Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Starbucks thing... [View all]BumRushDaShow
(138,102 posts)467. In reply
Police call system and dispatch falsely magnifies the extent of the incident
Onsite witness statements were ignored
No attempt is made to broker a solution
No attempt is made to determine if profiling might have occurred
And none of this matters. I have already explained that the police had probable cause when the men refused the cops order to leave.
Onsite witness statements were ignored
No attempt is made to broker a solution
No attempt is made to determine if profiling might have occurred
And none of this matters. I have already explained that the police had probable cause when the men refused the cops order to leave.
It DOES matter. That is why additional changes are being made right now - both at Starbucks and in the Philadelphia Police Department. The "probable cause" was not there.
Witnesses were not needed for this probable cause, dispatch had nothing to do with it, the refusal came at the end of an attempt to broker a solution (which probably involved the men waiting outside for their friend, or buying a beverage), and of course the cops don't really care about whether the manager is a racist, and even if they did she certainly wouldn't just tell them she was.
Wrong. I posted a link to the Police Directive that you apparently didn't read. And the dispatch "guessed" at what was going on and magnified the number of people beyond what was actually there. "Two gentlemen" became "a group". Other police chiefs and advisors are pointing this out now.
You see, in the white racist world, more than 2 blacks together = "a gang".
The police can de-escalate, keeping in mind the horrid statistics in that particular police precinct and had they listened to the other patrons about what they observed and how the manager's handling was "disparate treatment", AND purportedly per the manager herself who claimed "she didn't think they would be arrested", no arrest might have happened
The probably tried, but the men refused to leave. De-escalation in this instance would have been having the men wait outside, that would have been the compromise.
The probably tried, but the men refused to leave. De-escalation in this instance would have been having the men wait outside, that would have been the compromise.
"They probably tried" is a guess. There is actually one video out there that is almost 11 minutes long and the police make no attempt to engage or take statements from the other patrons who were there commenting to them, nor did they even make an attempt to work with the "friend" who offered a solution that would have ended this whole thing.
So instead, they became high-paid bouncers, after which they got bitch-slapped when their arrest went viral with over 10 million views and was all for naught, while being shown all around the world looking like Keystone Cops.
People forget that this is the city where the United States was founded. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution weren't written and signed in Boston or New York or Washington D.C. (the latter which didn't even exist). It was done RIGHT HERE.
You didn't call it an "allegation". You came out and said it was "a crime".
Yes, you have found a tiny nit to pick, thanks for that. Ok, it was an allegation. I stand corrected. Now that I am once again completely correct, please tell me why you disagree? Especially because the cops confirmed it was a crime when the guys once again refused to leave.
Yes, you have found a tiny nit to pick, thanks for that. Ok, it was an allegation. I stand corrected. Now that I am once again completely correct, please tell me why you disagree? Especially because the cops confirmed it was a crime when the guys once again refused to leave.
The cops assumption of a "crime" was thrown out beause there was no evidence found for them to have even made the assertion in the first place. And certainly bringing in the testimony of any witnesses would have surely made them look even worse. But fortunately the witnesses came forward anyway.
And so you dismiss the witnesses like they did and then right on the spot, the cops manufactured a crime by ordering them to leave based on false assertions by the manager.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I know you understand that a cop can make an arrest if the cop himself is the witness to the crime. I know you understand this. The cops had probable cause due to their own observation. The witnesses of course could not contradict this observation, since it is not even being argued that the guys refused to leave when asked by the cops. NOW STOP TRYING TO SAY ANYONE MANUFACTURED ANYTHING HERE. IT IS WASTING OUR TIME.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? I know you understand that a cop can make an arrest if the cop himself is the witness to the crime. I know you understand this. The cops had probable cause due to their own observation. The witnesses of course could not contradict this observation, since it is not even being argued that the guys refused to leave when asked by the cops. NOW STOP TRYING TO SAY ANYONE MANUFACTURED ANYTHING HERE. IT IS WASTING OUR TIME.
The cops manufactured a crime on the spot by making a demand. But they were responding to an assertion from the manager that a crime may have occurred and witnesses disputed that. STOP TRYING TO INVENT JUSTIFICATION.
And THAT was what should have been investigated because it shows "disparate treatment".
Please, please tell me just how the beat cops on the scene are supposed to do this? "Disparate treatment" is a statistical concept, the cops are certainly not equipped to determine the history of this store's bathroom policy nor are they required to. The cops saw a crime (the men trespassed right in front of them and refuse to leave), and arrested the guys who did it. The cops should not have been called in the first place, but it was not their fault they were there.
Please, please tell me just how the beat cops on the scene are supposed to do this? "Disparate treatment" is a statistical concept, the cops are certainly not equipped to determine the history of this store's bathroom policy nor are they required to. The cops saw a crime (the men trespassed right in front of them and refuse to leave), and arrested the guys who did it. The cops should not have been called in the first place, but it was not their fault they were there.
You are in that LA Fitness thread. THAT is how they are supposed to respond. And they should have requested copies of their policies to verify. But white cops will take a white woman's word over a black man's any day. To the point where they will even take the word of a white child before a grown black man.
But when the dispatcher put out the call to the police, he said: Weve got a disturbance there. A group of males refusing to leave.
Once again, this is jargon. Anyway, the cops certainly could have ascertained just how disruptive the guys were being. Since the guys were not charged with disorderly conduct, presumably the cops didn't think they had actually bothered anyone (except the manager, of course).
Once again, this is jargon. Anyway, the cops certainly could have ascertained just how disruptive the guys were being. Since the guys were not charged with disorderly conduct, presumably the cops didn't think they had actually bothered anyone (except the manager, of course).
That "jargon" has "meaning" to a police force, and as multiple sources are now saying, it escalated the situation beyond anything that was reality. And it began with the call operator not asking for more info and not indicating details enough so that the dispatcher wouldn't exaggerate the thing into "a disturbance" by "a group of males", which has a different meaning from "2 gentlemen".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
493 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fire the manager. Racism can not be tolerated. Until this happens, Starbucks is dead to me.
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#157
One again I believe this was a failure of the police to properly assess the situation and
Kirk Lover
Apr 2018
#11
Then Starbucks needs to put up sings saying no loitering - whatever...because selective
Kirk Lover
Apr 2018
#73
Did they explain that to the guys? I'm sorry fellas but by law we have to escort you out of
Kirk Lover
Apr 2018
#84
I thought the rule of buying something was about homeless people coming in and making
demigoddess
Apr 2018
#201
This is what is so nauseating to me as a black woman every time I read the comments
tulipsandroses
Apr 2018
#355
especially since it most white people, if asked to leave under these circumstances, would scream
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#356
Why didn't they leave??? Why didn't Rosa Parks give up her seat? Why did the folks sitting a lunch
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#408
Are the Starbucks with the signs about restrooms only in black neighborhoods..? I sincerely
Kirk Lover
Apr 2018
#146
When black people tip over cars, set fires and run through the streets, its a riot.
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#244
Very true...this is about discrimination pure and simple. There is no justification for the behavior
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#420
"cops generally won't give the benefit of the doubt to people who do not obey them"
sdfernando
Apr 2018
#139
Cops also arrest Black people and kill them in situations where a white person would not suffer
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#413
"they did their job without excessive use of force and no physical injury to anyone involved.
BumRushDaShow
Apr 2018
#136
If the men owned the shop it wouldn't be trespassing, you're line of action is out of
uponit7771
Apr 2018
#147
"since they don't want to serve no niggers, you are supposed to get up and leave. "
NCTraveler
Apr 2018
#165
If the owner (or agent of - a manager, etc) asks you to leave and you do not, that is trespassing.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#256
Some private property is also open to the public. Trespassing applies to both.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#286
Being present after having been asked to leave- is trespassing. BY DEFINITION.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#344
No such rule is needed. I know Title II law quite well, thanks. It doesn't negate property rights.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#357
It's applicable because a DA refusing to charge has no bearing on whether a crime was committed.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#372
I hope that you've at least gotten an education in trespassing, property rights, and Title II. n/t
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#379
I hope you understand how silly "whitesplaining" is when in denial of reality. nt
BumRushDaShow
Apr 2018
#380
I'm still waiting for what the operator tells you when you claim discrimination.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#383
But if the manager asks you to leave because you are Black it violates the law as well.
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#406
And you sue later, for a civil violation. Criminal v civil. One doesn't negate the other. n/t
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#414
Get real...that would never work...nope in the tradition of Rosa Parks and other brave
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#424
I have also been a manager for 20 of the 30+ years I worked in a federal agency before retiring
BumRushDaShow
Apr 2018
#431
So, if the store or coffee shop owner is racist and wants to remove POC, the police
Doodley
Apr 2018
#107
Pretty much. Here is how it works on a trespassing call- this will vary slightly by state.
Lee-Lee
Apr 2018
#276
So, if a shop has ten POC and ten whites and store owner tells police the POC are trespassing.
Doodley
Apr 2018
#463
Yep. That doesnt mean the POC cant seek remedies via the courts for civil rights violations
Lee-Lee
Apr 2018
#469
So managers can call the police, demand they toss people out of their shops for whatever reason they
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#472
I have been to Starbucks in Cleveland and ever seen such a sign...sound like bullshit to me.
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#415
They would have met their friend and no one would have heard a thing about it. nt.
NCTraveler
Apr 2018
#170
This incident has been blown out of proportion. The manager handled it terribly.
YOHABLO
Apr 2018
#4
Those two black men were one wrong move away from being shot, one wrong word, NOT blown
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2018
#82
but that's exactly it, white people who are not disturbing anyone at starbucks don't get arrested.
unblock
Apr 2018
#5
other patrons said that there were white people there who had been there longer without ordering
unblock
Apr 2018
#45
I've seen white males harass and disturb people at Starbucks without purchase
IronLionZion
Apr 2018
#59
there are certainly some white people who would claim that if a black store owner tossed them out.
unblock
Apr 2018
#23
Social position enforcement. Especially if they "feel" they have very little power to begin with.
haele
Apr 2018
#209
A white woman said she got the code for the bathroom from an employee and used the
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#167
OK, if you say you've been asked to leave many times, that this shit happens all the time in...
Anon-C
Apr 2018
#109
If that happened to me one time, I think I would order something while I waited the next time.
Tipperary
Apr 2018
#137
Inside the US? If you have specific info about this I would be interested to know.
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2018
#219
Starbucks already fired the manager, so IMO, that says something about how they assessed
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#17
It is not at all clear they refused to leave. Taking them outside to discuss was step 1. Instead
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#69
According to the news, both the starbucks employees and the cops asked them to leave.
ExciteBike66
Apr 2018
#92
there were different accounts over the weekend. Sounds like SB & police got their story together
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#97
I expect police to be professionals and to question EVERY situation. Perhaps you can consider this
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#181
And only the police are able to identify if a law was broken. They must prove refusal to leave.
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#217
NO. not if they do not find a crime. They are NOT required to simply take the word of the manager.
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#66
Every property owner, including public accommodations, has the right to have trespassers removed.
Ms. Toad
Apr 2018
#204
If because of a protected class membership, yes. But it does not negate the trespassing.
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#358
First you asserted that places subject to public accommodation aren't subject to trespassing laws...
X_Digger
Apr 2018
#373
Did you listen to the 911 recording & police scanner recordings that were posted?
BumRushDaShow
Apr 2018
#366
The police do not have to prove that the manager is engaging in racial discrimination
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#237
You get the police force you deserve. My community does not hire drones, but professionals
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#487
you justify police who do not question and who you claim have no ability to discern... Obvioully the
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#489
Like I said, you defend the kind of policing that involves no thinking whatsoever.
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#491
WRONG: Starbucks manager leaves company after arrest of Black men sparks outrage
hlthe2b
Apr 2018
#74
No franchises with Starbucks , unless this changed in the last couple years
Eliot Rosewater
Apr 2018
#89
If a person is just hanging out without being an actual paying customer
democratisphere
Apr 2018
#27
Starbucks is a Seattle company with Seattle values.. this store did NOT follow their values..
samnsara
Apr 2018
#44
I think closing the store is a bit extreme. Firing the manager and staff involved? Yes.
Caliman73
Apr 2018
#145
The witnesses said none of this was done. They walked in and told the men to leave
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#308
My understanding is that they were not asked to leave by the manager, but I will check
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#306
You are going out of your way to give a benefit of the doubt to everyone but the two black men
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#134
a week ago an associate and i attended a meeting about 90 miles from home. we met at a starbucks to
dembotoz
Apr 2018
#57
Are you kidding me? Of course media reports White people being shot by police--it just almost
catbyte
Apr 2018
#105
But they weren't two Black kids being tossed out of Starbucks--they were two men
catbyte
Apr 2018
#125
I think it is wrong not to let someone use the bathroom...if she/he needs a bathroom, they need
CTyankee
Apr 2018
#85
It is not Starbuck Policy to have to buy something...I have sat in there for hours working
Demsrule86
Apr 2018
#154
I haven't had time to dig into the details on this yet, but a couple of my thoughts on it
xor
Apr 2018
#166
You need to do some research before claiming I am wrong about what was said.
ExciteBike66
Apr 2018
#394
You are ignoring the fact that the police already knew a crime was committed
ExciteBike66
Apr 2018
#428
I'm glad you corrected my mistake (which still has no bearing on anything, but thanks!)
ExciteBike66
Apr 2018
#466
I shouldn't have said it's for naught or not penetrating since I've learned a lot from you in this
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#451
I found the "loitering" ordinance from Philly: only applies to sidewalks and such passages.
ExciteBike66
Apr 2018
#319
I will pray that you don't ever end up on a jury deciding the fate of a cop
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#254
In that sense trespass means be told you are no longer permitted on the property
Lee-Lee
Apr 2018
#347
The police should've assessed the situation better, the men were never asked to leave
uponit7771
Apr 2018
#233
The company itself is condemning the company, and the manager has been terminated.
Crunchy Frog
Apr 2018
#225
+1, "It is also NOT company policy that you have to buy something to hang out." This i what I
uponit7771
Apr 2018
#232
"the store manager might have been a racist, but that is probably something we will never
betsuni
Apr 2018
#273
"I imagine Starbucks will attempt to make it up to these guys somehow." - There will be...
PoliticAverse
Apr 2018
#330
I can not tell you the number of times I have waited for friends at coffee shops before ordering
gollygee
Apr 2018
#294
The fact that so many people here not only see nothing wrong with what happened, but
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#332
Well, remember when the store clerk wouldn't show an expensive purse to Oprah?
Phentex
Apr 2018
#338
I don't believe this was an attempt to understand or to help you decide "whether" to condemn the
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#454
Since OP has threatened to ignore me, he probably won't read this, but I'm writing this for those
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#461
Perhaps because she feared that the other people who were doing the same thing would call her out
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#446
According to the former lawyer for the two men, she did ask them to leave.
ExciteBike66
Apr 2018
#462
Example of police officer who didn't think his only option was an arrest because someone complained
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#460
The Starbucks case also didn't have a violation of the law until the police officers decided,
EffieBlack
Apr 2018
#475