Starbucks Controversy
- Thread starter skywalkerlion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
She admitted to drinking and smoking marajuana, which is why i asked about the legality of such things. Im not from america so am not familiar with how these things fly over there and im pretty sure it changes from state to state which makes things even more confusingMother Yeti said:
Admitting to smoking pot four years ago is not grounds for any sort of charge even in the nuttiest American states.lenneth said:
I see. Then I think the reasoning might be that it might be to illustrate that the matters were more consensual than claimed, and therefore by extension goes some way towards corroborating this:Mother Yeti said:
The train of thought perhaps being that, if she consented - due to simple attraction, desire to obtain a higher-paying job, etc - then her claims of other employees and the company knowing about the relationship could be more easily contested. After all, she wouldn't want the company to know either. It's a long shot, but still somewhat relevant.
The case is going to be decided on two issues: Whether the relationship was consensual, and whether Starbucks knew about it. The girl's sexual history really has zilch to do with anything, it's just a way for Starbucks to try and shame her.Xhu said:
5th amendment, you can't incriminate yourself.lenneth said:
Also, you can't take the testimony in one case over to another. It just won't stand up in court, the burden of proof is just not adequate enough, unless a cop actually catches you with an illicit substance and takes it as evidence then there really is no case.
Recently in the UK a celebrity was charged after they were filmed taking a drug, though they could ascertain it was an illegal drug but because they couldn't identify if it was a class A or class B drug nor even the quantities the jury was forced to acquit the accused because there was no specifics.
im not entirely sure on this..trying to find a place which specifies but cant seem to..but anyway under the possibly false assumption that starbucks seem to know about these other men because maybe they were like other employees/people in positions of power/semi power..Mother Yeti said:
..damn i really wish i could clarify this before going any further, but my point is in the scenario where the other guys are in positions of power..well it kind of puts a whole new spin on things. Its not like namecalling, like just saying "whore" for the sake of slapping on that label and all of the prejudice and stigma attached to it, but pointing out that she really isnt innocent, she has an agenda and sees her sexuality as a way to forward this.
Sex itself isnt something i ever think is condemnable, not the act itself, i mean at the risk of receiving flak if a girl and her boss wanted to bang that should just be it, though it can never be as simple because of the extreme volatility of the situation. But back to my point when there is some kind of clear sense of purpose in ones sexual partners how could that not be indicative? like in a scenario where someone sexes their previous boss, makes a small scandal about it then uproots and moves somewhere completely different..and ends up in some kind of similar mess but on a larger scale is it slandering for the sake of discrediting if that previous little doosy is mentioned? or is it giving evidence of a clear intent to forward ones agenda through the method which seems the most effective?
There is so much power and leverage granted to young girls when they realise they have what so many men of any age want, especially the earlier and more pre-legal they are when realising this. All it takes is once, being able to seduce an older man whether its through the guise of innocence or or just pushing yourself on him, people are only human. Once that happens he is pretty much toasted if you decide it. If you decide you arent being paid enough, or even getting careless and find out youre pregnant, it is a near immediate absolvement of all responsibilities, whether its the wrath of your parents or judgment from friends its an infinitely easier escape from repercussions to cry sexual harassment or rape
Mother Yeti said:
Beyond that, there is an interesting aspect of these types of cases. With typical criminal law, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution: they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a crime. In sexual harassment types of cases, the burden of proof lies on the defendant such that the courts essentially assume guilt in the matter and it is on the company to show that either such events never took place (very difficult, especially in this case) or that proper measures were in place by the company in the form of a clearly stated, accessible policy regarding sexual harassment (the most likely). Starbucks has to prove its innocence here, which sounds like it might be a touch difficult. As meeting the second standard is not necessarily easy and what meets it is not always consistent.
1st: It doesn't matter what kind of life the girl had before being pressured for sex, it's always wrong.
2nd: Starbucks don't sell coffee, they sell a luke-warm (thank you American lawsuits), brown liquid with caffeine in it.
3rd: You don't sue the company unless they ordered the offence, as far as I can tell ( from a vantage point of the UK), you have dickhole manager who happened to work at Starbucks. Sue him.
2nd: Starbucks don't sell coffee, they sell a luke-warm (thank you American lawsuits), brown liquid with caffeine in it.
3rd: You don't sue the company unless they ordered the offence, as far as I can tell ( from a vantage point of the UK), you have dickhole manager who happened to work at Starbucks. Sue him.
There's absolutely nothing in the brief indicating who the men/boys she had sex with were. If they were people in positions of power, you bet your ass Starbucks would have mentioned it. This is shaming, pure and simple.
I have no idea. All I know is that this girl could have slept with one person or 100, it's irrelevant to whether her relationship with this particular man was consensual.Xhu said:
First of all: where the fuck do you live that there's no starbucks? there's a mall by my house, and no joke, there's a starbucks, and then two stores down and across the way there's another starbucks. Then theres a starbucks on the corner right outside the mall, and another one that's no less than 3 blocks away.
Second I don't really think that they have a case against starbucks, or even the manager. I mean, ok maybe they could get him for statutory rape or something depending on how old she is, but obviously she let it go for this long without saying anything to the police or her mother. So I'm betting it was either willing and now they "broke up" or whatever, or that girl really REALLY liked her job at starbucks. And as someone who's worked there, the second one is extremely unlikely.
Second I don't really think that they have a case against starbucks, or even the manager. I mean, ok maybe they could get him for statutory rape or something depending on how old she is, but obviously she let it go for this long without saying anything to the police or her mother. So I'm betting it was either willing and now they "broke up" or whatever, or that girl really REALLY liked her job at starbucks. And as someone who's worked there, the second one is extremely unlikely.
And I would argue that a sixteen-year-old who has slept with seven people beforehand, and then goes on to sleep with a further five besides the one in the article [though this part is less relevant unless they happened during the time of the alleged abuse], has a significantly greater chance of willingly using her sexuality to further her career than somebody without such a history.Mother Yeti said: