General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Black man blocked from entering NJ gym where hes a paid member and even the cops are confused
18 APR 2018 AT 08:09 ET
A series of videos posted on Facebook this week shows that employees at an LA Fitness gym in Secaucus, New Jersey called the cops on a black member because they assumed he didn’t pay to get in — and refused to back down even after learning he was a member.
The videos were posted by a New Jersey man named Tshyrad Oates but were originally filmed by Oates’ friend, who is a member of the gym.
The first video shows Oates’ friend fuming as he walks from the main gym area toward the lobby after he’s been asked to leave the gym because he didn’t pay an entrance fee — despite the fact that he’s a paid member.
He approaches the woman at the front desk and asks her to scan his membership tag, which she does. After the scan shows that he is a member of the gym, the woman simply stands up and doesn’t say anything as she walks away.
The second video shows him being confronted by the gym’s manager, who tells him that he can’t shoot video in the gym. When he refuses to stop, the manager tries to implore police officers in the lobby to make him stop, but they tell him they can’t legally do that.
“I understand, you don’t like cell phones,” one officer says to him. “But it’s not criminal activity.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/watch-black-man-blocked-entering-nj-gym-hes-paid-member-even-cops-confused/?comments=disqus
White America is addicted to policing black bodies simply because we're black. LA Fitness is about to get a similar lesson, to the one that Starbucks is getting right now, on why policing black bodies is a bad idea.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)
ailsagirl
(22,893 posts)WHAT THE---???????????
DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)I've been posting suggestions for change, but nary a DUer seems to be concerned with such posts. They like seeing the news, but not prescriptions for change.
Go ahead and scold me for standing up for our African American brothers and sisters.
I've been arrested and accosted by the police all up and down the East Coast (for civil disobedience), so any editorial quibbles you may have doesn't phase me. I, however, am appalled that people here seem largely interested in reading about abuse rather than addressing it.
ConnorMarc
(653 posts)In the past I've posted some similarly topic posts...no response.
That's why it's more accurate to say "White media" rather than "main stream media" or "liberal media."
It is what it is.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Homonyms (this word is a homophone) are difficult. But it is good to know you are not easily fazed.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)are going to have an "interesting" day.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)shut down the entire place for a day for training.
At the rate these incidents are happening, maybe the whole country should shut down for a day or three of diversity training.
malaise
(268,913 posts)I'm sick of this racist shit
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Somebody somewhere gave a singnal of some sort.
This shit is happening a lot now, as is the increasingly blatant police murders of black men.
bluescribbler
(2,114 posts)It's only "blatant" because citizens have cell phones with video capability. Not too long ago it was happening but it wasn't "blatant" because there was no evidence of police wrongdoing.
Anon-C
(3,430 posts)
AllaN01Bear
(18,147 posts)
dalton99a
(81,443 posts)
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)at their corporate offices, and the employees at that particular gym are going to need to get their resumes updated, I think.
Racism sucks!
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)as so many repeatedly claimed for the Philadelphia incident.
GOOD ON THESE POLICE for using their common sense and NOT simply and unthinkingly taking the word of the gym
that a crime had been committed.
(I still can not believe all the DUers who defended the Philly police blindly arresting without even questioning what had occurred in Philadelphia Starbucks-- and claiming they had no choice despite plenty of opportunities to question others)
And yes, that gym need to be held to account.
barbtries
(28,787 posts)and they made the wrong one.racism SUCKS
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)and how "ignorant" i must be to conclude otherwise. It was ugly.
Funny, how in my decades of life I've experienced so many occasions when police evaluated a situation and made the determination to take no action, but somehow now, TODAY they aren't allowed to THINK? 
barbtries
(28,787 posts)years and years ago, okay about 38, i had my 4-year-old with me and was about 8 1/2 months along with my daughter, when a car sprang out of a parking spot into the side of my car. I got out, the driver went walking into the store. A police car came by and I flagged it down, and they immediately said this is a private parking lot we don't have any authority. i said but i have no way to tell if they're who they say they are! but they just drove on.
driver comes out of Montgomery Ward with his big sister and she calmly feels around in the glove compartment and hands me the car registration. as i'm copying the information at least 6 police cars swarm and the police get out, guns drawn, screaming on the ground! at the kids. They had like one adult and 4 minors, some very young, in the car.
the car was stolen. once they ran the plate the police decided they had jurisdiction after all.
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)plenty of jurisdiction re stolen property anywhere.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I suppose they believe that those give the police no choice but to let people off the hook. A literal "Get Out of Jail Free" card I suppose.
"Oh shit. Nothing we can do fellas. This person has a PBA card."
Seriously, how can people be so fucking dense as to think the police don't have a large degree of discretion? Hell, they literally get away with murder on a semi-regular basis and these people think that they had absolutely no choice but to arrest two people who were literally doing nothing. Right.
procon
(15,805 posts)Not every person that the cops come in contact with needs to be arrested. They could have cleared the whole thing up by just asking a few civil questions, which would be a lot easier than going through the booking process.
Is this behaviour because of poor police training, or do the cops have an arrest quota imposed on them by the local government as a means of raising revenue?
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)I am one of those who thought that the police did not act in a racist manner when arresting the two men in Philly. The men were trespassing (which is a crime), as the police had asked them to leave and they refused. The police might have done things differently, but their actions were at least reasonable as they had probable cause.
In the NJ case, the men were NOT trespassing (they were members) and as the cops state the videotaping was not a crime. Thus, the cops actually had no choice: they couldn't arrest the men since there was no crime!
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)without even questioning what happened and determining whether there was cause. The manager, herself (racist though she might be) said she did NOT tell the men she'd called the police AND did NOT want them arrested.
A public accommodation is not like a private house. Merely BEING there is not trespassing.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)"The cops shouldn't have arrested them.""
"Stop calling the cops RACIST!""
"I didn't say the cops were racist. I said they shouldn't have just taken the word of the manager and arrested the men without trying to resolve the situation.""
"There you go calling the cops RACIST, but they didn't have any choice."
"I didn't say the cops were racist. I said that they they were wrong to arrest the men just because the manager wanted them to. And they DID have a choice.""
"You're wrong to say the cops acted in a RACIST MANNER!"
Sigh ...
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)with some here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ConnorMarc
(653 posts)The cops were acting racist though.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)1.) The men's criminal attorney stated they were asked to leave by the manager.
2.) The police talked to the men for 6-7 minutes on one of the videos, they certainly asked them men questions. Once the men refused to leave, the police had probable cause for trespass.
3.) The manager may or may not have told the men she called the police. However, she certainly did ask them to leave, as per their own lawyer.
4.) Kudos to the manager for not wanting the guys arrested. That means crap-all in terms of the police response.
5.) You are right that a public accommodation is not like a house. However, it is settled law that the property manager can ask people to leave and if those people do not leave then it is a trespass. The difference is that if the manager targets them because of race, the manager and business are opened up to a lawsuit.
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)I, on the other hand will fight to ensure police where I live and everywhere possible are PROFESSIONAL, THINKING, WELL-TRAINED individuals who respect and understand the law, but likewise the community they SERVE. And, where this exists, I will always pledge to support them.
You are welcome to as many Unquestioning drone brown shirts as you can find in your community. I will ensure they are weeded out of MINE.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)It is clear that the police had probable cause in this instance, straight from the mouths of the men themselves. I still have not seen anyone make a good argument that the police did anything other than their job.
Now, if it comes out tomorrow that the cops all shared a good, racist joke after work, I could be persuaded to change my mind.
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)holding police accountable. Perhaps there is a motivation in your perpetuating such nonsense but it is anything BUT convincing. No matter how vehement you may be (or repetitive)
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)I of course do NOT advocate against holding the police (or anyone) accountable. Please do not just lob random attacks that are so far off base. You cannot possibly have read what I wrote and come to this conclusion.
My point is that in this instance so far I do not see anything that points to a need to hold them accountable for this particular arrest.
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)when you wrote "holding them accountable", I took it to mean punishing them. If I misread you then I was wrong.
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)Not sure why you are equating yourself to one... Perhaps you are a LEO. If so, note that when you as a working police officer move from your jurisdiction, other more progressive forces WILL expect you to think, investigate/question and not merely hide behind a written policy meant to be subject to professional interpretation and enactment.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
hlthe2b
(102,221 posts)trying just a bit too hard, I think.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
mcar
(42,300 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)And you continue to ignore what options they had and insist they go straight for the kill, which as you see in this case, is how officers DID NOT handle the situation. I.e., just as with Starbucks, a manger is basically accusing someone of "trespassing" because they were not a "member" yet they were and proof was provided. But because the manager "said so", they would have to be arrested based on your philosophy.
I expect you are doing this on purpose.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)If the business owner or its agents demand you leave for a non-discriminatory reason, you have to leave. If the police are called, and you refuse to leave, the police have to remove you.
But I keep coming back to what I think is the real crux of the matter: why didn't they buy just one lousy cup of coffee? That's the right thing to do when you're sitting in someone's business establishment. Esp when they ask you to.
It wasn't their race that started it all. It was the fact that they were hanging out in a business without buying something. That's the crux of the matter. If it hadn't been for that, none of this would have happened.
Makes me sort of wonder if it was a setup, to see what they'd do about it. Maybe not. But makes me wonder, because it's so weird not to buy a cup of coffee, esp when the workers ask you to.
All I know is...I'll never be arrested for that, because I would always buy something for the privilege of sitting there.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)really is bigotry? We have to fight that by civil disobedience...kudos to those young men for standing up for their rights.They were waiting for their friend who came and was prepared to buy stuff by the way...the fact you think it was a 'setup' makes me kind of sick...and Starbucks doesn't force people to buy...I have sat there many hours as a poor college student without buying anything...of course I am white..oh and a person who had bought nothing asked to use the bathroom and was allowed to do so during the incident...of course that person was white. I guess Black men don't understand yet that there are different rules for them...nice of you to explain their 'privilege' responsibilities.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I can't help it.
For one thing...I never said, as you say, "I think it was a setup." Read my post again.
Your experience at other locations is irrelevant. THIS one is the only location that matters.
I have been asked to leave a business before. I left, so wasn't arrested. Was I being discriminated against? What say you?
My brother has been told to leave several businesses, and told to never come back. Was he being discriminated against?
All this happened because two guys refused to buy a cup of coffee for hte privilege of sitting there. I would have paid for the privilege of sitting there (and have). Then when the mgr told me to leave, if I wasn't going to buy something, I would have left, or bought something.
I'm just saying...none of this would have happened, if they had bought one cup of coffee. So in my mind, that means this wasn't discrimination, but seems more like an overzealous manager. Maybe she was exasperated because there have been a lot of people lately hanging out there for hours taking up seats and not buying anything. You don't know. I don't know.
