Friday, April 20, 2018

Starbucks: Statements for Analysis

We are known by the words we choose to use. 

Two men were arrested by police for refusing to leave a Starbucks. The claim is racism as the two refused to leave.  We have a few statements to look at only, though the video is available. 

The police commissioner originally stated that his officers did nothing wrong.  

The public outcry in media was strong and the commissioner has now apologized. 

Starbucks is going to close for one day for racial sensitivity training. 

Question:  Was this a genuine act of racism or is there more here to be uncovered?

Media Narrative:  Two black male businessmen were waiting for a third to arrive in a very large life changing real estate deal when a white female manager called police on them, who removed them due to their skin color.  They are victims of racism by a white female manager.  

The claim is also that the manager did not warn them that she was calling police.  This "warning" is akin to a threat and if the manager has experience in this, a threat to call police is to increase personal risk.  

One subject asked to use the restroom which is only for customers, and was declined.  This is a practice of small business.  It is likely that many readers have quickly purchased something in order to use a restroom. 

The subject sat down with his partner but did not make a purchase. 

In a TV interview, one said:

 We’re at the table. We sit down we’re just talking amongst each other, she comes from around the register, walks up to us, asks if she could help us with anything… could we start with some drinks, water. We had bottles of water with us so we’re fine. We’re waiting for a meeting we’ll be out really quick, type thing. And that was it.

There are several important points to look at.  

1.  The pronoun "we"
2.  The verb tense is present tense

A commitment to a past event is found in past tense verbs.  When someone is not committing, or even fabricating, they can slip into present tense language.  We do not conclude such by itself, but flag it as not reliable. 

3.  The word "just" is a dependent word. This means its communication is found in dependence upon another thought.  It is used in comparison. That he says "we were just talking" is to compare "talking" with something else. 

What might this be?

We may have insight into the word "just" via the police report and the 911 call.  The 911 call reports they refused to make a purchase and they refused to leave. The police report gives us more insight:

The police report:   "cursed at the store manager and refused to leave even though officers asked “multiple times.” 

The two subjects do not believe it is necessary to follow the rules of the store.  This is a possible mindset to consider.  They entered a beverage store with their own beverage.  

The subjects also refuse police orders.  Police are armed with lethal force.  

Over a minor violation, they have refused to follow the store rules and now refuse to obey orders of law enforcement.  

This is insight into their thinking. 

"we're fine" is the subject's classification. 

Now notice:

4. "And that was it"

Analysts will recognize that the present tense language and plural pronoun, from one subject, is indicating concealment of information. 

"And that was it" is unnecessary closing which seeks to stop the flow of information either from the subject, or through questioning.  If "that was it" there is no more information to be gleaned; so "don't ask me questions."

This is often seen in guilty statements in which the subject does not want any more information to be revealed about the topic (context) at hand. 

He is not only unreliable, he is withholding information. 

One of the subjects taunted police, giving us further insight into the mentality 

 “Cops don’t know the laws,” 

 “Y’all make 45G a year.” 

This is to claim both ignorance on the part of law enforcement, and to demean law enforcement by pay. 

This is to affirm the lawless mindset: 'the rules and laws in society do not apply to me' by the subject. 

This is a very dangerous ideology and a very popular one, facilitated by politicians against police. 

The subject described the interaction with police.  This is critical to understanding Content Analysis: 

"As soon as they approached us, they said we have to leave. There was no question of, ‘was there a problem here with you guys and a manager, you know, what happened?’ At the time, we’re not read any rights. Nothing. Just double locked. Handcuffed behind our backs and escorted out and put into a squad car.”

The Rule of the Negative 

The subject continued to use the plural pronoun but notice that he tells us what the police did not say:

a.  "No question of"
b.  "we're not read our rights" (note the qualification of time with "at the time" 
c.  "just" is again used, comparing what happened with something else. 

The video is revelatory as well, including the demeanor of the police and the overt disrespect towards them. 

The men were asked to purchase something or leave.  They not only refused, but became the police report says they cursed the manager, which would increase her fear. 

The statements made by the subject indicates the attitude of not only disrespect but of being above the law. 

