http://abc11.com/starbucks-responds-after-video-of-arrest-in-philly-store-goes-viral-/3341937/

By makes sense I mean is absolutely fucked up. White people do this all the time and nothing happens. These people felt threatened so 1/10 of the police force showed up to assuage their concerns. The life of a black man is hard as fuck.

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

tl;dr

Manager to 9/11: Scary black men send a bunch of police
Police: Yall trespassing so you're going to jail'
Black men: ..... Here we go again......

Highly selective swipe:

Outrage is mounting after two men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks, and an eyewitness said a manager escalated the situation by calling police instead of asking the men to buy something or leave.

Lauren, who asked that her last name not be used, shot video of the two men being arrested at the Starbucks just before 5 p.m. on April 12. She said the incident began after the men asked to use the bathroom and were told that it was only available for paying customers, which Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross later confirmed.

After the men had been "quietly hanging out, chatting and waiting for their friend," she said officers entered the restaurant and asked the two men to leave, saying that they would be trespassing if they did not leave.

"The two young men politely asked why they were being told to leave and were not given a reason other than the manager wanted them to leave," she told ABC in an email.

The men told the officer that they were waiting for a friend to arrive and offered to call that friend to prove that they had legitimate business at the restaurant, she said.

At that point, she said several officers began to move tables and chairs around the two men and take them into custody.

The friend for whom the men were waiting then arrived and attempted to intervene, but police told him the men "were not paying customers and thus were trespassing," Lauren recalled.

"The two men stayed calm and did not raise their voices once. Everyone else in the Starbucks, however, was appalled," she added.

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 and that another person in the restaurant at the time of the incident "announced that she had been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without buying anything."​

>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 and that another person in the
>restaurant at the time of the incident "announced that she had
>been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without
>buying anything."​

Worse than the Fox News drones, or the white ethnic 'Howard Stern fan' loudmouths.

That passive-aggressive 'I'm gonna act scared and nervous whenever a black guy comes around' bullshit is pure manipulation and projection of their issues onto you. So fucking annoying.

was at a gregorys coffee today and you know they have that free water dispenser

dude who(m) I passed a block away "begging" rolled in to pour himself a cup of water

Black woman making orders ice grilled him, Latinx man taking orders did not notice him

as a (nosey) observer, I thought the woman was being "extra" with the look

but now I see she could have been warning him

scared YT: "There's a black man walking in the neighborhood, it looks like he is up to no good"
Me: "OMG, does he have clowns???"
scared: "Huh?"
Me: "Yeah clowns are always up to some bad shit. Any midgets???"
scared: "Um, no?"
Me: "Well damn, I was hoping for midgets, fuck. Anyway, we got this. You go hide in an interior room and wrap yourself in a mattress and don't come out until we come get you, it may take hours. But by no means go outside until we tell you it's safe."
scared: "Isn't that the protocol for a tornado???"
me: "YES"(hangs up).

.

and the other night in wallmart i was getting a health bar and a white chick was standing behind who worked there and asked was everything alright and i said yeah and i know what i want and also when you stand like that around me it feels like profiling and also i get uneasy and she bounced with quickness.

all i do is flash money when i go into these places and get out. its really bad out here and these jive sucker turkeys got cameras.

just talk crazy and be real Black with them and they get up off of you

>just talk crazy and be real Black with them and they get up
>off of you

you gotta defend yourself and keep it real. i ain't scurred.

Not rude or anything, just like the CEO does when he walks through your department.

There are Black people in the future

man, that shit is such a powerful message because these wypipo clearly don't want us around

good lord

unless it's a Black site..

white folks hate Black folks.. especially Black men

this came across my timeline the other night, so I was in there. A couple of the people who WERE THERE, including the young lady who took it were saying that the did nothing and white folk were STILL tambout they would like to know the whole story...smh.

I get shocked at the absolute lack of a sense of history some people have


like, back in the day were white people this clueless or played stupid with regards to historical context?


people want peace without doing the hardwork to get there

>
>like, back in the day were white people this clueless or
>played stupid with regards to historical context?
>

They could see 2 people doing the same exact thing and come to 2 different conclusions based on race and STILL swear it’s not racism.

>They could see 2 people doing the same exact thing and come
>to 2 different conclusions based on race and STILL swear
>it’s not racism.


its the blindness

at least back in the day, from my limited knowledge of not being there...but it seems like back in the day racist folks were like "yeah, we DON'T like you..." and left it at that without needing to backtrack it or explain it (I'm aware of the fucked up use of trying to use the bible to back up shit)

It’s like the Black Farmer in Charlottesville who said he doesn’t have issues with the rebel flag crowd. It’s the liberal soccer moms who call the cops when he is delivering his produce to customers every time he drives into their cookie cutter neighborhood.

>like, back in the day were white people this clueless or
>played stupid with regards to historical context?
>
>

of course Starbucks trotted out the VP of whatever... who happens to be Black, to apologize.

I HATE THAT SHIT

She prolly a Barista across town and shit.


I can't front tho.. I definitely wonder who the hell sits at home making these signs and going down to boycott. I give them props but also wonder if someone s paying them to do this?

has been paid. Most of us got up super early on Monday morning to protest in the middle of a damn flood. Some folks had to leave early and hurry to work. Others were able to take the day or half a day off from their jobs. We all work, go to school, have families, and other responsibilities. We simply make time to protest because we care about these issues. Also, protesting is only a small part of the work we do.

do they have a case or nah?

I watched the CEO interview on GMA. He appears concerned about it. I think the toughest part of having a business is managing the people. They can make or break your business...

don’t they have like 28,000 stores worldwide?

but the damage to the brand may force Starbucks to fund their dreams.

isn’t that racial profiling or something...wait is that illegal?
plus they were arrested...

meet me at Starbucks. we might can get something free lol

I don’t think they were charged because Starbucks knew they fucked up and didn’t press bogus charges on them.

From what I read the police asked them to leave and they refused which makes it trespassing.

I’m not a lawyer tho.

Maybe they can file civil charges for being humiliated?

>
>From what I read the police asked them to leave and they
>refused which makes it trespassing.

at that point, dont the cops do an assessment of the situation- hear both sides THEN decide the course of action?

in this case, should they have been arrested?

at a minimum, asked to leave by the authorities... but arrested?

im not looking at Starbucks funny, im looking at the police funny, like they couldn't assess the situation and realize these men have some civil liberties that are being violated but they just went along with the starbucks side of the situation?

1) am i over simplifying ?
2) is that they whole point of the outrage? they were arrested by the police without so much of a warning?

and they refused

Not sure if that’s on the police but it sure seems like they could’ve escorted them out or once outside just told them to keep it moving.

It's private property. If that manager is running that shop, he/she can ask anyone to leave for any reason. The police asked the men to leave Starbucks at the request of their manager and the men refused. From a legal standpoint, they were trespassing for remaining in Starbucks after being asked to leave.

Like someone said in this post, it's the optics that are gonna kill Starbucks. I don't drink coffee so I've only ever been in a Starbucks a couple times with the lady. But don't they tend to have people camped out for hours, using the wi-fi and nursing a single cup of coffee?

The story is that these men weren't doing anything offensive or disturbing. Its apparent that he/he picked them because they were big, scary black men and that's why she asked them to leave. If this is how Starbucks treats people (which they are legally allowed to do), they're gonna get slaughtered in the court of public opinion.

I see you mentioned that you dont go into starbucks very often
neither do I, but I've gone enough to know
that management dont really give 2 fucks about anyone sitting in a corner doing nothing in a Starbucks.

I think they are trying to use that as a narrative to cover their ass, but that narrative sort of proves them to be discriminatory.

They really asked them to leave because they didnt buy anything?

lol Starbucks got the business practices of hood corner stores now?
(both are rooted in racism)

>that management dont really give 2 fucks about anyone sitting
>in a corner doing nothing in a Starbucks.

From what I've heard, this is their whole thing. Folks set up and sit in there for hours.

>I think they are trying to use that as a narrative to cover
>their ass, but that narrative sort of proves them to be
>discriminatory.

This is what's going to kill them. Whatever half-ass reason the manager is gonna give for wanting these guys gone is going to be discriminatory as hell.

I'm not familiar enough with the story to know if the manager personally asked them to leave. I thought she had denied them access to the restroom or something. Either way, the cops showed up and asked them to leave and they refused. That's trespassing. But trust me, I absolutely see that this whole scenario is weak and obviously racist as hell.

implemented in certain Starbucks in certain areas. In suburban areas and college towns certain people are allowed to post up in a Starbucks all day without purchasing anything and nobody bats an eye.

Also in certain major urban areas that have a large homeless population you can't just have a gang of homeless people posted up in and around your business and running off paying customers so those folks are usually asked to leave and if they don't law enforcement does get involved.

Now those 2 brothers in Philly didn't not appear to be homeless and an over-anxious manager obviously made a bad judgement call.

because there are all types of folks just posting up.

I also remember Case One asked about chillin in a Starbucks and using their WiFi without buying anything and folks in here were all “nah, gotta buy something”

but plenty of folks meet up at Starbucks or even have interviews at Starbucks. Only way this should be an issue is if paying customers can’t sit because you are lamping for hours.

It’s fucked up because I bet the next time they ask a white person to leave it will be the first time.

>I see you mentioned that you dont go into starbucks very
>often
>neither do I, but I've gone enough to know
>that management dont really give 2 fucks about anyone sitting
>in a corner doing nothing in a Starbucks.
:
1: depends on location
2: have you really loitered without buying anything in enough starbucks to have any clue how they deal with ppl who don't buy anything, or are you just assuming those ppl you always see in the corner didn't buy something? A lot of ppl buy something, finish, and linger, which most places are fine with.


>They really asked them to leave because they didnt buy
>anything?
:
How is that so hard to believe? This is a normal expectation pretty much everywhere. I've never felt like I had a right to camp out in someone else's business without buying anything. I expect to be asked to leave in a situation like that.

>
>
> It's private property.
see, the private / public property never crossed my mind.



If that manager is running that shop,
>he/she can ask anyone to leave for any reason. The police
>asked the men to leave Starbucks at the request of their
>manager and the men refused. From a legal standpoint, they
>were trespassing for remaining in Starbucks after being asked
>to leave.
>

and right there... if that were explained to the police and it was determined that the men, in fact, did nothing wrong, dont the police have to enforce people civil rights.. aint that their thing.





> ........ But don't
>they tend to have people camped out for hours, using the wi-fi
>and nursing a single cup of coffee?
>
EXACTLY.


no way saying these men are at fault for anything- I generally follow that rule of thumb if i know im camping out at a coffeeshop, I buy the least expensive thing to avoid any conflict with the management.



> The story is that these men weren't doing anything offensive
>or disturbing. Its apparent that he/he picked them because
>they were big, scary black men and that's why she asked them
>to leave. If this is how Starbucks treats people (which they
>are legally allowed to do), they're gonna get slaughtered in
>the court of public opinion.

agreed.

I asks myself what would I do...probably would have left when asked. That’s me tho.

It’s tricky and I understand both sides. Since the brothers refused I think the cops did what they were suppose to do.

i most likely would have left.

salty as fuck.... perhaps i would have said some words, but i would have left.

If i know i did NOTHING wrong, I might have called the cops myself.

>If i know i did NOTHING wrong, I might have called the cops
>myself.
>
>

I need to go read more about the story...

what part of town were they in...white?

back before their entire world domination.

its not as if their profit margins would take a hit if these two black men never ordered anything and used the bathroom....

but the cops not saying no, you might want to reconsider these patrons are not harming youre store.

its 2018 we cant do anything. <--- i need for that memo to drop in my inbox and/ or timeline otherwise..... im missing shit on the daily.

>what part of town were they in...white?

Still, that area (Rittenhouse Square-ish) has all sorts of folks wandering through. It is still downtown.

This is probably 99% on that power-tripping barista that called the cops.

>But don't
>they tend to have people camped out for hours, using the wi-fi
>and nursing a single cup of coffee?
:
Definitely, but can you imagine how ridiculously swamped and uncomfortable those places would be if they had a policy of allowing people to camp out WITHOUT buying anything?

and in that Beyonce post :-)

noticed his presence is missing.

I don't have all the details but, one of the bad guys here made a post that sparked conversations from way back and things got ugly...

I stopped following the post because i didn't like how it was going...

I guess even more so, when you've had a similar experience.

oddly, I also take delight in these type of stories, because I know they prove how idiotic anyone using the term "post-racial" is.

I wonder if folks of the MAGA persuasion will go out and support Starbucks even more as result of this. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

sounds like a target demographic

My homey summed it up for me when he said this:

I don't really support Starbucks but did Starbucks have a corporate policy or culture of mistreating black customers, patrons or whatever?

I still don't go to Denny's or Cracker Barrel because their discriminatory policies came from the top down..But doesn't all the blame really need to be placed on the bigoted manager who called the police and more importantly the COPS who should no better than to enforce a store owners racist instincts?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

to stay inside their premises against the store owners wishes?

Those dudes should not have been arrested either way.

it's because they refused when the cops requested that they do.

I think of it like this...

There's a stranger on my lawn and I call the cops. While the stranger may not be doing any harm...as the owner of the property want him removed. whatever the personal opinion of the cops are...doesn't matter. Their duty is solely to enforce the law. Let's say the cops go up to the stranger and say...

"Look man, we no the homeowner is being an asshole but you have to get off his lawn" The stranger says "no. I'm not leaving"

what's the cop suppose to do?

Here is how this would have played out in a non-racist, well-trained police normal world.


Manager: Cops could you asked those people to leave?
Cops: Did you ask them to leave?
Manager: No.
Cops: Why do you want them to leave?
Manager: Because they are sitting and they haven't ordered anything
Cops: But don't you allow other people to sit here without ordering anything?
Manager: Yes.
Cop: Well why do you want them to leave?
Manager: Um, because they are black and scary looking?
Cops: Well we can't enforce your racist desire to remove them from the store, so we can't help you.



>to stay inside their premises against the store owners
>wishes?
>
>Those dudes should not have been arrested either way.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

once the stores says they are trespassing...they are

once a crime is being reported...police are obligated to at least try and enforce the law...that's why they asked them to leave instead of just arresting them

this is all on the manager/employee that wanted them to leave

your ideal would be ideal in these situations but it's tricky

to em or it wouldn't be there 'thing' rubbing shoulders with their adversaries

http://www.complex.com/life/2018/04/video-appears-to-show-black-man-being-denied-access-to-starbucks-bathroom?utm_campaign=complexmag&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_content=link_post

Again, lol I've been denied bathroom access for not buying something too many times to think this only happens to Black dudes, but if she's letting a bunch of white ppl use the bathroom without paying and denying anyone black, and this isn't an extremely anecdotal moment with other factors that aren't elucidated in his own brief video, then yes, that's fucked up.

And we all know racism and profiling exist, so it's well within the realm of possibility.

.

I feel like I must be missing a detail in this particular story, I have admittedly only skimmed, so please fix any blanks but...

When i go into a coffee shop or similar place of business, I generally expect to be asked to leave if I don't buy anything, and I've been denied use of the bathroom plenty of times...especially in the city, but it happens often in the suburbs as well (which i think is often super petty on their part, leading to many rants after I've left, but its commonplace, and its their perogative).

And truthfully, while I think the bathroom rule is often foolish (depending much more on the physical location of the store than the brand name), I find it universally tacky as fuck to camp out in someone's shop without buying something.

Every time I've been denied a bathroom without being a customer or asked to buy something or leave, I've complied (either leaving or buying something -- these policies are such a ubiquitous and expected part of life in America and elsewhere...sometimes you get lucky and they don't care).

I need clarification: Did the staff/manager secretly call the cops without ever first asking them to buy something or leave? When the cops came, were they given a chance to choose? Or did they think they were fine, looked up, and suddenly some cops were randomly cuffing them? Did they buy something and I'm here thinking this is a story about dudes who didnt?

to leave because of the "normal policy."

"All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing."

See reply 63 for another example of the "normal policy"

And only the black guys were asked to leave? The whites who didn't buy anything were allowed to stay? If that really happened like that, then wow...but also wow @ all these ppl camping out without buying anything.

>And only the black guys were asked to leave? The whites who
>didn't buy anything were allowed to stay? If that really
>happened like that, then wow...but also wow @ all these ppl
>camping out without buying anything.

lol wow ? You know camping out is not new or limited to coffee shops.

multitudes of ppl camping out in someone's business *without buying anything* sounds crazy to me. That shit is rude as hell.

the profiling ?


>multitudes of ppl camping out in someone's business *without
>buying anything* sounds crazy to me. That shit is rude as
>hell.

More highlights you missed.


"The two young men politely asked why they were being told to leave and were not given a reason other than the manager wanted them to leave," she told ABC in an email."


"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 and that another person in the restaurant at the time of the incident "announced that she had been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without buying anything."

Fwiw, using a bathroom isn't the same as camping out, and that other woman who had been there for hours without buying anything, did she buy something at the beginning? I know several spots who make it very clear you can hang out as long as you want as long as you buy something first.

But I'm only even persuing these questions because you're still trying to prove it to me with iffy examples, after I already believed you 2 replies ago and said wow, because if that's the case, it's fucked up. The fact that I'm also kind of taken aback by how many ppl are doing that without buying is an aside which shouldn't take away from it being fucked up that only the black ones are confronted about it.

>Fwiw, using a bathroom isn't the same as camping out,

So if someone uses the bathroom and then they hang around without buying anything it's not camping out. ok

and
>that other woman who had been there for hours without buying
>anything, did she buy something at the beginning? I know
>several spots who make it very clear you can hang out as long
>as you want as long as you buy something first.
>

lol doesn't make a difference if she did buy something, others didn't and store policy has to apply to everyone.

>But I'm only even persuing these questions because you're
>still trying to prove it to me with iffy examples, after I
>already believed you 2 replies ago and said wow,

Not really trying to prove it, just testing to see how far you will go to explain it away. You don't believe it was profiling which was obvious from the start when you said you skimmed the article.


because if
>that's the case, it's fucked up. The fact that I'm also kind
>of taken aback by how many ppl are doing that without buying
>is an aside which shouldn't take away from it being fucked up
>that only the black ones are confronted about it.

Yeah the camping thing is only a surprise to someone who lives in a cave or under a rock. None of these business are going to shut down because of "camping out" so your whole how dare people do that rhetoric, is hard to believe or take serious.

>>Fwiw, using a bathroom isn't the same as camping out,
>
>So if someone uses the bathroom and then they hang around
>without buying anything it's not camping out. ok
:
Hang around? Yes that's camping out. Using the bathroom isn't.


>lol doesn't make a difference if she did buy something, others
>didn't and store policy has to apply to everyone.
:
So we can confirm others didn't? Or is her account of her own lengthy stay the proof that others didn't? Again, if they were actually seeing all these white ppl camping out without patronizing and had no problem with it, and then used it as an excuse to get he black guys out, that's mindblowingly fucked up.

you really think every white person who goes to starbucks buys something before using the bathroom or camping out?

really?

you think that highly of your people?

