Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

George Bush Starbucks hates Black People.
SpoilerApparently two people were waiting for a friend at a Starbucks. Employees asked them to leave if they weren't going to buy anything, they didn't. Police were called, police asked them to leave, they didn't. They were arrested and removed from the Starbucks.

Did the FBI miss "clear warning signs" about the impending tragedy? If not I'd imagine it'll be in the back pocket waiting for a more opportune time.

Eh. While I'm sure this is just another one of those "OMG! it must be because of their skin color" deals, the reality is that if they'd just responded to the "hey, are you guys going to buy something?" question with... you know... actually just buying something, there would have been no problem (and, I suppose, no news story).

Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but there's at least some blame to be placed on the people who apparently steadfastly stuck to their "we don't have to buy anything from you to hang out in the store" position all the way to the point of the police being called and being removed in handcuffs. So yeah, I'm going to go with this not being nearly as straightforward a story of racial bias as is being reported. I'm reasonably certain that if couple white guys had done the exact same actions, they'd have been led out in handcuffs as well. The likely only difference is that we would never have heard about it because "two white guys causing trouble in a Starbucks and getting arrested" doesn't fit any sort of social narrative.

Yeah, yeah ("but the white guys wouldn't have been told to buy something or leave!"), maybe, maybe not. Still not buying the whole "I'm a victim for being arrested despite being given like 18 different options to avoid that outcome" bit.

Sure, just blame the gun and let's ignore the real culprit: poisoning children's minds with violent media like Elena of Avalor.

Edited, Apr 18th 2018 8:48am by Jophiel

Um... yeah, I think so.

Spoiler Damn crane...

Edited, Apr 18th 2018 8:57am by someproteinguy

Last time I was in a Starbucks, I sat with my laptop out, charging, using the wi-fi and making phone calls for around an hour, without buying anything, without being approached or harassed. Perhaps the manager on duty that day got fired for not insisting I make a purchase.

It's hard to find anything resembling a detailed timeline of the event, but from bits and pieces, it appears that they had been sitting in the Starbucks for at least two hours without purchasing anything. One of them asked to use the restroom at that point and was refused because they had been sitting there for so long not buying anything. It was after that point that the issue escalated (and we have no direct evidence of what was said or done between them and the store manager). At some point, the manager asked them to leave and they refused. After that point, she called the police and reported this. The police arrived some time later and they asked the men to leave, not once, not twice, but three times. They gave them ample warnings and opportunities to avoid being arrested and made it clear that the consequence of not leaving would be arrest (which the cops, despite some claims to the contrary, really do have no choice in at that point). The one firm bit of timeline that I could find is that it was over an hour between when the manager called the cops and they arrived on the scene. This was clearly not a case of a couple guys hanging out for a short period of time before ordering their drinks.

Here's the deal. We can speculate all day long about whether a pair of white men in the exact same situation would have been noticed if hanging out at that Starbucks for that same period of time without buying anything. We can recount cases where this person or that person at some random Starbucks did this or that and didn't get asked to leave. That's all meaningless though. Unless you know for a fact that that exact manager at that exact Starbucks allows white people to do exactly what these men were doing, for exactly that length of time, and would have allowed them to use the restroom, and not asked them to purchase something or leave, and would have responded to whatever exact verbal exchange took place in a completely different manner, which would not have led to her calling the police, then you cannot actually insist that this had anything at all to do with race. I mean, you *can*, but you'd be engaging in your own racial bias at that point.

Again. Not buying it. IMO there is far more racial bias in the assumptions about the event than in the actions of the store manager. Everyone focuses on the drama of the events after the police arrive, but seem to ignore the series of events that lead up to that point. That was the avoidable part of this, and it was 100% avoidable by the two men.

It was a gal, apparently. How sexist of you.


As a side note, everything I could find about the rules for bathroom access seemed to use the term "patrons" for who had access. Paying customer only access seems pretty regularly used all over the place in my experience.

But it doesn't matter what the real events that lead up to the two men being arrested, how long had passed, whether or not the cops requested they leave multiple times before arresting them. All the public sees is "Black men arrested for doing nothing! RACISM!"

I've mastered the "pee and dash", it's like a dine and dash.

Have you guys been to Chicago, St. Louis, NY, Boston or other metro areas? On Milwaukee there are countless businesses that restrict access to bathroom; some do enforce purchase to pee policy ( Pollacks and congestion, go figure ). It may have something to do with racism, but automatically jumping to this conclusion is.. what is the word I am looking for.. stupid.

Similarly, saying cops should not have taken the guys in is equally stupid. At that point all of them were officially trespassing. Granted, if cops asked me to leave, I prolly would, but that is me. I had a cop shout at some kids near me to shut the **** up and leave 7/11 cuz w/e. Now, I rarely see a reason to, potentially, fight with a cop over not leaving 7/11. Getting arrested seems like a hassle.

Then again, maybe they decided to make a point.

Nothing between 1/01/1900 and 12/31/2017 about white people being arrested at a Starbucks for waiting around for friends or using the bathrooms. Of course you're not. You mean the series of events that you can't find anything resembling a detailed timeline of, even though you go on to detailing just how long those particular events took place?

Edited, Apr 19th 2018 10:14am by lolgaxe

"Oh my God, that's such classic Rachel..."

I'd imagine there'd be at least one dirty hipster during the Occupy Wall Street protest.