Arrest In (San Francisco) Starbucks Bomb Probe

[Ian David]

(CBS/AP) A 44-year-old man was arrested Tuesday night on suspicion of planting an explosive device in the bathroom of a Starbucks coffee shop, police said.

Ronald Schouten, of San Francisco, was being held in San Francisco County jail on an unrelated drug charge, police spokesman Dewayne Tully said.

"There is no connection to any terrorism or anything against Starbucks," Sgt. Neville Gittens said. "Everything at this point and time indicates that this particular individual acted alone and this is an isolated incident."

Authorities were called around 1:15 p.m. Monday, after an employee reported finding something suspicious in the store's bathroom. About 100 people were evacuated from the store and apartments above it, and the street was closed to traffic, Gittens said.

More:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/11/national/main1201117.shtml

It's not related to terrorism because it was done by a White Christian guy?

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

[blonndee]

1. Yeah, how is it NOT terrorism? He must not be Islamic

or "radical" in any way. :eyes:

[Ian David]

2. I think these are different Ronald Schoutens?

Welcome to ronaldschouten.nl!
An interactive showcase of my cartoons and illustrations.
http://www.ronaldschouten.nl/

Webliography for Professor Ronald Schouten's Freshman Seminar 25w: Responsibility, the Brain, and Behavior
http://hcl.harvard.edu/research/guides/courses/2005fall/freshsem25w.html

[pschoeb]

35. they are obviously different

one obviously lives in the Netherlands, thus the .nl web site. The other is a Harvard proffesor and proabably an unlikely candidate for making a long trip to SF just to bomb a Starbucks

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. 1st Question for this suspect: Are you a loyal follower of The Factor?

:shrug:

[Maine-ah]

32. LOL

That was what I was thinking.

[boobooday]

4. The rationale behind why it is "not terrorism" is pathetic

My workplace was bombed once. I worked in the administration building at UCSB when somebody planted a bomb in the registrar's office that went off overnight.

That morning, we arrived to find chaos -- smoke, water, firefighters. Later on, a second bomb was found that hadn't gone off because of a malfunction.

It was terrorism. Planting bombs is terrorism, period. And who the hell cares if it is an isolated incident, anyway? Isn't that the point? Random, isolated incidents?

Why do they go out of their way to say it isn't terrorism? Because it doesn't fit their profile of what they WANT us to be terrified of.

[Notary Sojac]

6. Well said. eom

[mike_c]

31. this was an M-80 firecracker hidden in a flashlight tube....

Had it exploded, it would likely have blown a hole in the side of the backpack that contained it and made a satisfyingly loud BANG. Of course, it's fuse would have had to be lit in order for it to explode, and it wasn't.

This wasn't an attempted act of terrorism-- it was some guy-- likely a bit addled-- who forgot his backpack on the floor of the restroom and who had a fire-cracker, albeit a big fire-cracker, inside. This story was blown all out of proportion, probably because the police over-reacted in a big-time way and evacuated the store and the apartments above it so they could nuetralize this "IED." THAT'S the real story hear-- "Police Over-React and Evacuate Apartment Building Over a Fire-Cracker."

[Ian David]

38. An M-80 in a flashlight

<snip>

Mahoney described the bomb as an empty flashlight casing that contained a quarter-stick of dynamite and a fuse. The fuse needed to be lit for the bomb to explode, Mahoney said.

Police said the bomb was powerful enough to seriously injure or kill someone if it had exploded. Investigators are awaiting results from tests on the materials used in the suspected explosive device.

More:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060110-2307-ca-starbucksbomb.html

Now, I've never handled anything more powerful than a ladyfinger or bottle rocket. But wouldn't someone have to actually be holding this thing in their hand or on their lap or something for it to kill them?

Also, I don't think the guy is a Republican:

<snip>

Police said the man in question entered the store Monday and asked for used coffee grounds, which some people use to fertilize their gardens. While a clerk was getting the grounds, the man asked for the key to the bathroom.

Republicans and Conservatives don't do organic gardening. Republicans use pesticides and herbicides and then poison the wells of their Progressive neighbors.

The guy was being held on drug charges.

If he was arrested for pot, he was probably a Democrat.

If he was arrested for Crystal Meth, he was probably a Republican.

If he had both, then he's probably an Independent or Libertarian.

[boobooday]

41. M-80s are very powerful

They are illegal in most states. Definitely in CA.

[Ian David]

42. I also made edits to my last post. n/t

[boobooday]

50. Spot on categorizations.

"If he was arrested for pot, he was probably a Democrat.

If he was arrested for Crystal Meth, he was probably a Republican.

If he had both, then he's probably an Independent or Libertarian."


If he had Oxycontin, it was probably Rush Limbaugh. :-)

[joeunderdog]

46. The "terror" card is WAAAAY overplayed in this country.

It's Bush's platform, forcrissakes! It is (over)used to cultivate fear, and this fear is the basis of alot of decisions that get made that have no basis in any constructive foundation.

