Where did you read that? Everything that I've read, including this article, says that they were meeting someone there. That person, Mr. Yaffe, showed up a few minutes after the arrest started.

 

I think the important aspect of this is, does this Starbucks allow people to use their place of business as a free meeting site?

 

Do they routinely allow individuals who don't purchase anything to use their property as a place of business? If so, that lends credibility to the profiling claims.

I don't really think there's a correlation between that and this. This has to do with Starbucks. That has to do with Philly PD.

 

One could argue the Starbucks employees are "following suit" after watching the Philly PD in action.

A part of me really agrees with you there.

 

In short, I think the Police Sarge being denied is proof that the "Bathroom Policy" is not applied equally by all Starbucks employees.

 

How does that prove that it's not applied equally? Seems to me, the policy is "no purchase, no restroom use" and is applied to everyone.

 

What am I missing?

Yeah, not sure what else the police were supposed to do.

 

Why couldnt the cop just say, "hey guys, I need to talk to you both outside for a second", then tell them the situation and go from there.

Why couldnt the cop just say, "hey guys, I need to talk to you both outside for a second", then tell them the situation and go from there.

 

I mean, maybe they could've done that, but do you really think they would've got up? I don't.

I think the important aspect of this is, does this Starbucks allow people to use their place of business as a free meeting site?

 

Do they routinely allow individuals who don't purchase anything to use their property as a place of business? If so, that lends credibility to the profiling claims.

 

People use Starbucks to have meetings, hold interviews, study, etc. And to date...I’ve never seen or heard of a white person being handcuffed in a Starbucks for not ordering anything.

How does that prove that it's not applied equally? Seems to me, the policy is "no purchase, no restroom use" and is applied to everyone.

 

What am I missing?

 

In my experience 99.98% of business owners want the Police around and rules that apply to the public don't necessarily apply to the Police.

Did the Chief say what the Sarge did after he was refused? I am wondering if he left without incident, bought something and tinkled, or he staged a sit in?

 

He didn't say.

 

Here is a link to the Police Commissioner's comments on this subject.

As Starbucks apologizes for treatment of black patrons, police go on the defensive and activists call for justice - CNN

 

The way he lays it out, the officers did everything correctly including calling a supervisor when the men first refused to leave.

I mean, maybe they could've done that, but do you really think they would've got up? I don't.

 

Well then the cop should have sat down beside them and explained what was going on and why.

Then Im sure the cop would have to tell them the consequences.

 

Arresting them should have been the absolute last resort.

Where did you read that? Everything that I've read, including this article, says that they were meeting someone there. That person, Mr. Yaffe, showed up a few minutes after the arrest started.

I got ya. Saying "protest" isn't the correct verbiage. They simply refused to leave (because they were waiting for someone). That came off as confusing. As I said, the latitude afforded to them was not the same as it would have been for others.

People use Starbucks to have meetings, hold interviews, study, etc. And to date...I’ve never seen or heard of a white person being handcuffed in a Starbucks for not ordering anything.

 

These guys weren't handcuffed for not ordering anything either. They were handcuffed because they were asked to leave private property by management and then again by law enforcement, and refused to do so.

 

Now if you want to take issue with management getting the police involved, I think that's fair. Probably would've been best and easier to just let it go. I'm not sure how anyone can take issue with what the police did upon arrival. They tried to get them to leave without incident. The guys refused. At that point, their hands are tied.

 

And what occurs at other Starbucks is irrelevant. What goes on at a Starbucks in Crestview Hills, KY and what is allowed in a Starbucks in downtown Philadelphia aren't necessarily going to be the same thing.

 

That's why the questions I posed earlier are important.

Why couldnt the cop just say, "hey guys, I need to talk to you both outside for a second", then tell them the situation and go from there.

 

In general terms, because if the Officer takes that approach she/he has possibly complicated the situation.

In my experience 99.98% of business owners want the Police around and rules that apply to the public don't necessarily apply to the Police.

 

So typically employees don't apply rules equally. At this specific location, it appears they do, regardless of who the person is.

After reading the article. Its absolutley the 2 guys fault.

 

Who shows up for business meetings in sweat pants?

What about the stat in the 2nd article that stated that 3% of the population in that area accounted for 2/3 of all police stops in that area for the first 6 months of last year?

 

What does that have to do with Starbucks calling to police on two men that were by their policy, trespassing?

Furthermore how would have had the police handle this situation?