Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like I said, I think this whole thing is fake, but, both could have called the cops or a manager to sort the thing out in the beginning, but they didn't because the whole thing is fake.
Anything is possible.
But...
You have to figure the media impact of nonsense like this actually creates real scenarios we see here.
The old chicken or the egg argument.
Whatever the case, real or not, I think both are morons.
On this forum, if i knew i was wrong, I'd apologize and move on, but it is still hard to do that 100% of the time. Many of us (certainly me included) want to say the last word sometimes. or I just don't believe I am wrong. LOL Maybe this woman just had a hard time apologizing, or maybe her mind was made up. I don't know.
Like I said earlier, the woman fits a certain negative stereotype. She seems annoying. She seems to be the type of person who liked to butt into everybody's businesses.
She has an ex husband who is black. It is ridiculous to assume somebody is not a racist simply because she had a minority husband; it is EQUALLY ridiculous to assume that she's automatically a racist simply because she stopped a man without a key. There are a lot of things we don't know about this woman. One simple video is simply not convincing enough for me to come up with the conclusion that she is a racist with no redeeming qualities.
like I posted earlier, the very possible scenario is that he "buzzed in" AT THE SAME time she walked out. She didn't believe he "buzzed in." Her mind was made up at the time it seems like. All she had to do is to close the door and let the man "buzz in" again. All he had to do is to show her the key or call the cops. Both people could have stopped the situation any time they wanted to.
I could be sympathetic to the view you are making in this thread, but bottom line once she saw that he entered his apartment with his own key, she knew without any doubt that she was dead wrong. I mean for everyone who is saying, that she was just asking for proof that he belonged to the building and then she would have left everything alone once she found out that he was not a threat, that hypothesis is totally disproven by the fact that she continued harassing him after she knew for a fact that he was a resident in the building.
Any person acting in good faith would have apologized and slunk away from embarrassment for how she had behaved the entire time. But she did not do that. She continued the farce. At that point it's clear she was harassing him not because she didn't know if he was a threat, but just for the sake of it.
It would be easy to feel sympathy for her if once she knew for a fact that her whole reason for starting this nonsense was proven wrong, she had stopped the whole thing, but that's not the case. She continued the harassment, so it's hard to feel like she didn't deserve what she got.
I could be sympathetic to the view you are making in this thread, but bottom line once she saw that he entered his apartment with his own key, she knew without any doubt that she was dead wrong. I mean for everyone who is saying, that she was just asking for proof that he belonged to the building and then she would have left everything alone once she found out that he was not a threat, that hypothesis is totally disproven by the fact that she continued harassing him after she knew for a fact that he was a resident in the building.
Any person acting in good faith would have apologized and slunk away from embarrassment for how she had behaved the entire time. But she did not do that. She continued the farce. At that point it's clear she was harassing him not because she didn't know if he was a threat, but just for the sake of it.
It would be easy to feel sympathy for her if once she knew for a fact that her whole reason for starting this nonsense was proven wrong, she had stopped the whole thing, but that's not the case. She continued the harassment, so it's hard to feel like she didn't deserve what she got.
But you are ignoring that she was put off by the way he initially responded to her. So what do we have here? A set up.
I could be sympathetic to the view you are making in this thread, but bottom line once she saw that he entered his apartment with his own key, she knew without any doubt that she was dead wrong. I mean for everyone who is saying, that she was just asking for proof that he belonged to the building and then she would have left everything alone once she found out that he was not a threat, that hypothesis is totally disproven by the fact that she continued harassing him after she knew for a fact that he was a resident in the building.
Any person acting in good faith would have apologized and slunk away from embarrassment for how she had behaved the entire time. But she did not do that. She continued the farce. At that point it's clear she was harassing him not because she didn't know if he was a threat, but just for the sake of it.
It would be easy to feel sympathy for her if once she knew for a fact that her whole reason for starting this nonsense was proven wrong, she had stopped the whole thing, but that's not the case. She continued the harassment, so it's hard to feel like she didn't deserve what she got.
well, I am not here to rationalize HER or HIS behavior. In my mind, both ADULTS could have done their jobs in order to AVOID the situation. All she had to do is close the door and let the man "buzz in" again; all he had to do is to show her the key and if she still blocked him from entering the building, call the cops.
