Did you hear about the Barista's Decision to Enforce a Policy Goes Viral?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I had not heard about this. I believe there is a lack of respect for authority in general. As long as the policy is being applied to all equally then there isn't an argument. If it is being applied against Officers only then there is an issue. Keep in mind there are also rumors that are started that become Urban folklore truths.
https://news.starbucks.com/views/myths-facts-military-donations

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - While she may have been "technically correct", she chose to make an exhibition out of it, which took away any support I would have for her position. The officer asked to use the bathroom. All she had to do was say, in a respectful/polite manner, that it was for paying customers only. When she decided to shout and make a spectacle of herself, she lost the benefit of the doubt and support of any clear-thinking people.

When I was a young Captain at Ft Benning, assigned as Military Police Operations Officer, but working as the Military Police Duty Officer one Saturday night, the Desk Sergeant told me that an on-duty MP had called in and stated that he had been refused entry into an enlisted club on post by a bouncer. He stated that he had simply stopped there to go to the latrine and so advised the bouncer, who refused his entry to the club. The MP departed and, since the club was the only public facility open at that time in his patrol area, relieved himself outside (out of the public view).

I went to the club and asked to see the manager to discuss the incident. The manager supported his bouncer and stated "we don't allow MPs in the club unless we call them". I told the manager that Military Police on duty are authorized to enter any building, facility or establishment, to include off-limits establishments. I further informed him that it was our policy for uniformed MPs to not enter clubs, unless called, however, they could not be denied entry. He argued with me and stated he would not change his policy. In his presence, I called the MP Desk Sergeant and told him that I wanted a uniformed MP Patrol to conduct a walk-thru of the club every hour until the establishment closed and that anybody who refused entry of the MPs would be apprehended for interfering with the duties of the Military Police. I left after warning the manager not to test me.

The MPs walked through the club every hour that night with no incident. On Monday, the Installation Club Officer (or something like that) called me to discuss the issue. I explained what had happened and told him that I was just making a point. I advised him that I had reinstated the policy of no uniformed MPs in the clubs and it would remain so, unless we had another incident. He agreed to inform his managers that MPs could enter the clubs and we had no further incidents. I would be less than truthful if I did not state that I did have the MPs test that, infrequently, never to experience a refusal of entry again.

I could spend hours on this article. Hours. The real question is where to start.

First, let's look at the Company Policy of allowing restroom usage to Paying Customers only. Honestly, that's fairly reasonable. They are a business, and the restrooms are investment, and their employees do have to clean them.

Second, following that is the person (nameless at this point) asking for an exception to said policy. We talk about "maintaining the standard" a lot on this forum. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, is the mantra.

Now, should the standard change based on additional factors? Well, of course there is going to be grey area. We're not robots. However, human judgement about what is reasonable deviation from the standard is the issue. Should a cop get to use the restroom even if he's not paying? What about a pregnant woman? What about a toddler? What about a homeless man? A great phrase I picked up was the "Parade of horribles" (Shameless Plug, RP Podcast Club: Reasonable Doubt) which coincides with my longstanding debate tactic of "Take the argument to the Absurd. If if can't survive absurdity, it isn't a good argument.

That's really what is at play here. Does the virtue of being a cop, justify an exception or deviation from written policy?

But let's shift gears for a second.

What about how it was handled? The Barrista aka Coffee Girl, because let's call a duck a duck, called the non-paying customer out on his request, in what could arguably be a blunt and impolite manner, citing company policy (or what we would call Regulation). Sure it lacked Tact, but it wasn't "technically" wrong. She was "holding the line." She was "protecting the tab/badge" so to speak (oh I know I'm gonna piss people off with that metaphor).

Now, why would she do that?

Perhaps... just perhaps, the uniform or those wearing it have not been self-policing (no pun intended) enough, and have become viewed less as members of the community, less as Sheep-Dogs, and more as Wolves. When our "Protectors" are viewed (perception is reality) in a Predatory light, which is becoming more and more common with the Police, the little courtesies... the little allowances... go away.

I'm not saying it's right. It isn't... but it is understandable. Rather than being "one of us" the police are turning into "them" and "them" don't get favors. They don't get courtesy.

Edit: Spelling