The Starbucks thing...
Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2018, 07:33 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm having trouble condemning the company and police on this one.
I grant that the store manager might have been a racist, but that is probably something we will never actually know for sure. It is also something that the company probably doesn't know for sure, which means it will be tough to fire them on the basis of this incident alone.
As to the company, if there is a policy where you must buy something in order to hang out (which seems reasonable, btw), then it seems like that policy was being enforced. If that policy is enforced un-evenly then that is a problem, but it is very difficult for me personally to know how it is enforced, since if a white person were removed it wouldn't be in the news.
As to the police, once the store manager says the two guys are trespassing, then the police HAVE TO remove them. That is their job. They could be the most racist/supremacist officers known to man, and it would still be their job to remove the two guys who refused to leave. If the guys refused their order, then an arrest would happen.
What am I missing about this story that is making people talk of boycotts?
UPDATE: The two men are speaking out: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-starbucks-arrest-20180419-story.html)
"Seattle-based Starbucks Corp. has said the location where the arrests occurred has a policy that restrooms are for paying customers only."
"Nelson said they weren't questioned but were told to leave immediately." (by the cops)
- This makes the cops look much worse, like they didn't even try to ask the men to leave before starting to order them around.
they have been doing this for some time.....
i will continue to patronize them
The men were simply waiting for someone to meet them. People meet up at coffee shops all the time. It's not like this was a five star restaurant. I fault the management, and by extension, the owners. And I fault the police who arrested them, especially considering the man they were meeting showed up.
dispatch the correct remedy....They fucking arrest the guys???? That was the solution to this nothing of a problem?
If we see bullshit like this in our own lives it is imperative that we speak up for the person that this bullshit is being committed against.
I have been sitting in many bars in my lifetime where the police have been called to remove someone.
In one instance a young man came in a simply waited until a man at the bar had to use the restroom and took his seat. He was asked to move and refused, he was asked to leave and refused. The bartender called the police. When the police showed up the man was quietly drinking a beer (stolen beer, he was refused service) and watching the TV. He was not drunk, was not being loud, and was just sitting there. The pair of officers spoke for a few seconds to the bartender, then moved over to the young man, everyone around him moved away. The police asked him to leave the bar, immediately. He did not, they arrested him and removed him, to applause.
They did not question him at all, they told him to leave - he refused - he was arrested. Simple. And ... correct.
You do not ...
The owner of the property, or their employee, can ask you to leave for any reason. If you refuse they can, and will, call the police who will remove you. What you say to the police matters not; you will be removed, by force is necessary. If force is needed, you will be arrested.
That is how it works, and how it should work.
enforcement of "trespassing" at a known loitering hole is also not good.
I agree that Starbucks is completely in the wrong in this situation.
I am saying once the police are involved they will remove the person/s from the establishment, by force if needed, once they have been called to do so.
In this case they seemed to have done this without excessive use of force.
establishment now. If you refuse to leave we'll have to arrest you. To automatically arrest seems foolish and wasteful.
I'm not even blaming Starbucks....the blame is on this manager. In the end some good is going to come of this!
In the very short video all we see is the arrest, which are not poorly executed.
In my experience when the owner of an establishment calls the police the person who is being called on is long gone by the time the police arrive. A few things must have happened here.
Either when the cops were called the men were not informed, or decided to stay.
Either all six cops arrived at the same time, or others were called in fear of escalation.
Either they were instructed to leave and did not and were arrested, or they were arrested with no communication.
We do not know why the cops were called. We do know they were called.
What I WOULD THINK happened is when the first cops showed they went inside, spoke to the manager, asked the men to leave, the men refused, backup was called, they were arrested without incident. If this is what happened it was textbook on how to handle the situation. No guns drawn, no one tasered, no one beaten ... textbook. IF that is what happened.
Yes, it was the managers fault, with no doubt ...
...they should have a policy across the board one way or the other regarding situations like these. And my opinion is that it's not good for their branding to banish people who might be waiting for their companions to show up. The policy should be more flexible, like - if you're waiting for someone before ordering, you can stay. Restaurants do this all of the time - they'll seat you even if you're not going to order until your company gets there. But Starbucks corporate should take responsibility. They should have had clear policies that would prevent situations like this.
a home for themselves. It seems to me a sign in the window would have worked wonders. It appears these men did not order because they couldn't afford it but that they were waiting out of politeness or something. Maybe Starbucks should rethink the enforcing of this "rule".
whom they intended to discuss investment opportunities. I think they could afford a cup of coffee. They didn't look homeless, either. They were discriminated against simply because they are black.
The man they were waiting for is the white guy who showed up during the arrest and tried to talk to the cops to prevent the arrest but was told it was too late.
Louis Vuitton bag was hanging and waiting for someone if she would be confronted, let alone reported on THEN arrested by police?
Anybody wanna bet?
I have waited for 20 minutes or more to meet someone in a Starbucks several times and never been bothered.
I have had other friends wait for me when I misjudged traffic and nothing happened to my friends.
I've also spent over an hour at a Starbucks sitting in a corner using their advertised free wireless and nothing happened. Used the restroom on multiple occasions and no one seemed to even notice..
In all my times inside a Starbucks I've never seen anyone asked to buy something or leave.
Sometimes he buys, sometimes he doesnt.
This is racial.
about why didn't they just leave. We have such a long way to go when it comes to understanding white privilege.
counter get up and leave? You have to confront and fight racism. Some good will come from these two gentlemen refusing to be treated as second class citizens because of racial prejudice. Two professional men just doing what everyone does in Starbucks...and Managers racism driven fear caused her to break the law and discriminate...so glad she is gone. I think they should have all been fired in that store.
She wasn't tossed out.
for this Starbucks, which I have been in but several years ago so I dont remember, but most Starbucks in this area, particularly the ones in the city where this is an issue, have signs about restrooms being for paying customers.
I go to the bar every day. Every day. I see people tossed all the time. At least every other month it happens when I am there, hear stories that it happens every week.
There was one guy who EVERY time he came into this one bar they would call the police before he even sat down, he was banned. I saw the police handcuff this man at least five times before he finally got the message that he was not welcome there.
The police never asked him a single question ... get out - no - arrested. Some people really are that stubborn.
1.) Police arrive when called due to trespassing.
2.) Police ask property owner (i.e. manager in this case) if the guys are trespassing.
3.) When manager says "yes", police must remove trespassers.
There is no other way to do this, the police are not supposed to leave people on the property whom the owner doesn't want there.
since they don't want to serve no niggers, you are supposed to get up and leave.
2018 and they code-talk now - "Trespassing". The "Code: is something that was originally part of what we called "Northern racism" that has gone on here in Philly and other northern cities for centuries and has been adopted nationwide.
A property owner calls the cops about a trespasser, and the cops refuse to do anything about it.
Trespassing is a crime that is defined by the property owner by design. If the property owner doesn't want you there, you are trespassing (absent some kind of prior agreement). Thus, there is little the cops could do in this situation.
I suppose you haven't been around here much.
See Eagles Superbowl festivities.
and have experienced that shit along with seeing tens of thousands of dollars in damage happen to a dorm when the fire hoses were turned on and sprayed down the hall by drunkards, resulting in the flooding of the floor and the elevators. AND I have been to UCONN too since Storrs was pretty close to Amherst.
When white people do it, its Homecoming
of either the police or the manager. And it makes me sick to see folks here who should know better defending the manager or the police. You have to fight racism.
When their friend showed up and corroborated the story, the cops should have gone back to the manager (or whoever made the call) and worked it out. This is called COMMUNITY RELATIONS!!! Especially important with beat cops. I'm sure (well reasonably sure, if the manager wasn't hiding out in the back) that he would have retracted the complaint...and I'm also reasonable sure all three of the guys would have left to another coffee house with reasonable people.
There was no reason to make an arrest!
but cops generally won't give the benefit of the doubt to people who do not obey them. Of course we cannot be sure that the manager would have given in, who knows?
And therein lies the problem! If the guys had been white would the cops have done what I posted? Maybe, maybe not. But if not that is a problem. Assessing situations and resolving these type of issues without making an arrest saves the city money and everyone can exit the situation reasonable happy.
but the general idea that certain types of low-conflict policing are better does not mean that the cops in this instance behaved in a racist manner. My original point was that I find it hard to blame the cops for removing the guys when the property manager says they are trespassing.
either fate...you think a 12 year old white boy with a BB gun would have been shot in cold blood in a park in Cleveland? How about 5,7 and 9 year old boys in Warren forced to lie on the ground while the cop handcuffed them at gun point because there had been a robbery...they looked nothing like the suspect and were way younger. A white person would not have had the police called on them so it wouldn't have even happened. The manage who is a racist equate professional Black men with the homeless....'skeery black man syndrome'. And I have to say racism aside she is an evil troll...very unkind.
The arrest of two innocent black men didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened in a country with a long ugly history of discrimination against potential black consumers. An event in which two black guys getting publicly arrested is not an isolated event. The context is entirely missing from a lot of these discussions.
at least to the arrest itself.
The cops were told the two men were trespassing, so it was their job to remove the men. Then the men didn't obey the cops orders, which makes them no longer "innocent" at that point.
If the store manager was discriminating against the men, then their solution to that problem lies with the courts, not with the police forcing the manager to allow them to stay.
It diffuses the situation and the 3 of them might have spent a good amount of money in there chatting up their business.
But now guess what? I'm done with any Starbucks and I hope the boycott teaches a lesson.
If you believe the establishment had you removed for a protected reason you sue them. You do not refuse the police when they order you to leave.
In this case, white patrons were asking the cops why they were arresting the men and posting video of it happening. The facts are the facts, private business can ask you to leave for any reason and the police will remove you if you do not leave. If you feel this is for an unlawful reason there are methods to resolve this.
would be to get witness testimony on the spot and assess what happened and THEN make a decision (to include the Public Accommodations Law) to do some common sense arbitration.
Starbucks bills itself as a "social gathering place" and includes sofas and soft chairs and whatnot in there. The establishment is created for lingering.
The WHITE guy who these 2 were meeting showed up and that could have ended it right there but instead the police made an idiotic decision to shove pies in their own faces that will reflect on the department and I hope they get taken down because of it.
The whole point of "Community Policing" is to DIFFUSE shit like this. It's one thing if the 2 guys were yelling profanities and harassing other customers but they weren't.
They were called for criminal trespass. The police are there to remove the person/s from the property.
They cannot refuse to do their job. They do not need to know why the person is being asked to leave, they need to remove them.
You can be at a party at Chucky Cheese with 20 people and they can walk over to your group and pick one person and throw them out.
"we have the right to refuse service ... blah blah"
At this point that person has the choice to leave or not, if they do not and police are called they will be removed ... by force if needed.
How the hell do you define "criminal trespass"? The LEO should correctly decide that based on a preliminary investigation. If they were in the place after closing or had broken in, then you might argue that.
And this is -
"we have the right to refuse service ... blah blah"
At this point that person has the choice to leave or not, if they do not and police are called they will be removed ... by force if needed.
I suggest you read up on a little law that was passed in 1968. There is no "right to refuse service" on a whim unless you want to get sued out of business!
You can sue the hell out of them, boycott them, picket in front of the store, all sorts of things you can do.
If, in fact, the store calls the police to have you removed ... you will be removed.
The police will not attempt to determine if you are being removed for a protected reason, the courts will.
"criminal trespass" is simply defined by the accuser. I do not want this person in this place at this time.
like my home city Philadelphia has had over many decades, then the rules get changed.
This case has already been referred to the city's Human Relations Commission by the Mayor by the way.
For immediate release: April 14, 2018 Published by: Office of the Mayor Contact: Mike Dunn firstname.lastname@example.org
PHILADELPHIA Mayor Kenney today released the following statement in response to the incident earlier this week at a Starbucks in Center City:
I am heartbroken to see Philadelphia in the headlines for an incident that at least based on what we know at this point appears to exemplify what racial discrimination looks like in 2018. For many, 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. Like all retail establishments in our city, Starbucks should be a place where everyone is treated the same, no matter the color of their skin.
Starbucks has issued an apology, but that is not enough. I have asked the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations to examine the firms policies and procedures, including the extent of, or need for, implicit bias training for its employees. We are reaching out to Starbucks to begin a discussion about this.
Commissioner Ross and his team have promised a review of their policies moving forward with regards to response to complaints like this. I believe a thorough review is fully warranted given the unfortunate outcome of this event, particularly at a time when our criminal justice reform efforts are focused on avoiding needless incarcerations.
And as someone else has replied in this thread there will be a positive outcome from this.
As there should be.
However, the laws as written today support the actions taken by the police. They were called to remove someone from the store and they did their job without excessive use of force and no physical injury to anyone involved.
I hope they do sue ... Starbucks ... and win. The police, on the other hand, did their job.
There were 4 bike cops and 2 patrol cops there apparently thinking there was danger because fucking 911 was called.
SIX COPS called for 2 guys who were just sitting there being black waiting for a white friend to discuss business.
So, when excessive force is used everyone always says the same things ....
Why did they not wait for backup
Why did they draw their weapons
Why did they use a taser
In this case, if you believe they should have been arrested or not, they waited for backup and did not use excessive force. You can argue all day about IF they should have been arrested. The FACT is they did not get shot, beaten, or tasered.
Granted a terribly low standard to set ...
One more time - there is a thing called "conflict resolution" that was not deployed and should have been.
Fortunately the handkerchief head Police Chief is going to do an investigation because nothing in this instance should have arisen to the level of an arrest. NOTHING.
is a public accommodation.
You may post as many black and white pictures from before the laws on discrimination were changed as you like.
If you are asked to leave a place of business and you do not leave and the police are called ... you will be removed. There are ways to rectify this through the court system, the police do not make that decision.
That is the entirety of the investigation because that's the entire list of people who had a relevant opinion.
This is how black people got lynched over the centuries. False allegations of committing some "crime".
If these 2 had been disruptive and harassing customers or damaging property, there are grounds for removal from a public establishment.
The company has already admitted they (the manager at this store) were wrong yet DUers keep doing their Michael Flynn "lock 'em up" chant in these threads.
The establishment called the police and said something like ...
There are two men here who have been asked to leave and they refuse.
When asked to leave by the police and refused.
Really not difficult. If you agree with why they were asked to leave and did not is not the point, they were asked to leave is all that matters to the police. When the police show up after receiving this type of complaint they will remove the person/s on the complaint of the property representative. That is the law. If the person who was removed feel that they have been discriminated against they may file a law suit, the police do not make that determination, the courts do.
You tell me what this is then ...
They called the police to have someone removed, what is that called?
The police asked them to leave and they refused, what is that called?
Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public - including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).
And here is the kicker -
Although the public accommodations laws are designed to prevent discrimination and are intended to promote fairness and equality, they do have certain limitations. For example, many laws allow for the removal or exclusion of a person who displays offensive behavior or is a direct threat to public health or safety. For instance, store patrons can be subjected to a bag check, or some other security measure, but only if the same rules apply to all patrons equally.
And the bolded part, WASN'T the case. Which is why they are in legal jeopardy.
How many times must it be said.
Starbucks was in the wrong.
The police did their job. The wronged may sue, but not the police. They can sue Starbucks.
None of the things you continue to post even suggest the police acted wrongly, they did not. They have to remove the person/s being complained, the courts decide if it was improper. If the police made that decision why would we even need courts?
If a business calls the police to have someone removed, for any reason, the police will remove them. Period. The grievance may be taken up through the courts, who will then use the things you continue to post to determine liability in violation of law.
NOT THE POLICE, the police do not interpret law, they enforce it. If you believe you are wronged you do not get to disobey the police, you will be arrested. You can beat the rap, you cannot beat the ride.
And I always love a solid doubling-down.
... order and would get everyone bent in court.
Police do assess situations
Yes. That is how it works. Not just for that situation, but for most. Leave or get arrested. Then, if discriminatory, there is a harmed party that may use the court system. It's a major part of our country. Your argument is completely backwards.
because this is where municipalities are training LEO how NOT to even get to this type of situation because when you "use the court system" for nonsense like this, not only do you incur a financial and time cost to both parties re-litigating established law, but you have a cost in the time wasted by judges and/or juries to do this. It is the least efficient way to this type of situation.
Both the Starbucks CEO and the Mayor here have indicated that it should have NEVER resulted in any arrest. It was a complete waste of scarce resources.
Maybe you didnt see the post I was replying to. You are making a pro-confederacy argument.
I really am taken back to read this here. Again, Im simply hoping you are a knee-jerk kind of person who just commented after reading one reply in a conversation.
Using the court system for that wasn't "nonsense" as you brazenly refer to it. It's righteous.
The use of the courts is always a solution - but it should be a solution of last resort. There should be a means of diffusing - including arbitration - to deal with this type of situation.
I have had 30+ years of training courses in "Conflict Resolution" and dealing with workplace issues (having been a supervisor and manager) and there are plenty of remedies that don't need to get to the level of calling the police and going to court to resolve to deal with a dispute.
You are correct, there are plenty of ways to resolve these types of issues without calling the police and going to court to resolve disputes.
Once the police are called they will do their job. Once a case is filed the courts will do their job.
When someone is terminated they generally get perp walked out of the building and their access to the building and grounds is removed. If they do not cooperate the police will be called and they will be removed. The police will not ask you why you fired this person, they will remove them.
It is the same law, it is called trespass. It makes no difference, at that moment in time, why you are being removed from the property.
You infer that the police will violate law because they were called. Just. Because. They. Were. Called.
But yup, when it comes to black folk, they do do that quite a bit!!!!
Texas Penal Code - § 30.05. Criminal Trespass
(a)?A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1)?had notice that the entry was forbidden; ?or
(2)?received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b)?For purposes of this section:
(1)?Entry means the intrusion of the entire body.
(A)?oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
Cop to manager: Did you ask this person to leave?
Manager: I did, and they refused.
Cop to patron: Did he ask you to leave?
