Given the scenario I described... I would ask the following of you: is it ethical to persist in such an endeavour? I mean, guilt was established, consequences were administered, and now... on the public dime... the accused is seeking to have a lesser sentence when most feel it was hardly enough. Wouldn't it be right around this point that an attorney might begin to feel compromised? To what end does an attorney owe someone their services?
Thirty...you should proctor a legal ethics course. Those are all great and pertinent questions regarding the practice of law. Defending unpopular defendants is one of the hardest and most trying things for a lawyer to do. American lawyers are bound by an ethical oath to represent their clients - whether appointed and paid for with public funds, or whether privately retained - to the best of their abilities and to serve their clients ends. Now, of course, their are "outs" for the lawyer. For instance, a lawyer can't allow their clients to commit a fraud on the court, or file frivolous lawsuits, and lawyers may break the attorney-client privilege if doing so is necessary to avoid bodily harm or death of another person (i.e. a client makes a threat about someone else to the lawyer). The appointed/retained lawyer might have personal qualms about representing an awful person, but professionally, if they take the case, they are bound to do their utmost to serve that client. In short, lawyers often must have dual personalities; they may hate their client and all that they do, but professionally, they have a job to do. Ultimately, most lawyers can defend awful, disgusting clients accused of terrible things not because they believe their client is innocent or because they believe their client is a good person. They take those cases because they believe no matter who the defendant is, there is value in due process and ensuring that fairness, justice and dispassionate reason, not rash, mob mentality, carry the day. I'm one of those lawyers.
So to answer your question, the lawyer is bound to legally and zealously advocate for their clients. Now, if you don't like that the lawyer is paid to do so with public funds, that doesn't really implicate whether a lawyer should do his or her job in representing a client. I would submit that those concerns are for your legislator. I would also submit however, that appeals, public defenders, due process etc, are vital to a free and vibrant democracy, but I've made those points as best I can in other posts and threads.
As for your book recommendation: you mentioned that it was an easy read. What do you mean by this? Have I come across as an illiterate buffoon that needs a comic book to understand the significance of the right to a defence?
Nothing of the sort! I just know that when people recommend books to me, if it sounds boring or like it might be a complex read, I probably will skip it (as I've got a reading list with dozens of titles already on it). I said the Mickey Sherman book is an easy read because it is; I finished it over a weekend. It reads very quickly and doesn't get mired down in legalese or professional details.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Ok so... I'm not defending what they say he did... I wasn't there and don't know.
I know that I've made a few very bad judgement calls when four scotches in the bag and I'm glad few were around to witness them.
But the way people are carrying on like an angry pitchfork-carrying mob is a bit... Over the top.
I find the way people are celebrating how he's lost his job, his life, his future, his credibility and is being pulled out in the digital age version of being out in the stocks in the public square a bit disturbing. Especially since there hasn't even been a trial yet.
And I'm not an attorney, I'm a porn director... Even I can see this story is a bit bigger than it really needs to be.
We have common ground here.
I know companies can fire anyone at any time for any reason, but I don't understand why they gave him the axe so quickly.
Because of how the public views him. It doesn't matter what really happened; no matter what, the public will see him and his position with that company (and any willingness they show to defend/protect him, even if it's to see if he's really guilty) as a negative. And rightly so. A company can't stay affiated to such a story unless the headline is that they fired him immediately. They really had no choice as a business. I bet they gave the guy a good severance.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Because of how the public views him. It doesn't matter what really happened; no matter what, the public will see him and his position with that company (and any willingness they show to defend/protect him, even if it's to see if he's really guilty) as a negative. And rightly so. A company can't stay affiated to such a story unless the headline is that they fired him immediately. They really had no choice as a business. I bet they gave the guy a good severance.
I haven't followed the story very close, but why do we even know what company he works for?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Because of how the public views him. It doesn't matter what really happened; no matter what, the public will see him and his position with that company (and any willingness they show to defend/protect him, even if it's to see if he's really guilty) as a negative. And rightly so. A company can't stay affiated to such a story unless the headline is that they fired him immediately. They really had no choice as a business. I bet they gave the guy a good severance.
I haven't followed the story very close, but why do we even know what company he works for?
I would imagine because the media googled his name and saw that he worked there... A person's place of employment doesn't tend to be secret info. Companies tend to name their executives online, if not their entire staff.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, it's kinda crazy to me that the guy lost his job because he committed a fairly minor (but extremely heinous) crime. I mean it is awful and he was a complete jerk in that instance and he should pay through the legal system for his actions.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
Yeah, it's kinda crazy to me that the guy lost his job because he committed a fairly minor (but extremely heinous) crime. I mean it is awful and he was a complete jerk in that instance and he should pay through the legal system for his actions.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
It is my experience that decent people do not act like that even when they are drunk, and that those who do shit like hit little kids and drop N-bombs when they are drunk are also dickheads when sober, or insane people.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, it's kinda crazy to me that the guy lost his job because he committed a fairly minor (but extremely heinous) crime. I mean it is awful and he was a complete jerk in that instance and he should pay through the legal system for his actions.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
It is my experience that decent people do not act like that even when they are drunk, and that those who do shit like hit little kids and drop N-bombs when they are drunk are also dickheads when sober, or insane people.
Yeah, it's kinda crazy to me that the guy lost his job because he committed a fairly minor (but extremely heinous) crime. I mean it is awful and he was a complete jerk in that instance and he should pay through the legal system for his actions.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
Yeah, it's kinda crazy to me that the guy lost his job because he committed a fairly minor (but extremely heinous) crime. I mean it is awful and he was a complete jerk in that instance and he should pay through the legal system for his actions.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
So if you were hi's boss you would of done what ?
I'm not sure if it was my business really. But I probably would have sat him down, talked about how our company values diversity and asked him what he was going to do to make sure something like this never happened again and allow him to commit to changing his hateful attitude. We probably would have agreed to some diversity training as well as a workplan with regular updates to ensure sincere process on his part.
Everyone is far to cavalier about always calling for people to lose their jobs instead of opening up the dialogue and really affecting change.
Yeah, it's kinda crazy to me that the guy lost his job because he committed a fairly minor (but extremely heinous) crime. I mean it is awful and he was a complete jerk in that instance and he should pay through the legal system for his actions.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
So if you were hi's boss you would of done what ?
I'm not sure if it was my business really. But I probably would have sat him down, talked about how our company values diversity and asked him what he was going to do to make sure something like this never happened again and allow him to commit to changing his hateful attitude. We probably would have agreed to some diversity training as well as a workplan with regular updates to ensure sincere process on his part.
Everyone is far to cavalier about always calling for people to lose their jobs instead of opening up the dialogue and really affecting change.
You would probably start singing a different tune when your company started getting the hate mail and death threats and clients started demanding that they deal with a different person at the company or they'd take their business elsewhere, and contracts were backed out on because buyers didn't want their name affiliated with your company because of what's going on in the news.
The company really had no choice.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You would probably start singing a different tune when your company started getting the hate mail and death threats and clients started demanding that they deal with a different person at the company or they'd take their business elsewhere, and contracts were backed out on because buyers didn't want their name affiliated with your company because of what's going on in the news.
The company really had no choice.
I'd like to think I'd stand up against a public lynching for this kind of crime.
You would probably start singing a different tune when your company started getting the hate mail and death threats and clients started demanding that they deal with a different person at the company or they'd take their business elsewhere, and contracts were backed out on because buyers didn't want their name affiliated with your company because of what's going on in the news.
The company really had no choice.
I'd like to think I'd stand up against a public lynching for this kind of crime.
A 60 year old man striking an infant while yelling derogatory racial slurs?
It's enough to warrant action. On that note... do we even know that there were previous incidents on file? Perhaps the man had a history of being a dickhead and this was the last straw? Maybe the company was well aware of this man and his instability and this incident was the tipping point for them?
We don't know the full story, but from what we do and if there is any truth at all to it... this was behaviour of the poorest kind.
On that note... do we even know that there were previous incidents on file? Perhaps the man had a history of being a dickhead and this was the last straw? Maybe the company was well aware of this man and his instability and this incident was the tipping point for them?
You would probably start singing a different tune when your company started getting the hate mail and death threats and clients started demanding that they deal with a different person at the company or they'd take their business elsewhere, and contracts were backed out on because buyers didn't want their name affiliated with your company because of what's going on in the news.
The company really had no choice.
I'd like to think I'd stand up against a public lynching for this kind of crime.
It wouldn't be about your personal morals. It would be about an executive board, stake holders, etc. I'm sure that if you were a really in the position to make the final decision, you'd make the one that simply made the most sense for the company as a whole. Especially if it were a publc company.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
On that note... do we even know that there were previous incidents on file? Perhaps the man had a history of being a dickhead and this was the last straw? Maybe the company was well aware of this man and his instability and this incident was the tipping point for them?
This is true. Good point.
Action on the part of the employer. The company doesn't need to face any consequences as a result of this man's actions. If they feel their integrity is threatened as a result of their alignment with this individual... then I feel they are within their rights to take proactive measures aimed at curbing any negative response towards them.
The more I think on it... the more I think this whole story is sad on so many levels. I'm pretty sure he'd like to have that moment back, but on the other hand... eesh. I don't think the guy should serve time, but I think the criticism he must endure and losing his job are par for the course.
I don't think the guy should serve time, but I think the criticism he must endure and losing his job are par for the course.
I think that depends on whether or not they can prove he assaulted the baby, and to what degree. If you use physical violence on a baby, I think prison isnt such a bad idea. They'll just need to prove it. If its a crowed flight, there's bound to be some kind of witness.
If he really did what he is charged with, he should face the toughest of consequences. That is one of the most disgusting things ive heard in ahwile...
I don't think the guy should serve time, but I think the criticism he must endure and losing his job are par for the course.
I think that depends on whether or not they can prove he assaulted the baby, and to what degree. If you use physical violence on a baby, I think prison isnt such a bad idea. They'll just need to prove it. If its a crowed flight, there's bound to be some kind of witness.
If he really did what he is charged with, he should face the toughest of consequences. That is one of the most disgusting things ive heard in ahwile...
For sure, if he hit the baby (and I read something that said he was cut??) he definitely deserves jail time. We can't have people going around slapping other people's babies and just getting a slap on the wrist. I think behaviour like that suggests that one may be a dangerous person.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The company doesn't need to face any consequences as a result of this man's actions. If they feel their integrity is threatened as a result of their alignment with this individual... then I feel they are within their rights to take proactive measures aimed at curbing any negative response towards them.
I agree, but why does Joe Public have to go so far with their pitchforks to demand he be fired? He works for an aerospace company, not a daycare. It just doesn't add up unless Joe Public is simply punishing the person beyond the extent that the law provides.
I just think it's kinda sad. And I also think it sets up the situation we have where we cannot openly discuss sensitive subjects. We would all be better off if people like this guy had their day in court and received the appropriate sentence. Then open discussion could lead to a better understanding on their part and perhaps a change in their racist behavior.
Instead, he gets his day in court, and then the public decides to have their own trial where they use social media and regular media to get the guy fired so he disappears and is just pissed off and may never change his attitude towards people that are different from him.
I'm finding it tough to say what I mean. Bottom line, we are missing teaching moments all the time because of the next outrage of Joe public.
One of our employees went through an abusive time at IL.
It was out of character, he'd been with us for 15 years. He too was a partier.
I'm glad I suggested going to see a doctor and getting checked out
before we thought to let him go.
He had onset diabetes that was impairing his judgment making him very easily agitated.
He was put on meds and diet changes, he was back to his jovial, cooperative, humorous self
in no time.
This guy might just be a real jag or he might have a health problem or only
a substance problem. Some people are mean drunks.
Either way he needs some help and a crime against a child can not go unpunished.
I'm sure our justice system will prevail. I have a feeling this might be a turning point in his life.
Scary for Mom, I hope she and little one can heal and someday forgive, really messes with your faith in people.
Where's the line drawn, though? I agree he did a (beyond) shitty thing and should suffer the appropriate consequences, but sending death threats to the company? I give those dipshits calling for a man to die for this no better than what he's accused of.
(Interesting discussion, by the way. Makes me curious - if a company's getting unjustified bad PR, should they succumb to that as well?)
Where's the line drawn, though? I agree he did a (beyond) shitty thing and should suffer the appropriate consequences, but sending death threats to the company? I give those dipshits calling for a man to die for this no better than what he's accused of.
(Interesting discussion, by the way. Makes me curious - if a company's getting unjustified bad PR, should they succumb to that as well?)
if it were my company id remain silent and deal with it internally. i certainly wouldnt succumb to mob rule. no one needs to know except for those directly involved. i know i sure as hell dont. people who send death threats are no longer able to claim any high ground. and i dont care if you 'were only joking'.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's based on a law class that I was taking. The attorney teaching the class pretty much admitted it, which solidified my change of mind that law was what I wanted to get into. There are some very noble and good attorneys out there, fighting for the good fight. I follow a few environmental justice sites and know that there are good attorneys out there (probably like yourself). But the dirty ones ruin the whole system for me, and makes me not want to get involved at all. The ones who would take up this man's case (in the OP) for instance.
It's irrelevant whether this guy is a piece of shit or not (I have no doubt he is). The fact that an attorney would represent him is not an example of injustice or what's "wrong" with the system but instead an example of everything that's right with the American system. John Adams defended British soldiers. Was he a "dirty" lawyer because he took on extremely unpopular clients?
I'm surprised that someone who's taken a law class or two would fail to see how dangerously close to tyranny our country would be if the right to an attorney or representation - especially for the worst people - was thrown out the window every time a sensational and disgusting crime was committed.
You seem to be confusing what this guy did (my argument says nothing of the likelihood that everything alleged is 100% true) with whether he deserves an attorney or not. Let's not let emotions get in the way of our most cherished, relevant and vital American legal traditions.
I can understand what you're saying and agree that everyone should have the right to an attorney. My point is that the court system is nothing but a stage for the attorneys to perform on and is not about justice at all. It's about the best performance winning, the best job done. It is not about justice, as much as I want it to be. And when this information is verified by the attorney teaching the class? It just solidifies my opinion on law altogether.
I can understand what you're saying and agree that everyone should have the right to an attorney. My point is that the court system is nothing but a stage for the attorneys to perform on and is not about justice at all. It's about the best performance winning, the best job done. It is not about justice, as much as I want it to be. And when this information is verified by the attorney teaching the class? It just solidifies my opinion on law altogether.
One attorney's opinion on whether the court system is about justice or "performance" solidifies it for you? Wow...it'd be interesting to hear if this was his/her intention, and what his/her thoughts on all the rules, procedure etc are for? Did he/she think objections and the rules of evidence were just for fun?
What evidence beyond cliche, anecdote or opinion can you provide that the justice system is "nothing but a stage" for attorneys?
I think it's very, very sad that a level of cynicism so deep can be created by one attorney's opinion...
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I can understand what you're saying and agree that everyone should have the right to an attorney. My point is that the court system is nothing but a stage for the attorneys to perform on and is not about justice at all. It's about the best performance winning, the best job done. It is not about justice, as much as I want it to be. And when this information is verified by the attorney teaching the class? It just solidifies my opinion on law altogether.
One attorney's opinion on whether the court system is about justice or "performance" solidifies it for you? Wow...it'd be interesting to hear if this was his/her intention, and what his/her thoughts on all the rules, procedure etc are for? Did he/she think objections and the rules of evidence were just for fun?
What evidence beyond cliche, anecdote or opinion can you provide that the justice system is "nothing but a stage" for attorneys?
I think it's very, very sad that a level of cynicism so deep can be created by one attorney's opinion...
I knew you wouldn't like hearing my opinion and I meant none of it for you to take personally. But my thinking that I could make a difference and actually help people by working in law (as a paralegal) was an idealistic and misguided notion I had. It is definitely not a field for me.
I knew you wouldn't like hearing my opinion and I meant none of it for you to take personally. But my thinking that I could make a difference and actually help people by working in law (as a paralegal) was an idealistic and misguided notion I had. It is definitely not a field for me.
First, I definitely did not take it personally, so much as I took it professionally. No hard feelings here, just an earnest desire to see where your cynicism comes from.
Second, saying "law is not a field for me" is much, much different than saying "the legal system is not about justice" or implying that all lawyers think one way or only work for one thing etc. It's fine if working in the legal field is not for you, but don't try to explain that opinion by painting the rest of us and the rest of the field with unsupported assumptions. That's all I was trying to get at.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Comments
Thirty...you should proctor a legal ethics course. Those are all great and pertinent questions regarding the practice of law. Defending unpopular defendants is one of the hardest and most trying things for a lawyer to do. American lawyers are bound by an ethical oath to represent their clients - whether appointed and paid for with public funds, or whether privately retained - to the best of their abilities and to serve their clients ends. Now, of course, their are "outs" for the lawyer. For instance, a lawyer can't allow their clients to commit a fraud on the court, or file frivolous lawsuits, and lawyers may break the attorney-client privilege if doing so is necessary to avoid bodily harm or death of another person (i.e. a client makes a threat about someone else to the lawyer). The appointed/retained lawyer might have personal qualms about representing an awful person, but professionally, if they take the case, they are bound to do their utmost to serve that client. In short, lawyers often must have dual personalities; they may hate their client and all that they do, but professionally, they have a job to do. Ultimately, most lawyers can defend awful, disgusting clients accused of terrible things not because they believe their client is innocent or because they believe their client is a good person. They take those cases because they believe no matter who the defendant is, there is value in due process and ensuring that fairness, justice and dispassionate reason, not rash, mob mentality, carry the day. I'm one of those lawyers.
So to answer your question, the lawyer is bound to legally and zealously advocate for their clients. Now, if you don't like that the lawyer is paid to do so with public funds, that doesn't really implicate whether a lawyer should do his or her job in representing a client. I would submit that those concerns are for your legislator. I would also submit however, that appeals, public defenders, due process etc, are vital to a free and vibrant democracy, but I've made those points as best I can in other posts and threads.
Nothing of the sort! I just know that when people recommend books to me, if it sounds boring or like it might be a complex read, I probably will skip it (as I've got a reading list with dozens of titles already on it). I said the Mickey Sherman book is an easy read because it is; I finished it over a weekend. It reads very quickly and doesn't get mired down in legalese or professional details.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I haven't followed the story very close, but why do we even know what company he works for?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But, it seems we are no longing interested in justice and only in destroying the lives of people that act stupid. This guy might be a decent guy, that was drunk and made a very bad choice. Maybe he regrets it immediately after sobering up. To lose his life because of this is just crazy. We are easier on criminals that do far worse.
Probably, but maybe not always the case.
So if you were hi's boss you would of done what ?
I'm not sure if it was my business really. But I probably would have sat him down, talked about how our company values diversity and asked him what he was going to do to make sure something like this never happened again and allow him to commit to changing his hateful attitude. We probably would have agreed to some diversity training as well as a workplan with regular updates to ensure sincere process on his part.
Everyone is far to cavalier about always calling for people to lose their jobs instead of opening up the dialogue and really affecting change.
The company really had no choice.
yep... if someone looks like sandusky... they are f'ed... fry their pinky toes in coyote lard
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I'd like to think I'd stand up against a public lynching for this kind of crime.
A 60 year old man striking an infant while yelling derogatory racial slurs?
It's enough to warrant action. On that note... do we even know that there were previous incidents on file? Perhaps the man had a history of being a dickhead and this was the last straw? Maybe the company was well aware of this man and his instability and this incident was the tipping point for them?
We don't know the full story, but from what we do and if there is any truth at all to it... this was behaviour of the poorest kind.
Action by whom?
