martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:Couple of points:
...
- How can professionally trained police officers act this way?
- Seems like Starbucks CEO is handling this as best he can

I'm no fan of the cops... I'm a straight white protestant male and have my fair share of BS interactions with them. For example, (long story short) I got pulled over "did nothing wrong" and now have a court date because the DMV never mailed mailed me a notice. My attorney said I have nothing to worry about, but (1) I had to frigin hire an attorney and (2) in theory I could spend a year behind bars... all because a cop decided to run my tags despite him stating "don't worry you have nothing to worry about" (while there is a record of DMV getting their mail returned and never trying again). I'm a white dude and I don't have to deal with 1/10 of the bull**** black guys have to deal with...

... that said, I don't see how the cops did anything wrong. The cops here handled it the way they should... it's sort of up to the social systems to redefine how the cops carry out their business. I have ZERO interest in letting the cops make more decisions based upon their discretion. I would rather more capable people decide on what tasks they're supposed to carry out. Because in my experience, whenever a cop gets to use their discretion, they **** it up

as for the Starbucks CEO, I am impressed with his quick decision making and for taking accountability for his racist store manager's actions. That said, I'm not going to give him credit for a response to a massive failure. I understand they want paying customers to piss in their bathrooms but I mean come on... I've used the restroom in Starbucks without paying at multiple locations. Those guys did not look homeless or like addicts. They just got singled out because they're black. And Starbucks allowed their culture to become that. I am not a big fan of their burnt ass coffee, but this makes it easy to not go here unless I have to drop a deuce and have no other options and I would hope others use this as an opportunity to buy their coffee at a local shop wherever possible

So, it's OK for cops to handcuff people and take them off, let them spend up to 6-8 hours in jail for nothing?

This is acceptable behavior to you? Would you have been OK after being pulled over and spent time in handcuffs and in jail?

I didn't realize they had spent that length of time in jail (or at all)... I assumed they had effectively been escorted out and cut loose

so, yes, I have problem with that and retract my previous comemnts

now I get to flip it on you -- why are you so quick to throw the book at the cops, yet are applauding Starbucks c-suite?

Ah yes, I do see that this particular article did not include that the 2 fella spent until either 1230 or 130AM in jail.

As to Starbucks c-suite, how can they be personally responsible for the individual actions of each and every employee? I would understand if there was a continued and fairly well known action/inaction on their behalf as executives of a company, but I haven't heard of this.

The cops are trained professionals whose basic jobs are to navigate this exact scenario and to use basic judgement about how to proceed. Now, I'm not a cop so maybe they were following protocol? If this was the case, we can reasonably assume that cops can arrest, handcuff and proceed to do about 6-8 hours of busy work while people sit in jail for just about ANY situation out there?

All I know about the Starbucks CEO - and this is in particular to this situation - is that he is going WAAAAYYY overboard and taking some giant leaps steps to rectify (also details not in the article).

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/17/news/companies/starbucks-store-closings-racial-bias-education/index.html

Starbucks says it will close its 8,000 company-owned stores in the United States for one afternoon to educate employees about racial bias.

The announcement follows an uproar over the arrest of two black men who were waiting for a friend at a Philadelphia Starbucks last week. The store manager called the police.

The racial bias training will be provided on May 29 to about 175,000 workers.

"I've spent the last few days in Philadelphia with my leadership team listening to the community, learning what we did wrong and the steps we need to take to fix it," Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson said in a statement.

"While this is not limited to Starbucks, we're committed to being a part of the solution," he said. "Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities."

Starbucks says the training will be developed with guidance from experts including former Attorney General Eric Holder.

Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, will also help design the program, as will executives from the Equal Justice Initiative and Demos, the progressive think tank.

The experts will also review the effectiveness of the training, Starbucks said.

Related: Starbucks CEO meets with two black men arrested at Philadelphia store

The two men entered the Starbucks on Thursday and asked to use to the bathroom. An employee told them it was only for paying customers. When they then sat in the store without ordering anything, the manager called police, and the men were arrested for trespassing. No charges were filed.

