stoic-one

Yeah, me too. Tons of details no one is releasing, partially because it's become so politicized.

I get that, but I disagree with the assertion the police wouldn't have been called. How long did this incident go on? Where exactly was the person these guys were supposed to meet? I'm genuinely just asking, I haven't seen any information on that part of the story.

Even I'm not silly enough to make that assertion, but mkay. And I'm not even sure if that's the case here, since the police say this wasn't a racial incident. Only Starbucks and a bunch of knee jerks are. However, I've seen plenty of whites arrested for refusing to leave a private property (businesses), plenty.

"Sitting while black", on private property. I'll not make that mistake again, nope, no more snark for me, no sir. As someone who checks the box marked other, I guess I'll just reflect, but perhaps you can tell me why these guys didn't de-escalate this situation. I have no idea if 2 white guys would have been arrested given the same circumstances, because i wasnt there, neither were you. To a man, most all the cops I know would have arrested them though. And I know all manner of officers, black, white, hispanic, on and on. If an officer asks you to do something, he's really not asking....

As I understand things, the supervising officer on the scene and the police commissioner, who are both black, say this wasn't an issue of racism, just simple trespassing by two men who refused to leave, even at the officers request. But I'll "reflect" if you insist...

A couple things: 1. Calling 911 or dispatch, a distinction without a difference. As far as the Starbucks manager is concerned, and even according to Starbucks own policy, these guys were trespassing. They were asked to purchase something or leave, they refused, the police were contacted. It doesn't really matter which method was used, 911, blah blah blah... At that point the incident is out of the managers hands, and is in the officers hands. Given that the Police Chief stated that his officers followed policy and did nothing wrong tells me that there is more to this than racial bias. 2. Even after this incident, based on what I'm reading, Starbucks is still not going to change their loitering policy, makes me wonder why they are bothering to shut down at all for "training". 3. I'm not convinced there isn't an agenda somewhere lurking... These guys had every opportunity to defuse the situation. All they had to do was spend $1 and buy a cookie or a couple bucks for a shot of espresso and the store would have been happy to have them sit and enjoy it. Or they could have left when the manager asked them to. Or they could have left when the cops asked them to. Instead they chose to get arrested so that they could be national news. And now they are. This issue is not relegated to Starbucks, any coffee, sandwich shop or cafe has struggled with this. There was a Panera I used to frequent, a great spot for lunch. Then they installed WiFi. After a few weeks you would go in there and find a person, camped out at a table for 6, with work spread all over it, hacking away on a laptop, drinking bottled water. There were several times when 4 of us showed up, and couldn't find a place to sit because these 'remote office' people had every table occupied. A restaurant with a 60 person capacity held hostage by 11 people, 7 of which weren't buying anything. Eventually they put a 30 min cap on WiFi and that got rid of most of them. Then they implemented a policy preventing 1 person from occupying tables for 4 or 6 between 11am-2pm. Given that I travel a lot, I occasionally find myself with time to kill and work to do. Starbucks, Panera, Atlanta Bread, etc are good places. I keep to myself at a small table and always get a beverage. If I'm there a while, maybe two. That is common courtesy. It's a business not a library. How about some unintended consequences, picture the scene - After the employees get their sensitivity training, a couple of minorities camp at a table, don't buy anything, maybe even cause a disturbance (loud talking, using profanities, insulting other customers etc). What manager is going to ask that they leave, no matter how justified? This whole thing will be exploited and, the offenders will be wearing Teflon. As far as I'm concerned, Starbucks created this mess, and I hope they choke on it.

Dang Francis! It's a satire site, if you've never heard of them, well, your loss...

Maybe I missed it, this been posted yet? Always some fun to be had from the Babylon Bee. http://babylonbee.com/news/evil-christians-oppress-secular-new-yorkers-with-delicious-chicken-sandwiches/ Been to the original Dwarf house several times, good stuff.

So let me get this straight, this guy has been here ~26 years and is now ~39 years old. Too bad besides for being not so good at "criminalling", he also didn't bother to achieve citizenship, which would make deporting him moot... So much for immigrants assimilating, wait, he did learn some "criminalling", kinda. Guessing not bothering with the citizenship thing probably never stopped him from voting in California... This was not your typical split result either: Full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf

But, but, it was a "false flag" op.

My Dad was 4th Marines during WW2 ( Marshalls, Iwo...), no one bothered even trying to tell him what to wear, period. My Mom would buy him things as a "suggestion", but that was the extent of it. But Gene, dude, c'mon man!

I believe they have only been around for 4 or 5 years.

Holy cow, 50!?!? Bless her heart, that's way too late to start getting too little sleep.

Well I'm not "above" a little friendly But that's the extent of it, generally... But Ted is cray at times.

But of course, comrade! Heston is short for Hestonov. Why do you think he was a 5-term NRA President? Well, I am a member of other organizations, and I and others have been trying to fix problems at the top of the NRA organization for quite some time. These things take time, and I'm not going into it here. I'm not sure I believe most of what was "published" in that article, a goodly bit of red meat for all the conspiracy theorists out there to seize upon. It simply looks like they are trying to discredit gun owners, the NRA, and conservatives, it's open season I hear... As to this: Just so you know, I've never thought anyone on "the left" was worse than the government of Russia, but you can believe that's as common as you wish, it doesn't make it so. I do think there are plenty people on the left that adhere to somewhat communist/socialist (Bernie identified himself as a socialist for years) principles, but that isn't anything new in my eyes, they can think that way if they like, they're Americans . Maybe you missed the Obama/Romney debate where then President Obama accused Romney of over-hyping Russia as a geopolitical foe. " The 1980s Are Calling, They Want Their Foreign Policy Back", I mean, how's that look in retrospect? Seriously. Either way, I'm pretty sure if I gave that Rolling Stone "author" a few historical points about my past, he could somehow find a way to place me on the grassy knoll in 1963.