WATCH: The police chief apologizes in press conference for handling of Starbucks arrests

[pnwmom]

He apologizes for his statements making things worse. He didn't understand the Starbucks business model that encourages people to remain there without purchasing.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-philadelphia-police-chief-apologizes-to-men-arrested-at-starbucks-shop

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. One reason for overt apologizing, even when sincere which this seems,

is to do damage control for massive civil lawsuits costing the city millions.

[pnwmom]

2. I'm not sure the city would be liable, since trespassing laws don't require police

to have known of every individual business's policies. The police were relying on the store manager's assertions that the men were trespassing.

I think the police followed the letter of the law -- but I fault them for not using their discretion once they saw the situation. Especially when the 3rd person, the real estate developer, showed up for his meeting. I still think the police could have let them off at that point, just as they let people off for jaywalking and traffic tickets every day. Technically, though, when a business accuses someone of trespassing, the police have procedures to follow, which they apparently did in this case.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. All a plaintiffs atty would have to do is show that some folks get handcuffed and arrested for this

and some dont.

Now that may be hard to do in these particular circumstances because it may happen rarely enough that examples will be hard to find, I dont know.

And that they suffered damages. The men.

I want to hear from an atty on this though as I am not one.

[ExciteBike66]

4. He apologizes for his own statements, but still insists the cops on the scene acted

correctly.

Isn't he just repeating his earlier statement, that is he now apologizing for?

[pnwmom]

6. It didn't seem that way to me. This statement seemed like a heartfelt apology --

the other did not.

He is making the distinction here between the policy officers following the letter of the law -- which they did, technically -- and doing the right thing. Which they didn't. They have changed their policies now to try to avoid this kind of misunderstanding (not understanding Starbucks policy) in the future.

[ExciteBike66]

8. I see what you mean

He blamed the policy (or lack of policy) and not his officers. Walking a fine line between supporting your officers and appeasing the public outrage.

[MontanaMama]

5. I am really glad he apologized.

He seems sincere. However, whether or not he understood the Starbucks business model is irrelevant. The manager called 911 after the two men had been in the store for only 2 minutes. It takes a lot of people that long at least to read a Starbucks menu for pete's sake. I'm often at a Starbucks for longer than two minutes and nobody calls the freaking police. Oh that's right...I'm not a POC. Rules are different apparently.

[pnwmom]

7. I'm not sure the officers knew that fact, are you? That might be part of the policy

that the police chief said they are changing -- to get more facts before they act.