Starbucks CEO issues apology
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Starbucks CEO issues apology
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
https://news.starbucks.com/views/starbu ... a-incident
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15749
- 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
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
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.
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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.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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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.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
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15749
- 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
Ayup...a very poorly, hastily written CYA.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.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
- 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
Too late, Nolan already made a wet spot in his pants.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.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
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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.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
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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?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.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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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?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?
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
-
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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: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?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?
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.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
And Starbucks has a right to enforce its policy, its as simple as thatBigDave wrote: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?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?
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.
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
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
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.)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
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
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
Plot twist: what if....the barista who called the cops (in addition to the person with the camera) knows these two? Errebody gettin paid.
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
- 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
Better luck next time.USN_Hokie wrote:Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
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.
- 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
Why wouldn't a white woman know them?USN_Hokie wrote:Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
It's possible, but anyone doing this should know backlash was coming. Not a smart move on her part if that's what happened.awesome guy wrote:Why wouldn't a white woman know them?USN_Hokie wrote:Well there goes my plot twist. Death threats commence in 3....2.....BigDave wrote:The internet has outed the store manager who called the police ... a 31-year-old white woman.
- HooFighter
- Posts: 4292
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:16 pm
- Party: all the time
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
I wonder if the one thing we can all agree on is that the CEO of Starbucks has no business running for president.
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.
- 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
No way, he should certainly run.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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26547
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
Absolutely! The more choices, the better!awesome guy wrote:No way, he should certainly run.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.
"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
- 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
Hear, hear!HokieHam wrote:Absolutely! The more choices, the better!awesome guy wrote:No way, he should certainly run.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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
Agree 100%. Choices are good.HokieHam wrote:Absolutely! The more choices, the better!awesome guy wrote:No way, he should certainly run.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.
- HokieHam
- Posts: 26547
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
- Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
They’re really only Pro-Choice if it means slaughtering a baby in the womb......USN_Hokie wrote:Agree 100%. Choices are good.HokieHam wrote:Absolutely! The more choices, the better!awesome guy wrote:No way, he should certainly run.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.
"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
-
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
- Alma Mater: VT
- Party: libertarian
Re: Starbucks CEO issues apology
Maybe, but for different reasons.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.
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.