That they claim racism is an example of "fake hate" and exploitation.  

Recall the budding politician who pounded on a "white blonde girl's door", in a menacing manner because he "had to bear the burden of being black" only to learn that the young woman who called 911 on him was black.  

In the above case, we have statements from both the alleged victim and the actual victim for analysis and comparison. 

As the subject continued his TV interview, he then revealed something critical in analysis:  "unnecessary information."

Unnecessary information is of vital importance to the analyst. 

Were these two men there to cause trouble, or were they two young businessmen who were racially discriminated against?

Note the unnecessary wording, in. context with a nationwide media favorable setting, the CEO of Starbucks apologizing, closing down and the police commissioner apologizing. 

In this context, note the unnecessary word, "real" in the following: 

"We were there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on. 

The word "real" is used to combat an allegation of "fake" or "not real."

There was no apparent allegation in context.  Yet, even more so, he repeats "real" (versus "fake") with not only their "reason", but with their "deal" which he tells us, unnecessarily, was also "real."

How "real" was this meeting?

We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”

It was going to have a "positive impact" on a "whole ladder of people, lives, families."

This is the Ingratiation Factor meeting the "Good Guy" principle in Statement Analysis.

Deception Indicated.

The need to buttress the "deal" as "real" comes with the need to persuade the audience that much good for many people would have come from this meeting and that the failure of the good to come to a "ladder" of people has been caused by racism. 

Without knowing the facts of the case, nor the subjects' backgrounds, but going solely from the quotes in media, the subject is deceptive. 

He indicates a deliberate provoking of incivility as well as showing an entitled attitude of one who has been throughly indoctrinated by politicians' exploitation of race baiting and cop hating.

The subject is deceptively withholding information while revealing his own desire to insult authority and police in general.  

It is "Fake Hate" and the manager who trusted her intuition by quietly calling the police may have saved her own life.  This is based upon the contempt the subject has for the rule of law, for authority and his deception.  Willing to curse out the female employee should be seen in context with resisting the initial requests of law enforcement to leave, and then in resisting the command to leave. 

If one is unafraid of an armed police officer, the female store manager was correct in seeking protection for herself.  

This was belligerence and it is why women are taught to trust their instincts.  

To train in deception detection:  Hyatt Analysis Services 

Update:  Link to Pat Brown's article.


Pat Brown said...

Great analysis, Peter! I am glad to see this. Btw, I did NOT see any bottles of water in the video and the men had nothing to conceal them in.

As a criminal profiler, I can say the evidence shows no racism by the store manager and no racism by the police. The question is was this a case of entitlement gone bad or a setup by three men having a "business meeting"? Read my complete case analysis at the link:

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Pat, I will add the link to the article thank you. Peter

Anonymous said...

3 grown men enter a restraunt so 1 can use bathroom? Basic sensibilty dictates that if a bathroom emergency then the one enters and the others remain outside and wait. What a formula for fradulent claims, knowing the other side will acquiesce and capitulate.

LuciaD said...

If these two are such “real” businessmen, why did they not understand that Starbucks has seats for paying customers? And if they want to use someone else’s business to hold a meeting that they would have to buy a cup of coffee?

General P. Malaise said...

who was this person they waited for? is he or she mentioned? why could they not have waited outside?

they tell us they have a real reason. plus they are helping a whole "ladder" of people. a scam that is a real scam over fake racism.

the police and starbucks have made things worse with their unwarranted capitulation. I expect to see much more of such shakedowns in the near future.

Anonymous said...

How the manager must feel. She protected her employer and now the entire company will shut down for re-education.

General P. Malaise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
General P. Malaise said...

“We’re at the table. We sit down we’re just talking amongst each other, she comes from around the register, walks up to us, asks if she could help us with anything… could we start with some drinks, water. We had bottles of water with us so we’re fine. We’re waiting for a meeting we’ll be out really quick, type thing. And that was it.”

a) "We sit down we’re just talking amongst each other..." here we see that more than just the 2 arrested are involved. "talking amongst each other" not talking amongst ourselves which is how two people talk.

b) "she comes from around the register, .." the motive? "register" is not necessary language so why did it come into their vocabulary? is it about money?

c) "asks if she could help us with anything… could we start with some drinks, water. We had bottles of water with us so we’re fine." he doesn't say "she asks" he hays "asks if she could help us with anything…" he is distancing the manager from the question of "help". Has the manager done exactly what they had hoped for? "helped" them? for the grievance to work she had to do precisely what she did. Possibly store policy that they intended to monopolize? the "..." indicates TL missing information.

d) "We’re waiting for a meeting we’ll be out really quick, type thing. And that was it.” was this meeting real? was meeting the police the plan?

e) "And that was it.” Starting a sentence with "And" indicates there is missing information between the "and" and previous sentence. And with the arrest and media support that quote them "that was it".

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
What does the shaped beard say? You know.....

I noticed the beards in the video but unfortunately there isn't more information to qualify that.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Its indicative of affiliation.

I understand the point, it is important when making a conclusion to be accurate. While it is indicative I won't conclude.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
There cant be more info to qualify. Its a signal.

I was thinking the "other" signal. I am unfamiliar with the detroit black religious leadership and kwame. my reference was moHAMid.

Anonymous said...

the businessmen consists of a drop out and a part time amazon warehouse employee. haha. what frauds

Anonymous said...

Local news reports say that one of the men asked for the code for the restroom, and was told that only paying customers could use it.

Anonymous said...

"very large life changing real estate deal"

I wonder exactly what that was.

Unknown said...

Any idea what racial sensitivity training will look like or looks like in other companies?

Anonymous said...

These guys have been handcuffed before. Cuffs are double locked by pressing a pin on the back of the handcuff key into a small hole on the cuff to prevent them from tightening. Usually cops and people who have been handcuffed would even think to pin t this out. He's highlighting that detail intentionally to bolster the effect of his story.

LuciaD said...

I wondered what double locked meant. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Police have released the 911 call a Philadelphia Starbucks manager made claiming that two black men wouldn't leave the store, which ultimately led to their arrests and widespread calls to boycott the coffee chain.

The brief 911 call, which was released by Philadelphia Police on Tuesday, shows manager Holly Hylton reporting the two men for not making a purchase at her store last week.

'Hi, I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave. I'm at the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce,' she said in the call made at 4.37pm last Thursday.

LC said...

I am curious about something, Peter...
When a comment has been deleted, the note says: "This comment has been removed by the author."
Was the comment removed by the Author of the Blog (you) Or the author of the Comment?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

If you can afford to make a very large life-changing real estate deal that will impact a ladder of people, I think you can afford a cup of Starbucks coffee, a muffin, or a scone...even if you brought your own water to the table. White, black, or orange with pink polka dots, I'd have called police too and had them removed.

Notice which sentence prompted the use of appropriate past tense language?

"And that was it."

Only the last one, with a need to persuade and dropped pronoun, indicating refusal to commit to what's being stated in the sentence. Not only did the pronoun itself disappear, but the hiding in a crowd "we-ness" as well.

Anyone has the right to enter a public restaurant. The restaurant has the right to remove anyone failing to comply with the restaurant's rules or engaging in disorderly conduct. The Police Department has the legal right and responsibility to remove said person(s) from the premises. The only racism involved was on the part of the two black men.

General P. Malaise said...

I think the author of the comment can remove their own comment. there is a trash bin beside the date/time stamp. at least for my comments there is and I do have a google account so that may make a difference. yes I know google is evil.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Anonymous at 6:16 PM April 20, 2018- Thanks for the lesson on handcuffs. I was wondering what "double locked" meant. I see I wasn't the only one. Thank you for explaining how handcuffs work and why.

The two men chose to escalate the situation and facilitated the need to be handcuffed. Had the officers been racist, there would have been unnecessary force injuries, perhaps even gunshot wounds.

Starbucks has signaled to the masses that they're afraid of bad publicity and fearful of boycotts; a very stupid move on their part as they're now in a position to be "owned" by anyone with a "cause" and a social media account. They've signaled they'll immediately bow and roll over and offer their financial throat. They've also signaled they'll throw LE under the bus for a couple of cups of coffee.