>you really think every white person who goes to starbucks
>buys something before using the bathroom or camping out?
:
No I don't. But I also assume that shops don't like it, and if staff notices them, they'll probably be asked to leave.

I never said "white ppl.dont do that, black ppl do that"

I'm pretty sure it happens often... I'm just like "wow smh" at the ppl who do. And I kind of doubt it's as ubiquitous as is being suggested in here, like it's just a thing everyone does.

you keep acting surprised but literally go to any starbucks and it's like people's 2nd offices

sometimes people buy shit but sometimes they go in for a little meeting and bounce

the pushback to your "wow" or "tacky" is that it's pretty much STANDARD AS FUCK and you seem to want video evidence of something that is STANDARD AS FUCK

i'm sure you can see how that would be construed as ignoring the actual issue here

>you keep acting surprised but literally go to any starbucks
>and it's like people's 2nd offices
>
>sometimes people buy shit but sometimes they go in for a
>little meeting and bounce


He knows. Everyone knows.

comments.


>So we can confirm others didn't? Or is her account of her own
>lengthy stay the proof that others didn't? Again, if they were
>actually seeing all these white ppl camping out without
>patronizing and had no problem with it, and then used it as an
>excuse to get he black guys out, that's mindblowingly fucked
>up.
>
>
>

We can't confirm you expect the same when you go into a coffee shop and you don't buy anything or that you comply if asked to leave.

Can't raise the bar for black men who are profiled.

Every one I've ever been to it's been totally fine to post up and shoot the shit.

This is in NC. It may be different elsewhere though.

This isn't like one or two coffee shops...this is most coffee shops and similar establishments that I've been to.

As you alluded, maybe different parts of the country are different. I'm from New England. Using a place of business for their space and wifi without patronizing them does not fly...unless its crowded and they don't notice you, which I'm sure some ppl frequently take advantage of.

I will try to use bathrooms without buying something if it's a major chain (I feel like an ass doing that at a mom and pop place). Success with chains depends on the location, even within the same company. For instance, Dunkin Donuts bear my job, it's easy...Starbucks by the cinema I saw TFA at, no prob. Dunkin Donuts by my sister's storage unit, not allowed, nor is the D&D or Starbucks by the place I used to work in downtown Boston. I remember being pissed because I had to go, had no money, and couldn't find anywhere on that block who'd let me use a bathroom. Too busy.

>I feel like I must be missing a detail in this particular
>story, I have admittedly only skimmed, so please fix any
>blanks but...



Translation:
I'm gonna be a that (white) person who finds a way to justify mistreatment of Black people even if I have to completely overlook the details of the story to do it. Here goes...

To clarify some shit for me in a discussion about it, because what I'm getting from the way ppl are talking about it, it doesn't make sense that they'd just call the cops out of the blue and the cops would just arrest them without ever there being a discussion about buying something or leaving. And if that's what happened, the staff and the cops ar do are way out of line, but it just sounds so over the top that I have to wonder if they simply refused to leave when asked to buy something or leave.

>because
>what I'm getting from the way ppl are talking about it, it
>doesn't make sense that they'd just call the cops out of the
>blue and the cops would just arrest them without ever there
>being a discussion about buying something or leaving. And if
>that's what happened, the staff and the cops ar do are way out
>of line, but it just sounds so over the top that I have to
>wonder if they simply refused to leave when asked to buy
>something or leave.


And even if that's the case, you're not asking why they'd be the only non-paying customers asked to leave in Starbucks where people come in and have meetings all the time w/o paying for anything, setup laptops and do homework and all kinds of stuff w/o paying, or why white customers who didn't pay weren't also asked to leave.

Your line of questioning lends itself to justifying the mistreatment. It's also been a whole day, and you still haven't managed to find any info on this. Lurkmode gave you the reasons why it's blatant racial discrimination, and you still stuck to your guns.

The general statement of "black ppl catch less leniency with rules than white ppl" is a hard truth that I don't believe can be credibly argued against.

So is the general statement that the rules typically apply to everyone, with occasional exceptions, which almost never go to black men.

The question of whether or not these individual people are guilty of that seemed a bit less obvious, a bit iffier.

It's like you're saying the fact that I'm not convinced Jack raped Jill means I don't think men rape women. Or the fact that I'm not convinced OJ did it means I don't domestic abuse and murder exist.

>The general statement of "black ppl catch less leniency with
>rules than white ppl" is a hard truth that I don't believe can
>be credibly argued against.
>
>So is the general statement that the rules typically apply to
>everyone, with occasional exceptions, which almost never go to
>black men.
>
>The question of whether or not these individual people are
>guilty of that seemed a bit less obvious, a bit iffier.



Because you choose to ignore and discount the details of the story.




>It's like you're saying the fact that I'm not convinced Jack
>raped Jill means I don't think men rape women. Or the fact
>that I'm not convinced OJ did it means I don't domestic abuse
>and murder exist.


Ah, so you think someone planted evidence of discrimination on the manager, the white people saying they weren't discriminated against are long-time racists out to get white managers, or that there's a high exoneration rate of white managers who discriminated against Black customers in stores. Now you just sound ridiculous.

asses right at a table wit their laptop and commence to internetting without even lookin at the line for coffee

hell Panera Bread too

white guy got the bathroom code not having to buy anything

black guy was told he had to buy something

instead of just entering the bathroom when the white guy exited, he chose to make a scene and put a camera on a barista

my thing is who's to say she was the one who gave the white guy the code

also there's a mall across the street with public restrooms. I think he was just looking for a reason to give Starbucks hell

Don't do the Kevin Hart thing.

"Let's make one thing very clear....This is not a boycott @Starbucks situation....This is horrible management. The manager on duty was wrong. It's that simple...That's who needs to take responsibility for this wrong doing," Hart tweeted." = Kevin Hart

I will address your ignorance professionally…I have no obligation or relationship with @Starbucks 1st and foremost. @hm problem came from the top which gave reason for the reaction to that situation. This problem comes from a bad hire. The person was wrong not the brand. https://t.co/kSA0wCgss4

— Kevin Hart (@KevinHart4real) April 15, 2018

whether KH likes it or not your employees represent the company so even if you fire them you still have to deal with the fall out from the public.

Especially if others come forward and tell their stories and it's more than 1 incident.

this follow up near where I live, I think dude was trying to capitalize on a moment

he must not have had to use the restroom too badly if he had time to create an issue with other restrooms not far away

didn't give the code to the white guy before he bought something.

>this follow up near where I live, I think dude was trying to
>capitalize on a moment
>
>he must not have had to use the restroom too badly if he had
>time to create an issue with other restrooms not far away

the barista he confronted said "I didnt give him the code", if Im to take her at her word, maybe someone else did

>the barista he confronted said "I didnt give him the code",
>if Im to take her at her word, maybe someone else did

If she didn't give the white guy the code, it's even worse because she is the manager. I can't take her at her word. This is a pattern going back to 2009 at other Starbucks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-arrest-builds-on-exclusion-problem-2018-4

https://twitter.com/Kate_H_Taylor/status/985892575197450242/photo/1

Simon visited more than 400 Starbucks locations while researching the book, which was published in 2009. As he spent hundreds of hours in Starbucks, he realized different customers received different treatment, with the bathroom policy acting as a key example.

Simon writes:

"To use the bolted bathrooms, you had to ask for a key. This seemed to be no problem for people wearing suits and expensive ski jackets or white college professors like myself. We ask for the key, no questions asked. But for the homeless and for people of color, especially unattached men, things aren't so simple and easy. Several times I have seen African-American men go up to the counter for the key. Giving the man the once-over the manager or the shift supervisors hesitates and says, 'Have you bought anything? The bathrooms, you know, are for customers only.'"

Philadelphia locations, specifically downtown. As result, black folks are regularly subject to arrest or some form of police harassment/violence. This is not the first time this has happened, nor is this the first time folks have protested Starbucks in Philly. The main difference is that these brothers weren't homeless or without resources to fight back. It was actually one of the major targets of the black brunch movement in Philly a few years ago.

It's kinda crazy to come to okp and see folks who used to be radical af copping pleas for corporations and the cops.

have a bathroom policy.

it's usually to discourage the homeless but I'm sure they rarely deny white folks who ask to use the bathroom without buying anything

Because Ive been denied bathroom at several Starbucks and Dunkins. Anywhere with a lot of pedestrian traffic and little to no parking lot is usually going to be a no-go.

I'm sure sometimes someone will luck out and get a staff who feels bad for them or lost track and thought they ordered or something, but it's not normal.

you are doing a good job of being the sterotypical white dude who has experienced every injustice Black and brown folks face to show it's not racial or bias

you're being singled out in ways in which you're not, when overall the world has in fact singled you out in many fucked up ways, so it becomes like a confirmation bias thing.

Being denied bathroom in places with a policy is the norm, not the exception.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f6fbad2d79df9c73a440b3ce72ae64ea/tenor.gif?itemid=5860429

typical. Now a white man is going to tell us when and what we should get upset over.

white people are amazing

a black man walks into the establishment.

Now you said it's rare for that bathroom policy to apply to a white person. I'm telling you it's the norm. That's not telling you how to feel or doing anything other than speaking reality.

>you're being singled out in ways in which you're not, when
>overall the world has in fact singled you out in many fucked
>up ways, so it becomes like a confirmation bias thing.


Now Black people are just being crazy and making up stuff iyo, yet you wanted to act like I was just talking out of my ass when I said this is where you were going lol. You're saying 'this doesn't happen to you as much as you think it does' so we need your superior white logic to enlighten us. LOL.
I would say you don't realize how much this happens to Black folks, but I think you do. All that "no white t-shirt" stuff, "no jeans", you name it, it only applies to us in certain places. You know this, but ignoring it is part of being Team White Supremacy.

Agreeing the problem exists is different from agreeing with every citation of an instance of said problem. This is not hard to parse. It's kind of important base level nuance for living a rational life.

I'm on the fence about the specific situations being discussed, and I know from decades of life experience that his claim that it rarely happens to white ppl is false.

Your larger general concern is actually real enough to where it can be proven without relying on falsehoods.

.

Federal (and many state and city) laws prohibit public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

A public accommodation, including restaurants and coffee shops, can't ask people to leave or otherwise discriminate simply because they are black.

Folks on facebook forgetting the whole civil rights movement and lunch counter sit-ins business.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

At least not on here. Obviously stores have a right to ask non-customers to leave, but if they're deliberately singling out only the non-customers who are black while knowingly allowing white non-customers to stay, that's very alarming.


>Federal (and many state and city) laws prohibit public
>accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race,
>color, religion, or national origin.
>
>A public accommodation, including restaurants and coffee
>shops, can't ask people to leave or otherwise discriminate
>simply because they are black.
>
>Folks on facebook forgetting the whole civil rights movement
>and lunch counter sit-ins business.
>
>
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

This is taken from the second post in this thread:

"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 and that another person in the restaurant at the time of the incident "announced that she had been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without buying anything."​

>At least not on here. Obviously stores have a right to ask
>non-customers to leave, but if they're deliberately singling
>out only the non-customers who are black while knowingly
>allowing white non-customers to stay, that's very alarming.

^^^This is exactly what all the fuss is about. The white people in the Starbucks have confirmed that this is what they see it as all about.

It's discriminatory. Afro_girl also just chimed in that it's been a long standing practice.

that if that's the case, shame on them for that...but those examples (the woman who gets to use the bathroom, and the woman who got to linger for a long time without specifying whether she bought something at the jump...and also not acknowledging the common difference in leniency in those type.of situations when it comes to women compared to men) aren't very good examples.

But it seems like examples might be starting to pile up, which begs the second question: who are all these millenial employees making chump change agreeing to knowingly act out racial bias for their corporate overlords? If a boss asked me to do that, I'd be like "say what?" No fucking chance. And I believe that's most ppl...at least most ppl under 50

But my above reply was a specific response to the claim that ppl in here are suggesting an establishment should be able to kick out or deny anyone they want based on race, etc.

The question is based on being a customer or not.

>But my above reply was a specific response to the claim that
>ppl in here are suggesting an establishment should be able to
>kick out or deny anyone they want based on race, etc.
>
>The question is based on being a customer or not.

But some people are saying 'for any reason' (maybe not in here but I've definitely seen it on a few news sites). I believe the facebook post netted some of that sentiment as well.

>that if that's the case, shame on them for that...but those
>examples (the woman who gets to use the bathroom, and the
>woman who got to linger for a long time without specifying
>whether she bought something at the jump...and also not
>acknowledging the common difference in leniency in those
>type.of situations when it comes to women compared to men)
>aren't very good examples.

These are perfect examples because the environment is controlled and it's isolated. Regardless if it's because they are Black or because they are men, it is discriminatory and both factors are protected classes (gender and race). If you allow one group of people to do it, you have to allow the other unless there is a logical and legal reason you've elected not to.

>But it seems like examples might be starting to pile up, which
>begs the second question: who are all these millenial
>employees making chump change agreeing to knowingly act out
>racial bias for their corporate overlords? If a boss asked me
>to do that, I'd be like "say what?" No fucking chance. And I
>believe that's most ppl...at least most ppl under 50

I don't think there's a documented policy on whom to keep out but bias is strong...especially racial bias. And in today's political climate, everybody seems to be wearing a badge no matter the age group.

>But some people are saying 'for any reason' (maybe not in here
>but I've definitely seen it on a few news sites). I believe
>the facebook post netted some of that sentiment as well.
:
Ok, I'm not too surprised by this unfortunately. There is still some of that sentiment clinging to the corners of society, albeit not mainstream. I've definitely heard similar things from some libertarian types.


>These are perfect examples because the environment is
>controlled and it's isolated. Regardless if it's because they
>are Black or because they are men, it is discriminatory and
>both factors are protected classes (gender and race). If you
>allow one group of people to do it, you have to allow the
>other unless there is a logical and legal reason you've
>elected not to.
:
Again, just to be clear, I'm not denying it may have been about race. If it was about gender tho, I mean you're right, but it's something I guess I've learned to live with idk. My old co-worker (a woman) used to get away with asking all sorts of places for restroom that I'd never have a shot at lol. I suppose I could get indignant about it, but it's such a long held cultural thing all over the world for women to get a little more compassion and deference. In case you're wondering, my job entails spending most of the time on the road or out and about, so this is why it's such a common part of my life.


>>But it seems like examples might be starting to pile up,
>which
>>begs the second question: who are all these millenial
>>employees making chump change agreeing to knowingly act out
>>racial bias for their corporate overlords? If a boss asked
>me
>>to do that, I'd be like "say what?" No fucking chance. And I
>>believe that's most ppl...at least most ppl under 50
>
>I don't think there's a documented policy on whom to keep out
>but bias is strong...especially racial bias. And in today's
>political climate, everybody seems to be wearing a badge no
>matter the age group.
:
Racial bias is definitely strong, but if s place has a no-bathroom policy for non-customers, it's not shelved until a black person walks in. Ultimately, for me it's only the specific cases being discussed in this thread that I'm on the fence with...it's certainly not the macro fact that black ppl catch far fewer breaks than white ppl. That's undeniable.

Meaning that they can discriminate in the moment. But they run the risk of penalties in the future if the wronged party pursues it.

But in the moment, they can ask someone to leave their establishment if they want. And if the person refuses, that is when the police can get involved to remove them for trespassing.

Am I severely misinterpreting civil vs criminal laws?



>Federal (and many state and city) laws prohibit public
>accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race,
>color, religion, or national origin.
>
>A public accommodation, including restaurants and coffee
>shops, can't ask people to leave or otherwise discriminate
>simply because they are black.
>
>Folks on facebook forgetting the whole civil rights movement
>and lunch counter sit-ins business.
>
>
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

They had an obligation investigate a little bit before removing someone for trespassing. Like I said above, it should have gone down like this:


Manager: Cops could you asked those people to leave?

Cops: Did you ask them to leave?

Manager: No.

Cops: Why do you want them to leave?

Manager: Because they are sitting and they haven't ordered anything

Cops: But don't you allow other people to sit here without ordering anything?

Manager: Yes.

Cop: Well why do you want THEM to leave?

Manager: Um, because they are black and scary looking?

Cops: Well we can't enforce your racist desire to remove them from the store, so we can't help you.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

cuff some dudes without asking questions

>They had an obligation investigate a little bit before
>removing someone for trespassing. Like I said above, it
>should have gone down like this:
>
>
>Manager: Cops could you asked those people to leave?
>
>Cops: Did you ask them to leave?
>
>Manager: YES!!! ITS WHY WE CALLED YOU, WE SCURRED
>
>Cops: Why do you want them to leave?
>
>Manager: Because they are sitting and they haven't ordered
>anything
>
>Cops: But don't you allow other people to sit here without
>ordering anything?
>
>Manager: NOOOOOO!!!!! NEVER THAT!!!!
>

>


this is prolly how it actually went down tho

they're saying the manager did ask them to leave. With this in mind, does that change the role of the cops?

so unless it’s some real shit going down it’s a hoe move

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/starbucks-barista-says-officers-twice-checked-on-man-before-shooting-b99264108z1-258188151.html


"Brandmeyer said two Milwaukee police officers responded to Red Arrow Park about 1 p.m. April 30 after Starbucks employees called the non-emergency police line to report that Hamilton was sleeping next to the arrow sculpture in the park. The officers spoke to Hamilton and walked away without removing him, she wrote.

A Starbucks employee called the non-emergency police line a second time, a decision that Brandmeyer disagreed with, according to her account. The same two officers responded and then told the Starbucks employees that Hamilton was doing nothing wrong."

This kind of situation is generally stacked against youbecause the manager and the police officers likely have a lot of practice legitimately kicking people out.

The manager is going to use legal-speak ("He's creating a public disturbance") because they've been coached to do so by their company or the police themselves and the police officers have likely kicked people out of that store or others like it before.

Unless the manager or the franchise is known to be on some shit or they SAW the bullshit, the cops generally aren't going to try to play Solomon. They're going to get you to move along so they can get back to more important things and, if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with the folks that wanted you to leave.

"..... And if the person refuses, that is
>when the police can get involved to remove them for
>trespassing.
>

once a situation gets to this point, and police = law enforcement are called THEY assess the situation ARENT they suppose to enforce the law? does Trespassing supersede Civil Rights??
if no, then why did the police continue down this rabbit hole
if yes, then why have a policy that allows for arbitrary discrimination?

so these black men were trespassing at a coffee shop so be dammed civil rights??

the problem is individual bias usually takes over.

some people are dicks on a power trip so they go hard.

I bet Starbucks prolly prefers people hang out in hopes they will eventually buy something but its also Philly and white folks in Philly are just miserable passive aggressive assholes for the most part.

so i'll be fake outraged.


and still get my coffee. i would like to go to peets... but their coffee is like drinking boiling acid...

the mom and pop shop... their coffee is inconsistent...

or if someone gives us a gift card.

Any other time I’m going to local coffee shop because it’s cheaper and the lines are shorter.

are black.

It's not two rules in conflict. The rule is you can ask anyone to leave your establishment for any reason, except for reasons that are in violation of Civil Rights Laws.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>
>except for
>reasons that are in violation of Civil Rights Laws.
>

For example, the police do not enforce voter suppression in violation of the Voting Rights Act. They don't enforce violations of free speech. These are handled in civil court, not the criminal system

Use this other hypothetical: Neighbor calls the cops and says I think these two black kids just broke into a house and are stealing something. If the cops ran up on the two kids and arrested them based solely on what the neighbor said, that's bullshit. If the cops did a little bit of investigating and said,

Cops: Did you see them break into a house?
Neighbor: No.
Cops: Well why do you think they broke into a house?
Neighbor: IDK. I've never seen black kids walk through this neighborhood.

Of course in that example the cops should say, "well if you didn't see anything and you have no basis for thinking they stole something, then there isn't really anything we can do".

Now in reality cops don't even do that but if the cops went and talked to the kids and asked a couple of questions, that wouldn't even be doing as much as these starbucks cops did.

In other words, if the starbucks cops went and asked what the two black dudes were doing there and they said waiting for a friend and the cops fell back, then yeah that'd be harassment but it wouldn't have made the news.

But in this instance the cops didn't investigate, the starbucks manager wanted them gone and they become the starbucks enforcer.

2. Which is my second point is that the cops weren't passive in this.

Using your voter suppression example, if there were klansmen standing out front a voters booth it would be the cops job to go and make it safe for people to vote either by arresting the klan (because that sort of voter suppression is a crime) or by escorting voters into the voting station.

But it's not like the cops stood by and watch a crime happen (kick people out cafe because they are black). What the cops did in this instance is the equivalent of helping the klansmen intimidate voters.






>>
>>except for
>>reasons that are in violation of Civil Rights Laws.
>>
>
>For example, the police do not enforce voter suppression in
>violation of the Voting Rights Act. They don't enforce
>violations of free speech. These are handled in civil court,
>not the criminal system
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Thanks for responding.

I would say this situation is a lot more straightforward than your hypotheticals. The owner says they are trespassing.
What is trespassing? Being on someone's property without permission.
It seems to me that whenever the owner makes the declaration that he doesn't want you there, you are trespassing if you don't leave immediately.

The police then come to enforce the trespassing violation. There is no he said/she said or evidence to disentangle. The police are witnessing the violation when they arrive.

I wouldn't say it is within the scope of the police's job to determine whether the removal of the two guys was a civil rights violation.
But it is within his scope to determine if they are in the store against the owner's wishes.

I don't think it does. I may be wrong though

manager's are giving that responsibility by the owner which is why the CEO said the police shouldn't have been called

>I would say this situation is a lot more straightforward than
>your hypotheticals. The owner says they are trespassing.
>What is trespassing? Being on someone's property without
>permission.

It's not tresspassing if it's a public accommodation and the owner/manager/employee is kicking them out because they are black.




>It seems to me that whenever the owner makes the declaration
>that he doesn't want you there, you are trespassing if you
>don't leave immediately.


Not if they make the declaration because you are black.


Now of course it's more complicated because the owner/manager could come up with some other reason to hide their racism but if the owner doesn't bother or says it's because they aren't paying and all sorts of other people aren't pay, then they should use some judgement to find out what's really going on.


>
>The police then come to enforce the trespassing violation.
>There is no he said/she said or evidence to disentangle. The
>police are witnessing the violation when they arrive.
>
>I wouldn't say it is within the scope of the police's job to
>determine whether the removal of the two guys was a civil
>rights violation.
>But it is within his scope to determine if they are in the
>store against the owner's wishes.
>
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>It's not two rules in conflict. The rule is you can ask
>anyone to leave your establishment for any reason, except for
>reasons that are in violation of Civil Rights Laws.

Did they ask to use the restroom and were refused (while other patrons made use of the restroom)?

Did that manager ask them if they were gonna order something?

Did he/she tell them they would have to leave if they didn't order something?

Did he/she specifically say to someone that he/she didn't like those scary, black guys in the shop?

I thought I must be missing something, but the attempts in here to clarify some of it still seek rather vague to me.

But we all know black men are still given extra side-eyes and cut fewer breaks in this society, so that shouldn't even be the issue here. Anyone who disagrees with that isn't paying attention.

I just like to know answers to questions like thw ones you reiterated before I make a judgement on a specific situation.

have the legal right to sue the MANAGER directly in civil court.

sure starbucks has money and legal power - the optics ( like someone said ) are horrible.


BUT the manager, when or how, OR EVEN CAN they be held responsible ??
what is a reasonable real life outcome?


we can wish to the moon some crazy far fetched shit, but real life... does this manager ever get another management position again?

they don't law enforcement sometimes gets involved.

without buying shit....

you guys are way too emotional. This is exactly why race discussions break down...

you tend to side with the establishment more times than not

>you guys are way too emotional. This is exactly why race
>discussions break down...


Better yet you're way too desperate for racist approval, still thinking you gonna conquer their hate and feigned ignorance by loving them lol.
This is exactly why Black folks keep getting burned, because we don't recognize who's against us but pretending to be for us...

I watched how you guys accused him right out the gate tho. It like y'all picked out pieces of his reply and dwelled on just that...

I'm just saying I'll don't like it :-)

and focused on that instead of the other parts?

Sometimes you need to not try to play that part Trin

>I watched how you guys accused him right out the gate tho. It
>like y'all picked out pieces of his reply and dwelled on just
>that...


Did you also watch how he proved me right?
Some of us can see through his pretense... I definitely did.
I'm also watching you fall for his lip service.


>I'm just saying I'll don't like it :-)
>


Yeah I know. I'm still gonna call white people on their feigned ignorance and racism no matter how many Black folks get on their:
http://static3.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1501040.1383114084!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/index_635_390/390-keshia-1029.jpg

It's passive-aggressive and is a way to avoid the actual issue.

The routine includes a hyper-focus on the rules and technicalities, which is what you're doing above and is how cops can justify beating the shit out of someone because he said "fuck" to them or caused some other minor infraction.

The only way to beat passive-aggressiveness is to not engage in that dumb shit, so I don't blame the posters that don't want to engage with you. You're not operating in good faith, and it is glaringly obvious to most here.

without questioning. I just can't be disingenuous like that. I believe in examining a story on it's own merits...and analyzing the accuracy of various claims individually etc.

When someone says "those no-bathroom policies are rarely enforced on white ppl" I know for a verifiable lifelong fact that's undeniably false, and thus I say so. And so on. We can't buttress a good cause with falsehoods and sloppy claims.

The passive aggression comes from ppl who would rather try to attack the character of a person on the fence (regarding a specific incident) rather than actually examine the same questions and make more convincing points about the actual subject.

>you guys are way too emotional. This is exactly why race
>discussions break down...
>
>

Who's emotional ? It's not a discussion if Jon is not honest.

you crazy, Leg's crazy AND boogie crazy :-)

http://static3.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1501040.1383114084!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/index_635_390/390-keshia-1029.jpg

Happens in all echo chambers: left, right, religious, atheist, etc.

I'm a Libra, and even tho I don't believe in astronomy, I've always had an automatic tendency toward being the guy to consider the other side when everyone is screaming in one direction.

Someone has to. Especially when truth gets buttressed with things that aren't true.

I'm a Libra too but one thing you don't do is come into a post with Black folk and try to get them to see "the other side" of things when most have dealt with this shit first hand.

ain't no one trying to hear about the "one time you been pulled over by the cops."

^^^ which is what most white folks do when they hear Black folk talk about the 25th time they were stopped by police over some bullshit that was clearly based on race.

I didn't even know you were white but pretty much all your replies have been chock full of feigned ignorance and/or real ignorance and little has been done to keep it in check on your part

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/starbucks-to-close-all-stores-on-may-29-for-racial-bias-education-day.html

not associated with Starbucks are being used as PR ploys, but I guess if Starbucks makes the call, you have to answer in a sense, right?

I have to think folks on the other side of things are upset Starbucks is spending more time and energy on this matter.

tone deaf
but what do you expect from starbucks?

lol they really think an afternoon seminar is going to fix something that's basically baked into society at this point.
so disingenuous.
just pay them niggas and move on.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/986317228982366211

but they wont

so they don't have to buckle to PR pressure like Starbucks is in this instance. And even is the police are taken to court have have to settle a civil suit, they don't even have to spend a red cent, so they truly loose in that sense either.

especially when Philly got a black commissioner lap dogging for them.....HARD

single out the Blacks"

A work life hack is taking that little trip to Starbucks with the crew



Sure people can go to other coffee places, but they're not as close as goddamn Starbucks always seems to be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFRP7QwlIH0&feature=youtu.be

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Not anyone here. I'm talking about online. Always a "clueless" white guy posting comments about "I don't see how this is about race"


Like 1000's of copies of the same guy, posting the same denial-of-reality bullshit.

the ignorance they display in order to defend this type of shit is astounding.

nobody is boycotting mcdonalds but they been poisoning us for decades.

but you may be right.

I damn sure won't boycott Chik Fil a unless they go extra with it.

but it's just coffee. There are plenty of other places to get cheaper and better coffee in most cities outside of maybe Seattle.

but I damn sure have read a ton of Black folks on some "now wait a minute, lets slow down.. I still have reward cards to use at Starbucks"

its friggin Starbucks not Ruths Chris.

smhlol

just don't eat there. i haven't eaten there in 20 years.

