Fucking Guns

17810121338

Comments

  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    Ruth wrote: »
    I looked it up on Duckduckgo (because fuck Google) and the first hit was the Body Modification Ezine. I trust that's exactly what you meant.
    BME for Black Minority Ethnic - which I had pretty much defined earlier in the same paragraph - is the standard UK abbreviation as checked by Wikipedia. The whole paragraph was making the UK context crystal clear. Because it was so standard - and we are expected to know or check a whole lot of other POTUS, SCOTUS, GOP hocus pocus nicknames and abbreviations, that are not used in the UK - I think you need to check your outrage.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    CK--

    FWIW: Many of us Americans have defined or do define American abbreviations and terms. If something has already been used frequently on a thread, we might skip the definition. I can't think of any incident when an American Shipmate has said that non-American Shipmates *should* know our terms. In fact, I've been surprised when people *do* know them.

    I've never heard of "BME". You said you "pretty much defined it" earlier in the paragraph. But there was no stated connection.. IME and IMVHO: if you're defining an acronym, it works well to do something like "Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)". Otherwise, the reader has to make a big leap.
  • You're all in danger of junior hosting. If there's an abbreviation or acronym that's genuinely impenetrable, then okay - flag it or message me and I'll make a ruling. BME is not one of those.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    [1]I watched the video up to 3:50 Twilight. I don't know whether it was made before or after the City settled a claim for damages against (presumably) the police for a civil wrong they allegedly committed against the two customers.

    [2]I concede that the cops seem to have followed their policies and that no force was used. All I'm saying is that there might have been a better way to handle things other than enforcing a Starbucks policy (and consequently the law of trespass). My gut reaction from outside the culture is that it might have been possible for the police to act as mediators between the customers and the managers. Might the managers have been satisfied if the customers had bought a small drink? Or if one of the cops had bought a small drink for the customer? I understand that it is a very risky move to offer to buy someone a coffee from Starbucks. Their coffee is very very very very very bad. [coffee rant deleted]

    [3]I guess I'm saying that seeking to enforce the letter of a law that, frankly, seems very minor (the revocation of a licence to remain leading to a technical trespass) is only one option available to police walking the beat. If this happened in Melbourne, where I am a cultural insider, I would condemn the police for failing to deescalate a situation that seems very easy to deescalate. That's what police are trained to do here as a first option. You don't see this in the headlines, but that is their primary role - getting everyone home to bed safe every night - them and the public.

    You don't do that by enforcing trespass law in a shop unless you really really have to. I can see other options in this situation that don't appear to have been tried. I mean, the way the Police Officer on the video explained things it seemed like the officers got the management side of the story, and then went up to the customers and just asked them to leave!!!!! That is NOT good police work in my opinion. It looks like the lawyers for the City had a similar view.


    [1]The city paid "damages" of one dollar per man and stated they would contribute to a fund for young business developers. It seems likely to me that the city was anxious to put an end to the story before threatened riots took place, just as Starbucks was worried that the threatened boycott might take place. Starbuck's CEO was apologizing from the moment the story was first reported before time for any sort of inquiry.

    [2]According to the Starbucks employees they had already suggested bringing a coffee or water to the customers and were told, "No." The employees said the men were rude to them, flatly refusing to either order something or leave. When the manager threatened to call the police, they defiantly said, "Go ahead." When the police came they say they asked the men to leave three times and the men repeatedly refused, saying they didn't need to listen to cops who only made $45,000 per year. I'm all for de-escalation for life threatening situations, but I don't know how much time police should be expected to waste, begging men to leave the premises while putting up with insults.

    [3]If the police heard the management's side and then went up and asked the men to leave, I don't see how that is so outrageous as to call for four exclamation points. There was no need to listen to another side of the story because business managers have the legal right to ask customers to leave -- for any reason. It only took a glance to see that the men were sitting at an empty table and had not made a purchase. The usual recourse by customers who feel they were treated badly is to leave and never give the store their repeat business. (That's what my husband and I did when a restaurant manager in England told us we hadn't ordered enough food and had to spend at least 15 pounds a piece if we wanted to stay. We left.)

    It seems to me, that by refusing to buy a coffee, then refusing to obey the store manager's request to leave, then telling the manger to go ahead and call the police, and finally refusing to obey the police after they arrived, the men were deliberately provoking an arrest. All they ever had to do was just leave and meet their friend outside. If so it's worked out very well for them as they have the public's approval, the store manger was fired and the police were vilified.

    I tend to root for the underdog, but in this situation, I don't see the men who encouraged a face-off with the police as underdogs, but rather the low level employees and cops who were thrown under the bus for the convenience of big business and city officials.




  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    I guess my point is that in these sorts of situations good policing might require that you convince people not to insist on their legal rights. These Starbucks blokes might have got lippy, but it didn't sound like the cops tried to talk them down at all, based on that you-tube statement.

    When I was the victim of a minor assault at work as a service station attendant back in about 1985, the cop was at pains to suggest that it was a bad idea for me to chase the kid pinching the oil, and that insisting the kid be charged was also not a great move. He was right on both counts. That's good policing, even though I reckon I recognized the kid who was a fast bowler at North Ringwood and wouldn't have pressed charges anyway. (EDIT: reviewing this, I think the cops had caught the kids involved by the time they came to see me.)

    At this community level, I reckon Police do much better if they act as mediators with thick skins, not enforcers.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Twilight wrote: »
    According to the Starbucks employees . . . the men were rude to them, flatly refusing to either order something or leave. . . . The usual recourse by customers who feel they were treated badly is to leave and never give the store their repeat business. . . . It seems to me, that by refusing to buy a coffee, then refusing to obey the store manager's request to leave, then telling the manger to go ahead and call the police, and finally refusing to obey the police after they arrived, the men were deliberately provoking an arrest. All they ever had to do was just leave and meet their friend outside.

    That's the side of the story we never hear in these "dragged off in handcuffs while black" episodes.
  • As has been pointed out repeatedly, in the same Starbucks, there were white people who used the restroom and sat without buying anything and the police were not called for them. Why is this so hard to understand? The problem isn't the police, the problem is the Starbucks staff who treat customers of different races differently.

    And unfortunately, if a property owner / representative asks for someone to be removed for pretty much any reason or no reason whatsoever, the police have to do it. Which is why the responsibility for this whole mishegas is on Starbucks, not the police or any of the customers.



  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Of course, any New Yorker knows the secret of using a "locked" rest room. You simply wait outside the door for whoever is in there to come out, and go in before the door closes behind him.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Of course, any New Yorker knows the secret of using a "locked" rest room. You simply wait outside the door for whoever is in there to come out, and go in before the door closes behind him.
    So, is there a point other than providing an example of not getting it?
  • Twilight wrote: »
    ....
    All they ever had to do was just leave and meet their friend outside. ...

    Upon which, Starbucks Employee calls 911 to report them because "we asked them to leave but they're still hanging around the entrance."

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    And unfortunately, if a property owner / representative asks for someone to be removed for pretty much any reason or no reason whatsoever, the police have to do it. Which is why the responsibility for this whole mishegas is on Starbucks, not the police or any of the customers.

    Is this really true? I find it difficult to believe that (a) there is a legal obligation on the police to do this; and (b) if they DO have to, that they can't work out a way to either not do it, or make sure the shop owner only asks them to do it once.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    It occurs to me that the two guys could've bought coffee. One guy could take it to a table, while the other got acceptable access to the restroom. Then he could've gone to the table, and the other one gotten access to the restroom. Then they wait for their friend.

    Not saying what did happen was right. But this might have been a good alternative.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    True enough. Can you get coffee in Starbucks though?

    So is there any chance that people will use the mid-terms to express their disgust with gun laws rather than being primarily motivated by a disgust of the President?
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Well, the new Starbucks policy is now in place, promising to have a completely open door policy on their restrooms now, with no purchase required.

    The articles say that, previously, the policy was to leave it up to the discretion of the store managers -- something that Starbucks had been vague about until now. I imagine that in certain nice areas that didn't have too much traffic, it was fine and even encouraged to let people use the store as a meeting place without requiring purchases, but, in busy areas, managers were requiring purchases to keep the place from becoming a public restroom with a coffee stand attached.

    We've all been to malls where the line at the public restroom was long and the area around it smelled awful. That's why malls usually put those restrooms on a separate wing, far from the other stores. In my part of the country, many (skinny, white) people would use the restrooms as a handy place for shooting heroin.

    Such poorly situated stores may end up failing if paying customers don't find the restaurant part appetizing. After all, the place is still paying three shifts of restaurant employees, janitors, food and grocery supplies, digital communications service, electric bills, furniture rental and exorbitant commercial rent.

    Store closings would be fine with me. Starbuck's failure to stand behind employees who were following policy and their unseemly scrambling to save profits would keep me away. Plus, as Simon says, they don't serve coffee.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I imagine that in certain nice areas that didn't have too much traffic, it was fine and even encouraged to let people use the store as a meeting place without requiring purchases, but, in busy areas, managers were requiring purchases to keep the place from becoming a public restroom with a coffee stand attached.

    Starbucks' business model is allegedly to be a "third space", a place where people can hang out other than home (the "first space") or work (the "second space"). Unlike a lot of other businesses Starbucks supposedly encourages loitering. This seems to have been the case for the white customers in that particular Philadelphia Starbucks, but not for anyone who would fail the paper bag test (Caffè Misto test?).
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    In all this I should point out that cops in my town can be a problem. Recently they were caught mistreating a bloke with a mental illness for telling them to fuck off. 10 v 1 and they used the capsicum spray too.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Starbuck's is also used as a second space: people take their laptops, etc. and work there.

    Re Starbuck's not serving coffee: pure sarcasm, or they serve just the designer stuff, or...?

    Thx.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Starbuck's is also used as a second space: people take their laptops, etc. and work there.

    Re Starbuck's not serving coffee: pure sarcasm, or they serve just the designer stuff, or...?

    Thx.
    Probably sarcasm. Starbucks is not quite McDonalds. However, for many of the same reasons, neither are well regarded.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    not sarcasm... possibly snobbery? Yeah, lots of anti-evo, anti-capitalist, anti-flower power hippie logo capitalism stuff hiding beneath my opinions about Starbucks, which I hated at first sight. I am impossibly cool for a slob, but in an idiosyncratic way and usually to my own detriment. I'm pretty sure the air of idiosyncratic cool I exude is delusional.

    That said, the only time I ordered a coffee in a Starbucks I got a frothy sweet milk drink and I could barely taste any coffee. We were waiting at a hotel in LA the only time I tried it, and my wife dared me to have a Starbucks coffee. I didn't even know they had lavs until this Philly thing.

    OTOH, I regularly order coffee in McDonald's, where the brew is quite nice. I usually stop in to break the long drive to my Mum's place. They even do a macchiato there which is pretty decent. I also stop at a 7-11 on the way home from work, and get an espresso/short black from their machine for $1. That coffee is vile, truly horrible gut-poison. But if you have a water chaser after slamming it down fast its OK. Plus, I don't feel tired driving until I hit Monageeta, and then I'm almost home.

    So I guess I'm not a coffee snob, just a deluded slob. Starbucks is just really really awful. I think its the strength of the coffee that is my problem. When we were in the States and drinking mostly brewed coffee, it was the really weak stuff that I found unbearable. There's nothing wrong with brewed coffee per se.

  • As has been pointed out repeatedly, in the same Starbucks, there were white people who used the restroom and sat without buying anything and the police were not called for them. Why is this so hard to understand? The problem isn't the police, the problem is the Starbucks staff who treat customers of different races differently.

    Without wishing to comment on this case in particular, because I don't know anything to add to what has already been said, who are these people who go to a coffee shop, buy a coffee and a pastry, and then get up to relieve themselves?

    Surely everyone comes in from whatever they have been doing, uses the bathroom, washes their hands, and only then gets their snack?

    I've had meetings of various kinds in Starbucks shops. It wouldn't occur to me not to buy a drink, but it equally wouldn't occur to me not to use the bathroom first. And this seems to be the typical pattern used by the people I meet there. Each new person arrives, greets the people already there, goes to the bathroom, then queues for coffee (or whatever), and then joins the table.
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    Leorning Cniht, that's totally the opposite of my experience, which is indeed order first (so people know you're not just using the cafe for the loo).

    MMM

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    It wouldn't occur to me not to buy a drink, but it equally wouldn't occur to me not to use the bathroom first.
    Absolutely. Wash hands before eating.

    As for the concept of Starbucks, especially the drive-thru window, there's something seriously wrong with the notion that people are so desperate for coffee that they can't bother to park their cars and get out. Dutch Bros. is worse, where using the drive-thru window is the expected norm. At least they don't have a problem with their restrooms, though.
  • I've never understood drive-thru. It's fine for passengers, but for the driver you'd need to pull over to eat or drink what you've bought ... so might as well go in and sit somewhere reasonably comfortable (unless you know a nice spot a couple of minutes drive away where you can sit and enjoy the view).
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    It's not a great idea, but plenty of people do eat and drive at the same time. Drive-thru places here generally package their food in ways that make it easy to eat one-handed. And remember, most people in the US are not driving stick.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    It's not a great idea, but plenty of people do eat and drive at the same time. Drive-thru places here generally package their food in ways that make it easy to eat one-handed. And remember, most people in the US are not driving stick.

    I'm not a driver, but doesn't automatic give you a spare foot? What contortions do you get in to eat?
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    I think she means there's no need for an available hand to shift gears - one can drive along merrily with one hand on the steering wheel, and one free.

    But yes, it means our left feet get awfully bored. ;-)
  • I've never understood drive-thru. It's fine for passengers, but for the driver you'd need to pull over to eat or drink what you've bought ... so might as well go in and sit somewhere reasonably comfortable (unless you know a nice spot a couple of minutes drive away where you can sit and enjoy the view).

    When getting to the neighbouring province's major cities is 6 to 10 hours away, you absolutely eat and drink while driving. At most you stop and change drivers. This and winter weather also account for preference for larger vehicles. Even within province or state in North America, driving distances are huge. It's 15 hours to visit one of my kids to the west for example. Generally driven by 2 people non-stop. Just for gas, snacks and potty. Some of the views are repetitive for 6 hours.
  • jbohn wrote: »
    I think she means there's no need for an available hand to shift gears - one can drive along merrily with one hand on the steering wheel, and one free.

    But yes, it means our left feet get awfully bored. ;-)
    So, the rules that say "keep both hands on the steering wheel" go out of the window if you're eating? I can appreciate the arguments about long journeys, but a) how many people using a drive-thru are actually driving more than a few miles? and b) on a long journey it's strongly advised that you take a break every 2.5-3h, it's not beyond the whit of man to eat and drink coffee at that time. A car is a big chunk of metal that can do a lot of damage to other people, and it deserves to be treated with respect and driven with care to minimize how much harm can be caused. To be driven in full control, with both hands on the wheel, and not driven when you're tired.

    Though, we do seem to have drifted from discussion of the very much smaller pieces of metal travelling at very high velocities, and the guns that fire them.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Indeed, "fucking cars" probably needs to be a discussion unto itself.
  • The Share the Road thread is still open, if folk want to discuss the efficacy of chasing that last Minstrel out of the packet while doing 70 in the outside lane of the M4...
  • So, the rules that say "keep both hands on the steering wheel" go out of the window if you're eating?

    Sensible drivers remove hands from the steering wheel all the time - to change gear, to adjust a mirror, to turn on or off the radio / music player / whatever. To scratch an itch. Perhaps even to put on a pair of sunglasses because the sun has come out. The key is that all
    these things are short in duration, and the driver is in control over when he does them, so he can ensure that his hand leaves the wheel at a low-risk time.

    I can take a sip of water or tea in exactly the same way when I'm driving, or take a bite of various kinds of finger foods. American care all have large numbers of cup holders, so the driver always has a secure place to return his beverage - we're not talking about people driving along with a coffee between their legs here. I'm not going to try and eat a burrito whilst driving, or eat anything with a fork, or anything that requires removing my eyes from the road.

  • Define "low risk". When is there ever a time driving when the risks of taking your hands off the steering wheel are low? Maybe in a traffic jam which hasn't moved for so long you've turned the engine off. If you're driving at speed then it's obviously not safe to do so. If you're at traffic lights in town then you need to be aware of other traffic, cyclists coming up the inside, seeing where other drivers are planning to turn etc. But, we covered all that on the other thread.
  • Define "low risk". When is there ever a time driving when the risks of taking your hands off the steering wheel are low? Maybe in a traffic jam which hasn't moved for so long you've turned the engine off. If you're driving at speed then it's obviously not safe to do so. If you're at traffic lights in town then you need to be aware of other traffic, cyclists coming up the inside, seeing where other drivers are planning to turn etc. But, we covered all that on the other thread.

    You tell me, Alan - when do you change gear? When do you scratch an itch? What's more distracting - removing one hand from the wheel for a couple of seconds, or trying not to pay attention to the itch?

    And I said hand, not "hands". There's a rather large difference.

    But apparently you have magic hands, because it is their presence on your steering wheel that allows you to notice cyclists filtering past you as you wait in traffic. What do you have - some kind of proximity radar with haptic feedback?

  • Steer with your effing left knee. While eating with one hand and doing a drive by shooting with the other.

    What RooK said.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Fucking tangent.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Tangents are in our thoughts and prayers.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Tangents are in our thoughts and prayers.

    HA HA HA HA. That one caught me just right.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Tangents are in our thoughts and prayers.

    :thumbsup:
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Re the Starbuck's bathroom thing:

    I was at a fast food burger place recently, and noticed a sign on the restroom door. It said something like : "This restroom is for customers of (place). You must buy something before entering the restroom. Thank you for understanding." That's their long-time practice, though I'm not absolutely sure if the sign is new. If anyone wants to use the restroom, they have to be buzzed in.--which is also a long-time practice.

    Sometimes, homeless folks enter the place and (usually) order, and others sometimes panhandle out front. Occasionally, one will panhandle indoors. Some of them are kind of iffy, in various ways. IME, from watching while I'm waiting, the staff at the register change their posture and manner just a bit, like they're worried/scared--presumably either because they're afraid of what the person might do, or they're worried that they might have to ask the person to leave.

    I rarely get to Starbuck's these days. When I was working, I was more of a Jamba Juice person. But tons of people went to Starbuck's every morning to get their fix of designer coffee. Since they were on their way to work, probably didn't stop to use the restroom. I don't think I've ever been in one there. So I don't have experience of the policies or cleanliness. I have found that restrooms at fast-food places tend to be awful--possibly they don't have enough staff with enough time, and it's easier to to it when they've closed for the day.

    Here in SF, we have many thousands more homeless folks than there are shelter beds. Some sleep on the streets, in doorways, in Golden Gate Park. There are homeless encampments that AFAIK are mostly out of the way. But they're periodically cleared out. Sometimes, people lose their belongings. It's awful. Libraries--particularly the main one downtown, IIRC--become restrooms for the homeless, including places for them to clean up.

    If the staff at the place in question simply decided no African Americans should come in, then they were very wrong. But if they thought the men were homeless, it might be their standard response, born of experience.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    Many of my jobs have involved cleaning bathrooms, including my present one. People are messy and disgusting in bathrooms whether they are homeless or not, whether they have physical or mental impairments or not, and whatever their gender or orientation. I don't know why they are messy. My best guess is that people who are more squeamish are more likely to leave a mess because they can't bear to touch the toilet seat, or the brush is a bit stinky or whatever. People with a realistic and no-nonsense approach to toilet hygiene are what you want, not necessarily paying customers. Oh, try and avoid drunks and junkies too.

    What you definitely do not want is to find someone who has attempted suicide in your loos, which happened to a colleague of mine, who freaked out and decided to call me. Lucky for me and the poor girl in the bathroom, the ambos got there first. That is far and away the worst thing that can happen in your public bathroom at work.

    After that, what's a bit of shit on the wall between friends?

    I wouldn't bother with excuses for those Starbucks people. Company policy is all about interpretation, and whether you choose to read it with your glasses on.
  • edited May 2018
    Or, in some cases, it seems whether you're reading through a slit cut in a sheet.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I have found that restrooms at fast-food places tend to be awful--possibly they don't have enough staff with enough time, and it's easier to to it when they've closed for the day.
    All right, since clearly you all want to continue the tangent . . .

    In my youth I had a summer job at a fast food restaurant, a member of a chain that is no longer in business so far as I know. The manager's policy . . . POLICY! . . . was to clean the restrooms once each week, usually Sunday morning. You can imagine what they looked and smelled like.

    That was a long time ago. Nowadays, so far as I have experienced, restrooms generally tend to be serviced more often and are cleaner. The very best are in fast food places that have pretensions of being upsale. Panera Bread comes to mind -- always spotlessly clean. They used to have a policy of keeping their restrooms locked and you had to enter a code on a keypad to unlock the door. The code would be printed on your receipt when you made a purchase. They've since done away with that, and keep them unlocked.

    In New York, pay toilets used to be the vogue. You had to put a coin in the lock and turn the handle. That kept out people who didn't have the necessary coin . . . at least in theory, as all you had to do (as I reported upthread) was stand outside the door and wait for someone to come out, then go in before the door closed. But a lawsuit was brought and the practice was declared discriminatory. I understand they're making a comeback, though, on the grounds that the fee charged goes toward maintenance.

    The ultimate pay toilets are those staffed by human attendants, who of course are tipped for turning the water on in the sink after you are "done" and handing you a clean towel. The two I am most familiar with are at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, and in Charlotte International Airport (North Carolina).

    I've never been in a Starbucks restroom.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re the Starbuck's bathroom thing:

    But if they thought the men were homeless, it might be their standard response, born of experience.
    I've seen many homeless people and I've seen the vid. They did not look homeless. There is only one obvious trait they do have and no matter what their station in life, they will always have that.

  • STFU about the fucking restrooms. Like lilbuddha says, those guys were asked to leave for one reason, and one reason only, and debating about public and private washrooms and ordering coffee and restaurant policy and homelessness is stupid. *$s called the cops because they were scared of two black men. That's it. Quit making excuses for racism and white fragility.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    STFU about the fucking restrooms. Like lilbuddha says, those guys were asked to leave for one reason, and one reason only, and debating about public and private washrooms and ordering coffee and restaurant policy and homelessness is stupid. *$s called the cops because they were scared of two black men. That's it. Quit making excuses for racism and white fragility.

    None of us were actually there so we can only guess at the reasons. Nobody is excusing racism. We are trying to figure out if this was a case of it or not.

    I didn't think they looked homeless either. Their haircuts and sweat pants looked expensive. I doubt if the employees were afraid of the men. Philadelphia has plenty of African Americans and many were probably regular customers. If the employees had been afraid, I expect they would have forked over the keys without a fuss, but instead they stood their ground and refused to give up the keys until a purchase was made.

    What seems most likely to me is that what began as an employee trying to stick to policy, might have escalated into anger at the men after the men flatly refused to either buy something or leave. Calling the police may well have had an element of calling the men's bluff or anger if the men were as rude and insulting as the police say they were.

    I'm not sure why you're so sure every incident involving a black person is racist. What stands out in this incident is not someone being asked to leave a restaurant, it happens to black and white people from time to time. What's unusual is the refusal to leave. I've never before heard of anyone of any color doing that. If the policemen's story is correct I might say, quit making excuses for a couple of jerks who thought they were better than the employees and better than the police because they earned more money.
  • This thread is getting constipated.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Where's the Phillips Milk of Magnesia Lady when we need her so badly? Probably out shopping for guns.

    Many years ago I was on a bus where a black passenger lit up a cigarette. The driver asked her to put it out, and she refused. The driver then ejected her from the bus. She didn't leave without putting up a fight, though, about how he was picking on her because she was black.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    What stands out in this incident is not someone being asked to leave a restaurant, it happens to black and white people from time to time. What's unusual is the refusal to leave. I've never before heard of anyone of any color doing that.

    Never?
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Oh right, Croesos, this was a politically motivated sit-in to protest black people never being allowed to eat in Starbucks. I feel so silly to have missed that?
Sign In or Register to comment.