Johnson met with the two men on Monday and apologized for how they were treated, a company spokesperson said.

The company says the manager who called the police is no longer working at that store. Starbucks would not comment on other reports that she has left the company by mutual agreement.

Separately, a Facebook video taken in January at a Starbucks in California shows a black customer saying that he was not allowed to use the bathroom when a white customer was.

No idea how accurate this is:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-starbucks-said-the-last-time-it-closed-its-stores-for-an-afternoon-2018-04-17

The one-afternoon store closures Starbucks Inc. announced Tuesday for racial-bias employee training will cost the company about $12 million in lost revenue, according to MarketWatch calculations.

Factoring in the company’s $22.39 billion in annual sales, and dividing it by the number of days in the year, but not adjusting for the relative strength of particular days and dayparts, suggests that Starbucks banks about $61.3 million every day. Since, according to the announcement, Starbucks locations will close only for part of the afternoon, MarketWatch has calculated that locations could lose about 20% of their daily revenue, or $12 million.

$12M that should have already been spent? Is $12M good? Bad? IDK

He went waaaaaaaaay overboard because they didn't want this to kill their brand. It's like emergency PR money. All I'm saying is it is a collosal **** up. You don't get 'kudos' for fixing a mistake. He ants to own the mistake - I give him credit for it - but he doesn't get to flip the script and look like a hero. that's not how this works, at least not to me

codeunknown wrote:1. State law varies with regard to trespassing.
2. Generally, for privately controlled entities which allow public access, your grounds for entry and staying are abiding by the rules determined by the private entity. These rules can be selective.
3. Per Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks, years prior to the incident, staying indefinitely at a Starbucks without buying anything is part of their stated mission. Essentially, a loss leader. Outside of restrooms being used only by paying customers, there is no overall policy. The store manager is the executor of policy in real-time and, in this case, it appears she was using arbitrary "judgment."
4. Police must have "probable cause" to arrest. To arrest for defiant trespassing in this case, the police must verify 1) that the claim is indeed made by the store manager, and 2) that the accused are aware of the notice to leave and have refused. The 911 call states the men "refused to leave despite being asked to do so." The refusal to leave after the police arrived supports this interpretation.

Bottom line:
1) The store manager's behaviour was quite suggestive of racism and detrimental for business.
2) The police acted correctly because the men refused to leave. They shouldn't have had to leave; however, the police can't neglect the law, which first supports rights of ownership in this country. Arbitrary judgment by the police is a more dangerous precedent than that of a Starbucks store manager.
3) Its smart to have written policy for corporations as a protection against racist individuals.
4. Not leaving resulted in the best possible outcome; large-scale racial bias training for a large corporation.

thanks

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Manager was fired, CEO was in the store in a day, and took responsibility.
I thought I read there was an incident in that store previously. That was the managers frame of reference for what proved to be an incredibly stupid act on his part. He was fired. He deserved it.
There are 13,900 Starbucks stores. Im going to guess there have been crimes, murders, robberies in Starbucks over the years. There are stupid employees everywhere. MY point is does Starbucks promote as a company racism? Is it a corp culture? No doubt this was an act of ignorance and we all know ignorance breeds fear.
They have closed 8000 stores on May 29 for racial bias training. Small price to pay. Estimated 12million. I applaud the speed by which they have responded.
I generally don't like when groups boycott stores unless there is a culture of hate or other institutional bias. I have yet to see where Starbucks has failed, or failed to jump on this instance.
The Philly police are very much at fault as well.
Like I said, there was a instance in the store and the manager phuched up big time. TO boycott also hurts black employees as well. I get the anger, I get the response. I get starbucks reacting with incredible pace. Its smart and it defends the brand.
Thankfully nobody was hurt and in all the conversations we are having as a society and in the corp. sector is no doubt a good thing going forward.
Yes, racism exists, its ugly, it happens but we push forward. If the threat of boycott makes a CEO jump on a plane and own it and push society forward from an ignorant act then so be it. Under no circumstances do I condone the behavior of that employee or the police.
This is why they kneel at football games!!!!