Orange Alerts! Terra! Terra! Treason! (sigh)

[matcom]

5. O'Reilly made him do it!

:bounce:

[Ian David]

8. SFPD Press Release: Arrest In Starbucks Explosive Device Case

PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE
PRESS RELEASE


January 10, 2006
06-004

Subject: Arrest In Starbucks Explosive Device Case

San Francisco Police today arrested a suspect in connection with the explosive device left in the restroom of Starbucks café yesterday, January 9, 2006. Investigators obtained and released photos of the subject of interest and established a special task force, comprised of district police station personnel, the Gang Task Force, and Field Operations Bureau to locate the subject. At about 5:00 P.M. today, one task force unit, comprised of three Northern Station officers, Officers Reese Burrows, Patrick Zapponi, and Richard Goss, located the subject of interest at Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard and detained him. Special Investigations Division Inspectors Jeff Lindberg and Al Wong, along with A.T.F. Special Agent Brian Hester, responded to that location and initiated a follow-up investigation.

Based upon the investigative interview, the Special Investigations inspectors determined that the subject of interest who was detained was involved in the Starbucks incident. Taken into custody was Ronald Schouten, 44, of San Francisco. He was booked on an unrelated felony, no bail drug warrant. The Special Investigations Division is awaiting results from the A.T.F. lab regarding the analysis of the materials used in the suspected explosive device.

The investigators have determined that the Starbucks incident did not involve any element of terrorism or activism-related motivation.

For more information, please contact:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=36900

[The Stranger]

7. Kick and recommend for greatest.

[imported_dem]

9. Care to fill us in on this a bit

"It's not related to terrorism because it was done by a White Christian guy?"

I saw nothing in the article saying the person was either "white" or "christian"

[Ian David]

13. Because otherwise he would have been labeled a terrorist

Have you been paying attention to the political climate lately?

Okay...

I suppose if he'd been a Quaker, he may have been labeled a terrorist.

[kahleefornia]

14. It's a reasonable assumption

"Ronald Schouten" - I mean, he's probably not Japanese...

[Bridget Burke]

16. He's obviously not dark-skinned or a Muslim....

That would have been mentioned in the story.

Guess he's not an environmentalist, either. So he's not an "eco-terrorist."

[himitsu]

22. Photos of Suspect

The posted pictures of the guy's security camera photos here in the Bay Area:

http://www.kcbs.com/pages/kcbs/components/starbuckssuspectphotos.nsp">Click here for Photos, KCBS.com

Looks like a white guy with light-colored hair to me.

[LostinVA]

10. Gosh, I KNEW it had to be someone with an Islamic... Oh

[kahleefornia]

11. and being a member of Greenpeace *is* terrorism? nt

[StaggerLee]

12. "There is no connection to any terrorism

or anything against Starbucks," Sgt. Neville Gittens said. "Everything at this point and time indicates that this particular individual acted alone and this is an isolated incident."

Gee that's a relief. :freak:

[Strong Atheist]

15. Whether it is terrorism or not,

I hope they got the guy. People should not be killed just for shopping ...

[havocmom]

17. That would make a great bumper sticker

for use in Iraq

People should not be killed just for shopping

[StaggerLee]

18. Hear Hear!

:bounce:

Here, there or ANYWHERE!

[Strong Atheist]

19. Agreed. nt.

[boobooday]

20. No blood for cappucino?

Sorry, I couldn't resist . . .

[Earth_First]

21. I'd like a review of the editor who decided that "IED" was a good idea...

Not sure if you all saw the original article that ran, but the explosive device that was used in this event was labled an "IED".

[Sadie5]

23. Makes you wonder?

If the bomb had exploded and a catastrophe had occured...would Bush have immediately mounted the podium and declared the US unsafe. This would have helped him in his worthy cause as he preached, 'See, I told ya so...them dirty bombers are at it again. Were gonna fight em in San-fran-cisco, so's we don't have to fight em in DC. The people have no rights until further notice'.

[Ian David]

36. I always have to read the word "IED" twice.

Whenever I see it, my brain first interprets it as "IUD."

Intrauterine Device (IUD)
http://familydoctor.org/319.xml


"Three soldiers were injured today by a roadside IUD in Baghdad. Fortunately, none of them got pregnant."

[Julius Civitatus]

24. Terrists are only brown and foreign, don't cha know n/t

[moroni]

25. Hmmmm... 44 years old

Maybe, he simply went to the bathroom... :hurts:


... and forgot to take the bomb with him when he left :rofl:





:hide:

[Ian David]

37. Like the Republican kid who "accidentally" brought a fake bomb on a plane?

And then walked away on bail because his Daddy was a GOP donor to the local mayor-- who also used to be his family's landlord?

[Walt Starr]

26. What I wantt o know is, what's the guy's Freeper handle? n/t

[Beam Me Up]

29. Damn good question. Freeps don't do Star Bucks.

[info being]

33. And attacks on Liberals isn't terrorism. Hmm.

[Gormy Cuss]

27. Disheveled man came in, asked for old coffee grounds, then asked

For the key to the restroom.
from SFgate:

"The man had aroused the suspicion of employees, one of whom checked the bathroom as soon as he left and found what turned out to be a quarter-stick of dynamite next to the toilet, said Lt. Dan Mahoney of the police special investigations unit.

He described the bomb as an empty flashlight casing that contained the quarter-stick of dynamite and a fuse. The fuse would have to have been lit for the bomb to explode, Mahoney said. There was no indication the person who planted the device had done so. "

In other words, he left his homemade bomb in the bathroom without trying to ignite it. Why? Who knows?

[slackmaster]

40. Most reasonable explanation is he's a nutball

:nuke:

[zann725]

28. Starbucks often lock their bathrooms here.Making people ask" permission"

simply to use their bathroom facilities. Often the employees at numerous Starbucks here "lie" about the availability of the key...making people (who've just bought expensive coffee (and then naturally, desparately need to urinate...end up having to travel elsewhere merely for bathroom facilities.

Since this article indicates this person was NOT a terrorist...maybe he SIMPLY was "pee'd" of (to be polite) by Starbucks' frequent policy of locking their bathrooms to patrons. Despite great popularity...Starbucks often is NOT a friendly place. Locked bathrooms aside, many of their Barista's are downright cruel and rude (often while smiling broadly). Seems to me, Starbuck's "wide" popularity and accessibility has reached its apex, and now often is becoming not-such-a-nice place...i.e., extremely cold air conditioning even at 6:00 a.m. (to prompt expensive coffee and danish buyers to keep moving quickly AFTER buying their products)....playing LOUD music that Starbucks also conveniently sells in-store. Music SO loud that often it is often impossible to either concentrate, talk OR use one's computer in-house (a practice which is allegedly encouraged by Starbucks via their "link" with Hot-T Mobile which costs Starbucks' patrons $30+/mo.) A service you pay for, then can often NOT use...due to inability to concentrate on due to LOUD Starbucks' promoted music.)

While I do NOT justify this man's action AT ALL against Starbucks, the store chain's many NON-PATRON "friendly" current practices need to be re-examined. And their "Customer Service" 800 line offers no real solutions. I personally have found much consumer-friendly coffee shops which offer "free" internet, do NOT play LOUD offensive music, and do NOT falsely keep repeating my first name...as if to imply we're long-time best friends...all the while denying me basic bathroom access!

[Cults4Bush]

30. a freaking M-80 in a flashlight casing?!?

I can't believe this is any kind of deal at all. Sounds to me like another meth head with an over stimulated sense of paranoia left his "protection" in the bathroom... but who knows.

[Little Star]

34. Yeah, well if his name was Osama Bin-

Something then he would have certainly been a terrorist!

[slackmaster]

39. Where does it say he is a Christian?

:shrug:

(Edited because I just saw the photos linked to in reply 22. He's white, like most Americans.)

[redqueen]

43. How is that not terrorism?

:wtf:

[Gormy Cuss]

44. Perhaps because when they interviewed the suspect they determined

that he has other issues. That neighborhood of SF has more than its share of lost souls (addicts, persons with unregulated mental health issues, etc.)

Of course, had he lit the fuse he may have been treated differently.

[redqueen]

48. They didn't say that. n/t

[spunky]

45. I may be alone in this opinion, but that definition of terrorism in the

original message tells exactly why this is not yet considered terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

If he wasn't trying to change policy, its not terrorism. Its attempted murder perhaps, but not terrorism.

And I'd just like to point out before anyone says I'm splitting hairs, there have been cases where kids come to school with a knife or whatever and its called terrorism and everyone gets all up in arms quoting the definition of terrorism.

So, you know, be consistent. Either agree that in order for something to be terrorism it must be politically/socially motivated or not. You can't pick and choose, that's hypocrisy.


And for the record, just because I don't believe its terrorism doesn't mean I think this guy shouldn't be punished. He could have killed people, and for that they should throw the book at him, but if he did it because its insane or stupid or some sort of pyromaniac, then it really ISN'T terrorism.


$0.02

[redqueen]

47. We don't know if there was an ideological or political reason, do we? n/t

[spunky]

49. Exactly, and until a political motive is established, it isn't terrorism.

n/t

[redqueen]

51. No, it's possibly terrorism. n/t

[MiniMe]

52. I hope he says he did it because O'Lielly told him to. n/t

[E-Z-B]

53. Can O'Reilly be arrested for inciting domestic terrorism?