But once it go to the point of hte mgr telling them they have to buy something to sit there and/or use their facilities, they should have, IMO. That would have been the right thing to do. Just buy a coffee, and respect that the business has bills to pay. It's not the library. It's a business.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)even though they were being held to a different standard than white people are...do you see the problem here? I suggest you consider what it would be like going through life where you are treated as a second class citizen where the rules are different for you than those with a lighter skin...I am proud these young men stood up for their rights...imagine a world where Rosa park said...oh well I don't own the bus so I have to follow the rules that are only for me and people who look like me. I have to say kind of shocked at some of your posts.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Who knows? Maybe they were waiting for their friend and then planned to order something together. Maybe they knew that other people hadn’t ordered coffee either so didn’t feel they should have to. Maybe it didn’t occur to them that not ordering coffee as a criminal offense punishable by jail, especially since they hadn’t seen anyone else perp walked out of a Starbucks for not getting a latte.
Since we’re asking questions, why didn’t the manager just let them stay even though they didn’t buy one lousy cup of coffee within minutes of arriving?
They were quiet, not disruptive, not bothering anyone. What harm were they doing to her or her shop by not ordering coffee at that moment?
Why didn’t the manager insist that the white patrons order coffee or leave?
How did the manager normally determine who had and hadn’t ordered anything? Did she go around and ask? Did she check whether there was an empty cup,on the table? What if there wasn’t? Did she demand to see a receipt?
How often did the manager audit the restaurant for non-purchasers? Hourly or less frequently?
How much time did the manager allow a coffee purchase to buy you? If someone was there all day, was it sufficient for them to buy a cup when they came in and then they could stay all day?
Why did she call the police?
When she called the police, why did she only identify the two men but didn’t mention the other people who also hadn’t ordered coffee.
When the police came, why didn’t she tell them she didn’t want the men arrested (since she later said that she never intended for them to be arrested)?
Looking forward to your responses.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)You got my point. As for other customers who were sitting there, not having bought anything, that was not the story I read initially. It was that customer(s) said they had in the past not bought something there. But without audio or a witness saying s/he said that, we don't know for sure. You and I weren't there.
I've been kicked out of a business before. Was I being discriminated against?
My brother has been kicked out of several businesses before, and banned from going back. Was he being discriminated against?
I keep going back to the start: If they had bought a cup of coffee, none of this would have happened. That leads me to conclude that it wasn't racism; it was behavior. Maybe an overzealous manager. Maybe she had had it with people sitting there for hours w/o buying anything, while she struggles with low sales. Maybe she was in a bad mood and decided to enforce hte company's policy. Maybe she's always that way.
And of course, it COULD have been racism. All I'm saying is, there's no proof of that. In fact, similar things have happened to me and my brother.
So who knows.
I look forward to your responses.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)ouster.
The burden is on the police and manager to prove that the men did not comply with the conditions imposed on the general public for access to the shop and we’re therefore trespassing.They did not do that and could do that - the reason why the DA declined to charge them.
The manager’s motive is irrelevant, although anyone who ddn’t just fall out of the sky yesterday morning or is not determined to pretend that racism is just an imaginary construct that may exist n their but never actually occurs n reality is pretty sure exactly what it was.
ConnorMarc
(653 posts)Starbucks, in particular, is known for having and allowing people to just go there and sit and use the internet, or just sit and wait, or sit and be quiet.
I, myself, have done that very thing in Starbacks across this city and in other parts of the country, no problem. I've spent consecutive days going to a Starbucks just for the internet, and leaving only to go to McDonalds, to later come back and continue to use the internet in Starbucks...no problem.
Stop the BS.
Oppaloopa
(867 posts)there all day they even run business out of Starbucks and nothing is ever said nothing purchased either. The police are supposed to tell them to leave and then if they don't they are escorted out . Told if they enter again they will be arrested for trespassing.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)or the Gym case...both managers were fired...and the nasty employees in the gym case as wel...this sort of thing happens to POC and it is used to throw them out of places where only whites are wanted...kind of odd you defending that.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)I am not defending throwing POC out of "white" spaces, so stop being insulting.
The first part of your comment was right, though. The corporations have cleaned house a bit. That said, remember that there is significant pressure on the firms to fire the managers regardless of what actually happened.
Furthermore, even if the manager at Starbucks was a racist, it is still true that the men were trespassing. The men stated to the cops that they were going to continue trespassing. That is why I am not convinced we need to blame the cops here.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)people of color out of 'white only areas'. There may not be signs but it still goes on. Again, the were not trespassing period end of story. They entered legally and while there were subject to illegal profiling. They had every right to be there as it is illegal to ask a person to leave because of race...no charges were filed. So, in my opinion, you are wrong. And while it is not your intent, your argument gives cover for racists .
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)"Again, the were not trespassing period end of story. "
Of course they were trespassing. You go read the definition of "trespassing" in PA and then tell me how exactly the facts of the case don't fit it?
It was wrong to profile them and now it looks like the police even messed up their encounter with the men, but you cannot deny that they were asked to leave and refused, which is the exact technical definition of a "trespass".
"it is illegal to ask a person to leave because of race.."
The proper response to this is the file a lawsuit and get the DOJ involved, not to just sit there and refuse the orders of the police. The beat cops on the scene are not equipped to probe this type of civil-rights violation.
"And while it is not your intent, your argument gives cover for racists ."
Boo-fricking-hoo. I want to be right. Anyone who argues for the freedom of speech is also "giving cover to racists", and I bet you don't condemn them for it.
EDIT: Your comment about my argument giving cover to racists just boggles my mind, so I had to add that you apparently do not care about what actually happened. You want to twist up what actually happened to fit what in your head amounts to a prima-facie case of racist cops. I am fully aware that racist incidents happen all the time and many times involve the police. I do not think we need to twist facts in order to show that black people get crapped on by our society, and twisting said facts merely hurts our other, legitimate arguments.
Boomer
(4,168 posts)You keep pulling the actions of these two black men into a sterile vacuum, judging ONLY the rules as applied to these men. The whole point of the controversy is that WHITE people are allowed to loiter all the time. WHITE people are not challenged to buy a product in order to hang out at Starbucks. WHITE people act just like those two black men all the time and the police aren't called on them.
It's the disparity in the way the manager treated white people versus black people that revealed her racism.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)"The whole point of the controversy is that WHITE people are allowed to loiter all the time. WHITE people are not challenged to buy a product in order to hang out at Starbucks. WHITE people act just like those two black men all the time and the police aren't called on them. "
I already have condemned the actions of the manager, which is what your quote is talking about. My point in the OP was about the actions of the police, who are not the people to decided not to let the men loiter/use the bathroom.
Anyway, I just updated my OP based on the new story that was just released where the men tell their side.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)saying that 2 men were refusing to leave got transformed into a report that a "group of men" were creating a "disburbance," along with a request for back-up and a supervisor?
Why, when the real estate developer showed up and ask why he couldn't just take them to another meeting place, didn't the police exercise their discretion -- like police do in other situations every single day -- and let them off with a warning?
And why did the police keep them in jail for 9 - 12 hours (depending on the report)?
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)Kind of like how the Tamir Rice dispatcher never relayed the fact that the caller stated the gun might be a fake.
I think the reason the cops didn't do what the white real estate developer suggested was because by that point the two men had already defied the cops orders to leave. By that point, the "crime" had already been committed.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)They let people go for speeding, for jaywalking, and for other things that put people at actual risk. These men put no one at risk.
I think everyone involved goofed up, except for the two men. They engaged in an act of non violent civil disobedience. Good for them.
Hopefully everyone else has learned something.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)Anyway, the two men are now saying the cops just came in and told them to leave, which means the cops had already pre-judged them.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-starbucks-arrest-20180419-story.html
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)but for those who can see this, it has now been reported this morning on GMA that the cops violated their directive by not reading them the Miranda Warning as required per pg 2 of this - http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/D5.23-InterviewsAndInterrogations.pdf
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)It is literally a textbook case of profiling and the wrong response, literally from beginning (the call operator) to end (the arrest and booking).
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)
radius777
(3,635 posts)if any business can get someone ejected and arrested on the basis of race, the law enforcement apparatus therefore functions as a gestapo for white supremacy.
because most victims of such racial profiling are not going to file civil rights lawsuits, which are time consuming/expensive etc.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)I know the cops at least are changing their procedures for this situation, according to the chief.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... word only and not asking ANY questions is stupid.
The police are not agents of individual citizens without question
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... without assessing whether or not they're there lawfully is stupid.
Just going on the managers word isn't smart
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)I would hope that the manager would know them and not call the cops on them.
That said, I am CERTAIN that if the men had in fact owned that store, they would have mentioned it when the cops had questioned them.
As to "assessing whether or not they're there lawfully", that is exactly what the cops did. They had a trespassing complaint, they questioned the men, the men refused to leave. The criminal lawyer for the men even said that the manager did in fact ask them to leave.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... when the organizations get that big.
The men being owners is just one of the reasons why the cops assessing the situation is smarter than just doing what the manager said.
The manager isn't going to say "I wanted them out of here because they're black" ... of course not but after the one woman that was videoing told them she had not ordered and had done similar things as the two men then that should've been taken into account.
The police shouldn't be the enforcer of racist conclusions or enable them blindly
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)They talked to the guys for 6-7 minutes, its on the video!
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)nor did they talk with the "friend" who was ready to solve it on the spot.
And because of that, the PPD is the laughing stock of the world.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)All that matters is that the store was requesting that the two men leave, and they wouldn't leave. So the cops had to get them to leave, one way or another.
All that could have been avoided if they'd bought a cup of coffee for the privilege of sitting there.
The cops were there just to get some guys to leave Starbucks. This wasn't a murder investigation. Let's not get carried away. It's a really simple matter. If the business owner or rep tells you to leave, you have to leave. Period.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)because it is required per the PPD police code to interview witnesses as part of their investigation. I posted a link to that code in the other thread. Multiple witnesses offered to dispute the manager's assertion and establish "disparate treatment", which is against the law, and they were ignored.
There is no "privilege" of sitting there when it is a public facility that is defined by and covered by the Public Accommodations Act and because the company had no posting of "explicit" policies beyond the company advertising as their facilities being "community meeting places" and encouraging people to "meet friends, etc"., they are in the wrong.
You are completely off-base here. And no, this is not a "private" members-only "business" and there is no "right" to remove without cause, and the D.A.'s office confirmed that there was no "probable cause" for arrest.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Most businesses have a policy of requiring people to buy, in order to spend time on the premises. Otherwise, it can be considered loitering.
The employee isn't a lawyer.
You don't even know her side.
And it all comes back to: If only they'd bought a cup of coffee, to pay for the privilege of sitting there and hanging out and using the bathroom.
If they had bought a cup of coffee, and were asked to leave...that would give a supposition of discrimination.
When I was kicked out of a business, was I being discriminated against?
When my brother was kicked out and banned from several businesses, was he being discriminated against?
If these guys had been required to buy a cup of coffee to hang out there, and were white, would they have been discriminated against?
