Starbucks closing stores after 2 black men arrested

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross offered an apology Thursday to two black men who were arrested last week at a Starbucks, an incident that has renewed a national discussion on how police and businesses treat African-Americans.

“It is me who in large part made most of the situation worse than it was,” Mr. Ross said at a news conference. “So for that, it is my sincere apology to those two men, and even to these officers and to the other people around this city who I have failed in a variety of ways on this incident.”

Ross claimed that he wasn't aware that it was normal for people to spend a prolonged period of time in Starbucks without making a purchase, and said he believed the officers did not know that as well. “This is apparently a well-known fact with Starbucks customers,” he said. “Not everyone is aware that people spend long hours in Starbucks and aren’t necessarily expected to make a purchase.” The coffee chain will close all its stores on May 29th for “racial-bias” training.

 

“Not everyone is aware that people spend long hours in Starbucks and aren’t necessarily expected to make a purchase.”

Most people aren't aware of that because it's not true in every location.

 

So with all the backlash, what happens now to Starbucks's policy? Will they allow anyone to use their restrooms and tables? It sucks to be a low-paid employee and have to service non-customers.

 

I imagine they'll try to do that for a while till they are overrun by bums again and people start to complain about how there's never anywhere for actual customers to sit and how their restrooms are always a disaster. Then they'll go back to the old policies that most places that are in densely populated areas have. Right now they are in virtue signaling damage control mode so there's no place for smart business decisions.

 

Read the stories here.



Large variability in how certain stores handle loitering. Many partners say the store handled it based on how they were instructed. Yet corporate is throwing them under the bus.

 

I don't find those facts relevant in judging the event in question. Those facts don't tell me anything about the manager, the men who were arrested, or what transpired and why.

 

Of course Starbucks Corp is going to throw them under the bus. They have no respect for their employees. As I stated previously, they are worse than Walmart when it comes to employee relations.

The reality is not every starbucks is the same. If the store has plenty of seating, nobody is going to care. Employees have better things to do. However if the stores are getting complaints, the upper management will crack down on the employees to discourage loitering.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. They were asked to leave by the officers.

 

The one thing that smells very off to me about this is that manager claims (I believe) that the store was very small (it is on the small side) and super crowded/busy and so that is why she was quick to tell these non-paying patrons to leave. The idea that this manager would have the time or desire to throw someone out of their store for loitering when they really are *that* busy seems very odd.

Maybe they mouthed off to her or she was having a super sh1tty day. Either of those things seems way more likely than "she's an overt racist".

 

lol
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-starbucks-arrest-20180414-story.html

Which is it? Ross and his officers are suppose to know 'common knowledge" that its ok to loiter at Starbucks .... or his obligation to carry out their duties if a business requests a person to no longer be in their place of business. I guess Ross and his officers are allowed to remove any person from any business by request except if they are black and at Starbucks.

No, its not a well known fact. Especially considering most employees do not even know their own stores policy.

Officers job is to police. It is not their job to be a judge.

I love how Starbucks throws their employees under the bus and the police commissioner throws their officers under the bus anytime someone screams racism.

 

It's completely expected that that SBUX corporate would poop its pants and fall all over itself to apologize/self-flagellate. One manager is a hell of a lot easier to get rid of than a public smear campaign. It's also not surprising to see Philly Police Dept conducting some "internal reviews" or some other meaningless crap to get the hysterical whiners to shut up.

 

Then maybe you should read them again.

 

Yes, any time. I love how you exaggerate, pre-suppose, and assume facts not in evidence to build your house of cards.

 

No thanks.

You're welcome to show us all your work in how you draw such air tight conclusions from these seemingly irrelevant facts, though.

 

1. They were not loitering, they were just sitting there
2. They are plenty of vacant seats, there is no need to impose "the local practice"
3. Apparently from the video, the person they are waiting for arrived BEFORE the arrest. They should have been allowed to conduct their business and become customers at that point. Their story checks out after all.
4. Starbucks CEO apologized (Starbucks defender should have stopped after this)
5. Police commissioner apologized ( Why are the defenders still going at it?)
6. 8,000 stores will be closed for a day to re-orient the staff that what happened SHOULD NEVER happen again (for the slow, it means IT WAS WRONG).

7. There is someone here who will argue about his doctrine: Just follow the LEO's order - except if you're a WHITE nurse - then you can rightfully disobey LEO's order.

 

Based on this statement, I'm not sure you know what it means to loiter

They were breaking the rules even after being informed of them, that's plenty of reason to enforce the rules....even if the people happen to be black.

The person they were waiting for has nothing to do with why they were asked to leave. Waiting for a person is not a reason to be inside a business that has a rule that their facilities are for customers only.

Of course he did, he was in damage control mode trying to limit the blowback from SJW knuckle draggers. Doesn't really mean anything.

Same situation, he was catching a ton of heat from SJW knuckle draggers after he told the truth in the first press conference so he was in damage control mode offering apologies to anyone and everyone. It doesn't actually mean anything, it's just meant to be a pacifier for the crybabies.

See above. Damage control.

Anyone who is stupid enough or enough of a douchebag to not follow orders from LEO's deserve whatever happens to them as a result. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If you are told to leave a business and you are enough of a dick to refuse, the cops SHOULD be called, if you are enough of an overly entitled dick to refuse to leave when the cops tell you to, you SHOULD be arrested.

Long story short, if these 2 pieces of **** were anything but black, no one would care about this, people would rightly see that they were just 2 assholes who were shitty enough to get themselves arrested instead of being decent human beings. It's essentially a perfect example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

1. That's basically the definition of loitering.
2. That's the store's discretion to enforce the policy. They may have history of non-paying customers causing damages and are more active in discouraging non-paying customers in their store.
3. The person they were meeting arrived about 10 minutes after the police were called. By that point, they were already trespassing.
4-6 is PR control. Starbucks encouraged this policy before this incident. Police commissioner said his officers acted appropriately before backtracking. Sensitivity training is PR theater.

 

LOITER:
"...stand or wait around idly without apparent purpose."
They are waiting for their business partner to arrive so that they can commence their meeting.

What is your correct definition that it can't be applied to these 2 gentlemen?

I will respond to your other points if you can elaborate on above convincingly. Otherwise, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

 

1. ...without apparent purpose - is that why they were asked to leave? they have a purpose which checks out. they were asked to leave because they are not generating revenue at that point in time.

In general, if something is being vowed NOT TO HAPPEN AGAIN, it means it is WRONG. Starbucks and the commissioner is very explicit about this.

 

The manager doesn't know their purpose. They could be lying as I'm sure she's been lied to before. Their purpose didn't check out until 10 minutes after she asked them to leave.

 

They had no purpose relevant to the Starbucks, waiting for a business partner is loitering in this context.