Random Thoughts Again

psu_dad
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby psu_dad » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:41 pm

This is an NPR interview with the COO (not the CEO) of Starbucks. It clears up nothing regarding their policy on "non-customers". It's mostly just babbling. But she did take the opportunity to throw the store manager under the bus for calling the police. So there's that.
Klaatu barada nikto

Blue&White
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Blue&White » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:39 pm

Couple of points on the Starbucks thing.

First, while this is in downtown Philly, it's a few blocks from City Hall. And it was filled with middle class white people. You get homeless for sure but not in massive numbers. Second, it seems the policy was not uniformly enforced.

It's tough to argue these guys didn't stand out because they were black. It sure seemed that way to the other customers. The manager F-ed up. I don't blame the whole company for this, but they own and they are try to make it right.

As for the cops, arresting them seem over the top, but I'm not sure what options they had.
Is it baseball season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby psu_dad » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:48 pm

It seems the policemen's position was "if the manager wants you out, then you're out". I don't know the law on that. Are the police not authorized to question WHY?

Ultimately, it probably won't matter if the police were right or wrong. Starbucks has deeper pockets than the Philly PD and if anyone is going to have to "assume the position", it's likely to be Starbucks.
Klaatu barada nikto

PSUgrower
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:52 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby PSUgrower » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:41 pm

If a private company wants someone off their lawn the police must get the people off their lawn. From what I gather, that is the letter of the law and the police followed it.

Once a started reading other articles a bit it seems like the manager called the police before officially telling the customers that they need to purchase something or leave. I can't imagine how that is a lawsuit but I am sure someone is just waiting in the wings to argue this crap!

psu_dad
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby psu_dad » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:23 pm

If a private company wants someone off their lawn the police must get the people off their lawn.

I'm not sure it's that simple. For something like a private club or a factory, that's probably true. But some private companies are considered by law to be "public accommodations". These are companies that welcome the patronage of the general public, like supermarkets, restaurants, motels, etc. Unlike a private club, public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate.based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

So, for example, if I own a restaurant and I want someone out simply because they're wearing a burka, I don't think the police have to accommodate me.

---------------------
PS - I'm not suggesting something like that happened in the Starbucks incident. I assume the police thought the manager had a valid reason for wanting these guys out. But since Starbucks is throwing the manager under the bus, we're left to assume he did not.
Klaatu barada nikto

Blue&White
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Blue&White » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:58 pm

Dad is right. It's private property but you can't throw people out or refuse service based on things like sex, race, religion, etc. We will know shortly if that list includes sexuality. You also can't create seemingly neutral rules but only enforce them against people in a protected class. I'm not suggesting Starbucks does that generally but, in this instance, it sounds like they did.

As for potential law suits, we will see. I think they have a claim and, even if it's tenuous, Starbucks is likely to pay something to get this out of the news cycle.

As for the manager being thrown under the bus, this may be the rare situation where blaming the flunky is appropriate.
Is it baseball season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby psu_dad » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:28 am

As for the manager being thrown under the bus, this may be the rare situation where blaming the flunky is appropriate.

You would say that, because you're a stooge of the male oppressor class. This women is being scapegoated by the patriarchy.

Mrs psu_dad: Why are you doing this?
Me: Your sister isn't available. I'm filling in.
Klaatu barada nikto

PSUgrower
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:52 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby PSUgrower » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:24 am

3503. Criminal trespass.

(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:

(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or

(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.

(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an offense under paragraph (1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.

(3) As used in this subsection:

"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.

(b) Defiant trespasser.--

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(i) actual communication to the actor;

(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;

(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or

(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.



Here is the PA law. I think if an owner wants you out you have to leave. The courts can deiced whether the owner discriminated against you

psu_dad
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby psu_dad » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:05 am

I assume the police asked what the problem was and the manager responded that these two men did not purchase anything and were asked repeatedly to leave. I also assume that (hypothetically) if the manager had responded "we don't serve their kind here", there's no way the police would have accommodated the manager.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the police have to automatically roust anyone the manager asks them to roust with no questions asked. I just find that hard to believe.
Klaatu barada nikto

PSUgrower
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:52 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby PSUgrower » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:26 am

I understand your point dad, but the law tries to keep things black and white (sweet pun) so the police don't have to do too much thinking. I am sure policemen don't want to head to a call and try to figure out the law. The law seems easy, if you own a business and you want someone out because they didn't purchase anything, then the police will escort them out. Most people leave without incident.

I am also going to assume that if these were 2 white men they would still be sitting at the shop. I have nothing to verify that answer other than life experience. I think that is why the black community gets so uptight with these types of situation. They have seen it too many times.