Techdirt is off for Memorial Day. We'll be back with regularly scheduled posting tomorrow!Hide

Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend

from the say-goodbye dept

There's been a lot of talk on various tech sites over the past few days concerning the disgraceful situation involving internet ad giant RadiumOne and its CEO Gurbaksh "G" Chahal. Chahal was arrested last year and charged with 45 counts for apparently beating his girlfriend -- hitting her 117 times over the course of half an hour, all caught on a security camera in his home. The legal case more or less fell apart when the judge said that police seizing the video violated the 4th Amendment (they did so without a warrant). Without that evidence, and with the woman refusing to cooperate, prosecutors worked out a deal and Chahal plead guilty to two charges -- one domestic violence battery and one battery -- and got three years probation and a mandatory 52-week domestic violence training program.

Having covered many, many stories in which law enforcement violates the 4th Amendment and piles on charges on someone, there isn't much to comment on in the legal case. Police should have had a warrant to get that video, clearly -- and it's on them that they did not do that. You can't fault the judge for tossing out illegally seized evidence. But, at no point has anyone denied that the video exists or that it shows Chahal hitting his girlfriend 117 times. Given that, plenty of people are reasonably wondering (1) why Chahal is still CEO of a giant ad company that's expected to IPO soon and (2) why his board/investors has refused to respond to questions about Chahal.

There has been plenty of talk recently about how welcoming (or not) the tech industry is to females. Some of the stories of "brogrammers" or "bro" culture strike me as exaggerating reality. It exists in some cases, but it is far from true everywhere. Plenty of startups that I've spent time with not only seem to create diverse and welcoming environments, but often go out of their way to create such supportive cultures. But, at the same time, it's clear that not every tech company is like that, and many engineers -- both female and male -- have been turned off by such cultures (though not enough speak out when they see it). The industry itself needs to do a much better job of creating welcoming environments and one obvious and important way to do so is to not condone abhorrent behavior, such as that which Chahal engaged in. Leaving Chahal in charge of RadiumOne is an implicit statement that such behavior is somehow acceptable. That, by itself, is unacceptable.

The fact that the board and RadiumOne's investors have not spoken out creates not just a huge blackeye for the company, but for the wider tech industry as a whole.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:09pm

    And a round of applause for the police in this case, yet again their impatience and/or arrogance screws up a case, via their apparent inability to file for a gorram warrant.

    Really, are they all deathly allergic to court papers or something? You'd think for a case like this at least one of them might have thought, 'You know, having all this solid evidence tossed because we were too lazy to get a warrant to gather it probably wouldn't be a good thing, we should maybe ask a judge for one of those first.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:10pm

    Yeah! Punish him outside the law. Fancy pants big business jerk needs to be captured and strung up in a tree. Screw trials, let's decide his fate ourselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:13pm

    Re:

    Beat that strawman.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:15pm

    Re:

    Yeah! Punish him outside the law. Fancy pants big business jerk needs to be captured and strung up in a tree. Screw trials, let's decide his fate ourselves.

    Are you seriously arguing that no person has a right to take a stance that something is disgraceful beyond what a court decides?

    Interesting. I disagree and find your position morally questionable, though it is your decision.

    To be clear -- as I was in the article -- I don't have a problem with the results of the legal case. I'm not suggesting that anything else need be done on the legal front. But it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it is inappropriate for such a person to be leading a company.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Whoever, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:19pm

    Police screw up and allow a wealthy person to go free -- again!!!

    Genuine screw up or police knowingly screw up in a way that a wealthy person goes free?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Somethingsomething, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:23pm

    I agree the guy is despicable for beating his girlfriend. I agree much less that his company should be the one to punish him since the legal authorities failed to do so. You are advocating vigilante justice in this case and that is something a civil society tries not to engage in. Ruining him financially is not quite the same as beating him near to death, however it is still vigilantism.

    The recidivism rate among those who beat women is quite high. The law will get another chance to take him down. Let them handle it. Let people vote with their wallets and then the company be forced to out him. Taking action on their own in relation to a case that was dismissed could open them up to lawsuits that tank their IPO entirely. Right now its still up in the air as to whether it happens or not, they are playing it safe.

