Business Starbucks fires barista working through paramedic school who heroically subdued robbers after getting pistol-whipped

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
(Article) | (Archive)

By
Selim Algar
Published Jan. 26, 2024, 12:14 p.m. ET

Starbucks fired a barista who was toiling to pay for paramedic school after he helped subdue two robbers who pistol-whipped him.

Michael Harrison, 20, told The Post he was manning the drive-thru last month when two masked men entered his downtown St. Louis location around noon and told everyone to get on the ground.

With one of the invaders waving what appeared to be a gun, the roughly ten employees and one customer present got on their stomachs in terror.

Many of them, the aspiring EMT said, were crying in fear.

Harrison said he cooperated with the robbers’ demands and tried to open the register, but did not have the managerial credentials to access the cash.

He asked his supervisor to get off the ground to open the till, but the frozen manager declined to do so.

As one of the men rifled through pockets, his alleged accomplice, Joshua Noe, clobbered Harrison in the back of the head with the gun.

FB444D5F-CF29-4FA6-A65E-9AA0B2C3DFC4.jpeg

“At that point I thought he was going to shoot me,” the barista told The Post.

One of Harrison’s co-workers noticed a portion of the weapon broke off and he sensed a chance the gun was fake.

Devin Jones-Ransom then began brawling with the assailants, with Harrison coming to his aid.

The melee spilled outside, and a bystander from a nearby store jumped in to help the battling baristas.

When the fracas ended, Noe was immobilized on the ground while accomplice Marquise Porter-Doyle fled the scene.

2F62649C-7E7B-4250-BD21-E1CC978E06A7.jpeg

DB2DBD3F-FB81-45E8-848E-EB1EC8A5F695.jpeg

A subsequent mugshot of Noe looked like he had just emerged from a blender, with cuts and scrapes on his face and scalp.

Arriving officers collared Porter-Doyle nearby and arrested Noe at the scene.

The impressed cops thanked Harrison and Jones-Ransom for their courage and placed the two suspects in their cruisers.

The baristas were then placed on paid leave for two weeks as Starbucks officials investigated the incident.

The two young men were lauded in local media for their heroism, and both looked forward to returning to work.

0153FFF6-C25B-4618-AED6-0E09B29D6636.jpeg

“But I got a call a few weeks later,” Harrison said. “Once the media died down. They told me they were terminating me. I was surprised. I was distraught. I was confused.”

The company told Harrison and his co-worker they had violated company policy, but were not specific, said Harrison’s attorney Ryan Krupp.

“We were deeply disturbed to learn of this frightening incident,” a Starbucks spokesperson told The Post. “Partner safety is at the core of how we operate in our stores, and we are so grateful that our partners and customers did not come to greater harm in this situation.

“In situations like this, our training and protocols guide our partners to comply and de-escalate, not just for their safety but for the safety of all in the store.”

The company maintains the two ex-employees should not have engaged the two men to the degree they did.

A4A292FD-BFDF-442A-AB6C-E74279596A40.jpeg

Stripped of his income, Harrison said he is now struggling to foot his bills and tuition. “That job was helping me pay for college,” he said. “I just don’t understand it. I thought it was the right thing to do.”

Harrison told The Post the busy location had been plagued by unruly and aggressive customers for months, and he and other employees formally complained to management.

He recalled one incident where a deranged customer began firing heavy steel canisters at cowering employees.

“People are always yelling and screaming at us, threatening to assault us. Throwing things, trying to come up to us,” he said.

“But nothing was ever done. People have left the job because of it.”

The company denied that claim, saying the location was temporarily closed to make safety improvements — including giving employees the option of locking the main section of the location and only using the drive-thru.

Now, Krupp said, a lawsuit is being prepared and will be filed in the coming weeks.

“When the robbers came in, my client complied and tried to open the cash register when he was struck in the head by one of the gunman,” Krupp said. “At that point you’re in a position to defend yourself.”
 
Last edited:
It sounds like he was in fear for his life and was not being a hero to save the company money. Just more anarcho-tyranny. EDIT: Ion other words, this is clearly a case of self defense and not an instance of an employee doing something stupid to save company money or property, Starbucks contends.

Harrison is a mongrel so he is himself part of the horrible vision the ruling class have in mind.
 
Last edited:
Harrison said he cooperated with the robbers’ demands and tried to open the register, but did not have the managerial credentials to access the cash.

He asked his supervisor to get off the ground to open the till, but the frozen manager declined to do so.
Terrifying how close this kid came to serious harm because the manager refused to "comply and deescalate". I guess he still has his job?
It's understandable that the manager was afraid too, but then don't blame the kid for fighting for his life.
 
Yup. Its a rule pretty much everywhere in retail - I was in a similar situation years ago (though mine was just getting in a brawl with a drunk thief treating our gas station like his kitchen). I only got written up, but it's common knowledge you either let LP or cops handle it, and if they're not around you comply.

Curious that the manager didn't comply. Wonder if he still has his job? The disregard for security concerns from corporate raises some eyebrows too.
 
Funnily enough, there are plenty of posts online about Starbucks company-mandated active shooter training... where the instructions are 'run, hide, FIGHT' and actively include examples of attacking the intruders with anything available. You can find meme-tier pictures pictures online about the training where you have baristas supposedly clobbering people with whipped cream canisters and bar stools.

w8tkow9tmse61.jpg


Armed guys coming into your store and pistol-whipping you doesn't qualify? Self-defense technicalities are such bullshit.
 
Armed guys coming into your store and pistol-whipping you doesn't qualify? Self-defense technicalities are such bullshit.
Maybe it’s because armed robbers are way more likely to be black so beating them up might make the company look rayciss, while mass shooters are stereotyped in the media to be pasty white Incels that would make the company look good if one of their soyboy baristas clobbered them with a chair.
 
It won’t happen because people can’t afford to miss work but I wish all the employees would come together and strike to protest this shit. If every store in the city came together and said, “nah you can’t punish us for defending ourselves,” I wonder how fast they’d change their tune.
 
Just want to point out "never protect your employer with your life" and "he wasn't -- he was just defending himself" can (and are) both be true statements.

FWIW Starbucks are cunts for firing the guy but the safety policy is otherwise sound. Banks have the same attitude -- tellers are trained to cooperate fully (just straight up hand over all the cash they have without delay) when being robbed. Better to (try to) mitigate loss of life than fail to do so, still lose whatever gets stolen and have dead bodies on your lobby floor.

It's not so much that they care about human life more than assets (they don't) but more that once someone's blood gets spilled the dollar amounts involved skyrocket compared to just losing a few thousand bucks. Between litigation, inevitable settlements, etc. gets pricey compared to dealing with an empty register.
 
I'm going to post this advice each and every time there's a story like this. This is critical advice for everyone:

1. If Starfucks offers this person their job back (they may due to backlash)
2. REFUSE.

Offer them your middle finger or a bootstrap or both.

3. Because this company GLEEFULLY showed you what they will do.
4. To EVERY employer, YOU, the employee, ARE ALWAYS THE ENEMY.
5. If companies resent having to hire workers so much, they need to close or staff the company all by thierselves.

You have the RIGHT to seek legal counsel and possibly sue and/or get unemployment for wrongful termination. Get legal advice because you may be able to make the employer your personal naked toilet bitch (depending on what the firing/circumstances are).
In this case, I'd highly recommend this person look into how the CEO can take a steep paycut while he finances his wrongfully terminated and retaliated against employee for a while.

And remember:
New job?
Been at your current job and have no problems?

Great, but keep in mind: You don't have to be rude. You don't have to be disruptive or hurt the company, but always know that your employer not only RESENTS your presence, they actively HATE YOU for committing the following high crimes:

1. Earning a paycheck
2. Possibly saving money
3. Possibly having the means to one day own your own business
4. Possibly saving enough to join the upper middle class
5. Investing your earnings and growing capital

They no likey. So fuck them. Bootstraps and a middle finger.
 
Funnily enough, there are plenty of posts online about Starbucks company-mandated active shooter training... where the instructions are 'run, hide, FIGHT' and actively include examples of attacking the intruders with anything available. You can find meme-tier pictures pictures online about the training where you have baristas supposedly clobbering people with whipped cream canisters and bar stools.

View attachment 5687819

Armed guys coming into your store and pistol-whipping you doesn't qualify? Self-defense technicalities are such bullshit.
I guarantee it's because they just took that "run-hide-fight" shit from some Governmental boilerplate template. We had the same instructional in the military in regards to a mass shooting event.

As for the armed robbers and defending yourself, I'd say it doubles as the corporate milquetoast PMCs being actually supportive in their hearts of the poor, downtrodden, and misunderstood robber as well as corporate policy lawyering taken to outrageous extremes (the corporate policy says you can't fight back against armed robbers = whenever you fight back against the armed robbers, you're in the wrong!)

Plus if it's true that he was bitching about their security policies, that's an insult directly to the PMCs.
 
Back