On Dec 3rd I injured myself at work. I was on WSIB until Jan 25 when I returned back to work on light duties.
On Feb 6th, my boss approached me and said that my condition doesn't seem to be any better and that this place is obviously for working people only so what am i going to do about it. I then told him that I still had at least another month on light duties and that I expect to be back to normal by then.
I called WSIB to inform them of this situation so that they could resolve this issue. Within a couple hours I received a letter from my employer stating that I had been termintated.
When I let WSIB know this they said they would look into it. Next thing I hear is almost 3 months later and it's that I need to get a new job because I had only worked there for a month they will not pay benefits to go back to shcool. I feel like I was wrongfully dismissed and was wondering if it's too late to do anything about it and what can I do.
Answer:
First thing you need to do is hire an attorney that will take the case and be paid only if you receive compensation from your employer.
Second have your attorney contact the BBB (better business)
Third contact your local EEOC (equal employeer)
I had a simular situation, and did the above steps after the BBB and EEOC did their investigation (free of charge) they found I was fired without cause, which opened the door for a lawsuit which was filed by my attorney.
The BBB and EEOC helped with the negotiations and we settled out of court.
Good Luck
Get an attorney who will represent the fired worker, and file suit for wrongful termination.
In short you very likely have the grounds for a legal case against the employer. I would recommend contacting the EEOC as well as trying to contact a lawyer.
Many places have some kind of free counsel by lawyers if you cannot afford a lawyer but don't count on it. Try your local phone book for Lawyers and if specialties are allowed in your State, not all do, look under worker's compensation and worker's rights.
As an employment/Workers' Comp attorney, I think you have a good case. Most Workers' Comp statutes have a retaliation provision that doubles or triples the damages if an employer fires someone for filing a WC claim. If WSIB is not helping, you need a WC attorney.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wrongful convictions plague the U.S. criminal justice system, official says. What do you think?
Paul Craig Roberts, a noted conservative, wrote this about the U.S. criminal justice system: The wrongful conviction rate is extremely high. Hardly any of the convicted have had a jury trial. More than 95% of all felony cases are settled with a plea bargain. Before jumping to the conclusion that an innocent person would not admit guilt, be aware of how the process works. Any defendant who stands trial faces more severe penalties if found guilty than if he agrees to a plea bargain. Prosecutors don鈥檛 like trials because they are time consuming and a lot of work. To discourage trials, prosecutors offer defendants reduced charges and lighter sentences than would result from a jury conviction. In the event a defendant insists upon his innocence, prosecutors pile on charges until defendant's lawyer %26 family convince him/her a jury is likely to give the prosecutor a conviction on at least one of the many charges and that the penalty will be greater than a negotiated plea.
Answer:
We see this even more clearly today after the recent happenings surrounding the Duke rape case.
great post!
I have no doubt about it. But not for the reasons you state. Having sat on a couple of juries, I can tell you that I would not care to be at the mercy of a jury. Some of the people in the jury pools I've been in look like refugees from the home for the mentally retarded. I wouldn't be surprise to find out that that is where they were rounded up from. You know, my 10 year old once got a jury summons. I kept his ID badge as a souvenir after I sent them a blistering letter. Truth be told, he probably would have done a better job than some of the characters I've been thrown in with.
Oh, I get it. it's not like anybody ever did a crime, it;s just the system thant's wrong???
If someone isso damn innocent, than why ishe afraid to thake a chance with a jury instead of plea bargaining??
Answer:
We see this even more clearly today after the recent happenings surrounding the Duke rape case.
great post!
I have no doubt about it. But not for the reasons you state. Having sat on a couple of juries, I can tell you that I would not care to be at the mercy of a jury. Some of the people in the jury pools I've been in look like refugees from the home for the mentally retarded. I wouldn't be surprise to find out that that is where they were rounded up from. You know, my 10 year old once got a jury summons. I kept his ID badge as a souvenir after I sent them a blistering letter. Truth be told, he probably would have done a better job than some of the characters I've been thrown in with.
Oh, I get it. it's not like anybody ever did a crime, it;s just the system thant's wrong???
If someone isso damn innocent, than why ishe afraid to thake a chance with a jury instead of plea bargaining??
Wrongful criminal convictions in Australia?
I am doing an assignment on wrongful convictions (ie; innocent people who have been convicted - and obviously later found innocent, or atleast in the process of an appeal). Does anyone know where I can find Australian cases (legal websites obviously arent that proud of them so they are hard to find) or can anyone suggest any to me? I only need to use a few examples. (P.S. Not the Chamberlains, I already have that one).
Thanks!
Answer:
I'm not aware of any site which specifically identifies wrongful convictions - you may just have to trawl through the search results on austlii.edu.au
In Qld, a couple which come to mind are the conviction and later acquittal on appeal of Di Fingleton (Chief Magistrate! - [2005] HCA 34), and Pauline Hanson (Politician - [2003] QCA 488).
I see that you are mainly after those where confessions were coerced - one is O'SULLIVAN v THE QUEEN [2002] NSWCCA 98
Maybe in australian history but not now with DNA..
And we are proud of our legal system - whats your problem ********?
Most recent public events were Pauline Hanson %26 Di Fingleton. Interestingly, both in the "smart **** state" Qld.
Premier Beattie refused point blank to compensate Pauline Hansen for her wrongull conviction and imprisonment.
Thier have been many cases where years later DNA, new or fresh evidence, false statements, death bed confessions, tunnell vision etc.
refer
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/q...
this is where a person was wrongly convicted of rape who served imprisonment. (Sadly again in Qld).
The web site http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ has many articles on wrongfull convictions in each state or territory.
It the US it is estimate that between 0.5 to 5% of convictions maybe wrongfull convictions. It probably is a similar % in Australia.
Thanks!
Answer:
I'm not aware of any site which specifically identifies wrongful convictions - you may just have to trawl through the search results on austlii.edu.au
In Qld, a couple which come to mind are the conviction and later acquittal on appeal of Di Fingleton (Chief Magistrate! - [2005] HCA 34), and Pauline Hanson (Politician - [2003] QCA 488).
I see that you are mainly after those where confessions were coerced - one is O'SULLIVAN v THE QUEEN [2002] NSWCCA 98
Maybe in australian history but not now with DNA..
And we are proud of our legal system - whats your problem ********?
Most recent public events were Pauline Hanson %26 Di Fingleton. Interestingly, both in the "smart **** state" Qld.
Premier Beattie refused point blank to compensate Pauline Hansen for her wrongull conviction and imprisonment.
Thier have been many cases where years later DNA, new or fresh evidence, false statements, death bed confessions, tunnell vision etc.
refer
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/q...
this is where a person was wrongly convicted of rape who served imprisonment. (Sadly again in Qld).
The web site http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ has many articles on wrongfull convictions in each state or territory.
It the US it is estimate that between 0.5 to 5% of convictions maybe wrongfull convictions. It probably is a similar % in Australia.
Written warning/gross misconduct?
HI
i have been suspended on full pay from work.
I am a hgv driver and basically i shot a load......it was not my fault,i was waiting to turn right onto a major road,i waited until a van was aproching with his left indicator going,he slowed right down,anyway i edged out and then at the last minute he decided he wanted to go straight on so i had to break hard,my speed would of only been 5 mph approx but nevertheless the load shiffed.Now here come the criucial bit,we are ment to strap the last 2 pallets on the load......i did not do this and to be honest knowone does and the management say nothing.
The load only shot forward so by me putting the straps on would have made no difference at all.The only thing i did wrong was not to strap up so could i be sacked on this,apart from this my work record is very good,my managed who suspended me was gutted and he said he`d fight for my corner.I would of thought that maybe it could be delt with some king of written warning?
Answer:
As a Manager/Dispatcher, (among other duties), I can tell you that if your company wants to sack you on the technicality of not securing your load, they can. However, I would take into consideration your driving record, time with company, loyalty, cooperation, attendance, personality,etc., and sum them up into the final decision as to your status as a driver. I would think however that some disciplinary measure will be handed down probably in the form of being on the dock for a time to show others the importance of following procedure. Good luck, and show a good attitude, it goes a long way believe me.
are you still gettting paid....also if they were going to fire you they would have already. They would not be paying you still if they were going to give you the boot.
Check your terms of employment. Does it state anywhere that you must strap the last 2 pallets? If it does, then it is still down to your employer to prove that you didn't. The guilt lies with the company, not the driver. It is all down to them to prove that you were at fault, and how the hell are they going to do that unless you admit guilt?
Deny responsibility at all costs. Sign nothing. Wait for your company to sack you, and take them to a Industrial Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal, and get a hefty compensation too.
Even if you have verbally admitted that you didn't strap up, unless it is in writing, and signed by you, it wouldn't be accepted in a tribunal anyway.
Plead ignorance, tell them you had concussion, and can't remember the whole event.
I have loads of info regarding employment law should you need it. Let me know.
They can't sack you without having a hearing at which you have a right to be accompanied by a Union person or work colleague, and then you have the right of appeal if they decide to dismiss you on the grounds of gross misconduct. As you say, you know you did not follow company procedure, so you won't be surprised if they find against you. All you can do is argue strongly and politely as you have done here and hope that your good record and the fact that others also fail to strap up will get you off with a written warning.
Hi Neil,
At this time you seem to have done all you can. You should note that not strapping the last two pallets is custom and practice in the company. Hold this thought.
There are minimum requirements for a grievance procedure these can be found in ACAS Code of Practice 1 Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Good luck
i have been suspended on full pay from work.
I am a hgv driver and basically i shot a load......it was not my fault,i was waiting to turn right onto a major road,i waited until a van was aproching with his left indicator going,he slowed right down,anyway i edged out and then at the last minute he decided he wanted to go straight on so i had to break hard,my speed would of only been 5 mph approx but nevertheless the load shiffed.Now here come the criucial bit,we are ment to strap the last 2 pallets on the load......i did not do this and to be honest knowone does and the management say nothing.
The load only shot forward so by me putting the straps on would have made no difference at all.The only thing i did wrong was not to strap up so could i be sacked on this,apart from this my work record is very good,my managed who suspended me was gutted and he said he`d fight for my corner.I would of thought that maybe it could be delt with some king of written warning?
Answer:
As a Manager/Dispatcher, (among other duties), I can tell you that if your company wants to sack you on the technicality of not securing your load, they can. However, I would take into consideration your driving record, time with company, loyalty, cooperation, attendance, personality,etc., and sum them up into the final decision as to your status as a driver. I would think however that some disciplinary measure will be handed down probably in the form of being on the dock for a time to show others the importance of following procedure. Good luck, and show a good attitude, it goes a long way believe me.
are you still gettting paid....also if they were going to fire you they would have already. They would not be paying you still if they were going to give you the boot.
Check your terms of employment. Does it state anywhere that you must strap the last 2 pallets? If it does, then it is still down to your employer to prove that you didn't. The guilt lies with the company, not the driver. It is all down to them to prove that you were at fault, and how the hell are they going to do that unless you admit guilt?
Deny responsibility at all costs. Sign nothing. Wait for your company to sack you, and take them to a Industrial Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal, and get a hefty compensation too.
Even if you have verbally admitted that you didn't strap up, unless it is in writing, and signed by you, it wouldn't be accepted in a tribunal anyway.
Plead ignorance, tell them you had concussion, and can't remember the whole event.
I have loads of info regarding employment law should you need it. Let me know.
They can't sack you without having a hearing at which you have a right to be accompanied by a Union person or work colleague, and then you have the right of appeal if they decide to dismiss you on the grounds of gross misconduct. As you say, you know you did not follow company procedure, so you won't be surprised if they find against you. All you can do is argue strongly and politely as you have done here and hope that your good record and the fact that others also fail to strap up will get you off with a written warning.
Hi Neil,
At this time you seem to have done all you can. You should note that not strapping the last two pallets is custom and practice in the company. Hold this thought.
There are minimum requirements for a grievance procedure these can be found in ACAS Code of Practice 1 Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
Good luck
Writing a non-fiction book?
I will be writing a book about my brothers illness and subsequent death from brain cancer. In my book, I will be using real names for my family (with their permission) and for the ex-sister in law and the nephews (no love lost there) and for others, like Doctors , etc, I will be using made up names. Because of the obvious connection between my brother (real name will be used) and the wife, am I still allowed to do this without her and their permission?
Answer:
It doesn't matter if you use HER name or not; she doesn't have to give permission. You can write (and publish) any truthful thing about any person that you want. You don't need her permission. Truth is the ultimate defense.
If she wants to sue you for libel, she'll have to prove that what you said isn't true, AND that you published it maliciously. You can use his name, her name and anyone else that you want, as long as what you say is the truth.
Your descriptions about her motivations for isolating your brother from his family should be expressed as 'feelings', not fact, though.
You should always ask. It's proper etiquette.
Ok that sounds interesting.
It would be ethical to seek her permission.
I think you should get their permission since it will be shared with the public. Also, if you are writing a non-fiction book, shouldn't facts be a key thing in the book? Right?
My thoughts are with you and your brother. Thanks for the question?
Depends...
1)''cool, my name's in a book!
2)"I wouldn't be caught dead reading that!''
3)"That stupid BEEP put my name in her book, I'll sue her!''
Answer:
It doesn't matter if you use HER name or not; she doesn't have to give permission. You can write (and publish) any truthful thing about any person that you want. You don't need her permission. Truth is the ultimate defense.
If she wants to sue you for libel, she'll have to prove that what you said isn't true, AND that you published it maliciously. You can use his name, her name and anyone else that you want, as long as what you say is the truth.
Your descriptions about her motivations for isolating your brother from his family should be expressed as 'feelings', not fact, though.
You should always ask. It's proper etiquette.
Ok that sounds interesting.
It would be ethical to seek her permission.
I think you should get their permission since it will be shared with the public. Also, if you are writing a non-fiction book, shouldn't facts be a key thing in the book? Right?
My thoughts are with you and your brother. Thanks for the question?
Depends...
1)''cool, my name's in a book!
2)"I wouldn't be caught dead reading that!''
3)"That stupid BEEP put my name in her book, I'll sue her!''
Wouldn't the answer to school shooting problems be to no-longer allow children to bring guns to school?
All dorm rooms should have metal detectors and video cameras. Why would a child need a gun at school. On top of this Cho wasn't even an American citizen. Why on Earth would we allow visitors from other countries buy guns? It would be like giving nuclear bombs to Bin Laden. The person that said that non-Americans can come to American and buy weapons of destruction (no matter how small they are) made a big mistake. These terrorists say that they hate us because we're free and because we're wealthy but they must be more dissatisfied with their own countries otherwise they wouldn't come to America. They are truly hypocrites. They ought to improve their own countries rather than terrorize better off countries. Jealousy and frustration is not a justification for murder. If a person is producing less than their share in society instead of being embarrassed and killing people they wish they were like they ought to work on trying to be like the people they envy.
Answer:
Metal detectors would be an acceptable idea, but on a large campus it would slow things down significantly and if this was implemented, a killer could just as easily use a bomb/start a fire in a building a pick people off as they flee. Perhaps universities and other schools should work on crisis plan and how to respond with staff and students.
What an interesting idea, but I think the schools beat you to it, and kids still bring guns to school.
Why would a child need a gun at school? To protect himself because other children bring guns to school even though it is against the school's laws.
Cho was indeed an American citizen. He was naturalized. He came here with his parents when he was like three and grew up here.
Did you ever notice that these mass shootings only happen in gun free zones. Seems to me that the only thing gun free zones do is prevent honest, law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun free zones do NOT prevent mass shootings.
Our gun laws are a joke, certainly do not keep gun out of the hands of criminals. The shootings in Virginia just show the ineffectiveness of our gun laws. Let me ask" if you needed a gun to commit a crime, would you buy one and have it registered??" NO!! and neither would I, I would steal a gun.
Interesting theory except that schools already DON'T allow children to bring guns to school! And Cho wasn't a child, he was 23. He wasn't a "visitor," either. He'd been here since he'd been 9 and he came with his family. Children of immigrants are not able to apply for citizenship until they are 18. Further, though I do not condone what he did in any way, he was taunted and teased and made fun of when he was in school. It wasn't jealousy but revenge. I'm thinkin' maybe you ought to learn the facts before you pontificate any more.
The shooter at Virginia Tech was by no means a "child". This person was an adult.
ALSO this person was a legal permanant resident of the United States and so had all the gun ownership rights of a naturalized citizen.
Perhaps a bit more study would have pointed these things out to you.
Now for the other crap like metal detectors and cameras in college dorms. Total and completely wrong method dude! We already have big brother watching way too much.
Perhaps, a bit more attention toward mental illness and education of staff on what the danger signes are would have helped. Perhaps not. We will never really know because this gy is now dead and can't tell us what he was really thinking and feeling.
Cho slipped thru the cracks...Sux, but it's as simple as that.
His guns were legally obtained, despite his being committed to a mental institution...but if his girlfriend had gotten a restraining order against him, his weapon permits would have been denied.
As for stopping kids from carrying guns;
We can't even keep guns out of city public schools, where security is the tightest of all, and has been for many years...how do you propose keeping weapons from a campus the size of VT's?
Metal detectors won't work...Many guns are available with plastic stocks that will pass thru airport security scanners, and there couldn't be any metal at all in the dormroom, which isn't likely.
The true criminal here is mental illness...Cho gave many signals in advance, but they were ignored and allowed to fester to the extreme...being Korean had little to do with it.
Every elementary and high school in the US has been a "gun free zone" for more than a decade. VA Tech is a "gun free zone". Since we don't allow ANYONE to bring guns to school now, we can't stop letting them do so. Nearly every multiple victim shooting occurs in a "gun free zone". If school shooting justify a change in the law, it would be to ban "gun free zones".
I agree with you but many schools don't go through kids backpacks everyday and I should kno I'm a kid! all we have @ my school is cameras so anyone can sneek anything into school. So now how do we prevent that?
Answer:
Metal detectors would be an acceptable idea, but on a large campus it would slow things down significantly and if this was implemented, a killer could just as easily use a bomb/start a fire in a building a pick people off as they flee. Perhaps universities and other schools should work on crisis plan and how to respond with staff and students.
What an interesting idea, but I think the schools beat you to it, and kids still bring guns to school.
Why would a child need a gun at school? To protect himself because other children bring guns to school even though it is against the school's laws.
Cho was indeed an American citizen. He was naturalized. He came here with his parents when he was like three and grew up here.
Did you ever notice that these mass shootings only happen in gun free zones. Seems to me that the only thing gun free zones do is prevent honest, law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun free zones do NOT prevent mass shootings.
Our gun laws are a joke, certainly do not keep gun out of the hands of criminals. The shootings in Virginia just show the ineffectiveness of our gun laws. Let me ask" if you needed a gun to commit a crime, would you buy one and have it registered??" NO!! and neither would I, I would steal a gun.
Interesting theory except that schools already DON'T allow children to bring guns to school! And Cho wasn't a child, he was 23. He wasn't a "visitor," either. He'd been here since he'd been 9 and he came with his family. Children of immigrants are not able to apply for citizenship until they are 18. Further, though I do not condone what he did in any way, he was taunted and teased and made fun of when he was in school. It wasn't jealousy but revenge. I'm thinkin' maybe you ought to learn the facts before you pontificate any more.
The shooter at Virginia Tech was by no means a "child". This person was an adult.
ALSO this person was a legal permanant resident of the United States and so had all the gun ownership rights of a naturalized citizen.
Perhaps a bit more study would have pointed these things out to you.
Now for the other crap like metal detectors and cameras in college dorms. Total and completely wrong method dude! We already have big brother watching way too much.
Perhaps, a bit more attention toward mental illness and education of staff on what the danger signes are would have helped. Perhaps not. We will never really know because this gy is now dead and can't tell us what he was really thinking and feeling.
Cho slipped thru the cracks...Sux, but it's as simple as that.
His guns were legally obtained, despite his being committed to a mental institution...but if his girlfriend had gotten a restraining order against him, his weapon permits would have been denied.
As for stopping kids from carrying guns;
We can't even keep guns out of city public schools, where security is the tightest of all, and has been for many years...how do you propose keeping weapons from a campus the size of VT's?
Metal detectors won't work...Many guns are available with plastic stocks that will pass thru airport security scanners, and there couldn't be any metal at all in the dormroom, which isn't likely.
The true criminal here is mental illness...Cho gave many signals in advance, but they were ignored and allowed to fester to the extreme...being Korean had little to do with it.
Every elementary and high school in the US has been a "gun free zone" for more than a decade. VA Tech is a "gun free zone". Since we don't allow ANYONE to bring guns to school now, we can't stop letting them do so. Nearly every multiple victim shooting occurs in a "gun free zone". If school shooting justify a change in the law, it would be to ban "gun free zones".
I agree with you but many schools don't go through kids backpacks everyday and I should kno I'm a kid! all we have @ my school is cameras so anyone can sneek anything into school. So now how do we prevent that?
Wouldn't it be nice if The Philippines were still an American colony?
Answer:
WTF?!
Yeah I'm sure they would love that!!!!!!
(Sarcasm just in case you didn't catch it)
-Torture Chambers
-Pollution
-Killing
-Nukes
-Intollerance
-Bigotry
I think so, then I wouldn't be waiting over 9 years for my step-son to get a visa to come here to the USA.
hell no
Wouldn't it be better if immigrants were forced to abandon the previous culture and adapt to American values ?
Answer:
As long as the Irish, Scottish, Italians, Jewish, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Welsh, German and all other nationalities started first.
What a wonderful world that would be...
PS And home grown American's BY FAR commit more crimes than any other immigrant group combined.
I'm going to take that a step further. I think the United States should stop taking as many immigrants as we do currently. We're going to have a big mess on our hands soon. Note, that crime keeps going up every year.
But to answer your question, who decideds the American culture? We the people which is made up of almost every ethnic group.
Who is going to be the culture police? Germany tried to do that and they were called the Gestapo.
Thats the way it was for decades. The immigrants would even have their names changed to sound more American and would try to fit in and acclimate to America.
Nowadays if you suggest they try to acclimate you get called a racist. That is what is bringing down the country . NO AMERICAN PATRIOTISM!!!
That would certainly be the hope of all xenophobes and capitalists. Assimulate and worship our dollar! What a sad place the world would be if that were to happen...one big cultire of greed.
I don't think it's right to force anyone to adopt someone else's values.
If the United States would follow some of the other countries in what they do with immigrants maybe things would be better. For instance in Costa Rica you ahve 2 years to learn to read, write and speak the language or you are asked to leave the country.
Values such as what? Stealing from shareholders? Materialism and wealth over family and education? Cheating in order to win? Lying? I don't know if you've been living under a rock, buddy, but American values nowadays aren't something that I think I want the world to adopt.
You can't even get Americans to adapt to "American values", and you're worried about immigrants?
No one should be forced to accept other's values. It's a birth right.
Absolutely! Right now in Minnesota the muslims that wrok @ Target are refusing to check out people buying pork products because pork is against their religion. Also cabbies who are Muslim refuse to drive anyone who has alcohol with them for the same reason. I'm not a bigot but if they want things run like it was in their country...why not go back instead of try to for the rest of us to change to your ways???
no then you wouldnt have something to talk to your different friends about
and what are american values? it would be hard to make others "american" when we dont know that is.
even america has different ideas and such
To a degree yes. Not every aspect of every other culture fits in here. We don't stone women for committing adultry or chop their arm off if they steal. Molesting children isn't considered "normal" here. We don't advocate beating your wife or having your wife be expected to mate with all the males in your family. We don't eat cats and dogs or rats or giant spiders. We don't burn our dead, crush their bones and mix it with water and drink it so their soul lives on.
Yet there are aspects of a culture that are interesting...fung shui, clothing styles and furniture styles, some foods, music, little traditions like hanging a pickle in your christmas tree, art, dance etc.
All I know is we accept and tolerate alot more than alot of cultures so if they don't like it here....the door swings out too. Go elsewhere for your utopia.
Culture and values are not something that we should be forcing on others. American citizens don't even agree on the culture and values. I enjoy the cultures of others, and it would be a shame to have everybody the same.
I would like everybody to speak English however. While we can't force this, we can stop paying for multi lingual documents, education...etc.etc.
As an American who is a member of a recognized Native American Indian tribe, and whose European ancestors from England, Ireland, and Scotland intermarried with Native Americans, I cannot agree that it would be "better" if immigrants were forced to "abandon" their culture; but, requiring immigrants to the U.S. to become American citizens is not asking them to forget their culture; only to become citizens accountable to the laws of the United States.
Learning the language of the country you live in: reading, writing, speaking, can only aide an immigrant's acceptance into a country. Reluctance to do so, initiates fear and suspicion.
My Native American ancestors were forcefully subjected to the "American" way. My great grandparents were taken from their families and placed in schools devoted to subjecting their students to the "American" way. Indian reservations were established to keep the "savages" away from the rest of society, supposedly under the protection of the U.S. Government because they were unable to take care of themselves!
I am proud to be an American. I am proud to be a member of a Native American Indian tribe. My parents taught me the value of being both. A person doesn't have to abandon their racial culture to be called an "American"; but, it is necessary for everyone living in America to support the concept of a United States in order for us to survive as the United States of America.
Unfortunately, America is losing any values that have been associated with our country. As a retired, and now substitute teacher, I see this denigration of values among our present-day students and parents.
The public school system is expected to educate students who are disrepectful of their teachers, and parents who stand behind their child's disrepect. Parents are so busy with their own lives they don't know what is going on in their child's life. The schools are held accountable for their child's behavior.
America no longer stands for any values.
Wouldn't it be a crime to scare schoolchildren so badly that they were crying and begging not to be killed?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_o...
"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.
Answer:
Isn't there a "Zero Tolerance" policy at many schools these days? If so, there are a bunch of teacher that ought to be fired.
This is the REAL reason why teachers don't want students to be armed--because when they pull this kind of sh!t, they don't want to get shot by someone who can rightly claim self defense.
I would hope so.
I remember the "duck and cover" drills in school because of earthquakes, but this was ridiculous.
No, it's not a crime to scare children. Distasteful, but not criminal. Remember when they used to tell you that hiding under the tiny little desk would save you from an atomic weapon?
I'm aware of the definition of assault. The teachers didn't do it. They frightened the children with an outside threat, but never directly threatened to cause harm. By your interpretation, the entire Republican Party should be run in for Assault for scaring us with threats of outside terrorism.
The little baskets need a short sharp shock
to keep em in line now and again,as do some of their parents!
I am a student at ITT-Tech going to school for Criminal Justice. I asked my instructor your question. He heard about your case. He knows that the principal did not know about the staging, so the teachers should probably be fired, but he's not sure wether or not any legal action SHOULD be taken, because with everything thats happening in todays society, its probably not a bad idea to educate children what should be done if the situation were to occur. But it shouldnt occur in 3rd grade. Jr/Sr High material.
I hope the teachers get more than discipline action done. They should all be fired. And the parents of those kids sue the school, and members responsible!
"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.
Answer:
Isn't there a "Zero Tolerance" policy at many schools these days? If so, there are a bunch of teacher that ought to be fired.
This is the REAL reason why teachers don't want students to be armed--because when they pull this kind of sh!t, they don't want to get shot by someone who can rightly claim self defense.
I would hope so.
I remember the "duck and cover" drills in school because of earthquakes, but this was ridiculous.
No, it's not a crime to scare children. Distasteful, but not criminal. Remember when they used to tell you that hiding under the tiny little desk would save you from an atomic weapon?
I'm aware of the definition of assault. The teachers didn't do it. They frightened the children with an outside threat, but never directly threatened to cause harm. By your interpretation, the entire Republican Party should be run in for Assault for scaring us with threats of outside terrorism.
The little baskets need a short sharp shock
to keep em in line now and again,as do some of their parents!
I am a student at ITT-Tech going to school for Criminal Justice. I asked my instructor your question. He heard about your case. He knows that the principal did not know about the staging, so the teachers should probably be fired, but he's not sure wether or not any legal action SHOULD be taken, because with everything thats happening in todays society, its probably not a bad idea to educate children what should be done if the situation were to occur. But it shouldnt occur in 3rd grade. Jr/Sr High material.
I hope the teachers get more than discipline action done. They should all be fired. And the parents of those kids sue the school, and members responsible!
Would you want to buy this land?
The person who is selling the land, along with his heirs and successors, maintains the rights to any oil, gas, or minerals found on it - forever. He didn't mention anything about this during our discussions of the purchase but now it's in the contract. This is an oil rich area, so I understand that this is standard language on a contract. However, I don't think it's mandatory. I have requested that he remove this clause. Is this reasonable?
Answer:
Lots of deeds in certain areas retain mineral rights. You are within your rights to refuse to buy without the entire fee simple package of rights; and he's within his rights to sell it that way.
Will come down to how badly he wants to sell vs. how much the chances of a mineral strike weigh in.
ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get it removed or don't buy the property.
yes, but it is just as reasonable for them to to refuse
I would make him lower the price, as this could seriously lower the value of the property.
Of course. They can't build rigging on your property. So what are you going to do build rigging and have an outside company to come in and have them deliver all the profits to that guy who sold you the land. Your being way more than reasonable.
In many Western states, reservations of mineral rghts are common. If it is not acceptable to you, don't sign it.
yes, and this guy sounds like a "richard"
Oh, absolutely! He wants his "cake and to eat it too"...if this can be a negotiating tool...use it! Why would he want to hang onto land, if he can sell AND have mineral rights???? I don't think so....
Tell 'em you'll not sign unless that is removed from the contract...
IMHO, of course...
I would not want to buy a land from anyone who would want to claim the goods of it at their will. Either I buy it and it's MY land, or I don't buy it and if they want to keep whatever comes out of the land, then why not just keep the land, then. How unfair is that for the buyer.
Yes, until there is a meeting of the minds of both the seller and the buyer everything is negotiable. If I only wanted the land because of its views to build a home, then I wouldn't mind at all. Note that although the mineral rights are there, the ground over it belongs to you. They cannot access the minerals without your permission or without compensating you.
Sure. Otherwise you may wake up some day with a oil rig standing on your driveway- if he retains the mineral rights then he also retains the "right of access".
IMO if you buy this land with his conditions included, then you should demand that the price be set at (at least) half the market price. And even then expect surprises, since you will have to ask his permission every time you want to dig a hole on "your" land.
Sounds like the guy wants both to eat the cake and keep it.
Believe it or not, this is very common. You'd be hard pressed in Texas to find land that came with the mineral rights. If there isn't a pumping well on the site now and its in an area where there are a lot of active wells, I'd guess the geological survey for that property wasn't very favorable for a successful drill, which would mean that there's probably little chance that this would ever effect you anyhow. I would however make sure that you have the water rights so that you can put in a well should you develop the property, unless it is serviced by a municipal water system.
Answer:
Lots of deeds in certain areas retain mineral rights. You are within your rights to refuse to buy without the entire fee simple package of rights; and he's within his rights to sell it that way.
Will come down to how badly he wants to sell vs. how much the chances of a mineral strike weigh in.
ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get it removed or don't buy the property.
yes, but it is just as reasonable for them to to refuse
I would make him lower the price, as this could seriously lower the value of the property.
Of course. They can't build rigging on your property. So what are you going to do build rigging and have an outside company to come in and have them deliver all the profits to that guy who sold you the land. Your being way more than reasonable.
In many Western states, reservations of mineral rghts are common. If it is not acceptable to you, don't sign it.
yes, and this guy sounds like a "richard"
Oh, absolutely! He wants his "cake and to eat it too"...if this can be a negotiating tool...use it! Why would he want to hang onto land, if he can sell AND have mineral rights???? I don't think so....
Tell 'em you'll not sign unless that is removed from the contract...
IMHO, of course...
I would not want to buy a land from anyone who would want to claim the goods of it at their will. Either I buy it and it's MY land, or I don't buy it and if they want to keep whatever comes out of the land, then why not just keep the land, then. How unfair is that for the buyer.
Yes, until there is a meeting of the minds of both the seller and the buyer everything is negotiable. If I only wanted the land because of its views to build a home, then I wouldn't mind at all. Note that although the mineral rights are there, the ground over it belongs to you. They cannot access the minerals without your permission or without compensating you.
Sure. Otherwise you may wake up some day with a oil rig standing on your driveway- if he retains the mineral rights then he also retains the "right of access".
IMO if you buy this land with his conditions included, then you should demand that the price be set at (at least) half the market price. And even then expect surprises, since you will have to ask his permission every time you want to dig a hole on "your" land.
Sounds like the guy wants both to eat the cake and keep it.
Believe it or not, this is very common. You'd be hard pressed in Texas to find land that came with the mineral rights. If there isn't a pumping well on the site now and its in an area where there are a lot of active wells, I'd guess the geological survey for that property wasn't very favorable for a successful drill, which would mean that there's probably little chance that this would ever effect you anyhow. I would however make sure that you have the water rights so that you can put in a well should you develop the property, unless it is serviced by a municipal water system.
Would you vote for a disabled persons rights bill? See details...?
If a bill were to be presented to Congress to make it law that all public access buildings were to be made fully handicap accessible (meaning ramps, automatic doors, lower counters) would you vote for it?
I ask this because being newly physically challenged myself, I am wondering who has all realized that stores and restaurants are NOT fully accessible to those that are physically challenged. And believe it or not, there are many.
So, would you vote for this if it came to your area? Serious replies only please.
Answer:
i understand your frustration. i deal with the same issues myself. where i live the most surprising public building that is not handicapped accessible is the good old us post office. our county courthouse is not accessible either. you can be required to go to court for something and be penalized for not being able to enter the building. seems pretty unfair to me.
Already been done via the Americans with Disabilities Act
It would be nearly impossible to force buildings that had preceded the ADA to comply because of cost. It would force many businesses to close.
In response to your addendum on your answer, I don't understand what the ADA does not cover. I am sensitive to your cause, but I am also sensitive to the small businesses that own buildings that were built long before ADA became law. Some of those businesses are barely making ends meet, and a major reconstruction of entrances, bathrooms, doors, counters would put them out of business.
Public buildings must comply with ADA, and they already meet your standards indicated above. If you add another comment, please address your views on small businesses in this regard.
I really think the ADA goes far enough.
you are not asking for a bill of rights, but a bill of privileges.
ADA is already too much of a burden, i had to spend an extra several thousand dollars for my rest rooms when i opened my cafe and never had one single wheelchair there. but its there just in case.
no its too much already, and being handicapped does not bestow privileges that have to be paid for by others
I ask this because being newly physically challenged myself, I am wondering who has all realized that stores and restaurants are NOT fully accessible to those that are physically challenged. And believe it or not, there are many.
So, would you vote for this if it came to your area? Serious replies only please.
Answer:
i understand your frustration. i deal with the same issues myself. where i live the most surprising public building that is not handicapped accessible is the good old us post office. our county courthouse is not accessible either. you can be required to go to court for something and be penalized for not being able to enter the building. seems pretty unfair to me.
Already been done via the Americans with Disabilities Act
It would be nearly impossible to force buildings that had preceded the ADA to comply because of cost. It would force many businesses to close.
In response to your addendum on your answer, I don't understand what the ADA does not cover. I am sensitive to your cause, but I am also sensitive to the small businesses that own buildings that were built long before ADA became law. Some of those businesses are barely making ends meet, and a major reconstruction of entrances, bathrooms, doors, counters would put them out of business.
Public buildings must comply with ADA, and they already meet your standards indicated above. If you add another comment, please address your views on small businesses in this regard.
I really think the ADA goes far enough.
you are not asking for a bill of rights, but a bill of privileges.
ADA is already too much of a burden, i had to spend an extra several thousand dollars for my rest rooms when i opened my cafe and never had one single wheelchair there. but its there just in case.
no its too much already, and being handicapped does not bestow privileges that have to be paid for by others
Would you sympathize a thief under certain circumstances?
what if a little boy went into a liquor store and stole a bag of cookies because he and his little sister is starving on the streets? and what is your solution to this if you were the owner of the liquor store after the little boy told you his situation?
some might say a thief is a thief, and that no sympathy should be felt for them. but sometimes we have to understand the thief's situation and forgive. If I was the owner, I would forgive the boy and would even offer him and his sister a job at the store, and probably would try my best to find a shelter for them.
Answer:
there is no excuse for any crime in this world. As much as a certain political party would want you to believe that every crime does have a reason and the person committing the crime is a helpless human being and needs a 500th chance this just isn't true.
I would tell the little boy he will be working a weekend at my store breaking down boxes, cleaning up the outside of the bldg, taking out trash, etc and is to be checked for items every night....or I can call the police.
No excuse at all, you pay for anything and everything you take.
there are no absolutes in this world...as a rule though,if you try hard enough,you can justify almost anything..even murder and rape...self justification is amazing.."she really wanted it"...in the deviants mind,its perfectly OK to do what he wants.......so as a general statement...no
Depends
The boy could've asked me for a job, or simply ask for food instead of stealing, which is wrong no matter how you look at it, and I would've surely helped him.
I would forgive him if I would caught him stealing and he was in this situation - we are human.
Well first I would say this. If the kid was hungry or starving why a bag of cookies? Why not some bread or a bag of peanuts. Its like that old saying, if a man steals bread for his starving family its ok, but the minute he puts peanut butter on it, its wrong, becuase then its not a neccesity to eat now it becomes a treat. I understand the situation.
Kids get more of a break from me, but they have to listen to the lecture after.
Lots of time you get BS'ed by them. But once in a while they actually listen and maybe some good comes out of it.
We can't just throw the book at everyone.
yeah,i'll forgive the boy,alright...but not without makin him realize that stealin is still stealin,and no matter what,it is never somethin that people should resort to.if i think he got that part right,then sure i'll give him the job...that way,he wouldnt end up to be just another Henri Young of this world.
It depends on who's stuff they stole.
If they stole someone's elses stuff, I'd at least listen to his sob story.
But if it was MY stuff stolen, I don't give a rat's **** what his story is, he is getting a beat down.
some might say a thief is a thief, and that no sympathy should be felt for them. but sometimes we have to understand the thief's situation and forgive. If I was the owner, I would forgive the boy and would even offer him and his sister a job at the store, and probably would try my best to find a shelter for them.
Answer:
there is no excuse for any crime in this world. As much as a certain political party would want you to believe that every crime does have a reason and the person committing the crime is a helpless human being and needs a 500th chance this just isn't true.
I would tell the little boy he will be working a weekend at my store breaking down boxes, cleaning up the outside of the bldg, taking out trash, etc and is to be checked for items every night....or I can call the police.
No excuse at all, you pay for anything and everything you take.
there are no absolutes in this world...as a rule though,if you try hard enough,you can justify almost anything..even murder and rape...self justification is amazing.."she really wanted it"...in the deviants mind,its perfectly OK to do what he wants.......so as a general statement...no
Depends
The boy could've asked me for a job, or simply ask for food instead of stealing, which is wrong no matter how you look at it, and I would've surely helped him.
I would forgive him if I would caught him stealing and he was in this situation - we are human.
Well first I would say this. If the kid was hungry or starving why a bag of cookies? Why not some bread or a bag of peanuts. Its like that old saying, if a man steals bread for his starving family its ok, but the minute he puts peanut butter on it, its wrong, becuase then its not a neccesity to eat now it becomes a treat. I understand the situation.
Kids get more of a break from me, but they have to listen to the lecture after.
Lots of time you get BS'ed by them. But once in a while they actually listen and maybe some good comes out of it.
We can't just throw the book at everyone.
yeah,i'll forgive the boy,alright...but not without makin him realize that stealin is still stealin,and no matter what,it is never somethin that people should resort to.if i think he got that part right,then sure i'll give him the job...that way,he wouldnt end up to be just another Henri Young of this world.
It depends on who's stuff they stole.
If they stole someone's elses stuff, I'd at least listen to his sob story.
But if it was MY stuff stolen, I don't give a rat's **** what his story is, he is getting a beat down.
Would you support this plan?
I would like to see some legislation to help people that do not recieve child support from deadbeat parents. It has come to my attention that a parent not meeting their obligation paying child support can collect child support for another child with no hold up of the money. I would like to see this changed. I would also like to see any parent in arrears of $5000 or more be ineligible for any form of welfare. I would also like to see the parents work for the state 40 hours per week for their support if they will not get a job. Their pay will be only their weekly support ammount which would be paid to the parent that is owed. Refusal to work would land the parent in jail. Please write your state and fed govt. if you agree with this plan. It is time that this country stand up for our children and clean up the deadbeat parent problem.
Answer:
it's a double edged sword though -- you put a dead beat parent in jail and then you limit ANY chance of getting money out of them.
The whole child support, custody and divorce system is a nightmare. So much needs to be done to correct it, I'm not sure it would not be best to eliminate everything in place and start over.
Until realistic and logical approaches are involved, I will not support anything dealing with the current mess unless it is to correct the main problems, which are many including but not limited to courtroom bias and unrealistic child support amounts and draconian measures to transfer wealth between parents.
The best way to force a desirable change is for all parents, even those living with their children, to be forced to the exact same standards as divorced or never-married parents.
That means that all parents would be forced under threat of jail to spend a specific amount of income on their children, mandate health insurance coverage for them, be only allowed to see their children on specific days and times and have no control over their education, religion or socialization.
What you propose is unconstitutional for custodial parents; slavery. It would only work for non-custodial parents and only then under the subterfuge of "contempt of court", which is double-talk for failure to pay a (court-ordered) debt.
Answer:
it's a double edged sword though -- you put a dead beat parent in jail and then you limit ANY chance of getting money out of them.
The whole child support, custody and divorce system is a nightmare. So much needs to be done to correct it, I'm not sure it would not be best to eliminate everything in place and start over.
Until realistic and logical approaches are involved, I will not support anything dealing with the current mess unless it is to correct the main problems, which are many including but not limited to courtroom bias and unrealistic child support amounts and draconian measures to transfer wealth between parents.
The best way to force a desirable change is for all parents, even those living with their children, to be forced to the exact same standards as divorced or never-married parents.
That means that all parents would be forced under threat of jail to spend a specific amount of income on their children, mandate health insurance coverage for them, be only allowed to see their children on specific days and times and have no control over their education, religion or socialization.
What you propose is unconstitutional for custodial parents; slavery. It would only work for non-custodial parents and only then under the subterfuge of "contempt of court", which is double-talk for failure to pay a (court-ordered) debt.
Would you support banning using cell phones while driving?
If so in what form? If not why not?
Answer:
A B S O L U T E L Y !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in the form of when they are caught they ought to fined $100 for 1st offense $200 for 2nd on the 3rd their phone ought to be taken away. kind of like when someone is caught DUI or DWI whichever.
yes all forms, most crashes happen because people are not paying attention or are being careless. Cell phones are apart of both of those more than 50% of crashes are cell phone related. By banning cell phones while driving even headsets because they distract you to, we could make roads alot safer
Definitely... i had the misfortune of watching a woman who was as usual on her cell phone trying to park her car one day and barely missing a kid on a bike... as it was he saw her and got out of the way.. but she kept right one.. ran right over the bike, completely demolishing it.. got out of her car, still talking and was about to walk away. Both the youngster and i yelled at her... She was oblivious..... how stupid is that.
hand held Yes--Hands free No
Yes; I would support a ban of using cell phones while driving. If the car is stationary and not running, it can be used.
Yes, fine them heavily...$150.00 each time.
Yes, I support it. Most of these people are already in their stupid little worlds already. Add a cell phone and attach it to their heads and they're completely in their own universe! They either drive too fast or too slow, or are swerving like they're drunk. Don't get me wrong, I love my cell phone. I think it's one of the greatest inventions of all time, but nobody is so important that they need a phone attached to their head constantly.
I most definitely would! At the least they should make people use a headset. Nothing ticks me off more then to see a person driving 5 miles an hour while they are talking on there cell phone.
Yes. The only thing more distracting to drivers is noisy children.
Being a teenager with a new liscense and lots to talk about, I can honestly say a cell phone ban would be a great thing. For inexperienced drivers like me, the worst thing that can happen behind the wheel is when a careless driver on their cell phone runs a stop sign, or a yield sign, when we have the right of way. I once ran a stop sign once when I was on my cell phone, so I never use it anymore while I'm driving. In driver's ed, one of the drivers doing in-car almost got hit by an SUV running a yield sign because the woman was on her cell phone. When the Drivers Ed kid honked, the person who ran the yield sign looked horrified. She apparently never even saw the car. In my state (Illinois), if you are under 18, you are not allowed to drive while talking on a cell phone, including hands-free. No one obeys it, however, and I think the only way to really prevent it is to just plain outlaw it. It's dangerous to the driver, as well as the people around them.
I have seen 2 car accidents, one was a sideswipe and both times the drivers were holding phones.
Banning does no good though. They deny it.
States where there's a ban cannot really enforce it. Nightime is the worst.
Sure, while you're at it, ban changing the channel, not wearing a helmet on a bike or bicycle, eating, writing, putting on makeup, leaning over too far, and singing....good grief!
yes beacause americans are very careless %26 irrespinsible. %26 when it comes down to it most are non reliable.. so i would support making it illegal %26 if seen you should get a ticket. head pieces %26 speakerphone are great.. but either way... cells phones have become a huge distraction when driving
No, and it currently is law in some areas you may be driving through without any knowledge of the local laws, it's like a hidden trap. The government loves these type of tactics.
Some have banned eating while driving, and one in NY is trying to ban smoking cigarettes while driving.
Next, picking your nose will be banned as a driving distraction. Where will it end?
I seen a female driving 80 down the highway weaving lanes while putting on make-up using her rear view mirror.
Ban everything or nothing, and ban it everywhere or no-where.
This reminds of the 2 boys I seen on TV tonight in jail with $100,000 bonds for graffiti on a church, while the female K-Mart employee puts rat poison in K-Mart hamburger and gets released on her own recognizance.
Who's running this twisted society, because it sure isn't anyone with any intelligence.
Answer:
A B S O L U T E L Y !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in the form of when they are caught they ought to fined $100 for 1st offense $200 for 2nd on the 3rd their phone ought to be taken away. kind of like when someone is caught DUI or DWI whichever.
yes all forms, most crashes happen because people are not paying attention or are being careless. Cell phones are apart of both of those more than 50% of crashes are cell phone related. By banning cell phones while driving even headsets because they distract you to, we could make roads alot safer
Definitely... i had the misfortune of watching a woman who was as usual on her cell phone trying to park her car one day and barely missing a kid on a bike... as it was he saw her and got out of the way.. but she kept right one.. ran right over the bike, completely demolishing it.. got out of her car, still talking and was about to walk away. Both the youngster and i yelled at her... She was oblivious..... how stupid is that.
hand held Yes--Hands free No
Yes; I would support a ban of using cell phones while driving. If the car is stationary and not running, it can be used.
Yes, fine them heavily...$150.00 each time.
Yes, I support it. Most of these people are already in their stupid little worlds already. Add a cell phone and attach it to their heads and they're completely in their own universe! They either drive too fast or too slow, or are swerving like they're drunk. Don't get me wrong, I love my cell phone. I think it's one of the greatest inventions of all time, but nobody is so important that they need a phone attached to their head constantly.
I most definitely would! At the least they should make people use a headset. Nothing ticks me off more then to see a person driving 5 miles an hour while they are talking on there cell phone.
Yes. The only thing more distracting to drivers is noisy children.
Being a teenager with a new liscense and lots to talk about, I can honestly say a cell phone ban would be a great thing. For inexperienced drivers like me, the worst thing that can happen behind the wheel is when a careless driver on their cell phone runs a stop sign, or a yield sign, when we have the right of way. I once ran a stop sign once when I was on my cell phone, so I never use it anymore while I'm driving. In driver's ed, one of the drivers doing in-car almost got hit by an SUV running a yield sign because the woman was on her cell phone. When the Drivers Ed kid honked, the person who ran the yield sign looked horrified. She apparently never even saw the car. In my state (Illinois), if you are under 18, you are not allowed to drive while talking on a cell phone, including hands-free. No one obeys it, however, and I think the only way to really prevent it is to just plain outlaw it. It's dangerous to the driver, as well as the people around them.
I have seen 2 car accidents, one was a sideswipe and both times the drivers were holding phones.
Banning does no good though. They deny it.
States where there's a ban cannot really enforce it. Nightime is the worst.
Sure, while you're at it, ban changing the channel, not wearing a helmet on a bike or bicycle, eating, writing, putting on makeup, leaning over too far, and singing....good grief!
yes beacause americans are very careless %26 irrespinsible. %26 when it comes down to it most are non reliable.. so i would support making it illegal %26 if seen you should get a ticket. head pieces %26 speakerphone are great.. but either way... cells phones have become a huge distraction when driving
No, and it currently is law in some areas you may be driving through without any knowledge of the local laws, it's like a hidden trap. The government loves these type of tactics.
