|
Thesaurus posted:and if following federal law is contrary to the owner's reasonable accommodation AND sincerely held religious beliefs? boom: the sovereign citizen of companies, immune to any legal challenge congrats on your supreme court seat
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Thesaurus posted:this reminds me of instances when there are two conflicting accommodations. eg, one person requires a service dog and the other is super allergic to animals or gets ptsd from dogs or something. i honestly don't know how this would be handled This is honestly something that I'd like to know as well. Always wondered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:This is honestly something that I'd like to know as well. Always wondered. There was a reddit thread about exactly this a few months back. I think the allergic lady got fired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
the first option would be to see if there's any alternative solution (adjust shifts, work from home, rearrange floor space etc). if push comes to shove and it is an applicant vs an established employee, I'm guessing the applicant would lose out. ("violating our employee's accommodation would be an undue hardship for our company"). If two established employees simultaneously developed incompatible disabilities... then a well compensated severance agreement for whoever will take it! whats the reddit thread? I've never seen a case of truly conflicting ada issues
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I was phoneposting earlier. I mostly remembered correctly: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/4ygz33/mi_us_new_employee_at_my_small_company_has_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/4z4xfq/mi_us_new_employee_at_my_small_company_has_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/564bez/mi_us_new_employee_at_my_small_company_has_a/
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Drink and Fight posted:I was phoneposting earlier. I mostly remembered correctly: lol that ended about how i anticipated reddit's layout is hard to follow, but it sounded like the allergies guy got owned because he didn't have a clearly documented disability, while the dog guy did. they definitely should have bribed him to stay on to finish that pricey project he was working on. Apparently this issue came up with some state employer in Indiana (who hosed up by telling the dog person to get lost right away): http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2010/05/battle-of-accommodations.html?m=1
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Both allergy guy and seizure dog guy ended up unemployed so at least it was a tie. The moral is that while refusing to accommodate someone's severe allergies may be legal, doing so when they're the only person who can do the expensive work you just accepted a bunch of is a Bad Idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about that fivehead girl getting time for convincing her boyfriend to kill himself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Why are, "You should file a RICO lawsuit" and similar RICO references such memes amongst lawyers? The lawyer i just asked said it would take too long to explain it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Crazy pro se plaintiffs file Rico lawsuits for $60,000,000 because their car got repoed or something like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
If you guys are not reading the BWM thread over in BFC you should be. Jesus here you go, Sally https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3819120&pagenumber=132&perpage=40 C.H.O.M.E posted:People still hire this guy in austin, in spite of his billboard. Which one of you guys is this? BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:If you guys are not reading the BWM thread over in BFC you should be. Don't bother linking it or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
That guy probably grosses 50k a week
Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Xequecal posted:Why are, "You should file a RICO lawsuit" and similar RICO references such memes amongst lawyers? The lawyer i just asked said it would take too long to explain it. That just means that he wants money and/or is sick of giving away free legal explanations. Gumbel2Gumbel posted:How do you guys feel about that fivehead girl getting time for convincing her boyfriend to kill himself? I think blarzgh had some interesting stuff to say about that in the terrible gbs thread. Worth a read I think. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3823941&pagenumber=19&perpage=40#post473694356 blarzgh posted:This isn't a "Freedom of Speech" issue, it's a causation issue. It's precedent because now 'words' have been raised to the level of physical violence or weapons in their legal ability to cause death. I'm not in a position to criticize american criminal law on principle, so I won't. Blarzgh does raise, to my mind, an interesting question though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Blarzgh does raise, to my mind, an interesting question though. I think evilweasel killed the answer to that question. evilweasel posted:that words can cause death that you are culpable for is a principle going back a thousand years, see "all i did was asked 'will no one rid me of this troublesome priest'" v. "the catholic church is upset you ordered your minions to execute their archbishop and excommunicated you" 1 E.C.L. 1 at 1 (1170)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Except manslaughter is tantamount to negligent murder: someone died not because you necessarily did a physical act but because of some level of reckless conduct. It's not the "physical act" it's about the conduct underlying that act (e.g. Killing someone in a car accident and killing someone in a car accident when you are dui; the act and outcome are the same, the difference being the conduct of the driver). And that is exactly what has to be determined, the culpability of that conduct. The judge felt her six days and hundred of texts all centered around telling him to kill himself because his failure to do so was making her look bad rose to that level of culpable conduct sufficient to support a manslaughter verdict. It was not one instance of "gently caress off." And we, as a community, should be able to look at the facts of a situation and say "yes this was reckless and wanton conduct" or say "no this wasn't"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Well you don't seem to be addressing mens rea which is still important even in manslaughter cases . In vehicular manslaughter the mens rea is offen fabricated .
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I think evilweasel killed the answer to that question. So you're saying she should have done penance instead of being subject to prosecution? Bad facts make for bad law, and it's certainly true in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
What words did the girl use? Did she say "kill yourself?" I think i disagree with balzrg about this being even slightly problematic
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
It was significantly more involved than one text or one phrase. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/us/text-message-suicide-michelle-carter-conrad-roy/index.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What words did the girl use? Did she say "kill yourself?" "Why haven't you done it yet tho?" "No you're not Conrad. Last night was it. You keep pushing it off and you say you'll do it but u never do. Its always gonna be that way if u don't take action" Like, I was looking at the transcript of the texts and each one is along the lines of "You are bad for not having killed yourself already". That said, Balzrg acknowledged that this case is extreme and the causal chain is clear. Unless I misunderstood him, his objection was to the idea that words were being treated as a potentially deadly weapon at all regardless of content; because, not all cases will be clear cut and the gray area is large and dangerous. vvv Sure, he said that first thing in the post though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Yeah there are 0 free speech concerns there .
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:It was significantly more involved than one text or one phrase. I think there was one text in particular where the guy was going to get out of the truck and abandon the attempt and she told him to get back in and finish the job. joat mon posted:So you're saying she should have done penance instead of being subject to prosecution? No, it's not. Her texts are the known but-for cause in the suicide (see above) and she had actual knowledge that he was suicidal and continued to encourage him. This is not significantly different from the manslaughter conviction of a husband for laughing at his wife (who was pulling a gun out and putting it in her mouth) and telling her she had to make sure to flip the safety off or it would never work. ulmont fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I think there was one text in particular where the guy was going to get out of the truck and abandon the attempt and she told him to get back in and finish the job. That's the one that the news has focused on especially. This discussion is the first I've heard about their conversation being over the course of several days or weeks (admittedly, I haven't delved deep into this).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
She kept up the conversation for something like a week, during which time he was clearly grappling with the idea and she didn't do anything to reach out to his family or any help. Now ok, she doesn't really have a legal duty to seek aid for him, but she also gave him advice on the method, and encouraged him to go through with it. When he worries about his family, she reassures him that they will be ok and that she will help them get past it. She also chastises him for trying to back off from the idea - when he talks about it and then doesn't kill himself, in the following days she is seriously pushing him until he does. quote:Carter: "I thought you wanted to do this. The time is right and you're ready, you just need to do it! You can't keep living this way. You just need to do it like you did last time and not think about it and just do it babe. You can't keep doing this every day" I mean drat this is some kind of half-time-in-a-sports-movie levels of encouragement and motivation going on. She would have done less if she had helped him load the generator and started it herself, but kept her mouth shut (because then she wouldn't have talked him back into the car to die)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:That's the one that the news has focused on especially. This discussion is the first I've heard about their conversation being over the course of several days or weeks (admittedly, I haven't delved deep into this). This is where the judge felt she crossed the line and took responsibility for his life. Sentencing was also interesting, she was ordered "not to profit" from this, having felt her motivation for this was "aggrandizement" but it seemed to only apply during the terms of her probation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah there are 0 free speech concerns there . quote:(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. The idea that you can be criminally liable for speech that result in an offense is long established and uncontroversial. The fact that this is a suicide makes the factual circumstances very particular, but if she had sent those texts to someone considering whether to murder the victim then her conviction as an accessory would be completely uncontroversial. This is only different because the principle act isn't illegal, but there are good reasons for this being the anomalous exception to A&A. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
This is a fairly minor manner but does anyone have any advice or experience with small claims court in NJ? Im planning to take my former landlord to court over a withheld $3300 security deposit. He's now offering 2300 to settle but I'm fairly confident the law is on my side and I don't want to let him walk away with free money when hes in the wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:[quote](a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. The causal chain has been analogized to kevorikian who only got into trouble when it was shown he was actually administering the lethal dose, not just providing others the means to do it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Tony Soprano: You want to get your button, Chrissy, you need to get your poo poo together and take care of that rat. Christopher: *kills guy* Tony Soprano: Free speech bitches 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it's an interesting thought experiment to explore how we would have felt about this if she had encouraged him to kill a third party rather than himself. Take all of the text messages and make them about her ex, or his ex, or the woman down the street with a bunch of cash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
loving glad it wouldn't even be a debate in my country, over here it's statutory law that encouraging suicide (successfully) carries at maximum the longest available sentence by law. Accessory to suicide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Yeah, I think it's an interesting thought experiment to explore how we would have felt about this if she had encouraged him to kill a third party rather than himself. Take all of the text messages and make them about her ex, or his ex, or the woman down the street with a bunch of cash. Conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Basically there are a bunch of legal options to deal with this issue without jumping off a cliff and criminalising all free speech, the underlying question of 'do you think it should be illegal to pressure vulnerable people to commit suicide?' should be really easy to answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Interesting could the victims parents have gotten an injunction to stop the woman from texting him before he killed himself ? Not in PA I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Interesting could the victims parents have gotten an injunction to stop the woman from texting him before he killed himself ? You can't get a restraining order over criminal harassment in PA?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Typically you have to prove irreparable harm for prior restraint through injunctive relief, but I would certainly think this qualifies. e. It would also have to be prohibited speech of course, and not sure that encouraging someone to kill you are self qualifies. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You can't get a restraining order over criminal harassment in PA? Doesn't seem like harassment in pa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Typically you have to prove irreparable harm for prior restraint through injunctive relief, but I would certainly think this qualifies. There's caselaw on point! Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, No. 16-3522, slip op at (7th Cir. May 30, 2017) posted:Ash has alleged prospective harm. He has asserted that the policy caused him to contemplate suicide, a claim that was
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Basically there are a bunch of legal options to deal with this issue without jumping off a cliff and criminalising all free speech, the underlying question of 'do you think it should be illegal to pressure vulnerable people to commit suicide?' should be really easy to answer. I know I'm the rear end in a top hat that always wants to draw hard, bright, black-and-white lines, but I agree with Blazargh here. I don't find "we can examine it on a case-by-case basis" to be an adequate answer. If your ex says that they are going to kill themselves if you don't get back together, complete with their detailed plan, and you tell them that you aren't ever getting back together with them, are you responsible for their subsequent suicide?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 23:22
|
|