Arrested for being black....at starbucks?

[Horsefly]

5 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Where's the hard evidence for claim that these guys were singled out on this particular occasion?

This is based on perception and those patrons that were witnesses to the event.

[Belly Bob]

5 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

This is based on perception and those patrons that were witnesses to the event.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

I, myself, haven't seen anything yet that shows that there were white people who had been sitting there for some time and using the bathroom and not buying anything without incident. 

But I'm happy to concede that if that were true, it would count as strong evidence that the black guys were singled out for being black guys. 

[Horsefly]

5 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I agree 100 percent.

But implicit bias is itself a complicated issue. There isn't yet broad consensus among psychologists that the tests for implicit biases show what they're supposed to show and it's anything but clear how to correct for them. 

NOR may have more to say about this, but the impression I get is that "implicit bias training" is generally looked at with suspicion among psychologists.

It is complicated, the biggest tool though in fighting against it is understanding it exists and we all have biases and made aware of how our decisions impact others.  It takes self reflection to understand the WHY of our decisions and ensuring they aren't shrouded with unsubstantiated biases.

[Horsefly]

8 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

I, myself, haven't seen anything yet that shows that there were white people who had been sitting there for some time and using the bathroom and not buying anything without incident. 

But I'm happy to concede that if that were true, it would count as strong evidence that the black guys were singled out for being black guys. 

The one making the claim is the lady that made the video. I am really basing my view from the witnesses there who saw it and are making a fuss.  

[FootballGuy]

Let's be real: do y'all think that holly hylton, the starbucks' manager, woulda asked someone of her same skin tone to leave if they didn't purchase anything? 

[Belly Bob]

9 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

The one making the claim is the lady that was videoing. 

Maybe I missed it. I've watched the video, and she clearly says that they didn't do anything wrong, but I don't hear her say that there were white people sitting and not buying anything and using the bathroom without incident. 

Like I said, I've seen the tweet where a woman says, "all the white ppl were wondering why that never happens to them." Maybe it's the same woman who took the video. I don't know. But it seems implausible to me that all the white people were wondering that. And even if it were true, it wouldn't show that the black guys were singled out for being black guys.

[Belly Bob]

4 minutes ago, FootballGuy said:

Let's be real: do y'all think that holly hylton, the starbucks' manager, woulda asked someone of her same skin tone to leave if they didn't purchase anything? 

Sure.

I'm a white guy and I've been told on many, many occasions that the bathroom is for paying customers. 

Am I really the only white guy that has been told to buy something if I want to use the bathroom?

What's different about this lady?

[Horsefly]

14 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Sure.

I'm a white guy and I've been told on many, many occasions that the bathroom is for paying customers. 

Am I really the only white guy that has been told to buy something if I want to use the bathroom?

What's different about this lady?

Well, we know more happened in this case.  They were denied the bathroom but also had the police called on them as well.  BTW, the gentleman in the video, was the friend they were waiting on, so we know at least they weren't lying about that.

I also find this comment from the DA interesting, it's twice I've seen them referenced in this incident. So if the DA found no evidence of a crime, which should have been the pretense for the arrest, then what charges was Starbucks going to file?

this is taken from snopes:

"The two arrested men were taken to a police station, fingerprinted and photographed, then released eight hours later because the district attorney found no evidence they had committed a crime and Starbucks expressed no intention to press charges."

[FootballGuy]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Sure.

I'm a white guy and I've been told on many, many occasions that the bathroom is for paying customers. 

Am I really the only white guy that has been told to buy something if I want to use the bathroom?

What's different about this lady?

I guess so.

I personally don't believe she woulda called the cops on her own kind or asked them to leave. This whole situation is fucked up tho. I honestly feel like SHE was uncomfortable of two black men being in starbucks for an extended period of time......not the customers, who happened to be white. 

[Belly Bob]

I hadn't seen this video before.

But a few things seem relevant to me.

First, I see exactly 3 white customers (not including the black guys' white friend who shows up later) and they all clearly have coffee or some other drink. So that counts against the claim that there were white customers who were not buying anything and using the facilities without incident.

Second, there is a black guy who isn't associated with the guys who got arrested and he also clearly has a drink and seems to be using the facilities without incident. 

Third, there is a woman in the corner who isn't shown in this video but who may have taken the other video who says that "it is ridiculous" and that "she saw the whole thing" and that "they [the black guys] didn't do anything wrong." But so what? That doesn't tell us anything about whether they were singled out for being black. 

[TheBlockIsHot]

They were asked to leave and didn't. Nothing to do with race. 

When you are asked to leave, you leave. If you don't, you are trespassing. 

End of story. Spare me the racial shit. 

[Belly Bob]

31 minutes ago, FootballGuy said:

[...]

I honestly feel like SHE was uncomfortable of two black men being in starbucks for an extended period of time......not the customers, who happened to be white. 

Naturally. 

She's the manager. It's her job to manage the restaurant, which may well include complying with a policy that the facilities are for paying customers only. 

[Belly Bob]

9 minutes ago, FootballGuy said:

[...]

I personally don't believe she woulda called the cops on her own kind or asked them to leave. [...]

Why?

[Belly Bob]

11 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Well, we know more happened in this case.  They were denied the bathroom but also had the police called on them as well. [...]

I've never stayed after having been asked to buy something or leave.

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, TheBlockIsHot said:

They were asked to leave and didn't. Nothing to do with race. 

When you are asked to leave, you leave. If you don't, you are trespassing. 