    The guy is awful, he deserves to be in prison or worse for this, but his company still sees him as a valuable resource. Until that changes, they won't dismiss him. Paying his contract out may be too expensive, they may even be hoping he gets busted and convicte4d again in order to get out of his contract, revoke his shares and other financial awards. We just don't know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Scote, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:30pm

    Please, the guy was rail roaded, he says so himself...

    Please, he's good looking and rich. He couldn't possibly be guilty, and suffering consequences for beating his girlfriend on camera would be wrong. He Tweeted that he was railroaded into accepting a plea deal. I mean, if he didn't accept, he might have face the *actual* normal charges for beating his girlfriend, such as felony charges that would have gotten him booted from his job. How unfair is that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:30pm

    Re:

    "I agree much less that his company should be the one to punish him since the legal authorities failed to do so."

    I think the viewpoint is not about punishment, but representation. Would you want this guy running a company you had money in? And and IPO comming?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:31pm

    this sounds like a total cover up to me. had this been an ordinary person, i'll bet a dime to a dollar the judge wouldn't have kicked the video out and if someone else had tried to do so, he would have found a way of keeping it in as evidence.
    as for the board members? they're probably only worried about reaping the benefit from a well-producing company. we all should know that there is nothing more important than green backs and women fall way down the list that they're on!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:31pm

    Re:

    I agree the guy is despicable for beating his girlfriend. I agree much less that his company should be the one to punish him since the legal authorities failed to do so. You are advocating vigilante justice in this case and that is something a civil society tries not to engage in. Ruining him financially is not quite the same as beating him near to death, however it is still vigilantism.


    Removing him as CEO is neither vigilante justice, nor will it "ruin him financially." Beyond the fact that he's sold two companies in the past for a combined $325 million, he still own significant shares in RadiumOne, which are probably worth a similar amount.

    Saying that it's unacceptable for him to be CEO is not "vigilante justice." It's saying that it's inappropriate for someone who beats his girlfriend to be CEO.

    The guy is awful, he deserves to be in prison or worse for this, but his company still sees him as a valuable resource.

    And that's a problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re:

    Sheesh, And an IPO coming?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:33pm

    Re:

    as for the board members? they're probably only worried about reaping the benefit from a well-producing company.

    The company can move forward without him as CEO. In fact, you'd think that it would speak more strongly for the company that it thinks it's best to move forward with a CEO who has more integrity. It seems likely that having a girlfriend-beater as CEO may negatively impact the company's ability to IPO.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:34pm

    Re:

    Avoiding associating with someone because you find their behavior unacceptable is a far cry from "vigilante justice".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:39pm

    What? I call bullshit on the paragraph about "bro" culture. There is no connection between the need to create a welcoming environment for women in tech companies, and this particular asshole CEO beating his girlfriend.

    There is no "implicit statement" that violence against women is acceptable in the tech industry. It is clearly *not* acceptable (and, in fact, illegal if the police hadn't botched it up). But this incident has nothing to do with "bro" culture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    Call bullshit all you want but the rest of us see a clear connection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:05pm

    Re:

    The recidivism rate among those who beat women is quite high. The law will get another chance to take him down. Let them handle it.


    Yeah, let's wait until there's another victim to bust the guy, because one just isn't enough...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re:

    So, where is the line on unacceptable vs. acceptable? Can he ever work again as a CEO? middle manager? A janitor?

    What about when he finishes his probation & classes? What if he makes an apology?

    I think what he did is very wrong, but I struggle to see a clear line on what the appropriate consequences should be when the legal system protected his rights, yet the tainted evidence points to the crime.

    You often advocate for the protections of the 4th amendment to protect cell phone & privacy. The courts did exactly that in this case, yet you advocate ignoring that result to judge him in the court of public opinion.

    To dial up the contrast, if you're going to advocate firing him, what about a quick lynching too? Where is the line?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:09pm

    Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    I don't see any clear connection. I'm new at my current job, but at the last one, (as a programmer,) women were by no means invisible in the office. Yes, there were more men there than women, by about 2:1, but there were women all over the office, including working as developers.

    And I can guarantee you that if any of us had ever found out that our boss was beating his wife or his kids, he'd have had about 20 angry employees (of both sexes) making trouble for him any way we could. "Bro culture" has no place in a programming office where almost every developer (male and female) is married with children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    avideogameplayer, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:19pm

    You mean there's a judge out there that still believes in the 4th Amendment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The line comes in the law. Lynching is illegal. There is only so much a private person can do at this point. Speak. Choose not to associate. Re-evaluate character. Make different choices.

