back to article Startup CEO Chahal fired for domestic violence incident

Self-described “die hard entrepreneur” Gurbaksh Chahal, founder of two online advertising startups and recently CEO and chair of soon-to-list digital marketing outfit RadiumOne, has been fired after becoming the subject of intense pressure from online activists after being fined for domestic violence. This chapter in Chahal's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Whatever happened to real ethics? What happened integrity?

He was CEO of a marketing outfit and he had to ask that?

14
0
Rol
Bronze badge

If you're so innocent......

Why withhold vital evidence?

Laughably, only a few stories earlier, American courts are trying to seize evidence from another country without even the courtesy of asking them and I'm sure that will be admissible.

6
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge
WTF?

Re: It takes a real hero ...

"death sentience"

(PMSL*)

THERE IS NO JUSTICE, JUST ME!

*WELL, WOULD HAVE DONE, HAD I POSESSED THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT

1
0

trouble is...

(and I have no comment on his guilt or innocence) that he is guilty by social media. Just like other high profile people who may not - or may - have done something wrong. The noise may well hide the truth.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: trouble is...

He was recorded battering his partner. The evidence was inadmissible because it broke the rules on how police can obtain evidence. He has argued, not that he didn't hit her, but that he didn't hit her 117 times - which may well be true. He's not holding his hands up and admitting just how wrong and unacceptable his actions have been.

He battered his partner, he has bought his employer into disrepute, and has been consequently sacked.

Let's hope potential future employers remember this, that here is a man, who when he gets angry resorts to using physical violence against women, and that he needs to change his ways if he wants to get on in the world.

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: trouble is...

Anonymous blowhards spouting opinion as fact. Yeah, this story needs more of that.

2
0
Silver badge

lovely

So we are back to the witch hunts? Trial by lynch mob? Did they see if he floats first?

I am guessing trial by law is no longer enough and any someone caught speeding (lets assume good reason, probably only barely) can expect a mob to smash up your vehicle and nick the tyres because the law isnt good enough for the unthinking mob?

I wonder how calmly those of that mob would react to find their life partner of any sex or orientation was screwing around behind their backs? Is it hard to believe this results in an argument? It is easy to assume what happened when you have hearsay and speculation. It is sad that these people will think they are doing good when they act on half information and half wits.

It was that kind of 'justice' which caused various justice systems to be created.

7
9
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: lovely

"I wonder how calmly those of that mob would react to find their life partner of any sex or orientation was screwing around behind their backs? "

You try to justify violence?

Well done you, you even try to justify potentially lethal driving habits, too.

top marks.

6
8

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge
WTF?

Re: lovely

"Not to sound bigoted here, but there's nothing wrong with giving someone a slap now and then if they deserve it"

To right! I personally think you are a class A prick so please send us your address so we can all give you a slap, as you clearly are asking for it.

11
4
Silver badge

Re: lovely

@ Elmer Phud

"You try to justify violence?

Well done you, you even try to justify potentially lethal driving habits, too.

top marks."

At no point did I justify violence (muppet). What I did was argue against justice of the unthinking/unknowing who decide that the law is not enough and so they must act.

Simply there was a heated situation which is very easy to understand how it became heated (based on available information of cheating and the unprotected sex part particularly). So yeah I can imagine this leads to an argument. How the argument progressed and the situation is then just speculation. As such there seems to have been violence which was delt with by the courts.

As for the driving habits part... learn to read moron

5
6
Bronze badge

Re: lovely

Not to sound bigoted here

Bigot alert!

Do you also find yourself starting sentences with "I'm not racist but..."

3
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Thumb Down

@Greg D "....this bint..…?

Pardon? The "bint" deserved a slap? Thank God you are not the husband of my daughter or the father of my granddaughter. I absolutely promise that if that were the case you would be the one getting the slap. That I can absolutely guarentee you.

5
2

This post has been deleted by its author

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: lovely

"Not to sound bigoted here, but there's nothing wrong with giving someone a slap now and then if they deserve it."

Yes, there is. The entire drive of civilization is away from just this attitude and towards resolving conflicts peacefully. The fact that one person feels he has been wronged by another does not give him the right under law or morality to visit violence upon the other party. From both moral and legal perspectives, the only acceptable use of violence is to prevent harm. Not having seen the video or heard testimony, I have no idea whether the accused assailant is actually guilty, but, if so, he was certainly not acting out of any consideration but his own petty, jealous rage.

As for you personally, I'm sorry that you were raised in such primitive conditions and that your upbringing continues to shape your perspective the way it does. As a society, we need to do better so that more people like you are not created.

