Starbucks CEO issues apology

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by nolanvt »

to the black men who were wrongly arrested and removed from one of their stores in Philly.

https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbu ... a-incident


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15727
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by Major Kong »

The Philly Police Commissioner's response to the incident...sounds like they were rightly arrested:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Philadelphia's police commissioner on Saturday defended officers who arrested two black men at a Starbucks, prompting accusations of racism on social media, concern from the mayor and an apology from the company.

Videos posted online show officers handcuffing the men in the downtown establishment on Thursday. A white man in the video is heard saying he was meeting with the men and calls the arrest "ridiculous."

Commissioner Richard Ross said Starbucks employees called 911 to say the men were trespassing. He said officers were told that the men had come in and asked to use the restroom but were denied because they hadn't bought anything, as he said is company policy. He said they then refused to leave.

Ross, who is black, said police asked the men to leave three times but they refused, and they were then arrested but were later released after the company elected not to prosecute. He said the officers "did absolutely nothing wrong" and were professional in their conduct toward the individuals but "got the opposite back." He did not mention the person who said he was meeting with the men.

"As an African American male, I am very aware of implicit bias; we are committed to fair and unbiased policing," Ross said. But he added "If a business calls and they say that 'Someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business' (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties and they did just that."

Click here for the AP article
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by nolanvt »

Major Kong wrote:The Philly Police Commissioner's response to the incident...sounds like they were rightly arrested:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Philadelphia's police commissioner on Saturday defended officers who arrested two black men at a Starbucks, prompting accusations of racism on social media, concern from the mayor and an apology from the company.

Videos posted online show officers handcuffing the men in the downtown establishment on Thursday. A white man in the video is heard saying he was meeting with the men and calls the arrest "ridiculous."

Commissioner Richard Ross said Starbucks employees called 911 to say the men were trespassing. He said officers were told that the men had come in and asked to use the restroom but were denied because they hadn't bought anything, as he said is company policy. He said they then refused to leave.

Ross, who is black, said police asked the men to leave three times but they refused, and they were then arrested but were later released after the company elected not to prosecute. He said the officers "did absolutely nothing wrong" and were professional in their conduct toward the individuals but "got the opposite back." He did not mention the person who said he was meeting with the men.

"As an African American male, I am very aware of implicit bias; we are committed to fair and unbiased policing," Ross said. But he added "If a business calls and they say that 'Someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business' (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties and they did just that."

Click here for the AP article
I don’t think race played a part on the cops’ side because they let them go after further evaluation. The two guys may have asked to use the bathroom, but they were also there waiting on the rest of their group and hadn’t ordered yet. The Starbucks employee’s mistake was calling the cops in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by USN_Hokie »

nolanvt wrote:to the black men who were wrongly arrested and removed from one of their stores in Philly.

https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbu ... a-incident


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whether they're due one or not aside, that's not an apology. That's something written by a bunch of lawyers to take no responsibility while making LIV-types think they did.
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15727
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by Major Kong »

USN_Hokie wrote:Whether they're due one or not aside, that's not an apology. That's something written by a bunch of lawyers to take no responsibility while making LIV-types think they did.
Ayup...a very poorly, hastily written CYA.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:to the black men who were wrongly arrested and removed from one of their stores in Philly.

https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbu ... a-incident


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whether they're due one or not aside, that's not an apology. That's something written by a bunch of lawyers to take no responsibility while making LIV-types think they did.
Too late, Nolan already made a wet spot in his pants.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by USN_Hokie »

nolanvt wrote: I don’t think race played a part on the cops’ side because they let them go after further evaluation. The two guys may have asked to use the bathroom, but they were also there waiting on the rest of their group and hadn’t ordered yet. The Starbucks employee’s mistake was calling the cops in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The fact that you have to ask for a key to use the bathroom at this Starbucks kind of speaks to the fact that not all their customers are their for (legal) business meetings. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of important facts / context missing from this story.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by cwtcr hokie »

nolanvt wrote:
Major Kong wrote:The Philly Police Commissioner's response to the incident...sounds like they were rightly arrested:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Philadelphia's police commissioner on Saturday defended officers who arrested two black men at a Starbucks, prompting accusations of racism on social media, concern from the mayor and an apology from the company.

Videos posted online show officers handcuffing the men in the downtown establishment on Thursday. A white man in the video is heard saying he was meeting with the men and calls the arrest "ridiculous."

Commissioner Richard Ross said Starbucks employees called 911 to say the men were trespassing. He said officers were told that the men had come in and asked to use the restroom but were denied because they hadn't bought anything, as he said is company policy. He said they then refused to leave.

Ross, who is black, said police asked the men to leave three times but they refused, and they were then arrested but were later released after the company elected not to prosecute. He said the officers "did absolutely nothing wrong" and were professional in their conduct toward the individuals but "got the opposite back." He did not mention the person who said he was meeting with the men.

"As an African American male, I am very aware of implicit bias; we are committed to fair and unbiased policing," Ross said. But he added "If a business calls and they say that 'Someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business' (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties and they did just that."

Click here for the AP article
I don’t think race played a part on the cops’ side because they let them go after further evaluation. The two guys may have asked to use the bathroom, but they were also there waiting on the rest of their group and hadn’t ordered yet. The Starbucks employee’s mistake was calling the cops in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except your initial post is totally false, the business can trespass someone for just about any reason. Watching Live PD you see it all the time. Of course the Starbucks thing turns into a big issue as it is two black people being treated badly (in their words). My question would be why did the men not say they were waiting on someone and would be ordering later? Or were they butt heads to the business's employees instead of being decent humans and that is what led to the assumptions made by the employees?
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by BigDave »

cwtcr hokie wrote:except your initial post is totally false, the business can trespass someone for just about any reason. Watching Live PD you see it all the time. Of course the Starbucks thing turns into a big issue as it is two black people being treated badly (in their words). My question would be why did the men not say they were waiting on someone and would be ordering later? Or were they butt heads to the business's employees instead of being decent humans and that is what led to the assumptions made by the employees?
Maybe they were not, in fact, planning to order at all? They were just there to have a meeting and nobody in their party was going to order anything?

The issue is that Starbucks doesn't consistently enforce a policy of kicking people out who have no intention of ever ordering anything - they only kicked out black people who didn't order anything. If they were being belligerent, I would think that would have come out from one of the numerous people with cameras.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
Mcl3 Hokie
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by Mcl3 Hokie »

However, I’ve never been to a Starbucks where you needed a code for the bathroom. Sounds like a sketchy neighborhood where the store didn’t tolerate loiterers. The original article said the employee was following company policy.
BigDave wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:except your initial post is totally false, the business can trespass someone for just about any reason. Watching Live PD you see it all the time. Of course the Starbucks thing turns into a big issue as it is two black people being treated badly (in their words). My question would be why did the men not say they were waiting on someone and would be ordering later? Or were they butt heads to the business's employees instead of being decent humans and that is what led to the assumptions made by the employees?
Maybe they were not, in fact, planning to order at all? They were just there to have a meeting and nobody in their party was going to order anything?

The issue is that Starbucks doesn't consistently enforce a policy of kicking people out who have no intention of ever ordering anything - they only kicked out black people who didn't order anything. If they were being belligerent, I would think that would have come out from one of the numerous people with cameras.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by cwtcr hokie »

BigDave wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:except your initial post is totally false, the business can trespass someone for just about any reason. Watching Live PD you see it all the time. Of course the Starbucks thing turns into a big issue as it is two black people being treated badly (in their words). My question would be why did the men not say they were waiting on someone and would be ordering later? Or were they butt heads to the business's employees instead of being decent humans and that is what led to the assumptions made by the employees?
Maybe they were not, in fact, planning to order at all? They were just there to have a meeting and nobody in their party was going to order anything?

The issue is that Starbucks doesn't consistently enforce a policy of kicking people out who have no intention of ever ordering anything - they only kicked out black people who didn't order anything. If they were being belligerent, I would think that would have come out from one of the numerous people with cameras.
And Starbucks has a right to enforce its policy, its as simple as that

see MCL3 post, there could be an issue with the location, I have seen it several times that restrooms are not usable unless you are buying something, pretty simple policy
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by BigDave »

cwtcr hokie wrote:And Starbucks has a right to enforce its policy, its as simple as that

see MCL3 post, there could be an issue with the location, I have seen it several times that restrooms are not usable unless you are buying something, pretty simple policy
Of course they have a right to deny access to the restrooms to people who don't order something. (They DO consistently enforce that policy and so there is no racism there.)

They even have a right to eject people from the store if they don't order something. But that is NOT a policy that they enforce anywhere. That inconsistency is the reason that this is a problem - if every single person who sat in the store without ordering something was kicked out, then Starbucks would not be in trouble here.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by USN_Hokie »

Plot twist: what if....the barista who called the cops (in addition to the person with the camera) knows these two? Errebody gettin paid.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by BigDave »

The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by USN_Hokie »

BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....
Better luck next time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....
Why wouldn't a white woman know them?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by USN_Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....
Why wouldn't a white woman know them?
It's possible, but anyone doing this should know backlash was coming. Not a smart move on her part if that's what happened.
User avatar
HooFighter
Posts: 4290
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:16 pm
Party: all the time

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by HooFighter »

I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
Image

Donald Trump is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, a poor man's idea of a rich man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by awesome guy »

HooFighter wrote:I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
No way, he should certainly run.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26371
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by HokieHam »

awesome guy wrote:
HooFighter wrote:I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
No way, he should certainly run.
Absolutely! The more choices, the better!
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by awesome guy »

HokieHam wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HooFighter wrote:I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
No way, he should certainly run.
Absolutely! The more choices, the better!
Hear, hear!
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieHam wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HooFighter wrote:I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
No way, he should certainly run.
Absolutely! The more choices, the better!
Agree 100%. Choices are good.
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26371
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by HokieHam »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieHam wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HooFighter wrote:I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
No way, he should certainly run.
Absolutely! The more choices, the better!
Agree 100%. Choices are good.
They’re really only Pro-Choice if it means slaughtering a baby in the womb......
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Vienna_Hokie
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: libertarian

Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology

Post by Vienna_Hokie »

HooFighter wrote:I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
Maybe, but for different reasons.

Intelligent people because he's a pandering leftist wimp who believes in the I got mine, now redistribute theirs mindset.

For you it's because he would split the leftist vote and ensure that bad orange man gets to appoint at least 4 judges to the supreme court over his 8 years, thus taking away the lefts only method of legislating (having laws rewritten or reinterpreted)
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
Post Reply