Patron: Yes, and I refused.
Prima Facie criminal trespass.
Last edited Tue Apr 17, 2018, 05:05 AM - Edit history (1)
The company is "the owner". The citations you bolded are referencing PRIVATE property. This facility is PUBLIC under the Public Accommodations Act and not "private". The police's job is to determine whether there is a valid reason to charge. The Philadelphia D.A.'s Office found no valid reason to file charges because of this fact. Both the company and the LEO illegally escalated the situation beyond what could have been solved by simple "conflict resolution" procedures that were supposed to be part and parcel of LEO training but obviously needs a refresher.
The U.S. is not a gestapo state although reading DU of late, one would think it is rapidly getting there, even due to purported "progressives".
The store manager is the authorized agent or representative of the owner. They act with the same authority.
A place of public accommodation is still private property. You seem to not be clear on what those terms mean. Private property simply means property owned by private individuals or private companies, and not owned by the public or government. That includes a place like Starbucks. It is a place of public accommodation on private property.
If they want a person trespassed from a property, then the police must do it.
It is not the job of the police to sit and judge if the reasons for the trespass are good enough. Its only their job to ensure the person wanting them trespassed from the property is legally allowed to from that place, and a store manager is.
Now at that point all the police do is tell the person they are being trespassed and they must leave. If the person leaves then the cops do a report and everyone goes on their way.
If the person refuses to leave after being formally trespassed, then that becomes a criminal violation.
At that point the police must remove them.
and no charges were deemed needed - both by the Philadelphia D.A.'s office and the company. The bogus "trespassing" assertion failed to meet the test. Yet DUers continue to argue with complete bullshit. It is truly bizarre.
Because they are able to gather more facts later than the cops have available to them.
I had a lot of my arrests that ended with the DA choosing not to pursue the charges because either the victims changed their mind or new facts came to light. It doesnt mean my original arrest, based on facts known to me at the time, was not the right decision.
Cops make those decisions based on the facts and knowledge given to them at that time. A big factor was that when the arrest was made the manager was acting as an agent of the company on behalf of them. Quite rapidly the company decided her actions were not representative of their wishes and that changed the whole situation- but after the fact. Suddenly there is no victim willing to press charges, when there was before.
In this case more information came to light, and the managers bosses made clear she was wrong, and the DA did the right thing in choosing not to prosecute the case. But thats a lot of info that the cops at the scene didnt have available to them at that point and time.
it was found to be without merit. Situations like this to include misuse of 911 could have been avoided and resolved in 15 minutes by utilizing "smart policing". But that wasn't done and my city is now in the ugly spotlight due to dumb decisions.
Seriously, you think you can't eject someone for trespassing if you're open to the public, and subject to public accommodation rules?
Christ on a crutch, that's a silly position to take, not backed up by law.
Property rights, you need to read up.
in a public restaurant/theater/swimming pool/bar/lounge does NOT rise to the level of "trespassing". A proprietor can't just throw that charge out there like they did in the old days and expect to prevail. Starbucks (and other places like Denny's) learned that quick fast and in a hurry.
The apologists on DU are simply mind-boggling.
There is no need for a disruption or anything else to be considered trespassing.
All that is needed is the person to knowingly be on the premises without permission.
Doesnt matter if your totally peaceful, minding your own business. If the owner or their representative tells you that you no longer have permission to be there, or they have the police do it, and your refuse to leave that is trespassing. Or if you have been formally trespassed from the property before and you return you are trespassing regardless of how you behave.
Your idea of what constitutes trespassing is totally wrong in regards to what the law actually says.
That is why the D.A. here decided no charges were warranted as this situation did not meet the test. A different situation from this may have but this case didn't.
The fact that the "manager" is gone, the CEO's ass is here in Philly on an apology tour meeting with the mayor, members of City Council, the city's Human Relations Commission and Police Advisory Board, means that something was done incorrectly, despite what "DUers" keep insisting.
It wasnt the absence of disruption.
It was the fact that more facts came to light and the situation changed as it developed.
Most notable was the fact that the store manager was no longer considered to be representing the views or desires of the company. That means there was no longer a victim.
Its just like if I arrest someone for assault based on a person claim they were assaulted, and later the person who claimed they were assaulted changes the story and says it never happened. I would have been acting on the information I had at hand at that time. It doesnt mean my arrest was bad, I acted on what information I had available.
Sure, a lot was done wrong. All by that Starbucks manager.
It was the fact that more facts came to light and the situation changed as it developed.
There was no "change in situation".
I think you should quit before you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the non sequitur abyss.
This is why people describe the need for criminal justice reform.
Your idea of "law" being unbendable except for how you interpret it, and very much having some nebulous "original intent" like our GOP literalists on the SCOTUS believe, is truly mind-boggling.
For fuck's sake, read the law you yourself posted.
a public facility by inventing a rule that didn't exist and doing so based on "race" (because it was not done to any whites there) is a violation of the Public Accommodations Law. Read THAT yourself.
You see, this is the type of problem that is rampant and we have been there done that before with blacks being told "to leave".
I can ask you to leave my store because you're the 99th customer today, and I have an irrational fear of the number 99.
If you refuse to leave, that's trespassing. Doesn't fucking matter whether or not I had a rule about the number 99. Doesn't matter if I had a sign or if the sign was in both english and spanish. Legally, it. doesn't. matter. That is trespassing.
If I ask you to leave because you're a member of a protected class, and you refuse, it's still trespassing, but you can subsequently file a civil suit based on Title II.
Civil law doesn't negate criminal law. They are two whole separate beasts. Go ahead, dial 911 and tell the operator that you were unfairly discriminated against based on race, gender, religion, etc. The operator will tell you that is a civil matter, and no officer will be dispatched.
For fuck's sake, they should teach civics better.
And Dred Scott made sure nothing would "negate property rights" either.
Federal law always trumps state law but you can keep arguing this nonsense despite the fact that there was a reason why no charges were brought based on what you keep spouting about like a broken record.
I.e., you are wasting your time making hypothetical moot arguments.
Please, do go ahead and pick up the phone and dial 911 for being discriminated against.
