Verdict against the Aryan Nations -- anyone else think this is wrong???

[dabuddha]

I do agree with you, however, on the flag burning issue. I consider that the one notable exception to the rule since so many people have died to protect that very symbol in cloth and in idea. The average lifespan of a color bearer in the Civil War was something like 13 seconds (it's ridiculously short -- don't know the exact figure), and constant volunteers replaced those who fell in combat to keep the colors aloft. With that history, I have strong feelings about that one issue. Plus, there are other ways to express yourself in that regard without resorting to the destruction of the flag.

Believing in one and not the other is hypocritical. Without any type of government control, anarchy would rule then. Granted, we don't want a communist society, but there are levels of control that are acceptable. Hell freedom of speech, i could go kill people and say im just expressing myself, i have freedom of speech. Most people have no clue whatsoever why freedom of speech was implemented. They only know the term.

 

[Harvey]

AndrewR -- You don't seem to have a clue about the issues of the suit. As others have already pointed out, this has nothing to do with anyone's freedom of speech.

Butler and has group of thugs were sued because they failed to provide adequate supervision of their security guards, who assaulted the plaintiffs. Any employer would be similarly liable for damages resulting from similar thuggary by an employee in the course of their employment.

The fact that they nailed a bunch of hate mongering biggoted a$$holes just makes the results of this case a special pleasure.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's an odd sort of justice, Harvey, when some people get drunk on the job and go out and beat some other people and it's the employer that gets held responsible. They were not supposed to drink on the job and did, they were not supposed to use violence. This seems to me to be a rather troubling idea--America wants business people to hire, but if your employee goes psycho, you'll lose everything you've built. The fact we are talking about a hate group is the only way this can sound good. Look at it as if it were your business and your employee, AndrewR, beat the slit out of some flag burner at work and it's you that's gonna pay.

 

[AndrewR]

I'm well aware of the issues involved in the suit, Harvey. Your declaration to the contrary is very much in character, however. If you can provide facts to back up your claims, including employment law cases with similar liability judgments, then please feel free to post them. Self-fulfilling statements backed with neither fact nor precedent are hardly persuasive.



<< Believing in one and not the other is hypocritical. >>


So be it, if that's your perspective. I can differentiate this issue enough to justify it in my mind. As for the rest of that paragraph, it's just hyperbole. Freedom of speech does encompass the right to express your views on race, sexual orientation, religion, government, etc. That's exactly why that right was included in the Bill of Rights, to ensure that someone couldn't be silenced for unpopular opinions, much as the British attemped to do against the colonists advocating independence. Here, we have a very unpopular opinion, a wrong one from many perspectives, but one that should be protected since the right to express other opinions is implicated in silencing this unpopular one.

Let's not muddle the issue with flag burning. I'll start another thread.

 

[Tripleshot]

The judge in this case was wrong and I hope he is disbarred for this travesty of justice.IMHO,the judge was just looking for his 15 nminutes of fame. This is a dangerous precident that can not be left to stand,and I would incourage that if need be ,this case face the bar of the supreme court.

However,I loath and despise hate groups of all sizes,shapes and color.It doesn't matter if you are KKK or Black Panther,aryan nation or La Raza.Fvck all of ya.You weenies would die on your own.You need a group to lean on because you do not have enough strength of character to be a positive force in society. To belong to a group like that is just the crutch you need to hoble along in this world.Stay in your little compounds so the government knows where to drop the bombs.

It seems our government isn't in to bombing you,so they will use the courts to break you.
If you live by the sword,you can die by the sword.Your Hate will consume you.

 

[AndrewR]

What is La Raza?

 

[Moonbeam]

I can only tell you in Spanish.

 

[~zonker~]

La Raza?

 

[Recneps]

the 6 million dollars or so in damage was only made because the group is a &quot;hate group&quot;. They shouldn't have gotten any punitive damages. It is just BS that Aryan Nations is 90% responsible and there cheif of staff is responsible for the other 10% is BS the people who did the crime should be responsible and the verdic should be thrown out and the lawyer should be disbared.