Maybe it was racism. Maybe not. Some are just assuming it was for the reason that they were black. Racism does exist. But I just don't see it here.
I think the difference may be that I'm the only one who has been kicked out of a business before, so I KNOW for a fact that you can be kicked out without it being racism. It's not that unusual.
I think I'm the only one who has a relative who has been kicked out of, and banned, from several businesses. So I KNOW for a fact that people can be kicked out of multiple businesses without racism being involved...and that IT'S NOT THAT UNUSUAL TO BE KICKED OUT OF A BUSINESS. (My brother is argumentative and nitpicky...he'll argue with a clerk over one penny, or a sign, or the parking spaces, or you name it. He's not overly rude...but he interferes with the conducting of business, so they end up kicking him out and telling him he can't come back.)
It's just not that unusual to be kicked out of a place for not behaving the way the establishment wants.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)This is not "most businesses". This is "Starbucks" and not only is that NOT on their website or posted in their stores, both the CEO Kevin Johnson AND the Executive Chairman Howard Schultz HAVE come out and reiterated this. IT is THEIR business, NOT yours. And the vast majority of the stores are OWNED BY THEM (their corporation) not by franchisees nor by these "managers".
The have tried many "approaches", but still come back to the idea of a "lounge" or "cafe", with the expectation that more often than not MOST people WILL buy something, but not all.
If a business wants to guarantee an income any other way, then they will have to CHARGE a fee just to go into the store. That way, whether someone coming in "buys something or not", the owner gets some "compensation" for the "privilege" to come into the store. This is what clubs and even movie theaters do - they charge an "entrance fee" or have a "cover charge". And then the person comes in and sits and MAY purchase other things like drinks or happy hour fare (wings, nachos, etc). I regularly go to a Movie Tavern here and I PAY for the privilege to sit in their facility to see the movie and have an option to purchase food and drink. But just outside of the theater area, there is seating for ordering food or drink where people may sit and wait without buying anything, before going into the actual theater, because once inside, they are given a menu to further order if desired.
It's irrelevant. The individual applied "inplicit bias" to manufacture a rule on the spot and cherry-pick who to apply it to. This is why organizations (businesses and government) give TRAINING. And Starbucks is going to spend tens of millions to finally do so.
"Her side" was displayed by WHEN she called (literally minutes after they arrived and said they were waiting for a friend) and how she described the situation on the call.
That is not how it works. There is no "privilege" to sit there. This is a public eating establishment that advertises itself as follows -
<...>
In 1983, Howard traveled to Italy and became captivated with Italian coffee bars and the romance of the coffee experience. He had a vision to bring the Italian coffeehouse tradition back to the United States. A place for conversation and a sense of community. A third place between work and home. He left Starbucks for a short period of time to start his own Il Giornale coffeehouses and returned in August 1987 to purchase Starbucks with the help of local investors.
From the beginning, Starbucks set out to be a different kind of company. One that not only celebrated coffee and the rich tradition, but that also brought a feeling of connection.
Our mission to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.
Expect More Than Coffee
We’re not just passionate purveyors of coffee, but everything else that goes with a full and rewarding coffeehouse experience. We also offer a selection of premium teas, fine pastries and other delectable treats to please the taste buds. And the music you hear in store is chosen for its artistry and appeal.
It’s not unusual to see people coming to Starbucks to chat, meet up or even work. We’re a neighborhood gathering place, a part of the daily routine – and we couldn’t be happier about it. Get to know us and you’ll see: we are so much more than what we brew.
We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.
https://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information
If you use the model of "pay for the privilege", THEN YOU INSTITUTE A COVER CHARGE applied to ALL patrons.
No.
This is an apologist argument. Did your circumstances match this situation?
And what were the circumstances involving what your brother did? You can't randomly throw a scenario out there without details.
If it were NOT posted and if whites were a "protected class", which they aren't unless they are women or disabled, then no if they were told to leave and had not caused a disturbance that caused a disruption. They would need to find some other legal reason to argue it.
Of course you don't and a number of others here don't either. That is why people are given training so that the "scotoma" regarding "race" is removed. One of the popular workshop exercises that is used to show how people "perceive" things is this -
Participants are asked to look at this image and describe what they see. Some may "see" a "young woman" but others may see an "old woman". And the exercise has the participants point out what on the image alerted them to which one was "seen" until all participants can finally "see" both versions.
And based on your argument, because people can "get kicked out of a business", then that negates any possibility of the reason being racism.
And again, WHAT was going on with YOUR situation that has any relevance here? You can't summarily negate what happened here if what happened with you and your family is completely different. If these 2 young men had started swearing at the staff and other patrons in there or started pounding the table and otherwise being disruptive then YES they are "causing a disturbance" and should be warned and if not compliant, should be removed. Your example of your brother "arguing" has no relevance whatsover to 2 men QUIETLY and CALMLY waiting for a friend.
"Waiting While Black" should NOT be considered "disrupting the conducting of business".
"kicked out of a place for not behaving the way the establishment wants." WTF? So now we are talking about "behaving"?
So if a Muslim comes into a store around lunchtime (noon) and SILENTLY sits at a table and prostrates his hands in prayer (modifying a full kneel and bow for prayer, as observant Muslims must pray 5 times a day), then because his "behavior" may be "offensive" to the business, then the manager has some "right" to kick that man out of the restaurant because of that "behavior" as Trumpers would like to see.
Lord help us all.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)There is real racism out there. I don't see it here. As I've said, I have been kicked out of a business. If I'd been black or Muslim, people would've said it's because of my race, despite the fact that I did something in my behavior that resulted in the action.
My brother has been kicked out several times. If he'd been black, going by the rules being applied here to determine whether it's racism, you'd say his being kicked out was racist, if he had been black.
You have to start with: The customer was doing nothing wrong, like refusing to buy something for hte privilege of sitting there. In a case like that, there's more of a case for racism. But when you start with the premise that they didn't do something normal like buy something for the privilege of sitting there for however long, then things get murky, and it's not ipso facto racism, just because the customers are a minority or female or transgender or whatever.
Most businesses require you buy something, if you're going to sit there for any length of time. Makes sense, since they are in the business of making a profit, and you would be taking up a space that a paying customer would take.
Just like my behavior caused what a business perceived as a "problem," so they kicked me out. And my brother also had said or done something that resulted in his being kicked out several times. Being kicked out is not unusual for any race or gender (altho it probably doesn't happen often to seniors, since seniors go by the r.ules more than younger people, I think)
We'll have to agree to disagree.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Have you ever personally witnessed an act of "real racism" against a black person? If not, can you point to an act of "real racism" that any black person you know has personally experienced?
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)If "behavior" is a criteria, there was absolutely nothing that these 2 young men did that arose to anything beyond courteous "behavior" because -
1.) When told they had to "buy something" to use the bathroom, rather than argue and make a scene, they walked away and sat down quietly
2.) When asked if they planned to buy something, they told the employee that they were "waiting for a friend", which may have meant - yes, they might buy something once the friend arrives or no, not at this time because their friend invited them to meet and would be treating, or no, not at this time, but maybe later. They had no obligation to play 20 questions because that degree of scrutiny has now arisen to the level "disparate treatment" if other patrons were not subjected to similar and several actually said they weren't. They did not argue or cuss out or act rudely to the employee when she had asked this and continued to sit quietly and converse with each other just like everyone else in the store.
And them BAM! Cops called, which shocked them and everyone ELSE in the store except the idjit who called them.
And you explained WHY. He had a penchant for being rude and arguing. THAT is a "behavior" problem, not a "waiting quietly for a friend" problem.
Incorrect. Starbucks is LICENSED by the state of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia to operate and maintain a business here. THEY are subject to ALL (not the cherry-picked) rules and regulations, not only at the state and federal levels, but also of the City. This Starbucks location violated a city ordinance by the behavior of the employee. I have posted what that ordinance is and who it applies to.
You have suddenly defined "normal" that is not only outside of the scope of the Starbucks business model, but outside of what the other patrons in the store were doing. Which was identical to what these 2 men were doing.
There is no "ispso facto" anything. There WAS disparate treatment of these black patrons vs the white patrons, who were engaging in the identical behavior as the black ones. And so based on your continued assertions, the white patrons who freely admitted that they "didn't buy anything" as a condition to sit and wait and read or chat OR to use the bathroom, then ALL of them should have been immediately arrested for "defiant trespass".
Doing that (arresting both black and white patrons who did not "buy anything" ) would have removed any "racial" component from this situation, because you would have "equal treatment".
Please point me to where this or other chain or private lounges or cafes explicitly state this as their policy if not via a sign at the entrance or hung on a wall somewhere in the facility. Those that want to guarantee some "compensation" for the use of their establishment, will charge an upfront entrance fee or cover charge, and this was not an explicit policy as promoted by Starbucks. It's something they HOPE will help to increase the bottom line - i.e., by making it welcoming there and building up a cadre of "regulars" (who would bring their friends), and the chances are excellent that they will have people buy MULTIPLE cups of coffee or pastries by doing this vs buying 1 cup and leave. They could go to Wawa or 711 or Dunkin Donuts to buy 1 cup and leave, but then they will not have the "casual lounge/community" experience.
But now, this employee and the one at a Los Angeles Starbucks location, have tarnished the brand. And remarkably, some DUers cheer these managerial miscreants on for having some superior "right" that goes beyond local, state, and federal law, and they continue to support the thug cops who completely botched the response, from the initial call receipt all the way to the false arrest and false imprisonment when no one (whether Starbucks or the D.A.) signed off on the complaint to press charges because the cops manufactured a charge on the spot out of spite. And so their "spite job" just set any type of "community trust" with this squad, back to the days of Frank Rizzo, will be costing Starbucks tens of millions for training, and may cost the city who knows how much for the settlement of any lawsuit that might happen for the violation of civil rights by their police force - money that instead could have gone to building community playgrounds or enhancing the libraries. And it is especially bad because the city has been under a consent decree for this very issue of cops out of control.
Because you apparently were disruptive. These gentlemen were not.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Funny how on the one hand, the manager is she who must be obeyed without question while, on the other, she's just a poor widdle thang who just don't know no better.
Great post.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)the business has set for the general public to access or remain on the premises.
Before arresting a person for trespassing, the police must confirm that the person has no right to be there. They can't just take the owner's word for it.
If you were in a Starbucks and called the police and reported the manager had verbally threatened you with bodily harm, the police could not just walk into the store and arrest the owner just because you said so. They'd have to first check out your story and decide if they had probable cause to believe you before making an arrest. They can't just go around arresting people just because you say so.
The same thing applies when the shoe is on the other foot.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... not be the enforcers of actions based of off racial bias.
