LA Fitness fires employees for wrongly accusing black customers of not paying
Associated Press
More from Associated Press
Published:
April 19, 2018
Updated:
April 19, 2018 5:38 PM EDT
SECAUCUS, N.J. — Employees of an LA Fitness in New Jersey wrongly accused a black member and his guest of not paying to work out and called police, prompting an apology from the company.
LA Fitness tells The Associated Press that three employees directly involved in the incident are no longer with the company.
Tshyrad Oates posted video of the confrontation at the club in Secaucus, outside New York City. He says they were racially profiled.
LA Fitness says Oates’ friend, who was not identified, is indeed a club member. Oates didn’t return a message seeking comment.
Starbucks CEO apologizes for arrest of 2 black men waiting for friend
Protesters call for ‘anti-black’ Starbucks to be shut down after trespassing arrests
Starbucks to close all U.S. stores on May 29 for ‘racial-bias education’ following arrests, 911 call released
Two black men arrested at Starbucks get apology from police
The Irvine-Calif.-based company is considering ways to improve its training.
Executive vice-president of operations Jill Greuling says that “regrettably” its staff called the police rather than working to straighten out the matter.
http://facebook.com/tshyrad.oates/videos?lst=592360127:100000001264894:1524171838
L.A. Fitness fires 3 workers after black men get kicked out of N.J. gym | NJ.com
Three LA Fitness workers in N.J. fired for racial profiling - NY Daily News
LA Fitness fires employees for wrongly accusing black customers | Toronto Sun
Poor LIE-berals - roaming the entire world seeking frantically for signs of white privilege so rthey can smear us and distract us from their own racist crap!
Cdns do not police the world- we concern ourselves with what happens here in our country. WE must deal with home grown trouble but WE HAVE NO REASON TO IMPORT TROUBLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD - in spite of the insanity of shameless vote buying- trying to cling to power at any price LIE-berals - are trying to force us to do!
Here is yet another article illustrating that LIE-berals are more concerned for the rights of criminals than the safety of ordinary Cdns! With some comments of my own in brackets):
How do you say 'over 80' in Tamil?
By Michele Mandel. Published: January 23, 2018. Updated: January 23, 2018 7:25 PM EST
Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ News/ Toronto & GTA
Related News: City's budget lemmings prop up mayor's $256-M shelter expansion
Another drunk driver gets to walk – this time because the Tamil-speaking man wasn’t given an interpreter after he told police that he didn’t understand duty counsel.
Ontario Superior Court Justice David E. Harris has thrown out the “over 80” conviction for driver Dennis John, saying his Charter right to counsel was violated because he couldn’t comprehend a lawyer’s instructions before he was given a breathalyzer. As a result, the judge said, the breath evidence against him must be excluded.
(Here are some fun questions: Was the guy too drunk to understand the instructions from the lawyer in the first place? Or was he so drunk he did not recall talking to the lawyer when he woke up the next morning or is he now PRETENDING he did not understand- because it is a “clever” defense? In cases where a suspected drunk refuses to take a breathalyzer test- it usually results in nearly instant conviction- so why not in this case? When a drunk is unable to cooperate- being unconscious etc- cops are legally entitled to take a blood sample so how is “no spic da English” any sort of defence? Unless you are a hug a thug LIE-beral judge seeking to curry favour with ethnic voters?)
And Harris warned police that they must take into account “language difficulties” in our multicultural society.
“The police were told by (John) that he had not understood duty counsel and made no efforts to rectify the problem by either offering an interpreter or further exploring the issue with (him),” Harris wrote in his decision. “Minutes after saying that he did not understand duty counsel, the appellant was whisked into the breath room and was required to give the first breath sample. This was a serious breach.”
(Serious breach? For WHO? Cops are legally entitled to stop us on the street and smell our breath to determine if a breathalyzer test should be administered! How is it that the “I don’t understand” issue becomes a magical defence for any immigrant against being drunk? Ignorance of the law is not supposed to be an excuse- if you drive you should know laws about being drunk! Or should we assume that language difficulties and ignorance of the law do not apply to LIE-beral supporters?)
According to the judgment, John’s first language is Tamil and he understands English but said he “sometimes has problems.” When he was pulled over, the arresting officers spoke to him in English and said he appeared to follow everything he was told. John testified that he understood some, but not all, of what they were saying.
