• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man who called police on black woman at North Carolina pool no longer has job

She had a key card. She did live where she said she lived (according to news sources) and had a right to own that key card.

And he did not act properly, he has no right to demand ID's as that is not required at the pool. Because that is not a requirement, only signing in is a requirement so he had no legal right to ask her for her ID. She had the card, so she was allowed to enter the pool.
Wrong.
She provided a false address to begin with.
Having the card doesn't mean jack as they are often given to others in violation of contract.
A contractual obligation does not have to be listed by signage at the pool.
I know of no private pool in this area that does not require ID upon request.
Again; "Some folks do not understand private community pools and the extent that others will try and wrongly gain access to them."

She was in the wrong from the get. All she had to do was ID herself and there would have been no issue, but instead she gave a false address.

His attempting to ID her is proper.
 
You failed to respond to the comment directed at what you previously said.
Doh!

Well you are wrong this time as well.
He did not make them look bad. Nothign he did made them look bad.
The CEO jumped the gun and made a false assumption about his behavior and libeled him by saying he discriminated when he did not.

:roll: No, I am pretty on the right side here because sadly there is little employee protection in the US. Also I responded to your comment, that is it, I did not have to respond to anything else.
 
:roll: No, I am pretty on the right side here because sadly there is little employee protection in the US. Also I responded to your comment, that is it, I did not have to respond to anything else.

1. You did not respond to the points made to you. So stop with the dishonesty.

2. You being on what you consider is the right side is irrelevant as whether or not the company was legally able to do that was not in contention with me.
It was the wrongness of it based on the false claim of discrimination.
 
Wrong.
She provided a false address to begin with.
Having the card doesn't mean jack as they are often given to others in violation of contract.
A contractual obligation does not have to be listed by signage at the pool.
I know of no private pool in this area that does not require ID upon request.
Again; "Some folks do not understand private community pools and the extent that others will try and wrongly gain access to them."

She was in the wrong from the get. All she had to do was ID herself and there would have been no issue, but instead she gave a false address.

His attempting to ID her is proper.

No, there is a confusion about her address, she does in fact live where she claimed she lived and had access. She broke none of the rules of the pool and he is not a police officer that can go around demanding to see ID's because he does not happen to recognize her. She had the key card, she lived at the address and had the right to be there. He did not have the right to demand ID's.

The notice board outside of the pool does not mention any rules that demand people in the pool who have cards to show their ID. Her card worked, that is the end of it.

pool-patrol-paul_0.jpg

As you can see, no mention of ID's needing to be shown. She had the correct pass to enter, the man took the issue way too far, which is evident from the comments of the homeowner association:

“In confronting and calling the police on one of our neighbors, the pool chair escalated a situation in a way that does not reflect the inclusive values Glenridge seeks to uphold as a community.”

The association added that it would reinstate the sign-in sheet and ensure policies were consistent for all residents.

And I seriously doubt his pool manager role gives him the legal justification to demand ID's, he is a private citizen, not a police officer and the woman had committed no crime so even police officers had no right to demand that ID.
 
1. You did not respond to the points made to you. So stop with the dishonesty.

2. You being on what you consider is the right side is irrelevant as whether or not the company was legally able to do that was not in contention with me.
It was the wrongness of it based on the false claim of discrimination.

The points made to me? In the response I wrote to you? :lamo

Try reading what you post because the comment to which I responded to was from someone other than ME.

2. I do not take sides, I merely pointed out that firing people is way too easy in the US and if a company wants to fire someone, they pretty much can do that whenever they want. All you are doing is making mountains out of virtually nothing.
 
This whole affair disappears if she doesn't make a scene. You and I both know it.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

yep, if only that black Rosa Parks woman had sat in the back of the bus like she was told, we wouldn't be having to deal with this mess after she made such a scene
 
She had a key card. She did live where she said she lived (according to news sources) and had a right to own that key card.

And he did not act properly, he has no right to demand ID's as that is not required at the pool. Because that is not a requirement, only signing in is a requirement so he had no legal right to ask her for her ID. She had the card, so she was allowed to enter the pool.

she failed to guess the correct number of jelly beans he had in a jar and thus was excluded. nothing racial about that ... other than a black person trying to register to vote in the south in the 50's
 
yep, if only that black Rosa Parks woman had sat in the back of the bus like she was told, we wouldn't be having to deal with this mess after she made such a scene
Yeah, being asked for ID is just like being forced to the back of the bus because you're black. Great analogy.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
she failed to guess the correct number of jelly beans he had in a jar and thus was excluded. nothing racial about that ... other than a black person trying to register to vote in the south in the 50's
Who doesn't remember their address? Only blacks? That's racist.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
Who doesn't remember their address? Only blacks? That's racist.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

Maybe she just moved there, but she did live there and had the right to use that pool. The pool guy did not have the right to ask for an ID.
 
Maybe she just moved there, but she did live there and had the right to use that pool. The pool guy did not have the right to ask for an ID.
Explain to me why he didn't have the right to ask for ID.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
Explain to me why he didn't have the right to ask for ID.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

Because that does not appear to be on the demands for using the pool. I would assume loads of people use that pool without ever bringing their ID's because it is a neighborhood pool.

And since when do private persons have the right to demand to see someone's ID. He can ask but I seriously doubt she has to comply with that because as said, he is a glorified pool supervisor.
 
Because that does not appear to be on the demands for using the pool. I would assume loads of people use that pool without ever bringing their ID's because it is a neighborhood pool.

And since when do private persons have the right to demand to see someone's ID. He can ask but I seriously doubt she has to comply with that because as said, he is a glorified pool supervisor.

Since he's in charge, yes she has to comply. Why wouldn't she?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
Since he's in charge, yes she has to comply. Why wouldn't she?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

No, she does not have to comply. Nowhere on the rules hanging outside of the pool does it say anything about having to ID yourself. And why would she not, maybe she had no ID on her (because it was at home) or because she thought (and she was right) that he has no duty to produce it if the pool guard asks for it. She had her card on her, she was rightfully there, pure and simple.
 
No, she does not have to comply. Nowhere on the rules hanging outside of the pool does it say anything about having to ID yourself. And why would she not, maybe she had no ID on her (because it was at home) or because she thought (and she was right) that he has no duty to produce it if the pool guard asks for it. She had her card on her, she was rightfully there, pure and simple.
No, only residents can use the pool. A pool card doesn't prove you're a resident. Getting your address wrong certainly arouses suspicion.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
No, only residents can use the pool. A pool card doesn't prove you're a resident. Getting your address wrong certainly arouses suspicion.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

Well, the police clearly disagreed with him. Also, she is a resident. The pool does not require showing of ID's, that is how simple it is and that means she has no need to show some wannabee Permit Adam anything.
 
Well, the police clearly disagreed with him. Also, she is a resident. The pool does not require showing of ID's, that is how simple it is and that means she has no need to show some wannabee Permit Adam anything.
Again, why couldn't she remember her address? Why shouldn't he have been suspicious at that point?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
No, there is a confusion about her address,
:lamo That was a polite way of saying she may be lying.
Duh!
Even if she was really confused and got a street name where no houses exist confused for hers, it is a valid reason to request an ID to confirm she is a Resident for purpose of access to the pool.

As reported.

Bloom's job as pool chair included removing people from the pool who were not authorized to be there. He did so several times a year, and people who have been removed include a variety of ages and races, Vermitsky told the paper.


she does in fact live where she claimed she lived and had access. She broke none of the rules of the pool...
Irrelevant to the way things went down.
It was appropriate to request an Id given the circumstances.


... and he is not a police officer that can go around demanding to see ID's because he does not happen to recognize her. She had the key card, she lived at the address and had the right to be there. He did not have the right to demand ID's.
Wrong as usual.

Again.
As reported.

[COLOR="#80000"]Bloom's job
as pool chair included removing people from the pool who were not authorized to be there. He did so several times a year, and people who have been removed include a variety of ages and races, Vermitsky told the paper.[/COLOR]​

One way to do his job is by requesting ID. Duh!