Hey Jude said...

They are there for a "very large life changing real estate deal" into which, "we put in a lot of time, energy, effort" - the meeting is going to be really quick, and impact a "ladder" of people, yet it is also only "a real deal that we were working on." How could there be a real deal which would be life changing and benefit a ladder of people while actually they were only "working on" the "real deal", rather than, say, closing it. Life changing real estate deals are not likely to be made "really quick" while they are still being "worked on".

I don't know if anyone conducts real business meetings in Starbucks, or why, if they went there with that intention they wouldn't expect themselves to buy something in order to occupy seats in which to make the really quick life changing real estate deal that they are only "working on". There's an increase in tension when they sit down - is that because they were aware it was out of order to take seats and not buy anything?

It was not a real deal - if there had been a potential deal, upon which they were still working, they would not have been able to anticipate that their "meeting" would necessarily be really quick. Meetings are not usually "really quick" - a meeting might be quick if just to attend to formalities, sign documents, etc but they didn't say they were settling a deal, only working on a "real deal".

sonjay said...

This statement: “We’re at the table. We sit down we’re just talking amongst each other, she comes from around the register, walks up to us, asks if she could help us with anything… could we start with some drinks, water. We had bottles of water with us so we’re fine. We’re waiting for a meeting we’ll be out really quick, type thing. And that was it.”

It sounds like they made it clear to the manager that they had no intention of buying anything. Essentially, they told her "We have our own water, we don't plan to buy anything, we're waiting for a meeting, then we will leave."

At which point, she probably told them the store was for paying customers only. Which was probably the closest she wanted to get to actually telling/asking them to leave, given her previous experience being chased by someone who didn't want to leave. She may not have told them directly in those exact words to leave, but an exchange that consists of "I don't plan to buy anything" that elicits the response "The store is for paying customers only" is, indeed, telling them they need to buy something or leave.

The exchange may even have been something more like this:
"Do you need anything?" .... "No, we have our own water, we don't need anything, we're fine." ... "Well, the store is for paying customers only" .... "We're waiting for a meeting, then we'll be out really quick."

Most people would take the very direct hint at that point -- "Oh, okay, I'll buy a coffee then" or "Oh, okay, I'll wait outside for my meeting."

But instead of leaving or buying something, they elected to continue sitting there. That's why and when she called the police.

The manager was doing her job by enforcing store policy. And the police were just doing their job. They're supposed to remove trespassers when called about trespassers.

Hey Jude said...

I don't understand why the focus is upon the colour of the men, rather than the acceptability or otherwise of anyone intending to hold a meeting in a Starbucks while declining to make a purchase, and saying they had brought their own drink - then declining to leave when asked, and then going on to further decline when asked to leave by the police. Why is it about their colour, rather than that they declined to make a purchase, whilst apparently having arranged a meeting there? It's a p*ss take, over which a police commissioner, mayor, and the head of Starbucks are all saying it is a racist incident rather than pointing out that Starbucks is a business and that a 'non-paying customer' is something of an oxymoron. The lady who put in the 911 call no longer works there due to those "we're fine" jerks/victims - I wonder was she fired, or transferred, or did she resign.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...
I don't understand why the focus is upon the colour of the men,

because the two BLACK MEN are saying it is because they are black as the reason they were arrested.

Hey Jude said...

They should be prosecuted for intimidating behaviour, and for wasting police time - they must have known, if they were cursing at staff, where their non-paying occupation of a business premises was going.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...
They should be prosecuted for intimidating behaviour,

they wanted to be arrested so they could exploit starbucks for money and political reasons. they were successful because no one is willing to stand up for principals. I don't feel sorry for starbucks their virtue signaling is why this happened and I expect to see more such cases as people will game the system when they see other have success at it.

Hey Jude said...

General - yes, but why are others so obligingly agreeing with them rather than saying their bad manners and lack of respect are the problem - especially the Police Commissioner, Mayor and head of Starbucks?

I think they not only lack respect, they also lack self-respect.

I feel sorry for the employee who called the the police.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...

yes the manager of the outlet is the true victim here.

the others chose to capitulate.

Shannon In CA said...

Re: the “asked to use the bathroom” thing:

Different case completely. Not same town, not same day, not same men.

Anonymous said...

Turn the tables. Would there be the outcome.

Hey Jude said...

The link in the article to Pat Brown's FB post is not working.


Shannon, if you read Pat Brown"s post, or the news stories, you will find one of them did ask to use the bathroom when first they arrived, and was told it was for use by paying customers - then they sat down and declined to buy anything. It might have been discrimination if normally access to the bathroom was permitted to non-paying white customers, or it could be he was declined due to his attitude - that would be to speculate, but from how things developed, his attitude did not seem the best. Strange to have a life changing real deal meeting while you're in need of the bathroom - maybe that's why he found the need to say it was going to be a "really quick" meeting, which is unlikely for a life-changing real estate real deal which would impact a ladder of people. He was there to make trouble - he didn't intend to buy anything, and there was no real deal.


Why "ladder"? That's an interesting choice of word.

Here we say, of young people buying houses, that they are either "on the property ladder" or that they want or are trying "to get on the property ladder".


"We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”

How strange - who is he saying that to, or thinking it toward," like"? If their "deal ", which they "put a lot of time, energy, effort" into, doesn't happen, it is somehow the fault of whoever is trying to stop him conducting a meeting in Starbucks as a non-paying would impact all those people on that ladder - someone would be responsible for stopping that, and it wouldn't be at all due to him intending to sit in Starbucks without buying a coffee. He claims they made a lot effort, taking time and energy on a life changing deal, which somehow hung on that moment, yet he won't go that final step to facilitate his meeting taking place by just buying a coffee, which would be the obvious and appropriate thing to do, considering he is on Starbucks premises - it would also give him access to the bathroom and not make him appear a cheapskate squatter when the business associate arrived for the meeting. it's laughable that a life-changing deal would depend on his ability to be in a Starbucks at that moment, whether as a non-paying customer, or not. it's like saying the manager, who I agree is the actual victim, was aware of their real deal and all the time, effort and energy they had put in, and was trying to stop it, and therefore also the positive impact his real deal would have on the lives of others - families. I think he has a victim type mentality, and he is also seeking to blame the victim.

Hey Jude said...

Why did he choose 'ladder' - what other associations does it have? I am thinking he meant a lot of people would fall off the property ladder, or not get onto it, if "that" was stopped right now, but I don't know if 'property ladder' is an expression used there?

Did the "real deal" go through, or did it fall through, and all those people fall off the ladder, or not get onto it, due, one might suppose, to his not being able to use Starbucks as a free meeting venue to close his deal?

Why the 'right now'? Would it be reasonable to wonder if he has housing problems, and is seeking to make someone else - Starbucks - responsible for the failure of a non-existent property deal?

MizzMarple said...

"Question: Was this a genuine act of racism or is there more here to be uncovered?"


My Answer: There is much more to be uncovered - the TRUTH!

But unfortunately, I doubt the TRUTH will ever be uncovered because the Police Chief apologized quickly on behalf of the Deputies who performed their job correctly -- and -- Starbucks apologized on behalf of the Manager who performed her job correctly.

And to add further insult to the Starbucks Manager and Deputies, Starbucks is closing for a day in May for "sensitivity training" for all of their employees.

These 2 men - the lawbreakers - are rewarded.

The TRUE VICTIMS - the Starbucks Manager and Deputies - are punished for doing their job correctly.

Just my opinion ... this was a set-up.

I go to Starbucks ... I love coffee ... but NO more Starbucks for me.

MizzMarple said...

In this context, note the unnecessary word, "real" in the following:

"We were there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on.

The word "real" is used to combat an allegation of "fake" or "not real."

There was no apparent allegation in context. Yet, even more so, he repeats "real" (versus "fake") with not only their "reason", but with their "deal" which he tells us, unnecessarily, was also "real."

How "real" was this meeting?

"We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”


According to the star, the 2 lawbreakers were there to meet a real estate developer to discuss investments.

If these 2 lawbreakers could afford a real estate investment, then they surely can afford to purchase an item at Starbucks -- and -- NOT break the law of a business establishment -- AND -- NOT cause trouble with law enforcement!

lynda said...

Good Lord, these men spoke quietly to the officers, did not resist arrest in ANY way, and are being crucified.

Meanwhile, the manager called police 2 minutes after they entered, sounding positively cheery on the 911 EMERGENCY call, (sure didn't sound like she was scared or unnerved) and I have just looked at her twitter where she called people that don't speak English well when they order "rude." I have seen nowhere online or any televised reports that the men "swore" at her or were intimidating or threatening in any way.

The Chief of Police has come out and stated that he SHOULD have said that the officers were within the scope of the law, NOT that they didn't do anything wrong.

The white real estate developer they were meeting with, who arrived during the arrest, and is also on tape had the loudest voice, asking repeatedly why they were arrested and that it was ridiculous.

Are people so blind that they can't even entertain the possibility that somebody did something because they are, in fact, profiling. Particularly since the manager comments on social media that people that don't speak English are "rude"

I don't know where anyone else goes to their Starbucks, but my Starbucks has people sitting around for the WiFi only, not ordering a damn thing. I myself, have sat and waited for other people and not ordered anything because I want to wait until they get there.

That manager was in the wrong in my book, and gee, is it just a coincidence that it is in an "affluent, mainly white" area that this happened.

To believe that this NEVER happens because of the color of someone's skin, isn't rational

habundia said...

It was interesting to read al these comments with so much information to keeps amazing me. Thanks for all your's appreciated!

When I read:
"We’re waiting for a meeting we’ll be out really quick,"
I didnt think the meeting would have took place at Starbucks.

"A meeting".....a meeting doesn't come to anywhere, a meeting doesn't travel....a meeting only exist when it is formed by two or more "waiting on a meeting", to me is odd.
If they where 'waiting on a meeting', 'to be out really quick', then why wouldn' they wait outside if you didn't want to buy anything and were "waiting on a meeting'?
If you needed to use the toilet and were refused, wouldnt you go elswhere (if you needed to go) instead of 'sitting at the table' (causing trouble)? there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on."

Could 'a real reason",'a real deal that we are working on" the whole thing they were doing. Trying to get (working on) a "real deal" to gain financial profit from a potential lawsuit?

I don't see where the real estate is found in the words, it's "a real deal', but the subject doesnt say what it is about.

""As soon as they approached us, they said we have to leave. There was no question of, ‘was there a problem here with you guys and a manager, you know, what happened?’ At the time, we’re not read any rights. Nothing. Just double locked. Handcuffed behind our backs and escorted out and put into a squad car.”

Cops don't ask you to leave and handcuff you immediately if you don't obey there question, they do if you cause trouble. ....and that's exactly what they did, causing trouble (A real reason)

Ladela said...


The policy at THAT particular Starbucks is you need to buy something. The men did resist that policy and then the police when they asked them to leave due to the policy. Had they followed the rules of both Starbucks and then the police, they would not have been arrested.

And if their meeting was THAT important and life-changing for so many, they would have spent a couple of bucks buying something to "ensure" the "meeting" took place. That's what rational adults would do, not expecting that "the rules do not apply to them", which
amounts to "privilege."


The word "real" screamed at me, not just for it's qualifying nature, but also it's sensitivity due to repetition.

LuciaD said...

I didn't see anyone here say racial profiling "NEVER" happens. And for the record, I've never seen people sitting in a coffee shop "not ordering a damn thing." EVER.

Anonymous said...

I am crying my eyes out for those 2 poor men. If they were doing a drug deal in Starbucks they should not have had to buy one of the crappiest cups of coffee ever made (Starbucks coffee). They were chained like slaves, humiliated, jailed for 2 hours, my heart breaks for them. When will we realize our white ptivilage? When? It is an invisible privilage and it is so very unfair.

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - it is in the police report that they swore at the manager.

I would feel intimidated if I were her because they didn't intend to buy anything and they declined to leave when asked - I would think they were looking to cause trouble. A reasonable person would not intend to hold a meeting on someone elses's premises without intending to buy anything. They did not say they would order later, rather they were going to be "really quick", though ten minutes passed before the other person even arrived. They had no good reason to be in the Starbucks - meet in a public park if you just want somewhere to sit for a really quick life changing meeting which would impact a whole ladder of people, lives, families. If you want to sit in a particular place, designed for the comfort of customers, then be a customer.

They may have been expecting to be joined by half a dozen more non-paying customers for their "meeting", for all I knew - he just said they were "waiting for a meeting", not how many people might be intending to join them for their meeting, maybe also as non-paying customers. That would sound like trouble, they were not only refusing to leave but also waiting for more people to join them. I would not know just one other person was expected, but I would already not want these two to continue to be there. My job would be to run a coffee shop, not to host life changing real estate deals for non-paying customers who said "we're fine", they were waiting and who had brought their own water - the audacity of that would annoy me. If you want to sit there, buy a coffee, or my bottled water, whether you drink it or not, otherwise you are taking the p*ss. I might let well behaved kids hang out there for a while, if it was raining or if they wanted to use the chargers, and if at other times they had bought something, but these were adults who claimed to be holding a business meeting, and who could be expected to understand that Starbucks is a business run for profit, not a free meeting venue.


Lol, Anon at 11.36, though I probably shouldn't laugh.

Anonymous said...

We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families.

This word intrigues me. As we
know "words do not come from a vacuum"

If the real "deal" was so important would they conduct it in a cafe?


What does this me?

Again, "words do not come from a vacuum"


Hey Jude said...

I think, as others have already said, the real deal was to cause an incident in the Starbucks, to be compensated for it, receive attention from media, interviews etc.

I wonder has any journalist asked them what the real deal was, and did it go through - or if it was all confounded by their shock arrest.

"you're not stopping that right now." - not "you're not stopping this" - wouldn't it be more of a 'this' than a 'that' if the real deal, and the ladder of people it could impact, was of such immediate concern to him?

Hey Jude said...

Was he telling the truth there, "you're not stopping that" - because there was no 'that'?

Anonymous said...

Yet another example of two people using
their obnoxious privilege of black racism
for their 15 minutes of "fame".

rob said...

Mike Dammann said...
Any idea what racial sensitivity training will look like or looks like in other companies?

April 20, 2018 at 5:24 PM

I looks like you can't say 'no' to an African American.

These guys are con men and the ladder land deal will now be paid for by Starbucks.
When Starbucks caves and hands over the cash, it will never stop, it will break the company.
If I was a manager in any starbucks shoppe, I would not only unlock the door to the restroom, I would prop the door open.
When the lack-on'ers start, they will scare the upscale people that frequent starbucks and buy the expensive coffee and drinks, and change the atmosphere of the company. It is somewhat funny to me, because Starbucks is as liberal as they come.

rob said...

I'm guessing there is a sign on the restroom doors stating that rest rooms are for customers only, and upon seeing that sign, they decided to challenge it. The manager upholds company policy, which I'm guessing she is paid to do, and 'BAM' discrimination happens.
Good Lord, go pee behind a bush.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Consider the profile of these two men. If you struggle to do so, try it from the position of the manager:

1. These two men believe they are above the rules of an establishment. This, itself is concerning. But there is more.

2. As a woman, these two males are not hindered by societal boundaries. They are openly insulting and hostile to a woman. They are now seen as "not masculine." They are cowardly, unrestrained by nature or by laws.

3. Then, they are refusing the polite requests to leave by armed law enforcement.

conclusion: They are capable of physically assaulting a woman. '

There is no masculine nobility that says, "I don't hit a woman. I don't use my size to intimidate or bully a woman." This is to honor the weaker sex, rather than exploit weakness.

She did the right thing.

Female police officers know exactly what these guys are like. When they go to arrest them, they talk about the gleam in their eyes: the contempt they have not only for authority, but for women.

Misogyny is frightening. It leads to deep violence.

It is not defined as disagreeing with Hillary.


T4 said...

I think the word "ladder" implies a hierarchy. The "ladder " of people affected by the speaker's real deal, are people that the speaker sees as below him. It is evidence of his sense of superiority. He is at the top of the ladder.

He could have said the deal would affect a group of people, a range of people, a lot of people, or many people, implying all the people affected by the deal are equal, even if not equally affected.

Anonymous said...

These 2 men only wanted to put food on their children's table, while we insult them, not knowing of their struggle. Waiting for a meeting to get money tp buy their kids pampers and formula, while we sit here in our ivory towers never knowimg what blackness means, what slavery meant, what it feels like to be thrown against a wall in fromt of strangers, cuffed, frisked, booked & hearing that iron door shut, and just hearing the words echo in your brain "I am black."

lynda said...

Hey Jude

I have not seen a copy of the police report, nor can I find anywhere, except NPR, that is saying they cursed at her in the police report. If you have a link to a copy of the report, I'd appreciate it.
No one else that I have seen that were witnesses said they did.
The manager, in her cheery 911 call, did not say they cursed at her
Starbucks did not defend manager at any point using "they cursed at her"

What did the cursing consist of?
You can't use the bathroom

Or, did they get in her face and space and unleash a torrent of cursing? Makes a big difference IF it even happened.

Again, I get that they had to buy something to use the bathroom. They chose not to, and to wait for their client, who arrived within 10 minutes. Those of you that have never seen someone sitting in a coffee shop, with nothing in front of them, waiting for someone, I don't know what to say about that. I've done it, and I've seen it done.

I notice tho that not one person has remarked about the managers social media calling non English speakers, or people that don't speak English well, "Rude".

To not at least entertain the idea that the manager had some unconscious. or even blatant prejudice, that influenced her calling the police isn't looking at the whole picture either.

Anonymous said...

Life changing business deals take place in lawyer office dont it?

Anonymous said...

Neither men look threatening or even intimidating. That doesnt mean this isnt a planned passive aggression scam though. If a scam it was well played. If not a scam then very poor decision making.

Hey Jude said...

Lynda, I don't have a link, I read it in the article:

' The police report gives us more insight:
The police report: "cursed at the store manager and refused to leave even though officers asked “multiple times.” '

It is one thing to wait to order until a person you are waiting for arrives, another to indicate that you don't intend to order - you have brought your own drink.

I haven't looked at the manager's Facebook, I was considering the incident as in the article, and the video.. They don't seem like foreigners who are unable to speak English - they sound American and made themselves well understood. Maybe you are creating a bias for her against black people - she may, in her FB, have been complaining against incomers who hold up the queue and make her job more difficult. Even if she does have some unconscious, or even blatant prejudice against black people, should she be expected to not act on her manager experience and instinct? Reasonably, it is a coffee house, not a free meeting venue. I would not be stopping to think, " I better not call 911 because I am, or might be, prujudiced." I'd have reason to call because were dissing me, and ignoring requests to leave.

Hey Jude said...

ABC's Robin Roberts asked the men how they would respond to those who say they violated Starbucks policy by not buying anything.

"I understand that — rules are rules," Robinson said. "But what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong."


A Starbucks spokesperson told The Washington Post, "In this particular store, the guidelines were that partners must ask unpaying customers to leave the store, and police were to be called if they refused."


Robinson told ABC News that he hopes the situation can serve as a lesson for "young men to not be traumatized by this and instead [be] motivated, inspired."

Nelson said he wants to "help people understand it's not just a black people thing; it's a people thing."


The men's lawyer, Stewart Cohen, says a retired federal judge is overseeing mediation with Starbucks.


What is 'the people thing' - that young men should be motivated and inspired to ignore the rules and hang out in Starbucks refusing to make a purchase, or to leave?

Anonymous said...

SB needs to stand up for itself. Compensate the traumitized mgr.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I am hesitant to Agree to money handed over that has not been earned but I agree with Anonymous 12:17.

Companies I work for share this ethic. We clear out the fraudulent but if someone is harmed, they take appropriate steps.