Seattle Journal: An Unlikely Protest at a Starbucks

By SAM HOWE VERHOVEK, The New York Times

SEATTLE, June 19 — After a white police officer here fatally shot a black man late last month, the aftermath followed in many ways a sadly familiar refrain.

The relatives of the dead man, Aaron Roberts, said he was a victim of racist police. The white officer who killed him said the shooting was justified, contending that Mr. Roberts, 37, had placed another officer's life in jeopardy. City and county officials have promised a full investigation; the F.B.I. is on the case.

But as these inquiries go forward, an unusual question hovers over the controversy here in Seattle: what does Starbucks have to do with it?

On the surface, nothing. But after a neighborhood group here called for a boycott of a local Starbucks as one means of expressing rage over the police shooting, the Seattle-based coffee giant has been dragged, much to its bewilderment, into the fray.

The attempted boycott at the store in the Central District, a hub of Seattle's black community, is an effort to get a powerful local corporation to back changes in police oversight. The effort has generated a local debate that at times almost seems to have eclipsed the attention paid to the shooting of Mr. Roberts. Not that it appears to have dampened business: with the focus on the store in recent days, Starbucks officials said, sales have been up, not down.

Even so, about 80 protesters with a group called the People's Coalition for Justice circled the coffee shop one night last week, beseeching customers to stay out and chanting "No justice, no peace, no racist police."

The Rev. Robert L. Jeffrey Sr., pastor of the New Hope Baptist Church and a leader of the protest group, said the group's goal was to pressure powerful companies into demanding the creation of an independent civilian review board to investigate the death of Mr. Roberts and other police shootings, as well as passage of a statute that would criminalize racial profiling.

"These corporations drive public policy, and politicians are in the middle," Mr. Jeffrey said. "And just dealing with the poor guy in the middle doesn't cut it anymore. We've got to start dealing directly with the corporations that want our business."

Starbucks' senior vice president for worldwide public affairs, Wanda Herndon, said the company was "deeply hurt and perplexed" by calls for a boycott, especially because the store is one whose opening four years ago was hailed by city officials as a symbol of hope for the economically distressed neighborhood. The company is a major contributor to philanthropic efforts there.

But Ms. Herndon said that while the company acknowledged the frustration many feel over the Roberts shooting, it would be inappropriate to heed the protesters' demands.

"We're not a political organization, we're not an activist organization," she said. "We're a coffee company. And we're trying to do what we do well, which is provide a safe community gathering place for people."

Many customers at the store this weekend said they were bewildered by the call for a boycott.

"Starbucks seems to get blamed for a lot of things," said Edric Bowles, 31, who mentioned the trashing of several of the chain's stores during the 1999 protests against the World Trade Organization here. "They're an entity that gets targeted for no real reason at all."

But several people outside the store said they supported the idea.

The shooting occurred on May 31 after Mr. Roberts, a neighborhood resident who turned out to be wanted for fleeing a prison work-release program, was stopped by the two officers for driving erratically. The police said that Officer Craig Price fired after Mr. Roberts tried to drive off with Mr. Price's partner, Greg Neubert, hanging from the car door.

Mr. Roberts was shot once in the torso. His relatives and others in the area question the police account and, in any event, say the shooting was a gross overreaction; the two officers are on administrative leave pending the results of various investigations.