Two black men arrested for not leaving a Starbucks.

[Tahuyaman]

The female manager has left the company within hours of the incident. Given the timing can it be for any other reason - perhaps a surprise performance review? Attracting unfavorable publicity to one's employer (particularly when it's a publically traded company) is always a justification for termination. Starbucks' CEO is now in reputation management mode. The two gentlemen have agreed to meet with him, no doubt to discuss how much it will cost to make this incident go away without embarrassing and expensive litigation.

She was fired for obvious reasons.


Chances are these two guys will get a lifetime supply of coffee at any Starbucks and a rather large sum of money.

[Chris]

The female manager has left the company within hours of the incident. Given the timing can it be for any other reason - perhaps a surprise performance review? Attracting unfavorable publicity to one's employer (particularly when it's a publically traded company) is always a justification for termination. Starbucks' CEO is now in reputation management mode. The two gentlemen have agreed to meet with him, no doubt to discuss how much it will cost to make this incident go away without embarrassing and expensive litigation.

It is of course related to the incident, its aftermath, to deal with charges of racism in the court of public opinion.

[Tahuyaman]

It is of course related to the incident, its aftermath, to deal with charges of racism in the court of public opinion.

It would be disingenuous to say that the race of the men arrested played little to no role in this. I'm in no way a racialist, but it seems clear to me that race was an issue here.

[Chris]

An interesting set of facts emerge--you can pick your own: [url=https://billypenn.com/2018/04/14/philly-starbucks-arrests-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/]Philly Starbucks arrests: What we know (and what we don’t)[/url:

...What we know

...Per Commissioner Ross, the men entered, sat down, then tried to use the bathroom. Starbucks employees mentioned the company policy that bathroom use required a purchase, and asked the men to leave. When the men refused, Ross said, that’s when the cops were called.

On arrival, the officers asked the men to leave — per Ross, three times. The men continued to refuse, and so were arrested.

...Commissioner Ross said the men were released because after the paperwork was processed, PPD “discovered” Starbucks no longer wanted to press charges.

The charge being considered was “defiant trespass,” per criminal defense attorney Lauren A. Wimmer, who was involved in getting the men released. Wimmer tweeted Saturday morning that what had happened to them was not only “reprehensible,” but was also “illegal.”

...In the Starbucks CEO letter sent Saturday night, Johnson says, “Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.”

...What we don’t know

...The names or job descriptions of the Starbucks employees who called the police to begin with, although attorney Wimmer told PMN she believes a manager was involved....

It may not even have been the manager who did anythig, as many have assumed, though of course she would be responsible for those under her.

[Chris]

It would be disingenuous to say that the race of the men arrested played little to no role in this. I'm in no way a racialist, but it seems clear to me that race was an issue here.

That would need to be shown and not assumed.

Apparently, other customers complained why black who were waiting without ordering were asked to leave when whites weren't. But the facts is, as just cited: "Starbucks employees mentioned the company policy that bathroom use required a purchase, and asked the men to leave." It may not even have been the manager, but then which employee?

[roadmaster]

[Tahuyaman]

That would need to be shown and not assumed.

Apparently, other customers complained why black who were waiting without ordering were asked to leave when whites weren't. But the facts is, as just cited: "Starbucks employees mentioned the company policy that bathroom use required a purchase, and asked the men to leave." It may not even have been the manager, but then which employee?

I think it's a reasonable assumption.

[Dr. Who]

If the manager did not call the police, she could have said to the police that there was no need for their presence and if any call was made it was made erroneously (profuse apologies for the inconvenience). That did not happen.

What is known is that the men were meeting someone there, not just trying to use the bathroom without a purchase and that someone profiled them as noncustomers for some reason.

[roadmaster]

If the manager did not call the police, she could have said to the police that there was no need for their presence and if any call was made it was made erroneously (profuse apologies for the inconvenience). That did not happen.

What is known is that the men were meeting someone there, not just trying to use the bathroom without a purchase and that someone profiled them as noncustomers for some reason.

I have done this many times in the past. Waiting for one of my kids or my husband to arrive. I didn't order anything and if I had to use the bathroom no one said I couldn't. If they had I would have probably acted the same way they did. They should never assume that I am lying. Not at starbucks, I don't go there. So if they didn't do anything to bring attention to them, you don't know what the manager told the police, they should have been left alone unless they had done this before and not bought anything. But when the police arrived they should have left the place and explained outside what was going on.

[Dr. Who]

I have done this many times in the past. Waiting for one of my kids or my husband to arrive. I didn't order anything and if I had to use the bathroom no one said I couldn't. If they had I would have probably acted the same way they did. They should never assume that I am lying. Not at starbucks, I don't go there. So if they didn't do anything to bring attention to them, you don't know what the manager told the police, they should have been left alone unless they had done this before and not bought anything. But when the police arrived they should have left the place and explained outside what was going on.

I can't say what they may or may not have said to the police or if the police just approached them and arrested them. Perhaps further details will emerge. However, I imagine that if this is something that has happened to you more than once, your goodwill and patience begins to wear rather thin.