Man slapped crying 'n****r baby' on plane - fired

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul

know1 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

know1

PJ_Soul wrote:

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?

PJ_Soul

know1 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

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.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

Probably, but maybe not always the case.

josevolution

cincybearcat wrote:

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 ?

cincybearcat

josevolution wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

josevolution wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

chadwick

josevolution wrote:

This creep looks like Sanduski's cousin and i take it there is no video of this because they were on their decent to landing no ?

he does resemble sandusky a lot. just for that he should have each pinky toe fried in boiling coyote lard

yep... if someone looks like sandusky... they are f'ed... fry their pinky toes in coyote lard

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

cincybearcat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

It's enough to warrant action.

Action by whom?

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

chadwick

"the dude will drink himself to death here in the next few days or weeks" - chadwick.

my vision on this guy.
let me know when it happens

thank you

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

cincybearcat wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

It's enough to warrant action.

Action by whom?

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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...

PJ_Soul

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.