To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#7,201
#7,201
Grand Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and those types of incidents have happened in this industry. I'm in no way absolving the worker of wrong doing if a victim is present who was injured by his actions. But criminal charges? I've never heard of that, unless it's a fight or something similar.
OSHA investigates all serious and fatal accidents btw.

Addressing drinking and sleeping it off.

Most cops will arrest the operator for simply sleeping in the vehicle. I have a buddy who's son was victim to just that very thing. Knew he was too drunk to drive, pulled over to a public parking lot, got in the passenger seat, put the keys in the back seat and went to sleep. Cops find the car, because the windows was fogged up (so they say) they wake him up, he tells them he's sleeping off a drunk and didn't think he was safe to drive, the cops ask him to step out of the car, BAM! public intoxication on the spot. Ended up costing him over 7k. Justice? Hell no.
 
#7,202
#7,202
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Y
Most cops will arrest the operator for simply sleeping in the vehicle. I have a buddy who's son was victim to just that very thing. Knew he was too drunk to drive, pulled over to a public parking lot, got in the passenger seat, put the keys in the back seat and went to sleep. Cops find the car, because the windows was fogged up (so they say) they wake him up, he tells them he's sleeping off a drunk and didn't think he was safe to drive, the cops ask him to step out of the car, BAM! public intoxication on the spot. Ended up costing him over 7k. Justice? Hell no.
Click to expand...

Protectin' and servin'...
 
#7,204
#7,204
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes, and those types of incidents have happened in this industry. I'm in no way absolving the worker of wrong doing if a victim is present who was injured by his actions. But criminal charges? I've never heard of that, unless it's a fight or something similar.
OSHA investigates all serious and fatal accidents btw.
Click to expand...

Okay, learned something. I would have figured the potential for criminal charges to be pretty likely in a situation like that.

It does seem rather odd that an intoxicated worker that causes an accident that might cost a person their life or significant injury as a minimum wouldn't face some sort of legal action. Or a grand jury hearing as a minimum.

DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Addressing drinking and sleeping it off.

Most cops will arrest the operator for simply sleeping in the vehicle. I have a buddy who's son was victim to just that very thing. Knew he was too drunk to drive, pulled over to a public parking lot, got in the passenger seat, put the keys in the back seat and went to sleep. Cops find the car, because the windows was fogged up (so they say) they wake him up, he tells them he's sleeping off a drunk and didn't think he was safe to drive, the cops ask him to step out of the car, BAM! public intoxication on the spot. Ended up costing him over 7k. Justice? Hell no.
Click to expand...

No, "most" cops are not going to do that. A singular incident from a single cop (or two) that's overzealous in their duties does not make a pattern. Does it happen? Yeah, it does as you're probably going to provide me links to show. But would a lot of cops, dare I say a majority, make the person call a cab or call a buddy? Probably. It's far more trouble to try to charge someone for that kind of nonsense and risk getting it thrown out of court.
 
#7,205
#7,205
Grand Vol said:
Okay, learned something. I would have figured the potential for criminal charges to be pretty likely in a situation like that.

It does seem rather odd that an intoxicated worker that causes an accident that might cost a person their life or significant injury as a minimum wouldn't face some sort of legal action. Or a grand jury hearing as a minimum.



No, "most" cops are not going to do that. A singular incident from a single cop (or two) that's overzealous in their duties does not make a pattern. Does it happen? Yeah, it does as you're probably going to provide me links to show. But would a lot of cops, dare I say a majority, make the person call a cab or call a buddy? Probably. It's far more trouble to try to charge someone for that kind of nonsense and risk getting it thrown out of court.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying criminal charges aren't possible. I've just never seen it happen. Had a guy who later tested positive for drugs put two 1700 degree billets together on a guys leg on the caster run out.(operator fell asleep) he Ended up having 4th degree burns. Horrible accident. He simply lost his job as far as I know.
 
#7,206
#7,206
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm not saying criminal charges aren't possible. I've just never seen it happen. Had a guy who later tested positive for drugs put two 1700 degree billets together on a guys leg on the caster run out.(operator fell asleep) he Ended up having 4th degree burns. Horrible accident. He simply lost his job as far as I know.
Click to expand...

I didn't know there was anything past 3rd degree.

I'm pretty sure you are ignoring the subtle hint I was making in that section of the post though.
 
#7,207
#7,207
Grand Vol said:
I didn't know there was anything past 3rd degree.

I'm pretty sure you are ignoring the subtle hint I was making in that section of the post though.
Click to expand...

It's when the bone is burnt.

I'm not ignoring anything. Discretion is key, although not all cops use it, more should.
 
#7,209
#7,209
Grand Vol said:
You just like to argue. And really don't want to admit that I backed you in a corner lol

And before you say it, yes, I like to argue as well.
Click to expand...

You know me, I'll punch my way out of the corner.

It's voluntary and involuntary. Big differences between the two.

For the record, the foreman voluntarily went to the pulpit. lol
 
#7,210
#7,210
If you say "you didn't back me in a corner" you will be arguing again.

If you admit I backed you in a corner, it'll make you mad enough to kick puppies.

