Racism or rational response to trespassing

[DonaldD]

I guess I was assuming you knew I meant admissible evidence, since I didn't think there would be much purpose in you suggesting that inadmissible evidence was worth debating about.

Since I was responding to LetterRip's claim that there was no evidence of unequal treatment, it matter's little what you meant.  And since we are discussing this on an internet forum, and nobody was suggesting that this discussion is pointless unless we exclusive limit ourselves to the rules of the legal system (BTW, are you assuming criminal or civil court?)...

That being said, you display a lack of knowledge concerning the rationales limiting when hearsay evidence is admissible in court; it comes down to the right to cross examine, and more generally mechanisms of fairness within a court setting.  Well, guess what?  Nobody here has the opportunity to cross examine Lauren, let alone the person she was paraphrasing (which ignores that part of her statement that dealt exclusively with what she, Lauren, personally witnessed.) Why? Because what Lauren said is also brought to us via hearsay - the journalist who wrote the article.  You could even argue that the article is hearsay brought to you by the publisher.

Outside of a court setting, raising "inadmissibility" issues concerning hearsay evidence is usually just a red herring if not simple ignorance.

Your attempt to intervene basically boils down to "nobody can discuss this topic because none of these statement have been made in court, under oath".

[Fenring]

Donald, that's not the point. I used the term "admissible" not because every colloquial discussion needs to be reduced to legalese, but rather because a court's process (civil or criminal) is about determining the validity of a report. The point of discussing relevance of evidence is precisely to avoid "well Lauren says X" and to throw that into the mix as if it's just as valuable a datum as reports of enforcement policy that LR has brought up. In order to determine whether Lauren's statement is even worth considering you need to use some standard other than "hey listen to what this person said". A court process is such a standard, but naturally we could suggest alternate ones that are also sensible.

I interpret LR's use of the term "evidence" as meaning actual data we can rely on, as opposed to rumors or unverified statements, which colloquially are not relevant as 'evidence' of anything other than that someone made a statement for whatever reason. And I meant it in a similar way, and specified further upon being pressed that I meant evidence that matters. Sure, there are kinds of evidence that exist and are irrelevant, such as planted evidence, falsified evidence, unreliable evidence, etc, and we don't need to assume the word "evidence of X" includes any of those. An eyewitness account *may* be good evidence if we were to learn the basis of it, but until then it may just as possibly be in the garbage bin type of evidence; i.e. the kind that I don't think LR was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong, LR, it's not my intention to speak for you).

So no, this isn't a deconstructionist "you can't claim anything" argument, and I think by now you know I don't make such arguments. The entire reason hearsay evidence is inadmissible due to lack of ability to cross is exactly because the account is unverified. It's just a fancy legal way of saying that hearsay isn't worth much by itself.

So did Lauren literally witness the entire event from start to finish, first-hand, including the interactions with previous customers? If so then it wouldn't be hearsay at all. Did Lauren get parts of her story from others, and if so, which parts? And from which people? Did she get those parts from the guys themselves who were being asked to leave? What if it was them - would that change your consideration of the objectivity of her account of things?

My point, at any rate, is that if we knew what the basis of Lauren's claim was we could consider whether it's valid evidence. If we don't then I don't see how this should be considered as on par with documented precedent of how the Starbucks policy is implemented in general.

As a complete side note to WS, there's no direct reason I can see to suppose that this policy is even indirectly racist unless you endorse the view that Pyrtolin used to that any policy with uneven results across race is racist by definition. Why even suppose that the policy might be racist without considering whether the employee enforcing it is racist? There's quite a spread of evidence you'd need to pull to make a case either way, and until such a case is made I don't see the logical value of even suggesting that racism may be a factor. As you also seem to suggest, the lack of a clear case being made, accompanied by the implication of racism anyhow which would create an incontestable racism narrative, might be preferred by some people. Would you agree that in this case it would be a case of the media race-baiting for ratings?

[LetterRip]

IOW, the people singled out by this policy most likely will be those of a certain economic status and possibly certain races.  Not exclusively, mind you, but mostly.  Generally.  Most of the time.

All indications are that the bathroom policy was to target homeless people shooting heroine in the bathroom and generally destroying the bathrooms (including things like smearing feces on the walls; plugging the toilets; doing 'bathroom showers' etc).  To a lesser degree it was to discourage people from just stopping in to use the bathroom at busy locations (such as next to train stations).

The loitering policy was mostly meant to target people hanging out all day taking up tables and taking out computer outlets (some starbucks simply removed all of the outlets).

It's like crack cocaine having stiffer penalties than powered cocaine.  Not really racist, except for the fact that crack was used primarily by minorities while powered was used primarily by whites.

The penalties for crack were specifically set higher at the request of the congressional Black Caucus because black constituents were concerned about sales of the drug (and the cultural changes that went with it) in their neighborhoods.

Or voter ID laws which just happen to affect minorities far more than whites.

Voter ID laws are deliberately targeted to disenfranchise specific groups of voters.

Closely examining a single case of either won't get you the big picture of how the laws affect the community, nor explain the reaction of the community to a single case.  Because it is a reaction to all the incidents before, not to that particular incident.

I can't think of any reason Starbucks could expect a no loitering policy to disproportionately impact African Americans.

[Seriati]

IOW, the people singled out by this policy most likely will be those of a certain economic status...

I just wanted to flag this part.  Economic discrimination is not the same as racial discrimination and its arguable that it's even wrong.  No store is obligated to treat people that aren't there to buy products from the store in the same manner as those that are.  Even customers that have money can be discriminated against (so long as its not on a protected basis - which economic generally isn't) if a store wants to walk that route.

I mean for every time a hooker in your store turns out to be Julia Roberts with a benefactor that can buy the whole store, there's probably 10,000 times the customers that see the hooker in the store and turn around represent a real loss to the store.

[Seriati]

Or voter ID laws which just happen to affect minorities far more than whites.

Voter ID laws are deliberately targeted to disenfranchise specific groups of voters.

Yes, ineligible, fraudulent and illegal voters.  Particularly the more recent policies have had adequate protections to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised.

[LetterRip]

Yes, ineligible, fraudulent and illegal voters.  Particularly the more recent policies have had adequate protections to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised.

Oh really?

The federal court in Richmond found that the primary purpose of North Carolina’s wasn’t to stop voter fraud, but rather to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges found that the provisions “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”…
In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state. “This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV),” the judges wrote.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

[DonaldD]

Fenring wrote:

I interpret LR's use of the term "evidence" as meaning actual data we can rely on, as opposed to rumors or unverified statements, which colloquially are not relevant as 'evidence' of anything other than that someone made a statement for whatever reason.

Yes, I get that - you do not understand the definition of "evidence".  Sure, you can redefine evidence to be "things that I believe" but you have changed the word so as to be unrecognizable. 

People quoted in articles, when discussing the motivations of other people's actions that are also only reported to us in other articles (or even the same ones) have basically the same level immediate verifiability. Once you start analyzing and making value judgments about what one person is quoted as having said in an article, using evidence from other articles where other people say possibly conflicting things, and weighing them against each other, you have already gotten past the point of evidence.  Basically, that is saying "this claimed fact is not evidence, because I believe these other claimed facts are more believable, and lead me to believe that initial claimed fact cannot be true.  And since I don't believe it is true, it is not evidence".

Hearsay evidence, notwithstanding it is considered weak evidence, and that it is generally inadmissible in court, is still evidence.

Of course, not all of Lauren's statements were even hearsay, as she also described what she herself observed.  To suggest her own observation is also not evidence goes beyond just misunderstanding hearsay.

[Seriati]

Yes, ineligible, fraudulent and illegal voters.  Particularly the more recent policies have had adequate protections to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised.

Oh really?

Yes really. 

I don't find a partisan write up to be terribly convincing.  I've already pointed out that evidence showing a "lack" of voter fraud cases isn't convincing when there is literally no way to catch fraudulent voters in a majority of situations.  There certainly isn't any comprehensive study that has a reasonable methodology (the "best" study appears to have been a journalism project that simply asked the state and local authorities about their cases filed - nothing at all that verified actual voters on a blind, or any other basis).

The Texas law, for example, accepted multiple forms of approved voter id, and allowed people to vote without id if they signed a declaration at the polling place and presented alternative forms of id like a birth certificate or a utility bill.  Hard to see any risk - whatsoever - that this would have the effect of disenfranchising any one. 

If you can't articulate a reasonable law that verifies that someone is entitled to vote, its you, not me that is playing the partisan political game.

[LetterRip]

So two other recent post by Starbucks employees on reddit.  Basically confirming the DM policy.

It isn't fair that district tells us to enforce certain policies, like staying in the cafe for only a certain amount of time or having a bathroom code, without a sign to back us up. McDonald's has signs, Dunkin Donuts has signs, why can't we? This is why a lot of customers become hostile when we try to enforce them because it makes it seem like we're picking on them specifically versus it being an actual location rule.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/8d6gyq/starbucks_you_need_signs/

My store is a downtown one that frequently kicks people out of the lobby and we have bathroom codes that we change 2-8 times a day. Since the Philly incident, my SM was told: we HAVE to give out the bathroom code to anyone who asks ("assume best intent"), we HAVE to allow people to film us (cause what's consent anyway?), and we HAVE to wait at least 20 minutes before kicking someone out. The latter part wouldn't be so bad if we had a lot of seating, but we don't, so I have to allow non-customers to take up multiple spots while paying customers leave because there's nowhere to sit. I was in a pissy mood all day and I'm already so fed up with my store as is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/8d4qso/all_the_bad_news_i_was_told_today/

[LetterRip]

So now we learn yet more details.

