The letter from the attorney says that he lost his job because he needed a car for his job, and he couldn’t get it back from the impound lot - not because of the imprisonment. It also says that he didn’t get his money back until August, when the police department released the original cashier’s check to him (it had previously been held as evidence).
Sorry, but unless you’re black, your experience doesn’t amount to much. I see it all the time as a black woman (exhibit A: my father), and have been subject to it as well. There is no reason why black people would be immune from the same racist programming that influences the judgements that whites and other ethnic groups make against blacks.
ETA: And women can be misogynists as well.
And just to preempt anything to contrary, it IS possible for the purchaser of a cashier check to place a stop-payment on it. I’ve done so in the past when I was a teller, although both the purchaser and the physical check were in front of me. If Chase put their minds to it, it’s likely they could have figured out a way to put a stop-payment on the cashier check at the police department, and reissue one to Mr. Njoku.
The letter makes sense of the story. The real complaint is not that Chase suspected the fellow of fraud and had him arrested, it is that Chase did not honour the cheque even after it had acknowledged no fraud had in fact occurred.
This is somewhat hard to explain on the part of the bank. Generally, at least here in Canada, banks have set limits on the time they are allowed to hold onto cheques for clearing - particularly where, as here, the cheque was drawn on the same bank.
So, three pages in and we still have no evidence that this guy was treated badly because of his race. Which of course won’t stop certain people from screaming “racism!” as loud as possible.
OK, let’s put racism aside. The guy was treated poorly regardless of his race.
I can agree with that. At least after the initial arrest (assuming that something was actually or apparently wrong with the check).
I agree as well, DF. It just amazes me that people think the reason he was treated poorly must have been his race. Some people are so wedded to this idea that they even think people of their own race are treating them poorly because of their race.
While the lawyer describes losses incurred through Chase’s “failure to reissue the check immediately,” his letter does not claim that they were asked to do so or indeed had any reason to be meaningfully aware that his client continued to be inconvenienced in any way as a result of the misunderstanding.
I guess I have a hard time understanding that, in the context of a described scenario where anybody would be viewed with a very high degree of suspicion, in a situation where the employees would be expected to conform to a rigid fraud management policy.
It doesn’t seem plausible to me that events would have unfolded any differently with someone of a different race. We know that the teller had some issue with the appearance of the cashier’s cheque. Does it really seem likely to you that the bank is going to bring in the police on a hunch? No - they are bankers. They are going to be looking at the instrument to determine whether or not it is valid, and somehow they came away with the sincere belief that they were looking at a counterfeit cheque. A recent change in the cheque stock and a missed memo, a manufacturing defect in the security features, a printer error. Something had to persuade them that the cheque was actually a forgery, because if you’re going to accuse someone of a felony, you’d effing well better have something that you can take to the bank. (Heh.)
Sorry, I didn’t connect your post with Bricker’s, Though I think I understand the point he is trying to make there (that everything points to a process unfolding inexorably, and we don’t really have anything suggestive of bias,) I agree that it’s not a strong point, since if there was a racially-based assumption of wrong-doing that went around the expected process, you would still expect them to back down when exculpatory information became available.
I’ll remember this if the words “white guilt” ever come out of your mouth.
What leap? That targeting a group based on its race is racist? I can see how my experience was more patronizing than racist (personally that’s how I view it, although the two aren’t mutually exclusive). But are you really not understanding how RandMcNally’s experience is racist? Or are you just being argumentative because that’s all you know how to be?
Just go on and live your life believing racism stopped in the early 1960s. I don’t believe you are educable in this particular subject.
No, we “still” don’t have any evidence, even after like twelve different people half-assedly speculated about it on the internet. This inquest is inefficient.
Just for shits and giggles, when would you say racism took its last rattling breath in the United States, as far as you’re concerned? Just roughly. I’m serious. Like what was the last decade in which it would have been reasonable to look at a perfectly respectable dude getting thrown in a jail cell for doing nothing wrong, and say “I believe this was more likely to happen to this person due to his African ancestry”? Even, as you say, without any insight into the minds of the people involved. Or was that never true?
I don’t see any way to parse that apart from "monstro and RM’s anecdotes clearly describe incidents of racism - but what is that about this incident that allows us to assume that there was racism?
And clearly no reasonable person would dispute that the above anecdotes describe intolerably racist attitudes. But in this story, there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that race played a part in how things played out.
What? The sense. You are not making it.
January 14, 1972.
But you know the story in the OP bears absolutely no resemblance to “a perfectly respectable dude getting thrown in a jail cell for doing nothing wrong,” right?
It seems I misread Bricker’s post. Apologies to him.
But I must say, we are not in the court of law here. Although there is no proof that racism is at play–and I’m not necessarily saying that there are no other alternative explanations to why this guy was so badly treated–what would be sufficient proof to convince the doubters that this is a racist incident? The truth of the matter is that there is ALWAYS an alternative, non-racist explanation to racist incidents, short of those that involve racial slurs or explicit statements of hatred.
I guess all we can confidently assert is that this guy was treated quite unfairly and wrongly. However, as someone suggested earlier, to automatically rule out the role racism might have played is just as foolish as jumping to that conclusion automatically. Racism should not interjected when the guy brings his suit against the bank, but on a message board I think it’s okay to bring it up as a hypothesis. I think it’s okay for people to say, “Hey, this looks really fishy…way beyond just a regular oopsie!”
The sooner fishy things stop happening, the sooner we’ll stop talking about it.
What is it about the incident that has you so convinced that it was racism?
Anybody who doesn’t think that racial prejudice isn’t alive and thriving needs to watch the “What Would You Do” that’s playing now. Two actors pretending to steal a locked bike in a park, one white, one black, wearing the same clothes. Only one elderly couple hassles the white guy in an entire hour. The black guy attracts a hostile crowd quickly, and somebody calls the cops within minutes, people take pictures, an old guy hollers at him incessantly, even as the camera crew walks in. (For comparison, a hot white girl ends up with people helping her.)
There’s no way a white guy would have ended up in jail for trying to cash a legit check.
That was my first thought. However, according to the article, He was in fact, guilty of writing bad checks. His account was closed and was $600 in arrears. The reason for the check in the first place was because the account was closed and the bank had deducted the money owed and sent him a check.
Bells should have gone off when he tried to cash the check (because of his prior dealing with the bank) but the legitimacy of the check was easily verified or should have been.
The bank’s position of questioning the check made sense because he already bounced his own checks with them. He was no longer a customer and as far as the computer was concerned, was a deadbeat. Walking out on the transaction probably stopped the process of determining it was a real check. Assumptions could easily have been made based on his own actions and not the color of his skin.
One would think so but I wouldnt bet on it. We are outa state and have lost our RV tag. Called up home, got em to mail a new one. Guess what? It hasnt shown up. Give em a call. Apparently them figuring out if they had mailed it to us out here (like we asked and they said they could do easy) or to our home :smack: took a fair bit of effort. Heck, I’m still not sure whether they actually know which place it was mailed to or are just guessing at this point. So apparently big organizations are perfectly capable of NOT being able to find basic information one would think would be critical to their operation and easily available.
Oh, and the comedian/cynic in me has visions of us finding out that the guys dog chewed up the check into tiny pieces, he taped it back together the best he could…and it went from there 
The guy presented the cheque for payment. Once the cheque was found legitimate, the only possible reason not to pay it immediately is doubts that it will “clear” (that is, that the person on whom the cheque was drawn did not have the funds to cover it).
In most jurisdictions, banks are allowed at their discretion to hold cheques for clearance for some time - here I think it is seven days.
However, there was no reason for the bank to be concerned in this case, because the cheque was drawn on them - so no reason for them to hold it even for seven days to allow for clearance. Yet allegedly they held it nearly a month.
Now, we don’t know what demands were made in that time, but that doesn’t signify, since the original presentment of the cheque for payment is in itself a demand for payment.
Now, I’m not saying that this amounts to “racism” - without more, we can only speculate at the banks’s motives. What it is, is (possibly) tortious conduct. Holding onto someone elses’ money, once you have been asked for it, without any reasonable excuse, is the common-law tort of “conversion”.
My point is that everyone is concentrating on the wrong part of the story. The bank quite possibly had some reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction was fraudulent - an overdrawn account, the guy ducks out while the cheque was being processed, etc. But, once the cheque was proven by the bank itself to be non-fraudulent, its actions become difficult to excuse. At that point, the bank should have been making every effort to get the guy his money. If the physical cheque was being held as “evidence” (of what?) by the cops, it ought to have issued a stop on that, and paid the guy some other way.
I totally agree. You’d think that after all the guy went through the bank would have bent over backwards to avoid bad publicity. From my own personal experience I’ve found that the bigger the business, the harder it is to get things straightened out. Many businesses deliberately make it difficult for customer service to help customers by not empowering them with the ability to make decisions. Clark Howard talks about it all the time and calls it “customer no-service”.
I think the manager of the bank should have driven to the jail if it wasn’t possible to contact the responsible person directly and then continue to do everything possible to get the guy out.