Starbucks Scandal

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/15/officers-in-starbucks-incident-did-absolutely-nothing-wrong-philadelphia-police-chief-says.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/05/02/men-arrested-at-starbucks-settle-with-city-for-1-plus-promise-200k-entrepreneurship-program-for-students.html

 

Personally I think that the settlement and the fact that Starbucks caved is ridiculous. What I want to say is "If black people are given free loitering privileges at Starbucks, how long before they are given free food privileges too?" Also, none of the news outlets seem to have the employee's side of the story and the more liberal news outlets don't even mention that the men hadn't ordered anything or that they were denied access to the bathroom because of that. Thus everyone seems to be basing their response on a single viral video without bothering to get all the facts. It would be nice to know how long the men were sitting there before being asked to leave. Its implied that they overstayed their welcome without ordering anything. Also, clearly they were politely asked to leave and didn't. Look what happened though. I'm never shopping at Starbucks again unless its to make a counter video of some sort.

 

edit: Also, if they were indeed waiting for a 3rd person, why not wait outside if asked to leave?

 

edit2: It troubles me that no one seems to have detailed statements from the Starbucks Employees. As I said below, this is because I know from working retail that when your working you pay more attention to things related to your job then if your a customer, in this case how long people have been loitering. However after a lot of googling I can't find any statements from them. This is a cause for concern that no one bothered to get all the facts.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I have one simple question for you, what would have happened if they were white instead of black? IMO, it wouldn't have played out like this given that change, and that is the point. Also, soley basing your stuff on Fox News is not a good idea.

[Dad]

Typically, one can enter a cafe (i.e. Starbucks) and wait for friends or family or associates before purchasing altogether.  This is a common occurrence as many can attest to.  Let me ask you a question:

 

Within the two minute timeframes in which these men arrived and the local police were called, what amounts to loitering?

 

Furthermore, these men were given a dollar each and used remaining funds to open an entrepreneur program.  What would you have done?

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

I have one simple question for you, what would have happened if they were white instead of black? IMO, it wouldn't have played out like this given that change, and that is the point. Also, soley basing your stuff on Fox News is not a good idea.

My answer is this: they would have been asked to leave in the same fashion, and if they didn't it would have played out the same way except for making national news via social media. The wall street Journal corroborates parts of Fox news's story. I only have the paper version so I can't post a link.

 

edit: Can you confirm that it was only 2 minutes? If it was coffee rush hour and there were patrons who had already ordered waiting for seats then even that might have been reasonable. As for what I would have done. I would have left when asked. Failing that I would have left when the police showed up for sure.

 

edit2: I would very much like to hear the whole story as told by the Starbucks employees on duty that day. This is because I know from working retail that when your working you pay more attention to things related to your job then if your a customer, in this case how long people have been loitering. However after a lot of googling I can't find any statements from them. This is a cause for concern that no one bothered to get all the facts.

[Dad]

Here you are.  The article mentions the timeframe below.  Exactly two minutes.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/african-american-men-arrested-at-starbucks-reach-1-settlement-with-the-city-secure-promise-for-200000-grant-program-for-young-entrepreneurs/?utm_term=.1a74bf724214

 

You can control F to find it.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

Here you are.  The article mentions the timeframe below.  Exactly two minutes.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/african-american-men-arrested-at-starbucks-reach-1-settlement-with-the-city-secure-promise-for-200000-grant-program-for-young-entrepreneurs/?utm_term=.1a74bf724214

 

You can control F to find it.

The article says 2 minutes from being asked politely to leave to when the police showed up. I was asking how long were the men waiting before they were asked to leave? Also, were there patrons waiting for those tables?

[mido9]

I have one simple question for you, what would have happened if they were white instead of black? IMO, it wouldn't have played out like this given that change, and that is the point. Also, soley basing your stuff on Fox News is not a good idea.

It would have played out exactly the same because loitering is loitering. This is no way this is racially motivated, at all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

They asked my white friends to leave too..loitering is against firm policy 

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

It would have played out exactly the same because loitering is loitering. This is no way this is racially motivated, at all.

 

 

They asked my white friends to leave too..loitering is against firm policy 

This is a good point.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is a good point.

We were screwing around and talking pretty loudly, and she requested we continue our convo outside. And we did...I'd assume if we didn't she would have eventually called the cops

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

So, I honestly side with Starbucks for the most part. It's their policy, so... Yeah, just step outside? Or buy a $2 coffee? There were plenty of chances for it to deescalate, and yet it didn't.

 

That said, reading the OP was just frustrating as hell. First off, Starbucks didn't even settle. The city did. For all of $2, as well as providing funding for a program. OP is making some kind of stand against Starbucks, who had little to nothing to do with the settlement. Calling the police to reinforce store policy is in every way legal, if not kinda a dick move. The lawsuit would have been against the city, on the grounds of the PD overstepping their bounds. And I'll tell you what, I don't think Starbucks cares that they lost a single potential customer because of said person's lack of reading comprehension.

What I want to say is "If black people are given free loitering privileges at Starbucks, how long before they are given free food privileges too?"

As far as slippery slope arguments go, this is a generously-lubed Mount Everest. Starbucks didn't give them free loitering privileges. That's literally the point of all this. Not to mention the fact that it in no way would lead to them giving away free goods, let alone based on race.

 

So yeah. Kinda a dick move to call the police over a loitering incident, but they absolutely had legal grounds, and the police just did their job.

 

Tbh the settlement choice was clever. It resolved things in a way where nobody is really a bad guy at all. The fact that people are getting so worked up over it after the fact defeats that purpose.

[mido9]

Tbh the settlement choice was clever. It resolved things in a way where nobody is really a bad guy at all. The fact that people are getting so worked up over it after the fact defeats that purpose.

I really feel like those two that got kicked out could've been incredible dicks to starbucks and really dragged their name into the mud or sued them hard or something, but it's really good that they just took a 1$ settlement, and I really appreciate that.

[Gappy Higashikata]

I have one simple question for you, what would have happened if they were white instead of black? IMO, it wouldn't have played out like this given that change, and that is the point. Also, soley basing your stuff on Fox News is not a good idea.

This was not racially motivated. The fact is that 90% of people really don't care who it is that's breaking the rules, but more that "they're breaking the rules. They're in the wrong.". If a bunch of white hoodies walked into a Starbucks and loitered, odds are incredibly high that they'd be treated the same as these guys. Most media outlets (specifically in America) like to push the race narrative because it makes them look good to the incredibly vocal minority who I'm not going to name and (oh boy here we go) it tries to keep African-Americans in this docile, entitled mindset that Kanye West of all people is trying to eradicate. Pressing the Fox News point, I agree that having multiple sources (from both left leaning, right leaning and centrist media outlets) in the OP would be much better.