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.
But this security guard and employers don’t want to admit that they’ve acted like racists, so they double down, and act stupid on top of acting racist.
(Crosses Doubletree off my list of places to stay. Undoubtedly not the only one doing so.)
Hmm...I thought Oregon was so progressive and so far from racist you could come. This is the hypocrisy I hate more than anything. But that's another topic.
You mean the non customer who presented a check that couldn't be verified till the police called and finally got through to the account holder who didn't answer the phone till then?
I mean the customer that presented a valid check and had 911 called on him who was then subsequently handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car for attempting to cash a valid check.
Yeah. That guy.
Lots of speculation about his 'demeanor' by you with absolutely nothing to indicate that there was one thing wrong with his 'demeanor'.
I mean the customer that presented a valid check and had 911 called on him who was then subsequently handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car for attempting to cash a valid check.
Yeah. That guy.
Lots of speculation about his 'demeanor' by you with absolutely nothing to indicate that there was one thing wrong with his 'demeanor'.
I didn't accuse the NON ACCOUNT HOLDER of the bank in question in any veiled or blatant manner regarding his demeanor. All I did was question what anyone knew about it since no one has come forward - including the man himself.
He was not subsequently arrested, and AFTER the check was verified (the employer finally answered the phone when the police called him or her) the bank in question cashed the check. The teller should not have assumed that the check was fraudulent but the teller also could not cash the check as it had been presented, and without validating it. I believe the teller should be reprimanded for assuming the check was fraudulent and conveying this misinformation to the police, but I applaud the teller for abiding by bank policy up to that point.
Anyone know whether the bank teller was fired in that case? Or put "on leave" like Ol' Earl?
I didn't accuse the NON ACCOUNT HOLDER of the bank in question in any veiled or blatant manner regarding his demeanor. All I did was question what anyone knew about it since no one has come forward - including the man himself.
He was not subsequently arrested, and AFTER the check was verified (the employer finally answered the phone when the police called him or her) the bank in question cashed the check. The teller should not have assumed that the check was fraudulent but the teller also could not cash the check as it had been presented, and without validating it. I believe the teller should be reprimanded for assuming the check was fraudulent and conveying this misinformation to the police, but I applaud the teller for abiding by bank policy up to that point.
Anyone know whether the bank teller was fired in that case? Or put "on leave" like Ol' Earl?
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.