A New Jersey LA Fitness Called Cops On Two Black Men After Reportedly Accusing Them Of Not Paying

https://blavity.com/a-new-jersey-la-fitness-called-cops-on-two-black-men-after-reportedly-accusing-them-of-not-paying

https://www.facebook.com/tshyrad.oates/posts/1935575163119174


As people across the country held protests and organized boycotts against Starbucks, a New Jersey LA Fitness has served another reminder that black people are subject to racist encounters in establishments every day.

Tshyrad Oates shared a post on Facebook on Monday, detailing his recent experience at the LA Fitness location in Secaucus, New Jersey. Oates said that he went to the gym with a four-day guest pass with a friend who had been a member for eight years, and an employee told them they had to "leave or pay," Oates wrote.

"...I explained to her that I just signed in with her with the guest pass. She stated that it was my friend who did not pay (unaware that her manager had already signed him in with his membership pass)," he wrote. "My friend stated to her that he is an active and current member and that his gym tag was in his locker. He felt racially profiled and embarrassed by the harassment of this La Fitness employee in front of other members at the gym. We continued our workout and next thing we know police men show up questioning us on why we were their with no memberships..."



In one of the videos Oates posted, his friend can be seen returning to the gym counter to sign in for the second time, while police officers wait nearby. In the video, the employee scans the friend's gym tag, and his membership pops up on the screen – just as the men had communicated.

In another video, Oates' friend films a man who they say is the gym's manager who can be heard telling them "you're not allowed to film here." Then the supposed manager is seen complaining to the cops, but the officers tell him that "filming is not criminal activity." The officers can be heard questioning the manager about the company's contract and its policy on kicking out people.

The last video shows Oates' friend claiming his gym contract had been terminated on the spot, and a police officer on camera admits he didn't "have the answers" for why it was happening.

"This La Fitness manager who refused to give us his reason to kicking us out, and refused to give us his name stated that I was banned from the gym and my friend’s gym membership has been terminated effective immediately," Oates wrote on Facebook. "This is ridiculous and the last video sealed the deal."

LA Fitness did not immediately respond to Blavity's request for comment.

They refuse to admit when they are wrong.

Shit is infuriating.

That lack of accountability is on SuperSaiyan levels of ferociousness!

...thinking they are actually people, and expect to be treated with respect.


"""
He felt racially profiled and embarrassed by the harassment of this La Fitness employee in front of other members at the gym. We continued our workout and next thing we know police men show up questioning us on why we were their with no memberships..."

In one of the videos Oates posted, his friend can be seen returning to the gym counter to sign in for the second time, while police officers wait nearby. In the video, the employee scans the friend's gym tag, and his membership pops up on the screen – just as the men had communicated.
"""


It's just a simple misunderstanding tho, right?

with a paid membership.


>...thinking they are actually people, and expect to be
>treated with respect.
>
>
>
>
>It's just a simple misunderstanding tho, right?

More of the same.

How dare he bring another Black man in the gym to swear on our good treadmills.

No more using that membership to use the membership.

L.A. Fitness fires 3 workers

www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2018/04/3_la_fitness_employees_fired_after_kicking_2_men_o.html

LA Fitness doesn't want that Starbucks heat.

https://www.facebook.com/LAFitness/

I don't drink coffee myself, so I don't have much of an interest in these spots, but here's a link to an article listing 36 black owned coffee shops here in Brooklyn: https://bklyner.com/black-owned-coffee-shops-alternatives-to-starbucks-in-brooklyn/

I suggest folks throw up links for black owned coffee shops in this thread to spread the positive word.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

April 17, 2018



Mr. Kevin Johnson
CEO
Starbucks Coffee Company
2401 Utah Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Mike Snider and Ziati Meyer’s article, “Furor builds over alleged racial profiling at Starbucks,” USA Today, April 17, 2018 at B1 is of great national interest. My own life is an “open book.” I never saw a racially-motivated incident that failed to get my attention. The Malcolm X law started in 1964 in New York. My public record should speak for itself.

Although the disciplining of attorneys is rooted in secrecy, I am the only attorney in New York’s history who has refused to participate in a secret, disciplinary hearing. A closed hearing would mean a sealed transcript. On the other hand, an open hearing would mean that the transcripts should be made available for public inspection. A certified transcript speaks for itself.

Throughout my years of practicing law, I have never been able to convince Blacks and Latinos, in any case, to establish a war chest for the defense of children, the poor and unpopular defendants. No other lawyers in the United States, including the NAACP and Anti-Defamation League, have had to litigate more pro bono cases.

Lawyers have an ethical obligation to defend the despised, the poor and unpopular defendants from accusatory instruments from zealous and competent prosecutors. Two cases of great interest to me are Mumia Abu-Jamal and Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin. These men were “freedom fighters.” No one should be imprisoned for fighting oppression.

Starbucks alone will be unable to resolve the problems of capitalism and the short-changing of Blacks and Latinos. The problem started in Africa. A defining moment was after the Civil War. This is a problem of the Fortune 500. This problem should have been addressed before the beginning of Reconstruction. See Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall (83 U.S.) 36 (1873).

It would help if someone who has a record of fighting racial profiling would be at the helm, of the Starbucks project, temporarily, to enhance the credibility of Starbucks. On Mother’s Day 1987, the Washington Post featured a magazine article entitled “Mr. Civil Rights in the Courtroom,” which arose after Howard Beach, a pro bono case of racial profiling. You should read it.

You are cordially invited to attend a town hall meeting on this Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at Brooklyn Christian Center, 1061 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, NY. New York has a history of hate. There is room for both Starbucks and New York to become partners in addressing racial profiling, which started with the Malcolm X law in 1964. The more the merrier coupled with the Fortune 500, which was the beneficiary of the Civil War. See the policy of not granting patents to descendants of enslaved Africans after Dred Scott.

There must be goals, a timetable, strategy and tactics. Sometime, a particular date summarizes the essence of the campaign like October 3, 2015. I believe that Starbucks must shoot for a historic date. The time is short but I believe that May 1, has a significant meaning. It is “Law Day.” It can be followed by May 19, 2018. May 29, 2018, alone, will not do it.

Pam Africa of MOVE et al., and academics from Georgia should be in the House. Our first step is to get our “freedom fighters” out of prison. This is a necessary, first step. Our history must be corrected. Botanist brought the seeds from Africa to Make America Great! Slaveholders got more than they bargained for. They seized the best minds of Africa.

I have been doing the work for years that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party should have being doing for Blacks and Latinos; that is, providing a political and legal education. Sis Karen Mason of Atlanta, GA has been assigned to restore my website. It is a treasure trove of information. Starbucks must associate with “freedom fighters.” I will be in Brooklyn at 2:00 p.m. on this Saturday.

Very truly yours,

Alton H. Maddox, Jr.
(“Attorney-at-War”)

generally flat coffee with no body. i don't mess with them anyway.

overblown.

We gotta do a better job of knowing the laws and when folks actually DO have the upper hand on us and move accordingly. Starbitch knew she had the law on her side and moved accordingly. This was a situation that didn't have to be escalated the way that it was.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

>overblown.
>
>We gotta do a better job of knowing the laws and when folks
>actually DO have the upper hand on us and move accordingly.
>Starbitch knew she had the law on her side and moved
>accordingly. This was a situation that didn't have to be
>escalated the way that it was.
>

Some need to do a better job with getting the facts right before they put the cape on. The law is not on her side if she does not apply the policy to everyone.

This is simple.
People are making it more complex than it needs to be.

You making excuses.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

What ?

why? police gonna police when called like they always do.

The real issue is WHY were they called in the first place.

Police aren't the BBB, they aren't going to ask for receipts from other customers. A business says folks are trespassing and want them to leave the police are going to ask them to leave or cuff them if they refuse.

get us hemmed up.

Instead we rah rah behind a fcking Starbucks boycott or whatever???
C'mon fam.
I see more Black folks working in Starbucks than anything else. The company policy is sound. The employee that started all of this is NOT. That's pretty clear to everyone.
The Police are being allowed to skate out virtually unscathed here....

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

and there is video evidence of it happening in other locations too.

This is one of the rare times the police didn't do anything wrong IMO. They weren't aggressive, they asked dudes to leave and dudes refused.

I don't blame the guys for refusing because in principle they weren't wrong.

You should be able to chill at a Starbucks without being told to buy something or leave as long as you aren't causing a disruption.

>This is one of the rare times the police didn't do anything
>wrong IMO. They weren't aggressive, they asked dudes to leave
>and dudes refused.

Nah...they did a TON wrong. This was not community building....which I KNOW that the Philadelphia Police department touts....just like the DC Metropolitan Police and most other urban police forces. They know gentrification causes tension...and they KNOW they're probably the ONLY bridge to easing that tension....yet this is how they respond??

>I don't blame the guys for refusing because in principle they
>weren't wrong.

I don't blame the guys...Hell...in my salad days I mighta done the same. But principle will get you killed out here.

>You should be able to chill at a Starbucks without being told
>to buy something or leave as long as you aren't causing a
>disruption.

Nah, not really. That's already a problem with the legions of laptop users that some coffee shops are finally cracking down on.

Choose your battles.
I guess time will tell what the impact of this battle is....I could very well be wrong...


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

>get us hemmed up.
>
>Instead we rah rah behind a fcking Starbucks boycott or
>whatever???

You skipping over what started the whole thing,the manager profiling.

>C'mon fam.
>I see more Black folks working in Starbucks than anything
>else. The company policy is sound. The employee that started
>all of this is NOT. That's pretty clear to everyone.
>The Police are being allowed to skate out virtually unscathed
>here....
>

Now you jumped the shark. So if the blue lives matter crowd uses that excuse(Black folk are police) does that mean you can't be all rah rah behind holding the police accountable ? The company policy is not sound when it sends mixed messages and it's not applied equally.

that at ALL.

Police that are Black are still Police....and it's still generally....FTP in my book........


>>C'mon fam.
>>I see more Black folks working in Starbucks than anything
>>else. The company policy is sound. The employee that started
>>all of this is NOT. That's pretty clear to everyone.
>>The Police are being allowed to skate out virtually
>unscathed
>>here....
>>
>
>Now you jumped the shark. So if the blue lives matter crowd
>uses that excuse(Black folk are police) does that mean you
>can't be all rah rah behind holding the police accountable ?
>The company policy is not sound when it sends mixed messages
>and it's not applied equally.
>
>


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

It's only by pointing out uneven application of the laws (policies, really in this case) that moves us forward.

and not at the Police?
This is much more a POLICE issue than a Starbucks issue....

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

reason that this happened is because they were Black sway your 'synopsis'

We KNOWN this...
I don't need their appeasement and coddling.
Don't need more "aww shucks, we are sorry" pitty either.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

that's why this is on Starbucks and that's why the manager was FIRED

Moving tables? Calling for unnecessary "backup"?
They escalated the shit outta that situation while Starbitch sat back feeling all vindicated. This incident further highlighted the police problem.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

that was prolly the calmest hand cuff situation I ever seen with Philly police.

Them bamas started calling for backup. Talking about it was GROUP......
Man, they came in AMPED UP....
You don't move tables unless you anticipate bodies being tossed around....
That's the official sign for "Let's DO dis"
Even the non-plussed cat in the background acting all above the fray knew it was time to motivate on when they started moving tables....


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

you trying and failing bruh..

she escalated the situation.

somebody on the dispatch did some funny math to take it to a GROUP on some technicality I guess....

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

I listened but I'm not going back to confirm.

regardless, niggas had a chance to leave and refused. Cops can't do anything but arrest them at that moment.

the problem is sitting in Starbucks isn't trespassing if you are white.

just copped a drink too...or simply rolled out...I mean really... You know what it is when you in the city. There are just plane old vagrants everywhere that WILL fck shit up for everyone....thus we can't have nice things...like bathrooms that you don't have to have a key to access.

>regardless, niggas had a chance to leave and refused. Cops
>can't do anything but arrest them at that moment.

I've seen situations where cops deflate things in an ideal fashion. This coulda/shoulda played out entirely different.

>the problem is sitting in Starbucks isn't trespassing if you
>are white.

Having been in my share of Starbucks staffed 100% by Black folks....I can't really say I agree with this.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

don't do that bruh.. that's the whitesplaining way of defending a company.

My point is it's extremely rare for white folks to have cops called on them for chilling in a Starbucks without ordering something. If they say they are waiting on friends, they won't be asked to buy something or leave.

Now I agree that dudes could left or waited out front and went somewhere else but it's the principle. If you see other folks stroll in, use the bathroom and bounce then why wouldn't you wonder why you are getting the same treatment? We know why... but this is why I don't fault the cops once they came. Gotta charge them with trespassing if they refuse to leave when asked.

like warrants the level of hype. I really feel like it's another media play that we're gobbling up.
There's way more important injustices out here that need to be addressed.

>don't do that bruh.. that's the whitesplaining way of
>defending a company.
>
>My point is it's extremely rare for white folks to have cops
>called on them for chilling in a Starbucks without ordering
>something. If they say they are waiting on friends, they won't
>be asked to buy something or leave.
>
>Now I agree that dudes could left or waited out front and went
>somewhere else but it's the principle. If you see other folks
>stroll in, use the bathroom and bounce then why wouldn't you
>wonder why you are getting the same treatment? We know why...
>but this is why I don't fault the cops once they came. Gotta
>charge them with trespassing if they refuse to leave when
>asked.

True...it's tough though. They coulda at least TRIED....


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

I think it's crazy how folks mobilize so quickly to boycott over this but some folks are about that life.

I could see if there hiring practices were sketchy or they refused to serve Black folk.. but the bathroom policy makes sense in dense cities. I wouldn't want a bunch of random folks pissing and shitting and then bouncing from my biz without buying something.

Their business model tho, it's also for people to hang out and chill so it's a thin line...

but I also find it fascinating how people on my FB timeline that are quick to boycott or slam a company were all "lets wait on this one, I got a rewards card"

prove to us that you've checked the receipts of everyone in here while you're enforcing your "no order, no stay" policy. Oh you didn't do that? Only the brothers gotta go..and they weren't causing a ruckus? Ma'am, have a nice day.

Community Building and shit?
It's obvious they missed an opportunity for that.
Ol girl could have been taught a valuable lesson...instead....she's probably MORE hell bent on keeping black folks in their place now. I feel bad for anyone that's working under her charge in the future.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

she ain't got no job

>Community Building and shit?
>It's obvious they missed an opportunity for that.
>Ol girl could have been taught a valuable
>lesson...instead....she's probably MORE hell bent on keeping
>black folks in their place now. I feel bad for anyone that's
>working under her charge in the future.
>
>"Get ready....for your blessing....."


She wasn't going to learn shit. She'd just blame the cops and everyone else for "ganging up" on and "bullying" her.

Just like dickheads that play on their phone while driving don't learn when honked or yelled at.

Same for people that park by people's houses and blast music in their car.


People with rational minds learn by watching others in similar situations and studying history, not by waiting until they get caught then playing the victim.

The only thing that assholes generally understand and adapt to is pain, and this lady is feeling it now by being fired. Nothing less would have any benefit.

>>Community Building and shit?
>>It's obvious they missed an opportunity for that.
>>Ol girl could have been taught a valuable
>>lesson...instead....she's probably MORE hell bent on keeping
>>black folks in their place now. I feel bad for anyone that's
>>working under her charge in the future.
>>
>>"Get ready....for your blessing....."
>
>
>She wasn't going to learn shit. She'd just blame the cops and
>everyone else for "ganging up" on and "bullying" her.
>
>Just like dickheads that play on their phone while driving
>don't learn when honked or yelled at.
>
>Same for people that park by people's houses and blast music
>in their car.
>
>
>People with rational minds learn by watching others in similar
>situations and studying history, not by waiting until they get
>caught then playing the victim.
>
>The only thing that assholes generally understand and adapt to
>is pain, and this lady is feeling it now by being fired.
>Nothing less would have any benefit.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

of policy was the norm here.
There's a 50/50 chance that you'll get access to the restroom (that has a key policy in place) in ANY downtown establishment without making a purchase. That's just the norm of moving about any major city.

More attention should be focused on WHY the policy is in place and is the norm anyway. Homelessness is a serious issue throughout the US.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Not being allowed to use the bathroom isn't the part that I'm concerned. Them being asked to leave for not ordering (when others in the establishment said they didn't order anything either...and...Starbucks is supposed to be a meeting place) is what's messed up.

and other problem is if they witnessed white folks not buying shit and using the bathroom then the policy isn't being enforced equally.

to handle.
Folks out here putting racial profilling on Starbucks as a company when the issue is with that particular employee.
The onus was on the Police to hash that out. They didn't. They chose to take the ordeal to 100 and appease the manager that called them.
That policy wasn't going to be changed right then and there. If folks present REALLY gave a damn they woulda went over and joined the homies and said "Arrest ALL of us"...
but that didn't happen...
not gonna happen....
yet we mad at Starbucks???


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Starbucks is blamed because ole girl called the police.

You want the police to play judge and jury and hash out who had receipts? That isn't what they are there to do.

They are there for trespassing. If it's true they gave the guys the option to leave and they refused what more could the police do?

You asking a lot of the police and little from Starbucks when they are the ones with staff who act funny style when it's Black folk.

I have no issue with the policy.
I'd venture that the majority of folks simply pay.....or come up with a clever way around by saying "Oh i'm gonna buy something" or something along those lines....
And i'll call B.S. on the woman saying she'd been in there for hours and not purchased a thing. 98% odds that she purchased something when she arrived and maybe didn't buy anything else....

If the police hadn't come in so amped up....i'm confident those brothas would have been more than accommodating. The cops came in wanting a scene...they got one. AND they getting away with making it a scene.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

wasn't no cursing, no loud yelling.. dudes talked at low enough levels that I couldn't even hear the whole exchange.

enforcement of the policy is definitely the problem and that's on Starbucks, not the cops. Which is why they are moving swiftly to get shit in order.

and why is it BS for a white woman to admit she didn't buy shit? White folks are trife as fuck at Starbucks too. Not sure why you wouldn't believe her.

It's usually easy to identify a bad policy... but dealing with enforcement means considering the discretion the enforcer has in the situation.

This policy still kinda sucks though because it requires alot of judgement. how do you distinguish between a loiterer and a potential customer? Someone may not intend to buy anything at first but after 15 minutes those muffins start looking real delicious.

And it ain't like the lack of seating really discourages other customers like it would at a McDonalds, for example. I don't need a seat in the store to enjoy my drink and muffin... everything they serve is easy to eat somewhere else.

I'd bet most (competent) managers only really use it to discourage homeless folks from lingering because they're the least likely to ever buy anything. Beyond that, you don't need that policy to remove someone being disruptive or threatening.

that coffee, tea, hot chocolate starts smelling delicious

their staff the tools/training it needs to ensure that the policies are being applied fairly (with respect to protected groups) any snafu that occurs is on the them.

It's true that the police could've not took it there with the arrest...they have discretion.
It's true that the employee that called the cops could've just chilled out and let the guys meet their business client...she had discretion.
But it's also true that Starbucks write them policies. It is their job to ensure that the policies are being executed fairly.

her whole attitude woulda changed.