There were plenty of people around them that didn't own starbucks to indicate to the police the managers actions were going to be detested by starbucks upper management
liberalhistorian
(20,816 posts)they'd also been there awhile without ordering, including a white woman who said she'd used the bathroom without ordering and was free to do so without any problems, should also have been arrested. The police didn't even pay attention to those whites who said they'd done the same thing, but hadn't had the cops called on them. The white friend the two men were meeting for coffee told the cops that, they didn't care. The whole thing was BULLSHIT. I was in a coffee shop this morning for a half hour before ordering anything at all and NO ONE said a word. Oh, yeah, though, I'm a fifty-something white gal.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)I agree that disparate treatment by the store is BS. I think everyone on this site feels the same way.
However, the police were told the men were not wanted there. The police asked the men to leave and the men refused. At that point, it is trespassing that has been witnessed by the police. Even if 50 white women came in and used the bathroom without buying something, the two men have still committed a trespass, and they did it straight to the cop's face.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)THE PHILLY COPS DID NOT HAVE TO ARREST AND CHARGE THEM -- THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.
They had to ask them to leave and escort them out, but they didn't have to charge them.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)so I won't go further.
Oppaloopa
(867 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,816 posts)them, period, end of discussion. They listened only to the manager and did no critical thinking on their own, which is what you'd hope cops could do. Otherwise, anyone could say anything about you to them and they'd have to believe them and go off of just that. Cops are not, and should not be, mere robots.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)"They listened only to the manager"
No. They didn't. They listened to the two men. The two men told the cops that they (the men) were not going to leave. They told the cops they would continue to trespass.
"Otherwise, anyone could say anything about you to them and they'd have to believe them and go off of just that."
Of course that is not true. Once again, the cops were told, by the men themselves, that the trespassing would continue.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Have you never gone to a restaurant and waited to order until your friends arrive?
You are dead wrong here buddy.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)Your analogy is wrong.
Here is the correct one: I go into a restaurant to wait for a friend. I AM ASKED TO LEAVE AND REFUSE. THEN THE COPS ASK ME TO LEAVE AND I REFUSE.
(The caps parts are the parts you left out)
I'm not saying it was right to ask the men to leave, however once they were asked by the manager technically they were trespassing. Then, once they were asked by the cops, they were re-affirming that they would continue to trespass.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Why?
BECAUSE THE STORE'S MANAGEMENT SAID THEY WERE.
Neither groups of men were actually, legally trespassing, both managers were just racist jerks who told the cps they were. The Philly cops were also racists -- they didn't ahve to charge the men.
I know your stance on this, I read it in your huuuuuge thread. Your stance is victim blaming.
ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)In the gym case, it depends on what the membership contract says. This is because the member is a license.
In Starbucks, there is no license, its just a public store.
When you say the men were not legally trespassing in Starbucks, you are wrong. They satisfied the legal definition of trespassing, which is that they remained in a private place when told to leave by the owner (manager). They also confirmed to the cops who questioned them that they were going to continue to trespass.
As to the charges, you are also wrong. The men were not charged with a crime. The DA decided not to charge. Remember that cops arrest people, but they don't actually charge anyone. That is the prosecutors job.
pansypoo53219
(20,969 posts)ExciteBike66
(2,335 posts)the manager who called the cops might either have been racist OR operating under an implicit bias.
Good on the police for making the right call. I agree - I'm stunned at those here who are defending that Starbucks manager and the Philly police.
I have a friend who posts video from her gym every damn time she's there. The excuses for racist behavior are getting thinner and thinner.
AllaN01Bear
(18,147 posts)
TNLib
(1,819 posts)WTF is wrong with these people?
dembotoz
(16,799 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)Is so easily found.
barbtries
(28,787 posts)well, most of my life actually...but even then it was said this is shocking for white people but for black people it's Tuesday. It really shouldn't be that unless someone is handy with a cellphone, people don't know this. people aren't constantly working to improve this! that's 26 years ago FFS
HipChick
(25,485 posts)even from DU'ers right here
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And nothing is ever sufficient proof.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)
irisblue
(32,967 posts)
byronius
(7,392 posts)ConnorMarc
(653 posts)Moreover, they don't WANT to see it.
Hence, there is never enough proof.
To them, they need to see video, or even better, be present while a white person is yelling "I'm a racist!" while committing a racist act.
They'd still only reluctantly agree even then.
White privilege is batch!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
ConnorMarc
(653 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,816 posts)misogyny. As if only white men are and should be the true arbiters of what's racism and sexism.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)or did you just make that up?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Of course that's what your focus is on. It's what the Toms, the Burts, and the Williams often do to maintain the consistency of their narratives..
And of course, you'll allege yours as relevant rather than simple petulance, regardless of whether you "just made it up..."
Egnever
(21,506 posts)what else would my focus be on?
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)IronLionZion
(45,425 posts)
I hard to see stuff that affects other people if it doesn't affect me. And it gets really hard to see it if it benefits me to keep the status quo.
niyad
(113,257 posts)their caves.
notdarkyet
(2,226 posts)dembotoz
(16,799 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)They look over at right wing bigots and then look at us, the numerous black people on the side they claim to be, and decide to line up with the bigots arrayed against us, using so many of their same arguments and talking points that it's hard to tell them apart.
What gives with that?
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)it has unleashed a family member's racism and ugliness. This person has started using derogatory slang, making comments about mixed race couples being "pushed on us" in advertising, and saying white families need to have more kids to prevent "white genocide".
It probably has been festering in her for awhile, but trump's election has turned her lloose. Needless to say, I avoid this person as much as possible.
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)Going to a gym that you're a PAYING member of ....
He's lucky to have not been shot and killed. THIS is where were AT in 2018.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)that explains a lot.
LA Fitness gyms throughout the country tend to have poor ratings on Yelp, even in the LA area. It was why I never joined.
liberalhistorian
(20,816 posts)I'm white. I think they're about to get even suckier, and rightfully pay the price for it.
rurallib
(62,406 posts)can't believe they were treated like that.
Every member of LA Fitness should drop their memberships and demand their money back.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,563 posts)Starbucks is actually less blame-worthy than this? How can this be happening???
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Good, smart cops assess situations and use their discretion to determine how and when they use their power and authority.
Iggo
(47,548 posts)Crickets from the "HadNoChoice" crowd.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)this guy was a paying customer.
I think the one you are referencing was not and when asked to leave did not. And while I do think he was asked to leave for racist reasons there is a no loitering rule at starbucks. Certainly when the cops showed and asked them to go they should have regardless. It was the refusal to comply with the officers that got them arrested not starbucks.
In this case the guy had a membership. Not really the same thing at all.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... managers word to be the end all.
The manager wasn't going to say "I want them out of here because they're black" and after the woman who was videoing the situation told them she had done something similar this could've been part of the cops logic path in conducting an arrest.
The cops shouldn't police for racist reasons or enable them
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You can't just hang out without purchasing something. Well you can but it's a pretty shity thing to do and it is against starbucks or really any places policy.
And when asked to leave you have to do so or you are trespassing regardless of the reason.
These guys at Starbucks were given ample opportunity to go before they were arrested and they refused to do so.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... people in that establishment that said they did hangout without buying anything.
The "buying something" isn't a policy that is dead set in stone or enforced throughout the companies stores.
The police shouldn't enforce being asked to leave for obvious racist reasons ... the police never assessed that situation even after the people in the store said they were doing similar to the men being arrested.
The police aren't blind enforcers of what people say then do it, their assessment was shallow relative the information available.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)once you are asked to leave and you refuse the cops are left with little recourse.
and it also doesn't matter from the cops perspective what others were or weren't doing. You can not force yourself on a business. They can ask you to leave for whatever reason they like. When you refuse to do so you become a trespasser and when the cops arrive and you still refuse to leave you will be arrested.
They tried for a long time to get them to just go and they refused.
I don't think there is any question the managers decision was racially motivated but that has no bearing whatsoever on what the cops are required to do.
The la fitness situation is entirely different in that the man had a membership that gives him access to the building. In the end the manager terminated the contract in order to have them removed.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... do then they deserve the ire they get.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)the manager did.
Once that was done the cops had no recourse.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... the cops could've assessed that at the time with the information that was given around them.
On the face of it it looks funny that the white people around them were the ones complaining about them being taken.
At that point it ... SHOULD ... have been more questioning time ... not blindly going off of what the manager said.
Bottom line, the police had more information to go on to make the decision of the arrest and chose not to then enforce a race based decision when they had the opportunity not to.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)to have other options to bring an incident to a successful closure - preferably peacefully - and particularly since there was no sign of property damage or people yelling at other patrons or attempts at robbery, etc. And particularly when you are talking about a public facility like Starbucks vs a club like this OP.
I posted this in another thread -
But when the dispatcher put out the call to the police, he said: “We’ve got a disturbance there. A group of males refusing to leave.”
Ronal Serpas, a former police chief in New Orleans and Nashville, said it was “troublesome that an arrest occurred,” given the tremendous discretion officers have to handle such situations. “Using every available alternative to a physical arrest, within department policy, should be the goal in a case like this,” said Mr. Serpas, who is now a professor at Loyola University New Orleans.
Jim Bueermann, the president of the Police Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, said that the incident reflected a systemic problem with how the police deal with such episodes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/starbucks-arrest-philadelphia.html
Mad_Mongol
(86 posts)You might want to look up how effective that defense was at Nuremberg.
Last I checked, it didn't spare anyone from the gallows.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)NOBODY’s fault because the devil made them do it.
Correction. It IS someone’s fault. The black guys. For not doing enough to prevent the cops from arresting them
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd ignore the dramatic lack of interviewing relevant witnesses also if my bias depended upon it.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... men to leave after all the other people around the two men spoke up.
I don't know, I wouldn't want to be a LEO enforcing the racist decision of an asshole manager.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It says the officers are allowed to not enforce the laws if they don’t like how the policy is set?
Can you show me where they are allowed to refuse to enforce the law when called if they don’t think the complainant has done everything fair?
Can you show me the exception to the trespassing law in PA that says “if other people didn’t get asked to leave then I can stay against the property owners wishes”?
If you can’t, then what you are asking for is the cops to not actually enforce the law but to isntead make shit up as they go and enforce it silly-Molly depending on whatever they think is going on, disregarding what the law actually says.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)If the cops are basing their actions off race from someone else do they have the duty to follow through?
Even if they do then they deserve the ire of the community around them
I don't like black people in my store please arrest them should be a holding line of the all LEOs
IMHO
Damn, its hard enough being black in America
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)They were not arrested on the basis of race.
They were being arrested for refusing to leave a property after being asked to.
Was that request racially motivated? Sure looks like it. Did racial bias set that chain of events in place? Sure looks like it.
Are the cops allowed to second guess if the request was racially motivated? No. The law doesn’t work like that.
If the cops get a call tag someone is trespassing they have to respond. If they respond and the people are still there they must ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave at that point then they have to enforce the law.
If the initial request was racially motivated then that is a mater for a civil case.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... everything else dominoes from there.
Come on man ...
