Two black men were arrested at Starbucks’ request on Thursday after asking to use the restroom and then waiting for a friend without ordering. They were allegedly asked to leave and refused….

source

45 COMMENTS

  1. The police were "fine". They certainly didn't need the arrest record though. But if they're stock brokers. Than fuck em, I'm sure they can deal.

    But its pretty racially biased. Ive worked in 2 Tim Hortons and 2 Starbucks… And there is a lot of loiters.

    This is all just one employee/manager. Without a doubt.

  2. Subway makes you purchase something before you can use the restroom. They say the restroom code to unlock the door is printed on the receipt, that they do not know the code. So if you need to use the restroom, you must purchase your sandwich, carry it into the restroom , I guess shove it in your pocket or set it on the baby changing table. I Hate Star Bucks Coffee , it’s really Sucks, over priced , horrible coffee!

  3. Starbucks functions under franchises. They might be allowed to make such policies themselves, but I doubt that they will after this. As far as the bathroom issue, it is anti drug and anti homeless motivations that drive things like this. You are right that it is better to have a usable and clean restroom for a business, but they become very afraid of what might happen when either a drug user or a homeless person has to be removed by the police and will overreact like this. The same goes for having public restrooms in urban areas. So, instead of solving the homeless and drug problems, which we have proven methods to do, but politics and ignorance stand in the way of using them, we get this idiocy that causes people to have to pee and poop in the street. At least we got rid of pay toilets. They were worse than this.

  4. So at the Starbucks that are around my area all the bathrooms are keypad locked with changing bathroom codes so you have to approach the counter and make a purchase and then the barista will give you the bathroom code. It's sad that the police had to be called but it's also sad that the two men would not leave after being asked to leave both by staff and then by the police. I doubt Starbucks wanted the men to be arrested but once the police are called and informed there is a trespasser which is what the men would be considered at that point the police would have to arrest them after they continued to refuse to leave

  5. The police were stupid and wrong and Starbucks has a Manager to fire.

    They should they have arrested them?

    NO. Period. Full stop.

    The police could have removed them from the property as requested and it is over. This law was never intended to be used this way. If they were removed and tried to go back in or force their way in then you arrest. And the police should have done nothing till they asked Starbucks if they were going to file charges. If the answer is no, you remove and warn. Less paper work and hard feeling. Enjoy your protest cops because you screwed this up.

    Starbucks is wrong but also this violates the business model of the place that clearly is about making a public meeting space and selling to those that meet write and hang out in it. If they cared so much to change this hey should have a sign like you see in Fast food places saying you have 30 min to eat and then you have to leave.

    According to the letter of the law everyone was right to do this to these men but only if you WANT to use the law this way. The anger and protest is correct because this is wrong and clearly race motivated by one bad Manager.

  6. LMAO I have in the past 2 years have kicked out about 50 or so people where I work. Not a single one was of any other color or race then white. Almost all were for coming in and sitting down or trying to use the bathroom without ordering.(they were not kicked out for that but after being denied to use the restroom they would just loiter in the lobby). A few were scaring people and being disruptive but a lot were just "loitering" and when asked to leave "trespassing". For those of you who do not understand the law on trespassing, if you own a property and you do not want someone in there for any reason you want, they could be kicked out.(no questions asked). The fact that they came in and did not order already gives them the right to tell them to leave. On top of that, they refused to leave 3 times before the cops were called, and when the cops got there, they refused when the cops asked them to leave. So they put them under arrest and they were NOT charged with anything but were removed from the premise. You can't go into a place taking a seat and not pay for anything but expect to be allowed to use the restroom and take a potential seat for a paying customer. Either way, the only reason this hit the news was because they were black…

  7. This might be a dumbass conservative argument that I was exposed to as a boy, but I thought public restrooms were closed in the 1960s and 1970s b/c of drug use and prostitution issues.

  8. Sorry I don’t think the police are to blame, they were asked to leave, and they refused. The question is, should Starbucks have asked them to leave. I would liked to have heard the conversation between the two gentlemen and Starbucks. If I’m a store owner, I have the right to ask anyone to leave, and I don’t have to give a reason. The two gentleman, should have left the premises, waited outside for their friend. Then made a formal complaint to Starbucks, about how they were treated.

