#BlackinAmerica

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don, not to quote your whole thread

It is a minor difference between cafe and restaurant. Both are public places and their service is providing food and allowing their customers to sit at the tables to enjoy that product. Because a place is public does not mean that everything goes. If you walked into a bedroom store and went to sleep on the coach they would ask you to leave. You can't go into a Chilis with a please wait to be seated sign and just decide to sit at any open table. Restaurants also have different policies regarding seating full parties.

I am just referring to just the Starbucks case here for the trespassing.


The collective group would be a little more interesting because if you had a party of 20 and only 4 were eating, they would not be required to arrange the tables for 20 people in that case.

In a Starbucks or coffee house, there would be no seating by a host and there would be plenty of informal, lax seating sometimes including couches where 20 or so people could sit and play D&D or magic or have a political meeting. In the Starbucks 2 people were not ready to order at a maximum and may have ordered later with the addition of a third who planned the location and likely would have ordered. This makes it within the conventions of coffeehouses and basically what everyone else was doing there. A cloud of suspicion is on the employee for questioning the potential customers going to use the bathroom since they were black and questioned when they could have been customers later or the third member could have been a customer, but moreover having called the police was inappropriate without a full accounting of understanding of the entire group that would arrive and their intent to be customers later.

In regard to restaurant seating, whatever restrictions you come up with, they are not relevant at all to a coffeehouse because it is looser there and in the Waffle House that was a restaurant and not a coffeehouse, there was no seating issue or anyone asking the potential customer to leave.

Therefore, I don't see how your post really addresses what I had written. I suggest it would be better if you took some time to read it, let it sink in, and then respond in full.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

So Derec makes up an absolute bullshit story that she was drunk, and you make up an absolute bullshit story that there had been a previous "run-in"

Anything to blame the victim

Most people would simply have left when told to do so.

She didn't, even when told by the cops.

Did they get very "lucky", or was that based on prior knowledge? The latter seems far more likely to me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm gonna take a stab at this trespassing issue. I'm not in any way trying to take sides. I just want to throw out some thoughts and see where it gets me.

First, this reminds me of the difference in what's considered kidnapping between everyday normal lexical usage and stipulative legal usage. If I stand in one's way as one tries to exit a building, while no sane individual would consider that kidnapping by old school usage, there may very well be extended conditions considered in law which creates the divide between what is and what is not kidnapping. I bring this up because there is (I believe) a parallel on the trespassing discussion. What is or is not trespassing in common usage may indeed vary from what is or is not trespassing in legal parlance. Further, there is a meshing between the two in common circulation which compounds the need to hash out whatever differences brought up for discussion.

Second, I'd like to focus in on the distinction between entering and remaining. Entering my own personal property without permission is trespassing. Without notice or with notice. With signage or without signage. If you are a friend and you have been given implicit or explicit consent to enter, then you are not trespassing. If you enter with my permission and we later argue and I ask you to leave but you remain, then despite the fact you are now unwelcome, it's not true that you entered without permission. Odd and strange perhaps, but the difference is important.

On the legal side of the equation, the scope seems to have engulfed remaining without permission as being covered under the umbrella that extends beyond the ordinary reach of common layman views--although as I hinted to before, the fusion between the common definition and legal definition has bred evolving commonly held thoughts in the matter.

Third, a personal residence is substantively different than a brick and mortar business that is open to the public. There is implicit permission to enter if not a downright open sign explicitly inviting customers--which is broad enough to include even non-paying customers.

If a customer or potential customer enters a business, we must remember the before-mentioned distinction between entering and remaining. Whether for racist reasons or not, if customers or potential customers are asked to leave but remain, that does not alter the fact they failed to enter with permission: it's open to the public.

Now, if a customer is asked to leave but refuses, then even if he refuses to leave and instead remains, the issue becomes not what "trespassing" means but rather what 'tresspassing' means, where the double quote signifies lexical usage and the single quote signifies legal meaning.

At this juncture, any use of the word trespassing will be legal usage.

What is the legal definition? That is important. What's right or wrong isn't important, as that would only speak to the ethics of the issue. So, if trespassing includes entering without permission, that element is irrelevant since a few examples discussed in this thread seem to include permission of entry. However, that's not to say the sequence of legal procedures is relevant either, for the issue isn't about methodology but actual trespassing.

Food for thought. Compartmentalize and hold emotions at bay. If one is not asked to leave, then they either are or not nevertheless trespassing despite that--unless that happens to be integral as a necessary condition for satisfying the legal definition of trespassing.

Wording becomes crucial. For example, suppose being on a property after being asked to leave is the operative word. Then, entering and not leaving would constitute trespassing. For instance, suppose the legal definition didn't have being but entering was crucial. How in the heck would that be trespassing--since entering was a-okay at the time.

The exact wording is important to ascertain the factual basis. Thinking about what's right or wrong and who would like this or that or whether racism was or wasn't involved all take a back seat if there is a singular endeavor to determine whether one was or wasn't trespassing.

I am mostly in agreement, but I will add 3 items. 1. The woman at Waffle House was never asked to leave. 2. Are these locations public accodomations? If so, then treating races differently could constitute a civil rights issue. 3. What kind of authority does the non-owner staff actually have in regard to treatment of customers in an open business and/or public accomodation? In the case of Waffle House the district manager's authority would have trumped the on-site employee's authority and the customer was under the impression their contact info was being obtained, but moreover they were not asked to leave. In the case of Starbucks an on-site employee thought perhaps incorrectly that 2 out of 3 people in a group had to immediately buy products to use a bathroom but upper management upon hearing the story disagrees.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm gonna take a stab at this trespassing issue. I'm not in any way trying to take sides. I just want to throw out some thoughts and see where it gets me.

First, this reminds me of the difference in what's considered kidnapping between everyday normal lexical usage and stipulative legal usage. If I stand in one's way as one tries to exit a building, while no sane individual would consider that kidnapping by old school usage, there may very well be extended conditions considered in law which creates the divide between what is and what is not kidnapping. I bring this up because there is (I believe) a parallel on the trespassing discussion. What is or is not trespassing in common usage may indeed vary from what is or is not trespassing in legal parlance. Further, there is a meshing between the two in common circulation which compounds the need to hash out whatever differences brought up for discussion.

Second, I'd like to focus in on the distinction between entering and remaining. Entering my own personal property without permission is trespassing. Without notice or with notice. With signage or without signage. If you are a friend and you have been given implicit or explicit consent to enter, then you are not trespassing. If you enter with my permission and we later argue and I ask you to leave but you remain, then despite the fact you are now unwelcome, it's not true that you entered without permission. Odd and strange perhaps, but the difference is important.

On the legal side of the equation, the scope seems to have engulfed remaining without permission as being covered under the umbrella that extends beyond the ordinary reach of common layman views--although as I hinted to before, the fusion between the common definition and legal definition has bred evolving commonly held thoughts in the matter.

Third, a personal residence is substantively different than a brick and mortar business that is open to the public. There is implicit permission to enter if not a downright open sign explicitly inviting customers--which is broad enough to include even non-paying customers.

If a customer or potential customer enters a business, we must remember the before-mentioned distinction between entering and remaining. Whether for racist reasons or not, if customers or potential customers are asked to leave but remain, that does not alter the fact they failed to enter with permission: it's open to the public.

Now, if a customer is asked to leave but refuses, then even if he refuses to leave and instead remains, the issue becomes not what "trespassing" means but rather what 'tresspassing' means, where the double quote signifies lexical usage and the single quote signifies legal meaning.

At this juncture, any use of the word trespassing will be legal usage.

What is the legal definition? That is important. What's right or wrong isn't important, as that would only speak to the ethics of the issue. So, if trespassing includes entering without permission, that element is irrelevant since a few examples discussed in this thread seem to include permission of entry. However, that's not to say the sequence of legal procedures is relevant either, for the issue isn't about methodology but actual trespassing.

Food for thought. Compartmentalize and hold emotions at bay. If one is not asked to leave, then they either are or not nevertheless trespassing despite that--unless that happens to be integral as a necessary condition for satisfying the legal definition of trespassing.

Wording becomes crucial. For example, suppose being on a property after being asked to leave is the operative word. Then, entering and not leaving would constitute trespassing. For instance, suppose the legal definition didn't have being but entering was crucial. How in the heck would that be trespassing--since entering was a-okay at the time.

The exact wording is important to ascertain the factual basis. Thinking about what's right or wrong and who would like this or that or whether racism was or wasn't involved all take a back seat if there is a singular endeavor to determine whether one was or wasn't trespassing.

I am mostly in agreement, but I will add 3 items. 1. The woman at Waffle House was never asked to leave. 2. Are these locations public accodomations? If so, then treating races differently could constitute a civil rights issue. 3. What kind of authority does the non-owner staff actually have in regard to treatment of customers in an open business and/or public accomodation? In the case of Waffle House the district manager's authority would have trumped the on-site employee's authority and the customer was under the impression their contact info was being obtained, but moreover they were not asked to leave. In the case of Starbucks an on-site employee thought perhaps incorrectly that 2 out of 3 people in a group had to immediately buy products to use a bathroom but upper management upon hearing the story disagrees.

1) Will skip
2) Maybe, but it's not for the cops at the time making the distinction. They aren't going to go through all of the times that that store or stores have called to have someone removed from the store because they didn't order something and wouldn't leave. It would be a civil issue, not a criminal issue
3) That's the problem with allowing employees to run the store, you are giving them the authority to make the decision on your behalf. They represent the company. So they do get to decide and the company is responsible for the actions of the employee.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wrong. First, Starbucks is not a restaurant but a cafe. If you're talking Waffle House, that's a restaurant but management did not ask her to leave. So still wrong. Second, your tense is wrong. You don't have to have bought something in the past as you may pay after your order. But that isn't right either. If I go to a restaurant with my 10 year old he isn't buying anything, I am. So he doesn't have to pay. In fact, if I go to a restaurant with a baby, they might not eat. If I go with a date, they might drink water, not pay and then walk out in a tiff after using the bathroom. IN THEORY. I am married and my wife would never do that. Now if my lawyer told me to meet him at a hotel cafe for a business meeting, one of us would buy a drink. But I might get there first and wait 20 minutes and when he gets there he may order a drink and ask what I want, and I may say nothing, or water or something else. Or someone may come in, look at the menu and then leave.

And the business has to decide how they are going to handle each situation and whether it makes a difference. There is no guarantee that you won't be asked to leave in some of the situations. Each business has to make the policy of how they will handle it.

These situations are real and not captured by your hard, fast generalization. That's because you are very wrong. The REAL fact is that businesses put out a thing called a sign. It's typically a paper or lights with 4 letters: O P E N. When a cafe is OPEN for business an individual or a collective can just walk in. There may be other signs to inform them about unusual rules, like bathrooms not for public use, no shirt no shoes no service, and $100 bills not accepted. People are welcome to look around for a very long time and leave without buying anything.

Yes they are allowed to go into the establishment, but how long and what they can do there is dictated by the business model itself. Your confusing the business models where they don't care, with ones that do care. For example, a movie theatre is a public place, but you are only allowed all the one if you purchase a movie ticket. You can't go sit in the threatre without paying. Another place, a restaurant, they may or may not like you seating yourself or they may require that they seat you.

Now POTENTIAL customers are wecome as either individuals or a collective. Another example of a collective: A school bus may stop at a McDonald's on a highway. The students may use the bathrooms. 90% may get meals and pay themselves. Not everyone who used the bathroom may have bought a meal, especially in the past. Another example: a whole family may come in but see things are too pricey and leave.

For the bathroom there they may or may not care.

Of course, the idea of a collective customer may create some ambiguity. So, for example, a party of 20 walks into chilis. One guy buys a soda, the rest order waters. Technically works but not really acceptable, by social convention and management hoping for profit. BUT for coffeehouses, the conventions are very loose. Political groups, bands, d&d meetups happen there. And very often a minority of the group is purchasing things.

That situation is also dependent on how they feel. I gave you an example of where a restaurant may think twice sitting 20 people with only 4 people ordering. That situation doesn't happen often because people don't normally behave like that. For your situation of the D&D and other activities they have to weigh the benefits and costs of having that group there. If that group comes in several nights and they don't generate any sales and they believe it outways their opportunity costs, they will change their arrangement with that group meeting.

In the case of the two black men at Starbucks, they were potential customers but moreover they were part of a group that had not fully arrived yet which itself was a potential customer. So after the 3rd member of the group arrived he may have bought a frappucino and maybe that is why he set the meeting up there. After that, one of the others may have said, "oh that looks good. I'm going to get one too." All of this was acceptable for a cafe.

So you never believe that a business has had to worry about someone lying about having a friend come later? The policy is easy, and I pointed out earlier, places that use their tables as the service for their customers can ask that all members of the party are there before seating them. And in this the people weren't buying anything, either for the use of the bathroom or the tables. The table in that place are for the people who buy their drinks and food to sit to enjoy it. The business has to decide what their policy is for the use of the facility.

Likewise, the woman in the Waffle House was still a potential customer because they had not asked her to leave. She was technically still in a process of negotiation. That is, after calling the district manager, he could have told his employees they were wrong and to exempt her or she could have changed her mind after going as high up the chain as she could and then paid that extra price after he confirmed it was valid.

Neither she nor the group deserved special negative treatment by police involvement while they remained potential customers.

I haven't looked at this case enough yet to comment.

 

[RavenSky]

Did they get very "lucky", or was that based on prior knowledge? The latter seems far more likely to me.

Of course it does... because you always blame the victim when the aggressor is a cop

 

[Axulus]

ETA: I once saw a police officer giving a group of people a Notice of Trespass. He very clearly explained to them what it was and what it meant. The cop wrote out a citation, handed it to the individual who had invited the others into what might not have been his property, and told him how he could get the notice dismissed by appearing in court with proof of ownership. The group dispersed and the guy who got the notice left the premises. It was all very polite and in accordance with the law, exactly how the incidents at Starbucks, the Waffle House, and the United flight should have been.

I think you're confusing the situation here. A trespass notice means they can immediately arrest you for being on the property in the future.

The notice of trespass must be given before they can arrest you for trespassing. First the horse, then the cart.

The police officer I watched could have made an arrest for trespassing if the people refused to leave once the notice had been presented to them, which he explained to them when he gave it to the guy who had invited in the others. The cop was very clear in his explanation of what it was, what it meant, and what they guy could do about it if he really did have a right to be there.

In the Starbucks case, it does not appear the men were given clear, unambiguous notice by the manager or the cops that they could be charged with trespassing if they remained in the store. The other customers who can be heard protesting the arrest don't seem at have heard any such thing. Without actual, express notice being given and therefore no possibility the men had disregarded a notice of trespass, there was no grounds for arresting them.

This seems so easy and logical I can't understand why it wouldn't occur even in place of no formal law. Cop procedures should be as follows, assuming no immediate threat.

Stage 0: For first offense, business owner asks party in question to leave. If they refuse to leave, inform them cops will be involved.

Stage 1: Cops alert the offending party that the property or business owner has requested they leave, and have called us to inform you of this desire. They are not welcome back and will be issued notice of trespass upon return at request of management if they do.

Stage 2, upon refusal (assuming no violence or other disturbance is occurring) ask manager or business owner if they desire to issue a formal notice of trespass. If yes, prepare document and hand it to offending party. Inform them that they must now leave and that management has requested the formal notice. Continued refusal to leave will result in arrest, forced removal and charges of trespassing will be recommended to the prosecutor. Will you leave voluntarily yes or no?

Stage 3: Continued refusal results in threat from stage 2 from being carried out.

Why exactly do big police departments seem unable to have even the simplest policies or procedures in place to avoid this type of incident? FFS the police chief in the Starbucks incident said the cops followed procedure. If that is the case, the procedure is shit.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm gonna take a stab at this trespassing issue. I'm not in any way trying to take sides. I just want to throw out some thoughts and see where it gets me.

First, this reminds me of the difference in what's considered kidnapping between everyday normal lexical usage and stipulative legal usage. If I stand in one's way as one tries to exit a building, while no sane individual would consider that kidnapping by old school usage, there may very well be extended conditions considered in law which creates the divide between what is and what is not kidnapping. I bring this up because there is (I believe) a parallel on the trespassing discussion. What is or is not trespassing in common usage may indeed vary from what is or is not trespassing in legal parlance. Further, there is a meshing between the two in common circulation which compounds the need to hash out whatever differences brought up for discussion.

Second, I'd like to focus in on the distinction between entering and remaining. Entering my own personal property without permission is trespassing. Without notice or with notice. With signage or without signage. If you are a friend and you have been given implicit or explicit consent to enter, then you are not trespassing. If you enter with my permission and we later argue and I ask you to leave but you remain, then despite the fact you are now unwelcome, it's not true that you entered without permission. Odd and strange perhaps, but the difference is important.

On the legal side of the equation, the scope seems to have engulfed remaining without permission as being covered under the umbrella that extends beyond the ordinary reach of common layman views--although as I hinted to before, the fusion between the common definition and legal definition has bred evolving commonly held thoughts in the matter.

Third, a personal residence is substantively different than a brick and mortar business that is open to the public. There is implicit permission to enter if not a downright open sign explicitly inviting customers--which is broad enough to include even non-paying customers.

If a customer or potential customer enters a business, we must remember the before-mentioned distinction between entering and remaining. Whether for racist reasons or not, if customers or potential customers are asked to leave but remain, that does not alter the fact they failed to enter with permission: it's open to the public.

Now, if a customer is asked to leave but refuses, then even if he refuses to leave and instead remains, the issue becomes not what "trespassing" means but rather what 'tresspassing' means, where the double quote signifies lexical usage and the single quote signifies legal meaning.

At this juncture, any use of the word trespassing will be legal usage.

What is the legal definition? That is important. What's right or wrong isn't important, as that would only speak to the ethics of the issue. So, if trespassing includes entering without permission, that element is irrelevant since a few examples discussed in this thread seem to include permission of entry. However, that's not to say the sequence of legal procedures is relevant either, for the issue isn't about methodology but actual trespassing.

Food for thought. Compartmentalize and hold emotions at bay. If one is not asked to leave, then they either are or not nevertheless trespassing despite that--unless that happens to be integral as a necessary condition for satisfying the legal definition of trespassing.

Wording becomes crucial. For example, suppose being on a property after being asked to leave is the operative word. Then, entering and not leaving would constitute trespassing. For instance, suppose the legal definition didn't have being but entering was crucial. How in the heck would that be trespassing--since entering was a-okay at the time.

The exact wording is important to ascertain the factual basis. Thinking about what's right or wrong and who would like this or that or whether racism was or wasn't involved all take a back seat if there is a singular endeavor to determine whether one was or wasn't trespassing.

I am mostly in agreement, but I will add 3 items. 1. The woman at Waffle House was never asked to leave. 2. Are these locations public accodomations? If so, then treating races differently could constitute a civil rights issue. 3. What kind of authority does the non-owner staff actually have in regard to treatment of customers in an open business and/or public accomodation? In the case of Waffle House the district manager's authority would have trumped the on-site employee's authority and the customer was under the impression their contact info was being obtained, but moreover they were not asked to leave. In the case of Starbucks an on-site employee thought perhaps incorrectly that 2 out of 3 people in a group had to immediately buy products to use a bathroom but upper management upon hearing the story disagrees.

1) Will skip
2) Maybe, but it's not for the cops at the time making the distinction. They aren't going to go through all of the times that that store or stores have called to have someone removed from the store because they didn't order something and wouldn't leave. It would be a civil issue, not a criminal issue
3) That's the problem with allowing employees to run the store, you are giving them the authority to make the decision on your behalf. They represent the company. So they do get to decide and the company is responsible for the actions of the employee.

Regarding 3, the law which includes rights trumps any of them. And if staff are not following policy they do not have permission and if a customer complaints dept or district manager is available to contact, that also trumps on-site employees. And those employees should know these things. So if a district manager is being sought for a complaint, employee should wait.

 

[laughing dog]

Did they get very "lucky", or was that based on prior knowledge? The latter seems far more likely to me.

You've been asked once but no answer. On what basis do you conclude that was based on prior knowledge?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Did they get very "lucky", or was that based on prior knowledge? The latter seems far more likely to me.

You've been asked once but no answer. On what basis do you conclude that was based on prior knowledge?

Not sure of the context here, but if it's about Waffle House, the article said that the lady had been there a week prior and was not charged for plasticware. From this we can infer she is not a customer with a restrining order, not arrested on her last visit, and so Loren is wrong, if that is what he is claiming.

 

[LordKiran]

Yes, I hear those of you in the peanut gallery saying they simply called the cops, didn't tell her to leave. Given how things played out it's pretty obvious this isn't the first run-in they have had with her.

So Derec makes up an absolute bullshit story that she was drunk, and you make up an absolute bullshit story that there had been a previous "run-in"

Anything to blame the victim

Most people would simply have left when told to do so.

She didn't, even when told by the cops.

Did they get very "lucky", or was that based on prior knowledge? The latter seems far more likely to me.

Most people aren't told to leave for bullshit reasons by a fascist barista who goes off on a power trip over his 60 square foot domain.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Re: WH, neither the employees nor police told her to leave. Loren, did you even read the article?

 

[fast]

1. The woman at Waffle House was never asked to leave.

That sounds like it may be important. It sounds important because if she had permission to enter, then how could she be trespassing if she entered with permission? This seems like a potential timing issue. For instance, let's say she wasn't trespassing when the police were called. Let's also say she wasn't trespassing prior to the police being called. It's possible that she wasn't even trespassing when the police arrived. But, at some point, there may have been a time after the police arrived that she was trespassing. Did the police ask her to leave?

Whether she was already trespassing when the police were called speaks not to whether she was ever at any point trespassing but perhaps whether or not there was good reason for calling the police in the first place. Once the police were there, regardless of the events leading up to their arrival, it's possible (just possible, I say) that if she was ultimately told to leave and refused, and it seems clear she was unwelcome by a member of the staff, and if they get a say in who has permission to remain, then maybe (just maybe) there may be an argument for saying that she was trespassing at some particular point in time.

2. Are these locations public accodomations? If so, then treating races differently could constitute a civil rights issue.

That seems to be important but in a way that might not speak to the focused-in-on trespassing issue. If we're trying to figure out if a raped girl was already naked prior to being raped, the issue of the rape is far more important than what she was or wasn't wearing, but important as that is, if we're trying to ascertain the facts (be they what they are), then it shifts the focus from what is less important (but on topic) to what is more important (but off topic).

Let's say the answer to your question is yes and races were treated differently, and that it constituted a civil rights issue (all just for the same argument), would that alter whether she was ever at any point (again, any point) trespassing?

3. What kind of authority does the non-owner staff actually have in regard to treatment of customers in an open business and/or public accomodation? In the case of Waffle House the district manager's authority would have trumped the on-site employee's authority and the customer was under the impression their contact info was being obtained, but moreover they were not asked to leave. In the case of Starbucks an on-site employee thought perhaps incorrectly that 2 out of 3 people in a group had to immediately buy products to use a bathroom but upper management upon hearing the story disagrees.

That's a tough one.

I could be wrong, and it wouldn't surprise me if I am, but I have this notion that it's a game changer when the police get involved. In analogy, if a man hits a woman and the police are called, it doesn't matter that the woman doesn't want charges pressed. The ball is no longer in her court.

When the police got there and assessed the situation and instructed her to leave (if they did--still trying to figure that one out), does the nature of the capacity of the employees to make decisions really matter anymore?

 

[LordKiran]

Re: WH, neither the employees nor police told her to leave. Loren, did you even read the article?

Even then is it acceptable for an employee representing the business you're doing the business with to tell you to leave without a real reason? I'm not even talking legality here. Is that just the type of coffee shop he'd visit? Or is it only acceptable because that's how they're treating someone else and not him?

 

[fast]

Re: WH, neither the employees nor police told her to leave. Loren, did you even read the article?

I read it. I'm going to read it again.

 

[fast]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...posing-her-breasts-in-restaurant-video-shows/

So many links in this thread. I don't actually remember this being the one I read before

 

[ZiprHead]

A different waffle house incident.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A different waffle house incident.

The employee involved should not have locked the front door at all and should have certainly opened the door for the customer when she arrived. We will get the facts and take appropriate action quickly

And that's a statement from WH, right?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Got around to reading about the waffle case one, or the previous one at WH, and she would not be trespassing, other crimes though.

 

[Derec]

A different waffle house incident.

So what should we think happened? That the employees saw a black woman get out of her car and said "oh fuck, better lock the doors quick"? Doesn't pass the smell test.
Maybe she is looking to cash in in light of the other Waffle House incident, or maybe she is just "gifted".