End of story. Spare me the racial shit. 

then why did the DA say there was no evidence to press charges?  Just bc some claimed they were asked to leave doesnt mean it actually happened,. 

[Belly Bob]

12 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

[...]

how long do you tnink they were waiting for their friend to show?  

I don't know.

That also seems relevant though. 

There are no hard and fast rules, but it does seem like you should be given a certain amount time to wait for someone else in your party to show up before you're asked to buy something or leave. 

[Horsefly]

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

I've never stayed after having been asked to buy something or leave.

That's what is being claimed  but then why would the DA say there is no evidence of any crime if they were trespassing?  That's why I've clipped that statement from the DA twice.

[Belly Bob]

2 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

then why did the DA say there was no evidence to press charges? [...]

Because Starbucks declined to press charges.

That's how it works. The DA will very rarely use the state's resources to prosecute someone if there is no one pressing charges. 

[Belly Bob]

1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

That's what is being claimed  but then why would the DA say there is no evidence of any crime if they were trespassing?  That's why I've clipped that statement from the DA twice.

I once called the police after a crazy ex bit me hard enough to draw blood after I had asked her many, many times to leave my apartment.

She left before the cops arrived. They asked me take my shirt off and noted that I clearly had been bitten and they asked if I wanted to press charges. I said no. And they left.

The fact that she wasn't charged with crime doesn't show that she didn't commit one. It shows that the state is rarely interested in spending its resources on prosecuting crimes when the alleged victims are not themselves interested in pressing charges. 

[Belly Bob]

8 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

[...] Just bc some claimed they were asked to leave doesnt mean it actually happened,. 

That's right.

Is that what you yourself believe, that they weren't actually asked to leave the premises?

[dbcaptiron]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 9:40 AM, Sportsnut said:

You don't respect a man's opinion, you don't respect the man.

 

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 9:57 AM, noonereal said:

You cannot have an opinion that conflicts with fact, you can only have an opinion in absence of established fact.

As to respect, you would need define that because I would think one a dolt who did this. Many do. They think opinion is acceptable for a want that is juxtaposed to science. I would however be courteous and friendly. (like I am to the priest at church for example)

Just a side note here....but extremely easy to highlight this conflict...

Q) Who's right here ???

A) Nooner's an idiot....

Now we have had this conversation many times, and as you keep responding to others with your haphazardly styled 'homemade quotes', misapplying it at all the best times, I will explain again.....

Does not 'science' tell you that every man has their own opinion? Wouldn't your 'priest at church' necessarily tell you that you must 'respect' your fellow man? There in lies your true juxtaposition.

As you so aptly state,  and simply put, YOU are simply not respecting that person's right to be his own 'dolt'....

It's a huge fatal leap (logic, Science, and all) to go so far as to deny the existence of something, because it does not fit 'your standard' of methodology of 'non-dolthood'.

Removing out of sheer ignorance, and denying 'dolthood' from your next 'scientific' application of 'humans'....will most certainly give you 'skewed results' ....

Now you probably believe it is right to devalue 'dolthood' opinions in some instances, and certainly not make wrong choices based off those....and I would most certainly agree. But a more proper way of doing so, could easily be accomplished with some corrections to your 'homemade quote' :    

"You cannot SHOULD NOT have an opinion that conflicts with fact, you can SHOULD only have an opinion in absence of established fact." 

What YOU are telling others with yours, is that they have zero input, and that 'they' will never even be considered (even more repugnantly with an air of 'i am right while you are wrong', the whole time relating a pure falsehood to your audience...you actually think that everyone else does not realize that they actually have their own opinion?),  where  instead you should be saying I see your opinion, and here is where I believe it to be untrue.

"I see your opinion, and it will be taken under consideration" is the baseline level of 'respect' that I believe Nut is referring to, and a baseline standard you so proudly toss in the trash...

Now maybe this is only being done... INTENTIONALLY by spreading falsehoods to PROVOKE....but then you would be no better than what Nut does consistently....would you not?

  

[Horsefly]

7 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Because Starbucks declined to press charges.

That's how it works. The DA will very rarely use the state's resources to prosecute someone if there is no one pressing charges. 

Negative, that's not what I quoted.  The DA, clearly stated there was no evidence that a crime was committed.  I've filed charges before and the first thing they did was do a cursory view and told me what their intitial thoughts were and what charges I could file.(the public typically doesn't know what legal charges to file)

[Horsefly]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

That's right.

Is that what you yourself believe, that they weren't actually asked to leave the premises?

Don't know, but it doesn't support the latter determination from the DA that no crime was committed. 

[Belly Bob]

5 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Negative, that's not what I quoted.  The DA, clearly stated there was no evidence that a crime was committed.  I've filed charges before and the first thing they did was do a cursory view and told me what their intitial thoughts were and what charges I could file.(the public typically doesn't know what legal charges to file)

I'm not confused by the DA's quote.

My claim is that the fact that Starbucks declined to press charges is itself what constitutes the lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. 

[Horsefly]

10 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I'm not confused by the DA's quote.

My claim is that the fact that Starbucks declined to press charges is itself what constitutes the lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. 

You make a complaint to the police, they do an initial review to tell you what charges can be filed, if any to the DA.  (The process is expedited if the cops were witnesses to the crime) Then you proceed. I just went through this a few months ago.

the DA would have never said there was "no evidence" if there was none.  simply stating they refused to press charges would have sufficed.  And only legal entities actually press charges, individuals don't.