Leftist Starbucks finds itself in the sites of liberal ire

[_Hawkeye]

"911 what's your emergency?"

I've heard this many times so I assume that is a standard first line by 911 operators.

[_EAllusion]

One question for EAllusion and Res Ipsa:

If the cops were under the (possibly false) understanding that the manager had clearly warned them to purchase or leave, and if the law says this constitutes trespassing, and if the persons refused to obey the instructions of the officers -- what other choice was there but an arrest?

Interesting aside:

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/lo ... 83651.html

I'm more forgiving of the police in this situation than some people are because I think a 911 call gets them in a particular mentality that may unfairly color their sense of danger. Instead of arresting them and holding them in jail for 8 hours, they probably could've just escorted them outside and asked them not to return with a warning that returning will lead to arrest. That's fairly ordinary. Prior to that, they could've done a better job explaining, negotiating, and being less confrontational. I think they were acting within the bounds of the law given their understanding of the situation, but probably could've used better judgment. I think they were over the top rather than fundamentally wrong.

[_EAllusion]

"911 what's your emergency?"

I've heard this many times so I assume that is a standard first line by 911 operators.

My job forces me to call 911 (and non-emergency police) far more than the average person. In Dane county, I'm sure that's the script. "What's the address of your emergency?" I've heard it countless times. I know it is different in different parts of the country, but I'd think this or some variation of it would be quite common.

In the audio of this situation, the operator opened with "how may I help you?" They probably should get on board with the what is your emergency script as that seems like best practice, but I'm sure whomever is deciding that has their reasons.

The whole point of 911 is to request an immediate response by emergency providers. You only ought to make that request if the situation actually requires an emergency response. Two people in your store who haven't bought anything or left in 2 minutes is not one of those situations. You should call the non-emergency police. The police will get there when they can get there. If the men leave first, that's no big deal. If it takes a little while, that's also no big deal. You only call 911 if those people are behaving in a manner that indicates a need for immediate response, which they clearly were not.

[_EAllusion]

I found Dane County's webpage on local practice:

http://www.dane911.com/facts

When should I call 9-1-1?

You should call 9-1-1 any time you believe an ambulance, fire truck, or law enforcement needs to respond immediately to a situation. If you are not sure you should call 9-1-1 to report something, call 9-1-1 and speak with one of our specially trained Communicators who can help in determining what type of assistance to send.

Will callers dialing 9-1-1 reach a recording?

Public Safety Communications (PSC) answers more than 150,000 9-1-1 calls in an average year. More than 97% of these calls are answered within 10 seconds during a typical day. However, a single incident, such as a rush hour car fire or the recent meteor sighting, may generate more 9-1-1 calls than are able to be answered as quickly as usual by on-duty staff.

In an effort to enhance our excellent customer service while meeting national standards, after three rings, callers will hear a message (English, Spanish and TTY) indicating they have dialed 9-1-1 correctly and will be answered as soon as possible. The objective of this message is to reduce the likelihood of a caller hanging up and re-dialing 9-1-1 which could further delay a public safety response (and causes 9-1-1 center staff to spend time calling the person who hung up while the caller may be talking with another 9-1-1 call-taker).

Are all 9-1-1 calls in Dane County answered by Dane County PSC?

No. Depending on their location, 9-1-1 callers in Dane County may reach any one of six Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs).

Those PSAPs are:

Dane County Public Safety Communications
Green County Sheriff
Middleton Police
Monona Police
Sauk County Sheriff
UW-Madison Police

How can I help the 9-1-1 call taker?

Answer all questions asked by the call-taker.
Listen to all instructions provided to you by the call taker.
Speak clearly (so we can understand what you are telling us).
Remain calm (difficult to do at times, we understand. But by remaining calm, you will help the call taker gather valuable information needed by first responders).

Why does the 9-1-1 call taker ask so many questions?

The call taker answers a 9-1-1 call with the question "9-1-1, what's the address of the emergency?" This is the most critical piece of information we can gather. If we do not have a location of the problem, how can we send help? Other questions are asked as appropriate or dictated by Emergency Medical, Fire or Police Protocols. All questions asked by the call taker are important and are asked in such a way to gather the most appropriate information in the shortest amount of time. During emergency situations, help is usually on the way while the call taker continues to gather more information from you.

