Cops arrest 2 black men for no reason in Starbucks

[Bald1]

Its the fact that SB has a business policy of being a "third space" (new concept to me), and despite that the manager targeted a couple of AA's.

Look dude, I'm all about calling bullshit when racism is accused when there is none, but this seems pretty undeniable here.

Why is it undeniable? Because they're black? So anything that happens to a black person it's because of racism. Got it. Asinine assumption. We don't know why they were asked to leave, but it must be racism.

Do you guys hear the shit your spewing?

 

[Greoric]

Manager is likely a little racist, and got jumpy. That, or got annoyed at their refusal to leave, and took it to the extreme, just because they could.

The cops shouldn't be eating any shit for this though. They gotta show up when they're called, and do what they gotta do.

They're not robots though, and they have moral agency. With that said, I agree there is the case that if someone's clearly being trespassed from an establishment, the police are there to enforce that otherwise sound law.

 

[Greoric]

Why is it undeniable? Because they're black? So anything that happens to a black person it's because of racism. Got it. Asinine assumption. We don't know why they were asked to leave, but it must be racism.

Do you guys hear the shit your spewing?

Yeah, undeniable was to absolutist of a word there, but its pretty likely they were asked to leave because they were, at least in part, black.

And who's this "you guys"? I was just pretty much called racist in the other thread for what I was arguing about the homeowner trying to shoot the teen coming to his door.

@Kafir-kun @HomerThompson @salamander @Prokofievian

 

[Hollywood Jack]

I'm white and I've been asked.

At Starbucks?

 

[Broke Lester]

It IS a casual place. You're talking out of your ass! You're the one making multiple errors in your writing, yet I'm the dumb one. Okay. The entire business structure of Starbucks is that it's supposed to be a fun, casual place to meet, hang out, do work, etc. You obviously know nothing about the matter, yet you have a vested interest in spewing hateful nonsense. Sad.

so then by your rational, people could go hangout at Starbucks head office, it is still a part of the business, fuck those guys should have just had their meeting in the board room, free coffee too. It's pretty obvious you never ran your own business, you think the franchisee wants people hanging out there all day without buying anything, how long can that business survive? Do you believe that head office pays the rent? the employees?, and other numerous overhead? Yes Starbucks wants people to hang out there, but realistically they want you to purchase something every hour or so, a coffee, maybe some cake or whatever. This is where common sense and decency come into play, two things you obviously lack, a reasonable person would say to him/herself "i'm going to use this space to do my work, hangout or whatever, but i will show my gratitude by purchasing something or things equivalent to the amount of time i use their space, that way this establishment can prosper and i and others will still have a place to hangout or do our work.

i didn't know i was being graded on my writing, but sorry you haven't established a moral high ground cause you're a better writer than i am, if anything you proved despite your education you are still dumb

please point out what hateful nonsense i spewed.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

This thread is still going?

 

[Broke Lester]

I don't have to believe in fairy tales, it's been their business model for at least a decade.

Transform themselves into a quais-public meeting place with the knowledge that some percentage of the meeting public will also purchase something. Contrast that with a sit down restaurant where every person who occupies the seating is expected to order something every time.

Starbucks is banking on the idea that if it's easy and comfortable to hang out in Starbucks, you will. And some of those times you will order stuff, some of those times you won't. But as long as you're hanging out at Starbucks, you don't have a reason to go to one of their competitors just to get coffee.

You can google "Starbucks" and "third place" if you want more detail.

that's the policy of head office, and as nice as it sounds, it;s not realistic for the franchisee. I don't know what it costs to open up a franchise, I'd assume somewhere between 200-250K for name, equipment and building the store. If you were that franchisee, would you want people to just come in and hangout?

 

[Bald1]

Yeah, undeniable was to absolutist of a word there, but its pretty likely they were asked to leave because they were, at least in part, black.

And who's this "you guys"? I was just pretty much called racist in the other thread for what I was arguing about the homeowner trying to shoot the teen coming to his door.

@Kafir-kun @HomerThompson @salamander @Prokofievian

I won't even give "at least in part" a nod, but at least we have some room for speculation.

Maybe the manager is a racist. If so that'll come out and then he'll get fired. If this was caused by racial resentment then it's probably not the first occurrence and others will speak up. Racists can't hide no more, and that's a happy unintended consequence of our otherwise toxic social media age. If so, fuck him.

Don't you guys see how damaging it is to see everything through the prism of race when no such indicators are given? We had two white guys speak up in this thread saying they were asked to leave Starbucks. What of them? Do we ignore their skin colour while focusing on these guys?

 

[panamaican]

Sure, but to say they're *meh* about selling their product is tantamount to believing in fairy tales.

No one says they're "meh" about selling their product. You just confused the business goal, selling coffee, with the business model adopted to reach that goal, being a "third place". Dunkin Donuts has the same business goal - selling coffee (recently at least, the original goal used to be selling donuts). They use a different business model to get there. Dunkin Donuts wants you to get in and get out, although they've also started incorporating hang out style elements into their stores.

So when a Starbucks manager asks someone to leave the store for not ordering something that contradicts the business model. When the individual(s) state that they're waiting to meet someone else, that's evidence of the success of the business model - these people have selected Starbucks as a meeting place, hopefully they will order something during their meeting. Kicking them out prior to the meeting defeats the purpose of the "third place" model.

As the Starbucks CEO stated - the manager's basis for calling the cops was wrong. Not ordering something isn't a reason to be kicked out of Starbucks. Starbucks larger goal is to make those 2 individuals very comfortable while they wait so that they'll order something when the meeting ensues or so that the next time they need to have a meeting, they'll select Starbucks and order something.

The business model is a different thing from the product itself.

 

[panamaican]

that's the policy of head office, and as nice as it sounds, it;s not realistic for the franchisee. I don't know what it costs to open up a franchise, I'd assume somewhere between 200-250K for name, equipment and building the store. If you were that franchisee, would you want people to just come in and hangout?

Then you shouldn't get a starbucks if you can't follow the general business model.

That's like saying you want to run a McDonald's but don't believe in seducing kids with cheap plastic toys, lol.

 

[HereticBD]

They're not robots though, and they have moral agency. With that said, I agree there is the case that if someone's clearly being trespassed from an establishment, the police are there to enforce that otherwise sound law.

I just think it's much ado about nothing. Like, would anybody even bat an eye at this story, if the cops were called to remove a filthy disgusting hobo for the exact same shit? Doubt it. I'm sure most would even agree that the filthy disgusting hobo needed to be removed. It could be 20 below outside and the guy was just looking for warmth, and people would still probably take Starbucks' side, because the bum was driving away business.

Point is, there's a reason why stupid little laws like this exist. Shit would get outta hand fast, if it was just a free for all.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

There may or may not be a racist Starbucks manager in Philadelphia and Starbucks’ business model may or may not encourage hanging out.

Sherpage 10...

 

[Broke Lester]

This thread is still going?

ya

 

[Mark Cutting]

This is a non issue. The title should read "two men loitering were arrested when they refused to leave store".

Dude's getting the bbc.

 

[HomerThompson]

Why is it undeniable? Because they're black? So anything that happens to a black person it's because of racism. Got it. Asinine assumption. We don't know why they were asked to leave, but it must be racism.

Do you guys hear the shit your spewing?

*you're

 

[clmetal]

Wonder if Yaffe is lying; he's from an affluent suburb and they appear to be from the inner city. These are family friends of his, looking to invest but unwilling to buy coffee?

DePino said she was told by Yaffe that the men were family friends of his and that they had been waiting to meet him about a real estate deal. Reached by phone, Yaffe declined to comment.

Btw, I've been asked to leave lunch places after we finished our food.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

so then by your rational, people could go hangout at Starbucks head office, it is still a part of the business, fuck those guys should have just had their meeting in the board room, free coffee too. It's pretty obvious you never ran your own business, you think the franchisee wants people hanging out there all day without buying anything, how long can that business survive? Do you believe that head office pays the rent? the employees?, and other numerous overhead? Yes Starbucks wants people to hang out there, but realistically they want you to purchase something every hour or so, a coffee, maybe some cake or whatever. This is where common sense and decency come into play, two things you obviously lack, a reasonable person would say to him/herself "i'm going to use this space to do my work, hangout or whatever, but i will show my gratitude by purchasing something or things equivalent to the amount of time i use their space, that way this establishment can prosper and i and others will still have a place to hangout or do our work.

i didn't know i was being graded on my writing, but sorry you haven't established a moral high ground cause you're a better writer than i am, if anything you proved despite your education you are still dumb

please point out what hateful nonsense i spewed.

You guys are so fucking stupid and willfully ignorant that you ignore the overwhelming evidence from the company itself that it's intended to be a third place to meet and hang out with the hope that you will buy coffee or whatever, and this is how the vast majority of people use Starbucks, without incident. It's a business model that clearly works yet you sit there and dare to lecture me and Starbucks about how to run a business. It's laughable. And I wasn't grading you on your writing, but if you dare to call me stupid, I can certainly point out mistakes that I wouldn't have made in the 3rd grade, let alone now.

 

[Bald1]

No one says they're "meh" about selling their product. You just confused the business goal, selling coffee, with the business model adopted to reach that goal, being a "third place". Dunkin Donuts has the same business goal - selling coffee (recently at least, the original goal used to be selling donuts). They use a different business model to get there. Dunkin Donuts wants you to get in and get out, although they've also started incorporating hang out style elements into their stores.

So when a Starbucks manager asks someone to leave the store for not ordering something that contradicts the business model. When the individual(s) state that they're waiting to meet someone else, that's evidence of the success of the business model - these people have selected Starbucks as a meeting place, hopefully they will order something during their meeting. Kicking them out prior to the meeting defeats the purpose of the "third place" model.

As the Starbucks CEO stated - the manager's basis for calling the cops was wrong. Not ordering something isn't a reason to be kicked out of Starbucks. Starbucks larger goal is to make those 2 individuals very comfortable while they wait so that they'll order something when the meeting ensues or so that the next time they need to have a meeting, they'll select Starbucks and order something.

The business model is a different thing from the product itself.

Allright, I'll give you that.

So I'm going to organize a sit in as a form of protest for what happened to these guys. Surely Starbucks head office wouldn't mind sharing their 3rd space with people who will, maybe, at some point in the future might make a purchase. It's a gimick and lip service ment to draw in people who like to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Of course head office is going to disagree with the manager. Can't have a peon dispell their carefully crafted illusion.

 

[HomerThompson]

There may or may not be a racist Starbucks manager in Philadelphia and Starbucks’ business model may or may not encourage hanging out.

Sherpage 10...

*7

 

[Bald1]

*you're

Lol. Crap. I'm leaving it.