Starbucks to close 8K stores May 29th for training

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But it does boil down to self mastery...  Tons of people can walk into a Starbucks and not even be tempted to sin by drinking coffee...  But how many people can walk into to a strip club and not be tempted with the sin of lust?  If you can you are better person then me.  Most people understand this even if they didn't really think through the why.  Thus a strip club is worst not because it is the more major (although it is) its because the sin is practically unavoidable even if it is only in your thoughts

So “avoiding the appearance of evil” just comes down to how tempting something is? So if a sin isn’t tempting to us we can participate in activities around it? So if I’m not tempted by alcohol, I can go to the bar and chill with friends? But if I’m tempted by coffee then I’m breaking the guidance of “avoid the appearance of evil”?

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Fether said:

So “avoiding the appearance of evil” just comes down to how tempting something is? So if a sin isn’t tempting to us we can participate in activities around it? So if I’m not tempted by alcohol, I can go to the bar and chill with friends? But if I’m tempted by coffee then I’m breaking the guidance of “avoid the appearance of evil”?

My understanding is simply that "the appearance of evil" is one (or both) of the following two things, depending on who you talk to:

1) Doing something which may be perceived by witnesses as evil (e.g. Paul's comments on eating meat sacrificed to idols).  The concern here is that your actions may cause another to falter or to reject the truth because of your perceived "bad example".  Obviously, this requires some prediction of how others might perceive your actions.  Starbucks may or may not be a problem here, a strip joint is definitely a problem (no one's going to believe your visit to a strip joint was "innocent").

2) In this variation, "appearance" can be interpreted as "showing up" - you should avoid situations where evil will make an appearance.  This can have the same concerns as #1, but also involves an element of temptation and risk of sin on your part.  Starbucks is unlikely to be a problem here (can't imagine a scenario where it is, unless perhaps you struggle to not drink coffee).  Again, a strip joint is definitely a problem - even if you don't feel any temptation or experience sinful thoughts, the place is, by definition, evil.

[estradling75]

19 minutes ago, Fether said:

So “avoiding the appearance of evil” just comes down to how tempting something is? So if a sin isn’t tempting to us we can participate in activities around it? So if I’m not tempted by alcohol, I can go to the bar and chill with friends? But if I’m tempted by coffee then I’m breaking the guidance of “avoid the appearance of evil”?

@zil  Pretty much nailed it.   You can not control what another person think about you going to Starbucks or to a Stripclub... but there is a huge difference between the levels of temptation those places offer.

In both cases if you are aware of someone that is very likely to give in to sin because of your example then it is on us to set a better example...  that is one reason to "avoid the appearance of evil"  The other reason is that depending on the person in question the "appearance of evil" can become all to easily the real thing in.  Stripclubs can easily be both.  Starbucks less so (depending on the person)

[NightSG]

On 4/18/2018 at 10:43 AM, Fether said:

I bet if you look at the sales revenue of Starbucks inUT, you will find that 1/4 of it all comes from the sale of “caramel/chocolate chip Frappuccino w/o coffee”.

Oh, so that's what they charge extra to put on the receipt in case the bishop finds out you're there.  

[NightSG]

On 4/20/2018 at 9:19 PM, zil said:

Again, a strip joint is definitely a problem - even if you don't feel any temptation or experience sinful thoughts, the place is, by definition, evil.

What if it has really good nachos?

[NightSG]

On 4/18/2018 at 3:37 PM, Carborendum said:

Additionally, it wasn't the loitering alone that merited the arrest.  It was the fact that even when the police were brought in and asked them to leave, they refused.  So, with the refusal, the police arrested them.

The short version is, when the person in control of the property tells you to leave, it's time to go.  Barring some rare extenuating circumstance, (minor child in your care not being allowed to leave with you, or leaving immediately would exacerbate an injury are the only two I can come up with off the top of my head) you leave and take it to court if you've got a problem with it.

Whether the manager did anything wrong or not, the loiterers were in the wrong from the first time they refused to leave when told.  The people claiming the police were part of the problem need to sit down and shut up.

Edited April 23, 2018 by NightSG

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, NightSG said:

The short version is, when the person in control of the property tells you to leave, it's time to go.  Barring some rare extenuating circumstance, (minor child in your care not being allowed to leave with you, or leaving immediately would exacerbate an injury are the only two I can come up with off the top of my head) you leave and take it to court if you've got a problem with it.

Whether the manager did anything wrong or not, the loiterers were in the wrong from the first time they refused to leave when told.  The people claiming the police were part of the problem need to sit down and shut up.

Of course, the other version is that most companies are not allowed to use racism when they do this.  When you have white customers that are doing almost the exact same thing, but let them stay and kick out the minorities instead it sends ramifications of the racist societies from earlier decades that were judged to be unconstitutional and wrong by the courts over 40 years ago.

There are certain things that as a public business (private has different rules, sometimes similar, sometimes different) that you are not allowed to do.  One of those is racism of possible customers.  You cannot keep the white individuals in your store and kick out the minorities for doing the same things.   If you kick out the minorities, then you would also kick out the white individuals who were in the same situation.  There was this entire thing called the Civil Rights movement you may have heard of that created this type of equality and justice for all citizens of the United States of America.

The manager of the store these individuals were kicked out of didn't actually OWN the store or make the policies.  They, of their own volition, independent of store policy, choose to let the White individuals continue to stay for hours, while selecting two individuals who were minorities to be kicked out.  The concern of those two minorities was that they were waiting for someone for a business meeting and did not want to miss the meeting (which, they did anyways it appears).

At least that's what I got from the various stories posted around the news at the time

Edited April 24, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, the other version is that most companies are not allowed to use racism when they do this.  When you have white customers that are doing almost the exact same thing, but let them stay and kick out the minorities instead it sends ramifications of the racist societies from earlier decades that were judged to be unconstitutional and wrong by the courts over 40 years ago.

There are certain things that as a public business (private has different rules, sometimes similar, sometimes different) that you are not allowed to do.  One of those is racism of possible customers.  You cannot keep the white individuals in your store and kick out the minorities for doing the same things.   If you kick out the minorities, then you would also kick out the white individuals who were in the same situation.  There was this entire thing called the Civil Rights movement you may have heard of that created this type of equality and justice for all citizens of the United States of America.

The manager of the store these individuals were kicked out of didn't actually OWN the store or make the policies.  They, of their own volition, independent of store policy, choose to let the White individuals continue to stay for hours, while selecting two individuals who were minorities to be kicked out.  The concern of those two minorities was that they were waiting for someone for a business meeting and did not want to miss the meeting (which, they did anyways it appears).

At least that's what I got from the various stories posted around the news at the time

First, there is little evidence that any of this is true.  Second, private property is (or should be) private property.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

At least that's what I got from the various stories posted around the news at the time

Don't believe everything you read.

That was fake news.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Don't believe everything you read.

That was fake news.

Fake news has so permeated our culture. Very sad. 

[NightSG]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, the other version is that most companies are not allowed to use racism when they do this.

A civil issue, and one to be determined in court.  Not a valid reason to refuse the order to leave.  What they did was directly analogous to refusing to cooperate during a traffic stop and getting arrested for that.  

[JohnsonJones]

The following two links are to Huffington Post, which I know some here will take instant offense to, but I find that the articles are interesting in addressing the different viewpoints.  One, where the plurality (not majority) or whites polled seem to think nothing was wrong while minorities polled have the exact opposite view (sort of like the old South Jim Crow laws where Whites saw nothing wrong, but minorities saw a LOT wrong), and the other where it goes more into detail about a minority's view on racism in the US today.

White Americans say SB incident was isolated, Black Americans say it was part of a pattern

Quote

The vast majority of those surveyed had heard at least a little about the arrests. Among those, 48 percent of white Americans said it was an isolated incident, a third that it was emblematic of a broader pattern in how society as a whole treats black people, and 6 percent that it was a reflection of a broader pattern in the way Starbucks treats black people.

A 57 percent majority of black Americans, by contrast, saw the controversy as rooted in broader societal problems, with 19 percent considering it primarily an indictment of Starbucks, and just a tenth believing it was an isolated incident....

....Black and white Americans gave Starbucks nearly identical approval ratings for their overall handling of the incident. But three in 10 white Americans said Starbucks was doing too much to address the controversy, while just 4 percent of black Americans said the same.

As is often the case in recent polls, the divides along political lines are even starker than the splits between races. A 69 percent majority of Hillary Clinton voters who’d heard about the Starbucks story said it represents a broader societal pattern, while just 9 percent of President Donald Trump’s supporters said the same. Slightly more than half of Trump voters, and just a tenth of Clinton voters, thought Starbucks was doing too much in response. Clinton voters were also more than twice as likely as Trump voters to believe anti-bias training would be effective.

Also

Quote

Most Americans, regardless of race, say they don’t often worry about being perceived as doing something wrong while out at a restaurant or store. But white Americans are 24 points likelier than black Americans to say they don’t worry about being suspected of wrongdoing in public, 18 points likelier to say they’d be comfortable using a restroom without buying anything and 26 points likelier to say they’d be comfortable waiting for a friend without making a purchase. The gaps between white and Hispanic Americans on those questions are 15 points, 18 points and 24 points, respectively. 

 

Starbucks Incident reminds us that equality is complicated

Quote

Navigating and negotiating the white world comes with a litmus test. Outside of the exceptional brown-skinned person, everyone else will have to convince someone. In white spaces, people of color are visitors. At any moment, they can have their visitor card ripped out their hands. It is one more complication of equality. People of color have to prove they belong before they are accepted. Whites have to prove they don’t belong before they are rejected.

But here is the problem with having to prove your humanity: It takes a fact and turns it into a question. “You are a decent human being” suddenly becomes “Are you a decent human being? Show me.” It is performance art, a dance, with the person of color having to prove their worth.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[lostinwater]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The following two links are to Huffington Post, which I know some here will take instant offense to, but I find that the articles are interesting in addressing the different viewpoints.  One, where the plurality (not majority) or whites polled seem to think nothing was wrong while minorities polled have the exact opposite view (sort of like the old South Jim Crow laws where Whites saw nothing wrong, but minorities saw a LOT wrong), and the other where it goes more into detail about a minority's view on racism in the US today.

 

This is a good point @JohnsonJones.

i read a book recently called "Divided By Faith".  The title is not an accurate one, in my opinion.  It should be called "Divided By Race".  It's premise is that white evangelicals cannot see the race problem - though i'd say almost all white people cannot see any race problem.  That the average white person sees black poverty as an individual choice - and the blacks see a system that was engineered to oppress them.  That white people see the solution as just trying to mingle/interact with their black neighbors and see no need to make any societal changes.  

It's a pretty interesting read - especially the second half of the book - where they mostly go around interviewing people of the various races and just reporting what they say.

Definitely, we all use our toolbox of experiences to explain the world around us.  If it hasn't happened to us, it's natural to assume it either doesn't happen to anyone, or happens to other people so rarely that it does not deserve the level of press it gets.  

How guilty am i for what our country did to the American Indian or the slavery of the black people?  Or how much is my reaping the benefits of having great great great great grandparents who didn't live as slaves on a plantation  in Georgia (without doing anything to attempt to correct the cultural harm that resulted) me unwittingly participating in the racial segregation status quo?  Not easy questions to answer (just speaking for myself).

it's a complicated issue that almost nobody can see 100% of - least of all me.  

[Fether]

23 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

This is a good point @JohnsonJones.

i read a book recently called "Divided By Faith".  The title is not an accurate one, in my opinion.  It should be called "Divided By Race".  It's premise is that white evangelicals cannot see the race problem - though i'd say almost all white people cannot see any race problem.  That the average white person sees black poverty as an individual choice - and the blacks see a system that was engineered to oppress them.  That white people see the solution as just trying to mingle/interact with their black neighbors and see no need to make any societal changes.  

It's a pretty interesting read - especially the second half of the book - where they mostly go around interviewing people of the various races and just reporting what they say.

Definitely, we all use our toolbox of experiences to explain the world around us.  If it hasn't happened to us, it's natural to assume it either doesn't happen to anyone, or happens to other people so rarely that it does not deserve the level of press it gets.  

How guilty am i for what our country did to the American Indian or the slavery of the black people?  Or how much is my reaping the benefits of having great great great great grandparents who didn't live as slaves on a plantation  in Georgia (without doing anything to attempt to correct the cultural harm that resulted) me unwittingly participating in the racial segregation status quo?  Not easy questions to answer (just speaking for myself).

it's a complicated issue that almost nobody can see 100% of - least of all me.  

I’m down for needed social change... but ignoring the question on whether we need it or not, if we did need it... what would we need to change and how?? My confusion and inability of seeing racial problems also comes from my inability to find anything that could be changed for the better.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The following two links are to Huffington Post, which I know some here will take instant offense to, but I find that the articles are interesting in addressing the different viewpoints.  One, where the plurality (not majority) or whites polled seem to think nothing was wrong while minorities polled have the exact opposite view (sort of like the old South Jim Crow laws where Whites saw nothing wrong, but minorities saw a LOT wrong), and the other where it goes more into detail about a minority's view on racism in the US today.

White Americans say SB incident was isolated, Black Americans say it was part of a pattern

Also

 

Starbucks Incident reminds us that equality is complicated

 

That was a whole log of nothing to do with the topic at hand.  So what about public opinion and the problems of racial perception?  Where in any official account of the actual events does it even say that the manager or the police acted because of race?  All we have from official accounts was that they were loitering too long and refused to leave when asked by the manager or the police.  What exactly was RIGHT about what these non-customers did?

Show me the reference for that.  As far as I've read (and I've done my share of reading) I haven't found anyone stating officially how long they had been there prior to being asked to leave.  To me, that would be the big indicator.  How long had they stated?  How long to most loiterers stay there?

If you ask me, it sound like a couple of guys doing a social experiment or attempting "social statement by cop".

*****************************

I'll explain it this way. I've been in the same situation as these men.  I was loitering waiting for some family in one instance and some friends in another.  In both instances, the employees of such establishments were accepting.  But as the places got more crowded and I'd been there longer, they eventually asked me to leave to make room for paying clients.  I never even thought that it was because of my race.  I thought that they had a point and they had every right to want me to leave.  So I did as they asked.

Why didn't these men do the same?  I didn't have to have the cops order me to leave.  I didn't have to have them arrest me.  But these men did.  Why?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

On 4/24/2018 at 10:05 AM, Carborendum said:

Don't believe everything you read.

That was fake news.

Ben Shapiro did an analysis on the media reaction on this.

 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ben Shapiro did an analysis on the media reaction on this.

That was exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.  People spout off timetables as if they could just make it up out of thin air and have it become fact.  I have not heard from ANY source just how long they'd been there before they were even approached or before the call to the police.  That's a pretty important piece of information required to make a judgment about the big picture here.

His analysis of the Starbucks long standing policy is perfect as always.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Guest

[lostinwater]

9 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m down for needed social change... but ignoring the question on whether we need it or not, if we did need it... what would we need to change and how?? My confusion and inability of seeing racial problems also comes from my inability to find anything that could be changed for the better.

Thank-you.

i'm on the poor side of asking good questions, and off the charts negative on my ability to answer good questions like the ones you posed  .

i hear you, though.  i ping-pong between confusion, compassion, and cynicism about racism in America. 

i think all i can say for sure is that i wish our society were not quite so dog-eat-dog .  i am not sure we're engineered to systematically oppress any race (at least that i see) - but i think it's very hard to break out of grinding poverty that many people of Color have had passed down onto them through the generations.  And really, that's as true outside the race bubble as inside of it.  

And don't mistake - i have no illusions about what happens when governments attempt to engineer equality of outcome, or exchange the Darwinian practicalities of capitalism for the beautiful but corrupting theories of socialism.

Sigh.  Honestly, any time i attempt to state what will work for society as a whole, anything i say appears, even to me, so riddled with contradictions that i usually end up saying nothing at all - at least when i am wise.

i guess i just have to work on the problems in my own environment.  For me, that seems like doing a lot of listening to people of Color, asking some gentle questions, and trying to help those without access to the formal education they need to break the poverty cycle find it.  

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That was a whole log of nothing to do with the topic at hand.  So what about public opinion and the problems of racial perception?  Where in any official account of the actual events does it even say that the manager or the police acted because of race?  All we have from official accounts was that they were loitering too long and refused to leave when asked by the manager or the police.  What exactly was RIGHT about what these non-customers did?

Show me the reference for that.  As far as I've read (and I've done my share of reading) I haven't found anyone stating officially how long they had been there prior to being asked to leave.  To me, that would be the big indicator.  How long had they stated?  How long to most loiterers stay there?

If you ask me, it sound like a couple of guys doing a social experiment or attempting "social statement by cop".

*****************************

I'll explain it this way. I've been in the same situation as these men.  I was loitering waiting for some family in one instance and some friends in another.  In both instances, the employees of such establishments were accepting.  But as the places got more crowded and I'd been there longer, they eventually asked me to leave to make room for paying clients.  I never even thought that it was because of my race.  I thought that they had a point and they had every right to want me to leave.  So I did as they asked.

Why didn't these men do the same?  I didn't have to have the cops order me to leave.  I didn't have to have them arrest me.  But these men did.  Why?

??

I'm not sure what you are stating.  The articles were directly related to the topic on hand and the different reactions of people to it...so I'm not sure why you stated what you did.

It went into detail the vast differences between the perceptions of the whites vs. everyone else in America.

 Now, not in the articles, but myriads of new articles around the web there IS a timeline that's been put out there...Supposedly...

The young gentlemen gave their statements and on the film ironically their appointment actually finally showed up when the police did.  The appointment (a businessman) tried to actually convince the police that they had made an appointment there. 

The video was posted by another person and had started making the rounds that evening.  The guys were in jail and were unaware of the filming of it.  They found out about it when they called to set another appointment with the individual they were supposed to meet with originally...and that individual informed them.

If this was a "staged" event we'd probably have heard of a civil lawsuit suing starbucks already...but as far as I am aware of at this time, they haven't even filed a lawsuit.

I do not know the timeline, but some people supposedly that were there (supposedly including the one that did the filming) said that the men came in originally very casually dressed.  One asked to use the restroom and were told it was for paying customers only.  Some indicated that they had waterjugs on them.  They informed the Starbucks that they were there waiting for another person to meet them for a meeting.  After around 5 or 6 minutes they were told to leave.  At the time, other individuals who had been there for several hours (up to three hours) but were white and had not bought anything recently were NOT asked to leave or asked to do anything in that manner. 

Back to articles I posted...

Original articles indicated it was a manager that called, but apparently it is not as clear as that now.  What does seem clear is that there is a difference on how whites and those who are affluent (and especially Trump supporters interestingly enough) vs. those who are black or Hispanic (or were Clinton supporters).

The other article actually addresses several others situations similar to Starbucks, but some of those are much more clear in the discrimination (as is Huffington posts way of doing things in it's very LIBERAL style of reporting) against the minorities, but it shows in the Huffington Posts view a clear systematic violation of human rights in favor of discrimination in that article...which also raises some interesting questions in regards to the events at Starbucks that could be had between those who are liberal and those that are conservative.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose if we want to compare it similarly, is if you, as an Asian American had gone to a McDonalds.  You were waiting for your wife to come with your kids.  You needed to go to the restroom but the employees told you that you could not go unless you bought something.  You sit down, obviously NOT buying anything yet.  You are still waiting for your wife to get there with your kids.  There are some people eating, but many others who are not Asian Americans who have no food or anything of Mcdonalds near them that were there before you.  They are using the free Wi-Fi of Mcdonalds.

So, the manager comes up to you and says you need to leave within a few minutes of you sitting down.  You try to tell them that your wife is meeting you here with your kids.  If you leave, your wife may be surprised why you would just leave without telling her.  Instead of waiting longer, someone calls the police (possibly one of those even that didn't have any food but was sitting there for hours using the Wi-Fi ironically).  The police come and say they are going to remove you.  Then your wife DOES arrive.  She says that you were actually waiting for her and if you and her could get together.  She'll even buy something.  The police talk politely to her but say that they now have to arrest you.

At this point, do you protest because you do not see why you need to be arrested (which is what these young men did).  If you do that, it will be seen as being disorderly on top of being arrested. 

Do you think this is fair to you?  No one who was white was asked to leave, even though they were using the Wi-Fi (you were not) and had been there longer than you without anything on their tables.  In addition, your wife was not arrested (I assume she is white), just you. 

Perhaps you do not see the problem with this...and many Americans do not.  On the otherhand, many minorities state that this type of action happens to minorities every day (especially those who are black or Hispanic) and see this as a pattern of behavior.

There are several different veiwpoints on the matter.  Some may view it that you got what you deserved.  You obviously were the cause of the problem.  Others may view it as a one time incident.  Others may view it that seeing how you were singled out, it was discrimination.