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)They just needed to confirm that there was probable cause to make an arrest.
There was no probable cause - as the DA very quickly determined - and the cops would have figured that out even more quickly if they had bothered to try rather than just taking the word of the manager which, in this instance, was not sufficient to established PC.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... were being broken.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Not only that, it was clear from pattern and practice evident from eyewitnesses on the spot that the store's policy was just the opposite - that a purchase was NOT a condition of occupying the premises.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But now you're being ridiculous.
The Pennsylvania law doesn't say, nor did I claim it says, "officers are allowed to not enforce the laws if they don’t like how the policy is set." But as a former deputy, surely you know that officers DO have a duty to confirm they have probable cause under the law to make an arrest. And unless the elements of the crime upon which they are basing the arrest are met, there is no probable cause.
"where they are allowed to refuse to enforce the law when called if they don’t think the complainant has done everything fair?" Since I never made such a claim, I'll just leave this comment over in the pile of straw where it belongs.
"Can you show me the exception to the trespassing law in PA that says “if other people didn’t get asked to leave then I can stay against the property owners wishes”?" Of course not, because, again, I never made such a claim.
But I can show you the part of the law that says that a "property owners' wishes" are not the determinant of whether a person can enter into or remain on property open to members of the public - and that a person is not guilty of defiant trespassing if "the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises"- and since the manager did not present a shred of proof that the no buy no sit rule was "a lawful condition imposed on access to or remaining in the premises" and, in fact, there was plenty of contrary evidence showing that there was no such rule. Since the men cannot violate a condition that did not exist, there was no probable cause to arrest them. AS THE DA LATER CONFIRMED.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.035.003.000..HTM
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)"You can't just hang out without purchasing something" and yet there were examples of people doing exactly that at the exact same time as the two men who were arrested. Any guesses as to what difference there may have been between the arrested people waiting at Starbucks and the not arrested people was?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The manager wanted them out.
Clearly racists of her but matters not to the cops.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... of it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The motivation of the manager to do so was more than likely racist but you don't have a right to sit in Starbucks without buying something and even then you can be asked to leave and you have to leave or face arrest.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Well, maybe if one is black.
And being polite.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It's a restaurant, and if someone says they are waiting on friends, I don't believe that's trespass. It's a business, not private property.
But I'll bite - what's the statute for trespassing where you live?
Why do you think that the men weren't charged with anything once they got to the station?
Why do you think that the manager is no longer working there?
Why do you think that the CEO met with the men and apologized?
With "trespassers?"
I think you just might be mistaken about that, but I'll wait for that statute...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)it's literally the definition
tres·pass
ˈtrespəs,ˈtresˌpas/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: trespassing
1.
enter the owner's land or property without permission.
"there is no excuse for trespassing on railroad property"
synonyms: intrude on, encroach on, enter without permission, invade
"there is no excuse for trespassing on railroad property"
it's cute your stalking me though
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Effie schooled you on this.
It's cute that you flatter yourself that you are stalkworthy.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I looked up the PA statute.
A person remaining on private property after being told to leave is 100% trespassing in PA.
It’s that simple. If the property owner or their representative asks you to leave and you don’t leave then you are trespassing.
It’s not complicated.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And does this apply to businesses as well as private property - which have different rules under the law.
Also, is staying at a restaurant considered an arrestable offense? For how long after they are asked to leave? Misdemeanor?
Why do you think that the CEO met with them and apologized if they were truly criminally trespassing?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Businesses are private property, but open to the public. The difference generally is that if you jump over a locked gate it is presumed that you know by virtue of having to climb a fence you did not have permission to enter the property, so it’s trespassing as soon as you enter. In a place open to the public one is presumed to have permission to enter unless told otherwise, so it becomes trespassing when you are told you must leave and do not leave.
The CEO met with them because the manager never should have asked them to leave. But she did, and she was at that time the person with legal authority to say who was allowed on the premise. So under the circumstances there it absolutely was trespassing. But the manager was wrong to create the circumstancesz
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But they were guilty of a misdemeanor to stay anyway, without violence, without even raised voices, and did not resist arrest.
They sound more like the folks who sat in at the segregated lunch counters than criminals.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The manager wrongly implemented corporate policy.
But that is a matter between her and her bosses.
For all legal purposes her version of policy is what mattered at the time of the event, as far as the law was concerned.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)of specific conditions for being there. There was no such notice, which must be given to the PUBLIC, not to individuals based on whether the manager wants them there or not.
There were no signs imposting that condition nor was there any pattern or practice suggesting this was a policy. In fact, numerous people were in there WITHOUT buying anything, demonstrating that, not only was it not the store's policy to require a purchase, but it was the store's policy through practice NOT to require a purchase in order to stay.
Therefore, the men were not trespassing and she had no legal right to ask them to leave.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)No fair.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)But I would be shocked if it states you can remain on a property after being asked to leave by the owner or manager.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
should it?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Ya think?
Here is someone who knows what they are talking about:
of specific conditions for being there. There was no such notice, which must be given to the PUBLIC, not to individuals based on whether the manager wants them there or not.
There were no signs imposting that condition nor was there any pattern or practice suggesting this was a policy. In fact, numerous people were in there WITHOUT buying anything, demonstrating that, not only was it not the store's policy to require a purchase, but it was the store's policy through practice NOT to require a purchase in order to stay.
Therefore, the men were not trespassing and she had no legal right to ask them to leave.
You should say thank you when someone educates you on a topic, not double down.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The public was put on notice so Effie was wrong.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which is what you claim it is.
And I'm not seeing where that is an arrestable offense.
And not seeing where anything Effie posted conflicts with this.
Please show us that.
Perhaps a link to your source would be helpful.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)are you really that confused?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Does being specific confuse you? Being accurate?
This is like trying to talk to a pro-lifer who wants to call a woman who has an abortion a "murderer" because they think it's murder, when the law doesn't catagorize it as "murder," but they keep saying "She killed the baby, so that's MURDER" and she and the doctor should be arrested like any "murderer!!!!!"
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Trespass
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights. Criminal trespasses, depending on the venue of jurisdiction and case circumstances, fall under different subsets of law. When a trespass is carried out against another person, rather than against his/her property, the trespasser is likely to be charged with assault or battery. Actions violating the real property of another are handled as Trespasses to Land. Violations to personal property are handled as torts.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The men were charged under a specific Pennsylvania statute regarding "defiant trespass"§ 3503 (b). That is the ONLY law that matters to this discussion.
And under THAT law, a person occupying a premises open to the public is not guilty defiant trespass if "premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises." The no buy no sit rule was NOT a condition - lawful or otherwise - imposed on access to or remaining in the store, as evidenced by 1) no such policy was ever communicated to the public; and 2) numerous patrons were in the store who had NOT purchased anything.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and this part of that statute would seem to go against your argument.
Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You. do. not. know. what. you. are. talking. about.
And you are making that clear to everyone.
Please, just stop wasting our time.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You cited the code. Explain to me how this part does not apply.
school grounds as communicated by a school, center or
program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement
officer.
(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or
reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed
to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or
reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at
each entrance of school grounds that visitors are
prohibited without authorization from a designated
school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave
school grounds as communicated by a school, center or
program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement
officer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v)
constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it
is a summary offense.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Especially since you claim to know the state of mind of the manager and the police.
Also:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10511253
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Trespass on premises open to the public occurs when you have no legal right to be there and are asked to leave and cannot demonstrate that you have complied with all of the lawful conditions of occupying the space.
In this instance, there was no legal reason they could not be there - the only reason given was the no buy no sit rule, but all evidence available in real time demonstrated that there was no such rule. But, a manager of a public accommodation does not have the right to order anyone off of the property for any reason at all.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and what you are stating here would have to be put before a judge and or jury to be decided if in fact it was technically trespassing.
The stated rule was as you said no buy no sit. They were in violation of that rule so they were trespassing as was everyone else that was in there doing the same. If asked to leave and the others refused they would most certainly be trespassing as well.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It's called "establishing probable cause," without which an arrest is illegal and possibly unconstitutional. One of the first and most important things that police officers learn and are drilled in over and over is how to determine probable cause before making an arrest. Police cannot go around arresting people because some says they want them arrested.
And there was NO no buy no sit rule. That's the entire point. The law requires that the public be put on notice of any conditions for being in the premises. There was no such notice of any no buy no sit rule. Sidling up to a couple of customers and telling them they have to buy something to stay is NOT notice to the public of any condition of occupancy.
I don't want to sound snarky, but if you don't know the law or how it's applied, please don't keep lecturing us on it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"There's nothing noble about staying in a coffee shop" as you put it.
radius777
(3,635 posts)in a public accommodation like Starbucks, which has a duty to treat everyone equally.
there were white patrons that had used the bathroom and hung out there for hours without buying anything and without being asked to leave by the manager.
these guys only "trespassed" because they were a race of person the manager didn't want in "her" store - which is against the law and against Starbuck's own policy.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)They weren't arrested under federal law and they weren't arrested for using the bathrooms without purchasing anything. They didn't even USE the facilities.
They were arrested under a specific Pennsylvania state statute for "defiant trespass" for remaining in the restaurant without making a purchase. There was no notice given to the public that the condition of entering or remaining in the premises was a purchase, there was no practice of it and there was ample evidence that the policy was just the opposite.
So whatever the Virginia lawyer says is completely inapplicable.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The Philadelphia Starbucks store where the arrest occurred has a rule in place that customers can only use restrooms if they purchase something. Such rules would allow Starbucks to ask people to leave — under federal law, businesses like Starbucks can refuse service for reasons other than discrimination. But they can only protect a company to a point, according to Virginia-based attorney Matthew Kreitzer.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Please share.
Especially when it's not posted in the place of business?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)They were charged with a crime under a specific Pennsylvania statute. And the crime they were charged with had nothing to do with using the restrooms.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It does say this:
It’s not always clear whether sitting in a Starbucks or using a Starbucks restroom without purchasing any items is allowed. A company spokesperson said Starbucks does not have a broad policy prohibiting people from using restrooms or sitting inside for free, allowing individual stores to set their own rules. Populations density plays a part too — it’s a little easier for people to wait unnoticed inside a more crowded Starbucks in a place like New York City without paying and than it is in sparser locations where policies can be enforced more strictly.
Kreitzer says simply having a store policy that prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is useless if that rule is not applied on a consistent basis. For example, if a store is using its policy against only black customers but not applying it to white ones, that’s a basis for a discrimination case.
Please point out where it says that the policy was posted in that store, if that's not confusing for you.
Change of goalpost in 3...2...1...
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... were posted somewhere seeing the LEO's were enforcing something.
If they weren't then the general public didn't know and there were no rules to break
Egnever
(21,506 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)When they aren't posted, it is possible to demonstrated that such a policy exists by pointing to a consistent policy and practice - for example, if the store regularly and consistently enforced the no sit no buy rule every day, that would help to demonstrate that a purchase was a condition of occupancy.