 

[chess9]

Moonbean, Tripleshot and Andrew:

I asked my lawyer about this today since I'm trying to get his daughter's laptop working. He said it's a simple question of whether the guards were &quot;acting withing the scope of their employment.&quot; Apparently, the jury thought they were. This appears to be a case of the jurors simply disagreeing with your views. The fact the guards were drunk speaks volumes about their lack of supervision and suggests the employer SHOULD be liable. Since you didn't sit on the jury, and probably have few of the details, I'd suggest you get all the facts before you criticize the judgement. Our legal system can be pretty clumsy and stupid at times, and maybe this was one of them, but you haven't presented any facts to support that view. Why bother to whine about the judgement when you have no facts to support your views? This sort of thing goes on all the time on this board-people with opinions about politics, law, medicine, biology, shooting to kill home invaders, etc., AND NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THOSE OPINIONS. Stupidity on the OT board seems to be infectious and at an all time high.

As usual, Harvey seems to be the only person with a clear view.

 

[Tripleshot]

chess9
The off topic forum is repleat with opinions.There is nothing wrong with expressing your opinion.That is clearly understood by everyone who reads a post or makes a post.If you prefer,I guess I can add IMHO to all my posts so as not to confuse you.
BTW,your attorney friend just expressed his opinion.It is not fact.If you can't see that,you are easily mis-led IMHO

 

[chess9]

Tripleshot:

With all due respect, I know the difference between an opinion, an informed opinion, and the facts. The trichotomy is usually cavernous.

 

[Moonbeam]

Chess9, That was some sound advise you gave. Since I am cannot expect to assume that I'm important enough to pay attention to, I will, retrospectively offer again my first words in this post:

&quot;As a commie pinko pacifist, I'm afraid I have to very strongly agree, provided of course I have the real facts, which I'm sure I don't. Since that won't stop others from forming an absolute conviction in this matter, I won't let it stop me either. The facts as I heard them is that the suee has a known, professed policy of non violence and the perps acted violently.&quot;

And oddly Harvey was criticized for the same thing from other quarters. Geez, who to believe?

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Sorry, but I was responding to your, I believe, and this is only uninformed opinion , last post in the thread. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

 

[AndrewR]

chess9: Read the very first post in this thread, third paragraph. Notice the part about &quot;scope of employment&quot;? I am well aware of the law in general (not specifically as it is in Idaho, not planning on taking that bar) and have probably a similar grasp as your attorney unless he's a specialist in employment law though my job is touching on employment law a little more lately.

You make your own assumptions. If what Moonbeam has said is true (and I have heard that as well) that Richard Butler had a policy of non-violence, and it was a policy that the guards not drink while on duty, then how was what they did within the scope of their employment? The verdict was based on a lack of supervision of the guards, but is it a requirement for the head of an organization to monitor each and every underling in everything that occurs? Is there no responsibility on the part of the actors? If the verdict had been based on a negligence theory, arguing negligent hiring practices that allowed known hoodlums to act as guards for the compound, then I would have less of a problem with accepting the jury's verdict. However, that was not pled to my knowledge.



<< Stupidity on the OT board seems to be infectious and at an all time high. >>


Is that a self-fulfilling statement?

 

[Shuxclams]

<< Verdict against the Aryan Nations -- anyone else think this is wrong??? >>



No, the Aryan Nation is and should be accountable for the people that they hire.




SHUX

 

[Carrot44]

I live up here Next door to the Aryan Nations and They need to be GONE! End of Story Don't think so? Ask the Indian that got the crap beat out of him just for walking by the compound.

 

[Moonbeam]

Chess9, I have also argued on numerous occassions that we don't have the facts that jurys do, and it probably can't be said often enough that we don't know enough to have some of the opinions we do. Ready fire aim.

 

[Recneps]

chess9 Well it seems you can't even form your own opion so don't give people crap for coming up with one of theres.

The three people that beat up the other guy were not &quot;acting withing the scope of their employment&quot; they were told not to drink and to pratice non-violeance. There was no lack of supervision on the Aryan Nation part. You would have one hell of a hard time finding any company or goverment office with a superviser to people under that superviser were 3 people need to have a supervisor with them. It is total unreasonblie for them to have a 3:1 ratio.