! Personally I would be embarrassed to not order something after being asked to, or I would wait outside till my friend arrives. Reasonable people act this way. They dont wait for the police to show up and then refuse to be obedient to the police. By such actions you give the police absolutely no alternative but to arrest you. The two black people could have just as easily asked for the managers name and filed a complaint. But they chose to escalate the situation.

[The problem with current media is...
Its easy enough to find witnesses to say whatever you want them to say.
You can then only report the narrative that you want to get the reactions that you want while still not being false (however its not entirely correct either)]

I dont know what is in the heart of any of these 3 people so its hard to say what the motivations were. But the media will certainly jump in and yell "racism" any chance that they get. So everyones guess is just as valid as anothers.

In any case starbucks has taken this opportunity as a chance to teach tolerance and company policy. Starbucks isnt in the business of excluding customers(racism not allowed) and they are definitely not in the business of running a board house (paying customers only).

Blame the media bullshit again. CNN didn't make the woman who witnessed the entire episode to post it on youtube. Starbucks is in the business when they have a policy to enforce it equally across the board. That area (Rittenhouse Square) also has a reputation of unequal treatment of people.

 

[bshole]

A PR move born of necessity.

Prior to this incident, Starbucks’ only problem was an inconsistently enforced policy of nonpaying customers gaining access to their facilities. There are enough anecdotes to demonstrate this problem is not a function of race.

For this one incident it escalated unnecessarily.

After all their implicit bias training and all the consultants get paid, they will probably still have a policy issue.

I would say their biggest problem is charging premium prices for an inferior product.

 

[glenn1]

Yep! God forbid they have to treat people equally! If you can't discriminate then why even be in business!

"Treating everyone equally" is sloppy and fuzzy thinking that lacks any nuance whatsoever and completely ignores observed behavior. If someone is aggressive towards other customers the store has the right to remove them regardless of race or other factors. If "treating everyone equally" means that we have to allow militant protesters to occupy a store for hours on end depriving other customers of being able to actually shop, then you've gone straight into cuckoo for cocoa puffs land.

As for the bathroom code situation, again if you're going to ignore all behavioral and other context then you're just allowing mob rule and are going to wreck all small courtesies for everyone in the vein of "this is why we can't have nice things." Hopefully you can admit there's a big difference between someone just entering the store and seeing there's a long line asking for (and being given) the restroom code after saying "I'll order when I get done in the bathroom and can wait in line without having to do the potty dance." Versus someone asking for the bathroom code who's already been there for several hours without buying anything and is refused the code.

 

[bshole]

Don't know which is more hilarious, liberal Starbucks employing racists or conservative Starbucks haters defending Starbucks.

Just in case any one doubts which way Starbucks leans.

Trump supporters vow to boycott Starbucks over CEO's plan to hire refugees

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2...tarbucks-over-ceos-plan-to-hire-refugees.html

LoL..... shit jobs for everybody. Here is a novel idea, how about Starbucks start paying a living wage? This was a non-controversial topic in the 60's when the majority of the jobs did just that. It is a non-starter with the new American elite. The plebs don't even ask for it anymore.

 

[HomerJS]

"Treating everyone equally" is sloppy and fuzzy thinking that lacks any nuance whatsoever and completely ignores observed behavior. If someone is aggressive towards other customers the store has the right to remove them regardless of race or other factors. If "treating everyone equally" means that we have to allow militant protesters to occupy a store for hours on end depriving other customers of being able to actually shop, then you've gone straight into cuckoo for cocoa puffs land.

As for the bathroom code situation, again if you're going to ignore all behavioral and other context then you're just allowing mob rule and are going to wreck all small courtesies for everyone in the vein of "this is why we can't have nice things." Hopefully you can admit there's a big difference between someone just entering the store and seeing there's a long line asking for (and being given) the restroom code after saying "I'll order when I get done in the bathroom and can wait in line without having to do the potty dance." Versus someone asking for the bathroom code who's already been there for several hours without buying anything and is refused the code.

You clearly didn't read the account of what happened with the bathroom codes in LA.

But go ahead keep justifying giving the codes only to white non-paying customers.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would say their biggest problem is charging premium prices for an inferior product.

Not a problem, it’s their entire business model

 

[pmv]

I would say their biggest problem is charging premium prices for an inferior product.