Go ahead, tell me what they say. Please, do.
There were no charges levied in this case because the actual property owner (starbucks) determined that the manager was acting in contravention of the property owner's wishes.
The basis for trespassing is that someone stays in a place that they have been told to leave by a person with the authority to do so.
Let's remove different items in that sentence:
The patrons leave- no trespassing.
The manager changes their mind- no trespassing.
The manager loses their authority to make such a decision (e.g. the property owner disagrees)- no trespassing.
DAs drop / refuse to press charges for a multitude of reasons- that doesn't mean no crime was committed.
despite the fact that you keep trying to impose such because you said so. And because of the frivolous escalation of the situation, their civil rights were violated, and part of the "payment" for that violation is happening as we type, including an announcement of mass training.
When a shady DA refuses to charge a cop with murder for killing a young black man, do you likewise claim that there was no violation of criminal law?
Of course not, that'd be reprehensible.
When you remove an element of a crime, the crime ceases to be. When the property owner changes his/her/it's mind, a trespassing charge disappears.
Not because the DA dropped the case, not because some other law trumped trespassing law- only because an element of the crime no longer exists.
And your use of an analogy of charging police vs charging a civilian is a complete non sequitur with respect to this case.
The "crime" was found not to exist, no charges were filed, the CEO removed the offender who misused 911 and has gone about making amends, the city has multiple agencies reviewing the response and how to improve their practices, and yet you continue to do this -
I am not surprised. Hang it up. It's over.
The property owner asserted property rights by countermanding the decision of the manager.
Hence the crime no longer exists.
It's that fucking simple.
It is over. It only continues on in the fantasyland that is being perpetuated here.
That's classic. As if criminal law enforcement handles civil claims.
"Hello, 911? Yes, I'd like to report some discriminatory lending practices. Please send an officer right away."
"911? I need to report a breach of contract, right away!"
Many in this thread have tried to set you straight- some actual practicing attorneys and former law enforcement.
Go ahead, tell them again how you know better than they do what the law is and means.
This not about a penal code...and it is ridiculous that you even bring this up as if those gentlemen did anything wrong...the Manager was 'skeered'...oh scary Black men (Sarcasm). Racism cannot be tolerated.
POC who faced this sort of discrimination and worse, you refuse to comply with an illegal request.
Hold a degree in human resource management, and have owned my own staffed business for over ten years.
I need none of that to recognize how you just completely shifted from your previously flawed argument. It also doesnt change the extreme flaw in context you presented above.
with far too many courses that I was required to take (and give) as part of that. And there is no "shift".
What I wrote here (with hyperbole) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10500147 corresponds to what I wrote here -
Both the Starbucks CEO and the Mayor here have indicated that it should have NEVER resulted in any arrest. It was a complete waste of scarce resources.
I.e., there is a need to recognize profiling and bias. The lunch counter sit-ins publicly showed the "overt" (taunting) response of racial bias resulting in a charge of "trespassing". This current incident shows the "covert" (calling the police) response of racial bias resulting in the same end-result as 60+ years ago.
So you have a textbook case of bias.
Addressing this will avoid expensive lawsuits and settlements.
should do it, no questions asked? That is unacceptable. The police should not carry out any orders from racists to remove POC.
They cannot remove the owner, can they? Someone has to be removed in that situation, else it might come to violence.
Now, if the cops can tell that the owner is just being a racist, they don't have to ARREST the guy they are removing.
EDIT: And of course we are assuming that the cops are mind-readers who can tell if the owner is a racist or not. In the current instance, there is no indication that the manager started yelling the N-word or otherwise "distinguished" herself as a racist.
Property owner or their responsible representative (like a store manager) determines they dont want someone in a property. Could be for any of a number of reasons- they are shoplifting, causing a disturbance, using facilities without buying anything. Cases Ive worked have been people drunk in bars causing a disturbance, or people in a restaurant sexually harassing the waitress, an irate customer at a tire shop, people fishing on a pond, etc. Most cases were known shoplifters that business owners didnt want around. Doesnt matter what the reason is from the law enforcement perspective.
They ask person to leave. Person doesnt. Police are called.
Police arrive. There are only two relevant facts at this point for the police to investigate- is the person asking them to be removed a person with authority to to do (property owner, leasee, or business manager with the proper legal authority over the property at that moment) and who are the people they want removed.
It doesnt matter if the reason they want them removed is entirely correct or 100% bullshit and racist. Legally they must remove them. They will formally tell the person or persons they are being formally trespassed and are no longer allowed on the property from that point on. If they person or persons then still refuse to leave then they will have to use force to effect the removal.
Now once it is done if the reason was bullshit and racially discriminatory then the people removed have full reason and right to pursue legal action against the property owners/business.
But the cops cant check motivations or tell a property owner we think your racist so we wont enforce the law this time. If the property owner was right or wrong to call is a matter for the courtroom.
If they ascertain there's no good reason to ask someone to leave, they don't have to ask.
The police are not cheap bouncers at the beck and call of any asshole shop manager who dials 911.
The police dont get to decide if a property owners reasons for trespassing a person are good enough. They dont get to tell the person their reason is a lot of crap, even if it is.
If the property owners or their representative want the petiole trespassed, the police are required to enforce that.
The only time I see cops at Target or Wal-Mart is when there's been a disturbance, usually someone shoving, hitting, and/or screaming at store security, or maybe some delusional homeless person taking a dump in a dressing room.
The police will also come out to pick up repeat shoplifters as verified by store security camera recordings and whatever working relationship the police have with store security. They don't routinely do the "scared straight" spiel for young teenage shoplifters, and they don't automatically respond with any urgency to other types of community service calls, including your version of "trespassing." At a gang shooting it seems like every cop in the city will show up within minutes. But if you catch some kid painting gang graffiti on your wall or someone throws a rock through your window, the police may or may not show up. If they don't they'll ask you to file a report on their web site or in person at the police station. That's so you can get a case number to show your insurance company. It has nothing to do with justice.