"I am not in possession of all (or any) of the facts."

Clearly.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: lovely

>"I am not in possession of all (or any) of the facts."

There's been some very interesting hard science recently about the effects of smacking and spanking.

They are never good. Never. They're also far more psychologically and emotionally damaging than most people suspected.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: lovely

> Not to sound bigoted here, but there's nothing wrong with giving someone a slap now and then if they deserve it.

As a boxer I can only say: Of course... as long as they are at least as big and able as yourself, preferably bigger and abler. Otherwise you're just a coward and a cunt.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: lovely

Said the anon

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Good riddance

He was bad publicity and then some for the company.

If the video showed is innocence he would probably allowed it to be used as evidence.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Good riddance

> If the video showed is innocence he would probably allowed it to be used as evidence.

In that case, the prosecution would likely have moved to have it deemed inadmissable for the same reason he did. If the video was truly acquired by the police against law and due process, then it is right and just that it was not used in the trial.

I would rather not live in a society where evidence is implicitly trusted merely because it was offered up by someone in a police uniform.

7
0

Re: Good riddance

Your comment is entirely correct but also seems to me to be beside the point. The criminal proceedings are done with and we are discussing the court of public opinon. The fact that the defence, not the prosecution, was the side that got the video excluded suggests it's incriminating; and if it can truly be interpreted as him hitting her 117 times, then that further suggests it shows a prolonged and savage attack. So it's not admissible as legal evidence - that doesn't mean we're all obliged to ignore its existence.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

He did himself no favours by getting the video barred from being used as evidence. the inference, rightly or wrongly, is that he did use violence and exploited a legal loophole to have the proof barred from being shown in court. If it didn't show violence, then I can only imagine he didn't want it admitted since he felt it furthered his humiliation to have it shown - but I'm sure any jury or judge would have viewed the video in the context of someone who had just discovered their partner was having sex for money.

3
0
Silver badge
Devil

Anyway, he was poor management material

Any big company's CEO , when discovering his partenaire was having unprotected sex with other people for money, would just ask for his cut of the earnings. ;-)

10
0
Trollface

Re: Anyway, he was poor management material

If she was moonlighting AND if she signed a non-compete agreement, he's certainly within his rights to terminate her employment.

My understanding of the industry (cop shows, mostly) is that a pimp will generally beat his ho prior to termination for improper competition rather than immediately beginning termination procedures.

Also, "termination" procedures are different in those shows.

Finally, I was looking forward to some kind of "domestic violence mafia" rhetoric, like the last hoopla. I'll start:

A CEOs private behavior has nothing to do with his performance as CEO. Any private individual speaking out against him infringes his freedom of speech, and such speech should be prohibited by the State.

1
0
LDS
Silver badge

"She was having unprotected sex for money, but with other men also, not me only!"

Maybe choosing a girlfriend less interested in money, next time? Or was it the only way to find one?

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: "She was having unprotected sex for money, but with other men also, not me only!"

Sounds like he was trying to live GTA for real.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "She was having unprotected sex for money, but with other men also, not me only!"

> Maybe choosing a girlfriend less interested in money, next time?

Why less interested in money? If she wants to sell her body, that's her perfectly legitimate choice.

1
1
Gold badge

Re: "She was having unprotected sex for money, but with other men also, not me only!"

"If she wants to sell her body, that's her perfectly legitimate choice."

Aye, but if you're having unprotected sex with strangers then you have sex with me on the basis that we are in an ongoing relationship I do believe there are both moral and ethical requirements to let me know about my potential exposure to incurable sexually transmitted diseases.

I've no issue with the lady sleeping with whomever she enjoys; for fun or profit, her body is hers. It's where the fluid intermingle that lives can be ruined and I believe both parties in any even semi-committed relationship owe each other a duty of care.

4
0
Bronze badge

charged

" charged for 47 felonies in a frivolous lawsuit"?

I don't think that this makes legal sense in an American context.

Also, who the hell knows what his ex-girlfriend was up to? It's clear that she had very poor judgment in men, but anything beyond that is merely Chahal's assertion.

0
0
Go

Re: charged

I was actually thinking the same thing. A felony implies a crime, which means its not a lawsuit. A lawsuit is when one party sues another, and there is no involvement of the police. A person can be involved in both a lawsuit and a crime proceedings (think OJ Simpson), but those are two different things instigated by different parties (the state and the family).

So this guy doesnt seem to understand even the basics of law. That's a worry...

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums