After watching the Starbuck's Tapes.

[busterbrown]

There can be no doubt that the Manager was nothing but an out and out Racist.
The Police showed such stupidity by walking them out with their hands cuffed..
How fucking humiliating is that.?..

I'm a 70 yr old White guy who has been in the high end Retail business for over 30 yrs.
That Manager? would be out on her ass in 2 minutes if she did that in any of my stores.

I managed a Saks Fifth Ave Store for10 yrs and had my own boutique in L.A. for 20.

[treestar]

1. We should not look at it as being humiliating

in that an arrest does not equal guilt. People are not guilty just because they have been arrested.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Unjustified arrests can be humiliating and are at the least a theft of your time.

Which is why "false arrest" is grounds for a lawsuit when it occurs.

[busterbrown]

5. Couldn't disagree more!

The Humiliation is a huge part of this.. Please Explain why this would not be a humiliating experience for these 2 Young Men!

[MineralMan]

30. Then, how should we look at it?

Being arrested and cuffed is not just humiliating. It is frightening and emotionally traumatic. In this particular instance, the two men had done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police were called by a racist clerk in that establishment.

Being arrested is not a normal part of anyone's day. It is an extraordinary event, especially if you were just in a Starbucks and had asked to use the restroom. Nobody should be arrested and put in handcuff's for that.

So, what would you call it. Humiliating is too mild a word, in my opinion.

[Dem2]

45. I agree with you and the person directly above

It's a horribly embarrassing experience that those two may never forget as long as they live.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. A conserv is a liberal who has been mugged.

Imagine yourself arrested, handcuffed, perp-walked out of some building while multiple people video you.

[Stonepounder]

122. The 'liberal is a conservative who...' is a great line.

But not always true.

Many years ago (more than I care to count) I had a job clerking in a liquor store. One night I was robbed at gunpoint. It was an extremely terrifying and traumatic event to have someone point a gun at you and you don't know whether they just want the money in the cash drawer, or whether they want the money in the cash drawer and want to shoot you so you can't identify them later.

However, it still wasn't enough to make me a conservative.

[PatSeg]

46. It sounds terribly humiliating to me

Not something I would get over easily.

[blake2012]

51. that makes it even MORE humiliating. along with righteous indignation

and that is when Police can be most lethal. If a young black man knows he's been unfairly singled out and begins to make a scene about it. Very smart for these young men to keep calm. But BULLSHIT that it came to this.

[EffieBlack]

58. Their white friend went OFF. Can you imagine if either of these men had spoken to the cops like that

We'd probably be talking about another police shooting and listening to lectures about how the cops "had no choice" but shoot him because he was a threat.

[blake2012]

60. Indeed

[pnwmom]

69. But arrests don't have to be carried out in handcuffs. Important people are frequently

allowed to simply turn themselves in.

Handcuffs are a mark of not trusting the person arrested, and that makes them humiliating.

[treestar]

77. You're the only one who has a point

Though it would depend on the circumstances. But yes, they could have even gotten their address and sent a summons for such a minor case. OTOH, they did have to make sure they left the premises - some people seem to think the police were supposed to engage in some sort of mediation/arbitration and settle the dispute right there.

People are just arguing basically the police should arrest only the guilty - so only the guilty get "humiliated." It's the obverse of the citizen who figures if the police arrested someone, they must be guilty. (That the police should never arrest someone who is not guilty). Like there should be perfect justice at all times, and at the street (police) level or somebody is mean and corrupt, when all of us are just human. That is what the courts are for.

[pnwmom]

85. The Police chief has announced new policies, but hasn't said what they were.

He says he wants to avoid this kind of situation in the future. He said he hadn't known that Starbucks promotes itself as a place where people can hang out without buying stuff, and he says the police would have handled it differently if they had known that.

[EffieBlack]

129. The Chief may not have known this (really?) but surely the cops on the beat knew it

And if they didn't know it when they went in, they certainly found out pretty quickly when the PEOPLE WHO WERE HANGING OUT THE PLACE WITHOUT ORDERING ANYTHING AND NOT GETTING THE LAW CALLED ON THEM TOLD THEM SO.

[pnwmom]

131. I agree. They should have used their discretion when they learned of the circumstances.

Just ie police use their discretion in arrests every day.

[Enoki33]

124. Seems incredibly insensitive to think being publicly handcuffed is not humiliating.

[EffieBlack]

74. Thats a little presumptuous, isnt it?

Have you ever been a black man handcuffed, perp-walked to a police car on a downtown street in a major city, and taken to jail?

If not, you’re in no position to say whether this is a humiliating experience.

[treestar]

78. I'm saying don't let yourself feel like a guilty person

for an arrest. You have not been convicted of any crime then. It's going along with the idea you must have done something wrong if the cops are arresting you. Whatever your race, etc. (and black men being stopped more is another issue) don't allow that to be "humiliating." Don't look down at someone for being arrested only or hold that against their record, with no conviction. Too many people do that. Take a potential employer who runs prints and finds a person has been arrested, but not convicted. Why do we still allow it to be a stigma?

[BumRushDaShow]

94. The "stigma" is imposed by society

not by the person who is caught up in the situation.

It is the equivalent of this -



One of the issues that comes up with arrests is whether the records ever get fully expunged, which is why many efforts that have gone on to implement "Ban the Box" including here in Philadelphia.

[cwydro]

128. I cannot imagine.

It would be a very humiliating experience.

[GoneOffShore]

79. Of all the apologists and 'Blue line' remarks I've seen on this topic

This is the most clueless.
Being handcuffed, in public, is ipso facto, humiliating.
Perhaps you should consider deleting.

[treestar]

83. Why?

It does not prove you are guilty of anything. You expect a perfect world where the cops apparently can judge guilt or innocence right there. Who are you to suggest deleting anything? They should only "humiliate" the guilty? Then it's up to them to decide who is guilty or not? That's a police state. Learn to discuss things instead of scold people that they should not be allowed to bring up issues.

[GoneOffShore]

84. I read the whole thing. You're making excuses for the cops.

And you've obviously made up your mind that this was not humiliating.
I think you're totally wrong on all points.
And actually deserve to be scolded.

[GeorgeHayduke]

101. This attitude is niave as the ideal gas law.

when in practice there are no ideal gasses.

Sure, on paper and in the sterile environment of what being arrested means in law is all great, ideal even. Go get arrested, led-out in front of people you know, stuffed into a cruiser to sit there for 30 minutes under blue lights and peering eyes.

The event focuses the practical judgement of every rubbernecking tool for blocks.

This is a silly thread started by a poster whom I suspect has never had the opportunty to be stripped of their dignity at the hands of opportunistic police.

[Demsrule86]

103. I agree arrest doesn't equal guilt but it is humiliating.

and I imagine for POC terrifying.

[mcar]

104. Of course it's humiliating

How could being hauled off in cuffs be anything less?

[Iggo]

110. Nice post, Chief Gates.

[JohnnyRingo]

125. I think the coming lawsuit will state otherwise.

The video will be exhibit A. I'll bet Starbucks has already made an offer of compensation.

[whopis01]

127. I get the point you are making

I see there is a ton of negative reaction to your post - but I don't think they got the point you were making.

Being arrested is humiliating because people watching it happen assume that the person being arrested is guilty. But being arrested doesn't equate to being guilty.

You are right - it shouldn't be viewed as humiliating - but it still is.

[EffieBlack]

130. It's like saying that segregation isn't humiliating since it doesn't mean blacks are really inferior

But, as the Supreme Court noted in Brown v. Board of Education:

To separate [black students] from other of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in way unlikely ever to be undone ...

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system."

[PoliticAverse]

2. As a manager, did you ever ask anyone to leave your store?

And if so ever had one refuse?

And if so, what did you do?

[busterbrown]

6. Yea i did?

Yes! When a Customer was caught stealing something..but didn't get out of store with it..
My Security Guards were well trained..

[Neema]

43. I was a store manager and had to ask people to leave more than once. But never for waiting for

waiting for someone.

One customer was being verbally abusive to employees. He left in a big huff but he left.

Another tried to pull the "do you know who I am?!" bullshit because he wasn't allowed to jump the line. Except the customer I was helping happened to be a member of a very famous family who had recently been in the news quite a bit. He was a really nice guy who came in often, and the minute he heard this he turned around and said "No, why don't you tell us?" The asshole customer recognized my customer and shut up really fast, eventually leaving.

Another was masturbating in the back of the store. I didn't bother approaching him, just called the police. He was still going at it when they arrived and told them he wanted to finish first. Uh, yeah, no.

[PatSeg]

49. "No, why don't you tell us?"

Oh, that is priceless!

Anyone who has worked in retail has stories that most people wouldn't believe. Fortunately I never had a guy masturbating! Can't believe he said he wanted to finish first.

[Neema]

96. Oh the entitlement people love to lord over lowly retail workers and other service professionals.

I hope I am never forced into such a job ever again, but anyone who endures it and still does a good job has my deep respect.

Yeah, we got some crazies at that shop. It was in a neighborhood in transition so lots of troubled folks, especially late at night.

[PatSeg]

116. I've worked in retails and restaurants

Graveyard shift at Denny's is often a bizarre experience. A lot of creepy things come out in the middle of the night.

[Mendocino]

65. Did you tell him to

beat it?

[Neema]

95. LOL! Apparently he beat me to it.

[paleotn]

54. Did you ever ask them to leave...

because they were black and they scared you simply because they were black? Not directed at you, but that's obviously the motivation of the SB manager. People wait for other people in commercial venues all the time. I have on numerous occasions, used the restroom and not ordered a damn thing until my friend(s) arrived. Sometimes we just met there and decided to go somewhere else. Then again, I'm a white, male professional type. I can't think of a single, solitary case of two WHITE guys waiting for someone, being asked to leave, being arrested, and then spending 8+ hours in jail before finally being released.

[Neema]

97. I never did. And I don't even think she can use fear, irrational or not, as an excuse. It was

a busy Starbucks with tons of people around. What were they going to do even if they were up to no good, with that many people in the store?

I will admit there were a couple times when a group of young men coming into my shop put me on alert. But that's because we didn't sell anything that teenage boys or 20-something men would want to buy. In every instance I recall, they came in near closing time and no one else was in the shop except the other employees. So it certainly did seem possible they had an agenda other than decorating their homes. Although, honestly, their race wasn't at all what put me on alert. It was gender, age, number and their general demeanor. Luckily nothing ever happened, but it could have had something to do with my coworker walking around with a nailgun loudly putting nails in the wall to hang decor.

[CherokeeDem]

3. In this case... the police had no choice.

Once the charge was made, they had to follow through. But the entire incident is sickening.

We are a society in crisis and I fear we are not going to learn.

[EffieBlack]

8. The police certainly did have a choice

Police officers are not required to arrest people just because someone says they broke the law. They are not robots nor are they bouncers in a private club. They have a duty to confirm that there is probable cause to make an arrest. They did not do that in this situation - which is why the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

Under Pennsylvania’s defiant trespass law, a manager of an establishment open to the general public does not have the unfettered right to eject anyone. A person who has complied with the conditions imposed for the entry or occupation by the general public cannot be deemed a trespasser, no matter what the owner or manager says.

