E4 No More

There are several things here that would be topics for discussion, but I think that you will find that most LEO's will follow orders and let the courts decide whether it's legal or not unless it's obvious to them that it is illegal, (murder as an example). I believe that New Orleans demonstrated that. As far as the discussion is concerned it could have been an inside joke and they were offended that you were "ease-dropping" on a private conversation so one decided to alarm you with his response. It could be absolute fact. You just don't know.

I wouldn't get too excited: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-attorney-general-plans-to-seek-stay-of-ruling-overturning-districts-handgun-ban/2014/07/27/00d9e9d0-15c5-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html   Meanwhile, Ted Gest, the spokesman for the D.C. attorney general’s office, which defended the handgun ban in court, said it will “be seeking a stay shortly,” so the order by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. may not be in effect for long. “Its time of effectiveness could be very short,” Gest said. Legal experts have said that in many cases all parties in a lawsuit are given the opportunity to appeal a ruling before it takes effect. However, it was decided at some point Sunday that Scullin’s ruling took immediate effect, and that set off efforts to bring the city into compliance.

Only 3 comments on the article, (underneath where you have to open it), and 2/3 of them are from bedwetters. :)

That sucks, man! I know what it's like to put down your best 4-legged friend. Now I feel bad about ribbing you. :(

Your avatar indicates otherwise. :)     Kidding!

Yep! Yet another statistic that they like to ignore.

Thanks, David.

Yeah, it's ironic how they do not report that medical malpractice is the number one killer in America.

Actually, I told the fellow that I would be happy to testify. He thanked me and I heard nothing more about it after that. It's not like I can file a case for him, right? You see, I have a very hard time keeping my mouth shut when I see something wrong, (you are either part of the problem or part of the solution type of thing), but my confronting the regional manager would have accomplished nothing but getting me fired. I did, however, say something to my SIL's husband who was an executive of the company at the time. He did nothing about it either other than to tell me sometime later that the dude was fired for something totally unrelated.

You mean the witnesses who are afraid of losing their jobs? Ya, right! It's amazing how memories blank and hearing dulls in these situations.

Yes, but you have to be able to prove that now, don't you? Should employees carry around recording devices every day to protect themselves from their employer?

Conjecture? Isn't that what you offered? Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.   The majority of businesses are corporations formed to protect the "owners" from personal liability for their conduct. In other words, you can get a judgment against the business, but not against the owner who actually did ______.IMO you can't have it both ways. You are either an individual or an entity, and entities shouldn't be protected claiming their freedom that is not granted in the Constitution.

Let me make my point with real life examples after first pointing out that At Will means that the employer doesn't have to cite a reason for the termination, but they cannot then dispute unemployment compensation as a result. If they cite a reason then it has to be documented to deny unemployment compensation and offers no protection for violations of federal equal employment regulations.   1. As stated earlier, my spouse came under the supervision of a district manager who was a Muslim of Arab origin who made discriminatory remarks concerning women in position of authority over men. Her previous district manager gave her glowing evaluations and she had no disciplinary actions; however, her new district manager soon, and without warning, terminated her, and Pizza Hut cited At Will protection. Is that BS?   2. I am legally disabled. While working night shift at a gas station for a local oil company my manager gave me constant glowing remarks concerning the work that I did. When my district manager found out that I was legally disabled requiring minor accommodations that had no impact on the business he demanded a letter from my doctor indicating my diagnosis and enumerating what accommodations that were required to be made. When I provided such documentation, (although I understand that such demand was illegal to begin with), I was then terminated by my manager who stated that he was reluctant to do so even though he was ordered by the district manager to terminate me. Kimbro Oil Company cited At Will protection. Is that BS?   3. While working for Rent-A-Center I had a black co-worker who desired the position of store manager at another store. I was within earshot of the regional manager when he was discussing the position with our store manager when the regional manager made the statement that he wasn't going to "...put that N___ in a store located in a "white neighborhood" regardless of his qualifications I reported what I heard to the co-worker in question who confronted the regional manager about it when he was informed that he wasn't getting the promotion. The regional manager then terminated the co-worker citing At Will protection. Is that BS?   4. I know of another co-worker at another company that was terminated under At Will protection when his new boss didn't like having to make accommodations for his disability. This person would not be considered annoying or difficult to work with, and he had outstanding work ethic. Is this BS?   You can put perfume on crap but it remains crap regardless of how you want to justify or minimalize it.

I get your point, but you are referencing At Will for your point. Government set up At Will to protect the employers; not the people for which they are supposed to represent. They do this under the pretense of attracting business for the good of the very people that it screws, but it is still BS.

Not me since I'm not likely to participate. I already know that I suck more than others, and not as much as some. :)

Sorry, but this response is a complete load of crap! Keep in mind that I once WAS an employer and my opinion hasn't changed since then, so this is not hypocrisy. I treated my employees with the respect and dignity that they deserved, and some of that included termination for cause.   When you are offered a job you are agreeing to an understanding between you and the employer, are you not? The employer tells you the job responsibilities and the compensation for meeting those responsibilities, correct? That agreement is called a "contract" by the legal definition, if I am correct. Said contracts can be verbal or written, but today's employers protect their selves by sticking with verbal contracts so that there's no record of said contract unless there happens to be a witness to it, or a recording of it. Anyway, what happens when you break a contract? Are there NOT consequences for doing so, or are you free to break a contract with, say, your mortgage holder under the guise of "freedom"? I'm not talking about changes in the needs of the business that warrants a lay-off. That is a cause that is commonly understood by both parties just like if you do not do your job or break a rule of the employer is also understood as cause.   Freedom? The preamble to The Constitution does NOT read, "We the business entities of The United States...." I believe it specifically says "people" instead: therefore, business entities are neither a protected group nor are they indicated to be applicable to what follows, meaning that the freedoms which are spelled-out in The Constitution.      "Abused by some"??? Why is it that I can recall several case then? If only a few are abusing it then statistically I should only have personal knowledge of one.  Also, as an employer you are responsible for the managers underneath you.   Yeah, I must be a freedom-hating communist because I believe that a business entity's "freedoms" do not trump my freedom unless the causes are mutually agreed upon beforehand.   So I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Violate the rules then you should be fired.   "At Will" employment is complete BS and should be abolished. I know for a fact that some co-workers of mine at a couple of companies were discriminated against, fired for no cause, (other than the color of their skin or their disability), and then the employer hid behind "At Will" laws so that the company was safe from the EEOC. My own wife was discriminated against by her District Manager who hailed from Saudi-Arabia who didn't think women should be Pizza Hut managers, and who fired her citing "At Will" employment laws in Missouri. I found out later that he had once assaulted her by slapping her in the face with a bundle of dollar bills. And no, she didn't tell me even though I was a LEO where it happened because she was afraid I'd lose my job over his inevitable resisting of arrest had I known at the time.

Imagine all the cheating goin' on! :)

Probably many are relocating to get out of that liberal rat's nest of a state.

Yes, and then trying the link above: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/store/

So I'm posting this here since I cannot send David a PM.   When I click on the link to by a "Shall Not Be Infringed" sticker I get a message stating that I'm not allowed to purchase one. When I go to the TGO Store the only thing that shows is benefactor renewals. Am I the black-sheep of the forum or something like that?

Naw, he writes "Politician" since it's a synonym.

WSMV reported that average pay is $40,000 for those interested.

That's a lot of dog crap!   I don't have a dog door, but little buddy would be met with some serious teeth should he try that at my house. My Rotty don't play!

It probably is.