Some have banned eating while driving, and one in NY is trying to ban smoking cigarettes while driving.
Next, picking your nose will be banned as a driving distraction. Where will it end?
I seen a female driving 80 down the highway weaving lanes while putting on make-up using her rear view mirror.
Ban everything or nothing, and ban it everywhere or no-where.
This reminds of the 2 boys I seen on TV tonight in jail with $100,000 bonds for graffiti on a church, while the female K-Mart employee puts rat poison in K-Mart hamburger and gets released on her own recognizance.
Who's running this twisted society, because it sure isn't anyone with any intelligence.
Would you support a legalisation of all recreational drugs ?
Answer:
Yes I would because there seems to be a big demand for illegal drugs, so why not legalize them. With the demand for them as big as it is, you know there will always be a supply of them. It's a no win situation keeping them illegal, what could it hurt?
No. But I would support legislation for legalized shooting of drug pushers and drug users.
God no...drug makers and importers and distributors should be locked in jail for at least 10 years..maybe then they might learn to care for all the lives they ruin.
There should be NO laws for victimless crimes. It is idiotic and repressive.
No, people are naturally idiots why make them super-idiots.
No, just marijuana because it has really shown to be beneficial in the medical community. I personally believe Doctors should be able to prescribe weed because it ultimately is helping and not causing more harm. Other than that, no I do not believe other illegal drugs should be currently legalized.
Only if it could be taxed and regulated.Think of all of the income that would be generated by the gov't and all of the drug users who would die of overdosing.Less of a burden on society,don't you think?
Would you support a law (bill) to limit entitlements?
When they retire or are forced to leave office members of congress get this golden parachute retirement. All their perks are continued at taxpayer expense. I feel that public service jobs should be just that. It should be a privelige to serve your fellow man. I feel it is wrong to keep getting free anything at taxpayers expense
Answer:
But what you're forgetting is that these (mostly) talented, (mostly) smart people could get mega mega bucks working in private industry. Many already take huge paycuts to get into public service, are put under immense public (and personal) scrutiny, lose months of time with their families, and have exceedingly difficult jobs. Why not just make millions in business? Do you know that most congresspeople cannot afford houses in Washington? They have to share small spaces, room together, etc. All while they could be at home with their families.
I don't mean to make this a "poor Congressperson" argument, but being a public servant is not a "fat cat" lifestyle.
We need to encourage good people to remain in public service, because there just isn't a demand anymore. At least one of the ways we can do that is to give public officials good pension benefits (this also ensures that they don't have to run off to the nearest lobbying firm after they're done... although many do.)
Isn't power grand???
Answer:
But what you're forgetting is that these (mostly) talented, (mostly) smart people could get mega mega bucks working in private industry. Many already take huge paycuts to get into public service, are put under immense public (and personal) scrutiny, lose months of time with their families, and have exceedingly difficult jobs. Why not just make millions in business? Do you know that most congresspeople cannot afford houses in Washington? They have to share small spaces, room together, etc. All while they could be at home with their families.
I don't mean to make this a "poor Congressperson" argument, but being a public servant is not a "fat cat" lifestyle.
We need to encourage good people to remain in public service, because there just isn't a demand anymore. At least one of the ways we can do that is to give public officials good pension benefits (this also ensures that they don't have to run off to the nearest lobbying firm after they're done... although many do.)
Isn't power grand???
Would you support a "No Confidence" vote?
Many times in our Government (U.S.), in our States, and in our Cities the people we elect don't do their jobs, or they get voted in for one stance but then do just the opposite once in office. Instead of just waiting for their term to be over, should the citizens have the legal right to call for a vote of No Confidence in their elected officials at the local and state level?
Answer:
In general....no. We have an impeachment process for severe infractions. If we did go the "no confidence" vote route, we would constantly be tying up the system. Not to mention the time each official would have to spend defending and answering such campaigns even if frivolous or from the losing party. Many offices have term limits for just such reasons.
hell yes
for sure.
While this sounds good on the surface, what you're overlooking is the cost of replacing our elected officials every couple months. How would this cost be covered? Higher taxes. And what happens when taxes are raised? You have another no confidence vote and elect a new one. Who has to raise taxes. This plan isn't well thought out.
Yes i agree if people can't or won't do the job they don't deserve it so get somone else that can and will work as they should
I agree with one of the above answers. Although this sounds good in theory, it practice it would be a nightmare. For local officials, honestly, most people don't even pay attention to what those people are doing unless it's so bizarre or outrageous as to incite huge debate. At that point, sometimes higher officials will step in and ask for resignation, so there is no need for this vote.
Secondly, there are no measures available to be able to carry this out effectively. How do you elect the next person when you have ousted someone with a no confidence vote? Do you just allow an empty position for months? It's just too complicated, and as mentioned, to costly for tax payers. And although it might be nice to get rid of some jerk that does a crappy job, the best the system can do is ensure that in a certian number of years when his term is up, we can vote for someone new.
Answer:
In general....no. We have an impeachment process for severe infractions. If we did go the "no confidence" vote route, we would constantly be tying up the system. Not to mention the time each official would have to spend defending and answering such campaigns even if frivolous or from the losing party. Many offices have term limits for just such reasons.
hell yes
for sure.
While this sounds good on the surface, what you're overlooking is the cost of replacing our elected officials every couple months. How would this cost be covered? Higher taxes. And what happens when taxes are raised? You have another no confidence vote and elect a new one. Who has to raise taxes. This plan isn't well thought out.
Yes i agree if people can't or won't do the job they don't deserve it so get somone else that can and will work as they should
I agree with one of the above answers. Although this sounds good in theory, it practice it would be a nightmare. For local officials, honestly, most people don't even pay attention to what those people are doing unless it's so bizarre or outrageous as to incite huge debate. At that point, sometimes higher officials will step in and ask for resignation, so there is no need for this vote.
Secondly, there are no measures available to be able to carry this out effectively. How do you elect the next person when you have ousted someone with a no confidence vote? Do you just allow an empty position for months? It's just too complicated, and as mentioned, to costly for tax payers. And although it might be nice to get rid of some jerk that does a crappy job, the best the system can do is ensure that in a certian number of years when his term is up, we can vote for someone new.
Would you support "preemptive justice" like in Minority Report?
In the movie Minority Report, crimes are predicted and and the perpetrators apprehended before the crime is commited. German researchers have been using MRIs to read people's thoughts http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2566... One natural application would be law enforcement. Would you support the idea of preemptive law enforcement?
Answer:
No, because thinking is not a crime. The closest thing we have is conspiracy crimes. Those are the ones where a few people think about, plan, and move towards committing some crime, but don't actually manage to pull it off, for whatever reason.
With any crime, even a conspiracy charge, the person must commit some overt act towards that crime to be charged. It is even written into most conspiracy charges that a person can make some act to stop whatever crime that was being planned and not be guilty of it.
Think of it this way: Bob really hates his next door neighbor. They are always arguing over the fence about property disputes, loud noises, nuisance pets, etc. Bob thinks one day, "Ya know, my life would be so much easier if I killed that idiot." Is this a crime? No. Many people have such thoughts. Well, what if Bob is out back cutting limbs with his chainsaw, and thinks, "This would take that guy's head right off." Is that a crime? Again, no. What if Bob takes the chainsaw, walks over towards his neighbor's house thinking, "I'm gonna get him this time."? Has he committed a crime yet? Would you want him arrested for a murder he hasn't committed yet? Bob knocks on the door, waiting for the neighbor so he can "get him". Any crime yet? But, as he's waiting, he starts thinking about the neighbors wife and kids and what they would feel like without him. When the neighbor opens the door, Bob has already set the chainsaw down out of sight. The neighbor says, "What is it, Bob?" Bob looks up and says, "I've been thinking. This constant fighting is stupid. I'm sorry I'm so difficult sometimes." Did Bob ever commit a crime? Not really. He almost did, but in the end, he didn't.
That's the problem with thought crimes. Human beings minds are so complex. People change their minds at the last minute all the time. About committing crime, breaking rules, what to wear, what to watch, what to eat. From the big things all the way down to the little things, thoughts are ever flowing and changing.
How could you justify charging somebody for something they haven't done yet, and maybe never would have? That's why conspiracy laws require an overt act. There must be some action that took it beyond just thinking about the crime. And even then, conspiracy charges carry lesser sentences and punishments than if they actually committed the full crime. And they're danged hard to prove, too.
The only place we have true freedom is in our own thoughts. I'd personally like to keep it that way.
No. If a mistake is made an innocent person could be sent to jail or worse in some states.
Plus, I dont much like the idea of people reading my thoughts thank you very much.
I enjoy what privacy I have, and one of the foundations of freedom is individual privacy.
Absolutely not. There is no such thing as "preemptive justice". It's a ridiculous theory that is filled with many holes.
YES. We should totally nail people when they are still innocent! No more daydreams! No more fiction writing! Hey the United States already has the most people behind bars of any industrialized nation, including the retarded and children, why stop now!?
....yes that would be cool except you would violate every civil rights our "grandfathers" fought for...........sorry my bad
no, thats not right, eveyone has had thoughts that they would like to harm others or steal, ect. but you dont act on them.... if we did that everyone would be in jail
btw dont listen to fox news. they hype things like this to get you scared.
We are hear only for people Of Bangladesh.......................
Answer:
No, because thinking is not a crime. The closest thing we have is conspiracy crimes. Those are the ones where a few people think about, plan, and move towards committing some crime, but don't actually manage to pull it off, for whatever reason.
With any crime, even a conspiracy charge, the person must commit some overt act towards that crime to be charged. It is even written into most conspiracy charges that a person can make some act to stop whatever crime that was being planned and not be guilty of it.
Think of it this way: Bob really hates his next door neighbor. They are always arguing over the fence about property disputes, loud noises, nuisance pets, etc. Bob thinks one day, "Ya know, my life would be so much easier if I killed that idiot." Is this a crime? No. Many people have such thoughts. Well, what if Bob is out back cutting limbs with his chainsaw, and thinks, "This would take that guy's head right off." Is that a crime? Again, no. What if Bob takes the chainsaw, walks over towards his neighbor's house thinking, "I'm gonna get him this time."? Has he committed a crime yet? Would you want him arrested for a murder he hasn't committed yet? Bob knocks on the door, waiting for the neighbor so he can "get him". Any crime yet? But, as he's waiting, he starts thinking about the neighbors wife and kids and what they would feel like without him. When the neighbor opens the door, Bob has already set the chainsaw down out of sight. The neighbor says, "What is it, Bob?" Bob looks up and says, "I've been thinking. This constant fighting is stupid. I'm sorry I'm so difficult sometimes." Did Bob ever commit a crime? Not really. He almost did, but in the end, he didn't.
That's the problem with thought crimes. Human beings minds are so complex. People change their minds at the last minute all the time. About committing crime, breaking rules, what to wear, what to watch, what to eat. From the big things all the way down to the little things, thoughts are ever flowing and changing.
How could you justify charging somebody for something they haven't done yet, and maybe never would have? That's why conspiracy laws require an overt act. There must be some action that took it beyond just thinking about the crime. And even then, conspiracy charges carry lesser sentences and punishments than if they actually committed the full crime. And they're danged hard to prove, too.
The only place we have true freedom is in our own thoughts. I'd personally like to keep it that way.
No. If a mistake is made an innocent person could be sent to jail or worse in some states.
Plus, I dont much like the idea of people reading my thoughts thank you very much.
I enjoy what privacy I have, and one of the foundations of freedom is individual privacy.
Absolutely not. There is no such thing as "preemptive justice". It's a ridiculous theory that is filled with many holes.
YES. We should totally nail people when they are still innocent! No more daydreams! No more fiction writing! Hey the United States already has the most people behind bars of any industrialized nation, including the retarded and children, why stop now!?
....yes that would be cool except you would violate every civil rights our "grandfathers" fought for...........sorry my bad
no, thats not right, eveyone has had thoughts that they would like to harm others or steal, ect. but you dont act on them.... if we did that everyone would be in jail
btw dont listen to fox news. they hype things like this to get you scared.
We are hear only for people Of Bangladesh.......................
Would YOU step up? 90 year old man beaten in parking lot....?
car stolen. No one helped him. Would YOU step up?
Answer:
I have no problem getting into it with riff-raff, esp. in a parking lot--you have a car as an equalizer for crying out loud--run the dolts over!
Most people don't realize that cretons who attempt these crimes could very well have targeted their own parents, or their kids...get them off the street for everyone's sake...police can only be in so many places at once. These people also don't expect that anyone would stand up to them, and when others do, it throws off their focus %26 unity...their brain capacities are usually not that great to begin with...so, you have them at an advantage just by yelling at the top of your lungs while running at them with a crowbar...attention of the nearby masses is not what they're looking for, because when they are noticed, they can be identified more easily.
These guys are "terrorists" on our own streets...they feed on your fears...those that do nothing are actually supporting their reign...if more people did stand up, they would not exist at all.
Sure. If someone is beating an old man, I'll be happy to step up and help kick him a couple of times myself.
of course i would, some people have no emotions at all, you see that at least call the cops.
Here people talk about being "good citizen;" however, when reality comes to place nobody help. Would I help? Just time may tell. Because some people say they would, but when the moment is right there in their face, people just runaway as if they haven't seen anything
Do you mean help the old man ? if yes of course I would.And if and when they catch the F***ING YELLOW BELLIED B.ASTARD they should throw him or her to the lions............................
I'd do whatever I could to help. If it was just one guy who was beating up the old man, I'd beat the crap out of him. If it was a whole gang of thugs, I'd try to reason with them and tell them that 90 year old men can't take much and if the old guy dies they'll be in trouble for murder.
Yes I would, 1rst I would holler at the persons doing the beating and grab out my cell and call 911 give them quick whats going on and address while contuing on to the fight. Would do what I could even if it ment me getting beat up as well. 90 year old guy cant take a beating as easily as I could. Would have wanted to call 911 so quicky cause a case like that probably need the ambulance quick. Be afraid the guy was going to have a heart attack.
Yes, since the guy beating on him didn't have a gun. I would
have found something to beat him with.
The man doing the beating should be charged in every punch.
It was all pre-meditated with each punch. He could have
stopped at any time. He should have to pay for the man's
medical bills and more.
Most people are afraid they would end up sued or in prison like the border guards in prison, for doing their job. It's a sad day when the criminals have all the rights and our government will do nothing for legal citizens. These people should be charged for attempted murder for beating old people. It's a crime of the lowest form. When you have a government that won't enforce our laws, this is what you get.
Oh, yes I would try to do anything I could to stop it.
In a heartbeat! I firmly believe if you are not part of the SOLUTION, you arepart of the PROBLEM!
I think I would have at least yelled at the attacker and if that didn't work I would have gotten my tire iron out and hit him with it
I wouldn't even think twice about, I'd just do it.
I saw that video...horrible what this poor man went through.
I can't for the life of me figure out why those other 5 people just stood around and watched the whole thing without trying to help.There were 5 of them against the one attacker.Maybe they were part of the scheme,I don't know.
I would try to help as best I could even though I am a small woman.One good kick might be all it would take.
God yes!!!!! what is wrong with todays people???? beating a 90 year old man????why beat him its not like he is actually going to put up a fight when stealing from him.. why go the extra distance to beat him??? people are just so ******* ignorant!
hell yes some sob pounding on some 90 year old id kick his butt to the next county it take a real coward to steal from a old man and i tell you right now if some body tried that around hear id seriously feel sorry for the thief %26#92; mugger cause if the cop,s where not saving his butt he would be a road pizza cuse hurting a old man like that ain,t right and that person who think that stealing from the old and infermed need a seriouse beating
i KNOW i would call 911
i just saw that on the news...and, it's a very sad reality of how things really are!
Answer:
I have no problem getting into it with riff-raff, esp. in a parking lot--you have a car as an equalizer for crying out loud--run the dolts over!
Most people don't realize that cretons who attempt these crimes could very well have targeted their own parents, or their kids...get them off the street for everyone's sake...police can only be in so many places at once. These people also don't expect that anyone would stand up to them, and when others do, it throws off their focus %26 unity...their brain capacities are usually not that great to begin with...so, you have them at an advantage just by yelling at the top of your lungs while running at them with a crowbar...attention of the nearby masses is not what they're looking for, because when they are noticed, they can be identified more easily.
These guys are "terrorists" on our own streets...they feed on your fears...those that do nothing are actually supporting their reign...if more people did stand up, they would not exist at all.
Sure. If someone is beating an old man, I'll be happy to step up and help kick him a couple of times myself.
of course i would, some people have no emotions at all, you see that at least call the cops.
Here people talk about being "good citizen;" however, when reality comes to place nobody help. Would I help? Just time may tell. Because some people say they would, but when the moment is right there in their face, people just runaway as if they haven't seen anything
Do you mean help the old man ? if yes of course I would.And if and when they catch the F***ING YELLOW BELLIED B.ASTARD they should throw him or her to the lions............................
I'd do whatever I could to help. If it was just one guy who was beating up the old man, I'd beat the crap out of him. If it was a whole gang of thugs, I'd try to reason with them and tell them that 90 year old men can't take much and if the old guy dies they'll be in trouble for murder.
Yes I would, 1rst I would holler at the persons doing the beating and grab out my cell and call 911 give them quick whats going on and address while contuing on to the fight. Would do what I could even if it ment me getting beat up as well. 90 year old guy cant take a beating as easily as I could. Would have wanted to call 911 so quicky cause a case like that probably need the ambulance quick. Be afraid the guy was going to have a heart attack.
Yes, since the guy beating on him didn't have a gun. I would
have found something to beat him with.
The man doing the beating should be charged in every punch.
It was all pre-meditated with each punch. He could have
stopped at any time. He should have to pay for the man's
medical bills and more.
Most people are afraid they would end up sued or in prison like the border guards in prison, for doing their job. It's a sad day when the criminals have all the rights and our government will do nothing for legal citizens. These people should be charged for attempted murder for beating old people. It's a crime of the lowest form. When you have a government that won't enforce our laws, this is what you get.
Oh, yes I would try to do anything I could to stop it.
In a heartbeat! I firmly believe if you are not part of the SOLUTION, you arepart of the PROBLEM!
I think I would have at least yelled at the attacker and if that didn't work I would have gotten my tire iron out and hit him with it
I wouldn't even think twice about, I'd just do it.
I saw that video...horrible what this poor man went through.
I can't for the life of me figure out why those other 5 people just stood around and watched the whole thing without trying to help.There were 5 of them against the one attacker.Maybe they were part of the scheme,I don't know.
I would try to help as best I could even though I am a small woman.One good kick might be all it would take.
God yes!!!!! what is wrong with todays people???? beating a 90 year old man????why beat him its not like he is actually going to put up a fight when stealing from him.. why go the extra distance to beat him??? people are just so ******* ignorant!
hell yes some sob pounding on some 90 year old id kick his butt to the next county it take a real coward to steal from a old man and i tell you right now if some body tried that around hear id seriously feel sorry for the thief %26#92; mugger cause if the cop,s where not saving his butt he would be a road pizza cuse hurting a old man like that ain,t right and that person who think that stealing from the old and infermed need a seriouse beating
i KNOW i would call 911
i just saw that on the news...and, it's a very sad reality of how things really are!
Would you steal $500,000.00 If..........?
Would you steal let's say $500,000.00 if it DID NOT hurt or harm anyone and you would never be caught and not even suspected? Please be honest with your answer. If so,why, If not why. Personally, I think I would.Hm, I wonder what color corvette I would like?
Answer:
Damn Skippy I would .Why? Why not. I don't know, there are a lot of good things I can do with that money. I would give a portion of it to charity and take care of my parents and I'd be living like a king in Costa Rica, via con dios mi amigo!!!!!
Probably not. I don't believe in free money. It would hurt someone because all money is wages. But if it was just sitting on the side of the street, perhaps.
How would it be stealing if no one owns it? The fact is if you steal something its owned by someone. So no I won't, I like to earn my money. It becomes more important that way.
i goin to tell u the true and i wouldn't personally get it because money does buy things and cars and all the stuff u would want but think the money isn't going to be always there u might be in debt because of this or maybe lose a love one because of the money................
No. Everything has consequences. Where in your imagination did this money come from. A tree?
If I found it, then reported it to the police and after an appropriate amount of time passed, I would claim it... which would be my right..
However, if it were stolen, its not mine and I have no rights to it. No matter who it did or didn't hurt. No, I would not do that.
And I think less of you for saying you would..
Answer:
Damn Skippy I would .Why? Why not. I don't know, there are a lot of good things I can do with that money. I would give a portion of it to charity and take care of my parents and I'd be living like a king in Costa Rica, via con dios mi amigo!!!!!
Probably not. I don't believe in free money. It would hurt someone because all money is wages. But if it was just sitting on the side of the street, perhaps.
How would it be stealing if no one owns it? The fact is if you steal something its owned by someone. So no I won't, I like to earn my money. It becomes more important that way.
i goin to tell u the true and i wouldn't personally get it because money does buy things and cars and all the stuff u would want but think the money isn't going to be always there u might be in debt because of this or maybe lose a love one because of the money................
No. Everything has consequences. Where in your imagination did this money come from. A tree?
If I found it, then reported it to the police and after an appropriate amount of time passed, I would claim it... which would be my right..
However, if it were stolen, its not mine and I have no rights to it. No matter who it did or didn't hurt. No, I would not do that.
And I think less of you for saying you would..
Would you sign if there were a petition to legalize pot?
Answer:
I would not only sign it I would get the petioner high!
I happen to live in the great state of Oregon and I have a medical marijauna permit, and I grow my own, Baby! Actually, I have the permit b/c of constant pain from a botched attempt on my life on Aug, 26, 2000. I would recommend anyone the State of Oregon, and in particular, Portland, it is a bangin' city! Peace and love!
no
Absolutly
Of course not.
Yes it's long overdue. Just be NORML( National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws)
AD
Sure.
It wouldn't bother me one way or the other. If they don't make it legal ,if they want it they are going buy it. I don't use but they tell me it's for sale all over America.
No way in hell. Why should we give more people access to DRUGS? Yes, it is a drug. It harms more than it helps. Any one who believes that it is helping them is addicted to THC. People who take heroin thinks it helps them too.
Yes, only if it is government regulated and taxed like cigarettes. The tax revenue from pot would recude my taxes, as a non pot smoker. It should still be illegal to sell, or grow pot, and since the pot would be regulated by the government, selling or growing it should bring large penalties.
The only thing is, this country wouldn't go for it. 2 states had legalization of pot on its ballot on 2006, and both lost, by large margins too.
Yes.
Only if it was heavily taxed, with the tax revenue dedicated to rehab. I have seen people in rehab addicted to pot and pot alone. I have known those who have killed themselves while addicted to pot. It can cause genetic defects. It is a dangerous drug.
Yes if adequate safeguards on age and amount that could be bought in one week were included.
Perhaps you missed the article below? Besides we are in the world of banning this and that, trans-fats, smoking here or there, we must do this or that...of course all for our own good. Or so sayeth big brother government.
If it was strictly a "legal or illegal" distinction, absolutely not. If it outlined a method of bringing marijuana under the control of the FDA and there were measures to regulate the THC content as well as an effective field test to determine whether someone was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of cannabis, I'd have to seriously consider it.
Naturally it would require certain age limitations as with alcohol (ETOH), but with the above provided for, I could see it as a good thing for the users as well as the country.
For the country, tax it, just as tobacco products and alcohol are taxed today and use those monies to support enforcement of the necessary restrictions as well as long term effect research.
For the user, it would get the relatively "minor" drug out of the hands of the criminals that are ever so diligent in getting their "customers" to escalate to more expensive, and more dangerous drugs.
Anyhow, as you can see, the problem is not legalizing marijuana, its the inability to legalize it in a responsible manner.
No. Read the new findings shown on Yahoo's front page with regards to psychosis.
Absolutely - you only have to look at the effect that prohibition of alcohol had on America to realise that, by banning products that many people want to partake in, you drive it underground, benefiting only criminal gangs. However, I would have to agree with some of the other answerers and say that, the method of legalisation is very important - as in Amsterdam, where a certain amount for personal use is allowed, but sales are restricted on an age basis. People canbuy and smoke marijuana there in cafes, and as a result, the 'drunken yob' culture of those consuming alcohol in large quantities is avoided - people are just out for a good time.
I don't smoke it myself, but I think clinging to the idea that certain substances (alcohol and cigarretes being two) can be legally if restrictively sold, whereas others cannot, is reactionary and outdated - especially when a recent study showed that those products that are 'legal' can be just as harmful as those that are not. We see the harmful effects of cigarettes and alcohol every day, but we realise that people can make their own choices about using them. We should be mature enough to at least give it a try. Age and point of sale limits would be sufficient, and the enormous benefits to the revenue of the country would be felt by all from the taxation of the sales.
No we have enough of a problem with alcohol. Why give ourselves additional problems?
If it was well written.
BTW- the sign in the picture on my avatar reads "Rolling and smoking of joints is not allowed on the terrace."
Would you say it's against the rules for a gym employee to date their customer?
What are the conduct rules between let's say a gym employee (Bally's, 24 Hour Fitness etc) and their client.Is it or is it not okay for a personal trainer to date his/or her client? Does anyone know the answer to this.Thanks
Answer:
Against the law????
Why would you even think that?
There are no laws to keep you from dating anyone (unless your in the military).
It may be against the company's rules or guidelines, and if so they would be well within their rights to fire you, but your not going to jail.
Why don't you ask your boss.
They are not in a boss/subordinate role so I don't see any problem at all. Even a boss/subordinate can date if they want to. I just don't think that is usually a good idea.
It seems fine legally. The question would deal with mainly with company policy.
What rules? Only the military has legally enforceable anti-fraternization rules. Companies, institutions, and even other branches of government (though government agencies must be careful not to violate a persons' rights to freedom of association) might set rules for their employees that can result in termination if violated, these are only enforceable as a breach of contract.
Answer:
Against the law????
Why would you even think that?
There are no laws to keep you from dating anyone (unless your in the military).
It may be against the company's rules or guidelines, and if so they would be well within their rights to fire you, but your not going to jail.
Why don't you ask your boss.
They are not in a boss/subordinate role so I don't see any problem at all. Even a boss/subordinate can date if they want to. I just don't think that is usually a good idea.
It seems fine legally. The question would deal with mainly with company policy.
What rules? Only the military has legally enforceable anti-fraternization rules. Companies, institutions, and even other branches of government (though government agencies must be careful not to violate a persons' rights to freedom of association) might set rules for their employees that can result in termination if violated, these are only enforceable as a breach of contract.
Would you say 43 months is fair?
For a 19 year old who caused the deaths of to people while driving under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana.
and he also still has his license%26%26 seems to show no remorse for the crime
Answer:
Is that it?
This person
1) Killed 2 people.
2) Was drinking underage.
3) Was under the influence of a controlled substance.
4) Was driving under the influence of alcohol and weed.
At a bare minimum, this person should have his license taken away permanently and should receive the combined maximum penalties for each of the offenses committed.
I was in Taiwan for a week. Before going I found out that drug offenses there can result in the death penalty. Maybe that's not such a bad idea.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It should be 43 years........he snuffed out two lives and left their families feeling grief, anguish and pain.
How awful. That is not fair. Did the defense strike some kind of deal? Can you appeal for a higher sentence? Maybe his guilt will eventually get at him and then that will last longer than 43 months.
No. He deserves more time. Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge.
and he also still has his license%26%26 seems to show no remorse for the crime
Answer:
Is that it?
This person
1) Killed 2 people.
2) Was drinking underage.
3) Was under the influence of a controlled substance.
4) Was driving under the influence of alcohol and weed.
At a bare minimum, this person should have his license taken away permanently and should receive the combined maximum penalties for each of the offenses committed.
I was in Taiwan for a week. Before going I found out that drug offenses there can result in the death penalty. Maybe that's not such a bad idea.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It should be 43 years........he snuffed out two lives and left their families feeling grief, anguish and pain.
How awful. That is not fair. Did the defense strike some kind of deal? Can you appeal for a higher sentence? Maybe his guilt will eventually get at him and then that will last longer than 43 months.
No. He deserves more time. Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge.
Would you read if...?
I posted a 6 and a half page paper (double spaced) on affirmative action and why I am against it...
just wondering because on this website I can't debate with people and this paper pretty much debates it for me
Answer:
Honestly, I don't even read the insides of sappy greeting cards I get. Politics and debate are about delivering short, pithy responses that evoke some sort of emotional (humorous, sympathetic, fearful) response in the viewer/reader. A 6-page paper only works when writing into magazines, and even then it seems a bit much for an editorial section.
Nope. I wouldn't even take a second look at it.
Nope. I already agree with almost anyone who is opposed to affirmative action anyway. But 6 1/2 pages is too long to read. Sorry.
just wondering because on this website I can't debate with people and this paper pretty much debates it for me
Answer:
Honestly, I don't even read the insides of sappy greeting cards I get. Politics and debate are about delivering short, pithy responses that evoke some sort of emotional (humorous, sympathetic, fearful) response in the viewer/reader. A 6-page paper only works when writing into magazines, and even then it seems a bit much for an editorial section.
Nope. I wouldn't even take a second look at it.
Nope. I already agree with almost anyone who is opposed to affirmative action anyway. But 6 1/2 pages is too long to read. Sorry.
Would you Rather see Paris Hilton in Jail or Giving a Million Dollars to Charity?
I know, a thousand questions have popped up about this spoiled little brat going to jail?
At fist I wanted her to go to jail for the obvious reason she broke the law and must pay for the sake of our justice system/society
Then I started thinking, wouldn't it be much more benificial to society if instead of going to jail we forced her to pay a HUGE fine to the state of california ( $ 1 000 000 +) and also have a VAST amount of money to a variety of charities (world vision, red cross, unicef, and various local charities)
Do you guys think she should go to jail for 45 days at the taxpayer's expense, or just give a very large amount of money to get out of it?
*I understand that many see this as "buying out of it" but just think about how much good all that money could do in the world, as opposed to her spending 45 days in jail, us all having a good laugh, and then she flips it and gets someone to write a tell-all book about it for even more unearned money.
Thanks in advance!
Answer:
Well, I'm certain that there is no way they could impose a fine of $1 million. California law has maximum fines that may be imposed based on the offense, so although she has the money and she might agree to it, they just couldn't levy that fine against her.
More importantly, I understand your assertion that this might be a better solution to the problem. I don't think she should go to jail anyway. I honestly think that jail should be reserved for people who really need to be locked up (i.e. extensive criminal history, violent offenders, etc.) not for penny-ante crap like this. I live in Dallas, TX and the jail here is so overcrowded because they lock up everyone. Now they have to start releasing people because they don't have room and they are releasing people that should stay in jail. It's ridiculous.
I say give her the max fine, the max probation, everything else, IF they are just trying to prove a point. For goodness sakes, she's not a criminal, at least in the commonly recognized sense. She's a stupid, spoiled, bratty girl who did idiotic things like young people all over the country.
As for the comment on the tell-all book, you are probably right. Only someone famous would attempt to make tons of money by writing crappy stories.
i would rather see her pretty little butt in jail. remember, 1 mil aint too bad for a billionaire. but jail is just plain EMBARRASSING!
The penalty for Paris must equal the same penalty as everyone else
If Joe Blow doesn't have to pay millions to charity, why should Paris Hilton have to?
she should give all her money to charity then maybe we might like her
Jail time! I would rather to see her in jail. Just to give her new experience and maybe she can make her new video in jail.
http://likeall.blogspot.com
charity, she obviously is probably too far gone to know she's even in jail or to understand the severity of her crime
Paris Hilton must be incarcerated in jail if found guilty of the crime she committed. Laws must be applied to people even if the suspect is a celebrity who could give money in exchange for the penalty.
I would rather her go to jail. She may just learn a lesson, and it would scare other celebrities into obeying the law instead of buying their way out.
If we allowed her to buy her way out, it just re-enforces her (and other's) beliefs that the rich can avoid jail time for breaking laws. Imagine if the same thing happened to Bill Gates, he makes 1 million dollars every few minutes in interest on his fortune.
Paying the money isnt a punishment for these types. Its any easy way out. While charities and the state of Cali could use the money, these types need to be punished not given an easy way out.
Do both!
A fine of one million dollars? For the crime she commited? Is that in the law books already?
It sounds as if you are asking us whether or not we should change the law as it already exists and to somehow require that when a wealthy person commits a crime, that person's punishment should be different than everyone else's -- much more expensive. No, I don't feel like making that change in the law.
And Paris Hilton's sentence is not up to you, me, or anyone else here on Yahoo. She will be sentenced by the system according to the already existing law.
Sorry but if we follow your argument then rich people would be above the law - for example if she had killed someone while driving around drunk as a skunk - what would the penalty be then $100 million?? and she goes free.
She committed a crime - she pays the penalty - she has already had her sentence reduced and the "prison" sounds pretty cushy to me.
There is no right answer here. It would be obviously better if she would pay a fine but I have to admit that I and half of the population of the globe probably would rather see her in jail.
Ofcourse this will never happen..she will pay her way out of this...
I would like to see her in jail
law must be above anyone and anything!
and everyone must be equal in front of law!
If she hadn't been famous and rich, she would definitely go to jail!
why not now??
Giving a million dollars to charity.
No one would gain anything out of her going to jail whereas the poor and unfortunate stand to benefit if she donates.
Would you rather see a drunk-driver kill an Innocent family while driving drunk, or see a ''special attention'' rich kid get away with it?
it may end up helping society more if she donated a million, but it would set a terrible precedent i think.
first, rich people already do pretty well in the legal system, we dont need them being able to buy themselves out of trouble.
and also a dui is a serious offense.. sure, it was her first, and she barely blew anything, but it often ends up a lot worse than just a person getting a ticket.
if it were most other kinds of offenses, i would probably completely agree with you
I'd rather see her in another video!
Aparently now that time inside has been halfed by Arnold ! She should be serving the full sentence. A mere Million is nothing to her, and most would be wasted in admin anyway. She should out of the "goodness" of her spoilt brat heart give 1% of what she earns from interests and dividends and endorsements/appearances each year, would be tax deductibe and a decent gesture, still far more than a Million dollars ! This girl with a concience could change the world !
I would like to see both. But i would like to see the charity more. The media puts actors in the spotlights and blow things out of proportion. What ever she did she should not get a reduced sentence, Give her 100%.
I would say the million, with her counting abilities she might even put in a view extra 0's..
Ms. Hilton needs to understand that she broke a law and that Daddy's money can't buy her way out of paying her penalty. The law is quite specific about DUI, and any quantity of money has little meaning to someone who is swimming in it. Incarceration might actually be a deterrent when she learns what it is to lose her freedom. I will not grudge her time off for good behavior, though.
In a related opinion, I thought Martha Stewart should have been given community service, say, cooking for a homeless shelter for 6 months or a year, rather than prison time. Ms. Stewart has actual skills that could have been put to use.
I would like to see her doing both, spending her time in jail and giving out a million to poor and homeless people.
It really SUX that they're already talking about cutting her time in half!
The beatch did the CRIME, make her do the TIME! ! !
I think that she should do BOTH!!! Give money to charity and go to jail.. She needs to sit in jail so she can realize as a person she is no different then anyone else out there. ( cause you know she clearly thinks differently about that) and then she should also give money to charity just because I say so....
At fist I wanted her to go to jail for the obvious reason she broke the law and must pay for the sake of our justice system/society
Then I started thinking, wouldn't it be much more benificial to society if instead of going to jail we forced her to pay a HUGE fine to the state of california ( $ 1 000 000 +) and also have a VAST amount of money to a variety of charities (world vision, red cross, unicef, and various local charities)
Do you guys think she should go to jail for 45 days at the taxpayer's expense, or just give a very large amount of money to get out of it?
*I understand that many see this as "buying out of it" but just think about how much good all that money could do in the world, as opposed to her spending 45 days in jail, us all having a good laugh, and then she flips it and gets someone to write a tell-all book about it for even more unearned money.
Thanks in advance!
Answer:
Well, I'm certain that there is no way they could impose a fine of $1 million. California law has maximum fines that may be imposed based on the offense, so although she has the money and she might agree to it, they just couldn't levy that fine against her.
More importantly, I understand your assertion that this might be a better solution to the problem. I don't think she should go to jail anyway. I honestly think that jail should be reserved for people who really need to be locked up (i.e. extensive criminal history, violent offenders, etc.) not for penny-ante crap like this. I live in Dallas, TX and the jail here is so overcrowded because they lock up everyone. Now they have to start releasing people because they don't have room and they are releasing people that should stay in jail. It's ridiculous.
I say give her the max fine, the max probation, everything else, IF they are just trying to prove a point. For goodness sakes, she's not a criminal, at least in the commonly recognized sense. She's a stupid, spoiled, bratty girl who did idiotic things like young people all over the country.
As for the comment on the tell-all book, you are probably right. Only someone famous would attempt to make tons of money by writing crappy stories.
i would rather see her pretty little butt in jail. remember, 1 mil aint too bad for a billionaire. but jail is just plain EMBARRASSING!
The penalty for Paris must equal the same penalty as everyone else
If Joe Blow doesn't have to pay millions to charity, why should Paris Hilton have to?
she should give all her money to charity then maybe we might like her
Jail time! I would rather to see her in jail. Just to give her new experience and maybe she can make her new video in jail.
http://likeall.blogspot.com
charity, she obviously is probably too far gone to know she's even in jail or to understand the severity of her crime
Paris Hilton must be incarcerated in jail if found guilty of the crime she committed. Laws must be applied to people even if the suspect is a celebrity who could give money in exchange for the penalty.
I would rather her go to jail. She may just learn a lesson, and it would scare other celebrities into obeying the law instead of buying their way out.
If we allowed her to buy her way out, it just re-enforces her (and other's) beliefs that the rich can avoid jail time for breaking laws. Imagine if the same thing happened to Bill Gates, he makes 1 million dollars every few minutes in interest on his fortune.
Paying the money isnt a punishment for these types. Its any easy way out. While charities and the state of Cali could use the money, these types need to be punished not given an easy way out.
Do both!
A fine of one million dollars? For the crime she commited? Is that in the law books already?
It sounds as if you are asking us whether or not we should change the law as it already exists and to somehow require that when a wealthy person commits a crime, that person's punishment should be different than everyone else's -- much more expensive. No, I don't feel like making that change in the law.
And Paris Hilton's sentence is not up to you, me, or anyone else here on Yahoo. She will be sentenced by the system according to the already existing law.
Sorry but if we follow your argument then rich people would be above the law - for example if she had killed someone while driving around drunk as a skunk - what would the penalty be then $100 million?? and she goes free.
She committed a crime - she pays the penalty - she has already had her sentence reduced and the "prison" sounds pretty cushy to me.
There is no right answer here. It would be obviously better if she would pay a fine but I have to admit that I and half of the population of the globe probably would rather see her in jail.
Ofcourse this will never happen..she will pay her way out of this...
I would like to see her in jail
law must be above anyone and anything!
and everyone must be equal in front of law!
If she hadn't been famous and rich, she would definitely go to jail!
why not now??
Giving a million dollars to charity.
No one would gain anything out of her going to jail whereas the poor and unfortunate stand to benefit if she donates.
Would you rather see a drunk-driver kill an Innocent family while driving drunk, or see a ''special attention'' rich kid get away with it?
it may end up helping society more if she donated a million, but it would set a terrible precedent i think.
first, rich people already do pretty well in the legal system, we dont need them being able to buy themselves out of trouble.
and also a dui is a serious offense.. sure, it was her first, and she barely blew anything, but it often ends up a lot worse than just a person getting a ticket.
if it were most other kinds of offenses, i would probably completely agree with you
I'd rather see her in another video!
Aparently now that time inside has been halfed by Arnold ! She should be serving the full sentence. A mere Million is nothing to her, and most would be wasted in admin anyway. She should out of the "goodness" of her spoilt brat heart give 1% of what she earns from interests and dividends and endorsements/appearances each year, would be tax deductibe and a decent gesture, still far more than a Million dollars ! This girl with a concience could change the world !
I would like to see both. But i would like to see the charity more. The media puts actors in the spotlights and blow things out of proportion. What ever she did she should not get a reduced sentence, Give her 100%.
I would say the million, with her counting abilities she might even put in a view extra 0's..
Ms. Hilton needs to understand that she broke a law and that Daddy's money can't buy her way out of paying her penalty. The law is quite specific about DUI, and any quantity of money has little meaning to someone who is swimming in it. Incarceration might actually be a deterrent when she learns what it is to lose her freedom. I will not grudge her time off for good behavior, though.
In a related opinion, I thought Martha Stewart should have been given community service, say, cooking for a homeless shelter for 6 months or a year, rather than prison time. Ms. Stewart has actual skills that could have been put to use.
I would like to see her doing both, spending her time in jail and giving out a million to poor and homeless people.
It really SUX that they're already talking about cutting her time in half!
The beatch did the CRIME, make her do the TIME! ! !
I think that she should do BOTH!!! Give money to charity and go to jail.. She needs to sit in jail so she can realize as a person she is no different then anyone else out there. ( cause you know she clearly thinks differently about that) and then she should also give money to charity just because I say so....
Would you quit, or try to get fired?
Very tired of game after game.
Answer:
Instead of trying to get fired, just quit. That way, you don't have to sink to the level of playing games in return.
If you do things to try to get fired, it can effect jobs in the future. But if you quit, then they are aware that they are driving people away. Quitting can be harder, but more fulfilling.
Depends. Did I just win the lottery?
Actually that's not true, it doesn't depend, I'd never try to get fired, I'd quit if I got a better job, or won the lottery, or whatever.
if it affects you that much i would quit.. gettign fired means letting them win have the self convition and courage to quit rather than let them get rid of you.. or in another view just do your job day after day do the best you possibly can to spite them ; p
trying to get fired can be fun, but only if you can afford to burn that bridge. i would recommend never burning any bridges cause you never know.
If you have a lot of money saved (enough for at least 3 months - rent and miscellaneous), I'd quit. If not then it's better to be fired, coz you'll get unemployment.
You don't give many details, but I sense you are not happy at your job (brilliant observation, huh?).
If you are being abused at your job you can always get another one. The question is if you can subsist until you get another.
Consider that you live in the most incredible nation on the Earth (I assume you live in the USA, if not pardon me) with unlimited potential to do whatever you choose. The world economy is the best in 30 years, and our unemployment rate is at an incredibly low rate, below 5%. This means that you can probably reenter the workforce with a better job which you love. If you need to retrain, then go back to school--it is never too late to do so.
Do not give up, do not tire, do not let others bring you down. You are one of our nations valued members, and we know you can bring us up to a better place via your contribution.
Good luck!
Quit as you are leaving with dignity and on your own terms, not theirs and it looks better when looking for new employment...a new employer is going to be reluctant if you were fired. Besides, iIf you are fired for just cause then you cannot receive unemployment anyway so there is no benefit to being fired.
If you are looking to get unemployment, then you need to be laid off or terminated. And in some states failing a drug test will not get you unemployment. A lot of companies would rather see you quit before they will fire you. I would bear with the job while I looked for another job, and once I had a new job lined up then I would quit.
Also not showing up for work, they look at it as abandoning the job....they terminate you for not being there but in essence you quit.
Answer:
Instead of trying to get fired, just quit. That way, you don't have to sink to the level of playing games in return.
If you do things to try to get fired, it can effect jobs in the future. But if you quit, then they are aware that they are driving people away. Quitting can be harder, but more fulfilling.
Depends. Did I just win the lottery?
Actually that's not true, it doesn't depend, I'd never try to get fired, I'd quit if I got a better job, or won the lottery, or whatever.
if it affects you that much i would quit.. gettign fired means letting them win have the self convition and courage to quit rather than let them get rid of you.. or in another view just do your job day after day do the best you possibly can to spite them ; p
trying to get fired can be fun, but only if you can afford to burn that bridge. i would recommend never burning any bridges cause you never know.
If you have a lot of money saved (enough for at least 3 months - rent and miscellaneous), I'd quit. If not then it's better to be fired, coz you'll get unemployment.
You don't give many details, but I sense you are not happy at your job (brilliant observation, huh?).
If you are being abused at your job you can always get another one. The question is if you can subsist until you get another.
Consider that you live in the most incredible nation on the Earth (I assume you live in the USA, if not pardon me) with unlimited potential to do whatever you choose. The world economy is the best in 30 years, and our unemployment rate is at an incredibly low rate, below 5%. This means that you can probably reenter the workforce with a better job which you love. If you need to retrain, then go back to school--it is never too late to do so.
Do not give up, do not tire, do not let others bring you down. You are one of our nations valued members, and we know you can bring us up to a better place via your contribution.
Good luck!
Quit as you are leaving with dignity and on your own terms, not theirs and it looks better when looking for new employment...a new employer is going to be reluctant if you were fired. Besides, iIf you are fired for just cause then you cannot receive unemployment anyway so there is no benefit to being fired.
If you are looking to get unemployment, then you need to be laid off or terminated. And in some states failing a drug test will not get you unemployment. A lot of companies would rather see you quit before they will fire you. I would bear with the job while I looked for another job, and once I had a new job lined up then I would quit.
Also not showing up for work, they look at it as abandoning the job....they terminate you for not being there but in essence you quit.
Would you press assult charges on your son for spiting in your face and pushing you down ?
SON IS VERY VIOLENT AND NOW IT IS DIRECTED AT THE FAMILY AND YES HE IS ON DRUGS THE ONLY INTERVENTION IN OUR SMALL TOWN IS JAIL THE SMALL RESOURCES AFTER JAIL HE IS VERY ABUSIVE AND CAN LIE LOOKING YOU DEAD IN THE EYE HE LIED TO THE JUDGE EVEN WE HAV A RESTRAINING ORDER ON HIM IS THIS ENOUGH HUBBY AND I ARE 60 AND WE DO NOT NEED THIS WE WANT HIM TO LEAVE JUST DISAPPEAR YA KNOW IS ASSULT CHARGES IN ORDER??? please help
Answer:
Forget for ONE moment that he's YOUR son... what if someone else had done that? What if the person who spit on your face is someone who owes you no respect or loyalty for raising him... what would you do? The fact that he is YOUR son makes it worse and that is reason enough for him to be put away.
He has gotten away with far too much, I'm sure, through the years out of simpathy for being your son. THAT is why he is in the state he is today. I speak from personal experience o ftwo similar cases I've known (I'm soon to be 60).
AT your age, you don't need anyone making life unbearable for you; you have enough worries in life without him adding any problems. REPORT him and have him arrested each and every time he comes near you or your home. Too late for speaking with him. Let it go and enjoy the years you have left.
Sounds harsh? Yeah, it sounds harsh but is there any other alternative available to you right now? Do you wish to have your son in jail for YOUR murder? It CAN happen and with drug crazed individuals you really never know.
There are five possible choices right now:
1-Have him become rehabilitated: very unlikely!
2-Have him arrested: this will prevent him harming you or your spouse or someone else, or prevent someone else killing him; it might give him time in jail or prison to get cleaned up.
3-Leave him out in the streets where he can return one day and hurt you or your spouse, or kill you and your spouse.
4-Leave him out in the streets and wait for the day when a police officer will come to your door to anounce that he is dead from an overdose or from a gunshot or a knife stab.
5-Leave him out in the streets until he is arrested for killing someone.
What do you propose to do? IT's in your hands now.
YES!!!
If you don't do something, now, someone could be hurt or killed later.
If you love your son, you will save him by throwing him in jail and making him get his life together.
Yes. Also, he should go to rehab after being release from jail. He is out of control.
Yes. He is a dangerous person. You and your husband do not have to put up with abuse from anyone - especially your son.
Have him arrested for assault and battery - maybe they will lock him up for a while.
A person who would assault his or her parents is a danger to himself and society. He will seriously hurt or kill someone if he isn't put away.
Meanwhile, do not let him in your house..keep your doors locked and if he shows up, call the police immediately.
Hell yes!
Do you want more of the same? If the answer is no then you have no choice but to press charges. You also said a restraining order so the games need to be over before he kills you and you sound like you believe this could happen. Not an easy road for you and I wish you luck.
The short answer to your question is YES!!! Spitting in a parents face is one of the most disrespectful things a child, no matter how old the child is, can do! Being on drugs is not a reason for his behavior, it is an excuse! Excuses are like as*#@les. Everybody has got one!
If you have a restraining order against him and he has violated the restraining order, he should be incarcerated and with a new charge!
It sounds like your son is in need of some serious help! You as parents should see to it that he gets the help he needs by having him commited to a lock down facility authorized by a judge! You will need an attorney to properly handle this ordeal.
