Right, but if you were approached by a manager of a major chain a minute or two after arriving, asking you to order or leave, wouldn't you be tempted to say, "no thanks, I'm fine"? If someone suddenly wasn't so thirsty or so keen to hop to it and leave under those circumstances, I wouldn't judge him harshly.
Sure they could have, but what if they wanted to wait until the person they were meeting there arrived before ordering? If the timeframe they've given is accurate and they had only just arrived, what if they just wanted to relax and sit for a moment, maybe think about what they were going to order.
I find that timeline suspicious, no manager is going to react that fast to a situation. They could also have said when initially confronted, "Sorry, we will get a cup of coffee, we didn't know it was for paying customers only".
I find that timeline suspicious, no manager is going to react that fast to a situation. They could also have said when initially confronted, "Sorry, we will get a cup of coffee, we didn't know it was for paying customers only".
Right, but if you were approached by a manager of a major chain a minute or two after arriving, asking you to order or leave, wouldn't you be tempted to say, "no thanks, I'm fine"? If someone suddenly wasn't so thirsty or so keen to hop to it and leave under those circumstances, I wouldn't judge him harshly.
One said he asked to use the restroom before they sat down. he was told it was for paying customers. this was before someone asked them while they were sitting.
I find that timeline suspicious, no manager is going to react that fast to a situation. They could also have said when initially confronted, "Sorry, we will get a cup of coffee, we didn't know it was for paying customers only".
Hindsight. It may not be smart to coulda/woulda/shoulda them into blame, especially when another person was able to use the restroom without paying first. Or if it's loitering, another person saying that they were in there for a couple of hours without buying anything. Being hurried like that is probably not what Starbucks intends to be a customers experience (but this is besides the point).
One said he asked to use the restroom before they sat down. he was told it was for paying customers. this was before someone asked them while they were sitting.
So as soon as they arrived, one sat down and one asked to use the restroom. When he asked to use it, he was told that it's for paying customers only, was asked if he planned on ordering something, said no at that time, and then sat down?
there was nothing for the police to investigate. a business says someone is trespassing and wants them removed the police show up and removed them, either on their own or by arrest. its not for the police to decide who is or isn't trespassing. The men were asked to leave by the police and told if they didn't they would be arrested for trespassing, which they refused and were then arrested.
So as soon as they arrived, one sat down and one asked to use the restroom. When he asked to use it, he was told that it's for paying customers only, was asked if he planned on ordering something, said no at that time, and then sat down?
Not when they are called about trespassing. trespassing is decided by the owner or manager running the business, not the police. they ask someone to leave or remove them by arrest.
In that case it may imply that he doesn't intend to order (and that's just one of the two guys), but it's not reason enough to approach them almost immediately upon sitting.
Watched the interview. Feel sorry for the PTSD the men visibly are going through, but sounds like the manager claims PTSD played a factor in her behavior from that Apple news source if that is to be believed. From their own account, they violated the rules and at the very least didn't make their intentions clear about potential patronage to pursuade the manager. Their lawyer swoops in and makes sure they don't claim racism on the managers fault but insinuates this himself by suggesting we look at the facts... While only one account of the story is told.
Questions left unanswered all around. Their is more conversation going on between the visibly shaken guy in the interview and the handcuffing cop. I call bullshit on his explanation he gives in hindsight.
Also the blame they leave at Star Bucks front door on how the third place atmosphere is marketed was a nice jab to get the mediation in their favor. Well played lawyer guy.
I basically see two guys who felt they didn't need to explain themselves under the assumption their order of operations supersedes Star Bucks. Star Bucks may or may not have known about previous incidents this manager had with loiterers. Manager has a short fuse for loiterers. Now we're going to see this lack of communication used as a tent pole for diversity when it sounds like bad judgement all around. Star Bucks just needs to have district do more training at the manager levels for store operations to make sure short fuses and high stress are negated.
Cops shouldn't have done anything different unless they are more cared about PR than upholding policy. Their apology seems PR based.