The problem here is that this woman is fired. according to her employer's statement, "We are proud of this fact and do not and never will stand for racism or racial profiling at our company." Implying this woman is a racist and what she does is racial profiling.
Don't get me wrong here, I think company has every single right to fire somebody who is a "liability" for that company and no companies can afford a "racist" label. However, is it really responsible to imply this woman is a racist and what she did is racial profiling?
There is no doubt that this woman's career and life is ruined. Like I posted pages ago, she sounds like a darn annoying person whom I want to stay away from, but I'd call her annoying, I won't call her a racist.
She goes from saying "I'm uncomfortable " to "I would like to meet you." What!, I think she wanted to play and he didn't.
Exactly why I believe nothing she said. This was nothing but a game for her while the man was trying to come home from work.
People who feel her behavior is acceptable are the types that are prone to harass private, law abiding citizens. He should have called the police on her from the time she stepped in the doorway preventing him from either walking in or closing the door to buzz in again.
Exactly why I believe nothing she said. This was nothing but a game for her while the man was trying to come home from work.
People who feel her behavior is acceptable are the types that are prone to harass private, law abiding citizens. He should have called the police on her from the time she stepped in the doorway preventing him from either walking in or closing the door to buzz in again.
Doors opens outward. It's a fire code. He's the one in the doorway with the door (and the keypad) behind him (outside the building). Earlier I wrote that I didn't understand why she simply didn't shut the door if she was so concerned and not continue the unproductive discussion. Then someone pointed that he was the one holding the door.
They are very close together. The man is telling her not to touch him when her one hand is on the door frame, the other holding her phone, the leash, keys. She has to say for the video that she's not touching him. No way could she have somehow reached around him to get control of the door.
Why would she have objected to him closing the door, which he never tried to do? That would have forced him to use the key fob. Problem solved.
Doors opens outward. It's a fire code. He's the one in the doorway with the door (and the keypad) behind him. Earlier I wrote that I didn't understand why she simply didn't shut the door if she was so concerned and not continue the unproductive discussion. Then someone pointed that he was the one holding the door.
They are very close together. The man is telling her not to touch him when her one hand is on the door frame, the other holding her phone, the leash, keys. She has to say for the video that she's not touching him. No way could she have somehow reached around him to get control of the door.
Why would she have objected to him closing the door, which he never tried to do? That would have forced him to use the key fob. Problem solved.
He was setting her up hoping for a response to video.
Doors opens outward. It's a fire code. He's the one in the doorway with the door (and the keypad) behind him (outside the building). Earlier I wrote that I didn't understand why she simply didn't shut the door if she was so concerned and not continue the unproductive discussion. Then someone pointed that he was the one holding the door.
They are very close together. The man is telling her not to touch him when her one hand is on the door frame, the other holding her phone, the leash, keys. She has to say for the video that she's not touching him. No way could she have somehow reached around him to get control of the door.
Why would she have objected to him closing the door, which he never tried to do? That would have forced him to use the key fob. Problem solved.
The woman was standing in the doorway. It doesn’t matter who was holding the door. The door will not close if she is standing in the doorway.
The woman was standing in the doorway. It doesn’t matter who was holding the door. The door will not close if she is standing in the doorway.
You're missing the point. You said she prevented him "from closing the door to buzz in again." To begin, he didn't need to close the door [to reach the keypad] to buzz in. The keypad would have been on the outside of the building, behind him.
And he made no attempt to close the door. My guess is that had he tried, she would have been more than relieved to have headed upstairs (assuming the dog was now back indoors).
Last edited by EveryLady; 10-17-2018 at 11:16 PM..
Duh, this is because liberals have been pushing a PC agenda for well over 20 years now. First they banned the n-word and eventually anyone who was caught uttering it is deemed an ostracized racist, then they kept going to now just disagreeing with a black person gets you ostracized.
The whole the employer must fire people for speech is a liberal end-run around of free speech rights.
I agree with this. Nobody can even have a discussion or a disagreement with any nonwhite person without losing their job because no matter what the situation is the white person is called a racist and a Nazi and it all goes viral and then the boycott threats start and the protests start and they have to get rid of you or risk having their business destroyed. And everybody knows this hence whipping the phone out every second and getting video.
I think she’s kind of ditzy but this wasn’t a racial thing. It would’ve happened with any man she wasn’t familiar with coming into the building without buzzing in. I don’t think she should have lost her job. She wasn’t even at work but in her own building.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
