EgyptKang

Starbucks chief executive apologises for arrests of two black men

398 posts in this topic

13 hours ago, EgyptKang said:

Show me a link where a white person has been arrested for loitering inside of a Starbucks. I already provided a link where the white people say that this never happened to them.

Your turn.

Even the lawyer for these guys suggested this morning on the CBS This Morning, that he doubts seriously he, a White man dressed as he was on the segment, would not have even been approached, much less arrested in the very same situation. BTW,... they've already looked at the store video, found nothing to support the arrest. Remember, the person they were waiting for walked in before the arrests and offered to place an order for the 3 of them, but it appears the store manager wasn't interested in selling coffee at that point I'm guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, regularguy said:

I don't think it's a recognized trait of "white folks" to take a table at an eating establishment and then not purchase anything. :rolleyes: That strikes me as the move of a self-centered freeloader.

First,... don't say eating establishment. Starbucks is very different from your normal eating establishment. Sounds like to me, you seem to think these guys walked in to just chill and use the restroom,... with no intent of anything else. Like a Rest Stop on any given interstate. Wrong,... turns out they arrived a little early for a rendezvous with a business partner. The arrival of who they were waiting for did in fact show up in the middle of the drama, apparently didn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ericpd said:

First,... don't say eating establishment. Starbucks is very different from your normal eating establishment. Sounds like to me, you seem to think these guys walked in to just chill and use the restroom,... with no intent of anything else. Like a Rest Stop on any given interstate. Wrong,... turns out they arrived a little early for a rendezvous with a business partner. The arrival of who they were waiting for did in fact show up in the middle of the drama, apparently didn't matter.

The posters here defending this arrest in spite of the company's apology, are sending a clear message about themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EgyptKang said:

Show me a link where a white person has been arrested for loitering inside of a Starbucks. I already provided a link where the white people say that this never happened to them.

Your turn.

:lol: ahhhh right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

The posters here defending this arrest in spite of the company's apology, are sending a clear message about themselves. 

There are several layers here.  There is the reaction of the manager, the actions by the police, and the CEO’s apology.

It is possible for the Manger to be wrong and the police correct.  I do believe that the manager over reacted and was possibly racially profiling.  But if the police were called for trespassing and the subjects refused to leave it is possible that the arrests were justified.  

In the face of social media backlash it is reasonable for the CEO to apologize even if the manager and or police acted reasonably.  That is a PR call and not a legal call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, regularguy said:

When it happens to a white person, the news media doesn't care. It's not a story. But when it has a racial angle, it's got bells and whistles for the media, both mainstream and social.

If this had been all-white - white guys waiting for their friend, white manager, white cops - but otherwise the same actions, dialog and arrests. Would you know about it... even if it happened in your locale?

There you go pointing out logical observation and facts.

Don't do that....it will confuse EK. :D

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dinglehopper said:

In the face of social media backlash it is reasonable for the CEO to apologize even if the manager and or police acted reasonably.  That is a PR call and not a legal call. 

Exactly.

When the manager of a food-service establishment says "either buy something or leave", and you refuse, that's trespassing... regardless of whether the manager is over-reacting. When the police advise you three times to either leave or get arrested, and you refuse to leave, that's stupidity.

The CEO has undoubtedly been advised that groveling is the best PR strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ericpd said:

Even the lawyer for these guys suggested this morning on the CBS This Morning, that he doubts seriously he, a White man dressed as he was on the segment, would not have even been approached, much less arrested in the very same situation. BTW,... they've already looked at the store video, found nothing to support the arrest. Remember, the person they were waiting for walked in before the arrests and offered to place an order for the 3 of them, but it appears the store manager wasn't interested in selling coffee at that point I'm guessing.

Yes there are a lot of layers....and as we see....each poster selects the part that fits that posters given agenda at the expense of ignoring the other layers. Not saying anyone of them is right or wrong. Just pointing that out

Couple of questions;

Who is 'they'?

Store video are you talking about the store security video? Has that been released? If it was I missed it. 

And no ....I don't remember seeing the third person showing up and doing what you say....not that it really matters. Is it buried on secondary posts here?

Thanks. 

BTW ...IMO....the cops were just doing their assigned job. BTW weren't those guys asked to leave by the cops a few times? Pretty sure that is true. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, regularguy said:

Exactly.

When the manager of a food-service establishment says "either buy something or leave", and you refuse, that's trespassing... regardless of whether the manager is over-reacting. When the police advise you three times to either leave or get arrested, and you refuse to leave, that's stupidity.

The CEO has undoubtedly been advised that groveling is the best PR strategy.

Sorry, but no. People sit in Starbucks all day on their computers. So what if they bought a $1.80 coffee four hours ago? If you're going to do this to people sitting at a table without buying anything, then you need to put signs up establishing the time limit on lounging around in the place, regardless of if you've purchased something or not. And that would be a terrible policy, which is why the CEO is apologizing, and rightfully so. People treat that place like their living room and this incident smells fishy for obvious reasons.

Edited by Pickle20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, regularguy said:

Exactly.

When the manager of a food-service establishment says "either buy something or leave", and you refuse, that's trespassing... regardless of whether the manager is over-reacting. When the police advise you three times to either leave or get arrested, and you refuse to leave, that's stupidity.

The CEO has undoubtedly been advised that groveling is the best PR strategy.

Well it seems you have confirmed the request to leave count.

Stupidity ....maybe.....more like....ohh boy here is a chance to play lawyer lotto. IMO. Or yes maybe they just had a bug up there butt like many here...about 'things'. 

I dunno....regardless.....and maybe this is because I am a stupid old white man.....if a cop asks you to do something....I do it. Even if I KNOW they are totally off base in the request. 

 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

Sorry, but no. People sit in Starbucks all day on their computers. So what if they bought a $1.80 coffee four hours ago? If you're going to do this to people sitting at a table without buying anything, then you need to put signs up establishing the time limit on lounging around in the place, regardless of if you've purchased something or not. And that would be a terrible policy, which is why the CEO is apologizing, and rightfully so. People treat that place like their living room and this incident smells fishy for obvious reasons.

Oh on that I agree. Go to Barnes and Noble ....same thing. 

But, the rule did exists according to reports. And I think that the 'rule' is at the discression of the Mgr. to enforce. 

Now why he does that and when. That is in his/her head. However, looking at the SM video....this guys might make some people nervous. I don't want to get into the profiling etc etc etc thing.....it is what it is.

Ten bucks says that if these guys had shown up in a tie ....this issue would have never happened. 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, regularguy said:

Exactly.

When the manager of a food-service establishment says "either buy something or leave", and you refuse, that's trespassing... regardless of whether the manager is over-reacting. When the police advise you three times to either leave or get arrested, and you refuse to leave, that's stupidity.

The CEO has undoubtedly been advised that groveling is the best PR strategy.

That's not stupidity, its a windfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guido2 said:

Oh on that I agree. Go to Barnes and Noble ....same thing. 

But, the rule did exists according to reports. And I think that the 'rule' is at the discression of the Mgr. to enforce. 

Now why he does that and when. That is in his/her head. However, looking at the SM video....this guys might make some people nervous. I don't want to get into the profiling etc etc etc thing.....it is what it is.

Ten bucks says that if these guys had shown up in a tie ....this issue would have never happened. 

No one needs to show up in a tie to Starbucks. I bet you blame rape victims for wearing tight clothes. Smh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Marshan Man said:

No one needs to show up in a tie to Starbucks. I bet you blame rape victims for wearing tight clothes. Smh...

But it was a business meeting...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guido2 said:

Oh on that I agree. Go to Barnes and Noble ....same thing. 

But, the rule did exists according to reports. And I think that the 'rule' is at the discression of the Mgr. to enforce. 

Now why he does that and when. That is in his/her head. However, looking at the SM video....this guys might make some people nervous. I don't want to get into the profiling etc etc etc thing.....it is what it is.

Ten bucks says that if these guys had shown up in a tie ....this issue would have never happened. 

I don't see anything wrong with what they were wearing,  They weren't mouthing off to the cops so I doubt they were making a scene prior to the cops arriving.  

I don't blame the cops either they were doing what they were called for.  This is all on the manager and he/she was wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pickle20 said:

Sorry, but no. People sit in Starbucks all day on their computers. So what if they bought a $1.80 coffee four hours ago? If you're going to do this to people sitting at a table without buying anything, then you need to put signs up establishing the time limit on lounging around in the place, regardless of if you've purchased something or not. And that would be a terrible policy, which is why the CEO is apologizing, and rightfully so. People treat that place like their living room and this incident smells fishy for obvious reasons.

Exactly.

The rules need to be enforced equally.

I’ve never heard of people who weren’t being disruptive being asked to leave Starbucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Exactly.

The rules need to be enforced equally.

I’ve never heard of people who weren’t being disruptive being asked to leave Starbucks. 

Maybe when everyone acts equally normal we can address that. 

 

Maybe he manager was just plain scared of black people....maybe he had his bookbag stolen by some black yufs. 

Let it go   sheesh. 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Exactly.

The rules need to be enforced equally.

I’ve never heard of people who weren’t being disruptive being asked to leave Starbucks. 

On the flip side, I would buy something if I had to use the bathroom, especially if I was told bathrooms are for customers.

It's a shame bathrooms have become strictly monitored because people don't have courtesy to keep them clean but it is what it is. And like I said, a coffee is less than $2.

Still, this whole thing was just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Maybe when everyone acts equally normal we can address that. 

 

Maybe he manager was just plain scared of black people....maybe he had his bookbag stolen by some black yufs. 

Let it go   sheesh. 

In that case he needs to be fired. Especially if it's Philadelphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

On the flip side, I would buy something if I had to use the bathroom, especially if I was told bathrooms are for customers.

It's a shame bathrooms have become strictly monitored because people don't have courtesy to keep them clean but it is what it is. And like I said, a coffee is less than $2.

Still, this whole thing was just wrong.

I remember when they used to have pay toilets in NYC in the subways.... a dime. 

Well the SJWs said that was prejudicial and that was banned.

I still remember my Father coming home one evening.....he used to commute to NYC and used the subway after he got off the bus at the Authority.

 Anyway, my Dad was about as John Wayne stoic as one could be ....he came home early and was as white as a sheet.  ????????????????????????????????

Turns out he was on the subway got off for a transfer and had to use the head....went in and found a dead homeless guy in one of the stalls.....he had to hang around while they jackhammered the poor mans butt and seat etc. out....to complete the police report. 

True story. 

Just thought I would through that in for some spice. 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

In that case he needs to be fired. Especially if it's Philadelphia.

Suppose the manager is black? What then?

Sounds like double jeopardy to me if I am SBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Suppose the manager is black? What then?

Sounds like double jeopardy to me if I am SBs

Discrimination is discrimination.  If they manager is also black, he/she still needs to be fired in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Suppose the manager is black? What then?

Sounds like double jeopardy to me if I am SBs

Smh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pickle20 said:

On the flip side, I would buy something if I had to use the bathroom, especially if I was told bathrooms are for customers.

It's a shame bathrooms have become strictly monitored because people don't have courtesy to keep them clean but it is what it is. And like I said, a coffee is less than $2.

Still, this whole thing was just wrong.

People do all types of creepy stuff in bathrooms too. 

An employee at one establishment Ive been to said they lock the door because some people use drugs in their bathroom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now