Locking up an addict is only a short solution to the problem and in most cases, this does not rehabilitate the addict. It only dries them out for the period of incarceration. Because spitting in the face and pushing down is only a misdemeanor charge and I am not sure but the punishment phase is not very lengthy. The time he spends in jail will only add gasoline to the fire and upon release this will be his EXCUSE for using drugs again. He will justify his drug use by blaming you for his incarceration when he uses again it will be all your fault.
If he is not given the proper tools to handle his drug addiction he will return to using drugs and his same abusive behavior toward you and your husband.
Addiction is a disease. Once someone is addicted to drugs, they are addicts for the rest of their lives. The addict will never be over the disease but it can be controlled with the proper tools. There are only three places for a non recovering addict. Jails, institutions and death.
Your son is not willing to admit to you, much less himself that he is an addict. The first step in recovery is admitting that you are an addict.
In order to save your son's life and for you and your husband to be safe I would file the assault charges and while he is incarcerated on the charges, before he has a chance to bond out, I would seriously devote my time to finding a place for him to gain control of his life and his addiction if it meant having him commited to a lock down facility where rehabilitation is not an option but a way of life in the facility.
Yes...he needs to be taught a lesson....if a man is willing to attack his mother imagine what he is willing to do to innocent strangers to get his drug fix.
Answer:
Forget for ONE moment that he's YOUR son... what if someone else had done that? What if the person who spit on your face is someone who owes you no respect or loyalty for raising him... what would you do? The fact that he is YOUR son makes it worse and that is reason enough for him to be put away.
He has gotten away with far too much, I'm sure, through the years out of simpathy for being your son. THAT is why he is in the state he is today. I speak from personal experience o ftwo similar cases I've known (I'm soon to be 60).
AT your age, you don't need anyone making life unbearable for you; you have enough worries in life without him adding any problems. REPORT him and have him arrested each and every time he comes near you or your home. Too late for speaking with him. Let it go and enjoy the years you have left.
Sounds harsh? Yeah, it sounds harsh but is there any other alternative available to you right now? Do you wish to have your son in jail for YOUR murder? It CAN happen and with drug crazed individuals you really never know.
There are five possible choices right now:
1-Have him become rehabilitated: very unlikely!
2-Have him arrested: this will prevent him harming you or your spouse or someone else, or prevent someone else killing him; it might give him time in jail or prison to get cleaned up.
3-Leave him out in the streets where he can return one day and hurt you or your spouse, or kill you and your spouse.
4-Leave him out in the streets and wait for the day when a police officer will come to your door to anounce that he is dead from an overdose or from a gunshot or a knife stab.
5-Leave him out in the streets until he is arrested for killing someone.
What do you propose to do? IT's in your hands now.
YES!!!
If you don't do something, now, someone could be hurt or killed later.
If you love your son, you will save him by throwing him in jail and making him get his life together.
Yes. Also, he should go to rehab after being release from jail. He is out of control.
Yes. He is a dangerous person. You and your husband do not have to put up with abuse from anyone - especially your son.
Have him arrested for assault and battery - maybe they will lock him up for a while.
A person who would assault his or her parents is a danger to himself and society. He will seriously hurt or kill someone if he isn't put away.
Meanwhile, do not let him in your house..keep your doors locked and if he shows up, call the police immediately.
Hell yes!
Do you want more of the same? If the answer is no then you have no choice but to press charges. You also said a restraining order so the games need to be over before he kills you and you sound like you believe this could happen. Not an easy road for you and I wish you luck.
The short answer to your question is YES!!! Spitting in a parents face is one of the most disrespectful things a child, no matter how old the child is, can do! Being on drugs is not a reason for his behavior, it is an excuse! Excuses are like as*#@les. Everybody has got one!
If you have a restraining order against him and he has violated the restraining order, he should be incarcerated and with a new charge!
It sounds like your son is in need of some serious help! You as parents should see to it that he gets the help he needs by having him commited to a lock down facility authorized by a judge! You will need an attorney to properly handle this ordeal.
Locking up an addict is only a short solution to the problem and in most cases, this does not rehabilitate the addict. It only dries them out for the period of incarceration. Because spitting in the face and pushing down is only a misdemeanor charge and I am not sure but the punishment phase is not very lengthy. The time he spends in jail will only add gasoline to the fire and upon release this will be his EXCUSE for using drugs again. He will justify his drug use by blaming you for his incarceration when he uses again it will be all your fault.
If he is not given the proper tools to handle his drug addiction he will return to using drugs and his same abusive behavior toward you and your husband.
Addiction is a disease. Once someone is addicted to drugs, they are addicts for the rest of their lives. The addict will never be over the disease but it can be controlled with the proper tools. There are only three places for a non recovering addict. Jails, institutions and death.
Your son is not willing to admit to you, much less himself that he is an addict. The first step in recovery is admitting that you are an addict.
In order to save your son's life and for you and your husband to be safe I would file the assault charges and while he is incarcerated on the charges, before he has a chance to bond out, I would seriously devote my time to finding a place for him to gain control of his life and his addiction if it meant having him commited to a lock down facility where rehabilitation is not an option but a way of life in the facility.
Yes...he needs to be taught a lesson....if a man is willing to attack his mother imagine what he is willing to do to innocent strangers to get his drug fix.
Would you need a TV licence when .................?
broadcasts are transmitted only in digitial?
Assuming you don't have Sky or a digi box and just analogue TV's with no analogue tramissions anymore, then you don't have anything that's capable of receiving TV signals. Then you're free to watch video's and DVD's.
What do you think will happen?
Answer:
I remember 10 years ago they changed the law to include equipment that is CAPABLE of receiving television signals.
There were a lot of people with TV麓s that were not connected to aerials, so the law was clarified.
If you have a TV, it is CAPABLE of receiving or displaying television signals, and you are liable to pay.
Of course, once there are no more analogue television signals, perhaps you won麓t have to pay - but I suspect you will have to go to court and fight it to prove your case.
Worth a try anyway...
Below is a link to the rules!
Philip
The computer will need one.
good point it would be a travesty if one had to pay
you need a tv licence ! you also need a licence for a radio !!
yes you will need a license - you need a tv license even if you only watch tv on the internet!!! students now need tv licenses in halls etc - they've updated all the rules so you can't get out of it.
stop complaining it's still cheaper than sky at 拢40 a month!!
no
Don't you think Mr tax %26 grab has got this covered?
you do not need a licence if access to all the BBC channels on your receiver are unavailable. However if you do or can receive the BBC channels you must pay for a licence.
I don't think you will have to pay. Apparently you don't have to pay for the license even now if you are not capable of receiving bbc stations as that is what the fee pays for. If you have an analogue tv and no digital receiver anywhere in the house and there is no analogue broadcasts, then you are not capable of receiving bbc stations. And not liable for paying the fee for doing so.
A TV Licence? Where are you from? You don't need a tv licence where I live. Never heard of any one needing a tv licence. Never even heard of a tv licence.
there money involved here that means no matter what the legal situation you me and every other poor sap will have to pay ! the law only applys to the poor,and is never enforced against the money grabbing scum!
The first five or so answers are correct but give no reasons if you go to TV licence site you will find they have got all angles covered to get their money.
Assuming you don't have Sky or a digi box and just analogue TV's with no analogue tramissions anymore, then you don't have anything that's capable of receiving TV signals. Then you're free to watch video's and DVD's.
What do you think will happen?
Answer:
I remember 10 years ago they changed the law to include equipment that is CAPABLE of receiving television signals.
There were a lot of people with TV麓s that were not connected to aerials, so the law was clarified.
If you have a TV, it is CAPABLE of receiving or displaying television signals, and you are liable to pay.
Of course, once there are no more analogue television signals, perhaps you won麓t have to pay - but I suspect you will have to go to court and fight it to prove your case.
Worth a try anyway...
Below is a link to the rules!
Philip
The computer will need one.
good point it would be a travesty if one had to pay
you need a tv licence ! you also need a licence for a radio !!
yes you will need a license - you need a tv license even if you only watch tv on the internet!!! students now need tv licenses in halls etc - they've updated all the rules so you can't get out of it.
stop complaining it's still cheaper than sky at 拢40 a month!!
no
Don't you think Mr tax %26 grab has got this covered?
you do not need a licence if access to all the BBC channels on your receiver are unavailable. However if you do or can receive the BBC channels you must pay for a licence.
I don't think you will have to pay. Apparently you don't have to pay for the license even now if you are not capable of receiving bbc stations as that is what the fee pays for. If you have an analogue tv and no digital receiver anywhere in the house and there is no analogue broadcasts, then you are not capable of receiving bbc stations. And not liable for paying the fee for doing so.
A TV Licence? Where are you from? You don't need a tv licence where I live. Never heard of any one needing a tv licence. Never even heard of a tv licence.
there money involved here that means no matter what the legal situation you me and every other poor sap will have to pay ! the law only applys to the poor,and is never enforced against the money grabbing scum!
The first five or so answers are correct but give no reasons if you go to TV licence site you will find they have got all angles covered to get their money.
Would you let your child play on Snoop Dogg's youth football league?
In 1990 Cordozar Calvin Broadus, Jr. (AKA Snoop Dogg) was charged with cocaine possession. In 1993 he was charged with possession of a gun by a felon. He received 3 years probation. In 1996 he was charged (but acquitted) of murder. In 2006 he was charged with possession of a deadly weapon. In 2007 he was charged with felony gun possession and marijuana. He received 5 years probation and 800 hrs of community service. Of those 800 the judge will only let him serve 400 on his youth football league. (Why any at all?) Here is the clincher.
His lawyer, Donald Etra, said of the youth football league, "Snoop's position is he wants to give children and teenagers an example to follow."
HUHHHH!!??!!?? What example?? How do the rich and (in)famous get away with this? Why do we let them?
Answer:
Amen. The guy is fun to watch, but I wouldn't let my kid get within a zip code of the loser. He is a thug buffoon.
because juries are comprised of those too stupid to get out of jury duty
He's also a pornographer and a drug abuser. No I don't think I want any kids anywhere around him.
Sure why not, at least I know what he is guilty of.
Smedrik has a point -- think of all the youth coaches who you don't know their backgrounds and we let our children loose with them!
Personally, I doubt I would let my kids go without me being in earshot everything that was said to them, and I look at it this way.....there are not nearly enough youth programs that are affordable for all parents, and I would rather see this thug putting something back into the community that will benefit children then buying another BMW with the money.
He's not exactly a role model, so the answer would have to be no.
I agree with Smedrik...
Besides some of today's coaches are potential killers/murderers given their behavior at not just football games, but baseball, basketball, etc.
The reality of the matter is that Snoop has done some good, despite his drugs use and possession of a gun (If I weren't afraid of them and considering today's violent climate, I would carry a gun also. Instead I have limited myself to 'mace').
But no, if I had a child, I wouldn't want him to be a part of Snoop's football league. Let's just hope that NONE of the players follow in Snoop's footsteps.
==============================...
Oh and yes, many of our most famous celebrities/movie stars/entertainers carry guns and are drug users. Some have also appeared in criminal courts. Some have "done time." Some have "gotten probation".
But.
Millions still like them, rush to see their movies and attend their concerts, and some even "want to follow in their footsteps."
Do you get it?
THIS GUY is my favorite music artist...yes, he has done drugs...got into much trouble...but look at lot of those celebrities out there.....they have done worse.....I have no kids, but if I did....hmmmm...yeah, I would let little junior play with the other guys...
His lawyer, Donald Etra, said of the youth football league, "Snoop's position is he wants to give children and teenagers an example to follow."
HUHHHH!!??!!?? What example?? How do the rich and (in)famous get away with this? Why do we let them?
Answer:
Amen. The guy is fun to watch, but I wouldn't let my kid get within a zip code of the loser. He is a thug buffoon.
because juries are comprised of those too stupid to get out of jury duty
He's also a pornographer and a drug abuser. No I don't think I want any kids anywhere around him.
Sure why not, at least I know what he is guilty of.
Smedrik has a point -- think of all the youth coaches who you don't know their backgrounds and we let our children loose with them!
Personally, I doubt I would let my kids go without me being in earshot everything that was said to them, and I look at it this way.....there are not nearly enough youth programs that are affordable for all parents, and I would rather see this thug putting something back into the community that will benefit children then buying another BMW with the money.
He's not exactly a role model, so the answer would have to be no.
I agree with Smedrik...
Besides some of today's coaches are potential killers/murderers given their behavior at not just football games, but baseball, basketball, etc.
The reality of the matter is that Snoop has done some good, despite his drugs use and possession of a gun (If I weren't afraid of them and considering today's violent climate, I would carry a gun also. Instead I have limited myself to 'mace').
But no, if I had a child, I wouldn't want him to be a part of Snoop's football league. Let's just hope that NONE of the players follow in Snoop's footsteps.
==============================...
Oh and yes, many of our most famous celebrities/movie stars/entertainers carry guns and are drug users. Some have also appeared in criminal courts. Some have "done time." Some have "gotten probation".
But.
Millions still like them, rush to see their movies and attend their concerts, and some even "want to follow in their footsteps."
Do you get it?
THIS GUY is my favorite music artist...yes, he has done drugs...got into much trouble...but look at lot of those celebrities out there.....they have done worse.....I have no kids, but if I did....hmmmm...yeah, I would let little junior play with the other guys...
Would you let non U.S. born person run for president if the person is the best in the nation now for the job?
it is weird that the law prevents discrimination based on a person's race, color, gender and handicaps, but when it comes to birth place, it's like "you can't touch this!" but as nobody can choose their race, color, gender and ect, no one can have any say on one's birth place. now, how is that not a discrimination if people born outside of U.S. are not allowed to run for president? if "all men are created equal" can get every man and woman of all races and colors to have equal rights, how can we get stuck on words designed hundreds of years ago when america was a new nation to prevent king of england from designate someone from his court to be president of america? it is unjust to people who happened to have a birth place outside of U.S. and it is unjust to everyone in the nation if it prevents someone who can do a great job but can't get the job based on birth place. people have tried to change it without success before. i really wonder why?
Answer:
I say it doesn't matter. What matter is the achievements of the person that shows that is the right person to vote for. It is a huge job, I wouldn't care where is the birth place, but the job has to be done right.
the answer to your question is no.
I don't see why not, but a constitutional amendment is very difficult - it was intentionally set up to be so - so I doubt it'll change any time soon.
Yes, as long as they have lived in the country for a long time.
Where you are born is just a technicality...
Tell me about it...I've been living in this country since I was 6 months old (I'm in my 40s), English is my first language, I have no ties to foreign potentates, and I voluntarily became a US citizen in the 80s.
I can't run for president.
Of course, there is no way on earth I would want to be president, so it's hard for me to get too worked up about it.
This is pretty much a worlwide idea. America is not the only one with this law.
I would say no, but things change...
Ok lets elect bin laden - Our founding fathers put lots of things in the Constition and Bill of Rights and as the times changed ammendments were written to adapt to changing times. The idea of changing the Constition to allow aliens to hold the office of President has been rejected time after time because smarter men than you agree it is not a good idea.
Nope ! With all the immigrants America has now, They could easily vote in a Crazy person with crazy views and America would be in dire stress, for instance lets allow China's Dictator to become America's President, No more free speech, free religion and we would have to wear a button on our shirts at all times with his picture( CRAZY, CRAZY, CRAZY). And no i'm not prejudice, I love all people including immigrants, legal and illegal. I'm just sayin.
The Constitution of the United states has worked well for two centuries. It is not a good idea to start messing with it.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has certainly done a lot better job that the Decider has, and there are supporters who would like to see him run for president. But it is quite immoral and probably unlawful to change laws to serve the interests of an individual person.
Answer:
I say it doesn't matter. What matter is the achievements of the person that shows that is the right person to vote for. It is a huge job, I wouldn't care where is the birth place, but the job has to be done right.
the answer to your question is no.
I don't see why not, but a constitutional amendment is very difficult - it was intentionally set up to be so - so I doubt it'll change any time soon.
Yes, as long as they have lived in the country for a long time.
Where you are born is just a technicality...
Tell me about it...I've been living in this country since I was 6 months old (I'm in my 40s), English is my first language, I have no ties to foreign potentates, and I voluntarily became a US citizen in the 80s.
I can't run for president.
Of course, there is no way on earth I would want to be president, so it's hard for me to get too worked up about it.
This is pretty much a worlwide idea. America is not the only one with this law.
I would say no, but things change...
Ok lets elect bin laden - Our founding fathers put lots of things in the Constition and Bill of Rights and as the times changed ammendments were written to adapt to changing times. The idea of changing the Constition to allow aliens to hold the office of President has been rejected time after time because smarter men than you agree it is not a good idea.
