Current Events > Black guys arrested at Starbucks for doing nothing, white customers are shocked

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10
The Admiral 04/15/18 1:18:48 PM #101:	Conflict posted... InYourWalls1 posted... Bishop9800 posted... So, show us where that's SB policy. "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html That doesn't explain what the policy is lol. It literally does if you clicked the link An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899697639] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>InYourWalls1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>So, show us where that's SB policy.</quote> "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html</quote> That doesn't explain what the policy is lol.</quote> It literally does if you clicked the link <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InYourWalls1 04/15/18 1:19:15 PM #102:	Conflict posted... That doesn't explain what the policy is lol. No but it answers whether or not Starbucks policy justifies this - which apparently it does. Whether or not it's good policy is another question and what they're evaluating now ofc. I still think there's too large an information gap here to be making judgments one way or another --- The fully enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant <cite>InYourWalls1 posted [p:899697659] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote>That doesn't explain what the policy is lol.</quote> No but it answers whether or not Starbucks policy justifies this - which apparently it does. Whether or not it's good policy is another question and what they're evaluating now ofc. I still think there's too large an information gap here to be making judgments one way or another</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#103	Post #103 was unavailable or deleted.
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:19:31 PM #104:	Capn Circus posted... There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did? --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899697673] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote> There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. </quote> Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:19:35 PM #105:	darkjedilink posted... Conflict posted... The Admiral posted... As for whether the manager should have called the police in the first place or was being racist, that's an entirely different discussion. It actually isn't it's kinda the reason this happened in the first place No, the reason this happened is because they were told to order or leave, after loitering for a significant amount of time, and they chose not to. How much time do you think they spent there? You've asked this question of others and you keep emphasizing time as if they were there for hours. The cops were on bikes, no? Bike cops tend to be quick on scenes. Some dickfuck called the cops on me for "messing with someone's car" when I was standing on the sidewalk near the busiest intersection in my city in broad daylight at 6-6:30 pm on a Friday in late spring in warm weather while there was some event going on which led to hundreds of witnesses passing by me. I was playing pokemon go and happened to be standing there for 60-90 seconds. Parked cars were in the vicinity. A bike cop approached me to question me not even 4 minutes later, when I was sitting on a bench after crossing the intersection. Cops are actually chill as fuck here, so I didn't get hassled. Has there been official confirmation on how long they were in the establishment? I would guess 15-20 minutes tops. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899697674] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>As for whether the manager should have called the police in the first place or was being racist, that's an entirely different discussion.</quote> It actually isn't it's kinda the reason this happened in the first place</quote> No, the reason this happened is because they were told to order or leave, after loitering for a significant amount of time, and they chose not to.</quote> How much time do you think they spent there? You've asked this question of others and you keep emphasizing time as if they were there for hours. The cops were on bikes, no? Bike cops tend to be quick on scenes. Some dickfuck called the cops on me for "messing with someone's car" when I was standing on the sidewalk near the busiest intersection in my city in broad daylight at 6-6:30 pm on a Friday in late spring in warm weather while there was some event going on which led to hundreds of witnesses passing by me. I was playing pokemon go and happened to be standing there for 60-90 seconds. Parked cars were in the vicinity. A bike cop approached me to question me not even 4 minutes later, when I was sitting on a bench after crossing the intersection. Cops are actually chill as fuck here, so I didn't get hassled. Has there been official confirmation on how long they were in the establishment? I would guess 15-20 minutes tops.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/15/18 1:21:43 PM #106:	ImTheMacheteGuy posted... darkjedilink posted... Conflict posted... The Admiral posted... As for whether the manager should have called the police in the first place or was being racist, that's an entirely different discussion. It actually isn't it's kinda the reason this happened in the first place No, the reason this happened is because they were told to order or leave, after loitering for a significant amount of time, and they chose not to. How much time do you think they spent there? You've asked this question of others and you keep emphasizing time as if they were there for hours. The cops were on bikes, no? Bike cops tend to be quick on scenes. Some dickfuck called the cops on me for "messing with someone's car" when I was standing on the sidewalk near the busiest intersection in my city in broad daylight at 6-6:30 pm on a Friday in late spring in warm weather while there was some event going on which led to hundreds of witnesses passing by me. I was playing pokemon go and happened to be standing there for 60-90 seconds. Parked cars were in the vicinity. A bike cop approached me to question me not even 4 minutes later, when I was sitting on a bench after crossing the intersection. Cops are actually chill as fuck here, so I didn't get hassled. Has there been official confirmation on how long they were in the establishment? I would guess 15-20 minutes tops. Average response time for a non-emergency call is 15 minutes, so unless you're suggesting they called the police literally the moment they walked in the door.... --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899697765] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>As for whether the manager should have called the police in the first place or was being racist, that's an entirely different discussion.