If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

hen white people threaten to call the police on black people—out of anger, out of spite, out of pure vindictiveness—they are effectively saying, “I’ll kill you!” They’re just using a legal extension of white supremacy to do it. It’s high time we start considering these bigots just as much a threat as the police they summon to do their bidding.

hello fellas

https://www.theroot.com/from-starbu...hy-w-1825284087/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Dak]

There are alternative stories on that Starbucks situation.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

hello fellas

https://www.theroot.com/from-starbu...hy-w-1825284087/amp?__twitter_impression=true

At face value I don't see anything wrong with that article. Calling the cops over a non-crime observed in person is only a hair better than SWATing somebody online, and calling the cops over a falsely-perceived crime (e.g. the black guy that took a BB rifle out of a box in a Walmart) out of fear and ignorance of the law is only a bit better than that. If you're not sure whether a person is doing something bad or not, either confront them or ignore them, don't be a busybody and call the cops at any moment possible.

EDIT: Actually, I'd go further. I'd say that intentionally dialing a false police report which leads to the death of the falsely accused should be grounds for death. Using the police as your gun is both murder and an attack on society, and worse than just shooting somebody yourself. This should apply to false rape/abuse accusers and perjurers in criminal cases as well.

 

[Dak]

Maybe the guy needs to take note that white women have some deep-seated issues that really aren't racially limited. I've seen quite a few women wield the state because they can fucking get away with it. No morals.

In the Starbucks case, the men were asked to leave private property and didn't by employees. Then refused when the cops asked them to leave. I've been asked to leave places that I haven't bought anything at, and I've bought something to use a bathroom. I guess I should have staged a protest instead.

 

[Dak]

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...gun-use-difficult-statistics-rare-events.html

The bottom line is that it’s good to know that the original Kleck and Gertz survey replicated–approximately 1% of adult Americans did report a defensive gun use in the 1990s–but the real issue is the interpretation of the survey and for that a replication doesn’t help.

 

[Dak]

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarc...ading_notes_civilization_capitalism_15th18th/

Interesting review.

 

[rms]

There are alternative stories on that Starbucks situation.

haven't really seen any of this, last I saw the dudes walked in at like 40 after and 911 call at like 45

 

[Einherjar86]

There aren't alternative stories. There's one story:

Two black guys entered a Starbucks and one asked to use the bathroom. The manager said the bathroom is for paying customers only, so the two guys went and sat down to wait for someone else they were meeting (i.e. didn't try and use the bathroom). The manager then called the police because the two black guys didn't buy anything, despite the fact that white people go into Starbucks without buying stuff all the time. She didn't ask them to leave, as far as I know. She simply saw they didn't buy anything and called the police.

It was a stupid situation caused by a stupid manager.

 

[Onder]

There aren't alternative stories. There's one story:

Two black guys entered a Starbucks and one asked to use the bathroom. The manager said the bathroom is for paying customers only, so the two guys went and sat down to wait for someone else they were meeting (i.e. didn't try and use the bathroom). The manager then called the police because the two black guys didn't buy anything, despite the fact that white people go into Starbucks without buying stuff all the time. She didn't ask them to leave, as far as I know. She simply saw they didn't buy anything and called the police.

It was a stupid situation caused by a stupid manager.

Is this like the biggest news story overseas now?

 

[Dak]

There aren't alternative stories. There's one story:

Two black guys entered a Starbucks and one asked to use the bathroom. The manager said the bathroom is for paying customers only, so the two guys went and sat down to wait for someone else they were meeting (i.e. didn't try and use the bathroom). The manager then called the police because the two black guys didn't buy anything, despite the fact that white people go into Starbucks without buying stuff all the time. She didn't ask them to leave, as far as I know. She simply saw they didn't buy anything and called the police.

It was a stupid situation caused by a stupid manager.

Whether or not it was a good policy or one that was enforced equitably, the manager followed the policy of the store.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...911-no-longer-with-the-company-chairman-says/

When asked what the company’s policy is about making purchases, a Starbucks spokesperson said: “In this particular store, the guidelines were that partners must ask unpaying customers to leave the store, and police were to be called if they refused.”

“In this situation,” the spokesperson said, “the police should never have been called. And we know we have to review the practices and guidelines to help ensure it never happens again.”

"In this situation" = someone played the race card.

The men in question refused to leave when asked by both the employees and the police.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/us/philadelphia-police-starbucks-arrests/index.html

The employees told officers the two men wanted to use the restroom but were told the facilities are only for paying customers. The Starbucks employees then asked the men to leave, but they refused, Ross said.

Officers responded and asked the men three times "politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing." When the men again refused to leave, they were arrested "without incident," Ross said.

You know what I do when I'm told the policy is to buy something? I buy it. Hell, I don't even have to be asked. I buy a drink or something. I've been asked to buy something or leave at an independent coffee shop despite all my white privilege and the fact that other people in my group were ordering. Bad business practice (the place did eventually go out of business) but not necessarily a racial issue. But certainly if the police ask that I leave a place I comply. This kerfluffle isn't as bad as the defense of Michael Brown but it's in that direction.

Conversely, anecdotally I know of a black guy who works as a conatruction contractor for home renovations, who has had the cops called on him when he has shown up early for job appointments. Now there is bias and the guy is trying to work, not a violent criminal or a couple of recalcitrant mooches.

 

[rms]

"In this situation" = someone played the race card.

for you to be this sure, you have to put a lot of faith in the manager always calling out everyone else who hangs out and doesn't buy anything, which doesnt seem like the thing that happens in big coffee shops

 

[Dak]

for you to be this sure, you have to put a lot of faith in the manager always calling out everyone else who hangs out and doesn't buy anything, which doesnt seem like the thing that happens in big coffee shops

There's a difference between walking around asking people if they have bought anything, and knowing that two people specifically declined after being informed of the rules - rules they indirectly solicited - yet wouldn't leave - even after the police showed up. The manager might be a bigot, we don't know. We don't know of the times before where people either A. Bought something or B. Left or C. Didn't go in with no intent to buy. We have this one instance of policy enforcement and recalcitrance the media, Starbucks, and whoever else want to fall on a sword over.

 

[rms]

But do you really think that manager is consistent with that policy? I have doubts, especially without race involved

 

[Dak]

But do you really think that manager is consistent with that policy? I have doubts, especially without race involved

It's certainly possible, maybe even likely. That doesn't make her, or the situation, or the men all that special. The guy who shot Michael Brown was probably racist.

 

[rms]

But if she's not consistent it begs the question why in this case was she? Which is kind of the point of the out cry

 

[Dak]

But if she's not consistent it begs the question why in this case was she? Which is kind of the point of the out cry

How do we know she isn't consistent? How many non-blacks have asked to use the bathroom, been informed of the policy, said "no thanks", and then sat back down at a table? Then been asked to leave at the penalty of having the cops called, and still stayed? This is a classic example of requirement to prove a negative. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[rms]

I think it's more likely she's inconsistent than the alternative, and surprised you think that's more of a stretch than believing she's some pillar of Starbucks ethics.

This is the only "interesting" aspect to this outside of no one asking why these dudes didn't leave once the Cops asked

 

[Einherjar86]

If that manager paid the minimal amount of attention necessary to manage a Starbucks, she would know that people sit down all the time without buying anything. What's to keep her from approaching said people and informing them of the store's policy?

These guys weren't mooching. They weren't doing anything. They were asked to leave, yes; but if racial bias had no role in this scenario, then they shouldn't have been. Furthermore, they say they were meeting a third person there to discuss something to do with real estate. It sounds as though it may have been a business meeting, or a meeting about potential living arrangements. I wouldn't want to be forced to leave either in that situation (and I wouldn't have been, of course). People often meet at coffee houses for interviews and other business matters without buying anything. I'm not seeing how this situation was any different.

 

[Dak]

If that manager paid the minimal amount of attention necessary to manage a Starbucks, she would know that people sit down all the time without buying anything. What's to keep her from approaching said people and informing them of the store's policy?

How do we know she hadn't? Because ostensibly the police hadn't been called before? Maybe when asked previously people either paid or left. That's what I would do. Not sit there like an entitled child.

Edit: Of course it's certainly possible the woman was racially biased in enforcing the policy. Not in asking the black men to pay or leave, but in not asking customers of other races to pay or leave.

These guys weren't mooching. They weren't doing anything. They were asked to leave, yes; but if racial bias had no role in this scenario, then they shouldn't have been. Furthermore, they say they were meeting a third person there to discuss something to do with real estate. It sounds as though it may have been a business meeting, or a meeting about potential living arrangements. I wouldn't want to be forced to leave either in that situation (and I wouldn't have been, of course). People often meet at coffee houses for interviews and other business matters without buying anything. I'm not seeing how this situation was any different.

Sure, many people in the US often act like entitled children. Using a commercial establishment's facilities without some patronage is mooching. I know it's Starbucks, but a cup of coffee really isn't that expensive for a one time meeting.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Is it established now that she warned them that she'd call the police if they didn't leave, after having already asked them to buy something? I thought the drama was that the dudes showed up, she asked them to buy something or leave, they said "We'll be meeting someone in a few minutes", and she walked off and immediately called the police without informing them. If she did warn them then yeah they have no excuse.