Two black men arrested at Philly Starbucks for trespassing

[Lovebug]

Yes indeed, here is what shouldn't be missed before anyone gets their knickers in a knot

The reforms Kenney alludes to have a lot to do with the city's new progressive District Attorney Lawrence Krasner. WHYY's Bobby Allyn recently reported on the change Krasner is pushing for in Philadelphia:

Krasner is a former civil rights lawyer who rode into office on a platform of radically revamping the city's district attorney's office by opposing the death penalty, stepping away from cash bail and seeking shorter prison sentences for offenders.

All the sudden the police had to be called, the PC and the mayor had to grandstand. Why? Was it Starbucks policy or did the employees overreact? Why did this have to escalate? Why couldn't it have been handled in house? Did those two guys refuse a polite request to leave? If so, why?
Dang it, why does everything have to get out of hand, and why is this being turned into a racial issue? Did no one ever asked some white dude to leave the premises?
Get a grip.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The mayor is an idiot, and wrong in his statement. Starbucks is a place of business.

It is also bizarre that he's referring this to a city bureau that apparently can order training for the employees of a private business. I'm not saying that this training wouldn't be warranted based on other information, but that should be up to Starbucks.

The mayor was asking for a review of Starbucks procedures based upon the laws of Philadelphia. Those laws apply to all those who do business in Philadelphia. Should there be such a law? Separate question.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Even this time he is an idiot.

The mayor was asking for a review of Starbucks procedures based upon the laws of Philadelphia. Those laws apply to all those who do business in Philadelphia. Should there be such a law? Separate question.

 

[notquiteright]

Starbucks is there to make money, believe it or not. Maybe you or the Mayor could open up an establishment for people to loiter and do business for free instead of pointing your accusatory finger at Starbucks? Oh...wait, how would you fund it?

Have you been in a Starbucks???? Thinking not, slackers and millennials will spend hours at a time sucking up the free WiFi... :roll:

I don't think their profits are in any danger...

Your snide little comments without any real understanding of the situation is noted...

Again... eace

 

[OlNate]

I find it surprising that the eyewitnesses who wondered why it never happened to them also don't make purchases. Who does make purchases? And wouldn't the fact that all of these people aren't making purchases be a concern of yours if you ran that Starbucks? These 2 black men could've been the first ones they asked to leave, but so what, why does that have to be racist? Let's say the manager said "We're not making a profit, we need to tell the next folks who come in and don't order anything to leave" and next thing you know two black guys, or two Mexicans, or two gay people, or two Indians, etc....walk in, do you say, hold on until a couple of white guys come in?

I read over my post a couple times, and confirmed, I didn't imply that they were racist, or even use that word.

All I said that is there is an inconsistency in how these guys were treated vs. others, there should be an explanation in this day and age. That's all. Don't you agree?

 

[OlNate]

Right now I don't know if there is a gap. It probably will depend on how busy or not busy the store is.
If it isn't busy then I am probably not going to care who sits where.

If I am packed then I only want my paying customers there.
If I have a few people walk in and sit down and not order something
I would ask them to leave so paying people can sit.

If they go we are waiting on a friend I would tell them to please wait standing up.
So other people can have a table.

I doesn't matter what their skin color is.

Yup, I don't know either, which is why I said:

if such a gap exists.

If Starbucks brands themself as the kind of place you can just show up and meet people, in the hopes that by creating such an environment you'll be inspired to spend money once you get there, then they need to be consistent. If not, totally cool, it's their business to run however you want. Point is, knowing whether or not there actually is a gap is important to picking a side on this one.

 

[JC Callender]

I read over my post a couple times, and confirmed, I didn't imply that they were racist, or even use that word.

All I said that is there is an inconsistency in how these guys were treated vs. others, there should be an explanation in this day and age. That's all. Don't you agree?

Here are your comments:

Originally Posted by OlNate View Post
Not being a Starbucks guy, I'm a little ignorant of the Starbucks etiquette, in fact I find the whole thing a bit intimidating, and I can never figure out how to order an extra large without being looked down on by a snobby brewista for not saying "Venti"...hehe...so I took this story at face value and initially thought "No, that's not right, you shouldn't be able to loiter in a place of business, no matter who you are".

But, in reading the comment from your linked article, which states ""All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing.", I'm left thinking that if waiting around for friends is something that happens, and if there is a gap between how white people are treated and black people are treated in this location, then they should be on the hook for explaining why, or apologizing, which Starbucks has done.

Can any hardcore Starbucks fans comment on how the store they frequent handles this kind of scenario, where people are waiting for others to join them?

You're wondering aloud if they're racists, which is what I responded to.

 

[OlNate]

I don't live in a big city and generally only to go Starbucks when traveling, and it's mostly 'go in, buy needed caffeine, leave.' But I think this video struck a nerve because even in my limited experience it's common to meet there, and it's common to see people sitting at tables with nothing in front of them, often with a laptop, or paper.

I saw this on Twitter, and the problem is we don't know near enough to make a judgment about anyone's actions here. Yes, it's CLEARLY generally, traditionally, typically OK to wait on friends in Starbucks without ordering. It's OFTEN OK to sit for a long time with nothing in front of you but a laptop or newspaper or work documents. Being a place to hang out and wait for friends to meet there is good business for Starbucks GENERALLY. I had a brief client meeting in Starbucks about 10 days ago. My client was 15 minutes early (she told me by text) and waited there at a table with her information and we ordered when I got there on time. No problem, and that's their model in my experience.

So if this was a typical situation, no, Starbucks doesn't generally have a policy to kick out people who say they're waiting on a friend, order or not, doesn't matter. Problem is we don't know really anything about what really happened before the police got there, and so it's hard to judge the behavior of Starbucks' employees here.

My problem is no matter what did happen, you can't legally loiter in a private business, and when a cop asks you to leave a business you're declined to patronize, you leave. I don't see how the police had an option but to remove them.

I agree, the cops had to do it, I wouldn't be criticizing them in this scenario, no matter what (as long as they conducted themselves in a professional manner, which, without having seen the video, I have no reason to believe they didn't). This is about Starbucks, and whether or not they are consistent in their policies, and if not, why. Do people have a reasonable expectation to go and chill and a Starbucks without buying anything, based off of how Starbucks generally run their business? If not, end of story. If so, then why weren't these guys allowed to?

And yes, we don't know what happened before this snapshot of that particular day. Assholes come in all colors and races and religions, could be these guys were that. Point is, we don't know, so it's tough to make a call one way or another.

 

[SheWolf]

It looks like two black men wanted to use the restroom at Starbucks and were denied because they weren't purchasing anything. They then sat down and were asked to leave since they weren't making a purchase and they refused. The police were called and asked the men to leave and they again refused, so the police arrested them. Now there's a public outcry of racism, but what if that particular Starbucks has a problem with people loitering or conducting business without making purchases and they're taking up valuable space that could be used for paying customers, wouldn't that be a problem? Wouldn't if be fair to expect someone to purchase something when using their establishment?

Philly's mayor, defending the two black men, says that Starbucks is "not just a place to buy a cup of coffee, but a place to meet up with friends or family members, or to get some work done", but is it really up to the mayor to assume that Starbucks should provide an office or hang out place free of charge or purchases? Maybe the mayors office and home could be a place for the public to meet up with friends and get some work done? And is it really impossible to see that two white guys could be asked to leave as well under the same circumstances?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-on-controversial-arrest-of-2-black-men-in-ph

What do you think?

To know if it's bigotry, we would have to know if those same Starbucks workers allow white people to use the bathroom and use other facilities without paying

 

[OlNate]

Here are your comments:

Originally Posted by OlNate View Post
Not being a Starbucks guy, I'm a little ignorant of the Starbucks etiquette, in fact I find the whole thing a bit intimidating, and I can never figure out how to order an extra large without being looked down on by a snobby brewista for not saying "Venti"...hehe...so I took this story at face value and initially thought "No, that's not right, you shouldn't be able to loiter in a place of business, no matter who you are".

But, in reading the comment from your linked article, which states ""All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing.", I'm left thinking that if waiting around for friends is something that happens, and if there is a gap between how white people are treated and black people are treated in this location, then they should be on the hook for explaining why, or apologizing, which Starbucks has done.

Can any hardcore Starbucks fans comment on how the store they frequent handles this kind of scenario, where people are waiting for others to join them?

You're wondering aloud if they're racists, which is what I responded to.

hehe...I know what my comments are, man. The allegation I'm referring to is the one that has been put forward by others, not me. All I'm saying is that if an inconsistency exists, then if Starbucks wishes to deny that allegation, another explanation needs to be provided. And, IF the staff at this particular location did what they did because of racist motivation, then Starbucks should apologize, because racism is bad, right? But it's all down to IF. I'm not assuming anything, because I don't have the fact...but these are reasonable questions, I think, given the allegation.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Couldnt you look at the facts involving THIS ONE CASE and see that maybe just maybe it doesnt involve your race or whiteness or privilege but it does involve an action most likely taken based on ONE factor...the race of the individuals involved?

Wow.

You are kidding right? Did you read the article referenced? From that article where do you get the impression that anybody is supposed to assume discrimination occurred?

"When police arrived, two Starbucks employees told them two men had asked to use the restroom but were told they couldn't because they hadn't purchased anything. The men allegedly refused to leave after being asked by Starbucks employees. Ross also said the two men refused to leave after being asked three times by police officers."

Do we know a single thing about the race of the employees who asked them to leave? No...not that it should matter in this day and age. Do we know, do YOU know, if the policy of not allowing use of the facilities without purchase is uniformly exercied or not? No.

From the article, were they arrested because they were black or because they were trespassing and loitering on private property after being asked 5 times to leave?

For you, for anyone from the description and evidence supplied to make the kangaroo leap to the automatic default of racism is unsupportable.

Convince me from the facts on scene in this article. And do not insult my intelligence by use of the politically correct supplications by the pols much after the fact.

And NO, I wont be bullied into a herd mentality. Why would you start off trying that method anyhow?

 

[tecoyah]

Color does not matter...when a Cop asks you to leave you do so. If he has to ask again leave quickly because if he asks again he wont be nice anymore.

 

[SheWolf]

It looks like two black men wanted to use the restroom at Starbucks and were denied because they weren't purchasing anything. They then sat down and were asked to leave since they weren't making a purchase and they refused. The police were called and asked the men to leave and they again refused, so the police arrested them. Now there's a public outcry of racism, but what if that particular Starbucks has a problem with people loitering or conducting business without making purchases and they're taking up valuable space that could be used for paying customers, wouldn't that be a problem? Wouldn't if be fair to expect someone to purchase something when using their establishment?

Philly's mayor, defending the two black men, says that Starbucks is "not just a place to buy a cup of coffee, but a place to meet up with friends or family members, or to get some work done", but is it really up to the mayor to assume that Starbucks should provide an office or hang out place free of charge or purchases? Maybe the mayors office and home could be a place for the public to meet up with friends and get some work done? And is it really impossible to see that two white guys could be asked to leave as well under the same circumstances?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-on-controversial-arrest-of-2-black-men-in-ph

What do you think?

After reading about this more, it looks like your post is disengious to the facts. The men told she manger they were there waiting on a friend, and they were there to meet somebody, a real estate agent. The manger called the cops. Both men were arrested, fingerprinted, and held in a cell for 8 hours before being released because of lack of evidence. I think the scruinty being put on Starbucks and the PD over this is well deserved.

 

[JC Callender]

hehe...I know what my comments are, man. The allegation I'm referring to is the one that has been put forward by others, not me. All I'm saying is that if an inconsistency exists, then if Starbucks wishes to deny that allegation, another explanation needs to be provided. And, IF the staff at this particular location did what they did because of racist motivation, then Starbucks should apologize, because racism is bad, right? But it's all down to IF. I'm not assuming anything, because I don't have the fact...but these are reasonable questions, I think, given the allegation.

I understand what you mean. I just think it's fair not to let people use their facilities for free and I think it's wrong not to leave when asked not only by Starbucks, but also by the police. If they tried to order coffee and the barista told them they don't serve blacks, then yes, that would be racist.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

"they were arrested because they were black" :roll: Pure poppycock.

They were arrested for being obstinate asses and refusing to leave on their own after multiple request. Does anyone here think this would of made the news if they were white?

 

[Risky Thicket]

My answer is going to be a bit nuanced. Did Starbucks allow white people to use the restroom without buying anything? This is the only argument that has a chance to prevail in this lawsuit, and if Starbucks applied the same standard to whites as they did to blacks, then this lawsuit will go down in flames. However, I see no evidence pertaining to this point, one way or the other. Will wait and see what comes out in the lawsuit.

^^^ This opinion, from a man who crapped in his pants on the way to work 3 days ago, should not be taken lightly. :blink:

 

[SheWolf]

Wow.

You are kidding right? Did you read the article referenced? From that article where do you get the impression that anybody is supposed to assume discrimination occurred?

"When police arrived, two Starbucks employees told them two men had asked to use the restroom but were told they couldn't because they hadn't purchased anything. The men allegedly refused to leave after being asked by Starbucks employees. Ross also said the two men refused to leave after being asked three times by police officers."

Do we know a single thing about the race of the employees who asked them to leave? No...not that it should matter in this day and age. Do we know, do YOU know, if the policy of not allowing use of the facilities without purchase is uniformly exercied or not? No.

From the article, were they arrested because they were black or because they were trespassing and loitering on private property after being asked 5 times to leave?

For you, for anyone from the description and evidence supplied to make the kangaroo leap to the automatic default of racism is unsupportable.

Convince me from the facts on scene in this article. And do not insult my intelligence by use of the politically correct supplications by the pols much after the fact.

And NO, I wont be bullied into a herd mentality. Why would you start off trying that method anyhow?

Read some more articles. A lot more information has been released, and I think it's clear that these two men were treated far worse than the situation called for. Also, they told the manager they were there for a meeting, and they were. Instead being allowed to wait for their real estate agent and friend to show up, they got arrested.

 

[JC Callender]

After reading about this more, it looks like your post is disengious to the facts. The men told she manger they were there waiting on a friend, and they were there to meet somebody, a real estate agent. The manger called the cops. Both men were arrested, fingerprinted, and held in a cell for 8 hours before being released because of lack of evidence. I think the scruinty being put on Starbucks and the PD over this is well deserved.

How could I be disingenuous if it doesn't say that in the article in my OP? And what evidence where they lacking? Starbucks decided to drop charges.

Also, did they say that they were waiting for their friend before ordering? Because if they're just waiting for their friend to meet and not ordering anything, then Starbucks should have the right to tell them to leave.

 

[SheWolf]

How could I be disingenuous if it doesn't say that in the article in my OP? And what evidence where they lacking? Starbucks decided to drop charges.

Also, did they say that they were waiting for their friend before ordering? Because if they're just waiting for their friend to meet and not ordering anything, then Starbucks should have the right to tell them to leave.

They were patrons waiting on a third person and patron, so it was dumb, stupid, and rude for Starbucks to tell them to leave and have arrested. Look how this has ended up for Starbucks.

 

[stevecanuck]

I haven't read the 12 pages, so this may have come up before, but....

I find it suspicious that they could do their little sit-in without having used the restroom. Did they have to pee or not? Apparently not, so what were they up to?

 

[Carleen]

they're taking up valuable space that could be used for paying customers, wouldn't that be a problem? Wouldn't if be fair to expect someone to purchase something when using their establishment?
I feel the same way when I'm at the grocery store paying cash for my stuff and the person in front of me just used an EBT card

The men were obviously wrong, but I don’t get your reference to someone who is using food stamps. Could you explain?

 

[holbritter]

After reading about this more, it looks like your post is disengious to the facts. The men told she manger they were there waiting on a friend, and they were there to meet somebody, a real estate agent. The manger called the cops. Both men were arrested, fingerprinted, and held in a cell for 8 hours before being released because of lack of evidence. I think the scruinty being put on Starbucks and the PD over this is well deserved.

They were asked several times to leave, twice by the police before they were arrested. What to you think should have happened?

 

[ludin]

The mayor was asking for a review of Starbucks procedures based upon the laws of Philadelphia. Those laws apply to all those who do business in Philadelphia. Should there be such a law? Separate question.

Plenty of businesses have no bathroom policies for non-paying customers.
Those rules are not against philly law. The mayor is an idiot.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

They were asked several times to leave, twice by the police before they were arrested. What to you think should have happened?

No they weren't.

They were only asked to leave by the police when they arrived. Apparently a manager called the police without asking if they were buying. There is also a claim that a white woman had come in and asked for the toilet and was given the door code - without her ordering or paying for anything.

Why else would Starbucks be issuing grovelling apologies after this incident?

 

[ludin]

After reading about this more, it looks like your post is disengious to the facts. The men told she manger they were there waiting on a friend, and they were there to meet somebody, a real estate agent. The manger called the cops. Both men were arrested, fingerprinted, and held in a cell for 8 hours before being released because of lack of evidence. I think the scruinty being put on Starbucks and the PD over this is well deserved.

No it isn't the store had a no customer bathroom policy.
One of the guys asked to use the bathroom and it was for paying customers only.

He was asked to leave after that.
He refused to leave. The police asked them 3 times to leave and they wouldn't.

It wasn't racist or anything g else.
Plenty of businesses have no bathroom policies for non paying customers.