Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NYPD are called *all the time* to remove homeless people from places where they aren't wanted.
You see them all the time (along with an ambulance and EMT's) on streets of UES removing (or trying to) homeless who are in a doorway of a closed store, or otherwise in or on private property.
A few years ago a transplant chick who lives in building next door came home late one night to find a homeless person sleeping against building. Terrified about passing him she called 911 and they showed up in full force (a few squad cars) along with an ambulance.
There is a 24/7 McD on Third Avenue near 85th street that is full of homeless all the time, especially overnight and or when weather is bad. They sit there reading newspapers or whatever, sleeping, etc.... Then there are the ones who panhandle outside including acting as "doormen" then shoving a cup in your face.
You forgot them sleeping in bank branches in the winter time. In the ATM lobby area.
In much if not all of NYC that has already happened.
Homeless lounge at all the UES Starbucks from opening until closing time. Know this because they are easily spotted, and or have seen the same persons for years now.
When stores close they stand outside and wait for workers to throw out the garbage so they can dig out any food thrown away.
In their own way SB has become one of the largest homeless or whatever "food banks" in NYC.
Three times per week all unsold foods are thrown out (all those baked goods, sandwiches, salads, etc...), and the homeless and or dumpster divers know it, as do workers for that matter.
Competition has become keen over the years so homeless now sit in stores at closing time "watching" to see what if anything is being thrown out and what bag it goes into. Other times workers know their "regular" homeless and will maybe help them out.
Until those kiosks came along, SB was the de facto spot for free WiFi.
Of course they hang out in Starbucks, McDonalds, etc during cold weather and as long as they don't occupy the whole place or take up too much space or aren't disruptive the workers don't bother them and even help them out as you just said.
Uh it isn't clear that the manager was fired. It just says that the manager "left the store". Various reports have said that it isn't clear if the manager was fired, or simply was relocated to another store and I think that was done on purpose too. Starbucks doesn't want people knowing what happened to the manager because they want this to go away and make it look like they're being proactive about it. I doubt that the manager was fired because this was technically trespassing. The only issue is that this blew up in Starbucks face and they didn't expect it to.
There are definitely black cops out here that get a kick out of arresting black men. It makes them feel as if they're somehow superior and have "privilege" since they are cops first and black second. I looked at the video of one of the black cops who was just there with his arms crossed like it was okay to arrest the two guys. I doubt his body language would've been the same if this had been two white guys.
A number of outlets she say was outright fired according to the company itself. There's no reason for the company to lie. Most states in the US have at will employment and a store manager is easily replaceable. Moving her to another store in state would not work as it would be easy enough for protesters to eventually find her and Starbucks would have the PR nightmare of lying.
So please stop making up alternate facts/outright lies. The woman got FIRED.
I never liked Starbucks, don't care. I never got the appeal, DD is way better IMO.
DD coffee is practically water. I drink my coffee black with no sugar, so it has to be quality coffee. I hated starbucks when it first got popular but it has definitely grown on me. 711 has awesome coffee too.
I'm actually quite surprised that the attention seems to be focused mainly on Starbucks (as it should be). This situation is ripe for the simpletons to blame the police, especially considering the clear political leanings of the company in question.
Not really the police fault per say. The police were called by Starbucks, and Starbucks responded and took responsibility.
Part of the problem is there is no requirement to buy anything from Starbucks and I know Starbucks let's homeless people hangout in NYC to keep warm in the winter so there was no such thing as company policy against loitering. Not to mention regular people hanging out there for hours who may never have bought anything.
Whatever your biases ensure you know, it's clear that you did not watch the video if you think the cops never asked these guys to leave prior to arresting them.
All they did by arresting those two guys is get the manager who called the police fired, and oh these two men will now get a settlement from Starbucks and possibly from the city. The cops wasted their time.
Waste of time or not, cops have to respond to citizen complaints. It's their job to do so. If a citizen/company calls to report a trespassing, the cops will take legal action.
As I (and most cops) will always say: if you don't want us to do our jobs, don't call us.
"But “it was completely inappropriate to engage the police,” in this particular situation, he said, noting that employees will now have more training, particularly against unconscious bias.
It’s not always clear whether sitting in a Starbucks or using a Starbucks restroom without purchasing any items is allowed. A company spokesperson said Starbucks does not have a broad policy prohibiting people from using restrooms or sitting inside for free, allowing individual stores to set their own rules. Populations density plays a part too — it’s a little easier for people to wait unnoticed inside a more crowded Starbucks in a place like New York City without paying and than it is in sparser locations where policies can be enforced more strictly.
The Philadelphia Starbucks store where the arrest occurred has a rule in place that customers can only use restrooms if they purchase something. Such rules would allow Starbucks to ask people to leave — under federal law, businesses like Starbucks can refuse service for reasons other than discrimination. But they can only protect a company to a point, according to Virginia-based attorney Matthew Kreitzer.
“It was certainly a reckless move on their part,” Kreitzer tells TIME in reference to the Starbucks store manager who called the police. “Even if they did not have a discriminatory motive, you’re still going to open yourself up to liability when you do things like that.”
Kreitzer says simply having a store policy that prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is useless if that rule is not applied on a consistent basis. For example, if a store is using its policy against only black customers but not applying it to white ones, that’s a basis for a discrimination case."
So it is not left up to individual stores.
If a company decides every single person who hangs out in Starbucks must always purchase something, in a case like this they'd be COMPLETELY protected.
But because they allow so many people to hang out in Starbucks without buying anything and yes they do indeed let homeless people hang out for HOURS, they cannot randomly and arbitrarily enforce those rules on random people.
That's why Starbucks admits wrong doing, while they are shutting down on May 29th for this day, why according to multiple news articles the manager is fired because Starbucks has a lot of legal liability.
You can't even read or comprehend the links you post. Talk about low IQ.
Waste of time or not, cops have to respond to citizen complaints. It's their job to do so. If a citizen/company calls to report a trespassing, the cops will take legal action.
As I (and most cops) will always say: if you don't want us to do our jobs, don't call us.
Understood, and that's why the police are not in the hot water here. Now if Starbucks had enforced the rule at all Starbucks stores that all customers must be paying customers, Starbucks would not be in hot water right now.
Personally, I would have bought something. I know a store's employees have to clean up the restroom, and I do think it's disrespectful to insist on using the bathroom or taking up space without paying.
I don't know what Starbucks will say or do on the 29th during this training. If they want to decide nobody can hang out at Starbucks without buying something, they are in their legal rights IF they decided to apply it consistently.
Currently Starbucks allows homeless people to longue, and they do let regular people take up space for hours without buying anything. I don't see how people can be so cheap not to set up wi-fi at home or whatever.
Last time I was at a starbucks about six months ago, I couldn't believe how many people were sitting without a purchase. They had laptops, books, coats splayed out to mark their territory and no purchase in sight. I mean, at least grab an empty cup and try to pretend you bought something. Is there no shame. I could not find a seat so I left.
I do feel bad for those guys who were singled out. Starbucks needs to be consistent and kick EVERYONE who isn't buying and not just those of certain appearance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