Perhaps I live in a different world than most posters here on DU are familiar with. The security guard in front of our local Costco wears a Kevlar vest. (That can't be comfortable in warm weather!) He's also expected to handle minor disturbances on his own, without turning them into major disturbances for which the police have to be called. People who rarely interact with the police, and people who live in places where the police don't have much to do, seem to have some strange ideas about the police, attributing to them almost magical powers of justice and authority. It's like people who think they have good health insurance even though they've never had a bad accident or illness that tested it.
I have a lot of respect for the work cops do, but individual cops have to earn my respect. I've had too many encounters with the police to believe their presence will always improve the outcome of any serious human conflict; not for the victim, not for the public at large, and not for anyone accused of wrong doing. I always think twice before I call the police, and I always describe the situation very, very carefully.
I think I learned a lot about the world as a science teacher in a rougher big city school. Teachers are expected to keep order without guns, physical intimidation, or threats of fines and imprisonment. For the most part they do. Teaching was the most difficult job I ever had. I think all cops, especially cops who carry guns, should have similar experience.
You might get it after a wait if we were busy, but you got it. We had 5 patrol deputies per shift if things were full and nobody was off, but just as often 4, covering 650 Square miles where we were the primary LE body and another 50 that was in cities where the city PD had primary but we still had duties.
If it was a call, we went. Sometimes we handled things over the phone if it was a simple report, but they only wanted us doing that if it was a case where things were busy and it was simple.
If you reported a possible prowler, we went. Had a complaint about noise we went (unless it was before 10:00, as the county noise ordinance didnt stray until then so before then we called and told you to call back after 10 if it was continued). Just want extra patrols on your road? We did. Graffiti? Never had much, but we went.
Of course part of that is your County Sheriff is elected. So we were working for a boss who had a vested interest in ensuring all the people we served were happy.
It wasnt uncommon for me to start a shift at 5, run nonstop with only bathroom stops and maybe some coffe and a meal I grab on the go for the entire 12 hour shift or longer.
Police are not obligated to pick sides in a dispute like this. They don't have to tell anyone what to do, they don't have to offer any resolution to a dispute that's not violent, they don't have to arrest anyone, they don't have to give anyone cause to question their authority.
As a teacher if two kids were fighting at school I didn't pick sides, my first concern was that they stopped fighting. I only suffered one fight in my classroom and I've always felt bad that I didn't see it coming. The air was hot and heavy with adolescent hormones and I'm really bad at recognizing body language, with scars to show for it. A big girl in my class stepped in between the two boys, scolding and shaming them back into their seats. I didn't feel bad she'd usurped my authority. RESPECT.
I live in a place where high housing costs (especially in "nicer" neighborhoods) and heavy, sometimes very grim, workloads make it difficult for our city to attract and keep police professionals. Our police department has been understaffed and overworked for all the decades I've lived here.
40% of the kids in our schools don't speak English at home, so language is a problem too, even for officers who are fully English/Spanish bilingual.
We have a disproportionately high homeless population too, people here from all over the U.S.A. for no other reason than the mild winters and scarcity of sociopaths who'd deport imprison torture or kill people of misfortune.
It sure as hell ain't heaven but it's home.
The law is clear.
A property owner or their legal representative has the right to trespass a person from a property.
There is no right of a patron to remain on property if the owner does not want them there.
So the law is fairly one sided on this regard. Only one side of such a dispute has the legal right to determine who is allowed to remain on the property.
The only way they can avoid that is to choose to say screw it, we are going to ignore the law.
And thats not how it works. And that isnt how you should want cops to work, to show up to calls and say well the law say X, but we dont really care so you folks have a good day and we dont care what you do.
Now, the law does provide remedies for people wrongfully removed in cases like this- but that comes later in court in civil cases. It doesnt change the part about what the law says about trespassing.
and I can relate having been a substitute teacher at one time right out of college (while job hunting) and ending up subbing in some of the most notorious high schools in the city (which were always in need of subs due to rampant teacher absenteeism). Some of the students were only a few years younger than me (I was 21).
What I learned was that save those who may have a true mental illness, when people feel that you respect them, they will respond in kind, or will at least more easily comply by showing a sense of trust.
And this is the type of thing that the PD here has tried to foster, albeit in fits and starts, but something inevitably happens, funding gets cut for training, and they end up drifting back to square one.
the police must remove the POC?
Except, they don't. At least not in the real world.
But the way that law reads that is what it is.
want, the police have absolutely no requirement to assure that there is actually probably cause to act beyond the word of the manager and have no say or discretion in whether they do it - they have to do it because the manager says so and the ONLY available recourse the individuals have is - once they get out of jail - to hire a lawyer and initiate a civil lawsuit?
You can't possibly really believe this.
The rights of property owners are pretty strong.
If a property owner does not someone on the property, absent some circumstances like a signed lease or other exception giving them legal right to be on that property their recourse is to leave.
The only cause to act needed for trespassing is the property owner or their representative to say they no longer have permission to be on the property. Thats it.
There is no requirement for the police to check if there is a legitimate reason for not wanting the people there. Not only that, the cops are not allowed to. There is no provision in the law for the police to even be able to judge that if they wanted.
The only outcome is not the people getting arrested. If they leave wen asked nobody gets arrested. If they refuse to leave after being told to leave then, and only then, has it escalated to a criminal act that can be cited or arrested.
If you dont believe me, look up the trespassing statutes and case law for any state you choose and read the volumes of material out there that say the same things.
I want to stay as far away from there as possible.
Seriously, there is indeed a requirement for police to check if there is a "legitimate" basis for the arrest - it's called probable cause.
And, as I'm sure you know, what is probable cause depends on the individual circumstances. So, for example, if I'm a homeowner and a man shows up on my property and won't leave and I call the police and say he's trespassing, when they arrive and ask the man what he's doing on my property and he says "just hanging around" and doesn't offer any legal reason to be on my property - e.g., he's an owner or renter, has an easement, etc., - they'll likely determine they have probably cause to arrest him if he doesn't leave. But if he says, "I live here" and shows his driver license with my address on it, they don't have probably cause to arrest him for "defiant trespassing" without more information of wrongdoing. Unless I can show them another reason that he's not supposed to be there, they will surely leave him be and not arrest him for trespassing, no matter how much I tell them he shouldn't be allowed to stay.
