Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Posted on Apr 17, 2018
Starbucks to close stores for an afternoon for bias training
1.89K
15
17
1
1
0
Starbucks, moving swiftly to confront a racially charged uproar over the arrest of two black men at one of its stores in Philadelphia, plans to close more than 8,000 U.S. stores for several hours next month to conduct racial-bias training for nearly 175,000 workers.
Starbucks to close stores for an afternoon for bias training
Posted from yahoo.com
Starbucks
Racism
Training
Philadelphia
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
What exactly does 'racial bias' training have to do with this situation? The men in question entered a commercial business, declined to purchase any of the products the business offers, and refused to leave when asked to do so by management and police. How does the color of their skin enter into the equation? Has someone determined that white people are allowed to hang out in this Starbucks while refusing to purchase anything?
I can see the problem if a clothing store has an employee follow a certain kind of people around as they browse the merchandise. I can see the issue with restaurants requiring some customers to prepay their checks before being served based upon skin color. There are a lot of examples we see that can be related to someone prejudging another person based upon their ethnicity or skin color. I just don't see it in this instance. I cannot go into my local McDonald's and camp out (for a meeting or any other purpose) while declining to buy anything and expect to be allowed to stay. That's not how this system works.
I can see the problem if a clothing store has an employee follow a certain kind of people around as they browse the merchandise. I can see the issue with restaurants requiring some customers to prepay their checks before being served based upon skin color. There are a lot of examples we see that can be related to someone prejudging another person based upon their ethnicity or skin color. I just don't see it in this instance. I cannot go into my local McDonald's and camp out (for a meeting or any other purpose) while declining to buy anything and expect to be allowed to stay. That's not how this system works.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The problem is that other patrons in that store, who are white, said they have sat there for an hour or more not purchasing anything and were never asked to leave. That homeless white people have sat in the store all day and never purchased anything and never asked to leave. So that's why racial bias training has come up.
Also company policy for Starbucks is to allow people to come in and not purchase anything.
Also company policy for Starbucks is to allow people to come in and not purchase anything.
(2)
(0)
SFC Stephen Atchley
SFC (Join to see) - Thanks for the information. All of this is stuff I have not seen reported anywhere.
I did see the lawyer for one (both) of the men saying that Starbucks has created a culture in their stores that encourages people to linger (loiter) in their stores for extended periods of time. I am not a Starbucks patron, so I do not know if that's true, or not. Personally, I would not hang out in an eating, or drinking, establishment without making a purchase.
I did see the lawyer for one (both) of the men saying that Starbucks has created a culture in their stores that encourages people to linger (loiter) in their stores for extended periods of time. I am not a Starbucks patron, so I do not know if that's true, or not. Personally, I would not hang out in an eating, or drinking, establishment without making a purchase.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Stephen Atchley - I don't go to Starbucks. I have no clue. I don't drink any type of coffee. I heard Scooters is better anyway.
If they offer people to sit and stay I would. Like Barnes and Noble - you don't have to buy anything to sit there and peruse books.
If they offer people to sit and stay I would. Like Barnes and Noble - you don't have to buy anything to sit there and peruse books.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This is my understanding of what happened. If Someone knows otherwise, please tell me so.
_The Starbucks in question has/had a customers only policy for using its restrooms.
_I do not know if there is some history of malicious mischief in the area that drove the Starbucks to make such a policy.
_Two men entered the Starbucks to use the restroom, but did not choose to buy anything.
_I do not know if there was any prior history between the Starbucks in question and either of these two men.
_The two men were denied the use of the restroom.
_I do not know if there is a local ordinance that requires certain types of businesses to make their restrooms open to the public.
_I do not know if the men were disruptive, but when it became obvious they were not going to make a purchase, they were asked to leave, but refused.
_Someone on the Starbucks payroll requested a police response.
_Police arrived and the two men still refused to leave.
_Police then charged the two men with trespassing and arrested them.
_The two men did not resist arrest.
_The two men are black.
Is there some detail I have incorrect? or relevant detail that should be added?
_The Starbucks in question has/had a customers only policy for using its restrooms.
_I do not know if there is some history of malicious mischief in the area that drove the Starbucks to make such a policy.
_Two men entered the Starbucks to use the restroom, but did not choose to buy anything.
_I do not know if there was any prior history between the Starbucks in question and either of these two men.
_The two men were denied the use of the restroom.
_I do not know if there is a local ordinance that requires certain types of businesses to make their restrooms open to the public.
_I do not know if the men were disruptive, but when it became obvious they were not going to make a purchase, they were asked to leave, but refused.
_Someone on the Starbucks payroll requested a police response.
_Police arrived and the two men still refused to leave.
_Police then charged the two men with trespassing and arrested them.
_The two men did not resist arrest.
_The two men are black.
Is there some detail I have incorrect? or relevant detail that should be added?
(2)
(0)
SFC Stephen Atchley
SFC (Join to see) - Thanks for filling me in. I hadn't seen that on any of the reports.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SFC Stephen Atchley - SFC (Join to see) I just found a NY Times article that says there is a video (Which I have not seen) of a man arriving, immediately prior to the two men being handcuffed. The NY Times states that the man told the police he was the man the two arrested gentlemen were there to meet.
The request to use the restroom appears to have dropped from the narrative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/starbucks-arrest-philadelphia.html
It goes on to state that the third man then suggested that the three of them would go somewhere else. The police declined and made the arrest.
So far there are some things I still do not know that I think are germane;
_It does not appear that the men were being disruptive, that is in their favor.
_I do not know if the Starbucks was busy, and the availability of seating for paying customers was becoming an issue, possibly not in their favor.
_I do not know the tenor of the initial conversation inquiring as to whether or not the two men intended to make a purchase. Could go against Starbucks, or could go against the two men.
I think that Starbucks was within its rights to ask the two gentlemen to make a purchase or leave. BUT that does not mean it was a smart decision. If seating for paying customers was in question, in my opinion "good call." If seating availability was not an issue "bad, REALLY BAD call."
Now let's talk about the police response.
If the two men's stated reason for being there appeared, and a peaceful resolution was at hand, I cannot fathom the necessity of making the arrest. Without any other pertinent facts (which there may or may not be), it appears to me that the arresting officers threw some gas on a spark that was about to go out on its own.
My assessment - nobody was right. Three wrongs make a national news story.
The request to use the restroom appears to have dropped from the narrative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/starbucks-arrest-philadelphia.html
It goes on to state that the third man then suggested that the three of them would go somewhere else. The police declined and made the arrest.
So far there are some things I still do not know that I think are germane;
_It does not appear that the men were being disruptive, that is in their favor.
_I do not know if the Starbucks was busy, and the availability of seating for paying customers was becoming an issue, possibly not in their favor.
_I do not know the tenor of the initial conversation inquiring as to whether or not the two men intended to make a purchase. Could go against Starbucks, or could go against the two men.
I think that Starbucks was within its rights to ask the two gentlemen to make a purchase or leave. BUT that does not mean it was a smart decision. If seating for paying customers was in question, in my opinion "good call." If seating availability was not an issue "bad, REALLY BAD call."
Now let's talk about the police response.
If the two men's stated reason for being there appeared, and a peaceful resolution was at hand, I cannot fathom the necessity of making the arrest. Without any other pertinent facts (which there may or may not be), it appears to me that the arresting officers threw some gas on a spark that was about to go out on its own.
My assessment - nobody was right. Three wrongs make a national news story.
Starbucks Arrests, Outrageous to Some, Are Everyday Life for Others
Statistics show that the area of Philadelphia where two black men were arrested in a cafe has the greatest racial disparity in the city when it comes to police pedestrian stops.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Ray Stone
SFC Stephen Atchley - Quit spreading misinformation. The white guy in the video explaining to the officers is they guy they were meeting
(0)
(0)
SFC Stephen Atchley
SSgt Ray Stone - I'm not 'spreading' anything. No news story I had seen identified that man as the one they were there to meet. The ABC story I saw identified that man as a patron who was present and wanted to know why the police were arresting the two men. They did not say he was the man they were there to meet. SFC Kelly Fuerhoff informed me that the man had been identified her and I thanked her for the information.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google