    The biggest issue on the companies plate is the IPO. The better question is 'What does the board/investors think the impact of the widespread knowledge of his guilt, and escape from punishment will be, on the marketplaces decisions?'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The courts did exactly that in this case, yet you advocate ignoring that result to judge him in the court of public opinion.

    You are confusing 2 separate points. Mike clearly states that he agrees with the courts in rendering the evidence inadmissible and that he has no problem with the end result of the legal action. He is saying that it is irresponsible for the board of directors to allow someone who is known to have struck his girlfriend 117 times within 30 minutes to be the public face of the company. I think it says a lot about the moral character of the board of directors that they would knowingly allow an individual with a clearly demonstrated propensity for abuse and violence to be their representative voice.

    No one disputes that this guy committed a heinous crime. He got off on a procedural technicality due to law enforcement incompetence, but again, no one is denying that he actually committed the crime. He simply can't be prosecuted for it. Mike is simply rendering the opinion that he finds it disgraceful that this company would allow him to publicly represent them, and I have to say that I agree with him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    TheLoot (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:30pm

    Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    No we don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:30pm

    Re:

    Very strongly at that, if he was willing to toss evidence that damning, just because it was illegally gathered.

    The true test of whether or not someone really believes in the law, is when they find themselves dealing with someone they really want to see behind bars and/or punished, but the only evidence available was illegally gathered.

    The strong, much as it pains them, toss the evidence and therefor the conviction, whereas the weak, the 'The ends justify the means' type people, allow it, or justify it after the fact, like some judges have done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    TheLoot (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:30pm

    Re:

    "All men are evil, and nerds are the worst"

    That's all it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    TheLoot (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:32pm

    No problem here

    Not connected to his job, no reason to fire him from it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:41pm

    Re: No problem here

    On the contrary, the CEO of a company is, in many ways, the 'face' of the company, and one with this kind of reputation does not seem like the public face a company would want to present.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Police screw up and allow a wealthy person to go free -- again!!!

    Who says it's the wealth? Police abuse women all the time, and the police chiefs condone it. Maybe this was a bunch of wifebeaters protecting one of their own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 5:30pm

    cultural insensitivity?

    I'm not trying to be an advocate (or a troll) but I just wanted to point out that in much of the world (particularly the 3rd world) wife-beating is still viewed as an accepted practice, just as it was accepted in Western society historically, (until relatively recently).

    Like an American family visiting Sweden that would be shocked to learn that they've broken the law by spanking their children, maybe Gurbaksh is just doing something that is considered perfectly normal in his culture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 5:48pm

    Yeah, well

    [rubs neck]

    the thing is, Mike, once when I was a small boy my mother forced me to lie down in front of her on the filthy floor of a movie theater, with her foot on my neck to keep me there, because she was "ashamed to be seen with me".

    Oh. That's why I had that physical impulse up there. Heh, funny how we are sometimes, eh?

    Yeah, well, anyways, I was wondering, how many hits out of 117 do you think that's worth?

    The point being, we know nothing about whether she deserved it, let alone how much.

    My own mother certainly did. And the reason I bring it up is because if she had gotten the crap beat out of her for it back then, she probably wouldn't have tried to gut me about a decade later.

    So. . .yeah, I do think you're rushing to judgement here.

    No, wait. I just checked the bizjournals article myself, and:

    "Lassart also drew out from police testimony that Chahalís girlfriend told police during an interview that the fight with Chahal happened after he learned she had gone to Las Vegas and had sex with another man who gave her $2,500. She said the money was to cover 'expenses' and was not a payment for sex."

    The fact that Mike left this part out and that Techdirt's other commenters have not addressed it or his failure creates not just a huge blackeye for the community, but for the wider journalism industry as a whole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:03pm

    Re:

    "Lassart also drew out from police testimony that Chahalís girlfriend told police during an interview that the fight with Chahal happened after he learned she had gone to Las Vegas and had sex with another man who gave her $2,500. She said the money was to cover 'expenses' and was not a payment for sex."

    The fact that Mike left this part out and that Techdirt's other commenters have not addressed it or his failure creates not just a huge blackeye for the community, but for the wider journalism industry as a whole.


