ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th April 2018, 11:19 AM   #41
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,249
Originally Posted by baron View Post
You missed out The men: Jerks for not doing what they were asked in the first place. If you're going to argue evidence of racism here, you could equally well conclude that the black men were racist because they did not respect the request of a white person enough to leave. Of course, this is equally ridiculous. There's no more evidence of them being racist than anybody else.
Unless, of course, you count the other patrons stating openly that they were behaving in the same way, and were allowed to stay.

And who said that the person that asked them to leave was white?

Quote:
I once got asked to leave a restaurant for refusing to remove my hat, but as I'm not black I assume it was prompted by the fact I was refusing to remove my hat, and not racism. Another time two friends and I were asked, somewhat brusquely, to leave a restaurant because we'd turned up 'too late' (whatever that meant). However, one of us was Chinese so obviously this was racism. This, we are told in all too numerous ISF threads, is how it works.
But let's say that you were black, and the workers told you "we need you to leave, you're wearing a hat".

And you pointed to several white people wearing hats and said "but what about them?"

And then they said "Uh, we meant, your shoes don't fit in."

And then you said "they're normal dress shoes, those white guys have them on, too?"

Because this is actually a very common tactic at nightclubs, that bouncers use when the owner is getting angry about too many black people being let in - here's one example. This is also, you'll note, much closer to what actually happened at this Starbucks than what happened to you.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 11:19 AM   #42
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
So some source who is unnamed says this Starbucks had 2 customers who didn't buy things. Wow, nice standard of evidence.

I have an unnamed source that says that person is lying. Looks like we have exactly the same evidence.
...did you not listen to the video? There was a man, on the video, asking what they had done and people voicing at the time that the men had done nothing wrong. Those people claim on video at the time to be witnesses to the entire thing.

Now you can still not believe that, but no, you don't have exactly the same evidence.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 11:40 AM   #43
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,336
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The important thing is that everyone can use this incident to justify whatever social or political biases they currently hold, without needing any actual evidence of what really occurred.

Then when the inevitable video comes out (do you think anyone in a Starbucks might have a smartphone?) everyone who said stuff before can have the fun of adjusting their theory, doubling down on jumped conclusions, resorting to childish name calling, or calling it all fake news.

Just so long as nobody withholds judgment for lack of evidence, that would be ridiculously skeptical and thus inappropriate for this forum.
There's been a video out since the story broke a few days ago; here it is:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The person who recorded the video is the one who was interviewed for the MSN article. To refresh, she has said that the men were never asked to leave by any employee before the police arrived. She also said the men asked for a restroom pass and were rejected, being told it was for paying customers only, while shortly afterwards a white woman who walked into the shop and asked to use the restroom was given the code without incident despite having not paid for anything. It's practically a "textbook" example of passive-aggressive racial discrimination.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 15th April 2018 at 11:42 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 12:01 PM   #44
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,765
I don't see that the cops did anything wrong; their hands were tied when the men refused to leave. Starbucks management was certainly within their rights to insist that they leave. While it's undeniably a disastrous business decision, it was a completely legal request.

Some seem to think that it matters that other customers were doing the same thing the two men were. That matters in judging the behavior of the Starbucks employees; it does not matter in judging the behavior of the cops. It's not their job to eliminate racism at Starbucks; it's their job to enforce the law.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 12:18 PM   #45
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,295
As it happens I went to a Starbucks last night. If it makes any difference, it's in a Barnes & Noble. I've been going there for years and have never ordered a goddamn thing. I was there to grade papers and then left. Employees have never given me any trouble.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 12:26 PM   #46
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,335
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Unless, of course, you count the other patrons stating openly that they were behaving in the same way, and were allowed to stay.

And who said that the person that asked them to leave was white?



But let's say that you were black, and the workers told you "we need you to leave, you're wearing a hat".

And you pointed to several white people wearing hats and said "but what about them?"

And then they said "Uh, we meant, your shoes don't fit in."

And then you said "they're normal dress shoes, those white guys have them on, too?"