Holly, who managed the 18th and Spruce Street location for a year before leaving the company, told AppleNews.com on Saturday that she'd had problems with loiterers and one had even chased her round the shop after she asked them to leave.

The manager blamed what she claimed was a corporate policy at City Center Philadelphia locations which prohibits excessive loitering in their stores.

She told the news outlet that management has the discretion to ensure the policy is enforced - even if that means calling in the cops. She also revealed that she doesn't even tell the customers when she's calling the police.

However the other employees had said that they would call the police,

When the call was initially made the Starbucks employees had told the males that they were going to call the police and they said go ahead and call the police we don't care. So the police get there and they are confronted with the same type of attitude. They repeatedly told that they were not leaving. In fact, there's some alleged rhetoric about 'you don't know what you're doing, you're only a $45,000 a year employee' or something to that regard.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8cysu4/starbucks_will_close_8000_us_stores_may_29_for/dxixmyn/

So they insulted the policemens income when they were asked to leave.

[LetterRip]

Something else I thought of.

My understanding (which could be mistaken) is that it was two other barista's who requested that they order something or leave.  When the men refused to do so, the barista's said they would call the police.  The manager simply relayed to the police that they refused to leave.

So was the barista who made the request that they order something to use the bathroom racist? The one who said if they didn't order something they would have to leave? The person who called the police because they refused to leave?

Does the fact that the manager had been chased change by previous individuals who had been asked to leave change your view of her calling the police?

Would it matter to you if the barista's were black?

[LetterRip]

As more details come to light - I'm leaning more toward that the manager acted inappropriately or at least prematurely - though not necessarily racist. The amount of time they were there is apparently far shorter than initial reports indicated (in an interview they say two minutes).

Will post more links shortly.

[Wayward Son]

I've already pointed out that evidence showing a "lack" of voter fraud cases isn't convincing when there is literally no way to catch fraudulent voters in a majority of situations.  There certainly isn't any comprehensive study that has a reasonable methodology (the "best" study appears to have been a journalism project that simply asked the state and local authorities about their cases filed - nothing at all that verified actual voters on a blind, or any other basis).

Which also means that these laws which restrict the rights of large numbers of citizens to vote are based on fears with literally no basis in fact. 

The Texas law, for example, accepted multiple forms of approved voter id, and allowed people to vote without id if they signed a declaration at the polling place and presented alternative forms of id like a birth certificate or a utility bill.  Hard to see any risk - whatsoever - that this would have the effect of disenfranchising any one.

You do realize that the Texas voter ID law was modified to do this only after the Court of Appeals ruled that the original law "disproportionately burdened minority voters" and a judge ruled that it actually "discriminated on purpose."  And this modification was primarily passed to prevent the judge from coming up with her own remedy to the original law.

So tell me again, "Yes, really." 

[Seriati]

Yes, really. 

Not to further derailing the thread, as we have another that already discusses this, but deliberate and willful blindness, is not somehow proof that something isn't occurring.  There's absolutely no rational reason that identity should not be verified.

[DonaldD]

On its face, without any other context, no.

But when the methods proposed to do so significantly impair large numbers of people from exercising their democratic rights, then that introduces the rational reason that you suggested does not exist.

From a practical perspective, certain parties have explicitly admitted to - bragged about, even - using the fig leaf of identity validation as a means to disenfranchise political opponents.  That's in addition to a significant number of court cases where such tactics have been found to have been motivated by primarily partisan rationales.  It has gotten to the point where those purporting to support identity validation for the purposes of limiting fraud must not only show that fraud is a significant issue, but that the proposed solution is also not primarily meant as a partisan attack on democracy.

Since any hypothetical identify fraud, absent voter roll fraud, is necessarily a limited issue, that's going to be a pretty high bar to meet.

[Seriati]

On its face, without any other context, no.

But when the methods proposed to do so significantly impair large numbers of people from exercising their democratic rights, then that introduces the rational reason that you suggested does not exist.

Large numbers?  Really, large numbers of people are significantly impaired from being about to exercise their rights, by being required to demonstrate that they are in fact the person who has that right?   

What's the alternative, that no one should ever have to verify that they have a right to vote?

Seriously though, the modern versions of these rules provide multiple free avenues to get voting identification.  There's not been one situation that has been completely unresolvable.  So literally, it's a lie to claim that there are "large numbers" that are significantly impacted.

It's also selective outrage, when without id, one can't purchase alcohol, get on a plane, enter a federal building, legally drive a car, open a bank account.

From a practical perspective, certain parties have explicitly admitted to - bragged about, even - using the fig leaf of identity validation as a means to disenfranchise political opponents.

And?  Certain people have blatantly acknowledged a policy to increase illegal aliens for political gains.  Does that forclose any legitimate argument on your side?

Like I said, you have to point to racism, because basic premise you are arguing is illogical.  You're literally claiming that voting is such an important right that we must protect it at all costs, and then denying that there is any cost to not having any way to verify whether this important right is being exercised by people who don't have any right to use it. 

And to quote the anti-gun nuts, you're denying "common sense" reforms that have little if any of the negative impacts you claim.

[TheDrake]

From ACLU:

Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID.

So while you, Seriati, may find it unthinkable to navigate your life without an ID, it's a lot more common than you seem to appreciate. These are typically not people who drive a car, open bank accounts, or get on planes. They probably aren't entering any federal buildings.

To get an ID isn't as easy as you think either. You have to have citizenship documentation. If you don't already have an id, you have to get a birth certificate. Now, you might not live anywhere near that state anymore. I had to get a copy of mine once, and even with internet access, a stable address, and a hundred dollars to spend on processing and copy fees, it was a hassle. Even when you're President of the United States, you can have a hard time getting one.

You are welcome to argue that these people shouldn't vote, and that it will be fine to put a barrier in place. I just get tired of the argument that there is no barrier or that it is so minor as to be negligible.

Now, if you want to make it truly neutral, then pass a voter ID law that offers to reimburse any and all expenses incurred obtaining ID, including travel expenses, time off from work, and child care. Otherwise it has the effect of a poll tax by another name.

[TheDeamon]

Yes, ineligible, fraudulent and illegal voters.  Particularly the more recent policies have had adequate protections to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised.

Oh really?

The federal court in Richmond found that the primary purpose of North Carolina’s wasn’t to stop voter fraud, but rather to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges found that the provisions “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”…
In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state. “This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV),” the judges wrote.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

That point, by itself, is almost an invalid one to raise barring other evidence. As you need to know how people are currently voting so you can more easily facilitate their ability to continue to vote after changing the existing process. Unless of course you truly have no interest in facilitating their ability to continue to do so. So this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" item on its own.

In some of these cases, I will agree that blatantly partisan political motivations were in play, but I would stop short of calling it overtly racist. Although I am sure the racists had their (obvious) reasons to back it too.

[TheDeamon]

What's the alternative, that no one should ever have to verify that they have a right to vote?

Seriously though, the modern versions of these rules provide multiple free avenues to get voting identification.  There's not been one situation that has been completely unresolvable.  So literally, it's a lie to claim that there are "large numbers" that are significantly impacted.

It's also selective outrage, when without id, one can't purchase alcohol, get on a plane, enter a federal building, legally drive a car, open a bank account.

It should be pointed out that senior citizens are also impacted by voter Identification laws, as they tend to cease having drivers licenses after a certain point. They're also not normally opening bank accounts at that stage in life, and unlikely to get "carded" for cigarettes or alcohol.

That said, I guess an alternative I would fully support for voters "without proper identification" is that they must submit to being photographed (for official records--hey we can mail them voter ID card with that picture later!) and a fingerprint(in a specific order of precedence) which will be run against/entered into a database.

Don't want to be fingerprinted? Get a government ID.

[LetterRip]

The previous development was that the 'police were called two minutes after they arrived'.

Now two new developments,

Robinson said that after Nelson got back to the table, the manager came over to their table to ask if she could help with any drinks or water. Robinson said they had water bottles with them and were waiting for a meeting.

[...]

A Starbucks spokesperson, Jaime Riley, told The Washington Post on Wednesday that “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.”

“In this situation,” Riley said, “the police should never have been called. And we know we have to review the practices and guidelines to help ensure it never happens again.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/business/wp/2018/04/19/they-cant-be-here-for-us-black-men-arrested-at-starbucks-tell-their-story-for-the-first-time/

We have clear contradiction from claims that they 'intended to order something" when the other party arrived - they brought waters with them.

We also have official confirmation that their was a no loitering policy at this Starbucks and to call the police if people refused to order and refused to leave.

[Gaoics79]

I guess I was assuming you knew I meant admissible evidence, since I didn't think there would be much purpose in you suggesting that inadmissible evidence was worth debating about. But yes, I could have been more specific, so sorry if I was unclear. My point was that for the hearsay to count as admissible evidence the eyewitness account would have to be verified. Until such time as that is achieved the hearsay doesn't 'count' on the side that something bad happened; it only counts as a trail to investigate to verify whether there even is such a side.

Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court, but the reason is not just its inherent unreliability in the general sense, but also the very practical fact of the inability to cross-examine the actual source of the information on its veracity. It's this latter thing, the fact that hearsay evidence shields the true source of the information from scrutiny (through cross examination in open court), that makes it verboten in court proceedings, minus some well-worn exceptions.

But no one here is in a position to scrutinize any information source in this case, let alone cross examine a witness. For all intents and purposes, all "evidence" we are discussing is hearsay, because it's being filtered through the media and coming to us second and third hand. I'll agree that triple-hearsay might be worse than double-hearsay or whatnot, but it's a matter of degree, not kind.

The entire discussion is essentially akin to a matter of faith; you either believe in the inherent racism of the general American public or you don't. In that context, as Wayward suggests, it's essentially irrelevant whether these specific employees had actual racist intent.

And Seriati is correct that even scrutinizing the evidence in the first place, or questioning the fact of the employees' racist conduct, is itself evidence of racism in the minds of the "faithful". Arguing the point is meaningless, because there is no fact that can change the outcome, which is pre-ordained.

[DonaldD]

I know this isn't in response to my posts, Jason, but the first few sentences of your post provide a more succinct version of what I was trying to communicate above.

[Fenring]

Then is sounds like Donald and Jason are making the argument

I know this isn't in response to my posts, Jason, but the first few sentences of your post provide a more succinct version of what I was trying to communicate above.

Then it sounds like you and Jason are actually the ones making the argument you said I was making, namely that since we can't actually verify any facts to our satisfaction from our vantage point then we may as well consider all facts presented as equally valid (or invalid). But I don't think that's a good position to take. If you want to take the approach that since all information presented via media is already at minimum second-hand that therefore we can't totally rely on any of it then I would tend to agree with you. But if you're going to argue that we can therefore just pick and choose which aspects of it to believe then I would disagree. I think we can still parse information that comes our way without having to throw out the baby with the bathwater. When I hear a report on the news that I know sounds illogical or contradicts what I already know then I'm going to view that as suspect. When I hear a report that's part of a larger campaign or narrative of information then I'm going to suspect it. If I see a report on the news about some minor event, such as "police were called to X location" and so forth I'll probably give it the benefit of the doubt unless I have reason to doubt it. While I don't trust reporting as a whole right now I have no reason to believe that any given report is spurious. But it's different when the actual report is itself a matter of hearsay, where the story is overtly "witness X has heard Y from others" then even your prima facie interpretation ought to be that it's a potentially true but still unverified account. Even the literal account of news reports can contain various levels of certainty. A report can be of the form "X event happened at Y time", or it can be "witnesses seem to suggest Z but more questions need to be asked before we can say anything for certain." The latter case is what Lauren represents, and so even if all news is hearsay of sort (which I will not disagree with) there are degrees of uncertainty to consider. Not all data is equal, even if all is imperfect.

[TheDrake]

That's a pretty good assessment, Fenring, along with all the other contributions. I think a big question involves how the evaluation will be used? Courtrooms were mentioned, and we've made the decision that because of the gravity involved in taking away someone's freedom or property we're going to set that bar pretty high. Likewise if you are going to fire somebody, make their life miserable with an online campaign, or similarly severe responses - you need a high bar.

If you're using your decision to decide if you want to protest at a Starbucks, the bar would be generally lower. Then whether you want to boycott Starbucks. To keep your eyes open to see and reliably report bias, or to speak up when it happens and you are the primary witness? At that point the story could be made up of whole cloth, and it wouldn't matter if you or the reports were wrong.

If you're swinging the other way towards disbelief there are similar levels of certainty and impact. Are you going to counter-protest? Use it to prove that there is no racism, just people of color acting out on their imagined oppression? Track down the two guys from the Starbucks and make them miserable? Boycott Starbucks for caving in to the Liberal Media?

tl;dr Burden of proof depends on the action taken

[Fenring]

tl;dr Burden of proof depends on the action taken

I think it also should depend on how fiercely you're going to make claims about the situation. There's a big difference between "hm, it sounds like Starbucks may be doing something wrong but I'm not sure", versus "How dare they! That's it, I've had it with Starbucks!" And then of course there are all the shades of grey in assigning responsibility to the chain, to the culture of the area, to the manager, to the employee, etc etc. But it's boring, right, to have lukewarm opinions and to note events with a sort of calm reflection? Much more exciting to buy into "crazy things" and "you have to hear this!!". Life as Buzzfeed.

[DonaldD]

But if you're going to argue that we can therefore just pick and choose which aspects of it to believe then I would disagree.

Except that is just the argument you were making, and was not at all what I was saying.  I never weighed in on the likely truthfulness or accuracy of any of the statements; I was rather refuting the concept that Lauren's statements could be ignored as not being evidence.  If LR had rather stated "there is no evidence that I find convincing of unevenn treatment" then that would have been completely accurate.  Eventually, LR did clarify what he meant to say ("credible evidence") but leaving out the word "credible" is actually a non-trivial omission - the two statements are not synonymous.