What should I do if I dial 9-1-1 by mistake?

Do not hang up! Remain on the line (even if you are unsure at first if the call went through) and tell the call taker that the call was a mistake. If you hang up prior to your misdialed 9-1-1 call being answered, the call taker must then send law enforcement and attempt to call you back. This takes up precious time that the call taker could use to answer another call that may be an actual emergency. A common misconception is that you will get "in trouble" for accidentally dialing 9-1-1. This is simply not true! Accidents happen. We understand!

[_EAllusion]

RedState, a website usually only slightly to the left of Brietbart, which itself is only slightly to the left of Stormfront, has this piece up:

https://www.redstate.com/sarahquinlan/2 ... s-arrests/

I agree with it wholeheartedly.

The story of the two black men arrested in a Starbucks should be an opportunity to listen to others’ experiences and to examine our preconceived notions.

The arrests of the two men quickly received nationwide attention. They had asked to use the Starbucks restroom but were denied because the restrooms were for customers only (which is a common restriction). They then stayed at the Starbucks without making a purchase; they said they were meeting a third friend, who hadn’t yet arrived.

A Starbucks store manager eventually called the police because they “refus[ed] to make a purchase or leave”; they were subsequently arrested, which another customer filmed and posted on social media. Now the Starbucks CEO has apologized and announced all 8,000 Starbucks stores will be closed on May 29 so employees can participate in racial bias training, while the manager who called the police no longer works for Starbucks.

There is a lot to unpack here.

The anger at the CEO and the entire company is entirely misplaced, as are any proposed Starbucks boycotts. The one employee has already lost her job; Starbucks is attempting to make amends for the mistake; and the CEO seems genuinely upset, as evidenced by his Tuesday appearance on CNN with Don Lemon.

Nevertheless, frustration with the entire situation is understandable.

It does not appear the two men were disruptive, loud, or rowdy. It was an overreaction to call 9-1-1 (!) to report two men in broad daylight sitting in a Starbucks without making a purchase. Using an emergency hotline for such purposes is irresponsible, and this was not an appropriate use of our police force.

Moreover, the response by the police seems over the top. They certainly had discretion in how they could have resolved the situation. And within three minutes of the police’s arrival at the Starbucks, they requested backup and a supervisor — all for two men, sitting at a table in a coffee shop.

And after being arrested, the men were detained for eight hours before they were released with no charges. How is this justice?

As a proponent of limited government, it enrages me that two men were arrested and held for eight hours all for waiting in a coffee shop without buying anything. It concerns me if people do not see a problem with the enforcement arm of our government behaving in this fashion.

It is possible more details will emerge, but based upon the currently known circumstances, including video in which other customers are heard saying “they didn’t do anything,” it appears none of this needed to happen.

Some may argue that being in a store without purchasing anything is trespassing, so it’s their own fault they were thrown out, and that being arrested is a fair outcome for trespassing. But such a view lacks nuance, and neither the store nor the police behaved reasonably.

Starbucks had every right to ask them to leave. But how often does that happen at Starbucks, a brand that has intentionally encouraged the idea that it is more than a coffee shop and that it is somewhere to linger, work, or set up meetings?

How many of us have sat in a Starbucks waiting for a friend or date and have not been asked to purchase something or leave? How many of us have sat in a Starbucks for hours after finishing our drink or food, working on laptops or reading, without being asked to leave? How many of us were ever even asked to leave, let alone accused of loitering or had the cops called on us?

Perhaps most significantly, how many of us were even noticed?

According to the American Psychological Association, “people have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men.”

So even though these two black men were simply engaging in similar behavior as countless others every single day, they were picked out and then deemed to be threatening.

The most heartbreaking part of the video was the look of resignation on the two men’s faces. They didn’t even try to resist their arrest.

And what would have happened had they resisted — or even hesitated or expressed disbelief that they were being arrested for simply waiting in a coffee shop? Would the police have used force? How much? Would the police have shot them?

It might seem melodramatic to think about the police opening fire in a coffee shop simply for refusing to leave, but men have been shot at for holding cell phones, for admitting to a concealed carry permit, for answering the front door during a SWAT-ing, for being twelve years old with a toy gun, for having a broken taillight, and for crawling down a hotel hallway and hitching up their pants. They have been shot in a hotel hallway, in a park, at their front door, in cars, in their own yards, while being held down by multiple officers, from behind, and while running away.

So it’s not outside the realm of possibility. And, if the police had opened fire, what would the reaction have been? Would some have argued that it was appropriate to shoot two men, perhaps fatally, for allegedly trespassing in a coffee shop?

And what would have happened if there was no video? Would people have assumed that the manager and the cops were acting appropriately? Would many have assumed the two men had done something to provoke either the manager or the police?

Yes, these are “what ifs.” And we don’t know for sure what the reaction would have been. But it’s worth thinking about. It’s worth reflecting upon. It’s worth examining our own prejudices and behavior.

Starbucks’ day of diversity training may ultimately be ineffective, but the company is at least attempting to address an issue that some conservatives either don’t actually see or prefer not to see.

David Marcus at the Federalist criticized the negative reaction to Starbucks’ response and observed, “conservatives have an important role to play in the conversation about race in America, and we are failing.” I wholeheartedly agree, and I applaud Marcus for stating as much.

However, Marcus doesn’t go far enough. He writes that “the color of a person’s skin tells you nothing about him [or her] and should not be the basis of any judgment you make about him [or her].” This is truly a good-intentioned endeavor. Unfortunately, it’s not enough.

Implicit bias and disparate treatment are real. Two similar individuals of different races can be treated differently for the same behavior by other individuals, by society, and by their government. It’s not enough to preach color blindness — because it is necessary to see color in order to understand systemic racism and individual experiences.

It is difficult to understand what we cannot experience or have not experienced, whether it’s due to our race or our gender. That is why it is so important to listen to the experiences of those around us, rather than decide in advance that their experience must be inaccurate or their perspective must be faulty. This isn’t being “woke.” It’s simply understanding that many people may have a different experience than you do.

South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott, who has been pulled over seven times in one year as a black man driving a new car or in a certain neighborhood, has explained the importance of listening to others regarding their personal experiences:

Recognize that just because you do not feel the pain, the anguish of other, does not mean it does not exist. To ignore their struggles, our struggles, does not make them disappear, it simply leaves you blind and the American family very vulnerable…

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has discussed this in terms of Black Lives Matter before:

It is a fact that in the African-American community around this country there has been, for a number of years now, a growing resentment toward the way law enforcement and the criminal justice system interacts with the community…

I have one friend in particular who’s been stopped in the last 18 months eight to nine different times. Never got a ticket for being stopped — just stopped. If that happened to me, after eight or nine times, I’d be wondering what’s going on here. I’d be upset about it. So would anyone else.

Yes, slavery is over. Jim Crow laws were overturned. “Separate but equal” policies and segregation are no longer in place. The civil rights movement succeeded in demanding the rights of Americans of color be recognized and respected. And yes, our nation has come a far, far way, and there is much of which to be proud. But that does not mean racism cannot exist or the effects of racism do not still linger. And it does not help matters when we pretend otherwise. We must face the problem and work to provide conservative voices regarding 21st century issues.

[_Res Ipsa]

The store is in a very busy location, so I can understand their policy.

Is it legal for a national corporate chain store to have different policies at different locations? Is it fair to say because a manager at a different location allowed white people to use the bathroom and hang out at Starbucks without being customers then this means this manager at this location was a racist bad apple as EAllusion and Howard Schultz referred to her.

I know Res Ipsa says that Starbucks had no such policy against asking noncustomers to leave but I'm not sure that's true. I wish she would sue Starbucks to bring to light what's really going on behind the scenes of the nondisclosure agreements being made.

Yes, it’s legal. I posted a link to the report of a white person being allowed to use the bathroom without making a purchase minutes before the two black men arrived and were denied the same thing.

You are misunderstanding both EAllusion and Schultz. Neither said she is a “racist bad apple.” Implicit bias is a real thing, demonstrated by multiple studies. It exists in all apples.

There seems to be no dispute that there was a different policy applied to this area in Philadelphia. If you read the background articles I posted, you’ll see that many businesses in the area had different policies. They were aimed at the homeless.

[_Res Ipsa]

One question for EAllusion and Res Ipsa:

If the cops were under the (possibly false) understanding that the manager had clearly warned them to purchase or leave, and if the law says this constitutes trespassing, and if the persons refused to obey the instructions of the officers -- what other choice was there but an arrest?

Interesting aside:

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/lo ... 83651.html

I'm more forgiving of the police in this situation than some people are because I think a 911 call gets them in a particular mentality that may unfairly color their sense of danger. Instead of arresting them and holding them in jail for 8 hours, they probably could've just escorted them outside and asked them not to return with a warning that returning will lead to arrest. That's fairly ordinary. Prior to that, they could've done a better job explaining, negotiating, and being less confrontational. I think they were acting within the bounds of the law given their understanding of the situation, but probably could've used better judgment. I think they were over the top rather than fundamentally wrong.

That’s pretty much my thinking as well. According to a witness, after the friend arrived, he suggested that the three of them just go elsewhere. One of officers said “it’s too late for that.” I think that was a lost opportunity, especially given the larger context of relations between the police and black folks in Philadelphia.

[_Gadianton]

EA,

in the ultra-pedantic version of what should happen by minimal company policy and law, I can add that calling the non-emergency number would have been more appropriate*, but at the end of the day, the point is she either got maximum results from minimal inputs, or by sleight of hand, got maximal results implying minimal inputs. In other words, she got the guys jailed for going 26 in a 25 zone at best or going 24 in a 25 at worst, on suspicion they were about to go 26. My gut feeling is that she probably didn't expect them to defy the cops and take the arrest over it.

It's interesting though: if the law says a person is trespassing if the establishment says they are trespassing, and the person is calm but uncooperative. What then? Can the cops really say, "well alright then, doesn't look like you're causing trouble so you can stay."


*I really don't know what the answer is here on number use. I lived in CA for many years, and my experiences tell me that everything pretty much flows through 911, if you call the local station, they just transfer you to "dispatch" which is 911. If you walk in to report something, they tell you to pound sand.

ETA: I posted this several hours after I wrote it and the above responses came in.

[_Gadianton]

According to a witness, after the friend arrived, he suggested that the three of them just go elsewhere. One of officers said “it’s too late for that.” I think that was a lost opportunity, especially given the larger context of relations between the police and black folks in Philadelphia.

possibly.

I totally agree that if there was any sign the guys were willing to pack it up and go their way before making the arrest, then that's what should have happened. Especially given all the customers were on their side. But to be completely thorough, we'd have to rule out whether or not there are mandatory arrest laws in that area that cover that particular situation. I kinda doubt it, but a huge stimulus for cops is CYA, and if there was a risk of getting in trouble for letting them go, then what?

[Guest]

it legal for a national corporate chain store to have different policies at different locations?

Yesterday I looked into the complex history of Starbucks bathroom policy and there's at least a term paper here. Starbucks has a huge problem on their hands. Their open-door policy is part of the brand, and it ultimately translates into a strategy to get people in and spend money. In recent years, it seems, they've had to make concessions and lock up; years ago, they'd force stores to re-open their bathrooms if managers tried to solve unsanitary mayhem by closing the bathroom off. But the concessions seem to be on the low-down, and a customer doesn't know that yesterday he could do no wrong, but today there's a confidential, badly-worded policy from corporate that will be nearly impossible for an array of managers to enforce with equity. There are several random stories about customers feeling discriminated against at various locations over the last couple of years including the cop one I linked to. Corporate can't control everything, obviously, but they can't have their cake and eat it too forever.

I don't think this situation is too unpredictable if you take into account Starbucks has worked hard to lead the pack in raising customer expectations, it becomes impractical to maintain, they don't wish to risk losing customers by re-branding and publicly taking away privileges, and so they clamp down on the free-rider problem with policies that are behind-the-scenes.