  9. Here is a great idea, lets ask all paying white customers to take their beverage and leave as soon as money passes the counter, so the blacks can loiter on those table rightfully theirs.
    If not in favour for this idea YOU are racist and should either be #1 hung #2 hung and shot or #3 hung, shot and run over then bounced upon by a classic gangsta lowrider .
    Please take a pick.

  10. If the store has a policy of requesting non customers to leave the table/ premise they have to leave, if not then cops remove you instead .
    those rules apply to blacks,whites,midgets and whatever other variety of human there may be.
    But hey these men are black so, now we can tell the world how racist both the business and the cops are sigh.

    i've been requested to either buy or leave some food establishment before too when waiting on someone for 5 min, so i left redirected the meeting and brought my business elsewhere instead.
    This is another So what, who cares story, guess what white noncustomers get removed on a daily basis too, i know for fact hobos tend to often get shooed out of businesses too.

  11. I don't know how things work in the U.S, but in the U.K you do not go into a bar/restaurant/coffee shop and just sit down, don't buy anything and want to use the toilets…it's just plain rude. A lot of chain restaurants even have signs up saying that toilets are for customer use only. Unfortunately Starbucks toilets aren't public as you state, they are there for the use of patrons in a private businessplace.

  12. This is actually a question not related to 'lawyer…ism'.

    Why do they call Philadelphia the city of brotherly love when Racism is still a huge thing there? Also, it's not just racism; Philadelphia is also famous for having very violent and belligerent audience members for concerts, sports games, and even in the E-sports arena; Philly is known for being douche bags. So, why is it called the city of brotherly love, when the city itself is famous/infamous for his hatred and lack of caring for others.

    My friend, who is black (and I am white) and grew up in Philly always warns me I could never go to the place he grew up in because of my skin color. It's partly why he lives in my city now, we don't give 3 flying fucks over your race…. unless you're a grown pure bred Mexican, meaning born and raised in Mexico, then people give a shit here.

  13. They were reported to be insisting to use the rest room which isn't allowed if you're not a customer.

    They then wouldn't leave and were arrested.
    Why is this even a topic of discussion?

  14. I had to remove people from properties on many occasions. It's not even a question of "can", it really is an obligation when an owner tells you they want someone removed- it's part of the job. There were some times when it seemed to me that the reasons were silly, but you still have to do it. I always tried to have as much patience as possible and also explain the law to the person being ejected, because it is tough for laypeople to understand the way trespass law works and the difference between criminal and civil violations. A good idea is also to explain what actions, if any, the person can take- i.e. give them suggestions to complain to the commerce chamber, city hall, or that they can pursue legal action under the discrimination angle if that's what they think is going on.

    Unless the person was a drunk idiot it always felt like such a waste of time and effort when they just wouldn't leave and ended up having to be arrested.

  15. I have seen restaurants that have a policy of not letting people use the bathroom if they don't buy anything. The difference here is that this is communicated via a very noticeable sign in the building for all to see. It's not some unspoken rule like it appears to have been at this specific Starbucks.

    EDIT: I'll also add that I've worked in multiple restaurants in my decade of fast food work and I've never been told to refuse customers access to the bathroom if they don't buy anything. If the store was packed to capacity, I could see where there might be an issue with them sitting around doing nothing for 30+ minutes, but at that point the employees would be far too busy to do anything about it.

  16. If they were bums loitering, would we be having the same conversation? I agree it's reprehensible, and having the buddy show up later and the situation not de-escalating is just stupid, but if you have uncooperative people in your place of business why can't you eject them? What are the conditions and grounds for ejection? don't like it? don't buy their product. What is the acceptable criteria for ejection? If this were an homeless person, someone intoxicated, then this would not have received the same attention.

  17. starbucks specializes in serving conservative liberals, you know white city dwellers that love gay people but are still terrified of brown/black people. starbucks wont give a fuck because 1. black people wont pay 4 bucks for a cup of coffee and 2. they also dont tip. so they already know they wont lose any substantial business as a result of these corporate racist policies. i also find it fucked that the publicly funded police are apparently answering to corporate employees and enforcing their policies which are not municipal laws.

  18. I've had a lot of businesses tell me i have to buy something to use the bathroom, though they usually just let me promise I will later (w/out actually making me do it right then) in order to leave me alone. We do have a lot of homeless people where I live though. There are also some stores around here that won't let you in if you're wearing a backpack, have to hand it over and you get it back on the way out. One guitar center insisted I also hand over my motorcycle helmet while in the store. Banks make me take off my hat, if I'm wearing one, and sunglasses too even on a super bright summer day, even though they are prescription sunglasses (not that they could discern that). On the other end of the spectrum, I've also been at a 24 hour IHOP that specifically allowed homeless people to come in and just sleep in booths for the night in the winter, while open for business (and presumably, to use their bathroom). Even I was participating in that one, as the last bus to where I wanted to go was 11pm and i had a ride arranged to pick me up at 330 am, so I had to kill 4 and a half hours, so I got the endless stack of pancakes and brought my book and just ate pancakes for 4 and a half hours hehe. $2.99 well spent! I felt like treating some of the sleeping homeless to an endless stack too (they were definitely genuine homeless unlike some pan handlers) but they were all sound asleep. Of course, like it was said in the video, what matters is how uniformly they impose these rules. If its just black people we have a problem. If its anyone who refuses to leave, that's something else. Some research is needed. Really they should have filmed themselves being asked to leave, then leave, avoid the arrest, and get some white friends to go in there and loiter and see if they also get asked to leave (filming it of course), repeat w/white people and black people 'till they have a definite pattern, so there could be no doubt, then bring it forward. Heck, someone could still do that really.

  19. Starbucks asked them to leave.
    They refused to leave (in my opinion rightfully so, but still potentially trespassing).
    Police were called and told that the men were not leaving after being asked to do so.
    The police then arrested and held the men (in-line with the law). You can easily see that some of the officers are not happy about having to do this.
    Starbucks is 100% in the wrong here. The men were only held because Starbucks was not sure if they were going to press charges. The fact that people even think the police are the issue here is astounding. Starbucks should have informed the department IMMEDIATELY that they were not pressing charges, fired the employee that thought having them removed by force was appropriate, and made a public apology that wasn't half-assed PR bullshit.

    I don't go to Starbucks very often (we have coffee shops that are better and cheaper here), but the 2-3 times a month where I was going there will not happen now. I realize that doesn't negatively impact their profit in any meaningful way, but voting with your money is important.

  20. The store was technically within the law because they get to decide who is "trespassing." But it was ethically wrong, and the optics are so bad that the store manager was a moron for not thinking ahead. The question to ask: Would this have happened to two white guys in expensive suits?

  21. Whelp, I'm glad I wasn't already a starbucks customer, given that I don't like coffee, because this means this boycott won't effect me. Stupid EA making me give up on games I really wanted to play… :'(

  22. I don’t get this. They will told to leave and didn’t. If Starbucks don’t challenge this, they are effectively saying they have no control over their own store. Any business would take action to remove people who refuse to leave. If this had been two white guys, twitter would be cheering Starbucks for putting ‘white privilege bros’ in their place.

  23. Starbucks just lost their liberal moniker . Wait a min here . Liberals do act like this . Try and speak at a Liberal sponsored Free Speech rally where that your opinion differs from theirs .

  24. Okay as someone who lived next door to a McDonald's that only allowed customers to stay in for 30 minutes before being told to live there is literally thousands of reasons to make noncustomers leave an establishment. Ranging from recent thefts, maybe they needed to make sales or whatever it doesn't fucking matter because the second you open that door and cross that threshold you are on someone else's property.

  25. I have been to many starbucks stores that require a purchase before accessing the bathroom. This is usually in busy city centers to reduce the use of restrooms byhomeless people or such. However, in no case have I ever been asked to leave after requesting to use the restroom and not purchasing something.

  26. Hey, man i been subbed for awhile but, this is my first comment All i can say is holy crap apparently it's a good thing i am a disabled white man. I don't got a lot of money so i don't always order things when i need to stop in and rest during my walk. and most places are even nice enough to give me water. I really feel for these guys.

  27. Once the store asked the two brokers to leave and the two refused to leave then they are both trespassing and that got them arrested. IMHO the two brokers knew what would happen. To pass the broker's exam both would have been aware of trespass laws.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here