Because this is actually a very common tactic at nightclubs, that bouncers use when the owner is getting angry about too many black people being let in - here's one example. This is also, you'll note, much closer to what actually happened at this Starbucks than what happened to you.
I've had that more times I can count. Refusal of entry for no obvious reason happens all the time. I don't doubt that on occasion it does have to do with skin colour (not in my case, I'm talking generally) but without evidence, who knows what goes on in these people's heads? Sometimes I've been given reasons, and those include not wearing shoes, wearing shoes, being 'on gear' (I took that as a compliment), being accompanied by someone who was apparently excessively tall, having a fight with the bouncers the night before (I'd never even been to the town before) and having an attitude. The last one was probably justified but the point is, unless clear evidence exists, this sort of behaviour happens frequently, and just because it happens to a black person - even if white people are indulging in similar behaviour without sanction - doesn't automatically mean racism.

Here's an example of actual racism; myself and a few friends, including an African guy recently arrived in the country, go to a large semi-rural Cumbrian pub for the evening. There's no trouble and the aforementioned guy, who doesn't even drink, is notable only for his excruciating politeness. At the end of the evening the landlady takes my white friend aside (he's a regular) and hisses, "What the hell do you think you're doing?" He says, "What do you mean?" She says, "Bringing a ****** into the pub!" None of us ever went back. Now that is racism.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"

Last edited by baron; 15th April 2018 at 12:28 PM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 12:31 PM   #47
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,572
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I'm sure you will be completely shocked when you learn what Travis has stated is a complete and utter lie. I guess one could give him credit for not calling the police racist this time. However, I have serious doubts he'll make it past the first page of this thread without doing so.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You lie. Don't do that. You now have pie on your face.
Where is the lie?

That it isn't an actual codified policy? Who cares? Black men were arrested for something a white woman was allowed to do while they were there!

And, further, I've been in Starbucks countless times over my life to use a restroom without buying anything and I, a white man, have zero arrests to show for it. EXPLAIN THAT!
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 12:31 PM   #48
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I don't see that the cops did anything wrong; their hands were tied when the men refused to leave. Starbucks management was certainly within their rights to insist that they leave. While it's undeniably a disastrous business decision, it was a completely legal request.

Some seem to think that it matters that other customers were doing the same thing the two men were. That matters in judging the behavior of the Starbucks employees; it does not matter in judging the behavior of the cops. It's not their job to eliminate racism at Starbucks; it's their job to enforce the law.
Their hands were not tied, what planet do you live on?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 15th April 2018 at 12:34 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 12:34 PM   #49
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Where is the lie?

That it isn't an actual codified policy? ...
From the OP:
Quote:
So, any thoughts on the new Starbucks policy of not being allowed to be black and sitting around waiting for a friend?

__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 01:21 PM   #50
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,332
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Where is the lie?

That it isn't an actual codified policy? Who cares? Black men were arrested for something a white woman was allowed to do while they were there!

And, further, I've been in Starbucks countless times over my life to use a restroom without buying anything and I, a white man, have zero arrests to show for it. EXPLAIN THAT!
Hmmmm... 6 out of 10. Good routine but you didn't stick the landing.

You see you need to have a transition post between the edge-lord, try-hard chip on your shoulder "Oh yeah I said it, who wants to make a deal about it? Somebody @ me bro!" bait post and the faux-victim "Oh Lordy me I just can't imagine whatever it was that I said. Why is everybody being so mean to widdle old me?" pearl clutching post or the tone whiplash is too much.

Put in some good hours on Youtube comments and Xbox live and you'll get there.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 01:48 PM   #51
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by Pterodactyl View Post
People are removed from businesses after refusing to leave every day in this country. It is a typical call an officer will go on.

What makes this case any different?

This case fits a popular identity politics narrative: Black people are victims. White people are racist. Cops are racist.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:02 PM   #52
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The important thing is that everyone can use this incident to justify whatever social or political biases they currently hold, without needing any actual evidence of what really occurred.

Then when the inevitable video comes out (do you think anyone in a Starbucks might have a smartphone?) everyone who said stuff before can have the fun of adjusting their theory, doubling down on jumped conclusions, resorting to childish name calling, or calling it all fake news.

Just so long as nobody withholds judgment for lack of evidence, that would be ridiculously skeptical and thus inappropriate for this forum.
If you go to the site in the first few posts, you can see video of the arrest and related!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:05 PM   #53
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
As it happens I went to a Starbucks last night. If it makes any difference, it's in a Barnes & Noble. I've been going there for years and have never ordered a goddamn thing. I was there to grade papers and then left. Employees have never given me any trouble.
I doubt it would ever happen in a B&N. They want people to sit around and read/related!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:08 PM   #54
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,446
...from the Starbucks CEO:

Quote:
By now, you may be aware of a disheartening situation in one of our Philadelphia-area stores this past Thursday, that led to a reprehensible outcome.
https://news.starbucks.com/views/sta...ign=springfy18

I really think we can stop making excuses for how Starbucks acted here. The CEO isn't making any excuses, he labels the outcome reprehensible: and he definitely knows more about what happened than anyone here.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:11 PM   #55
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,953
To those criticizing Travis, I did not have any problem deciphering "New Starbuck's policy" as hyperbolic rhetoric in the context of this story. You can disagree with the appropriateness of that way to describe this event, but he wasn't lying.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:27 PM   #56
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
There's been a video out since the story broke a few days ago; here it is:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The person who recorded the video is the one who was interviewed for the MSN article. To refresh, she has said that the men were never asked to leave by any employee before the police arrived. She also said the men asked for a restroom pass and were rejected, being told it was for paying customers only, while shortly afterwards a white woman who walked into the shop and asked to use the restroom was given the code without incident despite having not paid for anything. It's practically a "textbook" example of passive-aggressive racial discrimination.
You don't understand. The real problem worthy of condemnation here is that people correctly identified clear racial discrimination and complained about it.

Truly the reader has become Polonius.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:29 PM   #57
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I don't see that the cops did anything wrong; their hands were tied when the men refused to leave. Starbucks management was certainly within their rights to insist that they leave. While it's undeniably a disastrous business decision, it was a completely legal request.

Some seem to think that it matters that other customers were doing the same thing the two men were. That matters in judging the behavior of the Starbucks employees; it does not matter in judging the behavior of the cops. It's not their job to eliminate racism at Starbucks; it's their job to enforce the law.
In the US, police often exercise discretion. They will let a speeder off with a warning, ignore a jaywalker, they have that power and they exercise it. They are also not hired security for any particular business. They are not beholden to enforce the whims of a Starbucks employee on demand. A legal request does not necessitate immediate fulfillment. I can tell you all sorts of stories of officers refusing to arrest someone for whatever reason. They are not duty bound to do so.

In many countries, police officers prioritize deescalation and solving problems without arrests or violence whenever possible.

One option these officers had, but didn't seem to take would be to talk with the two men, understand the situation, and that their friend was coming soon, and ask the Starbuck's manager if the two men could stay long enough to meet their friend. They could even have gone to the manager and said something like:

Quote:
"I don't see anything these men did that seems disruptive, they say they plan to purchase coffee when their friend arrives and there's every reason to believe them. Kicking them out doesn't seem particularly reasonable and would probably reflect poorly on you in the end. Would you like to withdraw your complaint and just let these guys get coffee with their friend?"
There were certainly options within the realm of legality that don't seem to have been taken here. Options that I think would be far more likely in a place like the UK.

SIDE NOTE: I'm not altogether certain that the given Starbucks employee has the authority to kick them out by whim alone. I don't know the rank of the employee in question or the detailed managerial structure of the Starbuck's corporation, but I don't believe the employee was the owner of a building, and I would be surprised if just any employee had the legal power to declare anyone a trespasser on property they don't themselves own.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Last edited by Cavemonster; 15th April 2018 at 02:32 PM.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:45 PM   #58
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,446
...one other thing to note was they weren't just escorted off the property, they were detained from 5PM that afternoon until 2AM the next morning. It was at 2AM that, according to the police, that "officers processing paperwork learned that Starbucks was no longer interested in prosecuting. The two men were then released from custody."

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-pol...doing-nothing/

If Starbucks did want to prosecute, how long would they have kept the two men in jail?
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 02:46 PM   #59
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,271
It's a *********** Starbucks. Like every other coffee shop, it's practically designed for loitering. Making a police call based on loitering in a coffee shop, unless it's been going on for hours, is ridiculous. It's like calling the police because someone got shoved, or because someone littered.

