The Latest: Police chief apologizes to men from Starbucks

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Latest on two men arrested at Philadelphia Starbucks (all times local):

12:20 p.m.

Philadelphia’s police commissioner is apologizing to two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks in the city.

Commissioner Richard Ross, who is black, apologized to the two men on Thursday after he previously staunchly defended police for their handling of the incident.

Ross says that he “failed miserably” in the messaging around the arrests. He says that the issue of race is not lost on him and he shouldn’t be the person making things worse.

He says the police department did not have a policy for dealing for similar situations, but does now. He says it will be released soon.

Read more: https://apnews.com/9cbe4f4b44b940089892ac1cf4c5aeaf?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

---

The chief had no idea that Starbucks wants people to sit in their stores for hours and socialize.

Philadelphia police commissioner says he "failed miserably" in Starbucks arrests messaging

Updated 33 mins ago

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) --The commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department says he "failed miserably" in his message after the controversial arrests of two black men at a Starbucks in Center City last week.

Commissioner Richard Ross staunchly defended the arrests in the days afterward. However, in an apology delivered during a news conference on Thursday, he said he was not aware of the Starbucks business model, that people "spend long hours in Starbucks and aren't necessarily expected to make a purchase." He said it's reasonable to believe the arresting officers didn't know that either.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross apologizes for messaging around Starbucks arrests. Watch his news conference from April 19, 2018.

"I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law and not that they didn't do anything wrong. Words are very important," he said.

He said that the issue of race is not lost on him and that he shouldn't be the person making things worse. Ross said the police department did not have a policy for dealing with similar situations, but does now, and it will be released soon.

http://6abc.com/police-commissioner-says-he-failed-in-starbucks-arrests-messaging/3366099/

[dalton99a]

1. Good.

[appleannie1943]

2. I don't even go in Starbucks but know they offer free wi fi and people sit inside with laptops and

also to socialize.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Well

we know about cops and Dunkin' Donuts (or here in Philly - Wawa) because "Starbucks" is too "earthy crunchy liberal" for some RW loon FOP members.

[catrose]

4. Didnt know how Starbucks works?

Okaaaaaaaay

[Locrian]

5. lies and bullshit

so when did 2 minutes become "spend long hours in Starbucks and aren't necessarily expected to make a purchase."
not that it matters either way - except it shows how hard he has to reach to cover up the mistake.

[LiberalLovinLug]

6. I'm sure Starbucks is not pleased with that assessment of their store access.

That is a BS excuse. First off, NO cafe or coffee shop has a business model that invites non purchasing public to come in and just sit at their tables. Does it happen? Of course. It is almost always after a customer has finished their coffee etc. and is still on their ipad or in a conversation. The other time is when someone is waiting for a friend.

Second, where to these officers live? out in the boonies? They had never heard or seen of people just sitting in coffee shops before this? Before even Starbucks existed people sat in coffee shops long after they finished their coffee. I don't know how they say they are that ignorant with a straight face.

[Delphinus]

9. Well,

at the local Starbucks my husband and I frequent, downtown of a mid-size city, the staff let the homeless come in and hang out. They can't cross the line and ask for money, but many a time when we are there, the homeless are charging their phones or getting warm/cool. Each place is different.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. As a note

First off, NO cafe or coffee shop has a business model that invites non purchasing public to come in and just sit at their tables. Does it happen? Of course. It is almost always after a customer has finished their coffee etc. and is still on their ipad or in a conversation. The other time is when someone is waiting for a friend.

It IS their "model" and was reiterated by both Kevin Johnson AND Howard Schultz and it's on their website -

Our Heritage

<...>

In 1983, Howard traveled to Italy and became captivated with Italian coffee bars and the romance of the coffee experience. He had a vision to bring the Italian coffeehouse tradition back to the United States. A place for conversation and a sense of community. A third place between work and home. He left Starbucks for a short period of time to start his own Il Giornale coffeehouses and returned in August 1987 to purchase Starbucks with the help of local investors.

