Racial Profiling In Philadelphia?

[True blue (and gold)]

I mean I read through the entire thread before I posted there were a few posts questioning the police.

I've read the entire thread, too, though it's been over a couple of days. I don't remember anyone blaming the police. I know some asked question. Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. It seems to me that most are questioning Starbucks and/or the employee(s).

[dognation2]

When I first saw this story my first reaction was this looks like a case where two men are not given the benefit of the doubt because they are African-American. There may be white people in a Starbucks who have been treated similarly. This policy is impossible to enforce consistently because the employee has priorities and their's is to sell product not walk around the tables to police who is purchasing and who is not. So there is bound to be a thousand inconsistencies among stores across the country, within the same store, and even with the same employee. I have worked retail and sometimes you don't have the energy or time to deal with a small infraction of the rules. Sometimes you let it slide. Sometimes you don't. It may have to do with your mood that day.

 

So, I look at it and my first reaction is these guys were black and didn't get the benefit of the doubt. The police did nothing wrong. The Starbucks policy is not wrong. The issue is with the employee. I cannot label that person a racist but it appears to me that race played a part. You can argue with me and I can't produce evidence that would counteract your arguments to your satisfaction. Without having the knowledge of those closer to the situation, I just think it smells bad.

@UKMustangFan has some good rational arguments as to how this could be a case without any racial intent but merely as the enforcement of store policy, a policy that has its practical value. His arguments began to sway my opinion, but not entirely.

 

For those of you looking for near perfect enforcement of the policy on all people at all times and if it is not this becomes a clear example of racism, I don't think what you are looking for is possible. It is the kind of policy that will be enforced more rigorously based on circumstances in the store, the neighborhood, and the whims of the employee at the time. Employees are only human. They also may have their own biases. And I don't think it is a policy that is meant to be enforced at all times.

It just gives the store the opportunity to ask someone to leave if a person is taking up space when a paying customer needs it. So, it is hard to say all the factors that were in play here. But, again, I fear race played a factor. The amount of time provided to these men as they described it on GMA leads me to conclude this.

 

But I have come to the place where I don't think the specifics of this case matter in the big picture. It definitely matters in determining culpability in that specific case for those two men, and that one employee, and justice for all of those directly involved. But for the larger issue of race relations in our country, the specifics matter less. Because the real problem is that our country has a trust problem regarding race.

@PurplePride92 helped me to understand something I didn't quite get when we were discussing the white guy in Louisville who did NOT get shot by the police and why he did not. I was citing studies that show the police are more likely to shoot a white man than a black man in similar situations and that more unarmed white men are shot than unarmed black men. PP92 was not impressed by the studies being cited. I thought he was being irrational. But then he said that no matter what the studies show, they are based on how the incident is reported in the first place. PP92 said that he and other African-Americans do not trust the way individual incidents are reported because he said many officers will say whatever they have to say in order to avoid scrutiny or consequences for their actions. Therefore, any study could be tainted because it is only as good as the veracity of the original report and he didn't have much faith in that. Those are not his exact words, but as I thought about it, that is how I understood what he is saying.

 

It made me think about the history of our country and the engagement of African-Americans with our justice system throughout our history. A history that includes slavery, the Jim Crow south, Bull Connor, racial segregation, the Civil Rights movement and opposition faced during that, and many individual acts and attitudes of racism experienced by a wide cross-section of people even up to today, including police action. With this as background and context, I concluded that PP92 and @TheDeuce do have a rational basis in history and experience to call in question the validity of these studies and doubt whether some racial bias has tainted the study or the report of an incident. I want to believe those things were isolated to our past, isolated incidents in a region, and are NOT the way things are now. I still believe the studies I cited are valid. But I can now see how a rational human being, whose family has come through a history of racism in our country, can rationally question the validity of the data used in the studies I so easily trust. I think more studies of this nature need to be done with a prescribed process of how to obtain honest data.

 

But I think the real issue has to do with trust. The African-American community does not trust that they will receive consistent justice when situations arise, like at Starbucks, or in policing, or in hiring, or in you name the issue.

 

The way to repair trust is to do the right thing over a long period of time. If it can be shown that our culture has changed regarding racial bias, perhaps the culture of expectation in the African-American community will also change, resulting in a change in the way the races interact with each other in our country.

 

This is where each individual situation is important. And the facts surrounding each case is significant and need to be made known. Because, if the way African-Americans are treated does become consistently just and when they are not treated justly the culpable party is held accountable with consequences so that change occurs, trust may be established and we will all be far better off.

 

Wow...thank you

[theguru]

Is anyone faulting the police in this instance?

 

After finally breaking down and reading an article on it, yes, it appears the Philly Police Commissioner is selling his officers out:

 

while the city’s police commissioner said that the arresting officers “did absolutely nothing wrong.” (The commissioner, who is African American, subsequently apologized, saying, “I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn’t do anything wrong.”)

 

How a Philadelphia Starbucks became a racial flashpoint, according to cartoons - The Washington Post

[theguru]

After reading another article I think the Philly Police Commissioner should be terminated, here is a quote from another article contributed to him:

 

"He also said the police department did not have a policy for dealing for such situations but does now and it will be released soon."

 

2 black men arrested at Starbucks get an apology from police - The Washington Post

 

So let me get this straight, the Philly Police Department doesn't have a policy for dealing with subjects refusing to leave a business?

 

This is Policing 101 stuff, what a joke Commissioner Ross!

[Randy Parker]

After finally breaking down and reading an article on it, yes, it appears the Philly Police Commissioner is selling his officers out:

 

while the city’s police commissioner said that the arresting officers “did absolutely nothing wrong.” (The commissioner, who is African American, subsequently apologized, saying, “I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn’t do anything wrong.”)

 

How a Philadelphia Starbucks became a racial flashpoint, according to cartoons - The Washington Post

 

After reading another article I think the Philly Police Commissioner should be terminated, here is a quote from another article contributed to him:

 

"He also said the police department did not have a policy for dealing for such situations but does now and it will be released soon."

 

2 black men arrested at Starbucks get an apology from police - The Washington Post

 

So let me get this straight, the Philly Police Department doesn't have a policy for dealing with subjects refusing to leave a business?

 

This is Policing 101 stuff, what a joke Commissioner Ross!

 

Initial reports indicated to me that the commish was very supportive of his officers, which he should have been. If the officers acted within the scope of the law, then they didn't do anything wrong.

[theguru]

Initial reports indicated to me that the commish was very supportive of his officers, which he should have been. If the officers acted within the scope of the law, then they didn't do anything wrong.

 

Better read those quotes again... the Commish is implying the officers may have done something wrong by him saying:

 

“I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn’t do anything wrong.”

[Randy Parker]

Better read those quotes again... the Commish is implying the officers may have done something wrong by him saying:

 

“I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn’t do anything wrong.”

 

Oh, I agree. I think he's contradicting himself by backing off what he originally said.

[theguru]

Oh, I agree. I think he's contradicting himself by backing off what he originally said.

 

Exactly!

 

What a shame...

[True blue (and gold)]

After finally breaking down and reading an article on it, yes, it appears the Philly Police Commissioner is selling his officers out:

 

while the city’s police commissioner said that the arresting officers “did absolutely nothing wrong.” (The commissioner, who is African American, subsequently apologized, saying, “I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn’t do anything wrong.”)

 

How a Philadelphia Starbucks became a racial flashpoint, according to cartoons - The Washington Post

I was referring to posters here, but that is not a good look for the commissioner.

[PurplePride92]

FWIW, I’ve gone to many different restaurants many times and haven’t ordered a thing while waiting for someone to show up before ordering anything. I’ve never known that to be against the law.

 

 

Also, not sure if it has been mentioned or not but didn’t the store manager get fired?

[theguru]

FWIW, I’ve gone to many different restaurants many times and haven’t ordered a thing while waiting for someone to show up before ordering anything. I’ve never known that to be against the law.

 

It is not against the law. What you are describing is a civil process between Starbucks and its customers.

 

However, if a Manager (the authority over the space) wants someone to leave and that someone refuses to leave then it is against the law.

[theguru]

Also, not sure if it has been mentioned or not but didn’t the store manager get fired?

 

Did the store manager follow the policy? If so, what would be the grounds for dismissal? If not, nuke em.

[PurplePride92]

Did the store manager follow the policy? If so, what would be the grounds for dismissal? If not, nuke em.

 

I’m guessing racism.

[theguru]

I’m guessing racism.

 

I hear what you are saying but again if the Manager followed the Starbucks Policy then it makes the claim of racism extremely difficult to prove.

[PurplePride92]

It is not against the law. What you are describing is a civil process between Starbucks and its customers.

 

However, if a Manager (the authority over the space) wants someone to leave and that someone refuses to leave then it is against the law.

 

That’s fine. I just find it incredibly odd that two men were in a public restaurant waiting on someone and were told to leave for whatever reason.