As for the police, they should have interviewed the rest of the customers, verifying that everyone in the place had bought something, before even considering engaging in enforcement of the employee's wishes. If this was really worth police attention, then it's certainly worth a brief investigation of the store's policy and to be sure that the employee in question isn't violating what I'm sure are existing public accommodation laws that forbid discrimination. Despite what some signs say (signs I've never seen in a Starbucks), business owners do not actually have the right to refuse service - or access to their establishment - to anyone...at least not for any reason.

It is not the job of police officers to enforce every whim of a store owner, let alone every whim of a cowardly, racist store employee.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 04:09 PM   #60
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,762
Travis’s point was so obviously tongue-in-cheek that I have to wonder how many people truly read the post and thought, “wow! Starbucks have a policy of not being allowed to be black...!” If you cannot tell whether that’s serious or not then there really must be a problem of racism.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 04:09 PM   #61
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,748
All could have been avoided with a couple of signs:

"Please place your order before taking a seat."

"Restrooms for patrons only."
__________________
He bade me take any rug in the house.
commandlinegamer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 04:54 PM   #62
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,572
So, just went to another Starbucks. I milled around, used the restroom, sat down for awhile and then left. Never ordered a thing.

No police even appeared let alone took me off to jail. How weird.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:00 PM   #63
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I don't see that the cops did anything wrong; their hands were tied when the men refused to leave. Starbucks management was certainly within their rights to insist that they leave. While it's undeniably a disastrous business decision, it was a completely legal request.

Some seem to think that it matters that other customers were doing the same thing the two men were. That matters in judging the behavior of the Starbucks employees; it does not matter in judging the behavior of the cops. It's not their job to eliminate racism at Starbucks; it's their job to enforce the law.
Others have already commented that the hands of the police were not tied. They were told by the two arrestees that they were waiting for a friend, who then showed up and identified himself to the police as that friend. But no, they had to continue on their course and keep them for eight frikking hours at the PD until a DA told them he could find no crime. Really?

Management was also clearly in the wrong. They had not asked the two men to leave, in fact: only refused access to the bathroom, and subsequently immediately called the police. In my book, there's no trespassing until you've actually asked someone to leave. I think the store manager (or whoever called the police) should be charged with filing a false report.

I have no problem if an outfit like Starbucks would ask anyone who doesn't order to leave; in my country, it's the standard that all bars and cafes expect patrons to order. But they should enforce such a policy consistently with all patrons, and clearly this manager didn't do that, but only in a racist manner.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:02 PM   #64
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
This case fits a popular identity politics narrative: Black people are victims. White people are racist. Cops are racist.
Which is in many cases true.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:04 PM   #65
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
To those criticizing Travis, I did not have any problem deciphering "New Starbuck's policy" as hyperbolic rhetoric in the context of this story. You can disagree with the appropriateness of that way to describe this event, but he wasn't lying.
Travis said it wasn't a lie and did not say it was hyperbole, did he?

I'm fine with saying it was hyperbole. Did he?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:06 PM   #66
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...one other thing to note was they weren't just escorted off the property, they were detained from 5PM that afternoon until 2AM the next morning. It was at 2AM that, according to the police, that "officers processing paperwork learned that Starbucks was no longer interested in prosecuting. The two men were then released from custody."

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-pol...doing-nothing/

If Starbucks did want to prosecute, how long would they have kept the two men in jail?
Bail hearings are on the first court day.

Sometimes there is an automatic bail but I believe most of the time you have to wait for the judge and the arraignment.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:09 PM   #67
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Police chief is defending the officers. Clearly he prefers to take the public ire rather than risk a lawsuit for wrongful arrest.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:10 PM   #68
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,271
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Management was also clearly in the wrong. They had not asked the two men to leave, in fact: only refused access to the bathroom, and subsequently immediately called the police. In my book, there's no trespassing until you've actually asked someone to leave. I think the store manager (or whoever called the police) should be charged with filing a false report.

I have no problem if an outfit like Starbucks would ask anyone who doesn't order to leave; in my country, it's the standard that all bars and cafes expect patrons to order. But they should enforce such a policy consistently with all patrons, and clearly this manager didn't do that, but only in a racist manner.
Which is why the police officers shouldn't have enforced the manager's wishes. According to witnesses, other patrons said that they had not bought anything but were apparently welcome to stay. Businesses are allowed to enforce policies but they're also not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc. If we're going to have police enforce store policies (a questionable premise, but I'll pretend it's acceptable for the sake of argument), officers should be required to evaluate whether those policies are being legally administered.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:25 PM   #69
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Management was also clearly in the wrong. They had not asked the two men to leave, in fact: only refused access to the bathroom, and subsequently immediately called the police. In my book, there's no trespassing until you've actually asked someone to leave. I think the store manager (or whoever called the police) should be charged with filing a false report.
Ah, well, if nobody had actually told or asked them to leave it would be a different story.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:32 PM   #70
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Cops: At a minimum biased if not outright racist. Or they've had incredibly poor training in how to mediate these kinds of issues. What a waste of police time and taxpayer dollars to arrest the men instead of mediating.
You are incorrect here, it is not the Police's job to mediate between the Manager and the public, if the Manager says he wants people out of his store because they are trespassing, then the Police have no other option but to enforce the Law. It is not their job to convince the Manager that (s)he's being an arse.

Even the witnesses agree that the Police told the men that if they refused to leave that they would be arrested for trespassing, so at the point that they refused to go, the Police had zero options but to perform the arrests, if they didn't they would not have been doing their jobs.

The Manager is the one that has to wear this, (s)he was the one that was totally to blame for the incident. Instead of asking them if they were planning to buy something and explaining the policy, (s)he took the nuclear option and went straight to demanding they be trespassed.

Blaming the Police for doing their jobs as required is just stupid and petty.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:34 PM   #71
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,336
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Management was also clearly in the wrong. They had not asked the two men to leave, in fact: only refused access to the bathroom, and subsequently immediately called the police. In my book, there's no trespassing until you've actually asked someone to leave. I think the store manager (or whoever called the police) should be charged with filing a false report.

I have no problem if an outfit like Starbucks would ask anyone who doesn't order to leave; in my country, it's the standard that all bars and cafes expect patrons to order. But they should enforce such a policy consistently with all patrons, and clearly this manager didn't do that, but only in a racist manner.
Salient points, both.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:35 PM   #72
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,585
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You are incorrect here, it is not the Police's job to mediate between the Manager and the public, if the Manager says he wants people out of his store because they are trespassing, then the Police have no other option but to enforce the Law. It is not their job to convince the Manager that (s)he's being an arse.

Even the witnesses agree that the Police told the men that if they refused to leave that they would be arrested for trespassing, so at the point that they refused to go, the Police had zero options but to perform the arrests, if they didn't they would not have been doing their jobs.

The Manager is the one that has to wear this, (s)he was the one that was totally to blame for the incident. Instead of asking them if they were planning to buy something and explaining the policy, (s)he took the nuclear option and went straight to demanding they be trespassed.

Blaming the Police for doing their jobs as required is just stupid and petty.
It is their *********** job to mediate.

The police had zero options? What a crock.

They could have asked the men to leave and not arrest them. I didn't hear any witness say the men stood their ground like civil disobedience.

Perhaps you have a link I can look at or re-look at.


And if you recall that atrocious mistreatment of the ED nurse who wouldn't draw blood on the unconscious person, they got her to the car and then released her.

Unless the cops were being contempt of cop dicks, they could have taken the men out and still released them.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 15th April 2018 at 05:38 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:37 PM   #73
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Not really but they did arrest those men for no good reason.
Actually they arrested them for trespass, which is a good reason. What you could say, and I'd fully agree with , is that the Manager didn't have a good reason to demand that they be trespassed in the first place. But since the Manager has that right, the police had to enforce it after informing the men that they would be arrested for trespass if they didn't leave.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:42 PM   #74
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,197
The biggest tragedy here, is that Starbucks is a successful company..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:42 PM   #75
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It is their *********** job to mediate.
No, their job is to enforce the law. period. They might do that by mediation in some circumstances, but it's not required.

Quote:
The police had zero options? What a crock.
When the manager says "I want them gone from the shop" then yes the Police do have zero options.

Consider this. Several strangers set up camp on your lawn without your permission. You decide you want them off your lawn and ring the police. Do you expect the police to come and remove them from your lawn, or to convince you to let them stay?

Quote:
They could have asked the men to leave and not arrest them. I didn't hear any witness say the men stood their ground like civil disobedience.
They did ask them to leave and told them that they would be trespassed if they didn't.

Quote:
Perhaps you have a link I can re-look at.
You quoted the witnesses saying that the police told them that if they didn't leave they would be trespassed in your own post. The Police have stated they were asked three times.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 15th April 2018 at 05:44 PM.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:46 PM   #76
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
There's been a video out since the story broke a few days ago; here it is:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The person who recorded the video is the one who was interviewed for the MSN article. To refresh, she has said that the men were never asked to leave by any employee before the police arrived. She also said the men asked for a restroom pass and were rejected, being told it was for paying customers only, while shortly afterwards a white woman who walked into the shop and asked to use the restroom was given the code without incident despite having not paid for anything. It's practically a "textbook" example of passive-aggressive racial discrimination.
From this, the Manager has to wear the issue. Sounds like something that is potentially a fireable offence I would suggest.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:46 PM   #77
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 460
The police actions seem typical. My wife works security. When poilice are asked to remove someone, they just do it. They don't mediate and may not even ask the reason. All that's required is "We want this person removed from our store." If you are told to leave, you are not entitled to an explanation.

I'm no fan of the police in general, but I'd put this on Starbucks, not the police.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:53 PM   #78
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Granted, the police made it over the remarkably low bar of not shooting/choking/pepperspraying them all of a sudden for just standing there, as we often see
How often? I mean, you are aware that there are around 70 million police/public interactions in a year, in which a lot are between police and black people. How many of those millions of black people get shot, choked, or peppersprayed for doing nothing other than standing there?

Quote:
although when their friend walks in and says "these are my friends, we're all here to buy things", they could have slowed it down a bit.
Not really, at that point they were enforcing the trespass order. Once you are told that you are being arrested for trespass it doesn't matter who you are or who turns up, the only way you're getting out of the cuffs before being removed from the location is if the person pressing the Trespass order changes their mind.

Quote:
The employees very clearly screwed up in a plainly racist way, though. Starbucks themselves are halfway disavowing them.
Absolutely no disagreement from me there, the Manager is responsible for this, and need to wear the consequences.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 05:54 PM   #79
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Actually they arrested them for trespass, which is a good reason. What you could say, and I'd fully agree with , is that the Manager didn't have a good reason to demand that they be trespassed in the first place. But since the Manager has that right, the police had to enforce it after informing the men that they would be arrested for trespass if they didn't leave.
Yeah, I don't get why people are missing this point. It's like they imagine uniformed cops are capable of Solomon-like judgment. There is a very simple legal issue here--who has the right to determine who can be on Starbucks' property? And that right clearly belongs with Starbucks' management.

I moonlight at a local bar, running poker tournaments. It is not uncommon for management to refuse service to a drunk patron (and in fact it is the law). I have seen the barmaids call the cops more than a few times when the refusal (and the offer of water or coffee and a cab) becomes an issue with the drinker. And the patron often tries a similar gambit to what people are suggesting here--they're serving that guy and he's more hammered than I am (i.e., the rules are being selectively enforced).

The cops are always singularly unimpressed with the argument. They are not there to enforce any rule. They are there to enforce the right of the property owner to determine who can remain on the property.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 15th April 2018 at 05:57 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2018, 06:02 PM   #80
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...one other thing to note was they weren't just escorted off the property, they were detained from 5PM that afternoon until 2AM the next morning. It was at 2AM that, according to the police, that "officers processing paperwork learned that Starbucks was no longer interested in prosecuting. The two men were then released from custody."

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-pol...doing-nothing/

If Starbucks did want to prosecute, how long would they have kept the two men in jail?
I suspect that the US does things slightly different to how our police would. Here, from what I know based on people I know having experienced it, you'd have a Trespass Notice written up at the location is possible, and then it given yo you and you would be escorted out with instructions not to return or you'd face arrest. If you cause trouble or resist then you'd be taken to the Police Station and held till the trespass notice was done, and then after being issued it you'd be released.

It seems in the US that you need to be given notice by a court, and so because it was after 5pm they'd be held overnight until the morning. It's a bit harder for me to find the exact details cause all the sites I get deal with NZ trespass laws, lol.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 15th April 2018 at 06:06 PM.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.