    You're honestly arguing that she deserved to be hit because she cheated on him? Please seek help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It only matters if there is a serious threat of a boycott or similar retaliation. Otherwise, he would appear to be a fairly competent CEO, and his DV is only relevant in so far as it creates a potential for a succession crisis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:09pm

    Re:

    Yeah, right! Extra-relationship sex and a beating. Those two are surely equal. DESERVED? Two wrongs do not a right make. Even if they were married, which they weren't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It is not true that all press is good press. Any investor with a moral conscience that hears about this will not invest. Any other investors who hear about the moral investors, won't invest. Who's left? A few amoral sharks who give a rats patootie about the CEO's shenanigans?. And what about banks? Are banks going to want to be associated with lending money to a person of such low moral character? Oh, and how about customers? Once this is really out there, are customers going to want this stink on their plate? Being an advertising company, reputation goes a long long long long way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Roman V., Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:31pm

    Looking

    Looking forward to hearing people defend him like they did Brendon Eich.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:36pm

    Excessive fine?

    Mr. Chahal has been complaining on Twitter that his negotiated misdemeanor conviction cost him a $500 fine.

    (Poor, poor millionaire, having to pay $500 for battering hs girlfriend. Governments are just so cruel and unfair!)

    ThinkProgress: Millionaire Who Allegedly Beat His Girlfriend 117 Times Complains That He Recieved A $500 Fine

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:47pm

    Re:

    Now, just to make clear from the outset, a parent that pulls a stunt like that, does not deserve to be a parent, and should not be allowed to raise, or even be around, children until they can prove that they have the maturity, and empathy, to deal with other people.

    Between the theater bit and the 'gut me' comment, sounds like your mother was a pure sociopath/psychopath, and while that's certainly horrifying for anyone who has to deal with them, you should be careful not to let it turn you into something similar.

    That out of the way...

    The point being, we know nothing about whether she deserved it, let alone how much.

    Quick question: if you do something that annoys and/or angers me, would you 'deserve it' if I started beating you? How angry would you have to make someone feel before they're justified hitting you, say 5 times? How about 10? 15? 100?

    Also, just to point out a little bit of hypocrisy you seem to be showing, if anger is enough to justify beating someone, would you not also say that embarrassment is enough to justify humiliating them, like you say happened to you?

    If you're going to claim that the first is justifiable, but the second isn't, then you seem to be saying that causing physical/psychological damage is acceptable, but causing emotional/psychological is not.

    Assuming your story is accurate, you mother wouldn't deserve a beating, she would deserve a public name and shaming, and I can guarantee you that would be far more effective at keeping something like that from ever happening again. To someone willing to do that to a child because the kid embarrassed them, having their reputation torn to shreds is far more 'damaging' than any physical harm, and leaves a much longer lasting impression.

    The fact that Mike left this part out and that Techdirt's other commenters have not addressed it or his failure creates not just a huge blackeye for the community, but for the wider journalism industry as a whole.

    Hardly, it doesn't get mentioned because it's irrelevant. Someone does something that makes you angry, you might be tempted to take a swing at them, that's human nature, striking back at a source of pain.

    However, most adults are mature enough to restrain themselves, and hold back.

    Sometimes the anger is enough to push a person past that self-control, and it's treated as an attack, again, because most people are mature enough, and have enough self-control, to keep themselves from violent acts in response to non-violent 'threats'.

    117 strikes in the course of an hour though? That's not some minor slip-up of control, some temporary loss of self-control, that's beating someone because it feels good. You don't beat someone for an entire hour without knowing, and intending, exactly what you're doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Re:

    Unfortunately, thanks to the incompetence of the police, that's exactly what it'll take, assuming they don't screw it up the next time too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 7:24pm

    Re: Re:

    "You're honestly arguing that she deserved to be hit because she cheated on him? Please seek help."

    I understand that in Iran, the *proper* punishment for cheating wives is death by stoning, so by that yardstick, she certainly didn't "deserve" a mere beating.

    But seriously, on the topic of "what is an appropriate punishment for xxxx" there can never be any agreement, because there is no "correct" answer that everyone can agree on -- people just regurgitate their own cultural bias, and insist that other people's culturally-biased opinions that conflict with their own are simply dead wrong ... and that they should therefore "seek help".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 7:29pm

    Re: Re: No problem here

    It is an online ad network, so everyone knows they're dealing with slime anyway.

    (Probably necessary slime, but still slime.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 8:27pm

    Re: Re:

    No; I'm honestly asking how many hits you think would be 'deserved', i.e. justified, to prevent the deadly assault on my life about a decade later.

    And Mike. . .

    [tired smile]

    . . .I *am* seeking help.

    From you.

    Right now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2014 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So, let us ask you, have you stopped beating your wife yet?


    Go get some professional help. Your not gonna get therapy here, from Mike or anybody else. Therapy does not work that way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 8:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm rather curious, what makes you think any amount of blows would have stopped that assault against you?

    If the individual was willing to go that far over being 'embarrassed' by you, what makes you think she wouldn't simply have taken the hits and repaid you ten-fold for them, either immediately or at some point in the future? If anything, a 'punishment' like that(her getting hit) would have been likely to have made your situation worse, not better.

    No, as I noted below, the best response for something like that is a name and shame, make their actions visible and public so people know what they've done, and assuming it's a long term problem(which it sounds like it was), psychological help or even incarceration in a mental institution, should the person prove to be so far gone that they've become a threat to those around them(as apparently happened.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 11:39pm

    Re:

    You forgot to add apathy into the reasons behind the screw up, one of the main reasons I have seen many cases fall apart worldwide. The other one being "omg ze paperworkz is too much" (laziness as you stated)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 25th, 2014 @ 11:51pm

    Re: Re:

    The problem here as I see it Mike is where do you draw the line as to what is appropriate or not. And who decides?

    The legal avenue where a conviction could not be given based on faulty procedures or evidence has stated that this person is NOT guilty of the alleged offenses.

    On the other hand you have supposedly (it's just hearsay since it was not shown in court and proven to be authentic) a video showing the actuality of the offenses being committed.

    Maybe the guy did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe his girlfriend is a victim of DV but who has that psychological problem (that most people do) of thinking that love conquers all and "he will change" so refused to testify [sadly a standard situation in DV cases]

    Though to then turn around and state he should be removed from a position of whatever no matter how wrong YOU think it is is being a bit hypocritical in respect to other major cases you are and have followed over the years.

    Also playing devils advocate on the boards behalf, this guy probably has a very specific contract that if they removed him based on allegations (because that's what they are) or the court ordered probabation (it's a minor matter) they would be in breach of a hell of a lot and the payout plus damages they would need to recompense the guy, however wrong that seems, would be excessive and a HUGE risk if they are coming into an IPO.

    PS: The video in question doesn't need to be denied one way or the other since it was stopped before it's authenticity could be shown. that's why no one denies or otherwise its existence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 1:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > On the other hand you have supposedly (it's just hearsay
    > since it was not shown in court and proven to be authentic)
    > a video showing the actuality of the offenses being committed.

    Hearsay is a legal term whose definition contains the element that it be asserted in court in order to qualify as hearsay. Since there is no court case due to a failure to secure a warrant, the video cannot, by definition, be hearsay. Outside of a court, it's just a video, and people are free to judge its authenticity (or lack thereof) based on their own common sense and experience.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 1:30am

    Re: cultural insensitivity?

    > maybe Gurbaksh is just doing something that is considered
    > perfectly normal in his culture.

    If he wants to act like an animal and claim it's part of some barbaric cultural imperative, then he needs to get the fuck out of the US and go back to whatever primitive backwater spawned him in order to celebrate his sick 'culture', 'cause that shit ain't tolerated here. Not tolerating it is part of *our* culture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 1:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I know that, though your stating the 'hearsay rule' and not what the layperson (which I was writing for) understands as hearsay, not whether it is an assertion that hasn't been tested (or available to be) by cross.

