- On Thursday, a Starbucks barista in Tempe, Arizona asked six Tempe police officers to leave the location after a customer told an employee that they “did not feel safe” in the cops’ presence.
- The Tempe Officer Association, an organization that works to connect the Tempe community with law enforcement, tweeted about the incident and it went viral.
- Starbucks issued an apology and officials met with Tempe Police on Monday.
- Social media had mixed reactions, some calling for a Starbucks boycott and others agreeing with the barista’s decision.
A Starbucks executive flew to Tempe, Arizona to meet with the city’s police department and discuss an incident from Thursday, where a barista asked six police officers to leave the coffee shop because a customer said they “did not feel safe” with the officers there.
The Tempe Officers Association, an organization that works to connect the Tempe community with law enforcement, tweeted about the incident on Friday. The thread of tweets, which included a cartoon mocking the Starbucks logo, explained that the six officers had paid for their drinks and were waiting for them when they were approached by a barista. The cops were told that a customer “did not feel safe” with the officers there and they were asked to move or leave the shop.
2/4 and stood together having a cup of coffee before their long 4th of July shift. They were approached by a barista, who knew one of the officers by name, because he is a regular at that location. The barista said that a customer “did not feel safe” because of the police…— Tempe Officers Association (@ToaAz) July 6, 2019
3/4 ..presence. The barista asked the officers to move out of the customer’s line of sight or to leave.— Tempe Officers Association (@ToaAz) July 6, 2019
Disappointed, the officers did in fact leave.
This treatment of public safety workers could not be more disheartening. While the barista was polite, making such a request..
4/4.. at all was offensive. Unfortunately, such treatment has become all too common in 2019.— Tempe Officers Association (@ToaAz) July 6, 2019
We know this is not a national policy at Starbucks Corporate and we look forward to working collaboratively with them on this important dialogue.
A spokesperson from Starbucks, Reggie Borges, responded to the tweets and explained in a statement that the company was still gathering details about the situation.
“We have a deep respect for the Tempe Police and their service to the community,” Borges stated.
“We’ve reached out to the Tempe Police Department and Tempe Officers Association to better understand what happened and apologize. We want everyone in our stores to feel welcomed and the incident described is not indicative of what we want any of our customers to feel in our stores,” he added.
Responses From Police and Starbucks
Following Starbucks’ response, the Tempe Police Department tweeted out its own statement. In it, they explained that they had already contacted Starbucks’ Corporate Office, but hope it “was an isolated incident between one community member and a single employee rather than an entire organization.”
Starbucks spoke out again on Saturday, this time apologizing to the Tempe police in a letter from the Executive Vice President of Starbucks, Rossann Williams.
“On behalf of Starbucks, I want to sincerely apologize to you all for the experience that six of your officers had in our store on July 4,” Williams wrote. “At Starbucks, we have deep appreciation for your department and the officers who serve the Tempe community. Our partners rely on your service and welcome your presence, which keeps our stores and the community a safe and welcoming place.”
“What occurred in our store on July 4 is never the experience your officers or any customer should have, and at Starbucks, we are already taking the necessary steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again in the future,” she added.
The letter was updated on Sunday to say that Williams decided to fly to Tempe that evening in order to address all concerns in person.
Tempe Police Chief, Sylvia Moir, responded to Williams’ letter by retweeting it from her own personal account, along with a caption explaining that conflicts can be resolved with dialogue.
On Sunday, the president of the Tempe Officer Association, Rob Ferraro, responded to the incident and went on Fox News. During the interview, he explained that the department did not hold any grudges or hard feelings against Starbucks, all they wanted is for the public to respect the officers and feel safe around them.
“In our country, we’re very fortunate that there’s a growing trend towards inclusiveness and reducing intolerance,” Ferraro said. “And so whether you’re defined by your race, religion, sex, creed, the focus should be on the individual. And that same level of respect should be afforded to police officers and military.”
“Starbucks has been a partner with us. They host our discussion with law enforcement so we want those things to continue,” he added. “We’re not asking for a boycott of Starbucks, and we don’t want the employee fired, so we want to make sure that’s known. I’m a customer at Starbucks…and I’ll remain one. But hopefully, this is a learning opportunity and we can move forward and connect to our community. And hopefully, people will feel safe around law enforcement because that’s why we got into this job.”
In addition to all the responses from different officials, social media users shared mixed reactions online.
Many were very angry at the barista for asking the officers to leave and questioned why someone would be uncomfortable around police in the first place.
Others agreed with the customer and said they understood why someone may have felt unsafe in a situation like that.
Cops in Tempe seem to have a trend of participating in criminal activity. Of course people don’t feel safe around you people.— Rocky Bakari (@RockyBakari) July 8, 2019
According to local reports, Williams met with the Tempe police chief Sunday and again Monday. However, there is no confirmation about what was discussed or if the barista involved will face any punishment.
See what others are saying: (Reuters) (Fox News) (AZ Central)
How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?
America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF).
Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world.
While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.
Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit
- In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.”
- The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.”
- The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
- Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein.
Court Filings Made Public
Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.
Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.
Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.
Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.
He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”
Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.
Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.
Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet
In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.
“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”
“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”
The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.
The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.
In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls.
“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”
Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.
That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.
Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.
In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”
He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”
Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.
“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”
He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”
Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.”
Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.
“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.
“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”
See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)
Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…
The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.
So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.