To Protect and to Serve...

[Grand Vol]

Yes, I'm under contract to my employer to follow all the safety rules. If I break them at any time I can lose my job of 22 years. You see that's the thing GV, I voluntarily agreed to that. There is nothing voluntary about the things you're talking about.

And enforce the safety rules on those working with or for you?

Would you turn a blind eye to someone committing multiple infractions of the safety regulations because "it's not hurting anyone"?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

And enforce the safety rules on those working with or for you?

Would you turn a blind eye to someone committing multiple infractions of the safety regulations because "it's not hurting anyone"?

People do what they do man. I've seen some pretty stupid shiz in my time. However, that's them, not me. Still not seeing anything voluntary.

 

[Cdywolfe]

I beg to differ. From the article:



If that's not a direct comparison of police to Nazis I don't know what is.

Perhaps you should bow out at this point. I really don't want to get started on you again and the complete lack of accountability in your profession where people's lives are cut short without even so much as a grand jury hearing.

That's crazy. I didn't realize my interactions with my patients stopped being 100% voluntary. When did that change and why wasn't I informed?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I do find it funny that the same people that rail against the government are also the same ones to come to their defense. Larken Rose is exactly right lol

 

[Cdywolfe]

I beg to differ. From the article:



If that's not a direct comparison of police to Nazis I don't know what is.

Perhaps you should bow out at this point. I really don't want to get started on you again and the complete lack of accountability in your profession where people's lives are cut short without even so much as a grand jury hearing.

Also... I'm not saying there is nearly enough accountability in my profession but LTFOL at the LEO Saying anything about lack of accountablity. That's a good one man...

 

[Grand Vol]

Also... I'm not saying there is nearly enough accountability in my profession but LTFOL at the LEO Saying anything about lack of accountablity. That's a good one man...

It's the old saying of "those in glass houses."

You know the rest. And you very well could be clamoring for more accountability in your job as much or more than you do for the LEOs. Want to see the stats again? Wasn't that a fairly lopsided figure that I posted before?

 

[Grand Vol]

People do what they do man. I've seen some pretty stupid shiz in my time. However, that's them, not me. Still not seeing anything voluntary.

Are you contractually bound to report violations of safety rules?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Are you contractually bound to report violations of safety rules?

No.

And for the record, the steel industry is way over regulated, as are many other industries. Most of OSHA's safety regulations are a joke and do nothing but hinder production.

 

[Grand Vol]

No.

And for the record, the steel industry is way over regulated, as are many other industries. Most of OSHA's safety regulations are a joke and do nothing but hinder production.

On the latter point, I agree. OSHA does make jobs a lot harder than they should be.

But the main point is that you will use your discretion to warn others of significant safety violations, correct? Or even minor ones? And if a worker showed up drunk and trying to operate a machine that would cause significant damage if used improperly, you would ignore it? You would say "no big deal, that's on him as an individual" and turn your back?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

On the latter point, I agree. OSHA does make jobs a lot harder than they should be.

But the main point is that you will use your discretion to warn others of significant safety violations, correct? Or even minor ones? And if a worker showed up drunk and trying to operate a machine that would cause significant damage if used improperly, you would ignore it? You would say "no big deal, that's on him as an individual" and turn your back?

You don't know much about the steel industry do you? Lol It used to be that way all the time, people drunk or high operating million dollar machines that can easily kill. Employers started random drug tests and that pretty much went away in the 90's.
It was the employers decision, not the governments. Therefore you voluntarily agree with it by working here.

 

[Grand Vol]

You don't know much about the steel industry do you? Lol It used to be that way all the time, people drunk or high operating million dollar machines that can easily kill. Employers started random drug tests and that pretty much went away in the 90's.
It was the employers decision, not the governments. Therefore you voluntarily agree with it by working here.

It's still a valid question as of right now and not something that happened 20 years ago. OSHA didn't get crazy stupid with regulations until the 90s anyway.

So if a coworker showed up drunk trying to operate a piece of equipment that you knew to be inherently dangerous, you would ignore it?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It's still a valid question as of right now and not something that happened 20 years ago. OSHA didn't get crazy stupid with regulations until the 90s anyway.

