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

pandora

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.

hedonist

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?)

catefrances

hedonist wrote:

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'.

Jeanwah

vant0037 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

vant0037

Jeanwah wrote:

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...

Jeanwah

vant0037 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

vant0037

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

chadwick

lawyers are awesome