But that wasn't the case here. Not only was the policy not posted, no one in the restaurant seemed to know anything about it until the manager singled out these two black men. Plenty of other patrons were also in the restaurant without buying anything, but were not asked to leave. This is pretty conclusive proof that there was no such policy and, therefore, it was not a condition that the men had violated.
FYI, this is what's is called in the law, a classic "pretext."
Egnever
(21,506 posts)again I think Effie is wrong
the staute actually says
Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.
2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Civil Procedure, here's a hint:
When trying to interpret a statute, it's absolutely critical to read the WHOLE THING and then apply the statute in its entirety.
(
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
If the Starbucks was open to the public - check - and the two men had complied with "all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises," they were not in violation of the defiant trespass law.
That means the only issue is whether the reason given for their supposed trespass - that they had not purchased anything - was a "lawful condition imposed on access to or remaining in the premises."
So, now, let's double back to the part that you quoted. Oh, wait a minute. That doesn't work. Because the section you quoted refers to how a person is notified that they are trespassing. The latter section is an EXCEPTION to the definition of trespassing, aka "an affirmative defense." Meaning that, notwithstanding anything in the section you quoted - i.e., even if any or all of those conditions were met - if a person complies with all lawful conditions, etc., they are not guilty of trespassing.
And, since there is absolutely no proof that the restaurant had any policy prohibiting occupancy without a purchase, i.e., purchase was NOT a condition of accessing or remaining on the premises, by definition, these men WERE NOT TRESPASSING.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and purchasing was a part of the policy in regards to using the bathroom which is what started this event no? And it is also a part of the store wide policy. While you can argue it was not being enforced equally that is not really for the cops to determine.
This would have to be argued and ruled on no?
In the end it would depend entirely on if the rule was enforced equally would it not?
and if it were it would absolutely be trespassing would it not?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)As evidenced by the fact that numerous patrons were in the shop WITHOUT buying anything and weren't asked to leave.
The only "evidence" that this was store policy was the manager saying it was. And something that is not posted anywhere, not disclosed to any customer, not enforced and apparently not known to most people who either work at or patronize the establishment is NOT a policy or condition. Period.
It IS for the cops to determine that the people they are arresting for violating a store policy are actually violating a store policy and the first step toward doing that is to determine exactly what the store policy is that is being used to deprive American citizens of their liberty. A store manager saying, "that's our policy" is not enough - especially if numerous other customers are standing right there saying, "NO! That's NOT the policy. I didn't buy anything and they didn't ask ME to leave." That would at least warrant a few more questions by the cops before hauling these men away.
Some sample questions:
"Ma'am, do you have that policy posted anywhere?"
"If you don't have it in writing, how do you normally put customers on notice about this policy?"
"Did you put these men on notice that this was your policy?"
"Did you tell any of these other customers here that this was your store policy?"
"If this is really a store policy, there are several people here who also violated it, just like these men did. Do you want us to remove them, too? Actually, it's not up to you at this point because, based on what you're saying, all of these people are criminals and, according to the laws of Democratic Underground, we have no choice but to arrest all of them."
"We're gonna need a bigger truck. Where do we pack the police transport wagon?""
Egnever
(21,506 posts)First you are making a large assumption that others were in the store without purchasing. Is there evidence of that? someone off camera saying it I don't think would qualify maybe but I doubt it. That said there is no doubt that it is common for people to be in Starbucks without purchasing something. Also you are saying there was no signs specifically stating that seating is for paying Starbucks patrons only. How do you know that?
I dont doubt for a minute that the root cause of this is racism. I just disagree that it is the job of the cops to determine that in this scenario.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)There are multiple people, on video telling the officers that they had not purchased anything but were not asked to leave. The woman who shot one of the videos later said, on camera that SHE was not asked to leave. That's called "eyewitness testimony."
Why do you not believe them, but believe the store manager who you didn't see and only heard second hand, but reject what people you can see and hear are saying?
I don't understand why you are trying so hard to defend the police, regardless how completely and solidly they've been proven wrong, including by their own District Attorney?
This kind of willingness to give police the benefit of the doubt, while bending over backwards to criminalize the black men they arrest is one of the main reasons so many cops get away with murdering black men in cold blood. No one in our society is treated with such kid gloves and absolve of responsibility as these folks are and it's attitudes like we're seeing in these threads that are responsible for them getting away with it - not to mention the deep distrust that African-Americans have of the criminal justice system and the many white fellow Americans who are perfectly willing to side with it against us, regardless how much evidence of wrongdoing they're confronted with.
Please think about all of this and do better. Law enforcement has plenty of defenders and protections. All we have is our allies. We need you on our side.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)I do not accept that the owner of a property has no right to ask someone to leave his property. If it can be proven to be racism sure but this while highly likely would be hard to prove in my opinion simply because they were not paying customers.
And I am not on board with people just doing whatever they want in a place of business.
This all seems to have started with these men asking to use the bathroom. A bathroom that is for paying customers only. When they were told no they proceeded to go sit down still not buying anything. Did the other people that didn't buy anything ask to use the bathroom as well? Was it simply the act of asking to use the bathroom that got them noticed?
It's not that I don't believe them it's the idea an property manager/owner can ask you to leave their property and you can refuse questionable.
Yes you can point to racism in this case as the root cause but I don't think that has any bearing on what the cops are trained to do or should be trained to do. It is not their job to pass judgement nor should it be. The men were asked to leave they refused had it happened to a white guy the outcome would be no different.
The motivation of the manager makes little difference to me when it comes to the cops response. You are asked to leave a place by the owner you leave.
If you are trying to make a point I suppose you stay but then you run the risk of arrest.
I would love to see where the DA said the cops did the wrong thing. Can you link that by any chance. The police chief sure didn't quite the opposite.
I am happy to be on your side but I am also often on the side of the police. Not every time a black man is arrested is it racist police. Yet there seems to be a knee jerk reaction to call it such. I recall really clearly a shooting recently where folks that are on this thread were claiming the police planted a gun on a guy that was shot yet if you looked closely at the video you could see the holster on his leg and the gun being kicked away from his body after he was down.
Do you honestly believe if these guys were white and asked to leave and refused the outcome would have been any different?
Once they were asked to leave and the cops were called the outcome was inevitable if they failed to comply.
Oh you could take it to court later and get charges dropped more than likely based on what you have laid out but I find the idea the cops did the wrong thing here ridiculous. Especially considering they spent a long time trying to just talk the guys out of the store before arresting them.
no they should not have been asked to leave in the first place but again that has no bearing whatsoever on what the cops did.
I don't get the idea you should fuck with the cops whenever you feel wronged. I hear all the time about "the talk" Yet the talk seems to be fuck the police don't listen to a thing they say.
Pretty fucked up talk if you ask me.
My talk is comply do what they are asking don't argue. They have a gun if what they are doing is wrong sort it out later in court where you have the tools to be on a much more even footing.
I do appreciate the lesson though Professor.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)No need to prove racism in order to prove the men were wrongly arrested. The police did not have probable cause to arrest them for trespassing because, according to the law, unless the men were in violation of a lawful condition imposed on the public to access the place, they were allowed to be there. The only condition cited by the manager was the no buy no sit “rule” that turned out not to have been a rule at all since it wasn’t applied to the public but seemed to be a brand new rule conjured up on the spot and applied only to those two men. That’s not a a lawful condition. That’s a pretext. It doesn’t matter WHY the manager did it. She could have had the purest intentions, but it still didn’t meet the standard for charging the men with trespassing,
The same thing applies to the cops. It was their duty to confirm that the men had actually broken the law before they arrested them. They didn’t do that. They failed. Remember , they are not only sworn to serve and protect business owners from the public. They are als duty bound to protect the public from business owners, and that includes not arresting people just because a manager said they broke the law without checking to make sure they actually broke the law.
The arrest was not inevitable because there was no crime nor had the cops bothered to determine there was a crime. Police aren’t required to arrest people just because some store manager tells them to. They have vast discretion, which they use all the time.
We give cops guns and badges and enormous power. With that power comes the obligation to go above and beyond what an average citizen would. So while a manager can scream trespass, the police are supposed to go a little further to make sure there really was a trespass before using this power to deprive someone of their liberty.
And yes, I do believe the outcome would be different if these were white guys. And only if you’re not paying any attention would you not think that, too. That’s not an opinion - it’s an empirical fact that black men are more likely to be arrested than white men in the same situations. It’s so pervasive it is now a national crisis. It’s not even debatable.
I don’t know where you get the notion that anyone is trying to “fuck” with cops. So le’t’s not even go there. And unless you have had to explain to your 16-year-old son exactly what he needs to do in order not to get shot by a cop, do NOT lecture me about how mean and unfair “the talk” is to cops. And if “complying” were enough to keep our children from being killed, we would be in great shape since black folk are among the most compliant people on earth (if not, we would have burned this country down many times by now). The problem is, they get shot no matter how compliant they are. So we have to teach them how to be compliant in ways that are less likely to get them shot - things that most white people don’t ever have to even think about.
And I suggest you definitely don’t make such an unfortunate comment out loud to any black person you know if you don’t want them to think you’re ignorant, a racist, an idiot or a combination of the three. Because while I’m sure you’re none of those things - especially given your willingness to honestly engage in an uncomfortable conversation because you’re trying to learn - they may not have the benefit of engaging with you as I have and likely will not take kindly to such a comment.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)Legal open-carry by a black man results in a near "cop-down" situation with a 6-car response and a K9 unit, and is detained and forced to lay on the ground, after which his legally-owned and carried gun confiscated.
Legal open-carry by a white man equals questioning and refusal to provide an id per cop's order after which he is permitted to go about his business.
Nothing "economic justice" and "millionaires and billionaires" about this.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)and if we just complied with the police, all would be fine.
In other words, "Hey, black people. We need your help over here fighting for our economic equality and if you don't help us, it means you don't understand what's good for you and/or you're a sellout, a corporatist and tool of the establishment, whatever that is. But don't ask us to help you address racism or interfere with an establishment business' right to harass you and toss you out on your ass for whatever reason it wants or question the police's right to arrest you for no reason if a white business manager told them to because you're being divisive and racism doesn't really exist anyway. So please be quiet, get with our program and stop being such a pain in the ass."
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)although they will probably argue that at least he didn't get hog-tied, beaten to a pulp while lying face-down hand-cuffed and being tased with 3, 250lb cops sitting on him, and then get shot in the back because he was "resisting" every time his body jerked when shocked by the taser.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Starbucks said it is reviewing its policies but has not made them public. Once those policies are established, security professionals say it's critical that companies apply them consistently to all customers.
and this
http://time.com/5241671/starbucks-philadelphia-bathroom-rights/
It’s not always clear whether sitting in a Starbucks or using a Starbucks restroom without purchasing any items is allowed. A company spokesperson said Starbucks does not have a broad policy prohibiting people from using restrooms or sitting inside for free, allowing individual stores to set their own rules. Populations density plays a part too — it’s a little easier for people to wait unnoticed inside a more crowded Starbucks in a place like New York City without paying and than it is in sparser locations where policies can be enforced more strictly.
