Starbucks has black men arrested for trespassing

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

However, anyone taking issue with the police are stupid. They got a call about trespassing, the gentleman were trespassing, they had no other options once the men refused to leave.

So we can't expect police to exercise some judgement in situations like this? Are they unable to assess the situation and perhaps say "yeah these guys aren't doing anything, how about we don't arrest these guys"?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Igottago

So we can't expect police to exercise some judgement in situations like this? Are they unable to assess the situation and perhaps say "yeah these guys aren't doing anything, how about we don't arrest these guys"?

They were doing something. Private ownership exists, and the rights that come with that. They were trespassing once they were asked to leave, there's not much else that could be argued. The police asked them to leave as well, courteously apparently, and once they failed to comply they really had no other choice. The police would have failed their duties if they didn't exercise the law and remove them from the property. I mean, you could hope that the police tried to reach an agreement between all parties if possible and try to mediate in a sense, but if the Starbucks managers wanted them off 'her' property, that's that. You can't expect the police to play judge as well, if a private owner wants someone off their property, the cops' hands are simply tied at that point. Either leave willingly, or get arrested.

If you threw a party and a couple people you didn't invite came over and wouldn't leave and the cops said "eh, well they aren't hurting anyone" and left, that would be incompetency at it's finest. It's not the cops duty to decide at that point.

Starbucks (or at least its employee) appeared to discriminate, and the proper channels should have been taken once that was the case (and I realize it's unfortunate) but in-essence breaking the law isn't the way to go about it (or maybe some would say it was, civil disobedience isn't always wrong, but still it warranted action by the police).

Also, from the police's point of view, it would not at all be unusual to kick out a person because they refused to buy something. Far more private establishments would have you removed if you sat down without buying anything than would allow you to stay, far more. From their point of view, race likely wasn't a motivation, they just knew 2 men were asked to order or leave, and didn't. Based on what we know of Starbuck's own policies and enforcement of those policies, it appears strongly that Starbucks was discriminating, but again, the police aren't there to be the judge.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/us/ph...sts/index.html

The employees told officers the two men wanted to use the restroom but were told the facilities are only for paying customers. The Starbucks employees then asked the men to leave, but they refused, Ross said.
Officers responded and asked the men three times "politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing." When the men again refused to leave, they were arrested "without incident," Ross said.
The men were taken to a police station and released when it became clear Starbucks didn't want to press charges.
"They did a service that they were called to do," Ross said of the officers. "And if you think about it logically, that if a business calls and they say that someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business, (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties. And they did just that."

If they came in guns blazing and yelling at the men to get on the ground, sure, criticize them for not trying to deescalate the situation. But they gave them the option to leave peacefully, and that's really the only other recourse they had.

The blame falls squarely, and solely, on the employee(s) who had the police called. Maybe you can extend it to Starbucks for failing to provide proper racial sensitivity training or something similar. But the police shouldn't be criticized for doing something they are legally required to do, especially when their first option wasn't to arrest the men, but simply have them leave the private property.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

OK. Use the same test I did. If the police have arrested two neo-nazis for refusing to leave, do you believe the reaction on social media would be the same (an outrage) or opposite (defending the police actions)?

Hmm, I'd like to think I'd be held in higher regard than Nazis in the court of public opinion.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

They were doing something. Private ownership exists, and the rights that come with that. They were trespassing once they were asked to leave, there's not much else that could be argued. The police asked them to leave as well, courteously apparently, and once they failed to comply they really had no other choice. The police would have failed their duties if they didn't exercise the law and remove them from the property. I mean, you could hope that the police tried to reach an agreement between all parties if possible and try to mediate in a sense, but if the Starbucks managers wanted them off 'her' property, that's that. You can't expect the police to play judge as well, if a private owner wants someone off their property, the cops' hands are simply tied at that point. Either leave willingly, or get arrested.

If you threw a party and a couple people you didn't invite came over and wouldn't leave and the cops said "eh, well they aren't hurting anyone" and left, that would be incompetency at it's finest. It's not the cops duty to decide at that point.

Fair enough, you raise some good points about the police responsibility here. I'm glad they got arrested peacefully and the situation didn't escalate to where the police had to use more force. It just seems entirely unfair that these guys had to be arrested at all. I think them not leaving upon request was just their way of standing their ground against what was a truly unjust situation.

[chubeyr1]

I think this whole thing is so blown out of proportion.

As a white guy with many friends of many races we have been in restaurants etc and have been told on many occasions ”if you are not ordering something we must ask you to leave”. So we order something, done deal! Other friends show up then we order more. Sometimes, oh my god, everyone at the table is white when asked this.

The fact the people refused to order something is the issue right there. They were asked to leave! They are at fault! Police are called and the police ask them to leave and they don’t. So they get arrested.
Myself and my friends would fully expect to be arrested if we did the same, and it’s not about race.

You are at a private business, and if you are not a paying customer you should not be on the premises. Buy a coffee, get a pop, buy something. If you are not a paying customer get out! Refusal to buy something means you are not a paying customer.

So what are the race issues here?

My work has policies in place. Not all employees follow the policies. I won’t let you walk into the shop without protective eye wear and steel toed boots, Bob over there will allow it. I stop a black man from entering the shop without protective gear, Bob lets a white guy into the shop without protective gear. Is that racist? Bob would let any race do this, Bob is a ####ty employee. That makes me look racist. I am following company policy as a private
business.

If the Starbucks employee treated white and black people differently that would be racist. It is entirely possible this is just a case of stupid people getting arrested because they deserved to be arrested.

Has this Starbucks employee ever asked a white person to leave in the same situation? I have seen white people forcibly removed from restaurants by the police for this exact same thing. It does happen to white people too. Or idiots I like to call them.

The idiot race is one of the biggest races on the planet. Doesn’t matter what your skin tone is, what god you pray too, where you were born. The idiot race is the biggest one on the planet. I am a proud serving member of that race!

I see nothing wrong with what the Starbucks employee did, or what the police did. Non paying customers were idiots.

I read the headline as “two men enter a restaurant and refuse to order anything” They are asked to leave and they refuse. Police are called and they are asked 3 times to leave and refuse. Then they are arrested”! Good!

Oh they are African American? So Africans that came to America? You know there are white African Americans too right? Are they refugees? That would be a better headline story. Still I don’t care what race you are, you are not buying anything at a restaurant and refuse to leave, you deserve to be arrested.

[chubeyr1]

Too add to my post above.

I have never seen anyone every arrested at Starbucks or Tim Hortons while drinking a coffee as a paying customer.

Maybe they should of ordered something?

[Sliver]

Wow. You're, like, super dumb.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Too add to my post above.

I have never seen anyone every arrested at Starbucks or Tim Hortons while drinking a coffee as a paying customer.

Maybe they should of ordered something?

[icecube]

For chubeyr1

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Too add to my post above.

I have never seen anyone every arrested at Starbucks or Tim Hortons while drinking a coffee as a paying customer.

Maybe they should of ordered something?

And it's "SHOULD HAVE".

[Winsor_Pilates]

There's many difference opinions on CP and then sometimes you read a post that just can't even be responded to.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Too add to my post above.

I have never seen anyone every arrested at Starbucks or Tim Hortons while drinking a coffee as a paying customer.

Maybe they should of ordered something?

Did you accidentally or intentionally miss in the article where they said there was a white women who had not ordered anything.

Also Starbucks is widely known as a place you can come to hangout.

Do you have any evidence to support your belief that this wasn't because they were black? You are right that if this employee kicked out every non-paying customer and called the police on them that would not be racist. What leads you to believe this is the case?

[cDnStealth]

Starbucks and coffee shops like it are literally loitering: the store. I've had zero issues sitting around waiting for friends to show up. It's pretty damn obvious why these two men were singled out.

[AltaGuy]

Ugh - many of the comments in this thread are horrible.

What the police “shouldof” done is tell the loser Starbucks managers and employees that they’re horrible people. Their time ”shouldof” been spent educating or - at the very least - berating those responsible - i.e. they ”couldof” spoken to the two men, figured out that the situation was bunk, and lit up some idiots. No arrest or evictions justified or necessary.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

OK. Use the same test I did. If the police have arrested two neo-nazis for refusing to leave, do you believe the reaction on social media would be the same (an outrage) or opposite (defending the police actions)?

This is morally repugnant in the worst way and one of the worst things I have ever read on these boards. There is no comparison between these human traits:

1. being black
2. outwardly identifying oneself as a racist

You don’t play the “everyone’s equal” card here. That’s seriously horrible, dude.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

I read the headline as “two men enter a restaurant and refuse to order anything” They are asked to leave and they refuse. Police are called and they are asked 3 times to leave and refuse. Then they are arrested”! Good!

“I’m sorry, not only do I not see colour, I don’t read it either.”

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Ugh - many of the comments in this thread are horrible.

What the police “shouldof” done is tell the loser Starbucks managers and employees that they’re horrible people. Their time ”shouldof” been spent educating or - at the very least - berating those responsible - i.e. they ”couldof” spoken to the two men, figured out that the situation was bunk, and lit up some idiots. No arrest or evictions justified or necessary.

The reasoning behind the request to leave is between Starbucks and the two men. When they were arrested, they were trespassing, regardless of the reasons that the manager had for denying them permission to be in the store.

The chief of police explained why they didn’t really have an alternative to removing them.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“I’m sorry, not only do I not see colour, I don’t read it either.”

Testing.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The reasoning behind the request to leave is between Starbucks and the two men. When they were arrested, they were trespassing, regardless of the reasons that the manager had for denying them permission to be in the store.

The chief of police explained why they didn’t really have an alternative to removing them.

Of course the police had a choice. I’ve seen police correctly and justiably berate people for bad decisions many times. You get to a public place, find out the facts, and tell the loser Starbucks employees that they’re out of line and they shouldn’t be wasting people’s tax dollars on stupid stuff like this.

When my elderly neighbour called the cops because another neighbour’s cat was peeing in her garden, the police told her she was wrong and stupid and they weren’t going to do anything - even though the old bat was right about the law and not letting cats pee in other people’s gardens.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

You get to a public place, find out the facts, and tell the loser Starbucks employees that they’re out of line and they shouldn’t be wasting people’s tax dollars on stupid stuff like this.

Sure, that's one way. But the issue was the very first part. Public place. The men wouldn't leave to a public place when asked. They decided that they would stay in the private establishment.

And what facts do they need to find out? Did you think the manager was going to be stupid enough to tell the officers they wanted them out for being black? They probably said that the men didn't order, were rude and asked to leave. Not that it really matters, they have the right to remove anyone from their establishment. It's really up to the courts to decide if it's discrimination, not the police.

Imagine in a different scenario if two men were asked to leave for sexual harassment of a server, and when police got there they claimed that they were being asked to leave because they were white/brown/Muslim/disabled/transgendered/any-other-protected-class, should the police just let them stay in that private establishment? No, they only know one true fact and that the men are trespassing. Diffuse the situation by asking them to leave, and then let them know of other actions they could take if they really did believe they were being discriminated against. But once they refuse to leave, arresting them to get them off the premise is the only recourse the police have.

You're asking for the police to turn a blind eye to a crime in process. Come on now.