They're not going to just take my word for it, drag the man to jail and then let him sort it out later in a civil lawsuit.
In the case of the store, under Pennsylvania law, the men had a lawful right to be there unless they were violating some lawful condition of access, so unless the manager could prove there was a condition of access that they were violating, there was no probably cause to arrest them. And, if pressed, not only could the owner not prove such a condition existed - because none did as the no buy not sit claim wasn't a rule or policy that was communicated to the public as a condition of entry or remaining - but all available evidence suggested that the store's policy was just the opposite: people were allowed to access the premises even if they DIDN'T buy anything. Given that, the police officers had no probable cause to make an arrest.
And the DA obviously concluded this, as well, since in declining to charge the men, he said there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of defiant trespassing.
It's very simple.
There is an affirmative defense that a person in a public place is presumed to not be trespassing laws if they have not violated a condition of access.
But one condition of access is always permission of the property owner or manager. That permission is presumed to exist when a place is open to the public, but once withdrawn of that permission is communicated to the persons they no longer are presumed to have it.
So they, once again, were not trespassing until the manager asked them to leave.
At that point by refusing to leave they were trespassing.
The only probably cause needed was the cops to make sure the person claiming to be the manager was really the manager, then they tell the people that the manager has asked them to leave. And when they refuse, the violation is there.
Do we want them deciding that?
Even if you are doing a Rosa Parks scenario, the risk of arrest is there. If you are going to stand up to a bad law; you risk arrest; that is part of that process. Then you tell the judge how the law violates the Constitution or the Civil Rights Law and you win a civil suit or get an injunction.
It was racism. Both the cops and the manager were wrong.
The individual decides when it is worth it.
The two men also decided it was worth it; they are getting the needed attention to bring the issue out.
But I do think the manager could be the problem.
Not sure, but the company probably does have a policy on people hanging out without buying anything. If the problem is uneven enforcement then that is most likely on the individual managers (since I sincerely doubt the company would have an explicitly racist policy).
and white people have been asked to order something or leave after a reasonable period of time. This is not an uncommon issue in retail, though how such problems are handled can vary. Police were rarely called unless a person was disorderly, abusive, threatening, or drunk.
By wrong move I mean doing something that appears aggressive because they are black that would NOT be seen as aggressive by non black people
no one's saying that stores can't legally deem people trespassing, and no one's saying that the police shouldn't enforce trespassing laws when a store deems someone a trespasser.
the problem is that stores rarely deem white people trespassers, then some black people who aren't disturbing anyone come along and suddenly they are deemed trespassers.
no one's saying that traffic laws shouldn't be enforced, but it is a problem that black people are disproportionately pulled over for violating them. virtually everyone speeds, e.g., leaving police an excuse to cover for anything, including bigotry.
so were these people really trespassing in a manner consistent with the way it's used across the board?
highly doubtful. white people are rarely deemed trespassers unless they are being highly disruptive to the business, e.g., shouting drunks who won't leave.
seems a different standard is used for black people.
Though I think that partly has to do with black neighborhoods having more cops assigned, so more "violations" are seen. My (very white/hispanic) neighborhood very rarely has cops around, so I can speed down my road almost at will.
White people are "rarely" told to hit the road. It does happen, in accordance with general policy, at times. But, as you mention, when there are various aspects of enforcement that are upheld disproportionately against minorities, such as police "carding" (demanding ID from) people on the streets, then the bleep's gonna hit the fan, as it should.
Did the manager ask them to leave first and they refused?..If he didn't even do that first, then yes, that's clear bias.
and weren't asked to leave.
the lawyer for the people who were kicked out said they were only there a few minutes before they were asked to leave.
the lawyer of course might be exaggerating, but it certainly sounds like clear bias even before the police showed up.
fwiw, the starbucks ceo has apologized, agrees they never should have been arrested, and is meeting the people who were arrested to apologize face-to-face.
and you are right...This was definite bias. The manager needs to be fired or at least "put on notice".
There is a link in this thread confirming it (supposedly "by mutual decision" .
and not even be asked to leave.
There was a white woman here in DC who decided to scream racial epithets at some Muslim women without any consequences. The Muslim women were paying customers, the asshole was not.
There'd be screaming headlines, CNN panels, and judicial investigations
You'd have a stunning example of white privilege - "How dare they! These things aren't supposed to happen to US!"
If a white person were tossed out, it would certainly not be national news in this way. The person might try to make it a big deal, but no one is going to believe they were tossed because they were white.
That's why it would be big news - no one would be able to believe it
So, like, let's say some white guys were having a bible study session Starbucks and were waiting for their friend. Whether or not it was actually based on a bias or not wouldn't matter, but the perceived possibility that it was based on bias is what causes it become "a thing". Fox News and others on the right would be calling for boycotts of evil Starbucks for their against Christians. I'd say white folks (which I am one) generally do not face such situation solely due to our race. So, that would probably not be news because it generally doesn't happen (yes, I am aware it can and does happen in some situations)
*In case I am not clear, I am basically agreeing with you..
Could have made some noise... but not as racist but as unfriendly service
no matter how disruptive they were being.
and you can bet the media would cover that story of "reverse discrimination".
if a couple of white people got tossed, odds are really, really good that it was really because they were being disruptive. but they might call the media and claim it was reverse discrimination because they were white. or if they were wearing a cross, because they were christian.
but people seem to agree that the black people in this case weren't being disruptive. they weren't doing anything that white people don't do there all the time without incident.
there's not much of an explanation left other than racism.
connected with her and black employee that she discriminated against..
...white women are the chief maintainers of this sort of social discrimination I'm seeing in the marketplace and commons.
In the 40 years I've spent in the military and in the public sector, I've found most of the nastiest active racists - especially the women (as opposed to passive racists) were people in a lower position in the overall hierarchy who had been given some power and ability to enforce rules and provide inputs for evaluations and promotions.