This story is not racial, its unfreaking believable bad police work!!!
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/18/us/ap-us-police-shooting-lawsuit.html

I agree that Starbucks did respond well. I am more interested in why those fukking cops weren't already fired as well? But no they'll go on - what's the term? Administrative leave?? Then come back two weeks later like nothing happened.

Racism is an inherent bias, education can make you stop touching your racist thoughts in front of others so you won't offend them, it can't make you less racist. We need social norms to change, social norms are more powerful than beliefs in changing behavior.

So I was with you until I learned the cops did ask the guys to leave and they refused. That is not on the cops.

I worked for a TGI Fridays for years in the 90s. We had to kick people out all the time. On the few times the cops came everyone left when asked. However if they didnt they would have been cuffed. If a store owner/manager calls police to have someone removed the police will take them out or charge them with trespassing. It looks like the cops were civil and calm from what I watched of the video. By refusing to leave they put the cops in a must act position. No charges filed. It sounds like the cops may have handled this better but this really rests on the one who made the call.

This falls into a grey area. Cops should question why peaceful law abiding citizens need to be thrown out of a shop. I guess if we honestly feel the cops would have done the same thing if a black store manager was asking for two white guys to be thrown out, then what you wrote is valid. How many of us feel that would happen would be interesting to know. For my part I am not sure how that situation would play out.

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Manager was fired, CEO was in the store in a day, and took responsibility.
I thought I read there was an incident in that store previously. That was the managers frame of reference for what proved to be an incredibly stupid act on his part. He was fired. He deserved it.
There are 13,900 Starbucks stores. Im going to guess there have been crimes, murders, robberies in Starbucks over the years. There are stupid employees everywhere. MY point is does Starbucks promote as a company racism? Is it a corp culture? No doubt this was an act of ignorance and we all know ignorance breeds fear.
They have closed 8000 stores on May 29 for racial bias training. Small price to pay. Estimated 12million. I applaud the speed by which they have responded.
I generally don't like when groups boycott stores unless there is a culture of hate or other institutional bias. I have yet to see where Starbucks has failed, or failed to jump on this instance.
The Philly police are very much at fault as well.
Like I said, there was a instance in the store and the manager phuched up big time. TO boycott also hurts black employees as well. I get the anger, I get the response. I get starbucks reacting with incredible pace. Its smart and it defends the brand.
Thankfully nobody was hurt and in all the conversations we are having as a society and in the corp. sector is no doubt a good thing going forward.
Yes, racism exists, its ugly, it happens but we push forward. If the threat of boycott makes a CEO jump on a plane and own it and push society forward from an ignorant act then so be it. Under no circumstances do I condone the behavior of that employee or the police.
This is why they kneel at football games!!!!

This story is not racial, its unfreaking believable bad police work!!!
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/18/us/ap-us-police-shooting-lawsuit.html

I agree that Starbucks did respond well. I am more interested in why those fukking cops weren't already fired as well? But no they'll go on - what's the term? Administrative leave?? Then come back two weeks later like nothing happened.

Racism is an inherent bias, education can make you stop touching your racist thoughts in front of others so you won't offend them, it can't make you less racist. We need social norms to change, social norms are more powerful than beliefs in changing behavior.

So I was with you until I learned the cops did ask the guys to leave and they refused. That is not on the cops.

I worked for a TGI Fridays for years in the 90s. We had to kick people out all the time. On the few times the cops came everyone left when asked. However if they didnt they would have been cuffed. If a store owner/manager calls police to have someone removed the police will take them out or charge them with trespassing. It looks like the cops were civil and calm from what I watched of the video. By refusing to leave they put the cops in a must act position. No charges filed. It sounds like the cops may have handled this better but this really rests on the one who made the call.

This falls into a grey area. Cops should question why peaceful law abiding citizens need to be thrown out of a shop. I guess if we honestly feel the cops would have done the same thing if a black store manager was asking for two white guys to be thrown out, then what you wrote is valid. How many of us feel that would happen would be interesting to know. For my part I am not sure how that situation would play out.

You are confusing right/wrong and acting in a normal adult manner with the law.

From codeunknown:

1. State law varies with regard to trespassing.
2. Generally, for privately controlled entities which allow public access, your grounds for entry and staying are abiding by the rules determined by the private entity. These rules can be selective.
3. Per Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks, years prior to the incident, staying indefinitely at a Starbucks without buying anything is part of their stated mission. Essentially, a loss leader. Outside of restrooms being used only by paying customers, there is no overall policy. The store manager is the executor of policy in real-time and, in this case, it appears she was using arbitrary "judgment."
4. Police must have "probable cause" to arrest. To arrest for defiant trespassing in this case, the police must verify 1) that the claim is indeed made by the store manager, and 2) that the accused are aware of the notice to leave and have refused. The 911 call states the men "refused to leave despite being asked to do so." The refusal to leave after the police arrived supports this interpretation.
Bottom line:
1) The store manager's behaviour was quite suggestive of racism and detrimental for business.
2) The police acted correctly because the men refused to leave. They shouldn't have had to leave; however, the police can't neglect the law, which first supports rights of ownership in this country. Arbitrary judgment by the police is a more dangerous precedent than that of a Starbucks store manager.
3) Its smart to have written policy for corporations as a protection against racist individuals.
4. Not leaving resulted in the best possible outcome; large-scale racial bias training for a large corporation.

great point on #4. Amazing job by those guys lucky or unlucky. They will get a large settlement and large-scale racial bias training for a large corporation. This is actually an example where a racist gets canned, the victims make out, people are educated and nobody got shot.

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Manager was fired, CEO was in the store in a day, and took responsibility.
I thought I read there was an incident in that store previously. That was the managers frame of reference for what proved to be an incredibly stupid act on his part. He was fired. He deserved it.
There are 13,900 Starbucks stores. Im going to guess there have been crimes, murders, robberies in Starbucks over the years. There are stupid employees everywhere. MY point is does Starbucks promote as a company racism? Is it a corp culture? No doubt this was an act of ignorance and we all know ignorance breeds fear.
They have closed 8000 stores on May 29 for racial bias training. Small price to pay. Estimated 12million. I applaud the speed by which they have responded.
I generally don't like when groups boycott stores unless there is a culture of hate or other institutional bias. I have yet to see where Starbucks has failed, or failed to jump on this instance.
The Philly police are very much at fault as well.
Like I said, there was a instance in the store and the manager phuched up big time. TO boycott also hurts black employees as well. I get the anger, I get the response. I get starbucks reacting with incredible pace. Its smart and it defends the brand.
Thankfully nobody was hurt and in all the conversations we are having as a society and in the corp. sector is no doubt a good thing going forward.
Yes, racism exists, its ugly, it happens but we push forward. If the threat of boycott makes a CEO jump on a plane and own it and push society forward from an ignorant act then so be it. Under no circumstances do I condone the behavior of that employee or the police.
This is why they kneel at football games!!!!

This story is not racial, its unfreaking believable bad police work!!!
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/18/us/ap-us-police-shooting-lawsuit.html

I agree that Starbucks did respond well. I am more interested in why those fukking cops weren't already fired as well? But no they'll go on - what's the term? Administrative leave?? Then come back two weeks later like nothing happened.

Racism is an inherent bias, education can make you stop touching your racist thoughts in front of others so you won't offend them, it can't make you less racist. We need social norms to change, social norms are more powerful than beliefs in changing behavior.

So I was with you until I learned the cops did ask the guys to leave and they refused. That is not on the cops.

I worked for a TGI Fridays for years in the 90s. We had to kick people out all the time. On the few times the cops came everyone left when asked. However if they didnt they would have been cuffed. If a store owner/manager calls police to have someone removed the police will take them out or charge them with trespassing. It looks like the cops were civil and calm from what I watched of the video. By refusing to leave they put the cops in a must act position. No charges filed. It sounds like the cops may have handled this better but this really rests on the one who made the call.

This falls into a grey area. Cops should question why peaceful law abiding citizens need to be thrown out of a shop. I guess if we honestly feel the cops would have done the same thing if a black store manager was asking for two white guys to be thrown out, then what you wrote is valid. How many of us feel that would happen would be interesting to know. For my part I am not sure how that situation would play out.

they would have to. The law says they would. Starbucks isnt puplic domain. A manager can throw anyone out of anywhere for any reason. If they refuse its trespassing. There is no grey area.

You are confusing right/wrong and acting in a normal adult manner with the law.

From codeunknown:

1. State law varies with regard to trespassing.
2. Generally, for privately controlled entities which allow public access, your grounds for entry and staying are abiding by the rules determined by the private entity. These rules can be selective.
3. Per Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks, years prior to the incident, staying indefinitely at a Starbucks without buying anything is part of their stated mission. Essentially, a loss leader. Outside of restrooms being used only by paying customers, there is no overall policy. The store manager is the executor of policy in real-time and, in this case, it appears she was using arbitrary "judgment."
4. Police must have "probable cause" to arrest. To arrest for defiant trespassing in this case, the police must verify 1) that the claim is indeed made by the store manager, and 2) that the accused are aware of the notice to leave and have refused. The 911 call states the men "refused to leave despite being asked to do so." The refusal to leave after the police arrived supports this interpretation.
Bottom line:
1) The store manager's behaviour was quite suggestive of racism and detrimental for business.
2) The police acted correctly because the men refused to leave. They shouldn't have had to leave; however, the police can't neglect the law, which first supports rights of ownership in this country. Arbitrary judgment by the police is a more dangerous precedent than that of a Starbucks store manager.
3) Its smart to have written policy for corporations as a protection against racist individuals.
4. Not leaving resulted in the best possible outcome; large-scale racial bias training for a large corporation.

The bold

great point on #4. Amazing job by those guys lucky or unlucky. They will get a large settlement and large-scale racial bias training for a large corporation. This is actually an example where a racist gets canned, the victims make out, people are educated and nobody got shot.

It's possible I am no leagl expert - I thought you needed clear signs prohibiting tresspass before an arrest can be made. Otherwise you get a citation. That was what I was operating on - I beleive codeunknown's info is probably much more accurate than mine.

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Manager was fired, CEO was in the store in a day, and took responsibility.
I thought I read there was an incident in that store previously. That was the managers frame of reference for what proved to be an incredibly stupid act on his part. He was fired. He deserved it.
There are 13,900 Starbucks stores. Im going to guess there have been crimes, murders, robberies in Starbucks over the years. There are stupid employees everywhere. MY point is does Starbucks promote as a company racism? Is it a corp culture? No doubt this was an act of ignorance and we all know ignorance breeds fear.
They have closed 8000 stores on May 29 for racial bias training. Small price to pay. Estimated 12million. I applaud the speed by which they have responded.
I generally don't like when groups boycott stores unless there is a culture of hate or other institutional bias. I have yet to see where Starbucks has failed, or failed to jump on this instance.
The Philly police are very much at fault as well.
Like I said, there was a instance in the store and the manager phuched up big time. TO boycott also hurts black employees as well. I get the anger, I get the response. I get starbucks reacting with incredible pace. Its smart and it defends the brand.
Thankfully nobody was hurt and in all the conversations we are having as a society and in the corp. sector is no doubt a good thing going forward.
Yes, racism exists, its ugly, it happens but we push forward. If the threat of boycott makes a CEO jump on a plane and own it and push society forward from an ignorant act then so be it. Under no circumstances do I condone the behavior of that employee or the police.
This is why they kneel at football games!!!!

