Footage of two black men handcuffed in Starbucks prompts police investigation

[pauldun170]

For anyone who might still think that this wasn't racially motivated, the call was apparently made to the police 2 minutes - yes - 2 whole minutes after the 2 men arrived at Starbucks.

"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.'''

https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04...911-call-reveals-cops-called-after-2-minutes/

Rashon Nelson initially brushed it off when the Starbucks manager told him he couldn't use the restroom because he wasn't a paying customer.

He thought nothing of it when he and his childhood friend and business partner, Donte Robinson, were approached at their table and were asked if they needed help. The 23-year-old entrepreneurs declined, explaining they were just waiting for a business meeting.

120 seconds

A few minutes later, they hardly noticed when the police came into the coffee shop — until officers started walking in their direction.

"That's when we knew she called the police on us,"

Yeah.....
Unless there is something missing here, manager has no business working with the public.

 

[jtvang125]

Starbucks needs to either clarify their company policy or create one if there isn't one on what's allowed for nonpaying customers. Cause I sure as hell seen people there that didn't buy anything nor look like they're going to but never asked to leave. I'm guilty of this myself when meeting people from Craiglist and a few transactions took a good 15-20 mins because I was being shown how something worked. Never been approached or asked to leave either. I don't care much for coffee so I avoid this but only do so at the request of the seller. Sometimes they'll buy something after the deal is done but not always.

So what is it? Can you stay on premise even if you're not a paying customer or not? You can't pick and choose cause this is what happens.

 

[Leyawiin]

Its $2.00 for a short drip coffee at Starbucks. Don't be so damned cheap and obstinate. Its a business and a busy one at that. Those two were spoiling to make a scene.

 

[brycejones]

Its $2.00 for a short drip coffee at Starbucks. Don't be so damned cheap and obstinate. Its a business and a busy one at that. Those two were spoiling to make a scene.

Lordy

 

[bshole]

Starbucks needs to either clarify their company policy or create one if there isn't one on what's allowed for nonpaying customers. Cause I sure as hell seen people there that didn't buy anything nor look like they're going to but never asked to leave. I'm guilty of this myself when meeting people from Craiglist and a few transactions took a good 15-20 mins because I was being shown how something worked. Never been approached or asked to leave either. I don't care much for coffee so I avoid this but only do so at the request of the seller. Sometimes they'll buy something after the deal is done but not always.

So what is it? Can you stay on premise even if you're not a paying customer or not? You can't pick and choose cause this is what happens.

Yea methinks the manager was pretty uptight.... controlling. I have run across such people from time to time and I do not like them in the least.....

 

[Brainonska511]

Its $2.00 for a short drip coffee at Starbucks. Don't be so damned cheap and obstinate. Its a business and a busy one at that. Those two were spoiling to make a scene.

Maybe they were going to get coffee when the meeting started. Stop making excuses for racism.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Its $2.00 for a short drip coffee at Starbucks. Don't be so damned cheap and obstinate. Its a business and a busy one at that. Those two were spoiling to make a scene.

Bullshit.

 

[Incorruptible]

Starbucks is private property, If they ask you to leave then leave. Its not OK for anyone to go there and just sit without making a purchase, They're taking away valuable seats from paying customers. Its incredibly frustrating when I go and all the seats are taken yet some people never even buy anything.

The police asked them to leave and they still refused, what did they expect to happen?

If only they were targeted and other non paying people were ignored then this is completely unacceptable.

 

[OCNewbie]

Any theories on why the manager hasn't been fired?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Any theories on why the manager hasn't been fired?

The manager is gone. According to the company it was by mutual agreement.

 

[Leyawiin]

Bullshit.

I see your "Bullshit" and raise you a "Actions speak louder than words".

 

[Victorian Gray]

I see your "Bullshit" and raise you a "Actions speak louder than words".

And it's quite obvious that you don't have a clue as to what happened.

 

[Paladin3]

The manager is gone. According to the company it was by mutual agreement.

Does anyone have a link to what happened to the first manager in Philly? Not the manager in L.A. And something that confirms she is no longer employed by Starbucks, not just moved and no longer at that particular store? Also, was she fired or did she quit. I'd like to know if Starbucks gave her anything to quietly move on.