The question then, that the polls arise is that there seems to be a divide between how one segment of the US population perceives such incidents vs. that of other segments of the US population.

Edited April 26, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

For those who are curious, though I know some despise Snopes, Snopes has more on it (as per snopes, it wasn't the manager but a barista that called, so an employee, but not necessarily the manager) including the video of the police engagement and the arrival of the individual the men were supposed to meet at starbucks and the subsequent ignoring of the white individual and arrest of the black men. 

 

Snopes philadelphia starbucks arrest

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not sure what you are stating. 

I thought I was pretty clear when I asked:  Where in any official account of the actual events does it even say that the manager or the police acted because of race?

50 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The articles were directly related to the topic on hand.

OK.  Maybe each of us is thinking the topic is different than the other does.  I think the issue is about whether or not two men violated any laws or rules of conduct for any American citizen in similar circumstances that would have warranted a call to the police and subsequent arrest.

You seem to think the topic is about racial perceptions/inequality/bigotry.  If so, we're not even talking about the same thing.

50 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

What does seem clear is that there is a difference on how whites and those who are affluent (and especially Trump supporters interestingly enough) vs. those who are black or Hispanic (or were Clinton supporters).

Well, it looks like you've got it all figured out.  Apparently all Trump supporters are are white bigots who don't understand the plight of the minority and all Never-Trumpers are all minorities who care about the downtrodden minority.

I don't believe we have all the facts.  You could be right.  If we have insufficient facts I certainly can't say you're wrong.  But I tend not to rush to judgment until I have more facts than are currently being told to the public.

Several statements from police don't match up to what the two trespassers have been spreading all over the news.  But the media isn't interested in hearing anyone else who may contradict what these men said.  I'm just wondering why no one has asked for the Starbucks surveillance video.  I'm wondering if the person who called the police was such a bigot, why did she not get fired.  Things don't add up.  And when things don't add up, I tend to think there's something we're missing from the common narrative.

But you can feel free to go about thinking you've got it all figured out after hearing only one side of the story.  Notice that all the other testimony that you mentioned was from people who were only aware of anything once the police arrived.  There is nothing that says anything else about what happened prior to the police arrival.

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I thought I was pretty clear when I asked:  Where in any official account of the actual events does it even say that the manager or the police acted because of race?

OK.  Maybe each of us is thinking the topic is different than the other does.  I think the issue is about whether or not two men violated any laws or rules of conduct for any American citizen in similar circumstances that would have warranted a call to the police and subsequent arrest.

You seem to think the topic is about racial perceptions/inequality/bigotry.  If so, we're not even talking about the same thing.

Well, it looks like you've got it all figured out.  Apparently all Trump supporters are are white bigots who don't understand the plight of the minority and all Never-Trumpers are all minorities who care about the downtrodden minority.

I don't believe we have all the facts.  You could be right.  If we have insufficient facts I certainly can't say you're wrong.  But I tend not to rush to judgment until I have more facts than are currently being told to the public.

Several statements from police don't match up to what the two trespassers have been spreading all over the news.  But the media isn't interested in hearing anyone else who may contradict what these men said.  I'm just wondering why no one has asked for the Starbucks surveillance video.  I'm wondering if the person who called the police was such a bigot, why did she not get fired.  Things don't add up.  And when things don't add up, I tend to think there's something we're missing from the common narrative.

But you can feel free to go about thinking you've got it all figured out after hearing only one side of the story.  Notice that all the other testimony that you mentioned was from people who were only aware of anything once the police arrived.  There is nothing that says anything else about what happened prior to the police arrival.

Just as a heads up, if you want to watch about 8-10 minutes of video, it is there on Snopes.  I posted a link to the website.  They have the original video recording of the event that started the entire social media response and thus the reporting of the thing in the news eventually.

PS: I was pointing out the various items found via the study done in regards to the event and racial responses.  It does not say Trump supporters are Bigots, but their answers in the study (an overwhelming majority which had a VERY different answer than those who were Clinton supporters originally, or blacks or Hispanics overall) which come to different viewpoints than those of others. 

It can be interesting to think about why different groups have such different viewpoints (in many ways, complete opposite viewpoints) of the same situation.

Edited April 26, 2018 by JohnsonJones