Nope ! With all the immigrants America has now, They could easily vote in a Crazy person with crazy views and America would be in dire stress, for instance lets allow China's Dictator to become America's President, No more free speech, free religion and we would have to wear a button on our shirts at all times with his picture( CRAZY, CRAZY, CRAZY). And no i'm not prejudice, I love all people including immigrants, legal and illegal. I'm just sayin.
The Constitution of the United states has worked well for two centuries. It is not a good idea to start messing with it.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has certainly done a lot better job that the Decider has, and there are supporters who would like to see him run for president. But it is quite immoral and probably unlawful to change laws to serve the interests of an individual person.
Would you kill someone for money?
Answer:
Chico Marx to Harpo:
"I'm-a desperate for some money. I need-a money real-a bad. I'd-a do anything for some money. I'd-a kill for some money. I'd-a kill anybody for some money. I'd-a kill YOU for some money! Ayyyy! What-a am I talking about?!? You my friend, I'd-a kill you for nothing!"
sure...how much you got...what std did she give you?
Osama Bin Laden, no charge.
How much money are we talking about? and who is the person a pedophille a rapist some thing like that
N O
NO
I was trained to do it for the government.
NO!
What good is having money if you lose your soul in the process.
Depends on who and what they did.
No. I would only kill to protect my life or the life of another.
No. Life is more valuable than money.
Not only wouldn't I do it...but I don't think I'm capable. Now if there were a reason for doing it...some people have mentioned Osama bin Laden...rapists...pedophiles..... In those cases, even if I could, no money would change hands. If someone "needed" killing, you wouldn't really be doing it for the money.
If I have to shoot someone on the job, than technically I am being paid to kill someone.
I grew up in a neighborhood that spawned several career criminals. One of them was a hit man. I knew him personally but never knew, until he was caught, what he did for a living.
You might think you would kill someone for money, if it was enough money, but, I can assure you that just listening to a real hit man talk about his "job" would turn your stomach.
Killing another human being changes you whether on purpose or by accident. You are never the same.
A good friend was drunk driving one rainy night when he hit and killed an elderly man. It was learned that the victim actually used my friend to commit suicide. He had a history of suicide attempts. Yet, in spite of that, my friend has needed counseling most of his adult life. He cannot shake the sound and sight of that event.
Now....Would you REALLY kill someone for money?
____________________________
See http://on-line-tribune-mind-stuff.blogsp...
Nowadays many do. But I prefer NOT!
Would you kill someone for $5 million dollars if you could hide the money away without the cops getting it?
It May take over 20 years to get out, but when you do you will be absolutely rich!
Answer:
It's wonderful that all of you loving, God fearing respondents feel like you do. But, how about a man, living in poverty due to his own making, that has been in and out of prison all of his born years, enjoys the fellowship of his prison friends in a luxurious setting of amenities he could never have outside of prison, and is looking for a happy financial retirement on a far away island? Hmmm. Sounds probable. So, who do you want done in? Have a Happy Easter. lol
Swiss or off shore account under management for a 12% growth per year.
No. You may be rich here on earth, but it's where you will spend your eternal life that you should be worried about, and murderer's go to h*ll
$250,000/year isn't worth giving up my life for.
Sorry ..stupid question..
Is killing anyone worth that much or any amount of money???? and what a waste of 20 years of your life...
I wouldn't even consider it. I wish we' d go back to the barter system. The pursuit of money is corrupting everyone. Bling is in and kids are dying because of it.
Missing 20 years of my kid growing up, My wife, my family, good TV, friendly card games, internet chatting, general freedom, etc...is not worth it. No amount of money could bring it back. Sorry, no.
Nearly every "safe" bank to put your money in honors extradition meaning they can put a permanent freeze on your cash. Any other bank in another country like Iran, you might as well donate it to a cause. Besides, nobody will ever pay you that much to whack someone.
No.
as William answered you there are those out there that would kill for a whole lot less than that.....they have had no other life but in the prisons for they picked that kind of life style...yes they DID pick it....as for me, nah money doesn't mean that much to me after going thru the 20 years I'd still have to live with it on my mind...the guilt of it.....for however long I lived so nah...find someone else
Answer:
It's wonderful that all of you loving, God fearing respondents feel like you do. But, how about a man, living in poverty due to his own making, that has been in and out of prison all of his born years, enjoys the fellowship of his prison friends in a luxurious setting of amenities he could never have outside of prison, and is looking for a happy financial retirement on a far away island? Hmmm. Sounds probable. So, who do you want done in? Have a Happy Easter. lol
Swiss or off shore account under management for a 12% growth per year.
No. You may be rich here on earth, but it's where you will spend your eternal life that you should be worried about, and murderer's go to h*ll
$250,000/year isn't worth giving up my life for.
Sorry ..stupid question..
Is killing anyone worth that much or any amount of money???? and what a waste of 20 years of your life...
I wouldn't even consider it. I wish we' d go back to the barter system. The pursuit of money is corrupting everyone. Bling is in and kids are dying because of it.
Missing 20 years of my kid growing up, My wife, my family, good TV, friendly card games, internet chatting, general freedom, etc...is not worth it. No amount of money could bring it back. Sorry, no.
Nearly every "safe" bank to put your money in honors extradition meaning they can put a permanent freeze on your cash. Any other bank in another country like Iran, you might as well donate it to a cause. Besides, nobody will ever pay you that much to whack someone.
No.
as William answered you there are those out there that would kill for a whole lot less than that.....they have had no other life but in the prisons for they picked that kind of life style...yes they DID pick it....as for me, nah money doesn't mean that much to me after going thru the 20 years I'd still have to live with it on my mind...the guilt of it.....for however long I lived so nah...find someone else
Would you have turned in fugitive slaves for violating the law?
Many people say, "The law is the law. Period." They say that people who break an evil law are worse that those who made it. Do you agree?
Answer:
No. I don't agree with those "law loving people".
No, I would not have. The law can be challenged...
I don't think I would turn myself in,sorry. BTW: The South is not to blame for slavery,they came here to Rhode Island first and were distributed throughout the country.One of the most popular Ivy League Colleges (Brown University) was built on the backs of slaves.So people here up North could have done something also.
Do you mean in the Civil War or 10,000 years ago in Egypt?
No, I would have helped them escape...at least I hope I would have. I guess you can't absolutly know what you would do in a situation that you have never been in. I really hope I would have helped.
No. The ones making the laws are no more human that I. If I find their laws unethical I do not find it necessary to follow.
I would no more have turned over fuguitive slaves as I would fuguitive jews in ww2.
however, I would be prepared to die for my actions.
NO I WOULD NOT BE A SNITCH B'CAUSE SNITCHES GET KILLED. dONT U EVER WONDERED HOW ALL THOSE CEMEMTERYS GOT FILLED?
If I lived in the north when the fugitive slave laws were passed then I would definitely protect fugitive slaves. I think I would protect them if I lived in the south too, but I guess nobody really knows unless they are in that exact situation.
I hope you are not trying to compare that to arresting an illegal immigrant by the INS. Those two things are miles apart.
If I was back in that time, raised as someone in that time, then maybe I would because that would be the morally correct thing to do at the time.
Asking me now, no, I would not turn them in.
These types of questions are idle speculation, if you can come up with a current law that has a similar moral high ground issue with it as that one, then please, post that one.
I don't think I could blame someone for trying to secure their own freedom, so no, I wouldn't turn in a runaway slave. If, however, there were legal channels they could have followed to regain freedom, but chose not to, it might have been a different story.
I guess I bring up that point because I have no problem calling an illegal immigrant a criminal.
The law is the law but personal beliefs are what challenge them and some are changed. I would not turn in those fugitive slaves and I also wouldn't turn in someone who bombed an abortion clinic or killed a doctor who performed abortions. All I can do about it is keep writing to my congressman and senator and urge them to submit laws to challenge Roe V Wade.
Nope.
I would have been a "John Brown" abolitionist and would have provided a stop on the "Underground Railroad".
Sometimes a little civil disobedience can be a good thing.
No I would not I would have hid them and helped them to freedom. Would you have turned in Jews to the Nazi's?
I don't believe that's the law anymore. At least, it's not here.
The law is the law, but when it conflicts with my morals, I go with morals. Do you think that makes me a good person, even without knowing what my morals are?
No, not really considering that slavery is illegal dumba**!
The law (The Constitution) also states that all men are created equal and should have certain inalienable rights such as life, LIBERTY, and the persuit of happiness.
So technically, having someone as a slave WAS breaking the law, since slaves were being denied their liberty. The slave owners were the ones who broke the laws. The "fugitive slaves" were only exercising their right to liberty. A right they all should've had under the Constitution.
Of course we must obey the law and be upstanding citizens but at the same time we do have our conscience and we must stand up to what we believe is right and unjust.. Slaves enduring harsh working conditions and inhumane treatment was clearly inmoral; Owning people as slaves was not only cruel but it was a social injustice..
Well, I hoped that I wouldn't turn them in, I really wouldn't know since I wasn't around back then. Personally though, I wouldn't. I would've assisted them every step of the way.
Yeah I probably would. I dont feel like the law is the law but I just will not help someone that cannot help me.
Depends. I don't think it's very wise to ask a question out of it's contemporary perspective. It changes the whole environment of the topic, and thus renders it null and void. Sure. We would all like to be the unsung heroes of the Underground Railroad, but, who is to say we would have believed the same as we do now, had we been raised in that time period? It's not an accurate scenario.
a slave is very different than an illegal immigrant.
Its hard to say. Now, of course, we know slavery is a violation of simple human rights and decency. So now, living in this day, I would emphatically say, No, I would not. But when people are raised in certain settings and are raised to believe that certain culture norms are just "the way it is," it is hard to say if I would have during slavery.
As for "evil" laws, I believe we answer to a higher innate morality than the "law-makers." I believe we are to abide by the laws as long as it does not go against our innate morality of right and wrong.
I totally disagree because "people" make the laws, and people obviously make mistakes, and that is evident in the enslavement of people. I would have definitely kept fugitive slaves a secret if I would have lived back then. I'm glad you posted this question. I'd like to see others' responses to this. I know there are going to be some idiotic submissions saying they would have turned in fugitive "SLAVES."
I pray that I would have had the courage to break the law and help save others, risking my own life in the process.
I think we're kidding ourselves to think we can guess what we'd have done, because we totally ignore the societal influence on our thinking.
Personally, as a Libertarian, I'd like to think I'd have helped organize the escapes, but I'm not so sure. It's possible that I would have accepted the commonly held belief that the slaves were not human beings, and therefore not covered by my Libertarian principles. I can't honestly say.
It makes it harder to know because we've seen other instances of de-humanization before and after the mid 19th Century. Jews and Slavs were dehumanized in Germany in the 1930's, and some otherwise good people were able to turn their heads and not see what was going on around them. I spent enough time in Germany to have gotten to know a few of them myself. There were even some who denied their own bloodlines to escape the persecution, but didn't even speak out against it.
I can tell you this from experience: there's no amount of philosophizing and training that prepares you for being shot at. There are some circumstances that you just don't know what you will do until you are there.
Answer:
No. I don't agree with those "law loving people".
No, I would not have. The law can be challenged...
I don't think I would turn myself in,sorry. BTW: The South is not to blame for slavery,they came here to Rhode Island first and were distributed throughout the country.One of the most popular Ivy League Colleges (Brown University) was built on the backs of slaves.So people here up North could have done something also.
Do you mean in the Civil War or 10,000 years ago in Egypt?
No, I would have helped them escape...at least I hope I would have. I guess you can't absolutly know what you would do in a situation that you have never been in. I really hope I would have helped.
No. The ones making the laws are no more human that I. If I find their laws unethical I do not find it necessary to follow.
I would no more have turned over fuguitive slaves as I would fuguitive jews in ww2.
however, I would be prepared to die for my actions.
NO I WOULD NOT BE A SNITCH B'CAUSE SNITCHES GET KILLED. dONT U EVER WONDERED HOW ALL THOSE CEMEMTERYS GOT FILLED?
If I lived in the north when the fugitive slave laws were passed then I would definitely protect fugitive slaves. I think I would protect them if I lived in the south too, but I guess nobody really knows unless they are in that exact situation.
I hope you are not trying to compare that to arresting an illegal immigrant by the INS. Those two things are miles apart.
If I was back in that time, raised as someone in that time, then maybe I would because that would be the morally correct thing to do at the time.
Asking me now, no, I would not turn them in.
These types of questions are idle speculation, if you can come up with a current law that has a similar moral high ground issue with it as that one, then please, post that one.
I don't think I could blame someone for trying to secure their own freedom, so no, I wouldn't turn in a runaway slave. If, however, there were legal channels they could have followed to regain freedom, but chose not to, it might have been a different story.
I guess I bring up that point because I have no problem calling an illegal immigrant a criminal.
The law is the law but personal beliefs are what challenge them and some are changed. I would not turn in those fugitive slaves and I also wouldn't turn in someone who bombed an abortion clinic or killed a doctor who performed abortions. All I can do about it is keep writing to my congressman and senator and urge them to submit laws to challenge Roe V Wade.
Nope.
I would have been a "John Brown" abolitionist and would have provided a stop on the "Underground Railroad".
Sometimes a little civil disobedience can be a good thing.
No I would not I would have hid them and helped them to freedom. Would you have turned in Jews to the Nazi's?
I don't believe that's the law anymore. At least, it's not here.
The law is the law, but when it conflicts with my morals, I go with morals. Do you think that makes me a good person, even without knowing what my morals are?
No, not really considering that slavery is illegal dumba**!
The law (The Constitution) also states that all men are created equal and should have certain inalienable rights such as life, LIBERTY, and the persuit of happiness.
So technically, having someone as a slave WAS breaking the law, since slaves were being denied their liberty. The slave owners were the ones who broke the laws. The "fugitive slaves" were only exercising their right to liberty. A right they all should've had under the Constitution.
Of course we must obey the law and be upstanding citizens but at the same time we do have our conscience and we must stand up to what we believe is right and unjust.. Slaves enduring harsh working conditions and inhumane treatment was clearly inmoral; Owning people as slaves was not only cruel but it was a social injustice..
Well, I hoped that I wouldn't turn them in, I really wouldn't know since I wasn't around back then. Personally though, I wouldn't. I would've assisted them every step of the way.
Yeah I probably would. I dont feel like the law is the law but I just will not help someone that cannot help me.
Depends. I don't think it's very wise to ask a question out of it's contemporary perspective. It changes the whole environment of the topic, and thus renders it null and void. Sure. We would all like to be the unsung heroes of the Underground Railroad, but, who is to say we would have believed the same as we do now, had we been raised in that time period? It's not an accurate scenario.
a slave is very different than an illegal immigrant.
Its hard to say. Now, of course, we know slavery is a violation of simple human rights and decency. So now, living in this day, I would emphatically say, No, I would not. But when people are raised in certain settings and are raised to believe that certain culture norms are just "the way it is," it is hard to say if I would have during slavery.
As for "evil" laws, I believe we answer to a higher innate morality than the "law-makers." I believe we are to abide by the laws as long as it does not go against our innate morality of right and wrong.
I totally disagree because "people" make the laws, and people obviously make mistakes, and that is evident in the enslavement of people. I would have definitely kept fugitive slaves a secret if I would have lived back then. I'm glad you posted this question. I'd like to see others' responses to this. I know there are going to be some idiotic submissions saying they would have turned in fugitive "SLAVES."
I pray that I would have had the courage to break the law and help save others, risking my own life in the process.
I think we're kidding ourselves to think we can guess what we'd have done, because we totally ignore the societal influence on our thinking.
Personally, as a Libertarian, I'd like to think I'd have helped organize the escapes, but I'm not so sure. It's possible that I would have accepted the commonly held belief that the slaves were not human beings, and therefore not covered by my Libertarian principles. I can't honestly say.
It makes it harder to know because we've seen other instances of de-humanization before and after the mid 19th Century. Jews and Slavs were dehumanized in Germany in the 1930's, and some otherwise good people were able to turn their heads and not see what was going on around them. I spent enough time in Germany to have gotten to know a few of them myself. There were even some who denied their own bloodlines to escape the persecution, but didn't even speak out against it.
I can tell you this from experience: there's no amount of philosophizing and training that prepares you for being shot at. There are some circumstances that you just don't know what you will do until you are there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)