Starbucks situation

[sickdsm]

At first glance it seems ridiculous.

Afterwards, not so much.

What am i missing here? I would never have the balls to not leave or buy an item if asked.

The videos i watched seemed hard to make out the sound clear. I'm more of a read it type of guy.

My take away details, correct me if I'm wrong.

Two black guys sat at a Starbucks without ordering. One asked to use the bathroom, they replied it was for paying customers only, then asked them to leave (Not sure if they asked him if he wanted to order first or not) He refused to leave. Cops were called and asked him to leave, they refused.


I would have either ordered a coffee or stated i was there for a meeting and was waiting for the other guy to order.


What is missing from this story?

[hater]

The store should have let them alone and they would have eventually left

Terrible management and decision making

They deserve what they are getting

[Spurtacular]

Were the black guys acting thuggish? Cos then, it's a clear case of racism. If not, it's probably still a clear case of racism.

[ElNono]

"We apologize to the two individuals and our customers and are disappointed this led to an arrest. We take these matters seriously and clearly have more work to do when it comes to how we handle incidents in our stores. We are reviewing our policies and will continue to engage with the community and the police department to try to ensure these types of situations never happen in any of our stores."

Later that night, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson issued another apology, saying the company is investigating and will make any necessary changes to their practices. He also says he hopes to meet the two men personally to offer a face-to-face apology.

[Reck]

The store should have let them alone and they would have eventually left

Terrible management and decision making

They deserve what they are getting

I wouldn't want you or anyone in my store if you're not buying.

It's not like Starbucks has a big selection of stuff you can buy. It's just coffee. It's not a mall.

I'm not read up on the story either but it seems like more overreaction from the masses. Everything has to be about racism with people these days. :lol

[boutons_deux]

When you're black, it's always about race in a racist society

[sickdsm]

I hate starbucks based on the fact its overpriced coffee and the whole small, medium, large issue. Wife likes her treat once ever great while so whatever. My casual opinion is they bend over backwards to try to be PC. Not sure how you offer free wifi but not bathrooms but whatever. Assume most people that come for the wifi aren't shitty people and buy a cup of coffee. Saw that the Philly mayor said that the apology from Starbucks CEO was not good enough. I find that humorous that a PC company gets taken to the cleaners by the masses for doing standard business.


But seriously, Can someone explain whats missing from my summary?

[DMC]

Starbucks is wrong.

However, when you're asked to leave a private business and you don't, you are illegally trespassing. It doesn't matter why you are asked to leave, because that's a civil matter. Trespassing is a criminal matter. If it was two white people no one would have thought anything about it. I've seen people asked to leave Starbucks countless times, usually homeless people hanging around begging for money or someone using the WiFi and not buying anything, and taking up seating areas in the process. I've seen several people asked at the same time for doing this. Never seen anyone refuse to leave. It's not uncommon around universities since kids just hang out there and displace paying customers. It's still wrong.

What color was the employee who called the police?

[sickdsm]

Starbucks is wrong.

However, when you're asked to leave a private business and you don't, you are illegally trespassing. It doesn't matter why you are asked to leave, because that's a civil matter. Trespassing is a criminal matter. If it was two white people no one would have thought anything about it. I've seen people asked to leave Starbucks countless times, usually homeless people hanging around begging for money or someone using the WiFi and not buying anything, and taking up seating areas in the process. I've seen several people asked at the same time for doing this. Never seen anyone refuse to leave. It's not uncommon around universities since kids just hang out there and displace paying customers. It's still wrong.

What color was the employee who called the police?


How do you think Starbucks is wrong? Youve stated that freeloaders taking up space is wrong but never explained how Starbucks is wrong. Asking skin color is mute. Assume for argument sake's that all parties (including cops and bystanders) were mixed race.

[Chris]

If the two guys were Caucasian or Hispanic this would be a non-story.

[Spurminator]

It's a story because of the perspective that if they were Caucasian or Hispanic they probably wouldn't have been asked to leave.

[Chris]

It's a story because of the perspective that if they were Caucasian or Hispanic they probably wouldn't have been asked to leave.

That's something a racist would say.

[Spurminator]

That's something a racist would say.

I don't know if it's right but I don't see how it's racist.

[sickdsm]

It's a story because of the perspective that if they were Caucasian or Hispanic they probably wouldn't have been asked to leave.

Can't argue or agree with that because I don't personally have anyone in my circle shitty enough of a person to ignore common store policy and i haven't seen any stats on that.

[Spurminator]

Can't argue or agree with that because I don't personally have anyone in my circle shitty enough of a person to ignore common store policy and i haven't seen any stats on that.

You don't have anyone in your circle who has waited somewhere for their whole party to arrive before ordering?

[sickdsm]

You don't have anyone in your circle who has waited somewhere for their whole party to arrive before ordering?

I have stated twice asking if i'm missing something and you've replied 3 times. Did they ask them if they wanted to order? Not sure if your retarded or just don't bother to read.

My take away details, correct me if I'm wrong.

Two black guys sat at a Starbucks without ordering. One asked to use the bathroom, they replied it was for paying customers only, then asked them to leave (Not sure if they asked him if he wanted to order first or not) He refused to leave. Cops were called and asked him to leave, they refused.


I would have either ordered a coffee or stated i was there for a meeting and was waiting for the other guy to order.


What is missing from this story?

[Spurtacular]

Starbucks is wrong.

However, when you're asked to leave a private business and you don't, you are illegally trespassing.

Then, they're not wrong.

[Spurtacular]

When you're black, it's always about race in a racist society

:lol I think you're mocking your own p.o.v.

[Spurtacular]

"We apologize to the two individuals and our customers and are disappointed this led to an arrest. We take these matters seriously and clearly have more work to do when it comes to how we handle incidents in our stores. We are reviewing our policies and will continue to engage with the community and the police department to try to ensure these types of situations never happen in any of our stores."

Later that night, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson issued another apology, saying the company is investigating and will make any necessary changes to their practices. He also says he hopes to meet the two men personally to offer a face-to-face apology.

Would Starbucks be issuing this apology if they weren't black? Cos my take then is that you're allowed to stay in the store as long as you want, and there is nothing them or the po-po can do about it?

No? SMDH Corporate sycophants.

[Spurminator]

I have stated twice asking if i'm missing something and you've replied 4 times. Did they ask them if they wanted to order? Not sure if your retarded or just don't bother to read.

Actually, I just didn't bother to reply to your OP. I chose to instead reply to the latest post in the thread at the time, then you replied to that post, at which point I responded to your reply. It is fairly common message board practice to join a conversation in a thread without first registering one's opinion on the original post.

ANYHOO... Sounds like the manager said they need to order something or leave, so I wouldn't say they were "asked."

[sickdsm]

Actually, I just didn't bother to reply to your OP. I chose to instead reply to the latest post in the thread at the time, then you replied to that post, at which point I responded to your reply. It is fairly common message board practice to join a conversation in a thread without first registering one's opinion on the original post.

ANYHOO... Sounds like the manager said they need to order something or leave, so I wouldn't say they were "asked."

Translation: You didn't read the thread. You replied based on what you already assumed it was. You cherry picked the replies. Then you are arguing on semantics. Are you 12?

[sickdsm]

Nevermind. You used the word ANYHOO. You are probably 12.

[Spurminator]

Translation: You didn't read the thread. You replied based on what you already assumed it was. You cherry picked the replies. Then you are arguing on semantics. Are you 12?

I read the thread. I chose not to reply to your OP, as has happened thousands of times on this forum.

Your feelings seem hurt by this. I'm sorry for offending you.

[sickdsm]

I read the thread. I chose not to reply to your OP, as has happened thousands of times on this forum.

Your feelings seem hurt by this. I'm sorry for offending you.

Instinct to apologize without merit is a sign of weakness, or a young age.

[Spurminator]

Also, the difference between asking someone if they want to order and telling customers to leave because they haven't ordered is more than a semantic difference.

[Spurminator]

Instinct to apologize without merit is a sign of weakness, or a young age.

You can't seem to decide if you care what I have to say or if what I have to say can be disregarded because I'm young/retarded.

Make up your mind, my 12 year old brain can't keep up.

[sickdsm]

Also, the difference between asking someone if they want to order and telling customers to leave because they haven't ordered is more than a semantic difference.

No its not, the response would be "Bathrooms are for paying customers only, We do have a small carmal mocha for only $3.29 or there is a a gas station down the block...


That's asking you to decide to order or leave. How you respond decides the next move. You refuse to give me more details that you either know or are assuming. YOu don't sound like someone that's experienced either working at a place like that or have thought about it from the other side.

How old are you and what is your occupation?

[Spurminator]

No its not, the response would be "Bathrooms are for paying customers only, We do have a small carmal mocha for only $3.29 or there is a a gas station down the block...

That's asking you to decide to order or leave. How you respond decides the next move. You refuse to give me more details that you either know or are assuming.

:lol You think I'm hiding details? Do you live in a country that blocks internet access to certain sites? I have as much access to information on this incident as as you do. You seem a lot more interested, so you probably have more info than me.


YOu don't sound like someone that's experienced either working at a place like that or have thought about it from the other side.

It's kind of weird that you think you know better than the Starbucks CEO about how this should've been handled.

My approach would have been to ask the customers if they intended to order. I would not have assumed they were just sitting there with no intent to order. But, you're right, I've never worked at a Starbucks.


How old are you and what is your occupation?

:wtf :lol

[DMC]

Then, they're not wrong.

Wrong for asking him to leave. Starbucks didn't arrest him.

[DMC]

How do you think Starbucks is wrong? Youve stated that freeloaders taking up space is wrong but never explained how Starbucks is wrong. Asking skin color is mute. Assume for argument sake's that all parties (including cops and bystanders) were mixed race.

Starbucks shouldn't have asked them to leave nor call the cops. If it takes a cup of coffee to avoid the issue, give them a cup of coffee. It's not rocket science. Skin color isn't a moot point in the conversation. When racism is cited, it usually quells that claim if the offender was of the same race.

I don't need to assume anything. It's not a hypothetical.

[boutons_deux]

If they had been white ...

Any blacks on that sbux staff?

[Spurtacular]

Wrong for asking him to leave. Starbucks didn't arrest him.

I take it you're speaking from a corporate perspective and not a legal one.

[DMC]

I take it you're speaking from a corporate perspective and not a legal one.

Right and legal aren't always aligned but I was speaking from a PR angle.

[sickdsm]

:lol You think I'm hiding details? Do you live in a country that blocks internet access to certain sites? I have as much access to information on this incident as as you do. You seem a lot more interested, so you probably have more info than me.



It's kind of weird that you think you know better than the Starbucks CEO about how this should've been handled.

My approach would have been to ask the customers if they intended to order. I would not have assumed they were just sitting there with no intent to order. But, you're right, I've never worked at a Starbucks.



:wtf :lol


I stated my summary and mentioned a couple times, correct me if i missed any details. I didn't do a thesis on this and i'm casually having a conversation. I don't have the details beyond what i stated and i'm not wasting time researching. Like i said, am I missing anything? Don't pretend certain things happened without clarifying that they did indeed happen. I'm not more interested, i just refuse to say blatant racism giving the details.


LOL at pretending i'm acting more knowledgeable than the CEO. I'm not running a PR campaign for Starbucks.

[Aztecfan03]

Starbucks shouldn't have asked them to leave nor call the cops. If it takes a cup of coffee to avoid the issue, give them a cup of coffee. It's not rocket science. Skin color isn't a moot point in the conversation. When racism is cited, it usually quells that claim if the offender was of the same race.

I don't need to assume anything. It's not a hypothetical.

The issue is they weren't paying customers. Giving them free shit doesn't change that.

[sickdsm]

Starbucks shouldn't have asked them to leave nor call the cops. If it takes a cup of coffee to avoid the issue, give them a cup of coffee. It's not rocket science. Skin color isn't a moot point in the conversation. When racism is cited, it usually quells that claim if the offender was of the same race.

I don't need to assume anything. It's not a hypothetical.

I'm getting a free fucking coffee every time if they do that. So are a lot of people.


Rumor is that Chickfila will give you your order for free if you say you forgot your wallet, after you order of course. Its being posted on the internet, I imagine it happened one time.

[DMC]

I'm getting a free fucking coffee every time if they do that. So are a lot of people.


Rumor is that Chickfila will give you your order for free if you say you forgot your wallet, after you order of course. Its being posted on the internet, I imagine it happened one time.

So you're willing to drive to Starbucks and loiter for a cup of coffee? Jesus fuck, it's only a couple dollars.

[hater]

Im sure this hapoens a lot in the thousands of starsucks stores(ppl loitering)

Hell it happens in the starsucks across my street.

The one time that retarded manager decided to take action it made global news and backlash.

You do the math.

[boutons_deux]

anybody ever heard of Starbucks calling 911, so white people were arrested and locked up for 8 hours for hanging out at Starbucks?

[sickdsm]

anybody ever heard of Starbucks calling 911, so white people were arrested and locked up for 8 hours for hanging out at Starbucks?

I've never heard of anyone refusing to leave or buy a cup of coffee tbh........

[sickdsm]

So you're willing to drive to Starbucks and loiter for a cup of coffee? Jesus fuck, it's only a couple dollars.

Not sure why this wasn't directed at those that didn't buy a cup of coffee............

Double standards based on race?

[hater]

I've never heard of anyone refusing to leave or buy a cup of coffee tbh........

Thats pretty naive then

Of the millions and millions of Starsucks visitors you think the words “no thanks” have not been ever uttered after “would you like to order?” Question?

[boutons_deux]

I've never heard of anyone refusing to leave or buy a cup of coffee tbh........

Nor me, because probably WHITE sbux managers very probably wouldn't call 911/police on them, even if they did refuse to buy or leave. I also doubt if an sbux manage would even ask white guys to buy or leave.

In my local sbux, there was anomalous white guy who would sleep in comfy leather armchairs, feet on the Ottoman.

One reason he was anomalous was that he didn't look like a homeless guy, esp not in a 78209 sbux. Eventually, after several days, he was asked to leave a couple times, and IIRC, a cop did show up, but somehow it didn't make national news.

I don't know if he was arrested and held for 8 hours

One of the Philly victims asked to use the restroom? Doesn't sound very gangsta, does it.

Seems like the sbux people should have known these blacks were not up to no good, but they were black, so racist assumptions were in play.

Did the news say how long they were waiting for their friend before 911 was called? 20 mins? an hour?

Again, if they had been white ...

[Blake]

Starbucks shouldn't have asked them to leave nor call the cops. If it takes a cup of coffee to avoid the issue, give them a cup of coffee. It's not rocket science. Skin color isn't a moot point in the conversation. When racism is cited, it usually quells that claim if the offender was of the same race.

I don't need to assume anything. It's not a hypothetical.

Or just let them use the public restroom

[Blake]

Im sure this hapoens a lot in the thousands of starsucks stores(ppl loitering)

Hell it happens in the starsucks across my street.

The one time that retarded manager decided to take action it made global news and backlash.

You do the math.

Starbucks is set up to loiter.

[boutons_deux]

Starbucks is set up to loiter.

Sbux even says their shops are "community centers", "community engaged"

[Aztecfan03]

Starbucks is set up to loiter.
For customers. It's a business, not a community center.

[dabom]

Buy a small cup of coffee and stop being a fucking drama queen. :lol

Buy something or GTFO. :lol

If the Starbucks is busy, even worse. :lol

How would the paying customer feel about having to wait on some fucks not ordering shit and taking up space. Then not shelling out 3 fucking bucks for a cup of coffee. :lol

[dabom]

You wanna chill and hang out, go the fuck outside. :lol

[dabom]

I understand where the CEO is coming from and trying to keep the black crowd from protesting. :lol

But I can't understand this fucking type of behavior. Maybe cause I'm fucking Texan and we don't do this dumb ass shit.

[dabom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvMc-K8XHY

[hater]

Starbucks is set up to loiter.

Yup. Just like the Apple stores, Panera, Walmart, etc

[djohn2oo8]

I've never heard of anyone refusing to leave or buy a cup of coffee tbh........

Plenty of people go to starbucks to hang out, study etc. Some people don't buy anything, or they wait until whomever they are meeting gets there.

[hater]

Yup

I am actually looking at the startsucks across my street right now and see a few vietnamese fools playig some kind of Maghong :lmao

No cup of coffee at their table :lmao

Someone call 911 :lol

[dabom]

Yup

I am actually looking at the startsucks across my street right now and see a few vietnamese fools playig some kind of Maghong :lmao

No cup of coffee at their table :lmao

Someone call 911 :lol

It's possible to finish a drink and relax for a couple minutes. :lol

[sickdsm]

Thats pretty naive then

Of the millions and millions of Starsucks visitors you think the words “no thanks” have not been ever uttered after “would you like to order?” Question?
I haven't read of any stories nor know anyone that has. I've heard of people leaving when confronted, escorted out my cops, ordering, or explaining they are waiting for a friend.

You somehow turned it into a Would you like to order.... situation.

Sounds more like would you like to order or you can leave.

9/10 here seem to be of the mind that private business should run a charity.

[sickdsm]

It's possible to finish a drink and relax for a couple minutes. :lol

Common in small town cafes to put a per hour charge for coffee. Old fuckers come there, order one cup of coffee then sit there all day gossiping, playing cards, reading newspapers, etc.

[sickdsm]

Yup. Just like the Apple stores, Panera, Walmart, etc
Then it sounds like that individual store fucked up. Why is the CEOs apology not accepted?

Are the bathrooms for paying customers only? I'm sure the barista doesn't give a shit. Your saying that's not a policy, that individual Starbucks made up that policy for that store?

[Blake]

Then it sounds like that individual store fucked up. Why is the CEOs apology not accepted?

Are the bathrooms for paying customers only? I'm sure the barista doesn't give a shit. Your saying that's not a policy, that individual Starbucks made up that policy for that store?

The issue here is going to ultimately be a discrimination lawsuit. Not a bathroom/loitering issue.

[hater]

Then it sounds like that individual store fucked up. Why is the CEOs apology not accepted?

Are the bathrooms for paying customers only? I'm sure the barista doesn't give a shit. Your saying that's not a policy, that individual Starbucks made up that policy for that store?

Its probably the russians tbqh

They would love to create a rift between americans and thir favorite coffee :lmao

[Chris]

985941025863725057

[hater]

Russian bots tbqh

[Nathan89]

985941025863725057

The country is unhinged tbh. People take every damn moment to protest. Everything in that video was idiotic. Stop begging for reparations. You are doing yourself and black people as a whole a disservice.

[dabom]

I understand where the CEO is coming from and trying to keep the black crowd from protesting. :lol

But I can't understand this fucking type of behavior. Maybe cause I'm fucking Texan and we don't do this dumb ass shit.

Guess they will protest either way. :lol

[Nathan89]

Or just let them use the public restroom

What public restroom?

[boutons_deux]

The country is unhinged tbh. People take every damn moment to protest. Everything in that video was a also idiotic. Stop begging for reparations. You are doing yourself and black people as a whole a disservice.

When you racists stop oppressing blacks, then I'll be against the blacks protesting oppression.

[Nathan89]

When you racists stop oppressing blacks, then I'll be against the blacks protesting oppression.

"you racists" :lol

Racism is not the major issue that your mainstream media propaganda would like you to believe tbh. On the issue of racism this country is better than ever but the people are starting to go absolutely batshit like never before. That's what happens in an era of trigger warnings, safe places, and positioning anyone who disagrees with you as a racist.

[Blake]

What public restroom?

The one in Starbucks

[Nathan89]

The one in Starbucks

That's for paying customers. It's not open for the public at large. It's not like a public library. Starbucks is allowed to control who can use their facilities. I've been to other restaurants that restrict their restroom use to customers as well.

[hater]

Yeah in big cities they do that and they should

Otherwise nigas would go there shoot up and pass da fuck out

I have no problem with mega businesses having locks on their bathrooms but calling 911 on ppl just for chilling there is dumb

[Blake]

That's for paying customers. It's not open for the public at large. It's not like a public library. Starbucks is allowed to control who can use their facilities. I've been to other restaurants that restrict their restroom use to customers as well.

Aside from your struggle with understanding what a "public restroom" means, again, the issue here is going to be discrimination.

[resistanze]

That's for paying customers. It's not open for the public at large. It's not like a public library. Starbucks is allowed to control who can use their facilities. I've been to other restaurants that restrict their restroom use to customers as well.

Just shut the fuck up. People every day go into Starbucks just to use WiFi or to read, or to wait for a full party to arrive before ordering. It' like fucking McDonald's. No manager with half a brain would accost a patron for asking to use the bathroom then escalate to calling the police over this.

You're making a dumb ass argument when the CEO of the company has already stated the exact opposite of what you said. The hate of anything darker than beige will do that.

[Chris]

Just shut the fuck up.

Typical Liberal response.

[spurraider21]

a) ive been to places where the restroom is for customers only. not a huge fan of that, but i understand it.

b) most starbucks locations i've been to dont have that rule, and even if they did, its not like they're hyper-vigilant with enforcing it.

c) if they were going to decide to put their feet down and enforce it, they'd be much more sympathetic figures if it was an incredibly busy hour, with no room for customers, and a backed up bathroom line. the videos ive seen don't seem to imply it was that sort of circumstasnce

d) if the employee tells you to pay to use the bathroom, and you are about to have a business meeting that's going to last some time anyway, just order a fuckin 2 dollar cup of coffee

e) not leaving a store when asked to leave... u fuckin serious? why?

f) asking them to leave just for trying to use the bathroom on what appears to not be a very busy time? kind of a dick move. calling the fuckin police because of people quietly sitting down? wholly unnecessary

[resistanze]

Typical Liberal response.

You would be entertaining if it wasn't so clear you have a mental illness.

[dabom]

Just shut the fuck up. People every day go into Starbucks just to use WiFi or to read, or to wait for a full party to arrive before ordering. It' like fucking McDonald's. No manager with half a brain would accost a patron for asking to use the bathroom then escalate to calling the police over this.

You're making a dumb ass argument when the CEO of the company has already stated the exact opposite of what you said. The hate of anything darker than beige will do that.

Almost like he is looking out for his bottom line. :lol

[Blake]

Typical Liberal response.

Typical Chris response

[Nathan89]

Aside from your struggle with understanding what a "public restroom" means, again, the issue here is going to be discrimination.

You seem to not understand that starbucks has the right to restrict access to their restrooms. So I asked which public restroom. You've responded with the one inside their establishment. That's the restroom they can control access to. Many restaurants do that.

[Spurminator]

a) ive been to places where the restroom is for customers only. not a huge fan of that, but i understand it.

b) most starbucks locations i've been to dont have that rule, and even if they did, its not like they're hyper-vigilant with enforcing it.

c) if they were going to decide to put their feet down and enforce it, they'd be much more sympathetic figures if it was an incredibly busy hour, with no room for customers, and a backed up bathroom line. the videos ive seen don't seem to imply it was that sort of circumstasnce

d) if the employee tells you to pay to use the bathroom, and you are about to have a business meeting that's going to last some time anyway, just order a fuckin 2 dollar cup of coffee

e) not leaving a store when asked to leave... u fuckin serious? why?

f) asking them to leave just for trying to use the bathroom on what appears to not be a very busy time? kind of a dick move. calling the fuckin police because of people quietly sitting down? wholly unnecessary

I agree with all of this. This is a situation that could have been avoided if either party had acted with a modicum of respect towards the other. It doesn't seem like the customers made any effort to explain the situation. But that doesn't require the police to be called.

I have been to Starbucks and other places where the bathroom is locked with a code on it; usually in urban/downtown areas.

[hater]

I hate starbucks coffee but go there to use wifi at least 1 a month. Noone has called the cops on me luckily :lol

[Nathan89]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DawjZ2tVwAEuFpv.jpg

:lol

Virtue signaling at it's finest folks. Perhaps you can argue that happened once at most. Being black in the Starbucks certainly doesn't equal being arrested.

[cantthinkofanything]

Why would the guy ask to use the bathroom?

He probably just could have gone to use it and no one would have said a thing.

Or was it locked or something?

[spurraider21]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DawjZ2tVwAEuFpv.jpg

:lol

Virtue signaling at it's finest folks. Perhaps you can argue that happened once at most. Being black in the Starbucks certainly doesn't equal being arrested.
where did you find that pic tbh?

[Nathan89]

Why would the guy ask to use the bathroom?

He probably just could have gone to use it and no one would have said a thing.

Or was it locked or something?

Some places do lock their restrooms. I've been to a McDonalds that has to hit a button for you to use the restroom.

[Blake]

You seem to not understand that starbucks has the right to restrict access to their restrooms. So I asked which public restroom. You've responded with the one inside their establishment. That's the restroom they can control access to. Many restaurants do that.

You ok with restricting access based on skin color?

[Blake]

Why would the guy ask to use the bathroom?

He probably just could have gone to use it and no one would have said a thing.

Or was it locked or something?

Yes locked

[phxspurfan]

Have seen this play out in a lot of other establishments in gas stations and urban areas, especially those with a high number of homeless. The bathrooms usually have a key lock or code to enter. Or they have a sign that says restroom is for paying customers only. I have never had an issue with buying something in a Starbucks bc I had to use the facilities. Not sure why it's being called a race thing just bc they're black. If they were orange red or green it would still be wrong to loiter without buying in a place like that imo

[Nathan89]

where did you find that pic tbh?

985201410840186881

[Blake]

Have seen this play out in a lot of other establishments in gas stations and urban areas, especially those with a high number of homeless. The bathrooms usually have a key lock or code to enter. Or they have a sign that says restroom is for paying customers only. I have never had an issue with buying something in a Starbucks bc I had to use the facilities. Not sure why it's being called a race thing just bc they're black. If they were orange red or green it would still be wrong to loiter without buying in a place like that imo

How many whites have ever been arrested for loitering in a Starbucks?

[Nathan89]

You ok with restricting access based on skin color?

When did that happen?

[Blake]

When did that happen?

Might have happened here. You okay with it if it did?

[spurraider21]

Have seen this play out in a lot of other establishments in gas stations and urban areas, especially those with a high number of homeless. The bathrooms usually have a key lock or code to enter. Or they have a sign that says restroom is for paying customers only. I have never had an issue with buying something in a Starbucks bc I had to use the facilities. Not sure why it's being called a race thing just bc they're black. If they were orange red or green it would still be wrong to loiter without buying in a place like that imo
agreed. the more pertinent question (imo) is if you think a couple of white dudes would have been equally likely to have the cops called on them

[spurraider21]

985201410840186881
do you follow Melissa DePino on twitter?

[Chris]

Might have happened here. You okay with it if it did?

:lmao

[DMC]

Or just let them use the public restroom

Most Starbucks don't lock the restroom. You just use it. I guess some areas have to do extreme shit to maintain any level of profitability.

[Blake]

:lmao

:lmao Chris

[DMC]

The issue is they weren't paying customers. Giving them free shit doesn't change that.

No one is a paying customer when they walk in. You only have so many silver bullets in your life. How you use them is up to you. Was this worth it for Starbucks?

[Blake]

Most Starbucks don't lock the restroom. You just use it. I guess some areas have to do extreme shit to maintain any level of profitability.

Plenty of urban fast food joints lock the restrooms. It's usually to discourage the undesirables from having sex or using the sink as a bathtub.

[Blake]

Or to use/buy drugs

[DMC]

Plenty of urban fast food joints lock the restrooms. It's usually to discourage the undesirables from having sex or using the sink as a bathtub.

Fuck I love Austin

[Chris]

nbyypNN6qng

[CosmicCowboy]

The Starbucks manager used bad judgement and was politically insensitive but well within his legal right to restrict use of the restroom to paying customers. The guys making a scene and forcing the cops to be called is on them. They even had an opportunity to leave peacefully after the cops got there. This isnt a Rodney King, snowflakes.

[Blake]

Lol "it's on them"

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol "it's on them"

When you are causing a scene and someone asks you to leave private property and you refuse? Yep. Its on you, snowflake.

[spurraider21]

cosmiccowboy's been keeping up with the local sinclair affiliate tbh


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6uKOS3S2E

[Chris]

"I was just being rebellion."

[Nathan89]

nbyypNN6qng

So they were politely asked to leave multiple times but stood their ground to become heroes for idiots. Well that explains why white people don't get arrested at Starbucks. White people know good and well that flocks of morons aren't going gather behind them with support.

[spurraider21]

"I was just being rebellion."
:lol

reminds me of this tbh

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width620/img/geek/photo/2016/01/04/screen-shot-2016-01-04-at-111300-ampng-7680af3f2358a323.png

[Chris]

So they were politely asked to leave multiple times but stood their ground to become heroes for idiots. Well that explains why white people don't get arrested at Starbucks. White people know good and well that flocks of morons aren't going gather behind them with support.

Once they saw the camera and the passionate SJW's they assumed the role. The world is a stage.

[Chris]

:lol

reminds me of this tbh

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width620/img/geek/photo/2016/01/04/screen-shot-2016-01-04-at-111300-ampng-7680af3f2358a323.png


Not even close :lol

[Nathan89]

cosmiccowboy's been keeping up with the local sinclair affiliate tbh


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu6uKOS3S2E

Did they create this context of the word snowflake? Was that video inaccurate? Or are you just posting a media piece that has a wide reach and thinking nullifies someone's perspective?

[spurraider21]

Did they create this context of the word snowflake? Was that video inaccurate? Or are you just posting a media piece that has a wide reach and thinking nullifies someone's perspective?
OHMYGOD STRAWMAN

is what certain people would say

nah, his use of the word snowflake in every post just reminded me of this clip tbh. no need to make a federal case out of it

[Blake]

When you are causing a scene and someone asks you to leave private property and you refuse? Yep. Its on you, snowflake.

Lol "causing a scene"

[dabom]

It is causing a scene. :lol

Asked to leave cause they ain't buying shit. Fucking bums.:lol

If someone tells me to buy something or GTFO I do one or the other. :lol

Common sense.

[phxspurfan]

Most Starbucks don't lock the restroom. You just use it. I guess some areas have to do extreme shit to maintain any level of profitability.

I don't know Starbucks' business model but they're probably just franchises. So that means there are nice owners and not-so-nice owners. The nice ones probably leave the bathroom unlocked. The not-so-nice owners or slumlord-ers probably bought in crap areas and have keypads. We've all been in both types of Starbucks. The nice and the shitty ones.

[phxspurfan]

If this happened in 1997 or whatever it would maybe have made the local news, on a slow news day. In 2018 it's cause for the CEO to publicly apologize. I'm pretty moderate (left on some issues right on others) but this is getting ridiculous. That being said I wasn't there. But that's probably the reason why an entire nation shouldn't judge (unless we have camera footage or someone got brutalized by the cops).

[Blake]

If this happened in 1997 or whatever it would maybe have made the local news, on a slow news day. In 2018 it's cause for the CEO to publicly apologize. I'm pretty moderate (left on some issues right on others) but this is getting ridiculous. That being said I wasn't there. But that's probably the reason why an entire nation shouldn't judge (unless we have camera footage or someone got brutalized by the cops).

Seems nobody is disputing the story being told. Even the manager that got fired.

[Blake]

It is causing a scene. :lol

Asked to leave cause they ain't buying shit. Fucking bums.:lol

If someone tells me to buy something or GTFO I do one or the other. :lol

Common sense.

Lol "It" is causing a scene.

[dabom]

Lol "It" is causing a scene.

If I had a restaurant and a group of people decided to sit down and I told them what they wanted, and they said they weren't buying anything, I'd kick their ass out. And if they didn't want to after that, I'd call the cops. :lol

[dabom]

Its common sense guys. :lol

That's how it's always been. Is that so fucking unreasonable? :lol

[DMC]

It is causing a scene. :lol

Asked to leave cause they ain't buying shit. Fucking bums.:lol

If someone tells me to buy something or GTFO I do one or the other. :lol

Common sense.
Buy something or get GTFO

[DMC]

If I had a restaurant and a group of people decided to sit down and I told them what they wanted, and they said they weren't buying anything, I'd kick their ass out. And if they didn't want to after that, I'd call the cops. :lol

Your primary language is seeping through

[Blake]

Buy something or get GTFO

Lol

[dabom]

Lol

Not saying anything. Is that all you do?

[dabom]

Loitering around is not allowed since forever. :lol

[DMC]

Loitering around is not allowed since forever. :lol

Yet here you are.

[Nathan89]

It's pretty likely that at some point a Starbucks employee has asked a white person to buy something or leave tbh. It's only those that have been fed a narrative that the world is against them that would dig down deep and choose neither option.

[Spurminator]

It's pretty likely that at some point a Starbucks employee has asked a white person to buy something or leave tbh. It's only those that have been fed a narrative that the world is against them that would dig down deep and choose neither option.

You honestly can't see a scenario where some spoiled blonde bitch does the exact same thing?

[DMC]

However:

:lol going to Starbucks and getting arrested.
:lol in jail "homie what you in for" "Was loitering at Starbucks"
:lol ass pounding commences

[dabom]

You honestly can't see a scenario where some spoiled blonde bitch does the exact same thing?

Does the blonde bitch stay and wait for the cops? And then disagree to leave. :lol

[Spurminator]

Does the blonde bitch stay and wait for the cops? And then disagree to leave. :lol

Blonde bitch probably doesn't get the cops called. But if so, you bet your ass she's going to complain that she did nothing wrong.

[dabom]

Blonde bitch probably doesn't get the cops called. But if so, you bet your ass she's going to complain that she did nothing wrong.

And the cops still kick her ass out for loitering. :lol

[dabom]

And the cops still kick her ass out for loitering. :lol

And if she disagree, she gets taken to jail. :lol

[Chris]

Spurminator trying to argue white privilege and getting shut down by simple logic. :lol

[Spurminator]

Spurminator trying to argue white privilege and getting shut down by simple logic. :lol

dabom seems to be having a separate discussion from the one I'm having, but you go ahead and keep being the retarded forum hype man if it makes you happy.

[boutons_deux]

That partricular Sbux zip code is 90% white

Philly is 40%+ black.

[Chris]

dabom seems to be having a separate discussion from the one I'm having, but you go ahead and keep being the retarded forum hype man if it makes you happy.

"Blonde bitch" :lol

[Spurminator]

"Blonde bitch" :lol

Some blondes are bitches. Some bitches are blonde.
#NotAllBlondes

[spurraider21]

Lol "It" is causing a scene.
Stop trying to find reasons to be offended. “It” refers to the course of action not the person

[AaronY]

It's pretty likely that at some point a Starbucks employee has asked a white person to buy something or leave tbh. It's only those that have been fed a narrative that the world is against them that would dig down deep and choose neither option.
The erstwhile Bernie Bro who currently regurgiates rightwing talking points without adding any original observations to them is talking about being fed narratives

lol!

[AaronY]

Oh, man I hate man when people are fed narratives!

anyway, let me reiterate everything Jordan Peterson just said and then parrot buzz words and phrases like "virtual signaling" and "identity politics"

[Blake]

Not saying anything. Is that all you do?

I've said plenty in this thread, Avante.

[Blake]

Stop trying to find reasons to be offended. “It” refers to the course of action not the person

I already know the reasons people were offended here. I also know "it" for him meant the black guys were the ones "causing the scene".

Thanks for trying to clarify my posts for me tho. :tu

[sickdsm]

You honestly can't see a scenario where some spoiled blonde bitch does the exact same thing?
ST has never seen a basic bitch. White girls will crawl 500 miles through barb wire trench's just to buy a Grande Carmel Maciato with non-fat milk for$12 You idiots think they're going in to squat on a disease infested toilet instead?

[sickdsm]

I've said plenty in this thread, Avante.
You don't speak with any substance. Your full of fluff and the liners.

[Blake]

You don't speak with any substance. Your full of fluff and the liners.


Nevermind. You used the word ANYHOO. You are probably 12.

[Blake]

There's really not much to this story but guys like you are trying so hard to find a way to side with the store manager for calling the cops on two guys doing what hundreds of people do daily at Starbucks.

[boutons_deux]

There's really not much to this story but guys like you are trying so hard to find a way to side with the store manager for calling the cops on two guys doing what hundreds of people do daily at Starbucks.

yep, just like the racist/xenophobes hiding their racism/xenophobia behind "they are ILLEGAL immigrants", STalkers hiding their racism behind "they were asked to leave"

[Nathan89]

yep, just like the racist/xenophobes hiding their racism/xenophobia behind "they are ILLEGAL immigrants", STalkers hiding their racism behind "they were asked to leave"

So basically you've convinced yourself that anyone that disagrees with you is a racist. How convenient.

[spurraider21]

I already know the reasons people were offended here. I also know "it" for him meant the black guys were the ones "causing the scene".

Thanks for trying to clarify my posts for me tho. :tu
i knew what your post meant. you are wrong about what he meant by "it"

[Blake]

i knew what your post meant. you are wrong about what he meant by "it"

The black people "loitering" was the "it", Coach.

I'm gonna keep my lol "it" where it is. Thanks again. :tu

[boutons_deux]

So basically you've convinced yourself that anyone that disagrees with you is a racist. How convenient.

all Repugs, conservatives, you rightwingnutjobs are racist until proven otherwise. racism, MALE supremacy are the foundational principles, Repugs campaign on it, Repug voters vote for it.

[dabom]

I'm extremely liberal and I don't condone loitering.

[spurraider21]

The black people "loitering" was the "it", Coach.

I'm gonna keep my lol "it" where it is. Thanks again. :tu
nobody can stop you from making yourself look dumb. we can just point it out.

[Blake]

nobody can stop you from making yourself look dumb. we can just point it out.

Lol "we"

[Blake]

I'm extremely liberal and I don't condone loitering.

Do you bring it up to the manager at Starbucks when you see it occurring?

[dabom]

Do you bring it up to the manager at Starbucks when you see it occurring?

No, I don't know if they have bought anything or not. The employees on the other hand might. Even worse if they know you haven't paid for anything and then trying to use the restroom like it's a public establishment. Then making a scene and asked to buy something or leave, then pretending it's fucking discrimination in a PHILLY STARBUCKS. :lmao

[SpursforSix]

nobody can stop you from making yourself look dumb. we can just point it out.


Lol "we"

"It" was pretty clearly referring to the situation. Not the people.
There...that's "we" now.
My guess is that most posters just rolled their eyes instead of pointing it out.

[Blake]

"It" was pretty clearly referring to the situation. Not the people.
There...that's "we" now.
My guess is that most posters just rolled their eyes instead of pointing it out.

You guys could just ask why I said lol "it" instead of making dumb assumptions.

But carry on.

[Blake]

No, I don't know if they have bought anything or not. The employees on the other hand might. Even worse if they know you haven't paid for anything and then trying to use the restroom like it's a public establishment. Then making a scene and asked to buy something or leave, then pretending it's fucking discrimination in a PHILLY STARBUCKS. :lmao

Do you need to buy something at Starbucks first before you sit down?

Lol "making a scene".

[dabom]

Do you need to buy something at Starbucks first before you sit down?

Lol "making a scene".

Yeah but they asked to use the restroom right? There was other actions right?

[spurraider21]

You guys could just ask why I said lol "it" instead of making dumb assumptions.

But carry on.
you love finding reasons to be offended, while we realized he was referring to their actions being loitering

[Blake]

you love finding reasons to be offended

Reasons already found by those truly offended. Nothing more for me to do here but lol at the attempts to defend the store manager.


while we realized he was referring to their actions being loitering

You think that I think he was calling the black guy an "it"?

Lol "you"

[Blake]

Yeah but they asked to use the restroom right? There was other actions right?

They asked to use the restroom?

Help! Police!

[SpursforSix]

It is causing a scene. :lol

Asked to leave cause they ain't buying shit. Fucking bums.:lol

If someone tells me to buy something or GTFO I do one or the other. :lol

Common sense.



The black people "loitering" was the "it", Coach.

I'm gonna keep my lol "it" where it is. Thanks again. :tu



You guys could just ask why I said lol "it" instead of making dumb assumptions.

But carry on.

Ok...why did you say "LOL"?

[dabom]

They asked to use the restroom?

Help! Police!

Do you let people just use your shit blake? :lol

As long as they are nice about it? :lol

[dabom]

These little remarks are a way to deflect from the actual topic. That's pretty telling. :lol

[SpursforSix]

You guys could just ask why I said lol "it" instead of making dumb assumptions.

But carry on.

Aight. I think maybe I can see it the other way. My bad.

[Blake]

Do you let people just use your shit blake? :lol

As long as they are nice about it? :lol

No, because it's my private residence.

Sorry you don't understand how public business codes work.

[dabom]

No, because it's my private residence.

Sorry you don't understand how public business codes work.

You understand loitering is illegal right? :lmao

[dabom]

Loitering is the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time without any apparent purpose. Under certain circumstances, it is illegal in various jurisdictions.

[sickdsm]

Do you let people just use your shit blake? :lol

As long as they are nice about it? :lol

Well he DID let someone use his wife..........

[sickdsm]

all Repugs, conservatives, you rightwingnutjobs are racist until proven otherwise. racism, MALE supremacy are the foundational principles, Repugs campaign on it, Repug voters vote for it.

Could you tweet this? It would be awesome if I could retweet it instead of screenshotting it then tweeting it...........

[Blake]

You don't speak with any substance. Your full of fluff and the liners.


Nevermind. You used the word ANYHOO. You are probably 12.


Well he DID let someone use his wife..........

[Blake]

Loitering is the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time without any apparent purpose. Under certain circumstances, it is illegal in various jurisdictions.

They stated their purpose. They were never charged with a crime.

Discrimination is also illegal. Based on CEO bending over backwards here, I'm betting Starbucks settles with these guys pretty quickly.

[sickdsm]

Pretending that every comment is like that is funny. You on the other hand keep away from actually ever discussing your views in depth.

[boutons_deux]

I'm betting Starbucks settles with these guys pretty quickly.

yep, plus the city and PD are on the defensive.

Arrest and lock these guys up for 8 hours? Fuck The Cops

[Blake]

You don't speak with any substance. Your full of fluff and the liners.


Nevermind. You used the word ANYHOO. You are probably 12.


Well he DID let someone use his wife..........


Pretending that every comment is like that is funny. You on the other hand keep away from actually ever discussing your views in depth.

[SpursforSix]

:lol


Starbucks to close all company-owned stores on the afternoon of May 29 for racial-bias education day


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/starbucks-to-close-all-stores-on-may-29-for-racial-bias-education-day.html

(https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/starbucks-to-close-all-stores-on-may-29-for-racial-bias-education-day.html)

[spurraider21]

ugh...

[Chris]

Blake :lmao

[dabom]

They stated their purpose. They were never charged with a crime.

Discrimination is also illegal. Based on CEO bending over backwards here, I'm betting Starbucks settles with these guys pretty quickly.

No shit. He'd rather pay off some bums than have a nation wide protests by blacks. :lol

[Blake]

Blake :lmao

Chris :lmao :lmao

[Blake]

No shit. He'd rather pay off some bums than have a nation wide protests by blacks. :lol

And a discrimination lawsuit that he might lose.

Especially if Starbucks comes out with racial-bias education training for everyone day after the incident.

[dabom]

And a discrimination lawsuit that he might lose.

Especially if Starbucks comes out with racial-bias education training for everyone day after the incident.

He already excepted the million dollar slap on the wrist instead of nation wide protesting you dumb fuck. :lol

It's all calculated. Doesn't want to lose his job if starbucks starts to lose money on the stock market. :lol

[spurraider21]

And a discrimination lawsuit that he might lose.

Especially if Starbucks comes out with racial-bias education training for everyone day after the incident.
that would be inadmissible evidence tbh

the court of public opinion is a much bigger concern at this point

[Darth_Pelican]

:lol


Starbucks to close all company-owned stores on the afternoon of May 29 for racial-bias education day


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/starbucks-to-close-all-stores-on-may-29-for-racial-bias-education-day.html

(https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/starbucks-to-close-all-stores-on-may-29-for-racial-bias-education-day.html)

Slideshow for the class just leaked:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/0320_CreditScores_SS.gif&op=noop

[dabom]

Slideshow for the class just leaked:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/0320_CreditScores_SS.gif&op=noop

Needs more Blonde Bitches. :lol

[Blake]

Slideshow for the class just leaked:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/0320_CreditScores_SS.gif&op=noop

Lol

The family guy jpeg forthwith

[Blake]

that would be inadmissible evidence tbh

the court of public opinion is a much bigger concern at this point

Lol inadmissible evidence.

Plaintiff lawyer: why did you (Starbucks) schedule a May 29th racial-bias education training the day after the incident occurred?

Defense: objection

Judge: sustained

Jury: *mental notes

[spurraider21]

Lol inadmissible evidence.

Plaintiff lawyer: why did you (Starbucks) schedule a May 29th racial-bias education training the day after the incident occurred?

Defense: objection

Judge: sustained

Jury: *mental notes
see, the problem is you dont know how it works

in advance of trial, a competent attorney would file whats called a motion in limine, which would ask the court to bar opposing counsel from doing a, b, and c. you get that ruling ahead of time and if its granted, opposing counsel can't bring it up. if he does, it could be grounds for a mistrial and sanctions

the race bias education would clearly be inadmissible... it's a "subsequent remedial measure"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_407

this is the federal version of the rule... and if its brought in state court each state has its own equivalent

[Blake]

see, the problem is you dont know how it works

in advance of trial, a competent attorney would file whats called a motion in limine, which would ask the court to bar opposing counsel from doing a, b, and c. you get that ruling ahead of time and if its granted, opposing counsel can't bring it up. if he does, it could be grounds for a mistrial and sanctions

That was just one scenario.

See, I think it's relevant evidence and can be used.

[spurraider21]

See, I think it's relevant evidence and can be used.
that's adorable

blake's opinion on what is relevant overrides the rules of evidence

it would be admissible only for very specific, limited uses, and none that are likely to be applicable or helpful

[Chris]

Blake :lmao

[Blake]

that's adorable

blake's opinion on what is relevant overrides the rules of evidence

it would be admissible only for very specific, limited uses, and none that are likely to be applicable or helpful

It's relevant to this case because it was a direct result of the incident.

It's even more adorable you're trying to big time lawyer a scrub on a message board.

[spurraider21]

It's relevant to this case
relevance is not the only factor when it comes to admissibility of evidence


because it was a direct result of the incident.
that would make it a subsequent remedial measure. which is inadmissible to show culpability


It's even more adorable you're trying to big time lawyer a scrub on a message board.
:lol this is your white flag.

you bring up a potential lawsuit and get upset when somebody talks about law. you just talked out of your ass and are now upset that someone called you out for it.

[Blake]

relevance is not the only factor when it comes to admissibility of evidence


that would make it a subsequent remedial measure. which is inadmissible to show culpability

"Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice

Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_406

Racial sensitivity class being suddenly and incredibly necessary for thousands of employees nationwide shows recognition of a habit and routine practice prior to incident.

Motion in limine denied

[Blake]

:lol this is your white flag.

you bring up a potential lawsuit and get upset when somebody talks about law. you just talked out of your ass and are now upset that someone called you out for it.

:lol or you're really upset that someone would call you wrong on lawyer stuff. Because you're a lawyer. Because you've made it very clear you're a lawyer.

Because it'd be embarrassing to be shown up by a scrub. Because you've made it clear that message board looks are important to you.

:lol

[spurraider21]

"Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice

Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_406
good job. you quoted habit evidence


Racial sensitivity class being suddenly and incredibly necessary for thousands of employees nationwide shows recognition of a habit and routine practice prior to incident.

Motion in limine denied
a) "recognition" of a habit is not a habit :lol
b) if it is "suddenly" necessary then it is by definition NOT a habit and is thus not habit evidence :lol

again, you're just googling and talking out of your ass. habit evidence, as you quoted, is meant to show that "on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice"

for example, if you want to prove in a car accident case, that the defendant DID use his turn signal, you could have a witness (say, somebody who has carpooled with him hundreds of times) to say "yeah, i know for sure bob ALWAYS uses his turn signal, without fail." even though the witness might not have been in the car during the actual incident in question, you can provide evidence that the person/organization has a general habit, that can be inferred to mean he probably acted in accordance with that habit on this particular occasion

whether the jury buys it is a different question, but the testimonial evidence of the habit (always using the turn signal) would be allowed over an objection

[spurraider21]

:lol or you're really upset that someone would call you wrong on lawyer stuff. Because you're a lawyer. Because you've made it very clear you're a lawyer.

Because it'd be embarrassing to be shown up by a scrub. Because you've made it clear that message board looks are important to you.

:lol
its totally not a big deal for somebody who is not a lawyer to make a mistake. when pointed out, you could either have said "oh, ok, i didnt know that" or you could be a moron and continue to talk out of your ass.

that much is up to you

[spurraider21]

i mean sure, if you have a witness, like a starbucks employee, testify that it is a "routine practice" of starbucks to disproportionately and intentionally kick out black patrons instead of white patrons, then you could try to use that habit evidence to prove that on this particular occasion, they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black

is that what you think is going to happen, blake? because that is what habit evidence would be referring to. and again, this does nothing to help get the racial sensitivity training admitted.

[spurraider21]

here blake, a nice resource for you if you wish to continue trying to find counter points

https://www.legalzoom.com/

[Nathan89]

:lmao

[Chris]

*Blake logs out

[Blake]

*Blake logs out

:lol Chris

[Chris]

:lol Chris

You dug your own hole :lol poor fella :lol

[Blake]

You dug your own hole :lol poor fella :lol

You're pretty desperate for lols after the Netflix debacle huh

[CosmicCowboy]

Well he DID let someone use his wife..........
:lmao

[Blake]

i mean sure, if you have a witness, like a starbucks employee, testify that it is a "routine practice" of starbucks to disproportionately and intentionally kick out black patrons instead of white patrons, then you could try to use that habit evidence to prove that on this particular occasion, they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black

is that what you think is going to happen, blake? because that is what habit evidence would be referring to. and again, this does nothing to help get the racial sensitivity training admitted.

Yes, it would be habit evidence to prove on this particular occasion they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black.

Yes, would need more witnesses to testify this particular Starbucks did them wrong.

Thanks for confirming, professor.

I think the racial sensitivity training would help back it up. If you don't think it would then you wouldn't waste time running down to the judge to block it. But you said any lawyer worth his salt would hurry to block it.

If this is a that big a deal to you, I'll leave it out of my lawsuit. Big deal. White flag etc

[spurraider21]

Yes, it would be habit evidence to prove on this particular occasion they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black.
you're not understanding what habit evidence is. read the example i gave above of the driver using a turn signal.

i tried looking up other examples of habit evidence. wikipedia has a useful one too


For example, suppose there was a bar called "Study Hall" located near a college campus. "Happy Hour Joe" is the nickname of a regular patron of this bar, and he frequents the bar every day, Monday through Friday, at approximately 5:30 p.m. on his way home from work. Joe typically has 1 or 2 beers, and then leaves. A party could introduce this evidence of habit if the party wanted to show it was more probable that Joe was at Study Hall on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. A party could also introduce the evidence if the party wanted to show it was more probable that, on his way home Wednesday at 6 p.m., Joe had been drinking.


Yes, would need more witnesses to testify this particular Starbucks did them wrong.
sure. that would be useful to show that starbucks routinely discriminates.

but again, that wouldn't suddenly make the racial sensitivty training admissible. that is a subsequent remedial measure.


I think the racial sensitivity training would help back it up.
but the racial sensitivty training is something they did AFTER the fact, hence a SUBSEQUENT remedial measure. this is inadmissible for policy purposes. you WANT companies to fix problematic scenarios.

imagine a case where there was a car accident, and the parties claim the city fucked up by not putting a stop sign where there should be one. now, the city knows, if they go put a stop sign there a week later, it makes them look guilty (liable) as fuck, so instead they choose not to put a stop sign there until the case is over. so in exchange for preventing that evidence coming up, they're leaving a dangerous condition up, hoping that there will be no accidents there until after this case is over

lawmakers have decided they dont want defendants to fear looking guilty, and instead think its better policy to encourage them to correct a dangerous situation by making that evidence inadmissible. hence, the rule i cited above regarding subsequent remedial measures. it might be relevant as fuck, and could be really strong evidence... but it's inadmissible regardless


If you don't think it would then you wouldn't waste time running down to the judge to block it. But you said any lawyer worth his salt would hurry to block it.
as i said just above, i do think it would be relevant evidence, in theory. but due to policy purposes, the rules of evidence have carved a special exemption making subsequent remedial measures inadmissible for most purposes. there are limited scenarios where that evidence is allowed, and only for specific purposes, usually to show ownership or control

for example, if starbucks tried to argue "look, we have no way that we could ever train our employees in racial bias" (ergo, no control), then for the limited purpose of disputing that claim, the plaintiff can show evidence of this new training scheduled in may. it's unlikely that such a scenario would ever play out, which is why i said the exceptions are not going to be applicable


If this is a that big a deal to you, I'll leave it out of my lawsuit. Big deal. White flag etc
no, you're just conflating relevancy with admissibility of evidence.

[Blake]

Tldr, trivial argument that's not based on anything that will happen. You can declare victory now, big timer.

[spurraider21]

you learned something today. be proud of that

[Blake]

I learned you like to big-time. Noted for future reference.

[CosmicCowboy]

Everyone is bigtime to Blake.

[spurraider21]

I learned you like to big-time. Noted for future reference.
you also learned about habit evidence and subsequent remedial measures. that's something to be proud of.

[Chris]

:lol

[spurraider21]

end of day quiz for Blake (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3460):

Thomas the Train Company Inc. makes realistic toy trains that connect to their track via a metal line. Thomas was sued after Tina received an electrical shock and was injured when she touched this line. Later, it was determined by Bob and Linda, Tina’s parents, that Thomas was the only company that did not have a cover over these exposed electric lines to prevent accidental exposure, and that Thomas began using a cover on these lines after Tina was hurt.

In what manner may Bob and Linda use this evidence?

A) To show that Thomas should have realized that using covers over the electric lines would have resulted in a safer toy.

B) To show that Thomas was negligent in not covering the electric lines.

C) To show that Thomas’ train was defective because an easily manufactured, different design could have been used.

D) To show that Thomas made the particular toy train that injured Tina.


______


A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing.


Is the resident’s testimony admissible?


(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question.


(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses.


(C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.


(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.

[Nathan89]

Back to school Blake.:lol

[Blake]

Lol more big timing.

[CosmicCowboy]

Everyone is bigtime to Blake.

[Blake]

Everyone is bigtime to Blake.

You're an old timer that loves to big time.

[CosmicCowboy]

I suck so bad the guy on the corner with the "god bless you" sign is bigtiming me.

[Isitjustme?]

If this happened in 1997 or whatever it would maybe have made the local news, on a slow news day. In 2018 it's cause for the CEO to publicly apologize. I'm pretty moderate (left on some issues right on others) but this is getting ridiculous. That being said I wasn't there. But that's probably the reason why an entire nation shouldn't judge (unless we have camera footage or someone got brutalized by the cops).

There was no twitter or cell phone videos in 1997

[sickdsm]

Philadelphia Starbucks denied police Sargent access to the bathroom because he wasn't a paying customer.



https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/PHI-Starbucks-Responds-to-Viral-Post-that-Barista-Denied-Police-Sergeant-Restroom-Access-327679561.html

[Blake]

Did they ask him to leave

[dabom]

Did they ask him to leave

I'm pretty sure he left. :lmao

[dabom]

:lmao

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/15/officers-in-starbucks-incident-did-absolutely-nothing-wrong-philadelphia-police-chief-says.amp.html

[dabom]

Philly Police Commissioner said the cops did nothing wrong. A black cop. :lol

[Blake]

Philly Police Commissioner said the cops did nothing wrong. A black cop. :lol

Do you think they did anything wrong?

[dabom]

Do you think they did anything wrong?

Yeah you dumb fuck. Read the thread again. :lmao

[Blake]

Yeah you dumb fuck. Read the thread again. :lmao

What'd they do wrong?

[dabom]

What'd they do wrong?

21 Questions you dumb fuck. :lmao

I ain't Chris. I already posted what they did wrong. :lmao

[Blake]

21 Questions you dumb fuck. :lmao

I ain't Chris. I already posted what they did wrong. :lmao

K, well they didn't do anything wrong.

[dabom]

K, well they didn't do anything wrong.

Cops asked them to leave, they didn't. They got arrested but not charged. You can't just loiter and not buy shit and expect to use the restroom then make a scene cause they deny you. :lmao

Making them call the cops. :lmao

[boutons_deux]

"They got arrested but not charged."

detained at cop shop for 8 HOURS

[Blake]

Cops asked them to leave, they didn't. They got arrested but not charged. You can't just loiter and not buy shit and expect to use the restroom then make a scene cause they deny you. :lmao

Making them call the cops. :lmao

The cops dumbass. What did the cops do wrong?

[dabom]

The cops dumbass. What did the cops do wrong?

They removed someone the establishment didn't want. They didn't wanna leave so the cops took them out. What's the problem?

The Commissioner found no problem with his cops.

[Blake]

They removed someone the establishment didn't want. They didn't wanna leave so the cops took them out. What's the problem?

The Commissioner found no problem with his cops.

Are you having trouble reading the words I'm posting?

[dabom]

Are you having trouble reading the words I'm posting?

I am talking about the cops you dumb fuck. :lmao

Can you fucking read? :lmao

[Blake]

Philly Police Commissioner said the cops did nothing wrong. A black cop. :lol


Do you think they did anything wrong?

12 posts later.

I'll try one more time. Do you yourself [dabom] think they [the cops] did anything wrong here [during the incident]?

I literally cannot break down and simplify the question any further

[dabom]

The cops dumbass. What did the cops do wrong?


They removed someone the establishment didn't want. They didn't wanna leave so the cops took them out. What's the problem?

The Commissioner found no problem with his cops.

Any reasonable person would understand. :lmao

My position is affirmed by my response you dumb fuck. :lmao

[dabom]

If you can't understand my position, then I have to assume you lack Critical Thinking. :lmao

Go back to third grade dumb fuck. :lmao

[Blake]

Philly Police Commissioner said the cops did nothing wrong. A black cop. :lol


Do you think they did anything wrong?




I ain't Chris. I already posted what they did wrong. :lmao

You're a different type of retarded than Chris.

[dabom]

They removed someone the establishment didn't want. They didn't wanna leave so the cops took them out. cops did cops things What's the problem? meaning I found no problem with their actions

The Commissioner found no problem with his cops. statement showing that the commissioner agrees with me

Now I broke it down for you because you don't have the ability to Critically Think. :lmao

[Blake]

Simple yes or no would have been fine.

here's a tougher one for you:
Why is it funny to you that the Commissioner found no wrong doing on the part of the cops?

[dabom]

Simple yes or no would have been fine.

here's a tougher one for you:
Why is it funny to you that the Commissioner found no wrong doing on the part of the cops?

Well I'm glad you understand now Blake. :lol

[Blake]

Well I'm glad you understand now Blake. :lol

Sorry you have a problem with pronoun usage. I'll try to keep the questions as pronoun-free as possible for you in the future.

Are we [Blake and dabom] done with this conversation or do you [dabom] want to explain why you [dabom] posted the story followed by an lol [laugh out loud].

[dabom]

Gets shit on starts talking about pronouns. :lmao

[Blake]

There's something wrong with you [dabom].

[sickdsm]

Did they ask him to leave

She told him no to using the bathroom, he asked again, she said no but there's one down the street to which he left.