More NAZI's being dox'ed (or whatever you call it) and losing their jobs.
https://vtdigger.org/2017/08/16/sou...g-charlottesville-rally/#.WZV4c4XZABc.twitter
https://vtdigger.org/2017/08/16/sou...g-charlottesville-rally/#.WZV4c4XZABc.twitter
American White Supremicist Nazi's are being outted on Twitter...Hallelujah!!!
- Thread starter Baller Time
- Start date
Herr KKKrumpMeister, the Emperor of America's NAZI movement will be losing his job.
Heil KKKrumoMeister.
You have just demonstrated Trump hasn't nearly the command of basic English to express such minorly complex thoughts. You do, and it clearly wasn't that hard.
However expressing ain't the same as convincing or persuading and on those essentials you fall far short. But at least you don't further inflame and divide like the despicable Trump.
As to the event itself: Marching with the regalia of the Klan and the Nazis is to self-identify with the worst sort of racist criminals, quite obliterating any rational program or purpose you might pretend was what brought you together. Whether their efforts were adequate or not — the city tried to prohibit the demo and only issued the permit under a Court order — the police and municipal authorities faced a near impossible-challenge in 'protecting' such people. And the argument is like blaming the police for bank robberies. Nonetheless, for all Trump's 'baseball bats' talk, the reported deaths and injuries are not among the Nazis and KKK but were inflicted by one of them.
The truth is these people demanded the public space to demonstrate as provocatively and threateningly as they could, and awful violence predictably ensued. They quite rightly will continue to face social consequences from their deliberately public acts.
Not sure if you're advocating that it's ok to use violence as long as you find someone else's behaviour to be provocative and offensive enough? If so, I won't be signing up for your Utopia. (Can you imagine the carnage at the next TERB party alone!)
I haven't seen reports that said the KKK or neo-Nazi marchers were laying beatings on people as they marched along.
Your solution - don't allow provocative demonstrations- is a pretty convenient tool for dictatorial rulers. No thanks. That's what the US was founded in opposition to. I think the better solution is the tried and true policing solution - keep the opposing groups out of physical contact with one another. This strategy could hardly be a revelation to the Charlottesville mayor. I'm forced to conclude that he had his reasons for not doing the obvious.
I'm sorry I haven't used simple enough phrasing for you to be sure: The people who demanded public space to demonstrate their threats, hate and bigotry were the Nazis and Klansmen, and one of their energized supporters is now charged with the murders and wounding that ensued. Better now? I don't know how the earlier wording could be read as me 'advocating violence is ok', but that was all your invention.
If you want to stack up comparative numbers of other 'beatings' by the bigots vs. the bystanders, go ahead. But I'd rather hear your description of what the bigots did to ensure there would be no violence, given how predictably provocative their banners and costumes would be. But it's your point to make, not mine. And so far, I haven't read of any charges but the murder one.
You clearly weren't reading carefully when you invented no demos as 'my solution'. It was the Charlottesvile Council, who denied the permit application. Far from prohibiting the rally they attempted (in one of those efforts at control you claim they didn't make) to re-locate and permit it in a less provocative venue where the bigots could demonstrate, safely undisturbed. But the organizers refused to have their purpose deflected and got a judge to order the permit for the original location, where they were assured they would encounter the largest crowds.
If you think failure to keep the sides apart is a worthwhile point, you really do need to come up with your 'other violence' numbers. On the level of known facts, we know one neo-nazi is charged with driving a car at a crowd of bystanders/counter-demonstrators. If cops could prevent that, there'd be no traffic fatalities, ever.
But y'know sometimes, even good cops can't do the impossible.
Nothing wrong with complexity, as long as there is also clarity.
A person applied for the permit, and then attempted to organize a group of disparate conservative groups and individuals to attend and hear speakers. Some of those groups and individuals deserve the label neo-nazi or KKK. Some don't. The applicant got a permit. The city tried to revoke the permit for one location in order to move it, but were successfully sued by the ACLU. While the counter protesters had been granted a permit for another location (which would have avoided contact with the Unite the Right permit), some of the counter protesters chose to leave their permit site in order to confront some of the protesters (quite lawful to do, but with predictable consequences, to use your terminology). Both sides criticized the police response, and subsequently it has come out that police were ordered to stand down during the worst of the conflict. One thing is clear, the counter protesters went looking for the protesters, not the other way round.
I have no idea at this point what (if anything) this confrontation between the groups has to do with the car attack, but I won't be surprised to hear that the attack was an escalation of the violence that was already occurring (and the police were failing to intervene in).
Considering that the police did not intervene in these other assaults, I'm not expecting them to lay any more charges. However, both sides have confirmed that assaults took place. ANTIFA has clearly initiated such assaults at other protests/counter protests they have participated in.
I saw an interesting interview on CNN with one of the neo-nazis. He was offering up the theory that the driver's car was being swarmed and attacked by the counter protesters and that the driver was simply trying to drive away (panicked) to escape them when he accidentally struck those swarming his car. I can't see any proof of that on the video that's been released thus far. It remains to be seen whether this can be born out by evidence. Murderers are well known to lie. Neo-nazis are certainly known to be hateful, certainly to the point of inflicting violence on others. However, what he is describing has frequently happened at picket lines where there is violence, so it can't be dismissed as patently implausible.
As usual, the press have already decided the case before any investigation, and leave out any facts they are aware of that don't conform with their theory.
Glad you got it. Theories will come out, along with facts when the murder charge is heard. But that's not the topic here, and it's well in the future.
Until then, the folks who chose to demonstrate as Klansmen and Nazis are soley to blame for the notoriety and opprobrium that has spread to those who chose to join with them. They'll have to sort that out, as they should perhaps have considered before they chose to participate in this horror show. However, it was certainly the organizer's purpose to achieve the maximum public presence, which was why he sued for his original permit.
He, and they got what they wanted.
Until then, the folks who chose to demonstrate as Klansmen and Nazis are soley to blame for the notoriety and opprobrium that has spread to those who chose to join with them. They'll have to sort that out, as they should perhaps have considered before they chose to participate in this horror show. However, it was certainly the organizer's purpose to achieve the maximum public presence, which was why he sued for his original permit.
He, and they got what they wanted.
"Can private employers fire employees for going to a white supremacist rally? That dependd on the state where the employee is employed."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tm_term=.80c56fdcc0d6&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tm_term=.80c56fdcc0d6&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1
You can fire anybody that works for you. That is your prerogative as a business owner. The only issue is how much it will cost you.
In practical terms that is true. However, it does depend upon whether you want to still be a viable firm after the lawsuit doesn't it now.
Further of course if you a manager are responsible for the damages, your former employer may well attempt to get as much blood from you as possible on their way out of business.
On top of which in some states there are criminal penalties so you can contemplate your civil case while incarcerated.
In the case of a grade school educated dildo who delivers pizza or flips cheeseburgers, it'll probably cost you sfa. The law will presume that he will find another menial job fit for a neo nazi moron within a couple of weeks and it will not be worth his while to hire counsel to fight for the pittance that constitutes 2 weeks of minimum wage pay.
Aardie's statements are appropriate for most wrongful dismissal suits, as most of those lawsuits are brought by long service mid to high level executives. For casual, menial labour by marginal, idiot low level employees, see what I just wrote.
Surprisingly, I didn't see many CEO's and VP sales parading around with clubs and tikis chanting "Fuck the Jews!" in the videos of the Nazi rally. Maybe I just missed the good bits......
You should read up on employment law. Obviously you do not know anything about it. And you know nothing about running a business. I would offer a bet that you have never terminated anybody.
Here is a link to "termination without cause" 101: http://employmentlaw101.ca/01-overview-termination-without-cause/
Read the Blog Danmand https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tm_term=.80c56fdcc0d6&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1 (I admit I liked it better before they went into a partnership with the Washington Post.)
Having worked in the United States, you do realize that there is NOT a one size fits all employment law in the U.S. (Federalism)
Having worked in the United States, you do realize that there is NOT a one size fits all employment law in the U.S. (Federalism)
Do you believe that Eugene Volokh is?
Perhaps you can voice your suspicions to the UCLA School of Law?
I sadly am forced to conclude that you are a fool masquerading as a lawyer. In termination cases the objective of legal counsel is to avoid lawsuits.
I fired more than hundred people in my career and never had a lawsuit against any of my companies.