From the beginning, Starbucks set out to be a different kind of company. One that not only celebrated coffee and the rich tradition, but that also brought a feeling of connection.

Our mission to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.

Expect More Than Coffee

We’re not just passionate purveyors of coffee, but everything else that goes with a full and rewarding coffeehouse experience. We also offer a selection of premium teas, fine pastries and other delectable treats to please the taste buds. And the music you hear in store is chosen for its artistry and appeal.

It’s not unusual to see people coming to Starbucks to chat, meet up or even work. We’re a neighborhood gathering place, a part of the daily routine – and we couldn’t be happier about it. Get to know us and you’ll see: we are so much more than what we brew.

We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.

https://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information

Is it risky? Of course. But they are betting that they could make more money with hungry/thirsty people (like a bar) "grazing" (and paying) then to have an empty store that only gets busy early in the morning for the sleepy coffee-needing crowd.

From what I understand, they used to charge for wifi access and had something like a 2 hour limit, and people left and went to other places. When they added the free wifi, they had to do something to claw back their patrons (because Mickey D's had offered free wifi before they did and expanded their breakfast menu), and that was to pretty much open themselves up for a more "loungey" atmosphere.

If you think about it, you might have a group of 3 college students at a table chatting and 1 of them "treats" and orders a couple mixed danishes that they can share. So only 1 of the 3 "bought anything".

Meaning if you follow the policies that some DUers keep pushing, then the other 2 who didn't physically hand over money to the cashier because their collegue treated them, are "non-payers" should get up and leave or be charged and arrested for "trespassing".

THAT is what some DUers are insisting.

[LiberalLovinLug]

21. Not really

Nowhere in that article does it say "it doesn't matter if you purchase anything".
Of course they want to push it as a community meeting space. That would imply also buying something IMO. At least one person at the table is ok. And usually they say nothing even long after you've finished.
I could understand a particularly aggressive manager, especially in a busy time, confronting a couple that has sat for awhile and hadn't ordered anything. The sin wasn't that as far as that went, but after he or she was told they were waiting on a friend, and they didn't just believe them and walk away. And I guess the presumption is that if they were white, that would have happened.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. However

Nowhere in that article does it say "it doesn't matter if you purchase anything".

And nowhere does it say that that it does.

Of course they want to push it as a community meeting space. That would imply also buying something IMO. At least one person at the table is ok. And usually they say nothing even long after you've finished.
I could understand a particularly aggressive manager, especially in a busy time, confronting a couple that has sat for awhile and hadn't ordered anything. The sin wasn't that as far as that went, but after he or she was told they were waiting on a friend, and they didn't just believe them and walk away. And I guess the presumption is that if they were white, that would have happened.

It doesn't "imply" anything. It encourages, by making their offerings appear attractive and appetizing, and assumes that watching others eat and drink, chances are you will eventually do so too. By having the "welcoming place", the store picks up "positive buzz" and more potential customers and thus more potential sales. But there is no written posted policy that requires it.

And as I mentioned, if you have a small group of patrons sitting together at a table and only one person "buys something" as a gratis for their friends, then based on your argument, you would require the others to leave because they didn't "buy anything". Similarly, as some have mentioned as their experience - if you bring your own coffee or bottle of water in and are sitting at a table and enjoying the "community", and you didn't "buy anything" there, should the staff come over and demand receipts to ensure that if you didn't buy your refreshments there, then you need to do that or leave?

This is the danger of absolutism and the slippery slope.

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. This is silly

But I had to respond just to say that I specifically said " That would imply also buying something IMO. At least one person at the table is ok (as a purchaser)." So no, obviously I don't think everyone should have to buy something. That is in no way my argument. My reasoning for that is that a single person can theoretically sit at a whole table and order just a coffee, so if there were a few other friends that came in also, even just to say hello, there is no loss of business in that sense, if that one person is paying for a coffee at the very least.

And coming back with "nowhere does it say that it does" (matter if you purchase something) is not any kind of argument to make. Any store I go into, a dollar store, there is no sign that says "All ye who enter must buy something" either. It is implied you will. Because that is how the owner makes his living. But the difference with a restaurant or coffee shop is that there are only a limited number of tables.
I think its completely in the managements rights to come over and inquire under the right conditions. If it is busy and clearly there are other paying customers that cannot find a seat, and a couple has been sitting twiddling their thumbs for an extended period of time without supporting the business at all. Like I said, the problem, IMO, started after that. The manager should have accepted their reasoning without questioning it because of a negative impression they had of them. Probably based on race.

We can at least agree the manager was wrong, and they should have never been asked to leave, and surely not arrested.

And just to address the other issue that the other poster Delphinus brought up, if its a homeless person, then that is an act of charity, and is outside the business practice. We are presumedly talking about people who could afford a coffee.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. And to reply

This is silly

It's not silly.

But I had to respond just to say that I specifically said " That would imply also buying something IMO. At least one person at the table is ok (as a purchaser)." So no, obviously I don't think everyone should have to buy something. That is in no way my argument. My reasoning for that is that a single person can theoretically sit at a whole table and order just a coffee, so if there were a few other friends that came in also, even just to say hello, there is no loss of business in that sense, if that one person is paying for a coffee at the very least.

Blacks are never given the benefit of the doubt. When they say they are "waiting for a friend" to have a meeting, after which they may even buy "many somethings" at some point, WTF is the problem with that? Why not believe them and anticipate that any of them may or may not "buy something" at some point instead looking at "2 scary thugs who don't belong in this white neighborhood", which is obviously what she saw.

This is not a fucking "stop and go" store with no tables and chairs where you go up to the counter, order, get your purchase and leave.

And coming back with "nowhere does it say that it does" (matter if you purchase something) is not any kind of argument to make. Any store I go into, a dollar store, there is no sign that says "All ye who enter must buy something" either. It is implied you will.

But your entire premise, despite your insistence on it being "implying" is that it IS a requirement. I walk in a Dollar Store and look around and I may be in there for maybe 20 minutes and can't find what I need, so I leave. And as long as I don't steal something, I shouldn't be required to "buy something". That's not how it works.

"Implicit bias" means that when you are white and looking around a Dollar store for an item for 20 minutes, then you are merely "looking around for an item". But if you are black, looking around a Dollar store for more than 5 minutes (let alone make it to 20 minutes), that means you have stolen something or may steal something. THAT is how it works. THAT is how I MUST LIVE MY LIFE WHEN IT COMES TO STORES as a black female. The DEFAULT is that I am there to steal. Every time I go into a store I must watch my every move and God forbid, in stores with guards, I am followed around. I have to very publicly and carefully open my pocketbook and pull out a shopping list lest I be targeted for having slid an item into my pocketbook instead.

And you know what? AMAZON has removed all of this stigma. This is partly why I shop on Amazon now. I don't have to deal with the shit. I order what I want and it is delivered to my door, in some cases, the same day.

Because that is how the owner makes his living. But the difference with a restaurant or coffee shop is that there are only a limited number of tables.

This is an entirely different situation from what happened. There were empty chairs, tables, and sofas there. Minutes after they arrived and they told the "damsel in distress" that they were waiting for their friend, the cops were called.

I think its completely in the managements rights to come over and inquire under the right conditions. If it is busy and clearly there are other paying customers that cannot find a seat, and a couple has been sitting twiddling their thumbs for an extended period of time without supporting the business at all. Like I said, the problem, IMO, started after that. The manager should have accepted their reasoning without questioning it because of a negative impression they had of them. Probably based on race.

The big issue here is as you say, if you have people "twiddling their thumbs", then you don't pick out the 2 black "twiddlers" in a room full of white "twiddlers" and then call the cops. When they said "they were waiting for a friend", then she should have walked away and handled another customer.

The blindness of many on DU refuse to accept what is called "disparate treatment". This is why training courses are given to at least run through scenarios just like this one, to show how it manifests. The problem that many of us have is not with a manager's discretion as "conditions" change in the store, it's WHAT "conditions" change in a store. I.e., when the store is "crowded" that is one situation and you may want to keep people moving... or not. But when the store is half-empty and a BLACK person walks in, then you don't manufacture rules to remove them by calling the publicly-funded bouncer squad.

We can at least agree the manager was wrong, and they should have never been asked to leave, and surely not arrested.

And just to address the other issue that the other poster Delphinus brought up, if its a homeless person, then that is an act of charity, and is outside the business practice. We are presumedly talking about people who could afford a coffee.

Regarding how one handles situations other than this one (race) - I have mentioned in another thread that here in Philadelphia, there are organizations who can be called to handle the situation. And all of the businesses within the boundaries of our Center City neighborhood, participate in an organization known as the "Center City District", an organization that works in tandem with related organizations, to provide enhanced development opportunities and an improved quality of life for both the businesses and the many residents of Center City (and there are quite a few homes, condos, and apartments there). This organization funds an entire private uniformed team who keep the sidewalks clean in front of businesses, and who work with other charitable organizations to provide resources (including sending out counselors) for the homeless and mentally ill.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. I'm sorry if I offended you

I'm sorry also that you feel that you are profiled as a thief every time you enter a store. I can see now that this issue is very personal to you.

I was only trying to separate the excusable , because of actual business reasons, from the inexcusable. The reason being that if its muddied together, someone can use that mud to dismiss the whole thing. So by separating any business reasons out, the racism is exposed and lit up for everyone to see. That was my attempt. I obviously failed at being clear on that.

Have a good day.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. I appreciate your listening to my rant

Starbucks was attempting to create a model that makes it into an (upscale) "neighborhood hangout", where people may come daily and perhaps stay during their lunch hour or after work (vs going to a bar that serves liquor). They added incentives ("free wifi" that they used to charge for and only available for a specific amount of time) as well as sofas and soft chairs and multi-person tables to encourage both individuals and small groups to congregate, chat, web surf, and sip their environmentally-conscious coffee.

This model has obviously been tested (the Exec Chairman Howard Schultz says on their website that he started his own private coffee lounge after initially leaving Starbucks, and that helped him get a feel for this type of setup and he eventually returned to implement this at the Starbucks chain).

I expect what he found was that although you will always have "freeloaders", probably 8/10 times you will have people who not only "buy" but who will buy for others ("pay forward" ) if they feel welcome and comfortable and enjoy being there. There was an explicit "trust" - maybe not as severe as those places that actually have a policy of "pay what you feel the goods and services are worth" model - but close to that concept, with a set list of prices.

By being welcoming to everyone, not just the select few due to poor management practices, you keep the reputation intact and gain more business with word of mouth. Unfortunately not properly screening or vetting and training these managers, some patrons have not only been inconvenienced but have had to pay the price of humiliation, lost time, personal and psychological trama, and court costs. You see, racism costs money and IMHO is such a waste to spend on racism merely to assert some kind of "superiority".

I hope you enjoy the rest of your day as well.

[RobinA]

26. I Would Bet

they start cracking down on the "you have to buy to sit or pee" business model. Right now they've got thousands of people going, "Oh, you mean I don't have to buy to use the bathroom?" Starbucks sure doesn't want the non-buying public in Center City Philadelphia flocking to their door to use the facilities.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. I doubt that

I Would Bet they start cracking down on the "you have to buy to sit or pee" business model. Right now they've got thousands of people going, "Oh, you mean I don't have to buy to use the bathroom?" Starbucks sure doesn't want the non-buying public in Center City Philadelphia flocking to their door to use the facilities.

Are you from or live in Philadelphia? If so, am not sure where you are getting that from, and if not, then I would recommend that you take note of this -

You see - here in Philly, and especially downtown in Center City, there are many many small "non-chain" restaurants (including those with chairs and tables outside on the sidewalks), cafes, boutique coffee and food shops, bars, and clubs, and even a casino, in addition to all the same types of establishments inside the downtown hotels, mall, and department stores. And the museums all up and down the Ben Franklin Parkway have places to eat and sit and get coffee inside as well. Plus the PA Horticultural Society even has "pop up" beer gardens that they setup in different locations and parks down there, in South Philly, and in various neighborhoods not in the city business districts. I won't even mention "Reading Terminal" (but there, I did). So chains like Starbucks are trying to compete with all of this and being "more restrictive" will simply drive the millennials (their "favorite" customers) to the local places instead.

Philadelphia is not a small town or itty bitty city. Philly proper has a population of almost 1.6 million (2nd largest city on the east coast) and Center City alone as a neighborhood has a population of 183,000 and is listed as 2nd only to Midtown Manhattan in terms of residents. So Starbucks is really a minuscule part of life here.

And IMHO, this thing obsessing about bathrooms is truly disgusting. There are department stores and malls downtown as well as hotels, underground transit stops, city-owned parking garages, etc., that have public facilities. There is an article (somewhat tongue and cheek but perhaps helpful) from a few years ago about places downtown where you could "go" - https://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/09/12/guide-free-bathrooms-philadelphia/

[mazzarro]

7. B-I-N-G-O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - n/t

[Bengus81]

8. BS....apologizes NOW when the whole thing has BLOWN sky high.........

Otherwise you wouldn't hear SHIT out of that Commish except he stands behind the arrests. Full blown ASS COVERING mode and really bad at it.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Yes - he was the LAST ONE out of the gate

and he still has some more walkin' back to do.

[agueybana79]

12. They needed a policy for this?

How about:

1. Be courteous and patient.
2. Basic training on how to approach people and ascertain a situation.
3. Techniques for communicating to citizens to desist from activities that are crimes or disturbances to others in a peaceful way, informing them of escalating consequences

I thought that's just normal fucking police behavior or that it should be.

They have to have a "policy" and "training" on this? I'm kinda tired of seeing grown ass MEN and WOMEN needing to be trained on the most basic, common sense, HUMAN DECENCY behavior.

If you can't display this SENSE when hired or even after, it's time to get fired....

[BumRushDaShow]

13. They didn't even follow their own standard procedures

including to interview witnesses to establish "probable cause".

They saw a white woman in distress and 2 negroes in the store and subconsciously imagined this -

[Blue_Tires]

14. And just like that another talking point is dead...

[BumRushDaShow]

15. You would think, right?

But there are DUers still out there insisting that the only job for police is to arrest and the men were guilty for waiting while black because the police were called, so they should have been arrested.

[LanternWaste]

17. That's what gets me. If they applied that sentiment consistently...

That's what gets me.

If they applied that sentiment consistently, a Person of Authority (the current bumper-sticker) simply accusing someone of a thing would obligate the police to detain them at the very least, and obligate them not to interview present and relevant witnesses, and in doing so, absolve the police of any and all responsibilities ('they were simply performing the only recourse they had" ).

And with every new break in the story coming out, they're simply digging in deeper and deeper.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Yup.

It is mind-boggling but sad.

It is the rationalization of "fault" of the "victim" or "victim blaming".

"If only they had complied then..." <insert magical outcome>
"If only she had not worn that dress then..." <insert magical outcome>
"If only they had done a step 'n fetchit shuffle then..." <insert magical outcome>

[BumRushDaShow]

18. Not Starbucks Chief but the Philly Police Chief!!!

And he is just 2 years younger than me (I am 56) and he seemed to miss the "cafe" scene.

[appalachiablue]

20. My slip, tx. I still don't know how anyone Not living in a cave, esp. LE

like the 50 something Philly Chief doesn't acknowledge S. serving as 'town centers' now. Police and Sheriffs well know their communities, turfs and beats. It's a critical part of the job. Like it or not Starbucks are everywhere for years, in so many suburbs and cities you can't go 50 yards without seeing one. Nothing comes close in the US, except McD.s, maybe. In that aspect the business has been a very successful enterprise, one that fulfills their original 'welcoming cozy neighborhood coffee house' intent, to the max.

[Sunlei]

27. SBs fired the store manager too. Policy will be 'don't believe what every 911 caller tells you"