My next point, the one with which you disagreed, was that Lauren's statements even amounted to evidence - this included both things that Lauren herself witnessed, as well as Lauren's paraphrase of what somebody else told her.  LR's point that you were supporting was that Lauren's statement could not be considered evidence, whereas Starbucks' employees' statement, statements by the police, and reporting of separate incidents not directly linked to the day or the café in question could all be considered as such.   This goes beyond the question of the implicit word "credible" as then the opposite point was being argued.

[TheDrake]

In the "is it racism" game, I think any time you have an unusual situation many, if not most, people are going to wonder what motivated it. The recent news about the $500 customs fine for an apple, for instance. There is no doubt in my mind that if this happened to a person of color or a Muslim or another group that feels unfairly treated, there would be people going off about it. Particularly if the person had to be arrested their objections became too strenuous.

Anti-government types (both left and right) may read it as out of control border agents. Yet another group may see this as a sign of the passenger's "white privilege" where she thought she was above the rules. Still another may focus on her refusal to declare it as garden variety stupidity.

I think most people, when they approach a news item, try to fit it into the tapestry of their existing beliefs and concerns looking for a way for every event to contribute to their narrative. I'll admit to being in that category, but I hope that after my initial reaction wears off that I make an attempt to be objective.

[Gaoics79]

Then it sounds like you and Jason are actually the ones making the argument you said I was making, namely that since we can't actually verify any facts to our satisfaction from our vantage point then we may as well consider all facts presented as equally valid (or invalid). 

I don't know where you got that from.

[Fenring]

Then it sounds like you and Jason are actually the ones making the argument you said I was making, namely that since we can't actually verify any facts to our satisfaction from our vantage point then we may as well consider all facts presented as equally valid (or invalid). 

I don't know where you got that from.

I think I got it from this:

The entire discussion is essentially akin to a matter of faith; you either believe in the inherent racism of the general American public or you don't. In that context, as Wayward suggests, it's essentially irrelevant whether these specific employees had actual racist intent.

But now that I look at it again I realize you might have meant that regardless of what the facts actually are people will be uninterested in those as this type of scenario appears to be designed to avoid logical scrutiny and instead to rile up whomever wants to be riled up (which is sort of what I said above). I had originally taken it to mean that there's literally no way to discern facts in cases like this and that we might as well give up and realize that going on faith is all we can do.

[Gaoics79]

But now that I look at it again I realize you might have meant that regardless of what the facts actually are people will be uninterested in those as this type of scenario appears to be designed to avoid logical scrutiny and instead to rile up whomever wants to be riled up (which is sort of what I said above). I had originally taken it to mean that there's literally no way to discern facts in cases like this and that we might as well give up and realize that going on faith is all we can do. 

Yes I was making two separate points.

[TheDrake]

In the latest installment of "is it racist?" we have the University of Florida.

Somebody please find out this employee's name!! Every time a Black student took more than TWO seconds, he aggressively pushed them.

So much for liberal Universities I guess. Do I think that these people had in mind to get the black people off the stage? Probably not. But did race affect their reactions? Hard to say, since there was a tradition of only the black students doing their fraternity/sorority dance (that's a thing?). It also happened to come at the end of the ceremony, and perhaps there was more time pressure to get things over with.

Quite clearly, the actual grabbing of students to shove them off stage is pretty uncalled for. Especially considering what they paid in tuition.

[Wayward Son]

And then we have three black women who have to explain to 7 Rialto policemen that they weren't stealing from a house, but packing their luggage after staying at an Airbnb. 

[Seriati]

I guess for perspective it would be helpful to know how often people leaving AirBNB's get reported to the police by nosy neighbors.  There may or may not be a racial bias in such calls.  I suspect there is a racial bias in determining which such situations become national news.

[TheDrake]

Well, there's the reporting to the police. Then there's the police reaction. Code red, code red! People of color are calmly walking out of a house with suitcases - must be a robbery! As opposed to "crazy Mrs. Johnson thinks she's the neighborhood watch"

Is it racist? Hard to say with certainty, and there is a certain selection bias in the propagation of such news.

Lets say it isn't racist. It still indicates something that needs fixing. They sent seven cars down there, was the whole precinct bored? I see a note that Rialto was the first city to require police body cameras. That probably didn't happen accidentally.

[Seriati]

On the other hand, one day my children decided as a prank to yell "help" out the window to a group of college kids, then got scared and hid when the college kids started asking if they were okay.  Within five minutes, had six cop cars in my drive way and yard.  Overreaction?  Not if there was something dangerous going on, but certainly to address two small children playing a prank.  They can't know what they are walking into before they get there.

[TheDrake]

On the other hand, one day my children decided as a prank to yell "help" out the window to a group of college kids, then got scared and hid when the college kids started asking if they were okay.  Within five minutes, had six cop cars in my drive way and yard.  Overreaction?  Not if there was something dangerous going on, but certainly to address two small children playing a prank.  They can't know what they are walking into before they get there.

I'd say something like a person crying for help is a little different than this situation, but I generally understand your meaning and I won't belabor the point.

[TheDrake]

The latest, a Yale grad student gets questioned by four cops about why she was having a nap in the common room of her dorm.

article

Once again, two portions. Why did somebody find it necessary to call the police over someone snoozing in the common room or refuse to believe that she lived in the dorm?

Then later, we've got multiple cops involved who reject her demonstration of access to her own dorm room and a valid ID pending a search of the school database - like there is some kind of epidemic of people who break into rooms with fake student IDs and taking illicit naps.

[LetterRip]

More on the Starbucks manager,

The data, taken from the tracking of police 911 call logs, reveal 69 police responses to calls placed from the Starbucks to police during a roughly 27-month period from January 2016 to April 18, 2018.

[...]

Of the 69 calls, just one other call, placed on Jan. 4, 2018, resulted in an arrest.

[...]

In all of 2016 there were just 11 called placed to police; just two of them were for “disorderly crowds.” However, 2017 saw the police called 41 times in total.

[...]

However, an alarming 28 of those calls identified by the logs as “disorderly crowds” were placed during 2017.

[...]

Cash told The Tribune she never “thought of Holly as racist,” until Hylton called police on Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson.

http://www.phillytrib.com/news/uptick-in-calls-for-starbucks-manager/article_d669ba90-9d83-5734-a65d-3df4717a7513.html

The author speculates it the uptick occurred with her promotion, but it appears that the timing corresponds with the change in policy regarding loitering.  The former (black) barista (Cash) never noted any racist behavior by Holly during her employment (reporting on Cash seems inconsistent though - she was demoted by Holly and and another article claimed she thought it was because Holly was a racist. Cash said she quit working for Starbucks when her hours were continuously cut at a different Starbucks but she also describes herself as an excellent employee).

If any of those other 'disorderly' calls had been regarding African American's especially a significant percentage - I would think there would have been widespread news reports on it, given the amount of investigative reporting and the monetary incentive for anyone who had previously had this happen to them.

[yossarian22c]

If any of those other 'disorderly' calls had been regarding African American's especially a significant percentage - I would think there would have been widespread news reports on it, given the amount of investigative reporting and the monetary incentive for anyone who had previously had this happen to them.

Possible but it may be really hard to track down if the police reports ended up reading.

"Called to starbucks for loitering. The individuals left store upon request."

Tracking down who the individuals later were would be difficult unless the officers decided to request ID from the people and include their names in the reports. I have no idea if things like that would be required in reports that didn't require the officer to do nothing more than walk in and ask someone to leave.

This would be hard to investigate because white or black 99.9% of people are just going to get up and leave instead of going through the hassle and expense of being arrested for loitering.

[Crunch]

The data, taken from the tracking of police 911 call logs, reveal 69 police responses to calls placed from the Starbucks to police during a roughly 27-month period from January 2016 to April 18, 2018.

[...]

Of the 69 calls, just one other call, placed on Jan. 4, 2018, resulted in an arrest.

[...]

You know, I’ve been wondering about this. Two black men come, sit down, and remain largely unnoticed for some time until one got up and asked to use the restroom.  He is told it’s only for customers, he refuses to buy anything and returns to his seat.  More time passes. Finally, now on the manager’s radar, the manager asks them to either purchase something or leave.  They said they were waiting for someone, refused buy anything, refused to leave.  More time passes, the manager tells them again and again they refuse to buy or leave.  That's when the police are called.

The police arrive and make the same request to buy or leave. They do this three times.  And all three times times these guys refuse.  Then, just as they’re being cuffed, the "friend" they’ve been waiting for  magically appears, perfectly timed to voice his outrage.

The two guys are now “victim heroes”, cashing in on an “undisclosed financial settlement“ from Starbucks.

This looks like a setup. From past experience or having heard from others, they knew the manager was stringently enforcing policies on loitering so they engineered the situation to get her usual reaction to the point of making sure she noticed them when the scam wasn’t moving along quickly enough.

This would be hard to investigate because white or black 99.9% of people are just going to get up and leave instead of going through the hassle and expense of being arrested for loitering.

Exactly.

I can’t be certain but it sure as hell looks like a setup.

[D.W.]

I didn't think I'd ever say this, but...

I think Crunch is probably right on this one.

Given the way they negotiated the settlement I'm not sure what I think about this type of protesting/activism.  (if that's what it was)

[TheDrake]

I'm not going to speculate on whether the people in question are part of a scheme, we simply have no information that supports it, only suspicion.

In general, civil rights actions have often been setups in the way described. Rosa Parks comes to mind, she was a deeply involved civil rights advocate - not just a tired lady who wouldn't give up her seat. Then there's Birmingham and the snarling dog picture - highly manufactured.

Those events certainly exposed a truth in the most dramatic and visceral way possible, which was carefully crafted. A "set-up" if you will.

99.9% of people just got up and went to the back of the bus also.

[Greg Davidson]

Then there's Birmingham and the snarling dog picture - highly manufactured.

I heard a podcast, I believe by Malcolm Gladwell, that talked about this Birmingham photograph, the statue made of it, and both the widow of the police officer holding the dog and the young African American youth who the dog was leaping at.  In his description, it was less staged than accidental. The kid was not actually participating in the civil rights rally, the officer was really just trying to hold the dog back, etc.

[Fenring]

I don't have a problem with a setup if it's just a way to document a regular violation and make it known. I do have a problem with it if there's no real violation going on in general and the people involved in the setup are trying to create an issue by making it look like there's racism, to support an ulterior motive (their cause, publicity, etc). I fully support people who infiltrate the meat industry, for example, to expose cruelty. In the Starbucks scenario, though, deliberately causing an altercation with the police does nothing to verify whether policy is intentionally or accidentally racist; all it does is prove that the rule has teeth to it.

[TheDrake]

That's fair, Greg, I heard the same story. I mean manufactured in the sense of the event, the fact that a lot of teenagers were used as the people who would provoke a police reaction because of how it would look. They had people on site who were taunting the dogs to try and get that reaction. It just turned out that the most famous picture wasn't one of their people.

[DonaldD]

I think Crunch is probably right on this one.

Ummm... which part?  The part where he characterizes the men's actions as "cashing in on an “undisclosed financial settlement“ from Starbucks"?

Clearly, not the settlement that has now been disclosed for 2 weeks.  Clearly not the part where they were "cashing in on" their one-dollar settlement.  Maybe it was the part where he implies that their associate "magically appears"?

[D.W.]

Ummm... which part?

His synopsis of how the situation could/does appear staged.  As for the "cash in" part, ya that's obviously off.  Unless he means attention as a form of currency.     My gut reaction was also that this was an attempt to dip into the deep pockets of a corporate juggernaut, but I try not to put my foot into these topics that early. 

So I waited to do so until now. 
The thing about a sting is, nothing happens without someone taking the bait.  I honestly don't know if such things (if this was staged) help or hurt a cause.  I'd expect on balance, they are effective.

[scifibum]

I think Crunch is probably right on this one.

Ummm... which part?  The part where he characterizes the men's actions as "cashing in on an “undisclosed financial settlement“ from Starbucks"?

Clearly, not the settlement that has now been disclosed for 2 weeks.  Clearly not the part where they were "cashing in on" their one-dollar settlement.  Maybe it was the part where he implies that their associate "magically appears"?

Thanks, I was a little startled that he appeared to be getting away with that one.

[LetterRip]

The settlement with the city of Philadelphia was for 1$ each (and the city will set up a 200,000$ entrepreneurial fund for young entrepreneurs), and there likely wasn't a possible successful claim against the police.  The settlement with Starbucks was never disclosed (they will be mentored by the Starbucks CEO, but no terms have been mentioned that I'm aware of - just that it was an 'undisclosed sum and free college tuition').

Crunch,

the timeline appears to be that one of the gentlemen went directly to sit and one went to ask to use the bathroom upon arrival (though that is a bit fuzzy).  Then after refusal he went and sat, then at some point the manager came to their table and asked if they wanted anything (water, coffee, etc.) they said no (they had brought waters - it isn't clear if they said 'no we brought waters' or if the water explanation was to the interviewer and not told to the manager).  Then at that time they don't mention getting asked to leave.  The 911 call suggests that they were asked to leave, but there isn't any eyewitness accounts confirming.  The interviewer suggested that the 911 call happened "2 minutes" after they arrived (this wasn't actually stated by the men - so we don't actually know the timeline).

They police happened to be close by and arrived within about 5 minutes of the call.  They then tried to convince the men to leave for about 10 minutes, at which point they were arrested.

So it is possible it was an extremely short timeline (2 minutes before the call; 5 more minutes to police arrival, and 10 minutes to arrest - so 17 minutes or less between arrival and arrest)

[Seriati]

LR, it seems that the Starbucks was in the Center City neighborhood of Philly (at least the account I read said so), which is a pretty busy neighborhood, with a 15% black population (potentially more commuting into or through).  It would seem very odd for a manager to approach two black men withing 120 seconds of entering into the store, when one would expect that many black men come in every day. 

Not saying it didn't happen that way, cause no way to know, just seems like a very convenient chronology, almost like there are some details missing that would explain why the manager would react so quickly.  If it were just racism, would expect a dozen calls a day, wouldn't we?