• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being a hotel worker... while black

Some additional information on the hotel assault.

http://news.leportale.com/doc?id=216678981

There's more video to be seen, but apparently the police have seen all of it and determined that the couple ought to be charged. The couple claims they were attacked. That's clearly not the case in the video attached to the story in the OP, but that video was of the second confrontation.

People really shouldn't try to take the law into their own hands. The man in the video claims that he was attacked, but after making that claim in a 911 call, goes down the hall and commits the incident captured in the video attached to the OP. In that video, he is clearly and obviously the aggressor. So, he had already made a 911 call, and then goes out and assaults the woman. Not bright.

But, drugs may have played a role in his behavior.
 
Meadmaker said:
Some additional information on the hotel assault.

http://news.leportale.com/doc?id=216678981

There's more video to be seen, but apparently the police have seen all of it and determined that the couple ought to be charged. The couple claims they were attacked. That's clearly not the case in the video attached to the story in the OP, but that video was of the second confrontation.

People really shouldn't try to take the law into their own hands. The man in the video claims that he was attacked, but after making that claim in a 911 call, goes down the hall and commits the incident captured in the video attached to the OP. In that video, he is clearly and obviously the aggressor. So, he had already made a 911 call, and then goes out and assaults the woman. Not bright.

But, drugs may have played a role in his behavior.
Click to expand...

I agree with Skeptical Greg's remark about the stupid. How stupid do you have to be to assault someone in a hotel that you have checked into, where you have given your name... I mean "Doh!!"

Its probably fortunate for the rest of us that, like the vast majority of racists, this guy was just plain ol' dumb as **** (actually, its probably a pre-qualification)
 
Last edited:
I found myself wondering why there is a "Justice for Crystal" rally gong ahead?
 
Thermal said:
I have it on good authority that the attackers are likely just unpleasant persons and nothing to discuss here. Unless of course this is a blatant trolling to talk about other posters...



...oh.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they aren't racists? Did you actually read the article, or are you just blindly shooting from the hip?
 
smartcooky said:
What makes you think they aren't racists? Did you actually read the article, or are you just blindly shooting from the hip?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were or weren't. I assume they likely are. Did you actually read the post, or are you just blindly shooting from the hip?

But a posit: as usual, we did not see the run-up, and your link shows a second altercation, where the guy comes up to the clerk at a water cooler (or vending machine) swinging, as though continuing a fight. Both parties claimed on separate 911 calls (the clerk's by proxy) to have been assaulted by the other. So what happened? Are you dropping the gavel with only one version of events?
 
Thermal said:
I didn't say they were or weren't. I assume they likely are. Did you actually read the post, or are you just blindly shooting from the hip?

But a posit: as usual, we did not see the run-up, and your link shows a second altercation, where the guy comes up to the clerk at a water cooler (or vending machine) swinging, as though continuing a fight. Both parties claimed on separate 911 calls (the clerk's by proxy) to have been assaulted by the other. So what happened? Are you dropping the gavel with only one version of events?
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t coming up to someone and starting swinging still be assault even if there was an altercation previously? Reinitiating a previous fight doesn’t fall under the category of self-defense.
 
Thermal said:
I have it on good authority that the attackers are likely just unpleasant persons and nothing to discuss here.
Click to expand...

I know all kinds of unpleasant ( IMO ) persons, who are unpleasant for various reasons; body odor, demeanor, hairstyle, but in this case we would need to add "physically violent " unpleasant persons..
 
Just from the video, no excuse deems that warranted.

The violent dude and jumbo chick deserve to be punished big time. The women probably slightly less as she at least looks like she tried to stop the worst of it.

If they find footage of the earlier altercation and it shows the workers doing something as bad then they should be treated similar.

If they thought the earlier one was that bad the dude and the women would have just left and gone to another hotel if they had brains.
 
Thermal said:
I didn't say they were or weren't. I assume they likely are. Did you actually read the post, or are you just blindly shooting from the hip?

But a posit: as usual, we did not see the run-up, and your link shows a second altercation, where the guy comes up to the clerk at a water cooler (or vending machine) swinging, as though continuing a fight. Both parties claimed on separate 911 calls (the clerk's by proxy) to have been assaulted by the other. So what happened? Are you dropping the gavel with only one version of events?
Click to expand...

I believe it would be.

If I got the story right, there was an altercation, and then the man called 911, and then he started the altercation seen in the OP video, near the ice machine. That second altercation sure seems like a straight up attack and is prosecutable no matter what happened beforehand.