She prolly thought another nigga was coming to meet them and was like NOT TODAY BLACK SATAN!!!

and I agree 100%. If you have that policy and you don't enforce it equally.... well, thats a problem.

I disagree tho on the cops. If they tell you that you can leave or get cuffed and you choose cuffs. The fuck else can they do?

>their staff the tools/training it needs to ensure that the
>policies are being applied fairly (with respect to protected
>groups) any snafu that occurs is on the them.
>
>It's true that the police could've not took it there with the
>arrest...they have discretion.
>It's true that the employee that called the cops could've just
>chilled out and let the guys meet their business client...she
>had discretion.
>But it's also true that Starbucks write them policies. It is
>their job to ensure that the policies are being executed
>fairly.
>


If they aren't already.... just to see how they're store managers are handling situations.

https://i.imgur.com/rN21Gsl.gif

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/men-arrested-starbucks-business-meeting-hoping-change-lives/story?id=54578217


The two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks in downtown Philadelphia last week and accused of trespassing say they were there for a business meeting that they had hoped would change their lives.


Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson came forward this morning on ABC News' "Good Morning America" to publicly share their story for the first time.

The 23-year-old entrepreneurs and longtime friends said they were waiting to meet a potential business partner at the Starbucks in Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square neighborhood April 12 when a barista asked them whether they wanted to order anything. They declined and told her they were just there for a quick meeting, they said.

Nelson said he immediately asked to use the restroom when they walked in but was informed it was for paying customers only. So the pair sat at a table and waited for the person with whom they were scheduled to meet.

Then they saw police officers enter the store and speak with the manager, they said.

"I was thinking, 'They can't be here for us,'" Robinson said in the interview with "GMA" co-anchor Robin Roberts. "We have meetings at Starbucks all the time."

They didn't think anything of it until the officers approached their table and told them they needed to leave, they said.

"It was just, 'Get out, you have to leave. You're not buying anything, so you shouldn't be here,'" Nelson told "GMA."

They said they calmly told the officers they were there for a meeting, and Robinson said he even called the person for whom they were waiting. But the officers repeatedly insisted that they leave, they said.

"It's a real estate meeting. We’ve been working on this for months," Robinson said. "We're days away from changing our whole entire situation, our lives, and you about to sit here telling me I can’t do that? You’re not doing that."

The officers ultimately handcuffed Nelson and Robinson, and escorted them out of the Starbucks and into a squad car before taking them to the police station. Both men were later freed and the charges they were facing -- trespassing and disturbance -- were dropped that night.


An onlooker, Melissa DePino, captured the incident on video, which has been viewed more than 10 million times online and prompted protests outside the coffee giant's location on Spruce Street.

DePino, a 50-year-old writer and mother of two, told ABC News a Starbucks barista shouted from behind the counter at the two men to make a purchase or leave.

"They were sitting quietly minding their own business, and waiting for their friend to come," she said in an interview Sunday.

Robinson said police never read them their Miranda rights when they were handcuffed and they were held in custody for eight hours.

"There was no reasoning," he said. "They had nothing. They just kept using ‘defiant trespassing’ as their excuse for putting us behind bars."

The Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment this morning. But Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. said in a video testimonial released Saturday that his officers "did absolutely nothing wrong."

"I can tell you candidly these officers did a service they were called to do," Ross said.

The police commissioner also accused the men of being disrespectful to the officers and said that both were given several chances to leave, but they refused.

"On three different occasions the officers asked the two males politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing," he said. "Instead the males continued to refuse as they had told the employees and they told the officers they were not leaving."


Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson released a statement last Saturday night apologizing to the two men on behalf of the company.

"The video shot by customers is very hard to watch and the actions in it are not representative of our Starbucks mission and values," Johnson said in the statement. "Creating an environment that is both safe and welcoming for everyone is paramount for every store. Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome -- the basis for the call to the Philadelphia police department was wrong. Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did."

In an interview Monday morning on "GMA," Johnson said he will order managers to undergo training on how to spot "unconscious bias."

"I'll say the circumstances surrounding the incident and the outcome at our store on Thursday were reprehensible," he said. "They were wrong, and for that, I personally apologize to the gentlemen that visited our store."

A Starbucks spokeswoman subsequently confirmed to ABC News that the store manager who called police no longer works there.


The next day, Starbucks announced in a statement that it will close more than 8,000 company-owned stores across the nation for the afternoon of May 29 to train its staff on how to avoid "racial bias" in an effort to prevent "discrimination in our stores."


Stewart Cohen, the attorney representing Nelson and Robinson, said his clients have met face to face with the Starbucks' CEO, but it's not enough.

"Starbucks holds itself open as a place for people to meet and to have public conversations; those are words from their website," Cohen said on "GMA" this morning. "The apologies are fine, but what we need to do is have some action by Starbucks with respect to this situation.

"There has to be real and meaningful discussions," he added.

She started the whole thing.

Manager definitely inbounded the ball tho

when I thought they gave them the option to leave.

And their story matches up with the police's story

>
They didn't think anything of it until the officers approached their table and told them they needed to leave, they said.

"It was just, 'Get out, you have to leave. You're not buying anything, so you shouldn't be here,'" Nelson told "GMA."

They said they calmly told the officers they were there for a meeting, and Robinson said he even called the person for whom they were waiting. But the officers repeatedly insisted that they leave, they said.

"It's a real estate meeting. We’ve been working on this for months," Robinson said. "We're days away from changing our whole entire situation, our lives, and you about to sit here telling me I can’t do that? You’re not doing that."

The officers ultimately handcuffed Nelson and Robinson, and escorted them out of the Starbucks and into a squad car before taking them to the police station.
>>


>>
The police commissioner also accused the men of being disrespectful to the officers and said that both were given several chances to leave, but they refused.

"On three different occasions the officers asked the two males politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing," he said. "Instead the males continued to refuse as they had told the employees and they told the officers they were not leaving."
>>

but you right.

they haven't done anything for me not to believe them

https://twitter.com/i/moments/987005953282330629


lol

The more that comes out, the more nonsensical this sounds, the harder it gets to play devil's advocate here.

I still don't understand the mind of the Starbucks ppl who would call the cops over this, or the cops who apparently didn't give these guys a chance to choose, or the "heroic" white ppl who looked good on camera but couldn't just buy a coffee to cover these fellas, or half a dozen other things on this story, but it seems highly doubtful it would have gone down this way if they were white.

2 fucking minutes? No warning? No explanation or choice given? That doesn't even seem real. But apparently it is.

>The more that comes out, the more nonsensical this sounds,
>the harder it gets to play devil's advocate here.
>
>I still don't understand the mind of the Starbucks ppl who
>would call the cops over this, or the cops who apparently
>didn't give these guys a chance to choose, or the "heroic"
>white ppl who looked good on camera but couldn't just buy a
>coffee to cover these fellas, or half a dozen other things on
>this story, but it seems highly doubtful it would have gone
>down this way if they were white.
>
>2 fucking minutes? No warning? No explanation or choice given?
>That doesn't even seem real. But apparently it is.



Your naivete is eyebrow-raising. How old are you?


Looks like we've never met, my name is racism. I'm surprised that your parents never told you about me. What is your name?

and a 3 day waiting period before admitting some shit is blatantly racist.

brought in rape, OJ and called the facts iffy. Suddenly it's wrong now.

I've been persuaded genuinely, through persuasive facts, not just automatically out of some kind of obligation.

To put it another way, if God forbid you were ever brought up on criminal charges, pray you get at least one or 2 jurors who don't just grab pitchforks, but instead treat arguments with a degree of skepticism and ask a thousand questions...especially in the face of ad hominem pressure from the other jurors.

>I've been persuaded genuinely, through persuasive facts, not
>just automatically out of some kind of obligation.
>

Yeah right the "persuasive facts in the original article that you skimmed over didn't convince you, but a Good Morning America interview was enough.

>To put it another way, if God forbid you were ever brought up
>on criminal charges, pray you get at least one or 2 jurors who
>don't just grab pitchforks, but instead treat arguments with a
>degree of skepticism and ask a thousand questions...especially
>in the face of ad hominem pressure from the other jurors.

I've sat on three juries and some them had people like you, pretending and acting.

having a "50/50" (i.e.; ridding the fence) attitude with respect to race based incidents, in this country, is being willfully ignorant and dismissive of all the crap Blacks have gone through and continue to go through.

They would have been left alone

That's why a lot of black folk are so eager to play the token. Feel like they need a non-black chaperone just to go somewhere without being harrassed

looked mature and professional, like they did.

I have a hard time seeing this happening to a couple white guys as clean-looking as these men, after 2 friggin minutes, and with no reasonable communication from the staff or the cops. Just 2 minutes and cuffed.

I could see it if they had habitually held their own business meetings there several times and been asked multiple times in the past not to use Starbucks place of business for their own business without patronizing, but not just show up, wait for a friend, 2 minutes later you're getting handcuffed. Insane.

a Ted Cruz loving coworker back in 2015 when those open carry nuts were flooding coffee shops and scaring ppl. I told her if that was 20 black dudes and 2 or 3 white dudes, ppl would have probably ran out of there, ducked under tables and some "hero" with a gun might have opened fire on them. But because it was a crowd of white guys, the sprinkling of black friends they might have had could blend in, and everyone just remained extremely nervous, not all-out panicked.

She actually seemed to have a brief "damn I think he's right" moment, but immediately defaulted to telling me "you're not taking our guns" (she doesn't have any guns and I'm not trying to take anyone's guns lol)