But then the article says this but this statement isn't from Starbucks so I wont account that its true
The Philadelphia Starbucks store where the arrest occurred has a rule in place that customers can only use restrooms if they purchase something. Such rules would allow Starbucks to ask people to leave — under federal law, businesses like Starbucks can refuse service for reasons other than discrimination. But they can only protect a company to a point, according to Virginia-based attorney Matthew Kreitzer.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... assessed that by relevant witness's around them
We both know that too
If its PPD policy to enforce decision based off race then they deserve the ire of the community around them.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)They were called to remove someone from a business. They are not supposed to be the judge. Nor do I want them to be as their judgment sucks balls a lot of the time.
And since when is the noble thing to do to sit in a Starbucks without buying something?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... around the cops.
This didn't happen in a vacuum, we both know that too
Egnever
(21,506 posts)from the cops perspective.
They could certainly bring suit against starbucks and once the manager owner asked them to leave and they refused the cops were left with little to no options. They tried for almost ten minutes to get them to go and still they refused.
Clearly the call from the manager was bullshit but the cops did not have options aside from letting them walk out under their own steam which they tried for a long time to do.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They peacefully stayed, and didn't resist arrest.
But as you said, "There's nothing noble in staying in a coffee shop."
Right?
I'm sure a lot of white people in Greensboro sounded a bit like that, in their reactions to those "tresspassers," because they knew that the owner wasn't racist one bit.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Think about who your posts sound more like:
The people supporting the non-violent protesters at the lunch counters in civil disobedience in Greensboro?
Or those who dismissed them as troublemaking trespassers, and claimed there was nothing racist about their arrest?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And trying to trash the people that the CEO apologized to doesn't really help your credibility.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If there wasn't probable cause to determine the men had violated the statute, they should not have been arrested, regardless the motivation behind it.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)And it SHOULD "matter to the cops". Otherwise cities like Philly get sued over and over and over and MY taxpayer money gets spent on the city's fuck-ups instead of on parks or schools or infrastructure.
And this is why my city (Philly) elected a Civil Rights Attorney as D.A. so that systemic changes can start to be made. It is going to be a horrific time for him trying to do it since it is so ingrained, but at least he is taking a step in the right direction.
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/04/18/philadelphia-da-larry-krasner-incarceration
Egnever
(21,506 posts)How can that work?
Trespassing has to remain as it is. Otherwise it becomes toothless as anyone at any time can claim other motivations for their removal from a place.
If you are asked to leave go. If it is racist make sure folks know about it and hopefully the business takes a hit as starbucks is.
The owner of a property needs to retain the right remove people from his or her property. How can that be changed to except when...
I just don't see it.
Cops should show good judgment and in both of these cases they did in my opinion. Which is refreshing. They spent almost 8 minutes trying to get these guys to leave on their own and they refused. They left the cops with no choice in the situation in my opinion.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And why is the manager no longer working there after "reporting trespassers?"
Why did the CEO meet with and apologize to "trespassers?"
Something seems odd about this, you think?
How do you feel about being arrested for jaywalking?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not going to answer the other questions?
Why is the manager no longer working there, after reporting a "violation of the law?"
Why did the CEO apologize and meet with the "lawbreakers?"
Is it beginning to dawn on you that you might be *wrong* about the law, and they weren't in violation of any law?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)so spare me that nonsense.
Someone has to press charges or the case is dropped. Be it the state or the store or someone. Who was going to press those charges?
What's beginning to dawn on me that you are so emotionally wrapped up in this you can't think clearly.
The CEO of starbucks apologized because the optics are bad. Do you actually believe he gives a fuck about anything but his bottom line? Next week that store will be right back to refusing to let folks who don't buy something use the bathroom. Which is what started this to begin with.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)after he closes the stores for a full day to train employees on racial bias...
But you absolutely "know" that there was no "racial bias" on the part of those involved.
But you can't answer my questions, because the answers wouldn't support your claims.
Got it....
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)because the assertions of some "charge" were bogus. The Philly D.A.'s office indicated there was not enough evidence to even warrant any charge. The manager claimed she didn't expect for the men to be arrested, yet the cops chose the alpha dog way to handle it rather than the mature adult way. They even refused to to avail themselves of the perfect solution that presented itself (the "friend" would leave with the 2 men and go somewhere else), where that would be that, and they could go on back down the street to sit in a Dunkin Donuts for some more coffee a few blocks from there.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Did they not?
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)when they were not violating any law?
The had been lied to by the manager and they didn't bother getting witness statements that would verify what she was saying was incorrect.
This is how cops manufacture a reason for arrest.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)one last time they were asked to leave by the manager. Once that happens and they refuse they are trespassing. The managers motivations can be taken up later but at that point they are trespassing regardless.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)Yes it is. Now internalize that! It blows the mind because it does not fit a standard "worldview".
THAT is the problem that POC have with LEO today and the reason there needs to be criminal justice reform.
The manager's claim as a reason for them to leave was based on a policy that was not only not posted, but didn't exist. So absent their engaging in some egregious behavior that bothered other patrons or they were damaging property or what not, she was not within any right to demand they leave based on a non-existent policy and because "she said so". This is why she is no longer there.
And that is ALSO why the LA Fitness employees are no longer there and why the Huntingdon Valley Swim Club went bankrupt and was closed after telling a group of black children who were in a summer camp who paid to swim at the club, that they "would change the complexion" of the club and then when that looked bad, they were told that "there were too many children in the pool" or other such nonsense.
Three situations where whites demanded that blacks "leave" a "public accommodation/facility" and three instances where the reasons were bogus, and three instances where all these businesses were or will be sued.
But why clog up the courts with this sort of nonsense when it can be resolved on the spot?
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)you defend this?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and the manager had asked them to leave and the police had asked as well.
Why would they stay?
They didn't want to buy anything. They could have easily waited outside for their friend.
What difference does it make they had done nothing wrong? They also weren't patrons of the store what right did they have to be there?
There is no right to sit in Starbucks I am aware of.
Nor is Starbucks obligated to provide seating for everyone that wanders in.
A white guy in the same situation would have gotten the same results if they refused to leave. I just disagree entirely with the idea the cops were at all racist in this situation. The employee no question the cops not so much.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)seriously you should consider that.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I have said that over and over there is nothing to consider.
The employee was being racist full stop. That has nothing to do with the cops or their actions.
The cops were called because someone was asked to leave and refused black white brown or yellow that will get you arrested every time if you still refuse once the cops ask you to leave as well.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)It DOES have something to "do with the cops" when there is no "probable cause" for arrest.
This is why my city, the city of Philadelphia, will most likely be sued and have to take my taxpayer dollars to compensate for a rogue police department where every step along the way, from the officer who took the 911 call and never requested additional information about the situation, to the dispatcher who suddenly decided to "make up facts" about the situation by transforming "2 gentlemen" into "a group of males", and next thing you know, 6-7 officers and a supervisor respond to the scene as if there was a cop down, helped to create this situation.
This is why the need for criminal justice reform and this is why the voters of Philadelphia elected a Civil Rights lawyer as our DA this past fall, much to the chagrin to the rogue cop industry here.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)were waiting for a friend had to go if they didn't buy immediately...oh they are Black. You do understand that you defend racism on these posts ...I am not saying you mean to but different rules for POC than white people is racism...and the manager was fired so corporate thought she was wrong.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... for your input.
You're raising a good point about the policy, if I wanted an overtly racist bastard to leave my establishment I think I should have that right too.
On this case if I'm being an overtly racist bastard should the police have to enforce based off my overtly and known racist views?
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)How can that work?
Trespassing has to remain as it is. Otherwise it becomes toothless as anyone at any time can claim other motivations for their removal from a place.
It's one of the oldest and most pervasive tricks (and charges) in the book to remove black folk from places where whites don't want them. It was a charge that post-de jure segregation laws, allowed the same thing to happen de facto.
This is why the Public Accommodations Act of 1968 specified certain types of facilities where special protection would be provided.
The owner of a property needs to retain the right remove people from his or her property. How can that be changed to except when...
I just don't see it.
Here is the problem - when someone demands "an arrest" based on bogus racist-based charges, and then the lawsuits go flying, it's not just the business that gets hit, it is usually the municipality too because the PD allowed it. And so cities like mine end up paying out MILLIONS of MY tax dollars to settle bullshit cases like what happened with Starbucks because no one bothered to de-escalate a situation and determine that there might have been mitigating factors that precluded any need for "an arrest" (as you see was done with this LA Fitness case). Especially since there was no fighting or property damage or these men harassing other people sitting in the store. In fact the others in there were trying to take up for them but were summarily ignored.
So to go the next step - LA Fitness would get sued big time, but the cops in Secaucus right now are being praised!
The cops did absolute everything wrong in Philly EXCEPT that at least they didn't drag the guys out and slam them on the ground in a choke hold. I.e., their conduct was exemplary. But the officer who took the original call did not ask any details about what was happening (the call was less than 20 seconds). The dispatcher manufactured a major to-do by taking info that said "2 gentlemen refusing to buy anything or leave" to mean "a disruption by a group of men". And because of that, instead of a couple cops showing up, you have an almost "COP DOWN" type of response, with 6-7 showing up with a supervisor. Their negotiation skills and failure to engage witnesses and take witness statements that were contrary to what the manager claimed, is why they failed. And a PERFECT solution presented itself - the "friend" arrived and offered to take them with him to another place and that would be the end of that. But cop ego couldn't handle it and the cop blurted out that it was "too late", killing any chance of resolution other than what has now happened.
Fuck no. NOTHING is "too late".
Now the city is probably going to be on the hook for all kinds of financial compensation as settlement because of some bullshit alpha dog male cop. And Starbucks almost became toast thanks to that decision to arrest, until all this stuff about closing thousands of stores for training and whatnot. But I expect they will still be near-toast for many, just like Denny's.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)for racist bigoted persons. And multiple courts found against it. But it doesn't matter as it was not trespassing. The racist scumsucking manager violated policy and tossed out the 'skeery Black men' (sarcasm)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Truly not a thing.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)People who can read and comprehend the law and how it works understand that.
People who can’t and just want the law to be whatever they think it should be won’t.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)That's about the beginning and end of this matter.
Looks like the PDA attested to such
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,900 posts)GallopingGhost
(2,404 posts)gentlemen file a lawsuit and take the gym for every penny they've got.
And thank you, Dear Leader Donald, for further emboldening all the racist fucks.
sagetea
(1,368 posts)They just lost my membership. I won't stand for this shit.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Hit them where it hurts, the wallet.
give not given, I must slow down.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I think the message has finally gotten through that filming is allowed.
