Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:10 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: All this has to be handled in the context of the employer/employee process. Granted that is often screwed up by union or public employee laws, but it should not be handled in criminal or civil court.

Except that in the case of public employess, "we", collectively, are the employers. The owner of an enterprise can civilly prosecute, perhaps even criminally, an employee for breaking contractual obligations, such as ownership of inventions and disclosure of information to competitors. How does this substantially differ?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10823
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:50 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Except that in the case of public employess, "we", collectively, are the employers.
No. You are a consumer of the services. Granted you are forced to buy it through your taxes. Employer/employee really is a bad analogy. You could argue that a minority shareholder analogy applies, but employer implies something that is simply not true. The employer is the CEO and on down the line management and in this case it is the Mayor on down. You aren't even on the board.

Glimmerjim wrote:The owner of an enterprise can civilly prosecute, perhaps even criminally, an employee for breaking contractual obligations, such as ownership of inventions and disclosure of information to competitors. How does this substantially differ?
Show me the contract you signed that is being violated and I'll get on board. The government can be sued for breach of contract when a contract exists. The DoE is getting hammered in court for that.

http://energylegislation.blogspot.com/2010/03/yucca-mountain-litigation-liability.html
At least 72 breach of contract claims have been filed against DOE since 1998, resulting in the awarding of approximately $1.2 billion in damage awards and settlements thus far. Many of these awards, however, remain on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and are not yet final. Estimates for the total potential liability incurred by DOE as a result of the Yucca Mountain litigation range as high as $50 billion.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16064
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:52 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:The owner of an enterprise can civilly prosecute, perhaps even criminally, an employee for breaking contractual obligations, such as ownership of inventions and disclosure of information to competitors. How does this substantially differ?

SpinnerMan wrote: Show me the contract you signed that is being violated and I'll get on board. The government can be sued for breach of contract when a contract exists. The DoE is getting hammered in court for that.

Um, yeah, pretty much what I am saying, Spin. I was not trying to dispute the legality of the LEO neglecting to fulfill contractual duties, I am just querying exactly what you are asking. What does his employment contract stipulate? What do the oaths sworn to upon graduation from a Law Enforcement Training program amount to? I honestly don't know. Just asking if anyone does. Redbeard...any input? Then we get into the intricacies of contractual obligations. I realize it's way above my head. That's why I don't form a concrete opinion based upon a foundation made of "that's just stupid" bricks.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10823
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:50 am

It's just way too subjective. If you are looking for a murderer, you aren't going to stop a person for jaywalking.

A couple years ago a pair of Chicago cops got fired for cowardice. It was the right thing to do, but they shouldn't have then faced criminal or civil penalties.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/137359-Two-Ill-cops-fired-for-cowardice/

Even this shows the problem with the bureaucracy and union rules.

Three Chicago Police officers ran away when a fellow officer was struggling for his life with an armed man in a Dominick's store on the South Side, officials said Wednesday.


Two of the fleeing officers were about 10 months into their 18-month probationary period before they could have become full-fledged officers with union benefits.


Those female officers -- called PPOs in cop parlance -- have been fired by police Supt. Phil Cline.


A third male officer, whose probation ended about three months ago, faces a departmental investigation and possible termination, too.

I don't know if he was fired or not, but it should have been immediately. If you can't fire a cop on the spot that runs away when another officer is struggling for his life, you got a screwed up system.

Cline can fire probationary officers at will, but full-fledged officers have extensive due-process rights.


It's not like there was doubt.

The incident was captured on a Dominick's security camera and was reviewed by department officials.


However, even these three should have not been in legal jeopardy of a lawsuit.

King removed a 9mm pistol from his pants pocket and pointed the weapon at the officer, who then fatally shot King, officials said.
It wouldn't take a very creative lawyer to argue that if these three officers had done their duty that King would be alive today and therefore his poor widow and there 8 children will suffer because of one little mistake made by their poor misunderstood father who should have never died if those cowardly cops had just done their duty, so members of the jury please help this poor family that have tragically lost their father.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16064
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:39 am

Spinner is like your old Uncle Al who can't stop talking about Vietnam.

Except since he's never left the house all he can do is complain about the Big City.

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:53 am

SpinnerMan wrote: It wouldn't take a very creative lawyer to argue that if these three officers had done their duty that King would be alive today and therefore his poor widow and there 8 children will suffer because of one little mistake made by their poor misunderstood father who should have never died if those cowardly cops had just done their duty, so members of the jury please help this poor family that have tragically lost their father.

You are absolutely correct in this spinner. It wouldn't take a creative lawyer, it would take one that feels the onus of justice
as his responsibility.
When I was a freakin' hands on electrician, I knew that were I to intentionally, or egregiously neglectfully, do my job and that it resulted in injury to someone, I could be held criminally and civilly responsible. Police officer sworn to protect, however? Nah.....just fire 'em. They can get another job in the next county next week. :no: :no: "Keep up the good work, Barn, and I'll give you a bullet next month!"
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10823
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:53 am

Is it a crime for you, as a citizen, to run away from a robbery or mugging?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:49 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: It wouldn't take a very creative lawyer to argue that if these three officers had done their duty that King would be alive today and therefore his poor widow and there 8 children will suffer because of one little mistake made by their poor misunderstood father who should have never died if those cowardly cops had just done their duty, so members of the jury please help this poor family that have tragically lost their father.

You are absolutely correct in this spinner. It wouldn't take a creative lawyer, it would take one that feels the onus of justice
as his responsibility.
When I was a freakin' hands on electrician, I knew that were I to intentionally, or egregiously neglectfully, do my job and that it resulted in injury to someone, I could be held criminally and civilly responsible. Police officer sworn to protect, however? Nah.....just fire 'em. They can get another job in the next county next week. :no: :no: "Keep up the good work, Barn, and I'll give you a bullet next month!"

You do understand that the man that died was the man trying to kill the cops. And you think it would be justice for his family to be able to sue :eek:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16064
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Glimmerjim and 4 guests