Still beating your wife? :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,213
#7,213
In complete honesty, my problem is with authority, or I should say people's belief in authority. Most believe when a law is handed down from their leaders on high, they view it as a moral decree from a god. When these people (politicians) have 0 moral authority over anyone.

Also, please don't cite the constitution to me, that document went out the window as soon as this government was started. The only thing the constitution did that the articles of confederation didn't is allow the government to levy a tax with the interstate commerce rubbish in article 1 section 8. I view taxation as theft, when you take something by force from someone, and they have 0 alternatives. That is theft on a massive scale.

I know, I know, Im free to leave right? Have you actually looked up the expatriation laws on the books and how much it costs people to surrender their citizenship? Let's just say, you're not exactly free to leave.

Also, someone please enlighten me on this social contract I supposedly signed at my birth.
 
#7,217
#7,217
apevol said:
I consider theft a form of violence. Locking someone up unjustly is, imo theft.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about false imprisonment. I have no idea where you got that. But it is even a stretch to call it violence. I get your point, but it is hardly violent.
 
#7,219
#7,219
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Perhaps "make the family whole" is the wrong wording and seems indelicate.

How does pay out the victims policy to his family sound. No, they won't be "whole" but, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Your anarchist utopia hinges on the masses exercising restraint and not committing those crimes against someone. Human beings cannot do that any more than they can all work for the body of Landrieu. (Old Star Trek) Somebody is going to want to be above the proletariat, (which is why communism will not work) Somebody will break the rules of your utopia. When that breach results in death, your entire argument falls short, because it could have been prevented. However, that person is d e a d and nothing, NOTHING can ever reimburse the loved ones for that loss, not to mention the victim himself, yet the perp gets to continue living. Your corner is that you have to either believe that that person will now forfeit their life because of his affront to the collective, or you will admit acceptance of it just being an unfortunate occurrence. If it is the former, then you have to make a line somewhere. If it is the latter, then I guess I have the right to "accidentally" be cleaning my gun near a dunk driver and have it go off, removing their brain stem.
 
#7,221
#7,221
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You know me, I'll punch my way out of the corner.

It's voluntary and involuntary. Big differences between the two.

For the record, the foreman voluntarily went to the pulpit. lol
Click to expand...

I will say this as one final thought on the matter.

The only difference in voluntary and involuntary is the level of consequences you are prepared to deal with.

Voluntarily went to sleep it off because involuntarily would mean potential loss of job and whatnot.

You involuntarily enforced the rules because you knew that there was a potential safety hazard.

It happens.
 
#7,222
#7,222
SpaceCoastVol said:
Your anarchist utopia hinges on the masses exercising restraint and not committing those crimes against someone. Human beings cannot do that any more than they can all work for the body of Landrieu. (Old Star Trek) Somebody is going to want to be above the proletariat, (which is why communism will not work) Somebody will break the rules of your utopia. When that breach results in death, your entire argument falls short, because it could have been prevented. However, that person is d e a d and nothing, NOTHING can ever reimburse the loved ones for that loss, not to mention the victim himself, yet the perp gets to continue living. Your corner is that you have to either believe that that person will now forfeit their life because of his affront to the collective, or you will admit acceptance of it just being an unfortunate occurrence. If it is the former, then you have to make a line somewhere. If it is the latter, then I guess I have the right to "accidentally" be cleaning my gun near a dunk driver and have it go off, removing their brain stem.
Click to expand...

Do you not see the fallacy in your argument? You say you basically don't trust people or a particular system that some will always want to be better. Yet, aren't people currently running our government and don't they subscribe to a particular political system?


Yes, it's quite true that unfortunate events happen every day. That's the nature of the beast. We still have drunk drivers on the road, most likely at this very moment. No law will stop that. Where the difference comes in is, prosecuting the ones who cause death and destruction. Not the ones who haven't harmed anyone. I realize it's a very controversial topic. But, do you want freedom or do you want security?

Just look at what the market is capable of if we just get government out of the way.

Uber breathalyzer kiosk keeps drunk drivers off the road | Digital Trends
 
#7,225
#7,225
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Do you not see the fallacy in your argument? You say you basically don't trust people or a particular system that some will always want to be better. Yet, aren't people currently running our government and don't they subscribe to a particular political system?


Yes, it's quite true that unfortunate events happen every day. That's the nature of the beast. We still have drunk drivers on the road, most likely at this very moment. No law will stop that. Where the difference comes in is, prosecuting the ones who cause death and destruction. Not the ones who haven't harmed anyone. I realize it's a very controversial topic. But, do you want freedom or do you want security?

Just look at what the market is capable of if we just get government out of the way.

Uber breathalyzer kiosk keeps drunk drivers off the road | Digital Trends
Click to expand...

I am talking about your utopian wet dream. I freely acknowledge that the current system is deeply flawed. Yours, like communism assumes that everyone will row in the same direction. That's ludicrous.

I didn't look at your link, but I see what it is. The problem is that a human being has... to... use... it. But in your world, it is no big deal if he gets behind the wheel drunk anyway until he kills someone, then it matters.

My argument is not flawed. Yours is silly.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top