Yup. Starbucks is for people with more money than sense. I'm no posh coffee-snob (kind of like wine, for the most part it all tastes the same!), but their prices are a joke. Can't stand their faux-folksy-cosy decor and image either.

The last time I went into one (20 years ago) they had a sign up saying 'so glad to see you again, we we're worried when you didn't come in'. Left immediately and never went to one again!

 

[Atreus21]

No one said you were a racist because you said you weren't a racist, that's a straw man. What they said, and what is accurate, is that your poll is a useless way to measure racism.

Aren't you saying that people's responses are dishonest, and therefore they are more racist than is being reported? If so, doesn't it follow that even when people say they're not racist, they still are?

It would take an exceptionally stupid person not to realize the purpose of such a question.

Well we always knew the French were exceptionally stupid people.

 

[Atreus21]

Nowhere in my post did I say that everyone is racist until proven otherwise. Nor have I ever suggested that. If that's how you honestly interpreted it, you seriously need to go on a basic reading comprehension course.

It seems to me a logical implication of the assertion that respondents were being dishonest in their answer to the survey question.

While the survey asked a question that is easily answered, it's not a question that is likely to be truthfully answered because such a question was obviously constructed to try and ascertain whether someone is racist in as least veiled and simple a fashion, and thus is rather easily seen through.

It apparently eluded France and, to a lesser extent, Italy.

 

[mikeymikec]

Aren't you saying that people's responses are dishonest, and therefore they are more racist than is being reported? If so, doesn't it follow that even when people say they're not racist, they still are?

How about these scenarios:

A racist person who is aware of their bigotry answers yes to the question.
A racist person who is aware of their bigotry but doesn't want to admit it to another answers no to the question.
A racist person who only has a problem with a particular ethnicity(or multiple, but not all others) answers no (who may fall into either of the previous two categories depending how loud and proud they feel about it / don't consider themselves to be racist).
Non-racist people naturally answer no to the question.

It apparently eluded France and, to a lesser extent, Italy.

Which tells you almost fuck-all. All it tells you are the percent of people surveyed would willingly answer yes to the question to a stranger. One could theorise that a larger yes percentage might mean that racism is tolerated to a greater degree in that country, or the topic of race could be more polarised (ie. less racist people 'in the closet').

 

[fskimospy]

Aren't you saying that people's responses are dishonest, and therefore they are more racist than is being reported? If so, doesn't it follow that even when people say they're not racist, they still are?

I'm saying that people sometimes lie to people giving surveys, an ironclad fact that I imagine you would not attempt to dispute. Someone's racism does not depend on how they answer a survey question as remember, the point is precisely the opposite. They are racist or not entirely on their own, the only question is if the survey instrument being used is effective at measuring it.

Well we always knew the French were exceptionally stupid people.

Or maybe saying it carries less of a stigma there. Your own article addresses my criticisms and accepts that they are valid:

Third, the survey question is a way of judging racial tolerance but, like many social science metrics, is indirect and imperfect. I cited the hypothetical about Swedes and Finns at the top of this post, noting that perhaps some people are just more honest about their racial tolerance than others. It's entirely possible that we're seeing some version of this effect in the U.S.-India comparison; maybe, for example, Americans are conditioned by their education and media to keep these sorts of racial preferences private, i.e. to lie about them on surveys, in a way that Indians might not be. That difference would be interesting in itself, but alas there is no survey question for honesty.

Again, I already spelled out why researchers go about this differently in order to minimize this tendency to lie about racism but you deleted that part of my post and refused to answer. Why did you do that, other than not having an answer?

 

[Atreus21]

How about these scenarios:

A racist person who is aware of their bigotry answers yes to the question.
A racist person who is aware of their bigotry but doesn't want to admit it to another answers no to the question.
A racist person who only has a problem with a particular ethnicity(or multiple, but not all others) answers no (who may fall into either of the previous two categories depending how loud and proud they feel about it / don't consider themselves to be racist).
Non-racist people naturally answer no to the question.

What about a racist person who isn't aware of his or her bigotry, who truly thinks he or she isn't racist?

Which tells you almost fuck-all. All it tells you are the percent of people surveyed would willingly answer yes to the question to a stranger. One could theorise that a larger yes percentage might mean that racism is tolerated to a greater degree in that country, or the topic of race could be more polarised (ie. less racist people 'in the closet').

Exactly. Therefore America is among the nations that either (A) tolerate very little racism or (B) have a significant number of racists below the surface. It could be both, however.