So if a coworker showed up drunk trying to operate a piece of equipment that you knew to be inherently dangerous, you would ignore it?

Well, it has happened recently. We put him up in the mill pulpit to sleep it off. It was the foreman btw lol just being honest.
I understand the comparison you're trying to make and it's not valid. People make choices, they have to live with those choices no matter how they turn out.
So, do the police save everybody? Of course not, most times they're only there to fill out paperwork after the crime has been committed.
It's not a perfect world, people die on the roads and In violent confrontations everyday. No law will change that.

 

[Grand Vol]

Well, it has happened recently. We put him up in the mill pulpit to sleep it off. It was the foreman btw lol just being honest.
I understand the comparison you're trying to make and it's not valid. People make choices, they have to live with those choices no matter how they turn out.
So, do the police save everybody? Of course not, most times they're only there to fill out paperwork after the crime has been committed.
It's not a perfect world, people die on the roads and In violent confrontations everyday. No law will change that.

No, but the point is the same. You took a drunk foreman off the line since his behavior might have been unsafe (no way to tell for sure) in that particular environment.

Cops pull drunk drivers off the road since their behavior might be unsafe. No way to tell for certain if they'd make it home or crash into a family van on a late night trip to Wal-Mart.

The end result may be different, but the brass tacks principle is the same. Both conditions are potentially unsafe which is why you and your workers felt it necessary to pull your foreman off the line. The end result in fines, potential jail and whatnot obviously is going to be different to an extent. But the bedrock principle that you made a judgment call to remove a potentially hazardous individual from an area that might have made others unsafe is the same.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

No, but the point is the same. You took a drunk foreman off the line since his behavior might have been unsafe (no way to tell for sure) in that particular environment.

Cops pull drunk drivers off the road since their behavior might be unsafe. No way to tell for certain if they'd make it home or crash into a family van on a late night trip to Wal-Mart.

The end result may be different, but the brass tacks principle is the same. Both conditions are potentially unsafe which is why you and your workers felt it necessary to pull your foreman off the line. The end result in fines, potential jail and whatnot obviously is going to be different to an extent. But the bedrock principle that you made a judgment call to remove a potentially hazardous individual from an area that might have made others unsafe is the same.

Pretty drastic difference there. It cost the foreman nothing. If he'd been pulled over it would've ruined his life, as well as cost him upwards of 10k to get out of it. All when there is no victim present to file charges. His life was ruined simply because of a higher level of a substance in his blood that the state deems to be illegal.
Now, if he'd wrecked, injuring someone or tearing up property, I totally agree, throw the book at him. However, I maintain, if there isn't a victim, there shouldn't be a crime.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Since the last one got such a wonderful reaction. Let's try this one on for size.

Stop Begging for Freedom | Police Zero

 

[Grand Vol]

Pretty drastic difference there. It cost the foreman nothing. If he'd been pulled over it would've ruined his life, as well as cost him upwards of 10k to get out of it. All when there is no victim present to file charges. His life was ruined simply because of a higher level of a substance in his blood that the state deems to be illegal.
Now, if he'd wrecked, injuring someone or tearing up property, I totally agree, throw the book at him. However, I maintain, if there isn't a victim, there shouldn't be a crime.

There wasn't a victim with your foreman was there?

So why'd you pull him from the line?

And you know that kind of a situation could very well ruin his life by him losing his job and having to stamp the incident on every resume he puts in from that point on.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Yes, I'm under contract to my employer to follow all the safety rules. If I break them at any time I can lose my job of 22 years. You see that's the thing GV, I voluntarily agreed to that. There is nothing voluntary about the things you're talking about.

He can't understand that distinction.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

There wasn't a victim with your foreman was there?

So why'd you pull him from the line?

And you know that kind of a situation could very well ruin his life by him losing his job and having to stamp the incident on every resume he puts in from that point on.

Would he be subject to arrest by his employer? Of course not. The employer won't kidnap you for only hurting yourself, they'll just terminate your employment.

Say he made it home and hurt no one. should he still be seized by the cops because he broke a law?