This story is not racial, its unfreaking believable bad police work!!!
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/18/us/ap-us-police-shooting-lawsuit.html

I agree that Starbucks did respond well. I am more interested in why those fukking cops weren't already fired as well? But no they'll go on - what's the term? Administrative leave?? Then come back two weeks later like nothing happened.

Racism is an inherent bias, education can make you stop touching your racist thoughts in front of others so you won't offend them, it can't make you less racist. We need social norms to change, social norms are more powerful than beliefs in changing behavior.

So I was with you until I learned the cops did ask the guys to leave and they refused. That is not on the cops.

I worked for a TGI Fridays for years in the 90s. We had to kick people out all the time. On the few times the cops came everyone left when asked. However if they didnt they would have been cuffed. If a store owner/manager calls police to have someone removed the police will take them out or charge them with trespassing. It looks like the cops were civil and calm from what I watched of the video. By refusing to leave they put the cops in a must act position. No charges filed. It sounds like the cops may have handled this better but this really rests on the one who made the call.

Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson walked into the Starbucks on April 12 at approximately 4:35 p.m., they told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Nelson said he immediately asked the store manager if he could use the bathroom, but was told restrooms were for paying customers only.

Nelson said he “left it at that” and joined Robinson at a table to wait for their friend to arrive for their scheduled 4:45 p.m. business meeting. The Starbucks manager then approached the men and asked if they wanted to order something, according to Robinson, and they declined.

At 4:37 p.m., approximately two minutes after they had arrived, the manager called 911.

″They can’t be here for us,” said Robinson, recalling his initial reaction when police officers entered the Starbucks a few minutes later.

“As soon as they approached us, they just said we had to leave,” Nelson said. “There was no question of, you know, ’Was there a problem here between you and the manager? [or] ‘What happened?’”

Police didn’t explain why they were being arrested, Robinson said.

“We wasn’t read any rights ― nothing,” Robinson said. “Just double-lock handcuffs behind our backs and escorted out and put into a squad car.”

I re-read teh bolded part - and it reaffirms my initial take on this - the police didn't try to verify anything. They didn't even ask the men to leave - the way it's written it's like "you have to leave (with us in handcuffs)".
This is why this is a problem - the cops chose to beleive the accusations of the white person against two balck guys simply at face value.

Heck, it doesn't even say the manager asked them to leave, did she? It says they were told not to use the restroom and they didn't. Then they didn't order ant coffee just waited. Nowhere does it say they were asked to leave.

Is there a different article showing either the manager or teh cops actually asked them to leave where it was a choice for them?

its not the cops job to mediate this. Its the cops job to remove trespassers. The cops dont have to do anything besides ask them to leave. When they dont they are getting cuffed and removed and did so civilly. If you are on my property I can tell you to leave. If you dont I can call the cops. When they arrive they will ask you to leave, if you refuse they would do the same.

These guys got arrested on purpose and I dont blame them one bit. They are the equivalent of when non-violent protesters lay on city hall steps etc and have to be removed by police. Cops ask them to leave. When they dont they put em in the wagons. This is not a law enforcement issue. This is about a racist coffee shop manager who happened to work for a corporate chain. These two guys stuck up for themselves and because its Starbucks it gets massive press and gets attention (which is a good thing). Here is an example where the victims will make out quite well, 8000 stores close to give who knows how many people mandatory sensitivity training and nobody got shot. These are all positives IMO

For someone who wants Great America its positive and for someone who wants Great turmoil its negative.

nykshaknbake wrote:Great conversation, guys. On a lot of boards this would have devolved into name calling and ad hominem attacks. I have to think that the manager and cops probably asked them to leave at some point. It would be so odd to be otherwise, that it would have been reported widely. So i dont think the cops eere necessarily to blsme. The store manager got what he deserved though.

I am still trying to find anything that validates that. It's a logical assumption, but when police are involved with black men, logic seems to take the night off (for all parties involved). I'll just withhold concluding either way till I hear or read more details.

HofstraBBall wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:Couple of points:
...
- How can professionally trained police officers act this way?
- Seems like Starbucks CEO is handling this as best he can

I'm no fan of the cops... I'm a straight white protestant male and have my fair share of BS interactions with them. For example, (long story short) I got pulled over "did nothing wrong" and now have a court date because the DMV never mailed mailed me a notice. My attorney said I have nothing to worry about, but (1) I had to frigin hire an attorney and (2) in theory I could spend a year behind bars... all because a cop decided to run my tags despite him stating "don't worry you have nothing to worry about" (while there is a record of DMV getting their mail returned and never trying again). I'm a white dude and I don't have to deal with 1/10 of the bull**** black guys have to deal with...

... that said, I don't see how the cops did anything wrong. The cops here handled it the way they should... it's sort of up to the social systems to redefine how the cops carry out their business. I have ZERO interest in letting the cops make more decisions based upon their discretion. I would rather more capable people decide on what tasks they're supposed to carry out. Because in my experience, whenever a cop gets to use their discretion, they **** it up

as for the Starbucks CEO, I am impressed with his quick decision making and for taking accountability for his racist store manager's actions. That said, I'm not going to give him credit for a response to a massive failure. I understand they want paying customers to piss in their bathrooms but I mean come on... I've used the restroom in Starbucks without paying at multiple locations. Those guys did not look homeless or like addicts. They just got singled out because they're black. And Starbucks allowed their culture to become that. I am not a big fan of their burnt ass coffee, but this makes it easy to not go here unless I have to drop a deuce and have no other options and I would hope others use this as an opportunity to buy their coffee at a local shop wherever possible

IMHO... I think there are just too many excuses being given for this obvious racism. Both the Police officers and Manager showed their ignorance and racism by acting the way they did. Regardless if the ones involved were slightly racist or extremely racist has no bearing. Any level of racism is still racism and needs to be condemmed. We can all pretend their actions were not based on negative views of african americans but that would be a short sighted view. And out of touch with what is going on in America. Seems to me that some want to come up with different scenerios why this may have been okay and/or, was not racism or why some where not at fault. Just not true. This was racism by Police and Manager. Period.

Ask yourselves... if this was a white couple, would anyone have even noticed that they had not purchased something? We are talking about f...ng Starbucks!! A place littered by real estate agents, students, teenagers, people looking for jobs, homeless, anyone who needs free WIfi. Half the people that sit at Starbucks, sit for hours without ever buying a single thing. Second, if this was a white couple, would the cops have even showed up? (Hello this is the Police. You have a couple who are sitting there and have not ordered anything? What do they look like? White couple? Really, why are you bothering the Police with this non senses.) And if they showed up, would they have escorted them out after being told they were waiting for friends? Come on everyone, I know we are all hoping to give the benefit of the doubt to humanity but this is a simple case where the ones involved were just not smart enough to deal with a simple issue AND were definately racially bias. Stop with the excuses. As that is one of the problems.

I'm exhausted and disappointed whenever I hear white people bemoan how something isnt about race. White people who have devoted precious few hours trying to understand racism beyond a very elementary "racism is hate and hate is bad" perspective. I've spent countless hours making numerous points about this over the decade & change I've been on this board and its disheartening seeing that folks haven't moved an inch closer to understanding what racism is, why it is so pervasive and how to deal with it.

Also, the manager was NOT fired, she was moved to another store. Having said all of that, I must say that, other than not firing the manager, starbucks seems to be handling this in a way that is commendable in terms of how seriously they seem to be taking it. I couldnt imagine a company doing more than what theyve done or are trying to do even if none of it works, its commendable. Contrast that with the police chief who said "the cops did nothing wrong." funny that cops seem to always believe theyve done the "nothing wrong" even when unarmed men, women & children are murdered. I'm over it.