These are usually people who made it far enough to attain a "Big Fish in a Little Pond" status - but aren't emotionally capable of separating their personal attitudes from the attitude and self-awareness required to actually manage or lead an organization or task. The task isn't "first" in their worlds. Being on top is.
And frustrated, resentful women - no matter how talented or what sort of outward appearance they're able to fake - are too often the worst racists and misogynistic people around.
Honestly, I'd rather work for a man who thought little of women in the workforce than a woman who would ruthlessly try and sabotage any other women who she felt could "show her up" or made her feel uncomfortable for whatever reason. And I've worked for both several times over the years.
and for those I do, they pay me handsome consulting fees...It's all over the net..
I usually apologize and leave because I'm embarrassed by inconsiderate, and notoriously late, family members and co-workers.
This shit happens in businesses all the time, regardless of race. It was Starbucks policy.
they have attached to their bathroom doors saying restrooms are for customers were bought and installed by store employees?
No, they did not. The policy the poster was referring to was in regards to being in a Starbucks without ordering. The gentlemen in question were waiting for a friend, perhaps they wanted to wait so they could order when their friend arrived. But I think you knew all of this.
bathroom and then sat down without ordering anything just before the two men were arrested.
...business regardless of race, and that the Store Manager and Barista were merely executing Starbucks policy, well, I guess that settles it.
I must be in a minority on du because I have never spent time waiting for friends at Starbucks. If I was supposed to meet someone, I would just order. Is there some rule you have to wait for your friends to order a cup of coffee?
If Im spending time in an establishment I just assume they arent going to let you lounge for free, so I buy something immediately. I actually have spent time in a variety of Starbucks, including city stores that are generally packed, and expecting people to buy while using the premises seems pretty reasonable. I do think Id expect a heads up before the cops showed up, however.
unless there is a pattern of discrimination, I would not hold the parent company to blame for one incident. Since it is pretty common for people to sit around at Starbucks to use the WiFi, I would hold the store manager to blame for the incident. I don't even like Starbucks coffee, but I would not boycott them over this.
Heck, 15 months ago, we won the ticket lottery to see Hamilton on Broadway, but it was only 2 tickets, so my wife and daughter went while I waited for them (I tried to get tickets in the cancellation line, but they ran out way before I got there...). My first thought was to go to a movie and see it while they were at the show. However, the only movie nearby that finished around the time of Hamilton was 100% sold out (Hidden Figures), but I ended up hanging out in Starbucks and using the free WiFi while I waited for them. I did buy a snack, but that took like 2 minutes to finish, and I just hung out for another 2 hours. I had my charger with me as well, so left with a 100% charge on my phone.
I left a bit early so I could get a spot for my daughter by the stage door as well.
they only franchise on a limited basis. However, it's still a chain store and employs over 200,000 people - one bad person (who has since left the company) does not make it boycott worthy. As I said above, if there is a pattern of behavior across Starbucks - like there was with Denny's or Cracker Barrel several years back -then it's something worthy of a boycott.
including one here in the Philly area. They finally got taken down.
Last edited Mon Apr 16, 2018, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)
It may be a relatively recent development, but I know of one that opened about a year or so ago.
No idea if the one in question was a franchise or corporate location, but the latter is more likely.
ON EDIT: I was mistaken. See sub-thread below
If so I am assuming it is a situation where the location would be prohibited to be there if owned by the parent company for whatever reason, but I would like to know specifics.
Not questioning you, I have an interest in this beyond this topic.
...which, on further searching, is not a franchise, so I was in error above. However, they aren't corporate-Starbucks either (for example, the location that prompted my reply does not redeem points, and they appear to have a different relation to higher area management). At the customer level, it's not clear how that differs from franchise arrangements.
They would be very very expensive.
She should be fired imo, or at the very least demoted.
The entire business model of a coffeehouse is "hanging out." Go to any SBX near a university, and there are scads of college kids drinking their own coffee hanging out. My SBX, in a very, very crowded suburban area has homeless folks hang out, and they give them drinks and snacks all day. A knitting club also hangs out there FRiday night FOR HOURS until closing, taking up like 10-12 seats. I doubt they buy more than a drink each, if that.
The men told the manager they were waiting on a friend. That should have been good enough. But they trespassed them.
The cops HAD to kick them out, but they didn't need to cuff or arrest them. That was overkill.
THE WHITE PATRONS there said it was racist, get it? They said WHITE FOLKS WERE HANGING OUT, one asked for teh bathroom passcode and was given it (also, have never heard of a place having passcodes for teh bathroom wtf).
Check your privilege, and you will see why it was wrong.
on edit: Starbucks does not have a rule saying you need to buy something to hang out.
where you have to ask for the key.
Also, in my view, if the guys refused the cops order to leave, then the cops really do have to arrest them (what will the cops do, just say oh well and walk away?)
I think the company has acted appropriately thus far, but they do NOT have a handle on the local franchises and for that they deserve the "dings" they are getting. It does seem like they are trying to address the situation.
I don't give the police ANY kind of a pass. They aren't just drones. They are paid to question and assess the situation, not just knee jerk start assuming and arresting. This is especially true, since there were many customers who they failed to question re: what happened or at least to take their accounts seriously.
And yes, they cops HAD to trespass them, but didn't need to cuff the guys, and absolutely didn't have to arrest them. NOr have SIX cops do it.
If you are somewhere and asked to leave and refuse ... they then proceed to call the cops, for whatever reason you are thickheaded enough to wait for the cops to show up. The cops show up and ask you to leave and again you refuse to leave.
At this point it makes no difference who is right and who is wrong, you will be removed. Once the cops have to physically perform this action they are going to arrest you.
There is no film before the arrest, no witness account before the short arrest video. The police could have asked them to leave for 15 minutes before making the arrest. We do not know. Simple fact is this, if the police are called because a business does not want you in their establishment, the police will remove you. If any use of force will be needed you WILL be arrested, or you can just walk out. The police are not there to determine if you should be allowed to stay there, that is not their job.
In the short video it appears the police are doing their job and did so with no excessive use of force, used no abusive language, maintained calm, and did not escalate when they were being questioned by observers. Pretty much textbook arrests.