Prosecutors aren't as likely to prosecute if it turns out that something really bad happened before the cameras started rolling, but I just can't even imagine a scenario where what we see on the video of the second altercation would be considered acceptable.

They're entitled to a fair trial, and they can explain the circumstances and the judge or jury can decide if it was justified, but I'm having a hard time imagining the story that would justify it.
 
Giordano said:
Wouldn’t coming up to someone and starting swinging still be assault even if there was an altercation previously? Reinitiating a previous fight doesn’t fall under the category of self-defense.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker said:
I believe it would be.

If I got the story right, there was an altercation, and then the man called 911, and then he started the altercation seen in the OP video, near the ice machine. That second altercation sure seems like a straight up attack and is prosecutable no matter what happened beforehand.

Prosecutors aren't as likely to prosecute if it turns out that something really bad happened before the cameras started rolling, but I just can't even imagine a scenario where what we see on the video of the second altercation would be considered acceptable.

They're entitled to a fair trial, and they can explain the circumstances and the judge or jury can decide if it was justified, but I'm having a hard time imagining the story that would justify it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the guy is solidly in the bad guy category, barring some pretty far-out unreported circumstance. That's why I called them "the attackers".

But reporting was pretty vague about the first altercation, which puts my antennae provisionally up. What we may have here are a whole kettle of jerks, rather than a victim with a halo and rampaging white supremacists. Per usual, I am questioning the acceptance of a narrative sans the full story.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing we are dealing with mentally ill individuals here. Note this:

Sarner and Orbay have no permanent addresses but are known to be primarily in Nassau County on Long Island, Stonington police said.
Click to expand...

No permanent addresses.
 
Thermal said:
Yeah, the guy is solidly in the bad guy category, barring some pretty far-out unreported circumstance. That's why I called them "he attackers".

But reporting was pretty vague about the first altercation, which puts my antennae peovisionally up. What we may have here are a whole kettle of jerks, rather than a victim with a halo and rampaging white supremacists. Per usual, I am questioning the acceptance of a narrative sans the full story.
Click to expand...

The most telling thing in the link that I posted with more details was that the hotel management was considering firing the hotel worker based on her conduct captured on video during the first altercation.

It may be that there are not good guys and bad guys in this fight, but bad guys and worse guys.

But, that's for the police and prosecutors to sort out. So far at least, it seems that whatever she did, it wasn't criminal. Stay tuned.
 
Meadmaker said:
The most telling thing in the link that I posted with more details was that the hotel management was considering firing the hotel worker based on her conduct captured on video during the first altercation.



It may be that there are not good guys and bad guys in this fight, but bad guys and worse guys.



But, that's for the police and prosecutors to sort out. So far at least, it seems that whatever she did, it wasn't criminal. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day what ever happened in the first altercation does not excuse the actions in the second.

The bloke is scum and should be treated as such.

If it turns out the worker was in the first then ditto.
 
Brainster said:
I'm guessing we are dealing with mentally ill individuals here. Note this:



No permanent addresses.
Click to expand...

Yet sufficiently funded to rent hotel rooms? Let's take a look. Turns out to be roughly 80 bucks a night for a double. More if one wants to spring for luxeries. It varies per location.

These wingnuts took that and also parked their car there. That is an extra.

Indeed, there is a whole menu of extras.

"No fixed abode" to some people implies "homeless" and that is false. So somehow we are expected to believe that some homeless folks who clearly owned the vehicle in which they made their escape and clearly paid for the room they rented were somehow homeless bums. Just because of "no fixed abode".

Well that is nonsense. I have been there in the past. It ain't pretty and at that time in my life there is no chance I had 80 bucks for a hotel room.
 
abaddon said:
Yet sufficiently funded to rent hotel rooms? Let's take a look. Turns out to be roughly 80 bucks a night for a double. More if one wants to spring for luxeries. It varies per location.

These wingnuts took that and also parked their car there. That is an extra.

Indeed, there is a whole menu of extras.

"No fixed abode" to some people implies "homeless" and that is false. So somehow we are expected to believe that some homeless folks who clearly owned the vehicle in which they made their escape and clearly paid for the room they rented were somehow homeless bums. Just because of "no fixed abode".

Well that is nonsense. I have been there in the past. It ain't pretty and at that time in my life there is no chance I had 80 bucks for a hotel room.
Click to expand...

Quality Inn doesn't have a whole lot of luxury and posted rates are always negotiable, and especially so in the current hotel environment. In fact, some cities are currently putting homeless up in hotels to cut down on covid transmission in shelters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom