Philly Real Estate Brokers Arrested at Starbucks, Led Out In Hand-Cuffs for Trespassing (Toilet Usage w/o Ordering Anything)

Yea, they sat there for 15 minutes while someone used the restroom. Who takes 15 minutes in the restroom? While they were waiting they were probably cursing and talking obnoxiously loud about foul subjects. And since they are intimidating and large none of the female barristas had the balls to say leave. I don’t see any issues here.

Very Politically Incorrect Me wrote:

Maybe they were confused about the lack of fried chicken and collard greens on the SB menu.

Only "hipsters" are going to know what coffee to drink, after all.

“I’d like the ‘My Wife’s Out of Town and I’m in Over My Head Meal.'”

Won't satisfy the SJWs wrote:

On Tuesday, Starbucks announced that the company is going to close over 8,000 stores across the United States next month "to conduct racial-bias education geared toward preventing discrimination in our stores."

...

The closing of more than 8,000 stores across the U.S. on May 29 will provide training to approximately 175,000 Starbucks' employees.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbALYA8VMAESO7T.jpg

Not fair.

So now we gotta suffer and go through coffee withdrawals cuz of these losers.

I desperately need a venti mocha espresso cappuccino to get my day, righting unrecognized social wrongs, started.

seemslegit wrote:

Every inner city I've ever been to you (black, white, polka-dot, all the same) have to be a customer to use the bathrooms.

What kind of sick society won't allow people to use the public bathrooms in restaurants and coffee shops?

And when the cops arrest some white folks for trying to use the bathroom without buying anything give me a holler.

The location of that Starbucks is a block off of Rittenhouse Square in Philly. Rittenhouse Square is a micro version of NY's central park in that it is surrounded by very high end hotels and condos. Rittenhouse Square is also in a constant battle with homeless people sleeping on park benches. I am sure that Starbucks constantly has homeless people coming in asking to use the bathroom and trying to camp out when the weather is bad out. I feel sorry for the manager of that location having to deal with that issue all the time and then making national news because he made the wrong call on two black guys.

I blame Philly more than I blame Starbucks. I have had to pee in downtown Philly before. There are no public restrooms anywhere to be found. And Philly police should be able to deal with a situation like that without having to make an arrest.

On Tuesday, Starbucks announced a national day of retraining for all of its employees in the wake of a supposedly racist incident: a Philadelphia store manager named Holly calling the police on two black men for allegedly loitering, after refusing them access to the restroom since they had not bought anything. Holly, the media claimed, was obviously acting out of racial intent.

The same day as Starbucks’ announcement, a listener to my show emailed me from Philadelphia to talk about Holly. According to the listener, who regularly frequents the now-infamous Philadelphia Starbucks in question, “I don’t know what happened last week with the two guys. I wasn’t there. But I highly doubt that she saw the two men and decided to call the police based solely on the fact that they are black.”

Why not? According to this patron, “From my observations and interactions with her, I was actually under the impression that Holly is an SJW feminist of the highest order. Once I even overheard her scorn a male barista for not using the proper neutral pronouns with somebody. That's why this whole situation is so shocking to me! Even though I did not agree with her and all the SJW pins that adorn her beanie, I think calling her a racist all over the news and doxing her name, address, phone, family, etc. is disgusting.”

This patron explained that Holly “is not racist and doesn’t deserve what is happening to her here in Philly.” The patrons of the Starbucks are “both black and white, and I’ve personally seen Holly give the oh-so-coveted restroom code to both black and white people, patrons and non-patrons. I’ve seen her train both black and white staff members and she has been nothing but nice to everyone, and I’ve never witnessed any racist behavior.”

The patron added, “I may not agree with the way she carries herself with the colorful hair and the hippie pins, but I can recognize when someone is doing their job well.”

This customer also points out that if Holly were truly racist, she’d “have to be on the phone all day calling the cops on every other patron,” since Philadelphia is so heavily minority.

According to the manager, she has managed the location at 18th and Spruce Street “for a year.” She has encountered many people “who loiter in the café with no intentions of purchasing; at least one of those persons, she claims, chased her around the store after she asked them to leave.” Corporate policy prohibits loitering. Melissa DePino, the witness, says, “Yes, the two men were asked to leave @Starbucks, as the Philly police said in their statement, but they sat there peacefully and had the nerve to ask WHY they were being asked to leave.” According to Richard Ross, the black chief of police in Philadelphia:

This. Philly is a great city but also in many ways a $hithole. Nobody could have position even in Rittenshouse and be "racist", you'd flip out in a week. She somehow and the cops predictable effed up... Ya'll wanna see "racist" try Waffle House.

Their actions amount to criminal trespass under section 3503(b)(1)(i) of Title 18 of the Consolidated Statutes of Pennsylvania, because under the section they are "defiant trespassers".

It looks like an offense under that section is a third degree misdemeanor.

The issue for me is whether or not such an offense gives law enforcement the right to arrest them. Reasonable suspicion that a third degree misdemeanor offense has occurred may very well give PA or Philly cops the lawful right to arrest, as it seems as though it was pretty easy for the cops to have verified at the scene that these guys "defie[d] an order to leave personally communicated to [the]m by the owner of the premises or other authorized person."

If they do have that right, then so be it. The "realtors'" ignorance of the law is no excuse for their actions, and no justification for their hurt feelings.

If they were politely but sternly asked to vacate the premises by the police in lieu of arrest and they refused, then they are fools who ignorantly believed that they were making a valid moral stand.

Anybody know if a third degree misdemeanor in Philly carries the lawful right of arrest?

Seems like horsespit wrote:

seemslegit wrote:

Every inner city I've ever been to you (black, white, polka-dot, all the same) have to be a customer to use the bathrooms.

What kind of sick society won't allow people to use the public bathrooms in restaurants and coffee shops?

One that doesn't want homeless people squatting in them all day.

A coffee shop I used to go to is very friendly to homeless people and lets them hang out all day without buying anything but they recently had to install key locks in the bathroom so they'd actually be available to customers.

Hardloper wrote:

Seems like horsespit wrote:

What kind of sick society won't allow people to use the public bathrooms in restaurants and coffee shops?

One that doesn't want homeless people squatting in them all day.

A coffee shop I used to go to is very friendly to homeless people and lets them hang out all day without buying anything but they recently had to install key locks in the bathroom so they'd actually be available to customers.

I still see signs in independent bars and diners that say: we deserve the right to refuse service to anyone. "

Is that still legal?

Asking for a friend who got 86d from the local pub,... again.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Every business that has a bathroom should let the public use it unhindered. If a lot of people are wandering in to use it, the store is in the wrong location to be acting gentrified.

Totally agree - generally there is an acute shortage of public facilities in American downtowns, so if you operate a business that serves the public, having an available restroom is part of the social contract that allows your business to be there.

As for the simple act of loitering - I think there's a lot of loitering going on at Starbucks both with and without a purchase. It's part of the business model, and it's pretty mystifying why any two individuals would be selected for ejection. These guys might have had a history of meeting people at that Starbucks - still no reason for ejection considering the overall business model. There is no evidence put forward yet to show there was any kind of threatening behavior going on. The manager may have had a reason, but we're likely never to hear that reason. Racism remains the default explanation.

(b) Defiant trespasser.--

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

(i) actual communication to the actor;

The reason you are wrong, and the key to the whole issue, is the qualifying phrase: "knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so".

Starbucks, and restaurants generally, are places of public accommodation that give license to the public to enter. Any action to withdraw that license has to be consistent with the prohibition against racial discrimination in effect since passage of the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act.

We already know from the comments of the other patrons that Starbucks isn't going to be able to show a consistent policy of asking people to leave immediately if they haven't purchased an item. And none of the witnesses remarked upon the two men doing anything provocative beyond sitting and waiting at a table.

When the gentleman the two men were waiting for did in fact show up, the manager still had an opportunity to intervene and withdraw the demand that they leave the establishment. Instead, the manager allowed the arrest to proceed.

The DAs's office ordered the two men released because it could find no grounds that a crime had been committed. That issue is done.

What remains to play out, legally speaking, is how much money the civil rights violation is going to cost Starbucks, most likely in settlement but with threat of jury trial.

Starbucks is getting good legal advice in getting ahead of the game by holding the workshop and showing good faith response and effort.

This whole BS 'racism' thing is one major reason why I'd never live anywhere east of the Rocky Mountains. Too much bad blood over there between whites and blacks. They hate each other. Yep, the blacks hate the whites as much or more than the whites hate the blacks. And they both have good reason to hate each other.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Yes, I understand and appreciate what you are saying, and understand places of public accommodation.

Facts are critical, and we don't have them. The burden of proof in either a civil or criminal proceeding will be on the complainant or the state respectively.

Yes acts by Starbucks must be lawful in order to have any force or effect, including the giving of a notice of trespass. The issue here is whether the guys knew that they were not licensed or privileged to be on the premises. Evidence available indicates that they were aware of the employee's determination of this issue, but no evidence that I have seen indicates that they knew it to be unlawful, if in fact it was.

Presumably based on the evidence available at the time, the cops felt it appropriate to make the arrest. For whatever reason, after the arrest and further investigation, the guys were not charged (quite possibly due to the failure of Starbucks to assist in the charging). It is not necessarily the case that the DA could find no grounds that a crime had been committed--failure of Starbucks to accommodate the charging, prosecutorial economy, etc. are possibilities.

Rather than pressing the issue, it appears that Starbucks is in damage control and PR mode. A civil suit will inevitably result, and the guys will be paid off. Workshops are fine, as long as they don't change their policy, something that would indicate consciousness of wrongdoing.

IF the employees did nothing wrong, and if they acted according to a policy with which nothing is wrong, then this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. This kind of situation needs to stop. Starbucks might be fine in this instance, because it has deep pockets--but the same context and landscape will apply to all places of public accommodation, including the small mom-and-pop shops who can thereby easily be forced out of business because of a lack of legal precedent on which to rely. The big boys bring the cases that make the precedent, and care not for the situation of the little guy--in fact, the more little guys they can wipe out, the better. Even if the little guy's insurance does settle and pay without admitting wrongdoing, that small business will never get insurance again, and will be belly-up.

No, we don't know all the relevant facts, but I have seen other situations like this one, where the entire event is swept under the rug due to a lack of ability of the various actors such as DA's to appreciate the bigger picture. Yes it is up to them to determine how to run their shop, but they are working for the whole citizenry, and should consider the whole citizenry when making their decisions.

Many of their decisions are efficient, but some are not, due to short-sightedness.

Pookie Washington wrote:

EastCoastSucks wrote:

This whole BS 'racism' thing is one major reason why I'd never live anywhere east of the Rocky Mountains. Too much bad blood over there between whites and blacks. They hate each other. Yep, the blacks hate the whites as much or more than the whites hate the blacks. And they both have good reason to hate each other.

I don't agree that Blacks hate Whites to the degree Whites hates Blacks. We have over 400 years of being treated unfaiy by whites(enslaved, murdered, tortured, raped, discriminated against)......so we actually have a reason to hate white people. Tell me please....Wtf did Black people to to White folks to deserve the hatred?

Something else going on here? These guys told cops their names were Amos and Andy.

Instead of a day off for employees, why doesn't SB address the lack of minority franchisees and managers?

Precious Roy wrote:

I blame Philly more than I blame Starbucks. I have had to pee in downtown Philly before. There are no public restrooms anywhere to be found. And Philly police should be able to deal with a situation like that without having to make an arrest.

Actually, they are required by law to make an arrest once the business asks them to leave, as they are then in violation of trespassing laws. This is the only way businesses have to remove homeless and crazies. The cops don't have much leeway to decide whether the request to vacate was racially motivated or discriminatory in nature. These guys (the cops) were doing their jobs and are blameless in the altercation, as it has been documented.

Me, myself, and I wrote:

If they do have that right, then so be it. The "realtors'" ignorance of the law is no excuse for their actions, and no justification for their hurt feelings.

Not true in the least. The realtors likely were at least aware of the law, but were more aware of the racial bias being demonstrated by the Starbucks manager.

Here's the thing: Starbucks encourages loitering. Free wifi, couches, and an atmosphere that invites one to simply come in and read a book or hang out with friends. Starbucks has a long history of allowing people to "hang out" without purchasing anything at all. College students do this all the time.

Now, stop to question why these 2 black men were asked to leave. Then maybe you'll understand their hurt feelings and refusal to be tossed out when plenty of white folk do exactly what they did every single day. Those white folk don't get tossed out, and they don't need white people with cameras to bring awareness to their non-existent racist encounters.