The woman in the Starbucks tried the same nonsense.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,105 posts)"we live in a racist country".
"I think it's pretty obvious. Our league is made up of a lot of black guys," Popovich told reporters Monday before the Spurs took on the Utah Jazz in Salt Lake City. "To honor that and understand it is pretty simplistic. How would you ignore that? More importantly, we live in a racist country that hasn't figured it out yet.
"It's always important to bring attention to it, even if it angers some people. The point is, you have to keep it in front of everybody's nose and understand that it still hasn't been taken care of and we still have a lot of work to do."
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)Thousands and thousands of times a day, nationwide. Not all make the media.
WELCOME TO AMERICA!!!!
malthaussen
(17,186 posts)This shit is getting too old. Well, frankly, it was old before I was born.
-- Mal
George II
(67,782 posts)....LA Fitness is rightfully going to get a lot of grief over this.
I don't understand the employees there, Secaucus is right across the river from NYC and is a pretty diverse area. It wasn't like this was in Dubuque, Iowa.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)There are parts of North Jersey that are rough and heavily Republican.
Read and weep - http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/11/in_dark_blue_hudson_county_support_for_trump.html
Brother Buzz
(36,415 posts)
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,489 posts)See: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2018/04/3_la_fitness_employees_fired_after_kicking_2_men_o.html
(snip)
L.A. Fitness has fired a manager and two employees at a New Jersey gym where two black men were kicked out Monday night after a video of the incident surfaced on social media, according to a salesman there.
An employee who answered the phone at L.A. Fitness in Secaucus told NJ Advance Media the manager who appeared in the video recorded by one of the men has been "removed from the company."
The employee, a salesman who would only give his first name Josos, also said two women who were working that evening and badgered the men are no longer employees. "I know the incident was really bad," said Josos. He said L.A. Fitness has apologized to one of the men.
----------
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)And perfect justice for those who were fired. Seeya!
dalton99a
(81,443 posts)WTF
argyl
(3,064 posts)I'm well aware I have a white privilege card and to say I understand how this treatment hurts would be foolish on my part.
My earliest memories are of 1950's suburban Houston.
I thought everyone was white. I did have a Jewish friend who lived across the street who I suppose wouldn't fit the strict definition of white at the time, mainly Anglo.
Also had a friend down the street whose dad served in WWII (as did mine and everyone else's dad) and brought home a Japanese war bride, making him obviously half Japanese. I thought his mother was the most beautiful woman in the world.
Then spent six years in Central/ Hill Country Texas where I first went to school with Mexican kids. I didn't like them, I was enchanted by and loved them. They also referred to themselves as Mexican and us as Anglo.
I never went to school with an African American until I enrolled in El Centro CC. Apart from loving the music of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, and Hendrix of course, I was a young adult before I met, mingled with, and had African American friends. I've always loved diversity(learned to a great degree from books at that time)and my new friends had a rich culture I'd never imagined.
Like many white guys my age I let my hair grow quite long. And the cops hated and abused longhairs as much as anyone. At the time I thought I was undergoing some of what African American had to go through. Very naive on my part; I'd never been treated as inferior and just because some asshole cop roughed me up didn't change that, it just pissed me off.
Did get my head slammed into a car hood, billyclubbed, and had a shoulder twisted so badly while being handcuffed that I needed treatment but I wasn't born into this abuse and a haircut would solve my cop problems. Actually, even the cop's kids and some of the most redneck SOBs known to mankind started wearing their hair long so the cops slacked up.
I do wish I'd had the chance to go to school with and have African American friends as a child. I really, really wish my great great great grandparents had had the opportunity. But it was mandated by law that they be segregated , not only in the South but much of the North as well.
Well, I think this country is ready for a new wave of liberalism and I'll be marching for BLM, against war, Trump, and a whole host of issues that have been neglected for so long.
Guess I'm just rambling. I hope to see a day when all people are treated equally but I'm a senior so I doubt I will.
Have a lot of hope in our young people,though. My youngest niece has friends of every color, ethnicity, and country imaginable. She loves to travel and has friends from all over the world. I see her and a large gathering of her friends and they interact effortlessly together, love each other, and have beautiful children together.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)"I really, really wish my great great great grandparents had had the opportunity. But it was mandated by law that they be segregated , not only in the South but much of the North as well."
I am so glad you said this because it's such an important point. Segregation and discrimination don't just harm the intended targets. They harm and diminish ALL of us. You missed so much by being cut off by a huge segment of the population. Your ancestors probably missed even more since the segregation of that time not only cut them off, but probably instilled in them certain poisons and made them less than they could have been.
This is one of the reasons I feel so strongly that it is incumbent on white folk to fight racism just as hard and not to sit back and expect us to do all the heavy lifting. When we make our society more open, inclusive and fair, EVERYONE benefits, not just minorities.
So, thank you for saying this and being so willing to be open and honest. I - and I'm sure many others here - really appreciate it! It really does make a difference.
argyl
(3,064 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)AllyCat
(16,177 posts)
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)People used to get away with this type of stuff. It was the victim's word versus theirs.
RKP5637
(67,103 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)I didn't think the cops were confused at all. They seemed to handle the situation calmly. The gym manager was maybe just a little confused.
I should say " the FORMER gym manager ".
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)The cops were probably going "WTF is the manager going on about and why is he whining to us to make these people turn off their cell phones?"
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)They will take care of this.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)onetexan
(13,036 posts)hurt them in the pocketbooks. That'll show 'em.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Did LA Fitness tell them to block paying minorities from its locations? I seriously doubt it.
onetexan
(13,036 posts)they don't need to be blatantly telling their employees to block paying minorities, but firing a couple people isn't going to stop that kind of behavior. Companies are only in business to make money. Best way to ensure they put in place clear measures to counteract this type of behavior and force it down loud and clear that the company in no uncertain terms will not tolerate it in any shape or form.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)The membership requirement is pretty straightforward. You pay for access. If you pay, you get in. That these idiot racists weren’t able to understand that doesn’t really reflect on the company.
As for curbing this kind of behavior, taking away someone’s source of income is a pretty serious and appropriate deterrent to anyone else doing something like this. It’s not like they moved these employees to another location.
Steven Maurer
(459 posts)The only thing they can do is fire people who do. Which they did.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)onetexan
(13,036 posts)firing a couple of racist people isn't going to change the corporate culture
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)You say a lot more action. I'd love to know what more action you think there should be.
Demovictory9
(32,448 posts)L.A. Fitness fires 3 workers after black men get kicked out of N.J. gym
L.A. Fitness has fired a manager and two employees at a New Jersey gym where two black men were kicked out Monday night in an incident captured on video and shared on social media, according to a salesman there.
An employee who answered the phone at L.A. Fitness in Secaucus told NJ Advance Media the manager who appeared in the video recorded by one of the men has been "removed from the company."
The employee, a salesman who would only give his first name Josos, also said two women who were working that evening and badgered the men are no longer employees.
"I know the incident was really bad," said Josos. He said L.A. Fitness has apologized to one of the men.
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2018/04/3_la_fitness_employees_fired_after_kicking_2_men_o.html
swishyfeet
(1,156 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)our bar, rolled down the street and crashed into yours ....
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)have ANY clue how many of us have to endure this bullshit on a daily basis...
MissB
(15,805 posts)She told us several stories of when she first moved to our (liberal) state in the late 1990s and how one new coworker back then told her she’d never worked “with a colored person before.” In the late 1990s! That was shocking to realize that she heard things that I’d classify as 1950s era crap over 40 years later.
It’s incredibly liberal around here but that doesn’t mean our state isn’t racist. It’s eye opening to realize that. I’m really glad she shared her perspective with us. Those sort of conversations help us very-unaware white folks realize just how big of a race bubble we live in.
lame54
(35,284 posts)
raven mad
(4,940 posts)*Drive a car
*Hold a radio or cell phone
*Walk into a gym, even if you're a member
*Wait for a friend at a coffee shop
*Go to the bathroom in Star$$ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/16/black-man-videotapes-starbucks-refusal-let-him-use-restroom/521233002/)
Thanks for your post, MrScorpio.
Feel free to add - and especially add your disgust at the direction our nation has taken since the Repukes stole YET ANOTHER election and brought the Orange Bigot Shitgibbon to OUR House.
Oh, yeah - on edit. Order some Chicken from an On-Campus takeout........
https://www.thedailybeast.com/university-of-north-texas-student-labelled-nr-on-receipt-from-on-campus-eatery?ref=home
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)You can be a black child and you can't swim in a pool with white people.
or attend a teen pool party in your own neighborhood because "whites" -
or play in the park with a toy gun although "SECOND AMENDMENT!!11!!!!"
or be removed from a school bus without being dragged off by your feet as your head hits the floor and steps -
raven mad
(4,940 posts)I've been doing a lot of reading, etc. So much of this just doesn't register, I guess, in my inner brain. What little I have, that is.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)As Joe Madison oft-says -
It has been generationally-ingrained. POC are not considered "human beings" in the subconscious minds of some whites. We are just like a dog or a rabbit or some other animal.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)That kind of bigotry.... The self-loathing it must take....
Abu Pepe
(637 posts)black men, its time to reassess your life.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
onecaliberal
(32,818 posts)
Nitram
(22,791 posts)America must acknowledge and start to deal with the racism that is endemic in this country.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Feel better?
Nitram
(22,791 posts)really liberals. What does it take to open their eyes and ears?
ecstatic
(32,681 posts)Not cool. Don't use the membership anyway.
mark67
(196 posts)...but I think the "crime" committed was that a black person embarrassed a white person. Enough said. Kudos to the police on the scene. They seemed to retain their cool.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)
klook
(12,154 posts)I can't imagine this ever happening there, although in America -- as we've seen -- the worst is always lurking just beneath the surface.
I encourage everybody to give your local Y a try. I like the vibe there so much better than these glitzy operations like LA Fitness.
BumRushDaShow
(128,827 posts)One of my earliest "protests" that I was in was with my mother and her friends and us children protesting the fucking YWCA in Germantown because black children were not allowed to swim there - and this was in the '60s after the "white" branch was consolidated with the "colored" branch some 20 years earlier.
https://library.temple.edu/digitalcollections/ywca/ywca-philadelphia
https://www.lib.umn.edu/ymca/guide-afam-history
So the Y has had a checkered past itself and it has to do with the people who worked at the facility who made sure to make it miserable for those they don't want there. I.e., it doesn't matter what organization it is.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)I belonged to an LA Fitness for years. Signs tell you filming is prohibited. Many black members, one of whom was a workout buddy of mine. No problems like that ever.
Of course, I live in the south. All these stories seem to happen in the north these days. Funny.
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)Do you have a problem with that?
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)
tulipsandroses
(5,122 posts)are calling the cops and possibly diverting them from real crime?? And also possibly tying up the courts with bullshit court cases which results in a waste of tax dollars?