(And the goof has no knowledge that it is illegal to drive drunk in Canada? We all know that a white guy who only spoke German would NOT be let off a DUI for language difficulties! So who wants to tell us with s straight face- and no snickering- that the Tamil did not know what was happening to him and why? After all, driving drunk is not legal in Sri Lanka either!)
They certainly seemed to try to do right by John. At the station, police placed four calls to duty counsel on his behalf. John spoke to three different English-speaking lawyers and after the last conversation, which lasted seven minutes, he told officers that he hadn’t understood what was said.
John wasn’t asked if he wanted an interpreter. The constable testified that she “assumed” John understood English. “Rather than stop and regroup,” Harris said, “the police took the appellant into the breath room where he was required to blow into the breathalzyer.”
He failed.
(And facility with the English language DOES NOT reflect any level of sobriety!)
Ontario Court Justice Ian Cowan admitted the breathalyzer sample into evidence and convicted John in 2016. While he agreed with the defence that police should have arranged for an interpreter, the Charter breach wasn’t a “deliberate or flagrant disregard of the right to counsel” but “at the lower end of the scale.”
(Lost in this LIE-beral crap is the reality: that the presence of a Tamil speaking duty counsel would NOT have prevented the drunk from being convicted! Not in any court that ordinary Cdns could respect! Drunk is drunk in any language!)
The Brampton judge even praised the officers for acting “courteously and professionally” and said that by arranging three duty counsel conversations for John, they “believed they had satisfied their obligation.”
Not good enough, said Harris in ordering John’s acquittal. If it were, “the conduct of well-meaning but blundering police officers would be given a free pass.”
Instead, he called it “wilful blindness or reckless indifference” on the part of police.
(And ordinary Cdns call the dismissal of the DUI charge wilful blindness or reckless indifference on the part of LIE-beral hug a thug judges!)
“The fact remains, (John) said that he did not understand duty counsel. How could the police, hearing this statement, have an honest belief they had satisfied their obligations? ” the judge asked.
Harris accused the trial judge of being too deferential to the police. “He accepted the honest belief of the police and looked no further.”
(Let us suppose the drunk HAD understood his duty counsel- and counsel would say what? If lawyer tells client “do not blow into the breathalyzer as you will incriminate yourself” - the refusal to cooperate would trigger a blood test and the truth WOULD come out anyway! How is justice not served here?)
Harris did praise the arresting officers for their “admirable patience and diligence” in their initial interaction with John. “Why they went ahead in the face of the complaint that the appellant did not understand duty counsel was unexplained and, ultimately, unexplainable.”
The judge wouldn’t go as far as saying there’s a systematic failure, but wondered if the number of “language comprehension” cases before the court indicates police insensitivity to people whose first language isn’t English.
“I join with my judicial colleagues who have expressed concern,” Harris wrote. “The prospect that fundamental Charter rights could be opaque to a significant portion of the population merely because they are not native English speakers and are immigrants to this country is inimical to the origins and purpose of the Charter.”
(What a LIE-beral DISGRACE! If you have the language skills to get a drivers licence then you ought to understand that driving drunk is illegal- and since the breathalyzer test is a scientific tool that an accused driver must face- or have a blood test instead- there can be no issue with language! The breathalyzer does not need to speak Tamil! Nor any other language to render a scientific verdict! The machine issues a “yes or no verdict” and ordinary Cdns have no right to refuse the test- but shameless LIE-beral and their ethnic supporters are SPECIAL- and above the law!)
(Sadly, this is not the first time that LIE-berals have gone easy on an ethnic drunk! Some years back media told us about a Portuguese guy who had been arrested TEN TIMES for crashing his car while drunk! The guy had immigrated here many years ago and quickly became an alcoholic. At his first DUI trial he could have been deported but his relatives whined that he was a good guy and had joined Alcoholics Anonymous and etc- so LIE-beral hug a thug judge allowed him to stay!)
(Subsequently the guy developed a degenerative disease that has him living on Ontari-owe disability pension as he cannot work but it does not stop him from crashing his car while drunk! Naturally the guy has NEVER had a drivers license nor insurance either- any other cars he hits while drunk are repaired on OUR dime! LIE-berals consider it is none of our business how much this clown has cost us over the last 25 years- in insurance costs and disability pension and medical bills for his condition- and we COULD have saved all that money if only we insisted that LIE-beral hug a thug judges maintain a low tolerance for criminal stupidity and drunken morons! The ugly truth is that we cannot afford LIE-beral “justice”!)