You need to actually be practical and not 1's and 0's hardlined. If the two-minute timeline is true, no CEO is gonna agree with it. Retail doesn't treat it's customers like that.
You need to actually be practical and not 1's and 0's hardlined. If the two-minute timeline is true, no CEO is gonna agree with it. Retail doesn't treat it's customers like that.
You need to actually be practical and not 1's and 0's hardlined. If the two-minute timeline is true, no CEO is gonna agree with it. Retail doesn't treat it's customers like that.
Retail shopping yes, you want people wandering around looking for things to buy. Not restaurants who make their money by having tables available for paying customers. If you refuse to be a customer you are trespassing and stealing potential business by being a nuisance. It is like going to some random business, commandeering their conference room and conducting a meeting.
I dunno about them being black but a white homeless dude at Wendy's covered in dirt hangs out in the restroom and always like swipes his hand on me. I'd punch him but no way too dirty like insanely grimey. Cops should be checkin that dude
The level of stupidity in this thread, this whole stupid situation, and this comment is astronomical.unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, bravo!!
The level of stupidity in this thread, this whole stupid situation, and this comment is astronomical.unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, bravo!!
1) Were you asked to leave? No. Okay then, you're being asked to leave now.
2) Were you asked to leave? Yes. Okay then, you're trespassing by your own admission and need to leave now.
The cops just need to make them leave at that point. If the manager was in the wrong for asking them leave (if they weren't busy, if she was racist, etc) then that aspect of things comes later, and it's not a job for the police. It would be impossible to prove anything in court, one way or another, and the police quickly realized that.
1) Were you asked to leave? No. Okay then, you're being asked to leave now.
2) Were you asked to leave? Yes. Okay then, you're trespassing by your own admission and need to leave now.
The cops just need to make them leave at that point. If the manager was in the wrong for asking them leave (if they weren't busy, if she was racist, etc) then that aspect of things comes later, and it's not a job for the police. It would be impossible to prove anything in court, one way or another, and the police quickly realized that.
Arresting them is quite the escalation though right? Is this a common occurrence? I remember in ‘Robin Hood - Men in Tights’ they had a joke about a black guy being arrested for jaywalking, has the joke become a reality now?
Arresting them is quite the escalation though right? Is this a common occurrence? I remember in ‘Robin Hood - Men in Tights’ they had a joke about a black guy being arrested for jaywalking, has the joke become a reality now?
all depends how he or she is reacting. If the person would just accept the fine then let them go. If they complain about it tolerate it to a certain point. If they try to touch you attack you arrest them. And if I watch some videos people film during thei encounter with the police I would have arrested a lot of them. Some people are real assholes oh boy.
Arresting them is quite the escalation though right? Is this a common occurrence? I remember in ‘Robin Hood - Men in Tights’ they had a joke about a black guy being arrested for jaywalking, has the joke become a reality now?
They were asked to leave on their own 3 times by the police. given warnings that if they didn't leave on their own that they would be arrested and still didn't leave. How else would you expect the police to remove someone from a business where they were told to leave.
Arresting them was the safest route for both the officers and the men at the point in which they were arrested. they turned down leaving on their own. at that point it was either arrest them or forcibly remove them without arrest. to forcibly removing someone is quite dangerous, even when they are handcuffed, much more so when they are not.
Oh, sorry. I missed that part somewhere along the line, thought they were arrested based on the initial call which I found odd. Nevermind I’ll go back to my corner...
To the people wondering if the cops were really called 2 minutes after they arrived I think it is possible.
I read that after they sat down they asked to used the bathroom which then prompted the employee to say they would get the key because they didn't buy anything. And then asked them to leave which they refused.
"I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn't do anything wrong," Ross said. "Words are very important."
Or perhaps I'm missing the part outlining exactly what was wrong about what police did, could you help?
And just to be clear about actions of the police:
1) Starbucks manager calls them, asking to help get some people off Starbuck's property
2) Policemen ask the two to leave 3 times
3) They refuse and get arrested
Sounds like "we can strong arm anyone into apology about anything".
Or perhaps I'm missing the part outlining exactly what was wrong about what police did, could you help?
Ross said that the responding officers at first tried for about 10 minutes to negotiate with the men in an attempt to get them to leave the store, operating under a mistaken understanding of the store's policy.
"You can't expect them to walk into every business and intuitively know what their policy is," Ross said.
So apparently now Starbucks does not have a policy that stops loitering and the guys were in the right to not follow orders.
Speaking to Gayle King on "CBS This Morning," Starbucks' executive chairman Howard Schultz said he is "embarrassed" and "ashamed" by the incident. The company has said the employee who called 911 is no longer at the store.
Just to be clear here, if it is against company's policy, the manager who called the police, broke them.
But that's Starbuck's internal business, that police has nothing to do with.
Just to be clear here, if it is against company's policy, the manager who called the police, broke them.
But that's Starbuck's internal business, that police has nothing to do with.
Exactly, I was being a bit sarcastic because the commisionner's apology makes no sense whatsoever.
His first response that the police didn't do anything wrong was correct but you can see the backpedalling once the angry mob starts attacking.
God dammit being angry doesn't make them right!
Retail shopping yes, you want people wandering around looking for things to buy. Not restaurants who make their money by having tables available for paying customers. If you refuse to be a customer you are trespassing and stealing potential business by being a nuisance. It is like going to some random business, commandeering their conference room and conducting a meeting.
Starbucks is not that kind of restaurant. They envision people sitting around, drinking coffee, buying their merch, working on school work, fucking around on the internet, hosting small meetings etc. It's a chill spot.
I'm sure that policy is for distracting people i'll say kindly, and not for the average person. You can't even kick an aggravating substance abuse person out in 2 minutes.
It's sure nice being a Starbucks employee and knowing that the company has your back.
All you did was follow the rules and did what you thought was best for the company, and you get rewarded by being fired and labelled an insensitive racist by your own CEO.
Boy this whole thing really encapsulates how fucked this country is right now. From the incident itself to the fucking retards who stood in there the next day with megaphones to many of the things I've read on this thread. There are many honest, fact based posts here telling the truth though and I am happy for that at least.
Starbucks is not that kind of restaurant. They envision people sitting around, drinking coffee, buying their merch, working on school work, fucking around on the internet, hosting small meetings etc. It's a chill spot.
I'm sure that policy is for distracting people i'll say kindly, and not for the average person. You can't even kick an aggravating substance abuse person out in 2 minutes.
Star Bucks stresses the experience for sure and they will let you linger and straddle the line between thing place and second place. In other words you can conduct business there IF and only IF you pay. But managers are told to manage loitering and rushes and asking people to purchase an item.
I question the two minute thing being an factual account but I can believe it is possible if the manager had a short fuse. It then boils down to Star Bucks lack of employee/management investment and betterment.
The problem I have regarding this whole situation is how it is being immediately attributed to racism.
Starbucks is not that kind of restaurant. They envision people sitting around, drinking coffee, buying their merch, working on school work, fucking around on the internet, hosting small meetings etc. It's a chill spot.
I'm sure that policy is for distracting people i'll say kindly, and not for the average person. You can't even kick an aggravating substance abuse person out in 2 minutes.
If you are not buying and asked to leave, you leave. You have no right to be in a private business once you are asked to leave. This is so cut and dry and simple. Starbucks doesn't want people coming into their restaurants and taking up space while refusing to be customers. Compound that with the fact that this location was recently robbed at gunpoint, I can understand the manager being a little jumpy having two black males dressed in similar clothing to the last robber just hanging around without buying anything.
If you are not buying and asked to leave, you leave. You have no right to be in a private business once you are asked to leave. This is so cut and dry and simple. Starbucks doesn't want people coming into their restaurants and taking up space while refusing to be customers.
I think you're missing that the experience that these two gentlemen had is not the intended consequence of such a policy. That's why the "letter of the law defense" doesn't apply so well here.
Compound that with the fact that this location was recently robbed at gunpoint, I can understand the manager being a little jumpy having two black males dressed in similar clothing to the last robber just hanging around without buying anything.
Because a white customer said they were in the cafe for hours without buying anything, and a different one said that just before the gentlemen came in one was allowed to go to the bathroom without buying anything. One can't keep up with every little situation, so people do sneak by, but there wasn't equal treatment and she got caught red handed.
And then Starbucks investigated and found that it was all true.
I think you're missing that the experience that these two gentlemen had is not the intended consequence of such a policy. That's why the "letter of the law defense" doesn't apply so well here.
The experience these two "gentlemen" had was the intent of such a policy. Don't go hang out at businesses without the intent to be a customer. It is called loitering and when you are asked to leave and refuse to it is called trespassing, which will get you arrested if you also refuse to leave when asked by a police officer. The only people in the wrong here were the two "gentlemen"
It's not, because the company deemed that she handled it incorrectly due to the disparate treatment.
She let a white jogger use the restroom without buying anything just before they came in.
There were other white people sitting around without buying anything.
Maybe it was a wrong place/wrong time moment, but regardless she treated them aggressively and with zero tolerance in the space of a couple minutes after entering the cafe. They weren't causing a distraction, so Starbucks doesn't like that.
It's not, because the company deemed that she handled it incorrectly due to the disparate treatment.
She let a white jogger use the restroom without buying anything just before they came in.
There were other white people sitting around without buying anything.
Maybe it was a wrong place/wrong time moment, but regardless she treated them aggressively and with zero tolerance in the space of a couple minutes after entering the cafe. They weren't causing a distraction, so Starbucks doesn't like that.
The police didn't press charges because there was no crime committed.
The commissioner recanted his initial stance and admitted the police handled the situation incorrectly.
Starbucks CEO admitted that the manager was wrong, and she was terminated, and now there will be training for thousands of employees.
And yet, here you are wasting your time arguing with a random nobody who says that the people who were arrested are wrong, lol despite literally everyone involved with the incident saying the contrary*.
They can write a 20 page essay if they want, but that's not going to get the men re-arrested, the police commissioner to flip again, the manager her job back, or the CEO to renege.
May as well be arguing about Flat Earth.
zero ****s given for the terminated manager who called 911 in less time that it takes the average customer to peruse a menu
It's not, because the company deemed that she handled it incorrectly due to the disparate treatment.
She let a white jogger use the restroom without buying anything just before they came in.
There were other white people sitting around without buying anything.
Maybe it was a wrong place/wrong time moment, but regardless she treated them aggressively and with zero tolerance in the space of a couple minutes after entering the cafe. They weren't causing a distraction, so Starbucks doesn't like that.
Thats not true. The police didn't press charges because starbucks didn't want to press charges, not because a crime was not committed. Thats how it works in most cases involving 2 parties. Its also why so many don't get charged with domestic violence.
So this woman was a manger, and the highest representative of Starbucks at the scene. She asked people to leave privately owned property, which she has the legal right to do so. The police show up, and tell the men that they legally are required to leave the property, which they refuse to do.
How do you think this ends in any other way but handcuffs? The police aren't there to decide if it's morally acceptable or justified for someone in charge of private property to exercise their right to remove someone from their property.
What do you feel that the police should have done instead?
The last time I was in a Starbucks I didn't ordered something because I don't wanted, but I was waiting my teacher (maybe for half hour) and she bought something when she arrived. The same could have happened here, maybe the two men wanted to wait their friend to ordered something , but the manager prefered to humilliate the two getlemen. To deny she was wrong and she was racially motived is fucked.
Man this video. Also If I were an american I would sue the shit out of Starbucks for discrimination of white people if I would not get my free coffee as well. And funny part I would totally win this. Good Thing I never went into such a terrible store