</quote> It actually isn't it's kinda the reason this happened in the first place</quote> No, the reason this happened is because they were told to order or leave, after loitering for a significant amount of time, and they chose not to.</quote> How much time do you think they spent there? You've asked this question of others and you keep emphasizing time as if they were there for hours. The cops were on bikes, no? Bike cops tend to be quick on scenes. Some dickfuck called the cops on me for "messing with someone's car" when I was standing on the sidewalk near the busiest intersection in my city in broad daylight at 6-6:30 pm on a Friday in late spring in warm weather while there was some event going on which led to hundreds of witnesses passing by me. I was playing pokemon go and happened to be standing there for 60-90 seconds. Parked cars were in the vicinity. A bike cop approached me to question me not even 4 minutes later, when I was sitting on a bench after crossing the intersection. Cops are actually chill as fuck here, so I didn't get hassled. Has there been official confirmation on how long they were in the establishment? I would guess 15-20 minutes tops.</quote> Average response time for a non-emergency call is 15 minutes, so unless you're suggesting they called the police literally the moment they walked in the door....</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DepreceV2 04/15/18 1:21:47 PM #107:	darkjedilink posted... InYourWalls1 posted... Bishop9800 posted... So, show us where that's SB policy. "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html Well, I guess that settles it. The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with what many people have done at a Starbucks without drawing suspicion or calls to police. The stores are community hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use Wi-Fi or chat with friends without necessarily ordering anything. --- Yes... I'm a Hanzo main <cite>DepreceV2 posted [p:899697767] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>InYourWalls1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>So, show us where that's SB policy.</quote> "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html</quote> Well, I guess that settles it.</quote> The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with what many people have done at a Starbucks without drawing suspicion or calls to police. The stores are community hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use Wi-Fi or chat with friends without necessarily ordering anything.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:22:32 PM #108:	darkjedilink posted... Conflict posted... It's been said multiple times they weren't loitering tho and that doesn't coincide with Starbucks policy, so... They literally were loitering. Had ONE of them ordered absolutely anything, they wouldn't have been, but they didn't, so they were. Admiral already defined loitering yesterday as including a clause "with no intent to patronize," so maybe prove they intended to leave without buying anything once their friend arrived? If you can do that, it can be conceded that they were loitering. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899697805] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote>It's been said multiple times they weren't loitering tho and that doesn't coincide with Starbucks policy, so...</quote> They literally were loitering. Had ONE of them ordered absolutely anything, they wouldn't have been, but they didn't, so they were.</quote> Admiral already defined loitering yesterday as including a clause "with no intent to patronize," so maybe prove they intended to leave without buying anything once their friend arrived? If you can do that, it can be conceded that they were loitering.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/15/18 1:22:42 PM #109:	DepreceV2 posted... darkjedilink posted... InYourWalls1 posted... Bishop9800 posted... So, show us where that's SB policy. "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html Well, I guess that settles it. The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with what many people have done at a Starbucks without drawing suspicion or calls to police. The stores are community hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use Wi-Fi or chat with friends without necessarily ordering anything. And? Was the manager following policy as written or no? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899697813] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>DepreceV2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>InYourWalls1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>So, show us where that's SB policy.</quote> "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html</quote> Well, I guess that settles it.</quote> The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with what many people have done at a Starbucks without drawing suspicion or calls to police. The stores are community hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use Wi-Fi or chat with friends without necessarily ordering anything.</quote> And? Was the manager following policy as written or no?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:22:55 PM #110:	The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899697824] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#111	Post #111 was unavailable or deleted.
JxOxNxIxCxS 04/15/18 1:23:35 PM #112:	Dindu --- http://i.imgur.com/vcAEBhO.jpg <cite>JxOxNxIxCxS posted [p:899697852] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote>Dindu</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/15/18 1:24:22 PM #113:	ImTheMacheteGuy posted... darkjedilink posted... Conflict posted... It's been said multiple times they weren't loitering tho and that doesn't coincide with Starbucks policy, so... They literally were loitering. Had ONE of them ordered absolutely anything, they wouldn't have been, but they didn't, so they were. Admiral already defined loitering yesterday as including a clause "with no intent to patronize," so maybe prove they intended to leave without buying anything once their friend arrived? If you can do that, it can be conceded that they were loitering. They clearly had no intention of patronizing - if they did, they would have ordered before the cops arrested them. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899697885] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote>It's been said multiple times they weren't loitering tho and that doesn't coincide with Starbucks policy, so...</quote> They literally were loitering. Had ONE of them ordered absolutely anything, they wouldn't have been, but they didn't, so they were.</quote> Admiral already defined loitering yesterday as including a clause "with no intent to patronize," so maybe prove they intended to leave without buying anything once their friend arrived? If you can do that, it can be conceded that they were loitering.</quote> They clearly had no intention of patronizing - if they did, they would have ordered before the cops arrested them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DepreceV2 04/15/18 1:24:55 PM #114:	darkjedilink posted... DepreceV2 posted... darkjedilink posted... InYourWalls1 posted... Bishop9800 posted... So, show us where that's SB policy. "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html Well, I guess that settles it. The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with what many people have done at a Starbucks without drawing suspicion or calls to police. The stores are community hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use Wi-Fi or chat with friends without necessarily ordering anything. And? Was the manager following policy as written or no? I don't know. They haven't shown us the policy. Even if they did follow policy.. You don't see the issue with that? If they decide to pull this policy out for two black men but just ignore it for everyone else.. That's a fucking problem no matter if the actual policy said it or not. --- Yes... I'm a Hanzo main <cite>DepreceV2 posted [p:899697906] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DepreceV2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>InYourWalls1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>So, show us where that's SB policy.</quote> "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html</quote> Well, I guess that settles it.</quote> The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with what many people have done at a Starbucks without drawing suspicion or calls to police. The stores are community hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use Wi-Fi or chat with friends without necessarily ordering anything.</quote> And? Was the manager following policy as written or no?</quote> I don't know. They haven't shown us the policy. Even if they did follow policy.. You don't see the issue with that? If they decide to pull this policy out for two black men but just ignore it for everyone else.. That's a fucking problem no matter if the actual policy said it or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#115	Post #115 was unavailable or deleted.