And here is a link that identifies the Philly Starbucks manager:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...men-hails-from-dayton/SGeo1eaddGNQRrLZ98jdsL/

 

[Paladin3]

According to this article you are probably correct. Notice they don't say the manager was terminated or fired.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/starbucks...-training-121507962--abc-news-topstories.html



I found some interesting older threads at reddit where Starbuck employees and customers were discussing the policy on loitering. Not saying these guys in Philly were loitering but the threads discuss related issues they have to deal with. The loitering policy is enforced differently in different shops and locations. Some shops don't do anything where other shops ask non-paying customers to leave frequently to rarely. They are more aggressive with homeless people, wifi squatters and non-paying customers who just come in to charge their devices.

My guess is that this manager was able to explain why they did what they did based on the loose policy and was reassigned to another store and will be "retrained".

https://www.google.com/search?ei=tz....64.psy-ab..1.1.110...0i13i30k1.0.8iKVhsp3uEo


Some examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/...something_to_stay_in/?st=jg2wxrhk&sh=12d6004d

https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/...out_the_noncustomers/?st=jg2xkzdo&sh=4fa8bf41

I find this way interesting. Seems Starbucks was instructing its employees to ask non-customers to leave, assuming these reports are to be believed. I don't know why this post and aspect of the story hasn't been discussed more. It supports the idea that the manager may have only been following policy.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Does anyone have a link to what happened to the first manager in Philly? Not the manager in L.A. And something that confirms she is no longer employed by Starbucks, not just moved and no longer at that particular store? Also, was she fired or did she quit. I'd like to know if Starbucks gave her anything to quietly move on.

And here is a link that identifies the Philly Starbucks manager:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...men-hails-from-dayton/SGeo1eaddGNQRrLZ98jdsL/

The manager in Philly was the one I was referring to. Sorry, can't find the original stories that I read that in but one was in, I believe, the Philadelphia Inquirer. But all that was said in any of the articles I read was that it was a mutual decision (whatever that may mean) that she leave the company.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I find this way interesting. Seems Starbucks was instructing its employees to ask non-customers to leave, assuming these reports are to be believed. I don't know why this post and aspect of the story hasn't been discussed more. It supports the idea that the manager may have only been following policy.

Or not, as this witness stated:

"Lauren said another woman had entered the Starbucks minutes before the men were arrested and was given the bathroom code without having to buy anything"

http://abc13.com/what-a-witness-says-happened-during-phila-starbucks-arrests/3342444/

 

[Paladin3]

Or not, as this witness stated:

"Lauren said another woman had entered the Starbucks minutes before the men were arrested and was given the bathroom code without having to buy anything"

http://abc13.com/what-a-witness-says-happened-during-phila-starbucks-arrests/3342444/

So, whom do you believe? Was this witness watching to see who was and was not getting bathroom codes before the incident happened, or did she just happen to notice? I'm sure it's possible.

I'm not sure if I'd believe that or not over the several reports of folks claiming to be Starbucks employees who said it was policy. Some of them said they hated the policy.

Possibly the witness could be looking for racism and told a white lie? Wouldn't stamping out racism be worth a telling a little white lie? Or it very well could be legit racism.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So, whom do you believe? Was this witness watching to see who was and was not getting bathroom codes before the incident happened, or did she just happen to notice? I'm sure it's possible.

I'm not sure if I'd believe that or not over the several reports of folks claiming to be Starbucks employees who said it was policy. Some of them said they hated the policy.

Possibly the witness could be looking for racism and told a white lie? Wouldn't stamping out racism be worth a telling a little white lie? Or it very well could be legit racism.

Ok, you can go play this game with someone else bunky. I'm not interested.

 

[Paladin3]

Ok, you can go play this game with someone else bunky. I'm not interested.

Sorry, just pointing out that I don't believe or disbelieve reports automatically. If you give credence to one witness statement over the stories of supposed employees via redit then you should be able to say why.

It's one of the reasons I got out of journalism. Editors were no longer concerned with truth, or doing your best to ferret it out, just selling newspapers. I was often told we didn't have to be sure a story was true because we were only reporting a source's claims. And if the story was sensational enough, the bar for what we would report was far lower.

Some folks continue to believe I have a stake in this argument. My failure to accept as fact that racism was the reason those two men were asked to leave, without any further evidence, has lead many to call me a racist or stupid or even fouler things. It's just not true. I'm only really here to challenge those who are sure it's racism with very, very little evidence.

But, then again, saying your not racist is the sure sign of being a racist to some.

 

[mikeymikec]

Some folks continue to believe I have a stake in this argument.

Most likely because you've failed to look at this topic objectively from the start, as exemplified by: Using a straw man as your opener, demanding the ultimate proof and the lack of it as the crux of your argument, accusing your opponent of racism, claiming multiple times things like 'can anyone do anything to black people and it not be racist', claiming that there wasn't any evidence, and refusing to acknowledge the obvious inferences in the CEO's statement.

The funny thing is, if your stance was simply a preference to assume she wasn't being racist unless some major new piece of evidence comes to light, people would rightly think your argument is a bit weak in light of the currently available evidence, but if you left it there that would likely have been the end of it. I wonder whether that really is the core of your argument, but because you've already stated that you run a similar establishment I wonder whether that's where your personal stake is in this argument, that you're afraid of being put in such a position yourself (a position I would sympathise with, and in your position I would just make sure that whatever policy I run with is one that is easily defended to customers, ie. it has a decent evidence base and the rules seem reasonable to most people, etc), but what you've been coming out with is the kind of thing I'd expect from the average Trump supporter who's claiming that Trump saying "Mexicans are rapists" isn't racist.

Here's the rub: to believe that the employee was being racist does require a small leap of belief as there is no 100% proof that's what happened. A logical inference from what you and others have said is that even if she publicly admitted it, that could be a calculated ploy to try and keep her job for example. However, to believe that she wasn't being racist requires ignoring the circumstancial evidence to the contrary, ignoring the inferences in the CEO's statement, and believing that Starbucks's subsequent actions are also ploys to offset against protest/boycott action; it basically requires one to ignore everything that doesn't appeal to one's personal bias and fill in the blanks with opinion.

While there isn't any evidence base for what I'm about to say, I also think it's plausible that respectability politics played a role in this situation, because neither of the guys who were asked to leave were dressed particularly 'respectably' (ie. if they had been wearing suits I bet the situation wouldn't have happened*), I think it plays to a belief that many racist people have is that say black people are trouble, however guys in suits probably are not.

* - No, I am not suggesting that it's their fault for not dressing more respectably!

 

[Puffnstuff]

If it weren't for the disparate treatment of customers this wouldn't be a situation and nobody would oppose the police arresting a party for refusing to leave the premises. Come on these two had only been inside the store for 2 minutes before the manager called 911.

 

[Maxima1]

However, to believe that she wasn't being racist requires ignoring the circumstancial evidence to the contrary

How long has she been a manager? Has she applied the policy before and how quickly has she asked someone to leave or pay for something? Has she ever applied it to white people?

Maybe it’s implicit bias and not really indicative of negative racial beliefs against blacks. Maybe she just made a dumb and inexplicable decision like Comey.

ignoring the inferences in the CEO's statement, and believing that Starbucks's subsequent actions are also ploys to offset against protest/boycott action

The CEO is talking about implicit bias workshops, so what inferences are you referring to?

 

[Paladin3]

Most likely because you've failed to look at this topic objectively from the start, as exemplified by: Using a straw man as your opener, demanding the ultimate proof and the lack of it as the crux of your argument, accusing your opponent of racism, claiming multiple times things like 'can anyone do anything to black people and it not be racist', claiming that there wasn't any evidence, and refusing to acknowledge the obvious inferences in the CEO's statement.

The funny thing is, if your stance was simply a preference to assume she wasn't being racist unless some major new piece of evidence comes to light, people would rightly think your argument is a bit weak in light of the currently available evidence, but if you left it there that would likely have been the end of it. I wonder whether that really is the core of your argument, but because you've already stated that you run a similar establishment I wonder whether that's where your personal stake is in this argument, that you're afraid of being put in such a position yourself (a position I would sympathise with, and in your position I would just make sure that whatever policy I run with is one that is easily defended to customers, ie. it has a decent evidence base and the rules seem reasonable to most people, etc), but what you've been coming out with is the kind of thing I'd expect from the average Trump supporter who's claiming that Trump saying "Mexicans are rapists" isn't racist.

Here's the rub: to believe that the employee was being racist does require a small leap of belief as there is no 100% proof that's what happened. A logical inference from what you and others have said is that even if she publicly admitted it, that could be a calculated ploy to try and keep her job for example. However, to believe that she wasn't being racist requires ignoring the circumstancial evidence to the contrary, ignoring the inferences in the CEO's statement, and believing that Starbucks's subsequent actions are also ploys to offset against protest/boycott action; it basically requires one to ignore everything that doesn't appeal to one's personal bias and fill in the blanks with opinion.

While there isn't any evidence base for what I'm about to say, I also think it's plausible that respectability politics played a role in this situation, because neither of the guys who were asked to leave were dressed particularly 'respectably' (ie. if they had been wearing suits I bet the situation wouldn't have happened*), I think it plays to a belief that many racist people have is that say black people are trouble, however guys in suits probably are not.

* - No, I am not suggesting that it's their fault for not dressing more respectably!

Are you sure you aren't mistaking me for someone else? You just attributed to me a ton of utter crap I never, ever said.

I never asked for 100% proof. I never said that if the manager admitted it was race that drove her that I wouldn't accept her statement. And I never said shit about the dumbass Trump.

What I have said from the beginning is that lacking reasonable evidence otherwise, I find it easier to believe she was simply following store policy or just needed the tables for paying customers rather than she decided to engage in a bit of public racism and risk her job and safety and start one hell of a holy shitstorm. I can't believe anyone would be that stupid, racist or not. Even if she was racist, to show it so openly and publicly is hardly something anyone with an IQ over 50 would try. Is this what everyone yelling racism wants us to believe?

I can't believe rational people believe it's easier to accept that she went batshit racist in public, than she just needed those tables. As said many times in this very thread, racist folks usually try to hide it. They don't often exercise it in a way that is sure to cost them at least their job.

So, yes, my objective mind would tend to lead towards her needing the table or just exercising a company policy she has been instructed to. I find the multiple stories on Reddit and other place saying the policy does exist at Starbucks more convincing that I do the story of the woman who you cite in your link who may very well be trying to back up video she posted.

All that said, unless I sat down and interviewed the parties involved, it's hard to come to an even vaguely solid opinion on what I believe really happened. So, with my limited info, I believe the easiest to believe story: no racism found.

And on a personal note, I would have to be pretty darn sure before I called ANYONE a racist. Kinda the whole innocent until at least reasonable sure the person is guilty. I wish more folks felt the same way.

And regarding the concessions operation I manage, I have no official policy. I go by what is reasonable. I'm not going to put down in words or otherwise document some set of rules for others to try and skirt. If someone comes in to fuck with us or our guests they are going to be shown the door. If not I will do everything I can to make their stay as pleasant and friendly as possible. It's really up to them how they are treated, but it takes a lot for us to be less than polite and friendly. Not just because it is good business, but because it's the right thing to do and we don't every want to be ashamed of our conduct.

 

[mikeymikec]

How long has she been a manager? Has she applied the policy before and how quickly has she asked someone to leave or pay for something? Has she ever applied it to white people?

Maybe it’s implicit bias and not really indicative of negative racial beliefs against blacks. Maybe she just made a dumb and inexplicable decision like Comey.

Please quote people properly next time. The way you did it means I didn't get a notification that someone had responded to something I wrote, and to others it won't be obvious who you're responding to. I only noticed after scan-reading and a double-take that some of the quotes looked familiar. You're asking a lot of unanswerable questions and then you led to your opinion that maybe it's not racism. Maybe it isn't, which is a fairly obvious inference from the post you responded to.

The CEO is talking about implicit bias workshops, so what inferences are you referring to?

https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident

And third, to reassure you that Starbucks stands firmly against discrimination or racial profiling.

https://news.starbucks.com/press-re...ter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=springfy18

Starbucks to Close All Stores Nationwide for Racial-Bias Education on May 29

 

[Paratus]

Starbucks is private property, If they ask you to leave then leave. Its not OK for anyone to go there and just sit without making a purchase, They're taking away valuable seats from paying customers. Its incredibly frustrating when I go and all the seats are taken yet some people never even buy anything.

The police asked them to leave and they still refused, what did they expect to happen?

If only they were targeted and other non paying people were ignored then this is completely unacceptable.

Look the answer to your question was right above where you asked it!

People always sit at Starbucks without ordering, except these guys who were ejected in 2 minutes.

This post was like the Wizard of Oz and you were Dorthy. What you were looking for was right in front of you the whole time!