I understand how dangerous Drunk driving is, however we have to draw a line somewhere. We have to understand personal liberty and how to defend it from those who would hamper it. Namely the government.
You know as well as I do, most traffic stops are fishing expeditions.

 

[508mikey]

 

[Grand Vol]

He can't understand that distinction.

Coming from someone who lives in a fantasy world 99.7% of the time, I don't think you're qualified to make a distinction on what I understand or don't.

DTH and I are having a nice argument right now. Why don't you run along.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

No, but the point is the same. You took a drunk foreman off the line since his behavior might have been unsafe (no way to tell for sure) in that particular environment.

Cops pull drunk drivers off the road since their behavior might be unsafe. No way to tell for certain if they'd make it home or crash into a family van on a late night trip to Wal-Mart.

The end result may be different, but the brass tacks principle is the same. Both conditions are potentially unsafe which is why you and your workers felt it necessary to pull your foreman off the line. The end result in fines, potential jail and whatnot obviously is going to be different to an extent. But the bedrock principle that you made a judgment call to remove a potentially hazardous individual from an area that might have made others unsafe is the same.

DEFENDTHISHOUSE's solution:

Well, it has happened recently. We put him up in the mill pulpit to sleep it off.

Do cops offer those guys a ride home or allow them to park their car and take their keys while they "sleep it off"?

Or do cops just throw them in the slammer and ruin their lives?

Big difference between how cops handle things and how normal people do.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Would he be subject to arrest by his employer? Of course not. The employer won't kidnap you for only hurting yourself, they'll just terminate your employment.

Say he made it home and hurt no one. should he still be seized by the cops because he broke a law?

I understand how dangerous Drunk driving is, however we have to draw a line somewhere. We have to understand personal liberty and how to defend it from those who would hamper it. Namely the government.
You know as well as I do, most traffic stops are fishing expeditions.

Bottom line...

 

[Grand Vol]

Would he be subject to arrest by his employer? Of course not. The employer won't kidnap you for only hurting yourself, they'll just terminate your employment.

Say he made it home and hurt no one. should he still be seized by the cops because he broke a law?

I understand how dangerous Drunk driving is, however we have to draw a line somewhere. We have to understand personal liberty and how to defend it from those who would hamper it. Namely the government.
You know as well as I do, most traffic stops are fishing expeditions.

Arrest by his employer, certainly not. Although making him sleep is off could be a form of restraint (translate that as forced) since he was doing it against his will. People know the rules and made the foreman sleep off the drunk. And why did they do it? "Because it's the rules." I think I read that in an article recently...somewhere recently. Anyway...

Say there was an accident or explosion on said foreman's station. I know they typically don't work equipment and whatnot, but play along that he was giving someone a break and an accident occurred that caused others to be injured or killed. Could the employer request criminal charges be brought in that kind of incident or say from a safety investigation by OSHA? Negligence on the part of the worker caused an incident that hurt others.

Or even if there wasn't an incident and the employer found him drunk as a skunk on the job, they could terminate his employment. Which in turn ruins his financial status and, again, he has to explain to every future employer as to why he no longer works for said company.

And just to clarify the drunk driving situation, if said driver makes it home without incident, the cops can't yank him out of the house and arrest him at a later time. The law in most places states they have to be intoxicated and in physical control of a vehicle. So it's not exactly an exact comparison to the discussion we're having.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do cops offer those guys a ride home or allow them to park their car and take their keys while they "sleep it off"?

Yes they do. Or if a passenger is sober, give them a chance to drive. Or call a cab. Any number of other possibilities. Maybe the cop is lazy and doesn't want the hassle. Maybe they are coming up on the end of a shift. Maybe they feel like the person deserves a break. It doesn't always end with a DUI charge.

Your idiotic viewpoints that all cops always go to the extremes are what makes your arguments so laughable and pathetic. Oh wait, this is where you're going to say they always do and point to the Garner situation and/or Charleston.

 

[Grand Vol]

And for the record Ras, even if I was anti-cop I still wouldn't want you arguing my side of the debate. You really aren't that good at it.