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:26:20 PM #116:	The Admiral posted... Conflict posted... InYourWalls1 posted... Bishop9800 posted... So, show us where that's SB policy. "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html That doesn't explain what the policy is lol. It literally does if you clicked the link An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. The bathroom policy is fair, but is it their policy to ask people to leave for asking to use the bathroom as non-paying customers? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899697989] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>InYourWalls1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>So, show us where that's SB policy.</quote> "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html</quote> That doesn't explain what the policy is lol.</quote> It literally does if you clicked the link <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote></quote> The bathroom policy is fair, but is it their policy to ask people to leave for asking to use the bathroom as non-paying customers?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:26:28 PM #117:	darkjedilink posted... They clearly had no intention of patronizing - if they did, they would have ordered before the cops arrested them. And you know that how? Maybe they were waiting to order when their friend arrived? --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899697999] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> They clearly had no intention of patronizing - if they did, they would have ordered before the cops arrested them. </quote> And you know that how? Maybe they were waiting to order when their friend arrived?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 04/15/18 1:26:56 PM #118:	JACKBUTTMOMMY posted... Conflict posted... The Admiral posted... Conflict posted... InYourWalls1 posted... Bishop9800 posted... So, show us where that's SB policy. "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html That doesn't explain what the policy is lol. It literally does if you clicked the link An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Okay, so the policy is to "refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members". Yet it says absolutely nothing about "loitering" (I'm glad we finally dropped that angle). Now let's see if there's evidence that they were actually being disruptive after being told not to use the restroom What do you call refusing to leave a business when the management and police ask you to? Being 'courteous.' --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:899698016] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>InYourWalls1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>So, show us where that's SB policy.</quote> "An employee called the police for help to get the men out of the store but later regretted that it escalated into an arrest, said a company official familiar with the incident, who declined to give a name to freely describe internal discussions. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear." https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/04/14/starbucks-apologizes-after-two-black-men-in-philadelphia-were-arrested-after-waiting-at-a-table.html</quote> That doesn't explain what the policy is lol.</quote> It literally does if you clicked the link <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote></quote> Okay, so the policy is to "refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members". Yet it says absolutely nothing about "loitering" (I'm glad we finally dropped that angle). Now let's see if there's evidence that they were actually being disruptive after being told not to use the restroom</quote> What do you call refusing to leave a business when the management and police ask you to?</quote> Being 'courteous.'</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/15/18 1:27:52 PM #119:	Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899698065] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#120	Post #120 was unavailable or deleted.
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:29:11 PM #121:	darkjedilink posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... darkjedilink posted... Conflict posted... The Admiral posted... As for whether the manager should have called the police in the first place or was being racist, that's an entirely different discussion. It actually isn't it's kinda the reason this happened in the first place No, the reason this happened is because they were told to order or leave, after loitering for a significant amount of time, and they chose not to. How much time do you think they spent there? You've asked this question of others and you keep emphasizing time as if they were there for hours. The cops were on bikes, no? Bike cops tend to be quick on scenes. Some dickfuck called the cops on me for "messing with someone's car" when I was standing on the sidewalk near the busiest intersection in my city in broad daylight at 6-6:30 pm on a Friday in late spring in warm weather while there was some event going on which led to hundreds of witnesses passing by me. I was playing pokemon go and happened to be standing there for 60-90 seconds. Parked cars were in the vicinity. A bike cop approached me to question me not even 4 minutes later, when I was sitting on a bench after crossing the intersection. Cops are actually chill as fuck here, so I didn't get hassled. Has there been official confirmation on how long they were in the establishment? I would guess 15-20 minutes tops. Average response time for a non-emergency call is 15 minutes, so unless you're suggesting they called the police literally the moment they walked in the door.... I'm suggesting that if the cops were bike cops, they were probably in the area and rolled up in a much shorter response time than 15 minutes. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899698122] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>As for whether the manager should have called the police in the first place or was being racist, that's an entirely different discussion.</quote> It actually isn't it's kinda the reason this happened in the first place</quote> No, the reason this happened is because they were told to order or leave, after loitering for a significant amount of time, and they chose not to.</quote> How much time do you think they spent there? You've asked this question of others and you keep emphasizing time as if they were there for hours. The cops were on bikes, no? Bike cops tend to be quick on scenes. Some dickfuck called the cops on me for "messing with someone's car" when I was standing on the sidewalk near the busiest intersection in my city in broad daylight at 6-6:30 pm on a Friday in late spring in warm weather while there was some event going on which led to hundreds of witnesses passing by me. I was playing pokemon go and happened to be standing there for 60-90 seconds. Parked cars were in the vicinity. A bike cop approached me to question me not even 4 minutes later, when I was sitting on a bench after crossing the intersection. Cops are actually chill as fuck here, so I didn't get hassled. Has there been official confirmation on how long they were in the establishment? I would guess 15-20 minutes tops.</quote> Average response time for a non-emergency call is 15 minutes, so unless you're suggesting they called the police literally the moment they walked in the door....</quote> I'm suggesting that if the cops were bike cops, they were probably in the area and rolled up in a much shorter response time than 15 minutes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:29:55 PM #122:	The Admiral posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899698169] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DepreceV2 04/15/18 1:31:29 PM #123:	Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address. --- Yes... I'm a Hanzo main <cite>DepreceV2 posted [p:899698241] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:31:54 PM #124:	darkjedilink posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... darkjedilink posted... Conflict posted... It's been said multiple times they weren't loitering tho and that doesn't coincide with Starbucks policy, so... They literally were loitering. Had ONE of them ordered absolutely anything, they wouldn't have been, but they didn't, so they were. Admiral already defined loitering yesterday as including a clause "with no intent to patronize," so maybe prove they intended to leave without buying anything once their friend arrived? If you can do that, it can be conceded that they were loitering. They clearly had no intention of patronizing - if they did, they would have ordered before the cops arrested them. They were waiting for a friend and this is not proof that they intend to buy something after their friend arrived. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899698266] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote>It's been said multiple times they weren't loitering tho and that doesn't coincide with Starbucks policy, so...</quote> They literally were loitering. Had ONE of them ordered absolutely anything, they wouldn't have been, but they didn't, so they were.</quote> Admiral already defined loitering yesterday as including a clause "with no intent to patronize," so maybe prove they intended to leave without buying anything once their friend arrived? If you can do that, it can be conceded that they were loitering.</quote> They clearly had no intention of patronizing - if they did, they would have ordered before the cops arrested them.</quote> They were waiting for a friend and this is not proof that they intend to buy something after their friend arrived.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Capn Circus 04/15/18 1:34:11 PM #125:	Bishop9800 posted... Capn Circus posted... There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did? Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral. --- "I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks <cite>Capn Circus posted [p:899698393] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote> There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. </quote> Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did?</quote> Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DepreceV2 04/15/18 1:35:47 PM #126:	Capn Circus posted... Bishop9800 posted... Capn Circus posted... There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did? Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral. People don't film right away when any controversy happens. Sometimes you think about it later when it actually escalates. That isn't some red flag lmao --- Yes... I'm a Hanzo main <cite>DepreceV2 posted [p:899698471] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote> There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. </quote> Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did?</quote> Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral.</quote> People don't film right away when any controversy happens. Sometimes you think about it later when it actually escalates. That isn't some red flag lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#127	Post #127 was unavailable or deleted.
Capn Circus 04/15/18 1:36:33 PM #128:	Conflict posted... Capn Circus posted... The woman filming and writing this said everyone was asking questions.. but didn't film anyone actually doing this. She only chose to film when they got arrested (after refusing to leave). There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. It's extremely unlikely they just asked them to leave. You're also the same person who couldn't believe that such a 'good-looking white guy' could commit a school shooting. Everyone knows your shtick by now No, not what I said. And I didn't mention race. You're a liar, plain and simple. --- "I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks <cite>Capn Circus posted [p:899698504] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote>The woman filming and writing this said everyone was asking questions.. but didn't film anyone actually doing this. She only chose to film when they got arrested (after refusing to leave). There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. It's extremely unlikely they just asked them to leave.</quote> You're also the same person who couldn't believe that such a 'good-looking white guy' could commit a school shooting. Everyone knows your shtick by now</quote> No, not what I said. And I didn't mention race. You're a liar, plain and simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/15/18 1:38:03 PM #129:	DepreceV2 posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address. That's not the main issue. Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. And unless you have more evidence of blacks being targeted beyond the claims of this one woman who is well-versed in oppression rhetoric and clearly wanted this to go viral, you don't have any basis to make that claim. I find it incredibly unlikely that in Philly -- where blacks are the largest racial group -- that stores and discriminating against them. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899698571] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>DepreceV2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address.</quote> That's not the main issue. Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. And unless you have more evidence of blacks being targeted beyond the claims of this one woman who is well-versed in oppression rhetoric and clearly wanted this to go viral, you don't have any basis to make that claim. I find it incredibly unlikely that in Philly -- where blacks are the largest racial group -- that stores and discriminating against them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:38:19 PM #130:	Capn Circus posted... Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral. LOL. So this woman chose what she wanted to film, when everything lines up with all statements taken? Really? So let me ask you, if these guys were "handsome young white men", would you still be acting the same way? --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899698582] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote>Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral.</quote> LOL. So this woman chose what she wanted to film, when everything lines up with all statements taken? Really? So let me ask you, if these guys were "handsome young white men", would you still be acting the same way?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#131	Post #131 was unavailable or deleted.
The Admiral 04/15/18 1:41:00 PM #132:	shockthemonkey posted... The Admiral posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. So if a policy is only enforced against black people, its not racist hutton thinks he can use a single example to make claims about how this policy is enforced 100% of the time --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899698734] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> So if a policy is only enforced against black people, its not racist </quote> hutton thinks he can use a single example to make claims about how this policy is enforced 100% of the time </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:41:08 PM #133:	The Admiral posted... DepreceV2 posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address. That's not the main issue. Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. And unless you have more evidence of blacks being targeted beyond the claims of this one woman who is well-versed in oppression rhetoric and clearly wanted this to go viral, you don't have any basis to make that claim. I find it incredibly unlikely that in Philly -- where blacks are the largest racial group -- that stores and discriminating against them. Once again, Addy is avoiding the question like a BLM meeting. So once again, I'll ask the question you are trying so hard not to answer..... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899698744] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DepreceV2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address.</quote> That's not the main issue. Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. And unless you have more evidence of blacks being targeted beyond the claims of this one woman who is well-versed in oppression rhetoric and clearly wanted this to go viral, you don't have any basis to make that claim. I find it incredibly unlikely that in Philly -- where blacks are the largest racial group -- that stores and discriminating against them.</quote> Once again, Addy is avoiding the question like a BLM meeting. So once again, I'll ask the question you are trying so hard not to answer..... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Teddytalks 04/15/18 1:41:29 PM #134:	Trolls trolling out here bad mang. <cite>Teddytalks posted [p:899698756] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote>Trolls trolling out here bad mang.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#135	Post #135 was unavailable or deleted.
FrisbeeDude 04/15/18 1:42:28 PM #136:	Not reading a repeat topic, but Starbucks CEO admits they fucked up https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:899698810] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote>Not reading a repeat topic, but Starbucks CEO admits they fucked up https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:43:21 PM #137:	Capn Circus posted... Bishop9800 posted... Capn Circus posted... There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did? Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral. Do you typically film your entire daily life just in case an incident occurs so that you have all mundane pre-incident context on film? Is that a normal thing for people to do? Or do they typically whip out their phones when an incident is starting to occur? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899698851] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Capn Circus posted...</cite> <quote> There's much more that wasn't filmed and I'll absolutely bet on them having done something. </quote> Really? So in your opinion, what was the "something" they did?</quote> Not sure. But I feel there's more to the story than what the woman chose to show us. You can tell by how she wrote and what she specifically chose to film that she had an agenda and wanted this to go viral.</quote> Do you typically film your entire daily life just in case an incident occurs so that you have all mundane pre-incident context on film? Is that a normal thing for people to do? Or do they typically whip out their phones when an incident is starting to occur?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#138	Post #138 was unavailable or deleted.
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:45:11 PM #139:	Conflict posted... FrisbeeDude posted... Not reading a repeat topic, but Starbucks CEO admits they fucked up https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident LOL Owned The usual suspects is going to say "they changed their policy so they can't look bad". --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899698936] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote>Not reading a repeat topic, but Starbucks CEO admits they fucked up https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident</quote> LOL Owned</quote> The usual suspects is going to say "they changed their policy so they can't look bad".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DepreceV2 04/15/18 1:46:20 PM #140:	The Admiral posted... DepreceV2 posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above. I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black? Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address. That's not the main issue. Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. And unless you have more evidence of blacks being targeted beyond the claims of this one woman who is well-versed in oppression rhetoric and clearly wanted this to go viral, you don't have any basis to make that claim. I find it incredibly unlikely that in Philly -- where blacks are the largest racial group -- that stores and discriminating against them. What I bolded is 100% the main issue. Sure it looks like s race thing but even if they were white... that doesn't matter. If you have a policy like that then you clearly display it and you follow it at all times. Period. If they did that then this would have never happened. Guess what? They don't. That's the issue. I go to a small gift shop all the time at work. Sometimes I forget my wallet. They tell me to pay it back tomorrow. I consistently do this. If I grab something and tell a coworker as I'm leaving I'll pay for it tomorrow like I always do.. then I get arrested for theft... Are you just going to give zero blame to the company and all of it to me because they considered that theft by policy, and common sense, even though the company has consistently let me do that to the point where it became comfortable? Starbucks deserves the blame here for being lax on their policy. --- Yes... I'm a Hanzo main <cite>DepreceV2 posted [p:899698996] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DepreceV2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>An employee said the Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-paying members of the public and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused.</quote> Also, other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Like I said yesterday before you guys started getting pissy, the facts of the case are basically > They were violating the store policy > They were asked by a manager who was within his rights to order something or leave > They refused to comply > They were told by the police repeatedly to leave > They refused to comply The only argument you guys have is that you don't like the outcome here. You have absolutely no argument to make that this was unjustified based on the above.</quote> I like how you completely ignore the question. So I'll ask you again.... other people said that a woman was allowed to use the bathroom without buying anything. Plus there were a group of people (more the two people Addy) who was in the back and they didn't order anything. So now SB policy is to only enforce the rule if you're black?</quote> Admiral keeps ignoring the big Elephant in the room. The main issue that he refuses to address.</quote> That's not the main issue. Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. And unless you have more evidence of blacks being targeted beyond the claims of this one woman who is well-versed in oppression rhetoric and clearly wanted this to go viral, you don't have any basis to make that claim. I find it incredibly unlikely that in Philly -- where blacks are the largest racial group -- that stores and discriminating against them.</quote> What I bolded is 100% the main issue. Sure it looks like s race thing but even if they were white... that doesn't matter. If you have a policy like that then you clearly display it and you follow it at all times. Period. If they did that then this would have never happened. Guess what? They don't. That's the issue. I go to a small gift shop all the time at work. Sometimes I forget my wallet. They tell me to pay it back tomorrow. I consistently do this. If I grab something and tell a coworker as I'm leaving I'll pay for it tomorrow like I always do.. then I get arrested for theft... Are you just going to give zero blame to the company and all of it to me because they considered that theft by policy, and common sense, even though the company has consistently let me do that to the point where it became comfortable? Starbucks deserves the blame here for being lax on their policy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#141	Post #141 was unavailable or deleted.
Sir Will 04/15/18 1:52:09 PM #142:	Admiral being racist? I'm shocked! Shocked! And plenty of others too. FrisbeeDude posted... Not reading a repeat topic, but Starbucks CEO admits they fucked up https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident Good. So, will the racist disappear or counter with why they actually didn't fuck up. --- River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer' <cite>Sir Will posted [p:899699273] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote>Admiral being racist? I'm shocked! Shocked! And plenty of others too. <cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote>Not reading a repeat topic, but Starbucks CEO admits they fucked up https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbucks-ceo-reprehensible-outcome-in-philadelphia-incident</quote> Good. So, will the racist disappear or counter with why they actually didn't fuck up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 1:55:28 PM #143:	And poof!! They were never seen again. --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899699415] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote>And poof!! They were never seen again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DepreceV2 04/15/18 1:56:46 PM #144:	Bishop9800 posted... And poof!! They were never seen again. What's so bad is that the company already said they screwed up earlier --- Yes... I'm a Hanzo main <cite>DepreceV2 posted [p:899699479] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>And poof!! They were never seen again.</quote> What's so bad is that the company already said they screwed up earlier</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 04/15/18 1:59:22 PM #145:	Admiral is just outside enjoying a beautiful Sunday. What's the weather like in NYC today? I'm in western MA and it's cold and rainy. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:899699606] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote>Admiral is just outside enjoying a beautiful Sunday. What's the weather like in NYC today? I'm in western MA and it's cold and rainy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/15/18 1:59:44 PM #146:	Bishop9800 posted... And poof!! They were never seen again. This was posted on the first page of the topic, but I know you don't like the read. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899699624] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>And poof!! They were never seen again.</quote> This was posted on the first page of the topic, but I know you don't like the read.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 2:01:07 PM #147:	DepreceV2 posted... Bishop9800 posted... And poof!! They were never seen again. What's so bad is that the company already said they screwed up earlier Fo real. But as usual, the usual suspects want to paint the paint the black guys as the bad guys. --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899699696] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>DepreceV2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>And poof!! They were never seen again.</quote> What's so bad is that the company already said they screwed up earlier</quote> Fo real. But as usual, the usual suspects want to paint the paint the black guys as the bad guys.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 04/15/18 2:03:33 PM #148:	The Admiral posted... This was posted on the first page of the topic, but I know you don't like the read. And you don't either. You just run away like you usually do and make some bullshit excuse. BTW, if this was posted on the first page, then why are you still trying to blame the black guys? Must be a forced habit for you. --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:899699833] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>This was posted on the first page of the topic, but I know you don't like the read.</quote> And you don't either. You just run away like you usually do and make some bullshit excuse. BTW, if this was posted on the first page, then why are you still trying to blame the black guys? Must be a forced habit for you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 04/15/18 2:03:57 PM #149:	The Admiral posted... Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. It absolutely does if they only enforce it based on race, and we're short on alternate explanations considering other patrons were allowed to use the restroom without purchase and/or take up table space without purchase. The pressing question is why these men were treated differently, and only the manager can answer that. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:899699864] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Arguing that "they don't consistently enforce the rule" does not mean it's wrong when they do. </quote> It absolutely does if they only enforce it based on race, and we're short on alternate explanations considering other patrons were allowed to use the restroom without purchase and/or take up table space without purchase. The pressing question is why these men were treated differently, and only the manager can answer that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 04/15/18 2:05:06 PM #150:	Bishop9800 posted... The Admiral posted... This was posted on the first page of the topic, but I know you don't like the read. And you don't either. You just run away like you usually do and make some bullshit excuse. BTW, if this was posted on the first page, then why are you still trying to blame the black guys? Must be a forced habit for you. The black guys are 100% at fault for arguing with the cops and refusing to comply when they were asked 3 times to leave. As for the store inconsistently enforcing its policy and escalating this, that was not the fault of the black guys. Even the manager who called the cops said he did not want to see them get arrested. TrevorBlack79 posted... It absolutely does if they only enforce it based on race No one has any basis to make this claim from one example. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:899699911] in Black guys... [t:76515010]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>This was posted on the first page of the topic, but I know you don't like the read.</quote> And you don't either. You just run away like you usually do and make some bullshit excuse. BTW, if this was posted on the first page, then why are you still trying to blame the black guys? Must be a forced habit for you.</quote> The black guys are 100% at fault for arguing with the cops and refusing to comply when they were asked 3 times to leave. As for the store inconsistently enforcing its policy and escalating this, that was not the fault of the black guys. Even the manager who called the cops said he did not want to see them get arrested. <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted...</cite> <quote>It absolutely does if they only enforce it based on race</quote> No one has any basis to make this claim from one example.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10

Current Events > Black guys arrested at Starbucks for doing nothing, white customers are shocked (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Black guys arrested at Starbucks for doing nothing, white customers are shocked