    Also it's hearsay of what people have alluded to of what is on the video or would that be double hearsay.. ack.. truthfully I hate hearsay rulings and try to stick with admissibility concerns re documents and devices and let the case solicitors deal with those orrible human witnesses ;)

    Maybe I should of stated more clearly

    "On the other hand you have a court ordered inadmissible video showing the actuality or not of the offenses being committed which is not a public document nor most likely will it ever be"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    art guerrilla (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 3:05am

    why is the tech industry so special ? ? ?

    i am certain there have been PLENTY of CEO's/etc of HUGE corporations which have INFINITELY more effect on society and our lives, that have done either illegal or immoral shit that has come to light (and PLENTY more who have simply hidden it better); but ONLY tech execs are subject to being 'outed' and 'shunned' ? ? ?
    really, i DON'T think the tech sector is any more of a sparkle pony than 'regular' businesses (HINT: under unrestrained, rapacious capitalism, they are ALL going to oppress us, only you get to play beer pong at the tech companies), and why tech companies are supposed to be 'special' is beyond me...
    lastly, i wonder at the reaction the moral scolds would have if they found out their grrlfiend/wife went to vegas and had sex with someone else for $2500...
    'oh, that's what you were up to ? you go grrl ! ! !'
    is THAT their metrosexual reaction ? ? ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 5:14am

    It is up to the court to decide what punishment or rehab this man needs, not the ROne's.
    Why should they fire him? Do you really believe that they should fire people for something they do in their private life? Im sure he had his reasons to beat her but over 100 hits is way too much. But even that is not enough reason to fire someone who is doing his job properly.
    You guys are a disgrace, because you would want justice to work on emotions instead of logic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 6:11am

    Re:

    It is up to the court to decide what punishment or rehab this man needs, not the ROne's.

    You don't think this situation reflects on his ability to manage a company?

    Why should they fire him?

    Because it shows someone who cannot lead and has no business running a company.

    Do you really believe that they should fire people for something they do in their private life?

    Yes, absolutely. Especially if those actions will have real world impact on the running of the business. Given the allegations, many companies will be less interested in doing business with RadiumOne (I know that we will no longer consider RadiumOne ads on our site, and I'm sure we're not alone). Furthermore, I imagine this will further lead to many good people (both female and male) not wanting to work at RadiumOne. It makes the company toxic.

    Im sure he had his reasons to beat her

    There are no reasons that are acceptable.

    but over 100 hits is way too much

    Over zero is too many.

    But even that is not enough reason to fire someone who is doing his job properly.

    He cannot do his job properly after this.

    You guys are a disgrace, because you would want justice to work on emotions instead of logic.


    No, I explained the logic above. Not only does this show a massive lack in character and integrity from senior leadership, it impacts the entire company and the business.

    Remember when HP fired its CEO because he apparently propositioned a PR woman working for him? That was a much smaller deal, but HP reacted quickly. RadiumOne has a much more serious issue on their hands. And they've done nothing, just as the company wants to IPO. I don't see how they can trot this guy out on a roadshow when the whole point is to show how trustworthy management is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Griff, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re:

    Mike - maybe you miss the point. If the board don't have a legal case to fire him (ie there wasn't something in his contract that they can use), then they'll be in breach of the law to kick him out just because they find him repugnant, and he'll sue them for millions.

    Streisand effect just before the IPO...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re:

    It's a shame that trolls get the most attention around here. It seems nothing livens things up like flinging out a few 'strawman' arguments - followed by the ultimate troll bait -- "You guys are a disgrace" -- to rub it in everyone's face.

    The internet being what it is, does anyone really believe that this beat-down artist will actually remain the face of a multi-million-dollar company? If he still wants to be in the public eye, I'd suggest he marry Tonya Harding and they can co-star together in a reality TV show named Trading Punches.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    He plead guilty to violent felonies, I doubt there's any reason the board couldn't oust him because of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the board don't have a legal case to fire him (ie there wasn't something in his contract that they can use), then they'll be in breach of the law to kick him out just because they find him repugnant, and he'll sue them for millions.

    If that is the case, then they should just say that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    And the reason I bring it up is because if she had gotten the crap beat out of her for it back then, she probably wouldn't have tried to gut me about a decade later.

    Violence usually doesn't prevent violence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the board don't have a legal case to fire him (ie there wasn't something in his contract that they can use), then they'll be in breach of the law to kick him out just because they find him repugnant, and he'll sue them for millions.