In this case, the men were complying with all conditions of entry. The manager claimed they were trespassing because they didn’t buy anything. But that was not a condition of entry or remaining - as evidenced by the lack of any written or posted company policy or notice and the fact that others who didn’t buy anything were not asked to leave.

When the police arrived, they should have - in fact, we’re required to - confirm that the men were indeed trespassing and did not have a legal right to be there before they arrested them. They didn’t do that, but simply took the word of the manager, who was either confused or lying.

The officers DID have a choice - and they made the wrong one.

[busterbrown]

11. Well Stated!

I'm amazed how many feel the Police had no questions in their minds about this part of the story!
the commander back at the station should be investigated for his actions.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. That police district has the highest "stop and frisk" rate against blacks in the entire city

In its statement, the ACLU of Pennsylvania noted that Police District 9 (Center City west) and the Police Service Area in which this happened have the highest racial disparities in pedestrian stops in the entire city. The ACLU’s most recent report on stop-and-frisk from 2017 shows that 67 percent of stops in the police service area where the store is located are of African-Americans. Meanwhile, Black residents account for just three percent of the area’s population. In its statement, the ACLU of Pennsylvania called on District Captain Danielle Vales and Lieutenant Jeffrey Rabinovitch, PPD’s leaders in District 9, to correct these disparities and end racial profiling incidents like the one on Thursday.

The city has collected the data on stops and frisks annually as a result of a 2011 consent decree agreed to after the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed suit against the Philadelphia Police Department for racial profiling. More information about that case is available at aclupa.org/bailey.

https://www.aclupa.org/news/2018/04/16/aclu-pa-statement-arrests-philadelphia-starbucks

And the data for that assertion had been collected since 2011 per a consent decree that the Philly Police Department was required to abide by.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. +1. . . . nt

[appleannie1943]

44. Thank you. As a former business owner in PA, you are correct.

[PatSeg]

52. Yes, well said

I've seen police on many occasions leave without making an arrest, when they determined there was no law broken. They have the authority to make that judgment. An unjustified arrest means more paperwork, red tape, and court appearances for them. They clearly used poor judgment in this case.

[EffieBlack]

61. Not to mention embarrassing publicity, internal investigations and expensive settlements

No police department puts itself at the complete and unquestioning beck and call of some store manager and risk all of this.

What a ridiculous argument.

[PatSeg]

72. Exactly

None of them want to go through all that. Only a really green rookie wouldn't realize the can of worms they're opening by making such an arrest. Most cops I've known would try to defuse a situation quietly, better for all involved, especially them.

[uponit7771]

81. +1

[Lee-Lee]

114. Except conditions of entry dont have to be written or posted

Can you show me under PA law where it says the conditions of entry must be written or posted or otherwise established to a certain standard?

If not, then the conditions of entry are set by the person responsible for the business, aka the manager.

And are, in fact, subject to change at any time.

Now, was the manager a racist asshole and setting unreasonable conditions? Absolutely.

But she was the manager. She as the senior person over the business at that location and moment in time was the person who set the conditions.

There is no provision in the law that demands the conditions be posted or written, only that they be lawful in that they can’t require people to do soemthing illegal to enter.

Without any requirements under the law that policies be written or posted the policies are whatever the manager says they are, as far as the law is concerned. It isn’t up to the cops to sit down and do a legal review of Starbucks corporate policy not is it up to them to go around polling customers second guessing the manager on how they enforce the law.

You keep harping on the lack of a posted policy. But I can find nothing in any aspect of PA law that requires the policy be posted before its enforceable. And it would kind of be absurd to require that, because if you did then it would mean anything that wasn’t specifically posted against was allowable. So you would need walls of text on policy to specifically state everything they didn’t allow to cover every posisble problem. But the law doesn’t work that way.

[EffieBlack]

117. They don't HAVE to be written or posted, but they DO have to actually exist and

be applied to everyone, not just be some arbitrary, conjured-up "rules" that the manager comes up with on the spot to suit whatever bigoted butthurt she's feeling at the moment.

If the store has conditions for being on the premises and a manager wants to use one of them as a reason to kick someone out of a public business establishment, THEY have the burden of proving that it IS a lawful condition and not just an excuse before the police removes them or arrests them.

Putting the condition in writing is proof that it actually exists. Not putting it in writing, alone, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it isn't in writing and isn't posted and isn't communicated to patrons and isn't applied to everybody but only suddenly appears and gets applied to two black guys who walked into the shop two minutes ago, it's not a policy or a lawful condition. It's a pretext for screwing with people of color that Starbucks, the police chief, the mayor, the district attorney and anyone else paying attention (except the arresting officers, a handful of racism-deniers and blue-line uber alles diehards and, apparently, you) saw right through as pure, unadulterated Jim Crow bullshit.

And you can say insist all you want that the police had no choice but to just follow her orders - and you've been insisting on it going on five days now - but the police don't work for Starbucks and they don't have to do jacksquat just because a store manager says so.

Given how enamored by and defensive of the police you seem to be, your insistence on infantalizing them to such a degree is odd, to say the least. One would expect you, of all people, to appreciate that the men and women of the Philadelphia Police Department are sworn to serve and protect everyone in the community, not just the business owners - and they certainly didn't take an oath to be a local Starbucks weekend manager's bitches.

[Lee-Lee]

132. Well, no

For purposes of how the police respond, the manager more or less can apply things arbitrarily. It’s not their job to go around polling customers or checking policies.

If the manager chooses to press the issue with some patrons and not others, the police have to act when the compliant is made. They can’t act absent the complaint from the manager and make it their initiate to start telling people to leave, and they can’t overrule the manager or property owner and tell them they they can’t trespass the person or person when they seek to.

Now, that doesn’t mean the managers actions are right. Or that they are legal under other places in the law. If the manager is applying rules in a racially discriminatory manner than that isn’t legal. But that is not for the cops to decide on the spot if the application of the rules by the manager is fair or unbiased, and in fact expecting the police to make a judgement call as to if the motives of every person making a criminal complaint are “pure” in their motivation is not realistic.

It’s a more complex situation than you seem to grasp.

The manager can, and was, 100% in the wrong in her actions. However the cops have to act on her call. No, they can’t pick and choose if they will enforce the law as written based on if they like the motivations of the manager. You don’t want police doing that, because then that opens the door for them to pick and choose when they enforce laws and when they don’t and play favorites because you are leaving it all to their discretion.

There was a clear violation of law- the persons were asked to leave and refused. Now the entire motivation for asking them to leave was bullshit, but at that point and time it doesn’t change the elements of the crime that was at the time being alleged at Starbucks by Starbucks.

You seem to think on every call the cops should be allowed to pick and choose when the law will be enforced and when they will just say “I don’t like your attitude so I’m not acting on your complaint” or any other reason to not enforce it.

If you don’t like trespassing laws, the right thing is to lobby to have them changed. It’s not to expect the cops to ignore them when you don’t like the way they are applied.

[EffieBlack]

134. You simply don't know what you're talking about but are so certain in your ignorance

that you're impervious to either facts or reason. It's a waste of time discussing this with you any further.

We've gone back and forth enough that any thinking person reading our posts can readily sort out my facts from your fiction, so I'll just wish you a good weekend and focus my attention on something else.

[Neema]

120. Posted, not posted, it doesn't matter. The manager called the cops within minutes of these two men

entering the Starbucks to wait for their business meeting to start. The 911 tapes and multiple eye-witness accounts corroborate this. I'm not clear, in as busy a Starbucks as it was, how she even managed to assess the situation in that short a time, but she did. And based on what her coworkers say, that judgment was based pretty much solely on the fact that they are black.

When the cops arrived, witnesses in the video said they weren't doing anything. The man they were supposed to meet showed up to vouch for the reason the men were there. The cops didn't need to sit down and do any kind of legal review to see there was nothing in the situation that warranted arrest. I've seen cops called to MANY disputes where no one got arrested because it was clear no crime had been committed. The policy, posted or not, does not mean cops have no authority to make a judgment call. And in fact, that's actually their job to decide whether a crime has indeed been committed before tossing two innocent men in a squad car and hauling them off to jail for an entire day.

[Lucky Luciano]

126. Indeed

[malaise]

16. They had a choice n/t

[gollygee]

20. They had to come investigate

They absolutely did not have to follow through in any way, including but not limited to taking anyone away in handcuffs.

[MineralMan]

32. They had many choices, including the poor one they made.

They do not work for Starbucks. They work for the city in which they serve. They have a responsibility to make correct choices.

[EffieBlack]

53. This is a perfect illustration of systemic or institutional racism at work

It takes one seemingly small trigger - in this instance, the manager' bigotry - and then it kicks in, rolls along as if on autopilot and people's rights and signifies are snatched away, while the individuals involved all claim they didn't do anything wrong, because they were "just following the rules."

And well- meaning people defend them because they think "they had no choice." But, for some reason, the only people they believe DID have a choice was the victims, whom they blame for not preventing their own degradation.

But these players DO have a choice. The manager had the choice NOT to call the police on two men, who weren't bothering anyone, just because they were violating some fantasy rule she made up on the spot. The police had a choice NOT to arrest the men - at least not before doing a minimum amount of due diligence (aka "investigation" aka "police work" ). They also had a choice to let the men leave when their friend said that's what they would do - and not say "it's too late for that" because, apparently, once they decided to arrest the men for not leaving, some other invisible law prohibited them from letting the men leave.

Systemic racism thrives on people pretending they "have no choice" but to let the system work its intended magic. But we DO have choices. And unless the human beings involved in these situations use their God-given brains and common sense to make different choices - to DISRUPT - institutional racism will never be eradicated.

[The Polack MSgt]

62. None so blind as they who would not see

If we could rec replies this would be on the greatest page.

[tblue37]

92. Check out her post #8 above--it is just as good. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

111. I love

that (biblical) quote!

None so blind as they who would not see

[MineralMan]

64. Yes, it is. I'm saddened that so many don't seem

to understand what really happened there. Some are attempting to justify it in some way by claiming that there were no options. They're completely wrong about that.

There was no reason whatever for those two men to be handcuffed and arrested. None. The entire incident was nonsense.

You're absolutely right. This is yet another example of institutional racism at work. Until we recognize it for what it is, we will make no progress in preventing such things from happening again and again.

The response on DU to this has been surprising, and not in a good way, to me. I recognize that nothing like that would ever occur to me, simply because I'm a white man. I can walk into any Starbucks, ask for the code for the restroom lock, and the person at the counter will simply give it to me. No police will come. I will not be handcuffed. I will not be arrested.

In fact, nobody will really pay any attention to me at all, other than to give me the restroom code. I know that, because I've done that.

My experience would be different if I were a black man. I know that, but will never experience it. I have to imagine how that must feel.

That's just wrong.

[treestar]

88. Why not blame the store manager?

Isn't she the real cause? And it is the legal system that has done many things to stop institutional racism. Brown v. Board of Education, Batson v. Kentucky. It is the legal system that will produce relief in this case also.

[EffieBlack]

100. Read my post again

I DID blame the manager, along with the police. Without the complicity of both parties, there would have been no wrongful arrest. If the manager hadn't called the police, this wouldn't have happened. But if the police had done their job right, the manager could have called them to her heart's content, but the men wouldn't have been arrested.

[tblue37]

90. + a brazillion! nt

[Cha]

107. Brilliantly explained,

Effie!

[treestar]

86. Are they being disciplined?

I don't see how else they could get out of it. They have a private property owner who wants people gone who are not going. The courts are there to fix anything wrong about it. In fact, the DA did not even make charges, so it didn't even make the courts.

Everyone puts the cart before the horse, like the cops are the ones who dispense justice. They should never arrest innocent people. Guess what, they do that all the time, or no one would ever have to be acquitted, since no one would ever be arrested who was not guilty.

The SCOTUS did not need to decide all those cases because cops made an "incorrect choice." No one said OK, don't worry about whether there is probable cause, the cops just made the wrong move. No need for a legal decision.

We work too hard to be outraged at the everyone in sight, when the only real outrage object is the store manager.

[EffieBlack]

108. "They have a private property owner who wants people gone who are not going"

Wrong.

They had a manager of a business open to the general public who accused two men of being trespassers. Because the owner or manager has no legal right to eject a member of the public merely because they "want them gone," but can only have them removed if they engage in very specific wrongful acts defined by law, the police were first required to confirm that the two men did indeed engage in such acts before using their power to arrest them and deprive them of their liberty.

The cops did not do that. They merely took the word of the manager, who was either confused or lying, and even though the men were willing to leave, the police refused to let them go because, as they said "it's too late for that."

As a result, two men who'd been in the restaurant for two minutes before the police were called, weren't asked to leave before being confronted by 6 police officers, and weren't allowed to leave, were arrested for "defiant trespass," charged with "violent trespass," put in handcuffs and thrown in jail - all because a manager "wanted them gone."

That's not how the law works. And you shouldn't be defending it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

66. But why not simply escort them out of the store? Not cuffed.

Why the need to arrest them for trespassing? Just because the store owner said they were. The officers could just say, lets go outside and we can talk there. Or something like that. Once outside they could hear the victims statement, tell them the store owner, within their rights, can refuse service, so they'd better just move along. Still not right, but its better than handcuffing and arresting them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. I believe the cops asked them to leave and they refused.

I don’t blame the guys for refusing to leave at that point.

[EffieBlack]

75. But then their friend told the cops theyd all go somewhere else but the cops saiid it was too late

Because, apparently, once you’ve decided to arrest someone because they won’t leave the premises, you’re not allowed to let them leave the premise.

[mcar]

105. This again?

The Police Chief has apologized and admitted it was terribly handled. Of course they had a choice.

[still_one]

7. From what I understand the manager was fired, and the CEO didn't waste anytime and met with the

individuals who were treated disgracefully

[busterbrown]

9. First Reports were that she was ordered

to gets Sensitivity Training.. Has that changed?

[still_one]

17. The only thing I heard was that she left the company, and it was based on a "mutual decision" by the

company and the manager.

I guess that can be interpreted in different ways

I wasn't aware about the "sensitivity training" order

[liberalhistorian]

39. According to other reports, that particular

manager continually harassed and was aggressive with black employees and customers, so it's good that it finally caught up with her and I hope she has trouble finding even the most menial jobs. I certainly wouldn't hire her to clean toilets, let alone anything else.

[mercuryblues]

67. Saying that is true

why weren't those harassment complaints taken seriously to begin with? Why did it take this for her upper management to finally take notice of her bigotry?

Both rhetorical questions.

Upper management were fine with her bigotry. Which enabled her to increase her actions. If this was not recorded and then gone viral my guess is she would have gotten away with it. How long before she actually refused service to black customers?

[BobTheSubgenius]

89. I'd hire her for that.

As long as she didn't get a brush or gloves.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. The reports are contradictory

the most recent being "she is no longer at that store", which suggests she was moved elsewhere. She is probably on some kind of leave or suspension and may resurface somewhere else when this is out of the news.

I saw some site that posted a screenshot from her linkedin (I think it was linkein) and in the past, she has apparently worked at other chain restaurants prior to this.

[still_one]

18. The only thing I heard was that she is no longer working their by mutual decision, whatever that

means

[BumRushDaShow]

33. The latest was the Starbuck's spox saying the "mutual decision" thing was erroneous

A spokeswoman previously told the Philadelphia Inquirer the person left the company, but later clarified it was that specific location “while there is an internal review pending.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/philly-starbucks-manager-calling-cops-black-men-article-1.3936524

[still_one]

36. appreciate the update

[BumRushDaShow]

42. Sure

I was actually surprised by it (or maybe not).

[busterbrown]

12. We had a restaurant in the store....

And chairs all over the selling floor for those who want to relax.

So Incorrect!

[gollygee]

21. They can't politely ask?

It's normal to wait for the rest of your party arrives before you order coffee or food.

[pwb]

22. The republican Chicago talking point ha?

This was in Philadelphia .

[busterbrown]

23. You answered your own question and doubts.

Monitor and act appropriately... Your Chicago Response sounds like you're trying to bring something else up. Dangerous Neighborhood! So Manager's have the right to make stupid decisions!

[BumRushDaShow]

29. And this Starbucks is located in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city

https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/pennsylvania/19103

[BumRushDaShow]

24. What?

I guarantee you that you didn't have a prior loitering problem like this store apparently had.

How do you know this location had a "loitering" problem? Do you have a link to that? And note that I live in Philly.

