If Starbucks manager called police and said two customers had just raped her

[EffieBlack]

but when the police arrived, other customers said they saw no rape, would the cops be obligated to arrest the men on the spot based solely on the manager's word, figuring the men could sort it out later and if they were innocent, sue for false arrest?

Or would they be obligated to do more than just follow the manager's orders?

[angstlessk]

1. What in the hell are you talking about?

[Stinky The Clown]

17. She's talking about a VERY VALID point

Have a swell day.

[angstlessk]

18. NOT a valid point, one is a felony, but sitting in a booth is not!

The police were WRONG...the manager has a lot to answer for, but to compare sitting in a booth to being raped is not even comparable!

Ever been raped?

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. I would say dont waste your breath but I do it aLL The time

[Demsrule86]

53. Absolutely...since when can one person send someone to jail when multiple people say

it is not true.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

2. My husband and I were just talking about that

Why couldn’t the police have just asked them to wait outside for their friend? And when the friend actually turned up, why not uncuff, and apologize for the misunderstanding.

It’s the big difference I notice with the police, now that I’ve moved to the U.K. The police are polite and respectful to everyone.

[HipChick]

3. Why was a white woman allowed to stay there, and not buy anything

but not have the police called on her?

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

11. Because of ignorance and racism, of course

My question is why were they arrested? Why wasn’t it easy to see that the manager had overreacted?

[lame54]

14. If only for P.R. sake...

A milk jug can go a long way

[angstlessk]

19. UNCUFF? Why cuff them in the first place?

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

34. I agree, they should never have been cuffed

But once they were, they could have been uncuffed.

The manager was wrong.
The police were wrong.

[MountCleaners]

22. It's not a police issue PERIOD

People wait for people in every Starbucks everywhere every day PERIOD. I see it every time I go to Starbucks. Often the people waiting aren't even having coffee, or they'll wait until their companion comes to order. Seems to be no big deal with most of the managers or with the other customers. Starbucks as a business meeting place is part of their branding. Having the police come or asking people to wait outside is ridiculous.

The Starbucks near me has been said to be on the verge of closing for three years now. It seems busy enough when I go there, so that's probably why it's still open. But imposing strict rules on who can hang out there would hurt business. A full Starbucks is in itself an advertisement for that establishment.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Do we know what conversation occurred between the cops and the victims?

If the police told them to leave and they refused, then the arrest is inevitable. The cops aren’t going to say oh well we tried. So I don’t Blame the cops (in this instance).

I just had the police remove the utility company’s tree cutting people from my property last week. The cops didn’t arrest them. They ordered them to leave. Had they refused they would have been arrested.

That said, I think the men did the right thing by refusing the order to leave. It brought the issue to light (again). I think it was wonderful civil disobedience.

[EffieBlack]

7. Did the police confirm that they were indeed trespassing?

Since Starbucks did not have a "no buy, no sit" policy - and even if they did, it was not enforced - where was the trespass?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. In my experience, you get two warnings. One from the owner and then an ultimatum from the police.

If they showed up and slapped the cuffs on the guys before even asking them to leave then this is even more egregious than I thought.

Typically the police will ask the party to leave so that they, if it comes down to it, are the witnesses to the trespass. They usually just don’t show up and arrest because that would require a signed complaint from the manager Leading to a he said she said about what and how the tresspass took place

[MountCleaners]

24. In my Starbucks no one pays attention

Of course the business end of the store is at the end of a long hallway, and there is no staff in the room at the front where the people sit. But people wait for friends all of the time there. Unless there is nowhere to sit, it's not a problem to wait for someone. There are tables outside, too.

Of course my Starbucks is in a primarily black neighborhood, so go figure. It's also at a mall, so if someone really wanted to loiter, they'd just go there.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. In one of my Starbucks (near me but not one I frequent) they removed the seating to ....

.... avoid the issue of asking people to leave.


Here is a yelp discussion.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/starbucks-chicago-170


This review about sums it up:

Was really looking forward to the redux until I find they gutted it to remove seating. I have more problem with Lincoln Park trixies than I'll ever have problem with a homeless person catching some warmth. Way to go Douchebucks, way to go.

[hunter]

38. In my experience you don't get past the 911 operator.

They tell you your call is not an emergency and you should call the police community service line. They 911 operators can be quite abrupt with people.

At the community services number you get a recording, you get put on hold, then when you get a real person you try to explain the situation in a way that won't have the cops showing up ready to shoot someone, but maybe with some urgency.

Then by the time the police arrive, if they arrive, the situation has already resolved itself, maybe because everyone got bored or had better things to do than argue about a fender-bender or loitering.

Another call to the community service line and they will tell you that you can file a report about your troubles on their web page, or, if you don't have internet access, you can file a report in person at the police station.

I've gone to the police station just to see what that's about. The waiting room is filled with interesting people, like the "Group W Bench" of Alice's Restaurant, and the desk officers sit behind bullet proof glass. You sign in on a clip board and wait for them to call your name.

[crazycatlady]

50. Some establishments have a silent alarm

I know when I worked at banks, we did. This was to be used in the event of a robbery.

I don't typically assocaite Starbucks with robberies though.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

66. I dont know what town of state you live in but a call here to non emergency ends up at 911

Anything that requires police dispatch gets routed back to 911 even if it’s not a life or death emergency. 311 non emergency takes calls for service (garbage cans, street lights etc.)

This comes up all the time at CAPS meetings. 311 doesn’t dispatch police or fire.

Obviously some calls will take priority. We have some issues with not having enough cops to answer calls on weekend nights.

I just had some people removed from my property last week. I asked the guys to leave (tree trimmers cutting limbs unannounced over our cars) and they told me no their manager said call the police if I don’t like it.

LOL. Ok. So it did. I was a bit surprised they showed up as quickly as they did. The cops told them to leave. Done. No arrests.

[Demsrule86]

55. I have to say, I am so sick of kissing Cops asses so as not to get tickets or what have you. I am a

middle aged white woman and I was harrassed by one cop four times in one week...for nothing. His remarks were insulting and sexist. Let's just say it could be a me too kind of thing...I wanted to report him but hubs said let it go. He doesn't want to get involved with the police. We should all fear the out of control police these days regardless of our color. Not all cops are bad, but there are too many who are and others protect them.

[Corgigal]

5. Trespassing

Is a different response, then criminal sexual assault. Any store, or property owner can call 911 about a trespassing, I'm curious on why the store clerks thought it raised to that level. Maybe they thought they were being cased ( cause two black guys in the middle of the day-omg).
If the store wants to press charges, the cops take them out.

[EffieBlack]

8. I agree up to a point

Of course a trespass is not rape. But even in the former situation, the police do have an obligation to ascertain that there is some merit to the charge before placing someone under arrest.

[Corgigal]

9. I read

Wasn't there, they wouldn't tell the cops anything. Might have good reasons, I don't know. I've been with cops on several trespassings, normally they talk to the subject and issue a warning and escorted out. They will be arrested if found on the property the second time.

I don't know why it escalated, but they were released quickly. Normally, not always, people tell the cops what they are doing anywhere, don't have to talk to cops but they can't just let you stand there. What happens if it did end up in a mass shooting, sure low probability, but the property owner has a right to remove.

[EffieBlack]

10. They told the cops what they were doing there - waiting for a friend

And the friend showed up during the incident and backed up what they're had said - yet they still handcuffed and perp-walked them out of there.

And an arrest is an arrest whether you're detained for 5 minutes or 5 hours. And my understanding is that they were detained for 5 hours.

[Corgigal]

12. Depends on what the store owner wanted.

They are the complaint.
The two guys will sue everyone, and I don't know Philadelphia jurisdiction laws, but the big money is on Starbucks.

[EffieBlack]

13. The police don't have to do what the store owner wants if they think no law was broken

But it sounds like these officers never bothered to confirm the men were really trespassing but took the manager's word, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And no one paying any attention actually believes the fact that these were black men had more than a little to do with the officer's willingness to assume they were criminals.

[Corgigal]

15. I don't know the laws

It will written up in a report and available. Lawyers will pull it.

Depends on the laws, they can all be a bit different depending where you are. I doubt it was an illegal arrest, but that's for lawyers to decide.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Once the cops are there the reasons are irrelevant and more suitable for civil courts

and, in this case, the court of public opinion.

Manager says you have to go in front of the cops you are going one way or the other.

The manager, once the friend showed up, should’ve put a stop to the whole process and said my bad.

[EffieBlack]

21. This is wrong

The Philadelphia Police Department is not the private police force of private businesses offering their services to the public, and therefore they are under no duty to arrest people and haul them off to jail solely because a store manager tells them to.

[Corgigal]

37. It's not wrong,

It depends on safety.

Let everyone's sue, and yep if law enforcement wants to cuff you for their safety or yours, that's how it will go down. Doesn't mean it's right. Lucky it wasnt commercial aviation security cops, look what happened to that poor guy.

However, if you want to believe a officer can't cuff, that's fine. I'm aware of it and I warn my Puerto Rican son in law, who steps out of car and to raise his hand. Right? Nope, but they can say, you're not under arrested but I'm going to handcuff you. Called protective custody.

Please stop asking me all these questions, it's the way of the world. Been this way for years and if you want to change the laws, let's get the right people in office and do it. Again, we didn't work Philadelphia.

[EffieBlack]

39. What was the safety risk?

[Corgigal]

41. No idea

What we see, isn't what they will say.

[EffieBlack]

76. It is wrong because thats not how it works

Arresting people is not the police’s only job or even their primary one. They are to keep the peace. Arrests are one tool and, unless they are necessary for immediate safety, they are usually a last resort when all else fails. And that means looking out for and protecting EVERYONE - not just protecting store managers from being annoyed by black men who they think don’t deserve to be in their business establishment. They also are supposed to protect nnocent members of their community from being profiled and harassed.

A police office walking into a Starbucks and arresting two people for ”trespassing” because they sat down without buying a coffee solely on the word of a manager, notwithstanding several witnesses contradicting her, without bothering to find a less onerous resolution to the situation, sucks at his job.

This is the kind of ask-questions-later “policing” that leads to little black kids playing with a toy air rifle in the park get shot dead because a white woman called the police and said a black man was brandishing a gun, and black men getting shot dead in a department store for carrying an unloaded rifle that the store sells and he’s planning to buy because a white person got scared seeing a black man with a gun, and black men getting shot in their own backyards because someone thought their cellphone looked like a gun.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

69. What? Thats exactly what they do.

They are required to answer a call for service. If the responsible person wants someone removed the police will, in most cases, order the people to leave and arrest if they refuse. Once you refuse to leave you are technically trespassing. The cops will order them to leave once again so now the police are the witnesses to the crime.

I just went through this. I even apologized to the cops but I said I have a bit of a temper so I would let them handle it. She laughed and said I did the right thing by calling and that I’m better off letting them handle it.

That’s what cops are there for. So I don’t have to pretend I’m a stuntman in a western wrestling with some assholes who refused to leave my property.

[EffieBlack]

72. Theyre required to respond, but they are not required to arrest anyone just because a store manager

tells them to.

In this case, had they asked a couple of questions, the police would have quickly discovered that the men were not trespassing and, therefore, there was no probable cause to arrest them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. A person is trespassing any time the owner or responsible party tells them to leave and they refuse.

The cops aren’t going to consult the Starbucks handbook to adjudicate the matter or act as an arbitrator of Starbucks policy.

[EffieBlack]

78. In a private residence. Not in a public facility.

And if the cops are gong to arrest someone for violating Starrbucks’ policies, they’d damned well better investigate what those policies are first - and if that means asking to see that policy in writing, so be it. They had time - unless there was some pressing urgency to get the men out of there immediately?

And if the restaurant is full of other people who have also violated the so-called policy, they’d better arrest all of them, too or at least do more than rely on one manager’s assertion, given that, on its face, it was pure bullshit.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

82. Starbucks stores are private property.

Yes, they are public accommodations.

You are confusing the two.

Starbucks can ask anyone to leave for any reason and at their discretion. That doesn’t mean they can’t be subject to civil penalties if it is shown that they are discriminating based on any prohibited criteria like color, gender, sexuality in some states or other protected classes.

Showing the policy is only enforced against African Americans would most likely land them in court and up against some serious judgements against the company.

But that wou,d be strictly a civil matter. Cops don’t get involved with civil matters.

[EffieBlack]

84. Not confused at all

A manager has wide discretion HOWEVER, this manager did not say these men shouldn’t be there for some random reason. She said they were trespassing for one reason and one reason only. Absent that reason, they were not trespassing and, therefore, not guilty of any criminal offense. The police did not make any effort to determine whether they had indeed committed the infraction alleged.

No matter how many times you say otherwise, the fact remains that the police have no obligation to arrest anyone for trespassing just because a store manager wants them arrested. Even if they believe the manager, they have the discretion NOT to place the subject under arrest. Nader your scenario, any business owner has the ability to treat the local law enforcement like their private police brigade with the only recourse available to their innocent victims being expensive and lengthy lawsuits. But, fortunately, the law does not work that way.

But just as you think wrongfully detained persons should vindicate their rights through civil lawsuits, store managers unhappy that the police don’t arrest store patrons on their command are certainly free to sue the local police department for dereliction of duty or somesuch.

[Corgigal]

32. Ah no,

It doesn't work that way.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. Ah yeah, thats exactly how it works.

If a manager asks someone to leave and they refuse. The manager has two choices. Let it go or call the police.

The police will show up and ask the guys to leave. If the guys refuse, the cops just don’t say ok have a nice day. They will say stand up and place your hands behind your back.

[EffieBlack]

73. Im curious why the manager felt the need to call the police on these men

even if she really believed they violated her non-existent, made-up rule.

They were quiet, they weren’t bothering anyone, they weren’t taking up space from paying customers, not to mention the fact that other non-paying people were also in the place unaccosted.

Why call the police? What problem was their presence causing her, her employees, the other patrons or the public that she felt she needed to have them humiliated, arrested and jailed, and possibly have their reputations and careers damaged or ruined - especially since the alternative was to just leave them be and maybe gain a couple of new customers?

Was she trying to make a point? And what point would that be? If you come in to MY Starbucks, you’re gong to buy something or else? If that’s what she was doing, why’d she pick them of all people and not the several other people who previously did the same thing that day - not to mention the countless others who had done it in the past?

Did she need to prove that SHE was in charge and nobody’d better defy her because she had the power to have them jailed?

Or maybe she was just having a bad day and wanted to eff with somebody?

Why didn’t she just leave them the hell alone?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

75. Those are good questions.

The manager fucked up.

I’m no big fan of cops (search my user name and “pig”). But don’t place the blame in this instance on the cops. They answered a call and were required to act if the manager wanted them gone and the guys refused to leave.

[EffieBlack]

77. This is a chain of blame - the manager and cops are complicit with each other

They both used their power and privilege to harass and abuse two men who did not deserve it.

And if the men didn’t have plenty of white people to vouch for them and a viral video to make it real for people, this would have ended up very differently - at the very least, they’d have been charged and likely convicted of a crime.

And even WITH all that, we’re still having to deal with supposedly progressive Democrats defending the manager and cops and nsisting that the two black men are solely responsible for the abuse they had to put up with.

[MountCleaners]

25. I once had police show up because I was waiting in a grocery store

...I was upset about something that had happened and was crying. I was also waiting for someone to pick me up. But the cops just asked me to wait outside. If the situation was that tense, they could have just asked them to wait outside. No arrest, no drama. Why was the manager so dumb she didn't realize the cops showing up is bad for business.

[PoliticAverse]

79. "police asked the men to leave three times but they refused"

From: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-chief-officers-did-nothing-wrong-arrest-black-men-starbucks-n866061

Ross, who is black, said police asked the men to leave three times but they refused, and they were then arrested but were later released after the company elected not to prosecute. He said the officers "did absolutely nothing wrong" and were professional in their conduct toward the individuals but "got the opposite back." He did not mention the person who said he was meeting with the men.

"As an African American male, I am very aware of implicit bias; we are committed to fair and unbiased policing," Ross said. But he added "If a business calls and they say that 'Someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business' (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties and they did just that."

[EffieBlack]

80. Because the police chief, relying on what his officers told him, is an unimpeachable source

More reliable than the witnesses who watched the whole thing and who aren’t facing the prospect of an internal investigation and his department getting sued out the wazoo.

Andy besides, we know that cops ALWAYS tell the truth when their interactions go bad.

So, yeah, let’s go with that ...

[PoliticAverse]

81. Are witnesses claiming that police never asked the men to leave? n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

86. And there you have it:

"If a business calls and they say that 'Someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business' (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties and they did just that."

[EffieBlack]

87. Arresting people is not their only duty

This was a complete failure of policing.

But, by all means, keep defending it if you feel so strongly about it.

[Demsrule86]

57. Starbucks is a franchise...there is a manager...and people hang out buying little or nothing

all the time...I spent hours there when in college and I had very little money...free wifi. They don't throw people out so when the manager did this, we know it was racism and against policy.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. "but they were released quickly"

They weren't "released quickly". They were held for almost 8 hours and finally released ~1:30 am. And it was only after the new District Attorney's office (where the new D.A. is a civil rights lawyer much to the cops' dismay) told them there was nothing to charge them with and Starbucks did not plan to file charges.

[dalton99a]

36. +1

[Demsrule86]

58. Disgraceful and shows the cops are racist too.

[HopeAgain]

27. Your curious why they thought it rose to that level?

I don't have a kkklue...

[Blue_true]

6. Effie, normally, you're on point.

But I believe this scenario is over the top.

[leftstreet]

23. You surely don't mean to compare rape to loitering

I must be reading your post wrong

[unblock]

28. you're reading it wrong. that's not how analogies work.

if i take my (human) son to the zoo and we see a couple of monkeys, and the sign says one monkey is the father and the other monkey is the son, and i point out that hey, look, i'm a father and you're a son, just like there's a monkey father and a monkey son...


... i'm not in any way, shape, or form calling either myself or my son a monkey.

that's not the way analogies work!



effieblack in no way equated loitering with rape. that's not how analogies work. that's not how any of this works!

[uponit7771]

29. The police were obligated to assess the situation, if the two men OWNED the resteraunt everyone woul

... be even more bent faced about the arrest

[EffieBlack]

40. The may own it soon

[uponit7771]

43. IKR ... Looks like the manager had a complaint of racism in the past if reporting in the other

... thread is correct

[EffieBlack]

56. Yet, DUers jumped in to defend her

And are still falling all over themselves making excuses.

And we wonder why juries keep acquitting cops who murder innocent, unarmed black men.

[Demsrule86]

59. Why am I not surprised.

[KWR65]

31. This post is stupid.

[melman]

45. Beyond

[Demsrule86]

60. No it is not.

[jalan48]

35. Does anyone know how long had they been waiting in the Starbucks.

[Ms. Toad]

42. This is not equivalent to the Starbucks arrest matter.

In that matter, the police witnessed all elements of the prima facie case of criminal trespass

1. The police witnessed the presence of the two men in Starbucks. (i.e. on the property possessed by Starbucks)
2. They did not have permission from Starbucks (per the manager/agent of the owner) to be there. (i.e. no license)
3. The police (and the manager) asked the men to leave. (they were notified they were trespassing)
4. The police witnessed the men's refusal. (remaining on the property of another, without license, after being notified that they were trespassing).

That is a prima facie case for defiant (criminal) trespass under PA law.

Nothing any witness says can change any of those facts. (It is not a defense to speeding, for example, to point to others who are similarly speeding - and only someone with the authority to act on behalf of the land possessor can grant permission to be on the property - and I have not heard a suggestion that any of the witnesses present had that authority).

The only applicable defense:

They were in a place open to the public during the hours it was open to the public -A defense is available to criminal trespass if the trespasser meets the conditions for being in that space. Starbuck's condition was that to use the facilities you have to buy something.

The condition is imposed by Starbucks, so no other witness testimony can create a different condition (or eliminate the condition). I have not heard anyone suggest that the two men bought anything.

So in this instance, the testimony of other witnesses as to criminal trespass is completely irrelevant.

When the men refused to leave, the police had the right to arrest them - having witnessed criminal trespass.

The "after the fact" sorting it out here is civil litigation (not criminal) against Starbucks (not the police) for violation of civil rights.

While it would have been much better for the manager to act like a decent human being, of for the police to have found some way other than arresting the men to diffuse the situation, they acted in accordance with the law - and (other than a dispute over whether they bought something) nothing any other witness might add changes whether they engaged in criminal trespass or not.

As to the rape scenario you set up, (1) the police didn't witness the rape - they were present after the fact so they don't have direct knowledge of any of the elements of the criminal offense, (2) although you were addressing rape- as a whole - rather than the individual elements, presumably you are saying is that the facts that establish the elements of rape are in dispute, and (3) the "sort it out later" here is not a civil rights action against Starbucks, but a claim against the police for false arrest.

[EffieBlack]

44. You missed a critical pount

The only basis for their alleged crime of trespassing is that they did not purchase anything, but that is not a store policy. as evidenced by lack of any evidence of such policy aside from the manager's assertion. which is undermined by the fact that other customers were permitted to stay without a purchase.Therefore, there was no probable cause for a trespassing charge.

My hypo stands

[Ms. Toad]

46. I addressed it.

Just as failure to uniformly enforce a speeding law does not make it "not law," the failure to uniformly enforce a condition for remaining in the store does not make it 'not a condition." Other speeders cannot change the law any more than other customers can change the conditions for remaining in the store.

If there were Starbucks employees present who disputed that buying something was a condition for remaining in the store, that would be a different matter - because they have at least the apparent authority to both grant permission (an element of the prima facie case) or to state the condition to remain on the property. If the other witnesses you are suggesting the police should have relied on are Starbucks employee, I will cede the point because that would create a factual dispute about the conditions for remaining in the store.

But, while what other customers say about uniform enforcement is highly relevant to a civil rights claim, it is irrelevant to the criminal matter.

[radius777]

71. law and justice are two different things

while what you cite may be the laws/statutes, they don't provide justice (although you seem to believe they do) and only support white supremacy.

Because while it is easy/cheap for anyone to call the cops (and have someone removed, arrested, humiliated) it is difficult/costly/time consuming to be successful with a civil rights claim.

Therefore the vast majority of such cases of injustice are going to go unnoticed and unpunished.

A truly just system would be one that is able to arrest the manager on the spot for violating their human rights and humiliating them - basically a hate crime that she should pay for criminally, as well as Starbucks civilly.

[Ms. Toad]

83. You're not reading very carefully.

Please quote any of my posts that suggest I believe that police enforcing criminal trespass laws has anything to do with justice.

I am purely addressing the notion that witnesses with no authority to act on behalf of Starbucks could somehow magically grant a license to the two men arrested and make their presence in Starbucks after they have been asked to leave not trespass.

The failure to uniformly enforce the condition for hanging out in Starbucks (all the witnesses could testify to) is a civil rights matter, not one that alters individual charges for criminal trespass.

I have repeatedly said that it appears they likely have a claim against Starbucks (or at least the individual manager) for violation of their civil rights.

[EffieBlack]

85. They dont grant a license but they provide evidence of whether there actually is such a policy

The police did nothing to determine if the sole basis for the manager claiming the men were trespassing was valid. The manager didn’t claim they were trespassing because she just up and decided at that moment she didn’t want them in there. She said they were trespassing because they violated the store’s policy of not allowing people to sit without purchasing something. The fact that other people on the spot pointed out that they also had not purchased anything but were not asked to leave was strong proof that there was no such policy and, therefore, the men were not trespassing.

But that said, I am absolutely astounded to see so many intelligent, progressive Democrats engage in this kind of angels-dancing-on-a-pin parsing, twisting themselves into knots to justify the unjustifiable. This is exactly the kind of reasoning that allows police to get away with murdering innocent, unarmed black men.

Insisting that police officers aren’t only fully justified but actually REQUIRED to arrest peaceful black men who have done nothing wrong and are doing what several other similarly-situated white people are doing at that moment without any consequence to them, solely because some white woman with a manager pin called 911 and said, “get them out of here” is not a long distance away from some really ugly stuff.

Seeing people who should be alliies buying into and co-signing such behavior - and using some rather bizarre interpretations of law and policy to do it - is shameful and disgusting.

We have a long way to go ...

[melman]

48. If you are asked to leave and you don't leave

You are trespassing.

[EffieBlack]

52. Apparently, they weren't asked to leave until the police arrived

[Demsrule86]

61. Really but what does it mean when only Black folks are asked to leave?

[fescuerescue]

89. It means you have a valid civil case

Which isn't something cops litigitate.

[Demsrule86]

90. The cops behaved badly as they always seem to do with POC..any white person would have been

unhandcuffed and apologized to...when the friend they were waiting for arrived and when all the folks there said the manager was wrong...racism...scary Black man terrifies cops and apparently Starbucks managers as well...the common thread is racism. I guess it could have been worse. They could have tazed them until they died or shot them in the back as has happened before or perhaps locked them up for a few hours and then they are found hanging in their cells which mysteriously happens sometimes when POC are arrested...even though the family members say they would never do such a thing. You are on the wrong side of this issue in my opinion.

[uponit7771]

63. Not if you own the place

[blake2012]

47. Huh? Big difference in severity of scenarios

Kind of hard to draw a straight line and say responses should be equivalent.

[Demsrule86]

51. No, I get it. Customers told the police that the two men had done nothing...so why handcuff

them and drag them out? The person they were waiting for arrived too and told them the same thing...the manager and the police were clearly racist because I don't believe that a white person would have been treated this way. Also, I saw people with guns in starbucks and when they change their policy and asked such folks to leave...often they refuse and were not arrested...the police were not called.

[blake2012]

54. I agree the situation was as racist as shit and this kind of stuff happens all the damn

Time. I just think if rape accusation was made, even if people said they saw something differently, an arrest while that kind of accusation is investigated is way more understandable than what actually transpired. Arrested for existing while black.

[Demsrule86]

62. I am outraged at this sort of racism...it is persistent and hard to fight. My daughter is

going to marry a wonderful young man of color. I notice these things where as before I didn't...my future Grandchildren will be POC too...and I damn well want to fight this so they won't grow up being treated as second class citizens when going to a coffee shop or when stopped by a policeman...in the latter example, the would also fear for their lives.

[Demsrule86]

49. Why, that would depend if the subject was a person of color or white of course.

Clearly, there is a different standard. I am thankful the police did not shoot these poor guys and that makes me sick.

[jberryhill]

64. White DUer kicked out of Starbucks

Right here:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10025378592

[EffieBlack]

65. Well, that settled it

A white person was kicked out of a Starbucks four years ago, so nothing to see here ...

[Blue_true]

70. Many ways to see it.

Animus was involved in the case of the white guy, and was likely a factor with the white manager and the Black men. In the first case it was economic animus, in the second it was racial animus.

[ExciteBike66]

88. Rape and Trespassing are very different

disclaimer: I do not support the managers actions in this instance, at least from the news reports I have read.

That said, "Trespassing" as a crime is always defined by the victim. Even if the other coffee-shop patrons don't think the guys were trespassing, the manager's word is always the standard here. If the manager wants the guys out, then they are trespassing if they remain.

Now, if the manager is acting in a racist way, the guys can take the company to court on civil rights grounds. The DOJ can get involved. The beat cops on the scene are not qualified to determine civil rights violations of this kind.