    California is a at-will employment state. He can be fired. http://www.business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/AdministeringEmployees/EqualEmploymentOpportunityLaws/AtWi llEmployment.aspx

    There is no breach of the law firing someone, especially for pleading guilty to a crime. The exceptions are things like being fired for discrimination or union organizing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    All I can say is that if I were a wife-beating CEO (or planning to be) I'd make sure to have such a huge golden parachute in my contract that I'd make out like a bandit if I were ever fired. (Although they've not been in the news much in recent years, it's always amazed me that golden parachutes have ever made it past the sniff test)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 1:25pm

    Re: Looking

    Eich didn't commit a crime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 4:41pm

    Re:

    Good to see wife beaters sticking up for each other...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 4:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "...they'll be in breach of the law to kick him out just because they find him repugnant...

    ...and because he plead guilty to domestic violence battery. You and a bunch of others seem to be forgetting that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Apr 26th, 2014 @ 5:03pm

    Re: No problem here

    Really? Would you be happy to invest in a company run by an admitted domestic abuser? Would you be happy to work for this person? Many people would seriously reconsider those decisions now. It's extraordinarily ignorant to think this has no connection to his job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 5:25pm

    Take a Pass, Anyway.

    I had not previously heard of RadiumOne. However, I looked it up on Wikipedia, and I do not generally regard companies of that general type as prudent investments. Their time is past. They are a bore. Social media in general, and auctions in general, and keyword advertising in general, and "big data" in general, have all reached the saturation point. There are no real barriers to entry, and any johnny-come-lately can come in and drive down prices. From experience, RadiumOne shares will be sold at an unrealistic valuation to investors who are disappointed that they did not get advance information back in the 1980's or 1990's, when there was still money to be made in computers and electronics on a vicarious basis, and missed the chance to buy Microsoft or Apple.

    There are already abundant reasons to take a raincheck on RadiumOne, whether the boss beats his girlfriend or not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadiumOne

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 26th, 2014 @ 7:32pm

    Look who's whitewashing Gurbaksh Chahal's Wikipedia page

    Check out all the edits on Gurbaksh Chahal's Wikipedia page. Someone keeps deleting everything about Gurbaksh's "legal problems" again and again and again -- I wonder who that might be?

    Let's see now, posted-from IP addresses such as 128.177.7.70 go to ... ~~drumroll please~~ RadiumOne Inc., San Francisco, CA.

    Now that's some major chutzpah!

    ... or is this guy a complete idiot?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    art guerrilla (profile), Apr 27th, 2014 @ 3:39am

    Re: Re:

    well, you have singlehandedly deprecated the united states whole mode of operandi...
    ...or not!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2014 @ 8:26am

    Chahal responds:

    "The situation that resulted in my legal case began when I discovered that my girlfriend was having unprotected sex for money with other people. (She testified to this in her interviews with the cops.) I make no excuse for losing my temper. When I discovered this fact and confronted my girlfriend, we had a normal argument. She called 9-11 after I told her I was going to contact her father regarding her activities. And yes, I lost my temper. I understand, accept full responsibility and sincerely apologize from the bottom of my heart for that. But I didnít hit her 117 times, injure her, or cause any trauma as the UCSF medical reports clearly document. This was all overblown drama because it generates huge volumes of page views for the media given what I have accomplished in the valley.

    Thee tape in question that was thrown was also bullshit. If anything, it actually made the SFPD look bad because they violently assaulted me as I opened my door despite my being fully cooperative.

    The girl in question here, was herself so appalled by the false allegations made by the police, that she agreed to be photographed to demonstrate that there were no bruises or injuries. She could have left my apartment at any time during the argument. She felt safe and chose to stay. Those pictures she agreed to take would have been entered into evidence had my case proceeded, and they would have proven that the police claims were egregiously misleading.

    Celebrities in sports, entertainment and business, and high net worth individuals in general are all potential targets. It was only a matter of time when I would fall prey.

    I have to accept that many will still want to hate me no matter what I say to bring clarity to my legal case which is now over. But the fact of the matter is that they are jumping to conclusions based on falsified allegations. My case could not have settled in the way that it did if the allegations were true. Trust me, the DAís were like a pack of rabid dogs coming after me. If they had a case, they would have stuck with it."

    This, BTW, matches my own personal experience with being falsely accused of stalking and harassment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Griff, Apr 27th, 2014 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm certainly not forgetting anything about what he's done. admitted, and pled guilty to.

    But if he's served the punishment officially meted out by the judicial system, what exactly are the grounds for firing him (unless the contract says he can be fired for having a criminal record) ? Does the law say convicted criminals can never work again ?

    I agree he's repugnant, but what legal status does that have in this case ?

    If, however as Mike points out, you can just sack him anyway in California, then I agree fully with Mike, they should have fired him instantly. But I'd be amazed if a CEO on that level leaves themselves vulnerable to at-will sacking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2014 @ 9:17am

    It's probably a good thing he didn't donate to any organization against gay marriage, then he would have been out on his ear.

    Beat a woman, be CEO. Donate to an anti-gay marriage cause, out the door.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2014 @ 10:04am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    dazed, Apr 27th, 2014 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are all missing the point as to why the board keeps him. It is advertising! They make a living off hitting people over the head with their crap as often as they can. He just takes it literally in his off time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Alex Macfie (profile), Apr 28th, 2014 @ 2:39am

    Re: cultural insensitivity?

    I don't think wife-beating was ever "accepted" in Western society, not for a long time anyway. In the 19th/early 20th centuries, "cruelty" was one of the few grounds on which a woman could divorce her husband in the UK. It perhaps wasn't considered as seriously evil then as it is now, and there was the ingrained idea that only ne'er-do-well lower-class thugs, and not, say, successful businessmen, ever beat their wives. But it was never considered acceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 28th, 2014 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: cultural insensitivity?

    "I don't think wife-beating was ever "accepted" in Western society, not for a long time anyway. In the 19th/early 20th centuries, "cruelty" was one of the few grounds on which a woman could divorce her husband in the UK. It perhaps wasn't considered as seriously evil then as it is now, and there was the ingrained idea that only ne'er-do-well lower-class thugs, and not, say, successful businessmen, ever beat their wives. But it was never considered acceptable."

    In the US, it was long established in common law that a husband had a right -- if not a duty -- to beat his wife as he saw fit. (this was an era when public floggings were common) But wife-beating was never sanctioned by law, even if it wasn't illegal.

    In the late 19th century, courts started challenging that ancient custom. Though oddly enough, the chief issue was not about questioning this "husbands prerogative" -- but over technical details, such as the maximum diameter of rod that should be permissible in such a beating.

    An 1868 North Carolina case, State v. Rhodes, said this:

    "It is not true that boys have a right to fight; nor is it true that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how the thumb is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said; and in deference to which was his Honorís charge. A light blow, or many light blows, with a stick larger than the thumb, might produce no injury; but a switch half the size might be so used as to produce death. The standard is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 28th, 2014 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    Although I've been in the business for far, far too long, and have heard tons from the media about "bro culture", I have to admit that I've never actually seen it first hand. I cant' think of a workplace I've been in where someone engaging in domestic violence would be accepted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Apr 28th, 2014 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    Yeah. Thing is, talking about how something isn't a problem (or isn't a problem anymore) doesn't get you ratings, so the media is always going to harp on stupid crap like this.

    See also: racism in the USA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Apr 28th, 2014 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    See also: racism in the USA.

    You don't mean to suggest that racism has been solved, do you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 28th, 2014 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blank 3:39pm comment

    "You don't mean to suggest that racism has been solved, do you?"

    Racism is solved by even more racism.

    That's why it's been very difficult for someone in the white, able-bodied male category to get a job at many US government agencies for decades -- the government fighting racism by applying racism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, May 1st, 2014 @ 3:20am

    Re: No problem here

    The problem is the message that it's socially acceptable to "Give her a slap" if they keep him where he is. What, then, should the consequences be for a violent abuser let off on a technicality?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, May 1st, 2014 @ 3:25am

    Re: Re: cultural insensitivity?

    As much as I agree with your sentiments, btr1701, the fact that the man still has his job means that tolerating it is part of *our* culture. If, by "*our*" you mean a smaller group of law-abiding, decent people, then yes, I agree with your statement. Unfortunately, the United States per se has no big problem with violence against women or the consequences thereof. Witness the War on Women laws that have been passed recently. Remember Steubenville?

    I think we're the exception, not the rule, otherwise the situations above wouldn't have happened. Rapists wouldn't have paternal rights in 31 states. It seems to me that those of us who consider abuse to be abhorrent are fewer than we care to admit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), May 1st, 2014 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re: cultural insensitivity?

    As much as I agree with your sentiments, btr1701, the fact that the man still has his job means that tolerating it is part of *our* culture.

    He doesn't still have his job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.