And also be aware of what Starbucks promotes in their business advertising -

Our Heritage

<...>

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

The take-away for blacks now is this - "If you are white, enjoy our hospitality and stay as long as you like so you can promote a "community"! If you are black, you are "loitering" and "trespassing" because "you don't look like us" so get out or we will call the cops.

[busterbrown]

26. Your Last Paragraph?

Exactly!

[BumRushDaShow]

35. Wow.

I see MIRT was in here. They probably need to be in some of the other threads too!

[Tavarious Jackson]

19. I'm so disappointed in some of the comments on this thread

If it's this bad at DU imagine how bad it is everywhere else.

[busterbrown]

25. just answered the 1

I feel is most offensive!

I'm amazed myself

[Tavarious Jackson]

27. Yes. If we expect the entire country to have..

a conversation on race, we must first have that conversation with our own.

[SunSeeker]

56. Yep. nt

[pwb]

31. Cops are poorly trained.

They don't use any common sense. They treat everyone as criminals, innocent people, people with mental illness, they will kill you for holding a pencil. Not only with one shot but emptying there magazine most times. The only ones they protect these days is themselves.

[busterbrown]

34. Agree..

It is so sad to see the condition our country.

Just watching the 3rd advertisement this hour by Home Security Protective Companies.
I wonder how many of the millions of Homes were actually saved from some kind of intrusion..

I doubt they are not worth what they cost.

[BumRushDaShow]

41. You know what though?

The ones here have been "trained". They have had some sort of "Community Policing" training since Clinton instituted the concept in the '90s with block grants to cities to get cops out of the cars and into the neighborhoods to interact with the people there. And that is why we have those bike cops now here in Philly.

The problem at this point, which is probably why there is an rumbling undercurrent running in the activist community right now about the "value" of "training" and whether it will fix anything, is that it comes down to changing "behavior" and that is hard.

I still think training will be helpful because it will reduce the ugly perceptions but it won't eliminate them.

[paleotn]

59. Compared to the rest of the industrialized world....

they are poorly trained, under educated and paid ridiculously low wages. The only upsides in some minds are they get to carry a gun, beat the shit out of people and even kill them from time to time. Imagine what kind of person this kind of system attracts. In my humble opinion, that is the heart of our law enforcement problem.

[treestar]

91. Sounds like a generalization.

That many cops may not deserve.

Progressives don't generalize about people, even cops. That appears to be OK on DU, as many don't realize they are even doing it.

[pwb]

98. I'm a democrat not a progressive. And we do realize what we see with our own eyes.

And hear with our own ears. Cops running wild and running scared. Shooting to kill and circlling the wagons to protect themselves. Dressing like they are going into battle every day. Sorry if you can't put it together but your right D U has put it together and most of us are sick of it. Maybe I painted cops with a broad brush and true some don't deserve it but their problems are broad and we see them repeated every day.
We recently had a man shot seven times by two cops standing on his porch 50 feet away from the cops who felt in danger by that. 50 feet away. So don't have a pen or pencil or phone or garden hose handle in your hand around today's cops or you may end up dead. This guy could have been carving his family roast for all they knew? Dead. Both cops emptied their magazines in the kill zone.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. You would have fascinating stories to tell. I am all ears if you wanna

share some celeb stories and anything else you want, start a thread in the Lounge.

Love to hear them. What is funny is when you started off I thought of

[Tavarious Jackson]

47. It's like that and worse for us but not just occasionally.

It's all the time. Everyday.

[busterbrown]

37. 50% Delightful...50% Horrible n/t

[ejbr]

48. The CEO claims

The manager didn’t want the cops to arrest them, but only to speak to them. A previous black colleague of hers said she had blacks arrested for “loitering” before. She would make her employees serve black patrons or ask them to kick black patrons out. Sooooo glad that b’s face is out there.

[EffieBlack]

57. Bulshit

If she didn't know she was subjecting those men to possible arrest by calling the police on them, she's too stupid to be a manager. And if she had so few people skills and so little ability to handle such a minor situation in her shop that she had to call the damned POLICE to come in and talk to two men in her establishment, she is DEFINITELY not management material. No wonder she got fired.

Moreover, if she really didn't want them arrested she could have told the police she didn't want to press charges. She's nowhere to be seen or heard in that video as those men were being hauled off to jail with their hands cuffed behind their backs like common criminals.

Can you imagine how they must have felt being marched out of that place in handcuffs for all the world to see and put into a squad car in a main street in downtown Philadelphia?

[ejbr]

73. +1 n/t

[elmac]

50. And this happened

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/overland-park-kansas-police-man-spits-black-child-calls-him-racial-slur-hooters/

and owner called the cops of the victums. The rascist firefighter got his job back by the way.

[HopeAgain]

63. And, well when I linked to that, I also found this

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-woman-charged-after-arguing-with-black-women-over-parking-spot-cheddars-scratch-kitchen/

[SunSeeker]

55. They weren't just arrested. They were jailed for hours. They feared for their lives while in jail.

Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2018, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

They were released around midnight, only after the DA refused to proceed with charges.

[pnwmom]

70. Only after the store refused to press charges. They never should have waited so long

to release them. There should be a very short time limit for a store to press charges or else the person is released. Holding them for hours is not acceptable.

[SunSeeker]

71. Yep. nt

[EffieBlack]

76. He DA said there wasnt enough evidence to charge them

[pnwmom]

87. I heard somewhere that the "evidence" they needed was for someone to come

and sign a complaint.

They waited till midnight and no one from Starbucks had come, so they let him go.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

80. The cops showed no intelligence in how they handled this.

Cops should have questioned the men, then gone to the manager and straightened the manager out.

Putting handcuffs on the men ought to get the cops fired.

[uponit7771]

82. +1, they had the opportunity to ask relevant questions and choose not to

[treestar]

93. That's a bit much to give the cops

as a responsibility - do you really want that? Leave it up to them? In fact, they should have punished the manager? Not the legal system (in a civil suit)?

[EffieBlack]

109. Yet you think the manager should have anyone they want arrested and jailed just because they say so?

The police certainly DO have more responsibility. It comes along with getting to walk around with a badge, a gun, and the power to deprive people of their liberty (and sometimes their lives).

And one of those responsibilities is to ask a few simple questions when called to a scene to make sure that the circumstances are actually as had been described before handcuffing people and marching them to jail because some store manager tells them to.

No one is asking them to give a kidney or lay down their lives. If asking 2 or 3 damned questions is too much "responsibility" for someone, they need to go get another job.

[Lee-Lee]

115. Here is the thing- they were not arrested just because yeh manager said so

They were arrested for refusing to leave after the cops said the manager wanted them to leave.

It’s a big differnece.

Had they left when the cops arrived and asked them to, nobody would have been arrested.

This is NOT to put the blame on them. I fully understand them standing up and refusing to leave as they did.

But I wanted to clarify that it takes more than just a manager saying so to get you arrested, it takes something else like refusing to leave when the police also tell you that the manager wants you to leave.

[EffieBlack]

118. Oh, please

1. The men were in the store for two minutes before the manager called the police.

2. The manager never asked them to leave

3. The men agreed to leave when their friend arrived but the police refused to let them leave, saying "it's too late, now" and arrested them.

You should be careful. Your insistence on doubling and tripling and quadrupling down and repeatedly posting with such fervor "alternative facts" and bogus arguments - despite being thoroughly debunked over the past few days - could lead people to wonder what your true agenda really is.

[BumRushDaShow]

123. You need to read this

This establishment was operating in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance and the police should have been aware of that before going alpha dog male and ignoring other patrons who were attempting to establish to them that there were unfair practices going on. The Police Commissioner has now admitted that they were wrong and are in the process of changing their policies.

Public Accommodations Discrimination

Philadelphia law protects an individual's basic right to fair and equal treatment by public accommodations.

Public accommodations discrimination may happen when services are denied outright, such as when someone is refused admission to a public place.

Discrimination may also occur in other ways, such as when someone is offered less favorable service than others or when a physical barrier or other issue makes services inaccessible to someone who has a disability.

Examples of public accommodations include:

Hotels, motels, inns and other places of lodging;

Restaurant, bars and other places where food and/or drinks are served;

Casinos, theaters and other places of entertainment;

Stores, banks, barber/beauty shops and retail establishments;

Colleges, universities and educational institutions;

Medical clinics, homeless shelters and other social service providers;

Parks, health clubs and other centers for recreation or fitness centers; and

Museums and other places of public display.

All people are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of services and facilities without discrimination or segregation because of:

Ancestry

Color

Disability

Domestic or Sexual Violence Victim Status

Ethnicity

Familial Status

Gender Identity

Marital Status

National Origin

Race

Religion

Retaliation

Sex

Sexual Orientation

http://www.phila.gov/HumanRelations/DiscriminationAndEnforcement/WhatIsDiscrimination/Pages/PublicAccommodationsDiscrimination.aspx

Here is a table that explictly shows applicability (PDF) - http://www.phila.gov/HumanRelations/PDF/ChartOfLegalProtections.pdf

[Lee-Lee]

133. And this law certainly applies- but not how you think

Public accommodation laws are not enforced like trespass laws. You don’t call the police and demand an arrest because you feel like you’ve been discriminated against.

And it doesn’t prevent enforcement of laws like trespassing.

Instead it gives a person who has been discriminated against recourse to file a complaint and have it investigated and the party who discriminated against them fined or sanctioned.

As an example, if someone refuses to bake a cake for your same-sex wedding you don’t call 911 and file a complaint, because that refusal while against some laws isn’t a criminal violation of the type police act on. You file a complaint with the appropriate authority for that area and let them act.

In this case a complaint for violation of the code you posted was absolutely warranted. But that doesn’t overrule what the elements of trespassing were or were not at the time it was happening.

Another example would be if a landlord was evicting minority teneants for the slightest violations they legally could while letting white tenants get away with many violations of the same lease. If there is a legal eviction order the police would still have to serve it and evict the tenants, because they did violate the lease enough to be legally evicted. However if they can prove that the rules were enforced in a disparate manner against people based on race they have a case for a civil case against the landlord as well as government actions if it violates a federal, state or local anti-discrimination law.

But the police couldn’t refuse to do the eviction if the eviction is legal even if they see that other tenants are not being evicted on the same grounds.

[BumRushDaShow]

135. In response

And this law certainly applies- but not how you think

Public accommodation laws are not enforced like trespass laws. You don’t call the police and demand an arrest because you feel like you’ve been discriminated against.

And it doesn’t prevent enforcement of laws like trespassing.

This ORDINANCE is there to PREVENT capricious and arbitrary use of laws "like trespassing" that result in defacto discrimination. That was the whole point of it. It requires EXTRA attention to prevent an arrest for a bogus crime. I.e., the officer needs to test whether there is some discriminatory reason for the call and establish probable cause that rules out discriminatory intent. They are not supposed to just show up and arrest because some manager "says so".

Instead it gives a person who has been discriminated against recourse to file a complaint and have it investigated and the party who discriminated against them fined or sanctioned.

That recourse will always be there, but the intention of the law was NOT only for that purpose. It is a list of prohibited activities for specific establishment types that may result in harm to a specific set ("protected" ) of individuals or groups (codified in the ordinance). "Protected" meaning that exceptions must be made to take them into account when it comes to allegations vs what might be done with non-protected individuals.

As an example, if someone refuses to bake a cake for your same-sex wedding you don’t call 911 and file a complaint, because that refusal while against some laws isn’t a criminal violation of the type police act on. You file a complaint with the appropriate authority for that area and let them act.

Your example might not even be valid for the federal level because at this point, LGBTQ individuals have not been considered a "protected class" at the federal level (the fight continues). But at the city level they ARE. And thus the city code forbids this type of discrimination and the business would thus be in violation of the ordinance and suits after-the-fact would be prudent.

However this example is not relevant in terms of entering and remaining in an establishment as has happened with this incident.

In this case a complaint for violation of the code you posted was absolutely warranted. But that doesn’t overrule what the elements of trespassing were or were not at the time it was happening.

"Trespassing" has a specific meaning within the state law and in this specific case, it did not apply. However the allegation of such MUST BE tested against this code. If the 2 men were harassing customers and overly argumentative with the manager, causing damage to property, or threatening harm, then a call to 911 and investigation would establish this and the patron would be in violation of the state law based on their behavior. However "waiting quietly for a friend" has absolutely no relation to "trespassing" and due to the disparate treatment of these men when compared to how other patrons who acted in the same manner were handled, there was absolutely no justification to make an arrest other than for spite.

Another example would be if a landlord was evicting minority tenants for the slightest violations they legally could while letting white tenants get away with many violations of the same lease. If there is a legal eviction order the police would still have to serve it and evict the tenants, because they did violate the lease enough to be legally evicted. However if they can prove that the rules were enforced in a disparate manner against people based on race they have a case for a civil case against the landlord as well as government actions if it violates a federal, state or local anti-discrimination law.'

But the police couldn’t refuse to do the eviction if the eviction is legal even if they see that other tenants are not being evicted on the same grounds.

This example lists circumstances that are not manufacturing a rule or policy that was violated - i.e., the eviction is "legal". Tenants sign a lease (contract) with stipulations and they can be evicted if in violation. And yes, the evicted individual can sue after-the-fact if there is proof of disparate treatment but that does not negate their violation.

But in this case, there was no "contract" that was violated and the procedures for investigation regarding the situation did not happen beyond talking to the manager and the 2 men. The other patrons (witnesses) that were supposed to be interviewed per the police code that I have posted before, were NOT interviewed... and most likely because their statements would no longer give them the justification to dutifully perform their bouncer role and remove the "darkies" from the lily white store.

This incident has now created a setback for any progress that had been made towards improving community/police interactions and trust between the residents and officers, and it will take a long time to repair this damage.

[BumRushDaShow]

113. Here is info that relates to the city FAIR PRACTICES ORDINANCE

Public Accommodations Discrimination

Philadelphia law protects an individual's basic right to fair and equal treatment by public accommodations.

Public accommodations discrimination may happen when services are denied outright, such as when someone is refused admission to a public place.

Discrimination may also occur in other ways, such as when someone is offered less favorable service than others or when a physical barrier or other issue makes services inaccessible to someone who has a disability.

Examples of public accommodations include:

Hotels, motels, inns and other places of lodging;

Restaurant, bars and other places where food and/or drinks are served;

Casinos, theaters and other places of entertainment;

Stores, banks, barber/beauty shops and retail establishments;

Colleges, universities and educational institutions;

Medical clinics, homeless shelters and other social service providers;

Parks, health clubs and other centers for recreation or fitness centers; and

Museums and other places of public display.

All people are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of services and facilities without discrimination or segregation because of:

Ancestry

Color

Disability

Domestic or Sexual Violence Victim Status

Ethnicity

Familial Status

Gender Identity

Marital Status

National Origin

Race

Religion

Retaliation

Sex

Sexual Orientation

http://www.phila.gov/HumanRelations/DiscriminationAndEnforcement/WhatIsDiscrimination/Pages/PublicAccommodationsDiscrimination.aspx

Here is a table that explictly shows applicability (PDF) - http://www.phila.gov/HumanRelations/PDF/ChartOfLegalProtections.pdf

The cops are SUPPOSED TO BE aware of this. But to them and some DUers, violating a Philadelphia Ordinance (law) is perfectly acceptable and expected because "owners" or "managers" trump the City and Federal law.

[sarah FAILIN]

121. Thank for posting

I need that to show some racist jerks.

[UpInArms]

99. I am beyond appalled

and am ashamed of my country for so much ... this has got to stop

All I can offer is my most sincere apology for having to breathe the same air as these horrible racists

[Doodley]

102. I've lived in America for a decade. Will never accept the racism I see here. Will always stand up

against it, even if it causes family arguments. Compare the experience of these men to mine in the UK. I protested inside a business and outside, handing out flyers giving reasons not to use that business. Police were called. They don't carry guns. They are not in anyway aggressive. They want to find out exactly what is going on. They ask me if I will leave. I tell them I will stand outside and continue my protest, as I have a right to, immediately outside the front door. They tell the business owner. They leave.

[dalton99a]

106. Manager identified by news media:

https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/starbucks-manager-who-called-police-black-men-hails-from-dayton/SGeo1eaddGNQRrLZ98jdsL/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5626041/Holly-Hylton-Starbucks-manager-called-police-two-black-men-trespassing.html

https://heavy.com/news/2018/04/holly-hylton-racist-philadelphia-starbucks-manager/

[Orsino]

112. The cops showed at least as much racism as did the manager.

The manager wanted the targets to go away. The cops took them to jail.

[EffieBlack]

119. Ding ding ding. What Orsino said ...

[EffieBlack]

136. Kick