The notice board outside of the pool does not mention any rules that demand people in the pool who have cards to show their ID. Her card worked, that is the end of it.

View attachment 67235875
 
Again, why couldn't she remember her address? Why shouldn't he have been suspicious at that point?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

Again, she lived at the address she provided. Also, still not giving him the right to demand an ID.
 
:lamo That was a polite way of saying she may be lying.
Duh!
Even if she was really confused and got a street name where no houses exist confused for hers, it is a valid reason to request an ID to confirm she is a Resident for purpose of access to the pool.

As reported.

Bloom's job as pool chair included removing people from the pool who were not authorized to be there. He did so several times a year, and people who have been removed include a variety of ages and races, Vermitsky told the paper.


Irrelevant to the way things went down.
It was appropriate to request an Id given the circumstances.


Wrong as usual.

Again.
As reported.

[COLOR="#80000"]Bloom's job
as pool chair included removing people from the pool who were not authorized to be there. He did so several times a year, and people who have been removed include a variety of ages and races, Vermitsky told the paper.[/COLOR]​

One way to do his job is by requesting ID. Duh!


:lamo No.
1. Having a card does not mean you are entitled to access. Again; Cards can be wrongly given to other folks who are not allowed to have access. Cards can even be duplicated.
2. It is a private pool, they do not have to post agreed upon contract language.
3. And just how do you think they enforce compliance with what is written on the sign huh? By asking for ID. Double duh!


All your comment does is show a lack of understanding of how private pools operate over here.

Again.
As reported.

[COLOR="#80000"]Bloom's job
as pool chair included removing people from the pool who were not authorized to be there. He did so several times a year, and people who have been removed include a variety of ages and races, Vermitsky told the paper.[/COLOR]​

You do love repeating yourself while being wrong at every turn. He may have been there to remove people but this lady had the correct "entry card" and lived there. Just because there was confusion about her address (maybe she just moved in there) does not give him the right to call the police or act like the pool overlord demanding ID's.

She complied with the rules clearly visible at the entrance of the pool, Permit Adam did not have a legitimate reason to doubt her being there.

Which is clearly obvious from the reaction of the Homeowner associations reaction that he went too far.
 
Again, she lived at the address she provided. Also, still not giving him the right to demand an ID.
Why does he not have the right? Do you think that the property manager can't make sure that only permitted guests can use the pool?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
You do love repeating yourself while being wrong at every turn. He may have been there to remove people but this lady had the correct "entry card" and lived there. Just because there was confusion about her address (maybe she just moved in there) does not give him the right to call the police or act like the pool overlord demanding ID's.

She complied with the rules clearly visible at the entrance of the pool, Permit Adam did not have a legitimate reason to doubt her being there.

Which is clearly obvious from the reaction of the Homeowner associations reaction that he went too far.
He had every right to check. Again, this escalated because she made a scene and refused to procure additional identification.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
Which is more likely?

The woman forgot the address where she lived

The man forgot the address where she lived
 
You do love repeating yourself while being wrong at every turn. He may have been there to remove people but this lady had the correct "entry card" and lived there. Just because there was confusion about her address (maybe she just moved in there) does not give him the right to call the police or act like the pool overlord demanding ID's.

She complied with the rules clearly visible at the entrance of the pool, Permit Adam did not have a legitimate reason to doubt her being there.

Which is clearly obvious from the reaction of the Homeowner associations reaction that he went too far.
Wrong as usual.

I am repeating things here because it proves your assertions wrong. Yet you continue to make absurdly wrong arguments.

Her having a valid key card is irrelevant. It does not mean she is a resident. Do you really not understand that?
Her giving a false address is suspicious and a valid reason to inquire. Do you really not understand this too?
Nothing you said refutes this, nor could it.
It is his job. What did you not understand about that also? Huh?

That is part an parcel of his job. Period. Given the known information, asking was clearly appropriate.
 
Back
Top Bottom