- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2 black guys arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks by 8 cops
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:40 am to REG861
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:40 am to REG861
quote:
well yea, they also didn't call the cops on you
Because I didn't loiter around without ordering anything or give the employees an attitude when they told me I had to buy something to use the restroom.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:41 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
I've been told I couldn't use the restroom without buying something at one of those shitty Bourbon Street daiquiri and pizza places before. I didn't bitch about it or say it was discrimination. I ordered a slice of pizza so I could go take a piss. I didn't get mad at the employee who told me I had to buy something first because I understand why such a policy exists
99% of this story is "Black + Starbucks" and has nothing to do with property rights in general. How this is judged will be by the comparison with the standards of how Starbucks usually operates, not how other businesses operate.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:42 am to SheManShe
quote:
Because people are praising them all over the Internet. There are not thousands upon thousands of comments criticizing them and Starbucks for their actions.
No body is surprised that the left is blowing this WAY out of proportion.
Internet warriors such as yourself don’t make a consensus.
I don’t see the harm. Two guys were breaking the law by loitering in a place of business with no intentions of paying for any goods or services offered by said business. Cops are called and the whole situation is handled without any violence.
What am I missing?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:56 am to NIH
quote:
quote:
potentially discriminatory here.
I'm speculating accidentally discriminatory.
Something like a white liberal employee who is the type to double check that their doors are locked if they pull up next to a black guy at a red light, but still likes to spout BS on their university message boards about equality.
Employee calls cops without issuing the full sequence of warnings they would give a white customer, all because little sheltered millennial is actually scared of black people.
Another funny outcome would be if the business deal between the 2 individuals thrown out and the guy who came in later is shady and/or illegal - and only because of this incident does that shady business deal come to light.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 11:07 am to BRIllini07
quote:
I'm speculating
What's sad is that there has been constant news coverage of this for 3 days, all based purely on speculation.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 11:07 am to BRIllini07
quote:
Something like a white liberal employee who is the type to double check that their doors are locked if they pull up next to a black guy at a red light, but still likes to spout BS on their university message boards about equality.
Good point. You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative Starbucks manager in Baton Rouge let alone Philadelphia.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 11:08 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I don’t see the harm. Two guys were breaking the law by loitering in a place of business with no intentions of paying for any goods or services offered by said business. Cops are called and the whole situation is handled without any violence.
What am I missing?
I don't get it either. I am totally missing what the issue is here.
Seems like everyone handled it correctly but the two punks.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 11:10 am to Fun Bunch
I'm sure the manager could tell pretty quickly based off how they said they wouldn't leave that there would be trouble. You know, basic human behavior.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 12:21 pm to NIH
Holly Hylton- a glorious specimen indeed
Posted on 4/17/18 at 12:24 pm to Fudgepacker01
Holly Hylton
Apparently she shut down her LinkedIn, but her picture is displayed on the above website. IWNHI
Apparently she shut down her LinkedIn, but her picture is displayed on the above website. IWNHI
Posted on 4/17/18 at 12:26 pm to Fudgepacker01
quote:
Holly Hylton- a glorious specimen indeed
What a waste of a perfect porn name.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:08 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
What am I missing?
I don't think it's fair at all to judge the Philly PD. They were asked to remove some people and they did it professionally and safety.
The fun part of this debate is trying to discern whether the 'tresspassing' call made by the Starbucks manager/employee is consistent with how they normally do business. And, if it's not consistent, did race play a role in the inconsistency?
Remember: 'it's my business, my call' was a perfectly good rule of thumb until some people held on to Jim Crow a little too long, and now there's Federal rules governing it.
So, with that in mind, was this:
Scenario 1: Two people were in a place of business without ever intending to be customers. This is almost universally not acceptable at any business. However,one of the rare types of businesses where can be acceptable are coffee shops - the most famous of which is Starbucks. Facts have come out stating that this is a management call and up to individual Starbucks to determine and there is no corporate wide policy for hanging out not paying at Starbucks (if not actively causing a problem).
Scenario 2: 2 people were in a place of business, waiting for the remainder of the party to arrive. At most places this is acceptable, with the exception of certain restaurants where it is typically posted that the 'entire the party must be present before seating'. Starbucks is pretty universally not that type of restaurants. In fact, the business model at Starbucks accepts a certain degree of hanging out (in the early days that's how they branded themselves as 'different' than other coffee shops - they offered an 'experience' and not just coffee).
Given the third party did show up (although after the police arrived), this was scenario 2. However, since the third guy didn't show up until after the police were on the scene, it's impossible to know whether or not the staff knew that at the time of the police call.
So, what you have is the police arresting two individuals who appeared (at least to the other people in that store) to be doing something that is pretty universally acceptable at a Starbucks.
You'll never know if the motivation was racial, and if so, to what degree. But, since it's too close for comfort Starbucks is going to pay their way out of the news as quick as possible.
For the rest of us, lets still have fun debating it!
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:24 pm to King of New Orleans
LINK
All company owned Starbucks closing May 29 for "racial-bias education". Going full out SJW on this one.
What does NAACP stand for again? I forgot..

All company owned Starbucks closing May 29 for "racial-bias education". Going full out SJW on this one.
quote:
Starbucks will be working with Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative; Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; Heather McGhee, president of Demos; former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; and Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League to create this program.
What does NAACP stand for again? I forgot..
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:51 pm to bleeng
Wtf am I supposed to do if I want Starbucks the afternoon of May 29?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:52 pm to BRIllini07
quote:
BRIllini07
Well said.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:53 pm to lsunurse
quote:
Wtf am I supposed to do if I want Starbucks the afternoon of May 29?
You need to take that time to reflect on your white privilege and donate that money you were going to spend at Starbucks to a person of color.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:55 pm to lsupride87
quote:The funny thing is I'd guess you're wrong and that it technically IS a bad look for the police, but because people are the aforementioned idiots like you mentioned and can't be discerning about the situation.
You are absolutely an idiot if you think in anyway this is a bad look for the police
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:57 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
don’t see the harm. Two guys were breaking the law by loitering in a place of business with no intentions of paying for any goods or services offered by said business. Cops are called and the whole situation is handled without any violence.
quote:
What am I missing?
"Why do you hate black people?"
- the left
Maybe these guys knew what would happen and were looking for a payout.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 1:59 pm to Fudgepacker01
quote:
Apparently she shut down her LinkedIn, but her picture is displayed on the above website. IWNHI
quote:
but there has been no mention of the company termination the suspected white supremacist store manager.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 2:03 pm to idlewatcher
quote:So they did something that people do at Starbucks all over America every day, THAT was their plan for a big payout?
Maybe these guys knew what would happen and were looking for a payout.
You're going well out of your way to make sure you point the finger at those 2 dudes, congrats on that.
Popular
Back to top



0








