Starbucks closing stores after 2 black men arrested

It's absolutely ******* comical how it happens.

This should have been a 6-reply post. Nope.

 

1. There is no such policy or rules.
2. They are not loitering, they are waiting for a friend.
3. They were non-customers at that point. ALL customers are non-customers in the beginning.
4. "We disagree with you, stop defending us, Thanks" - Starbucks

"Now certainly, as I've been reviewing the situation, that in certain circumstances, local practices are implemented. In this particular case, the local practice of asking someone who is not a customer to leave the store--and unfortunately, then followed by a call to the police.

Now certainly there are some situations where the call to police is justified. Situations where there is violence or threats or a disruption. In this case, none of that existed. These two gentlemen did not deserve what happened, and we are accountable.

I am accountable."

Starbucks CEO

 

Sorry I delved off into coffee quality but can someone tell me where I can find a synopsis of what happened

I just see Starbucks's response

 

Agree. This aspect of this has been completely neglected in the rush to political correctness. While I do think it is definitely a bit much for them to be arrested for this...if you refuse to purchase anything, and then also refuse to leave, what is the establishment supposed to do? You aren't a customer, so you have no right to be in their establishment. I would really like to hear their answer as to why they didn't just purchase something? If they weren't going to purchase anything...why meet there? This whole problem would have gone away if they just purchased a cup of coffee, which, even at Starbucks, is...$2? I find it striking that this aspect of the scenario hasn't gotten much play. I'm not saying there weren't racial issues here, just that, as in most situations, there are other aspects to this, and it sounds like it could have been handled better all the way around. The two men shouldn't have been targeted, if they were...but there was a simple solution on their end as well, and they WERE violating store policy.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ucks-arrests-two-african-americans/526255002/

 

Someone stupidly compared this to lunch counter sit ins.

During segregation people wanted to purchase things. They had to sleep in their cars while traveling

People are criticizing Starbucks on political correctness.

There are plenty of places in Houston with restrooms for customers only signs

It's one thing to hang out in the mall. You can't go hang out in Pappadeaux's

 

All the homeless should just hang out in Pappadeaux's and Starbucks during cold winter days.

Why even build shelters according to most of you guy's logic

 

P much.

It was kind of rude to expect to use the restroom without purchasing something.

It was also pretty rude to ask these guys to leave.

It was even ruder to not leave when asked.

Leftist flashmob never lets an opportunity to promote victimhood go to waste.

Corporate suits bow down and kiss ass to appease cultural Marxists.

Cycle repeats.

 

I get their damage control, but there absolutely is a policy like that, in fact it's acknowledged. It's implemented in order to prevent homeless people from hanging out there all day long taking up all of the space in the store....something that WILL happen if you don't have rules like this in place. The goal is to reserve seating for actual customers.

Hanging out as a non-customer while waiting to meet up with a friend is loitering. If instead they buy a coffee while waiting for their friend, they are just customers.

I honestly can't believe how stupid some people are being about this whole thing. It's not complicated.

 

Such a strange situation. So the 2 guys are saying they were the singled out non-paying customers that were asked to leave? But others (probably white) weren't (100% that's not the entire story but that's what we're all going on) ? I dunno, you have to be an ahole of some type to be asked to leave starbucks...or acting a fool. But nah, it was probably just a racist guy that asks all black folks to leave his store. He's watching like a hawk at all times waiting for them to come around to pounce on the chance.

Seriously though, if you aren't going to buy a single thing and someone asks you to leave bc of it...hell, how much of a jerk do you have to be to say, nah, I can stay here if I want. I'm sure this crap happens all the time. But bc they're black it's national "news". It's hard to believe these guys were your run of the norm...keeping to themselves on their phones and laptop customers, minding their own business just waiting around for friends. And they have lawyers already? Yep, guys of high character. Sounds legit.

 

On the one hand, when I worked customer service / retail I hated it when people would just come in to chill. Working in a shoe department, for example, people would just come over and sit on the couch and force me to engage in the dumbest back and forth. In Huntsville, TX they would usually try to talk to me about Jesus. God damn folks just buy some shitty $30 Reeboks or GTFO.

On the other hand, currently living in a tiny apartment, you bet your ass that on rainy days we go to Target and let our daughter go wild throughout the store.

So I have nothing to add here except to say that I'm glad I don't work in customer service anymore.

 

Do you know more about Starbucks' policy than than the Starbucks' CEO? In such case, can you point what that policy is that ABSOLUTELY exist?
Being absolute, I am sure you can produce it.

Practice is not policy. It is not complicated.

 

I often meet clients and colleagues at Starbucks’ or other coffee shops and sit there for a long time waiting on the other person to get there.

The only difference is I’m a white guy with a laptop usually in a suit so it’s obvious I’m waiting on a client or someone else business related.

This idea that Starbucks is not like a mall where it’s common to hang out while you wait is nonsense. No reason why someone waiting for a friend that isn’t white and in a suit shouldn’t have the same ability as I do to not get kicked out or something as disgraceful as what happened in this case.

 

Bobby knows more about anything and everything and more then anyone has ever known or will know. Don't you know?

 

Clearly you think this damage control changes the fact that there was absolutely a policy in place at that store....a policy acknowledged by your own post "Now certainly, as I've been reviewing the situation, that in certain circumstances, local practices are implemented. In this particular case, the local practice of asking someone who is not a customer to leave the store--and unfortunately, then followed by a call to the police."

So again, there clearly was a policy in place that non-customers aren't allowed to just hang out in the store and can't use the restroom, and it was a policy that MANY companies in densely populated areas have....and have for a good reason. Again, you guys must spend all of your time in the sticks to not realize this. Get out more often, travel more. It will really change your perspective on things.

Also, saying "practice isn't policy" is just playing the semantics game. A local practice and a local policy are the same thing.

 

It's basically up to each store manager.

A company spokesperson said Starbucks does not have a broad policy prohibiting people from using restrooms or sitting inside for free, allowing individual stores to set their own rules.

 

It certainly seems that way at times when compared to some, but believe it or not, that's not the case. It's just an illusion caused by my willingness to talk with the least knowledgeable among us. Where most people would just ignore or laugh at these types of people, I actively engage them fairly often in an effort to get them to do some real thinking about the dumb or ignorant things they are saying.

This is exactly it. Every store has different needs and different situations. A policy that isn't needed out in the sticks (or suburbs) might be needed in a densely populated area where non-customers loitering in the store is a problem due to lack of space for actual customers. Some stores are larger than others.

Honestly in a LOT of situations, a policy that bars non-customers from using the restroom or hanging out in the store is a necessity and to pretend that policies like that don't exist or are "disgraceful" is willfully ignorant.

 

Starbuck's has historically been a place where people go to 'hang out', use the wifi, etc. I have occasionally met people in places like that and those people (or us) have waited to order until the other party arrived. In this particular instance the two men were meeting a friend there and unless one thinks the men or their friend is lying, they intended to purchase stuff once he arrived.

The problem with the arrest is that while the arrest was proceeding, the friend DID show up, did confirm he was meeting them and did confirm they were intending to purchase items. At that point the arrest should have stopped.

What gets me about this entire conversation (not just this thread) is that Starbuck's has admitted they made a mistake so they accept blame and are attempting to do something about it so there is no reason to defend them. I believe the police department is still investigating the incident and their (police) policies. The arrest was extreme and being held for 8 hours on what was a 'misdemeanor citation' is uncalled for, regardless of one's race.

 

Unfortunately the manager could have had a racial bias, but it doesn't matter. You can't just go hang out in a restaurant and not purchase if they don't want you there.