Cops Arrest 2 Black Men Sitting In Starbucks For ‘Trespassing’: Video

The men refused to leave. The cops cannot leave them there in the face of management asking them to leave. Hands on usually demands an arrest or citation to appear.

Let's not get silly.

 

I figure you have never been in retail. Starbucks got it when they apologized.

 

Is it possible they argued the point since they were waiting for someone and didn't want to miss them?. We enter a grey area here, though the law is clear. You always have to do what the nice policeman says, (and not the least because otherwise he may beat you about the head and shoulders with a stout stick)

Whether there is a crime is often part of the DA's discretion. That's part of why we have them. No criminal offense should operate automatically but only be brought to bear if it seems necessary and proper to do so.

 

yes, you can believe that if you choose too

others can think it was black privilege

I think the two men were removed, issue was over and the DA felt it had gone far enough, but that is just me

 

no its not, no damage has been shown that I have seen to prove trespassing

 

The DA said he saw no crime?

 

Um............ The story explicitly stated that the DA will not charge because there was no evidence of a crime.

 

They handed this over to BLM, for dragging 2 innocent black people out of starbucks.

 

Did the police ask these two people to leave, that's my question.

 

um, Clinton said he never had sex with that women too, people say things all the time that are not true just to try and make a issue go away

we heard the evidence, we can go based on that, or based on what you say the da said - it's our choice what to believe - I think they were lucky to not have been charged - I think had it been me, I would of been charged

 

why not go with what the DA said? He said he saw no crime...thats the simple part.

 

You're just being obtuse now, seriously.

 

The DA said he saw no crime

 

Well if you hear of something new then be sure to tell us.

 

That's not directly relevant. They can say there was a crime or there wasn't. That doesn't automatically translate into there was or wasn't.

Maybe they just meant the evidence wasn't enough to further prosecute them if it was all based on the testimony of an employee, and considering it was a trivial crime and the circumstances.

 

Sure. The trespassers refused to leave when they declined to order anything and were asked to leave. Starbucks maintains its facilities for paying customers not for loungers.

What would you have the manager do?

 

Agreed, else the coffee shop would only have a takeout window, not comfortable seating and wifi. Still, as I did above goes.

 

Maybe he meant nothing that was reasonably prosecutable. The terms are functionally the same so people will misuse them.

 

that is what I think too, just not worth the hassle, the issue is done and over with... time to move on

 

Yes, the cops can decide the Starbucks crew is wrong and leave. The police are not supposed to arrest anyone who hasn't done anything illegal, and the district attorney found no evidence of a crime. I have no idea what you mean by "hands on." The cops should not have put hands on the men to begin with. These two men may become well to do when their lawsuits against the police and Starbucks are settled. I'll bet attorneys are standing in line to represent them.

 

The story already did. The DA said there was no crime. But you'll continue to push your own version regardless.

 

I doubt it.

 

The Philadelphia DA is a radical installed by George Soros. He must be the first DA ever elected by promising to send fewer people to jail.

 

so then it's a non issue, time to move on

the business got what they wanted, the men removed or to buy something
the men got the charges dropped

sounds like a win\win for everyone

 

It certainly is directly relevant it's a DA has to see a crime in order to prosecute it