This is true. Good point.
my vision on this guy.
let me know when it happens
thank you
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Action on the part of the employer. The company doesn't need to face any consequences as a result of this man's actions. If they feel their integrity is threatened as a result of their alignment with this individual... then I feel they are within their rights to take proactive measures aimed at curbing any negative response towards them.
The more I think on it... the more I think this whole story is sad on so many levels. I'm pretty sure he'd like to have that moment back, but on the other hand... eesh. I don't think the guy should serve time, but I think the criticism he must endure and losing his job are par for the course.
I think that depends on whether or not they can prove he assaulted the baby, and to what degree. If you use physical violence on a baby, I think prison isnt such a bad idea. They'll just need to prove it. If its a crowed flight, there's bound to be some kind of witness.
If he really did what he is charged with, he should face the toughest of consequences. That is one of the most disgusting things ive heard in ahwile...
I agree, but why does Joe Public have to go so far with their pitchforks to demand he be fired? He works for an aerospace company, not a daycare. It just doesn't add up unless Joe Public is simply punishing the person beyond the extent that the law provides.
I just think it's kinda sad. And I also think it sets up the situation we have where we cannot openly discuss sensitive subjects. We would all be better off if people like this guy had their day in court and received the appropriate sentence. Then open discussion could lead to a better understanding on their part and perhaps a change in their racist behavior.
Instead, he gets his day in court, and then the public decides to have their own trial where they use social media and regular media to get the guy fired so he disappears and is just pissed off and may never change his attitude towards people that are different from him.
I'm finding it tough to say what I mean. Bottom line, we are missing teaching moments all the time because of the next outrage of Joe public.
It was out of character, he'd been with us for 15 years. He too was a partier.
I'm glad I suggested going to see a doctor and getting checked out
before we thought to let him go.
He had onset diabetes that was impairing his judgment making him very easily agitated.
He was put on meds and diet changes, he was back to his jovial, cooperative, humorous self
in no time.
This guy might just be a real jag or he might have a health problem or only
a substance problem. Some people are mean drunks.
Either way he needs some help and a crime against a child can not go unpunished.
I'm sure our justice system will prevail. I have a feeling this might be a turning point in his life.
Scary for Mom, I hope she and little one can heal and someday forgive, really messes with your faith in people.
(Interesting discussion, by the way. Makes me curious - if a company's getting unjustified bad PR, should they succumb to that as well?)
if it were my company id remain silent and deal with it internally. i certainly wouldnt succumb to mob rule. no one needs to know except for those directly involved. i know i sure as hell dont. people who send death threats are no longer able to claim any high ground. and i dont care if you 'were only joking'.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I can understand what you're saying and agree that everyone should have the right to an attorney. My point is that the court system is nothing but a stage for the attorneys to perform on and is not about justice at all. It's about the best performance winning, the best job done. It is not about justice, as much as I want it to be. And when this information is verified by the attorney teaching the class? It just solidifies my opinion on law altogether.
One attorney's opinion on whether the court system is about justice or "performance" solidifies it for you? Wow...it'd be interesting to hear if this was his/her intention, and what his/her thoughts on all the rules, procedure etc are for? Did he/she think objections and the rules of evidence were just for fun?
What evidence beyond cliche, anecdote or opinion can you provide that the justice system is "nothing but a stage" for attorneys?
I think it's very, very sad that a level of cynicism so deep can be created by one attorney's opinion...
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I knew you wouldn't like hearing my opinion and I meant none of it for you to take personally. But my thinking that I could make a difference and actually help people by working in law (as a paralegal) was an idealistic and misguided notion I had. It is definitely not a field for me.
First, I definitely did not take it personally, so much as I took it professionally. No hard feelings here, just an earnest desire to see where your cynicism comes from.
Second, saying "law is not a field for me" is much, much different than saying "the legal system is not about justice" or implying that all lawyers think one way or only work for one thing etc. It's fine if working in the legal field is not for you, but don't try to explain that opinion by painting the rest of us and the rest of the field with unsupported assumptions.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce