Webcomic Author Deemed a Terrorist Threat

CaptainCarrot writes "Writer/IT contractor Matt Boyd, formerly the man who made up the words for webcomic Mac Hall and who now does the same for his and Ian McConville's new comic Three Panel Soul, was recently fired from his government job. His conversation with a co-worker about a gun he intended to buy for target shooting was overheard by someone in a nearby cubicle. As it was unfortunately the day of the Virginia Tech shootings, the eavesdropper panicked and reported him to management. That was bad enough. But when he used the comic to document the meeting where the reason for his firing was explained, he was visited by representatives of local law enforcement investigating him on suspicion of making a "terroristic threat" using the Internet. No charges have been filed. Yet. FLEEN interviewed Matt about the incident."

Comments

"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[daveschroeder]

The term "terroristic threat" has been around a long time, and has nothing to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat", as it is used in the vernacular.

The term and legal notion of "terroristic threat" has been around for a long time, and has nothing to do with the "war on terror", 9/11, the Bush administration, or censorship.

Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.

Even Boyd himself in his interview correctly notes that "a terroristic threat is an old legal concept".

He is also not charged with any crime (though technically he could be), but that's always true. He says the "detectives at least seem satisfied" that he was "harmless", and showed samples of his work to one of the detectives.

It would be better to read his interview, instead of believing someone thinks this has anything to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat" (no one does; remember, "terroristic threat is a legal concept that has been around a long time).

Actually, I take that back. There are people painting this as allegedly being thought of as "terrorism". It's people who want to get all indignant about it.

By the way: anyone who thinks Virginia Tech could have "prevented" this shooting somehow, this is exactly what you get.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[notque]

Obviously it has nothing to do with terrorism, or terroristic.

Unless the targets he planned on shooting were to urge a political change. Or he told the paper targets before hand that he was coming to get them unless they used recyclable paper.

Maybe the person who told on him wasn't actually a person, but instead of a picture of Osama Bin Laden with a bullseye over the nose.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Anonymous Coward]

'By the way: anyone who thinks Virginia Tech could have "prevented" this shooting somehow, this is exactly what you get.'

That's ridiculous. And I'm even pro-2nd amendment.

The comic writer didn't threaten anyone. The impetus for the investigation was an overheard conversation about a gun purchase. Neither is cause for an investigation of this level and a firing.

Compare that to the VA Tech horror--if you remove entirely Cho's writings (which is not a good level of judgment anyways), he should have been stopped during the purchase of his one gun at a gunshop, as he lied about being mentally incerated and such info is in the state's own judicial system which could have been cross-checked with answers when purchasing that gun. In fact, this past week, I believe the legislature of VA removed that roadblock; the law was fine, the implementation sucked.

Second, imnsho, and this isn't popular, I think the police HUGELY dropped the ball in the VA Tech situation (and by that opinion, the University is far less contributory through indifference in the 2nd shooting site deaths). If a police officer had been shot in the foot, they would have gone after that guy wholeheartedly, just as they did earlier in the year with a person who allegedly shot a deputy upon escape. The police dropped the ball--even they admit they were investigating another person who they "knew" had killed the first 2...oops, except he didn't. See, if a couple of kids get shot, you're not part of the FOP, it's thrown into a "domestic dispute" craphole where they go after the nearest; investigation is separate from correctly ascertaining threat, which comes full circle in demonstrating why the handling of web comic thing is so incorrect.

btw, I've never understood the whole firing thing in any case--besides clearly not a threat, you want to make the person even more out of their luck and prone to do something? Amazing how the US becomes more and more like China these days (China is far worse, but the approximations seen over the past 6 years in stories makes that gap narrower).

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[maxume]

His employer might not have broken any employment rules, but the people is his office and the people who let him go are acting like a bunch of jackasses. I mean, do these people still cry when they spill some milk?

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[glwtta]

Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.

Ah yes, he was a contract employee, well it's all good then.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Chmcginn]

It is NOT what we think of as "terrorism" (e.g., a suicide bombing, 9/11, etc.), and no one thinks it is.

Technically, the posts you're replying to prove you wrong on this point. Not to be pedantic or anything.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[daveschroeder]

Yeah, it is.

As a contractor, he can be released with even less cause (read: basically any cause, or no cause at all) than any other kind of employee, some of which themselves can be released with nearly no cause.

So yeah, it's "all good".

. . .

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The term "terroristic threat" has been around a long time, and has nothing to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat", as it is used in the vernacular.

To my knowladge, "terroristic" isn't even a real word, except in the sense that even engrish words that come into common usage do get promoted to the OED or somesuch publication.

Basically, people who use the word "terroristic" sound like an eight year old exclaiming "meanienater" when they're told to go to bed. So I kind of doubt that the term has been around all that long. Under that name at least.

I could be wrong. American is a very strange dialect.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[notque]

I read your post. I have done research on the topic. It didn't change a single bit of what I was trying to say.

I was elaborating on what would be a silly concept of if it was actually literal to our current meaning of terrorism.

It's called humor.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[cortana]

And there was me thinking that "terroristic" was just a word mistakenly used by the illiterate.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[epee1221]

They don't even have to wait until the end of the contract term?

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[daveschroeder]

Eh, I apologize for responding with that tone, then. My bad.

Since everyone else responding didn't seem to "get it", your humor deflected right off the stupidity helmet I had to don to respond to the other comments.

it's kind of like a tinfoil hat, but different.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[daveschroeder]

There may not be a "term", per se, and even if there is, the contract very likely includes language that says that the employer may terminate the contract at any time, which would be fairly standard.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[fatphil]

Bomb threats, eh?

Would you now explain to someone who grew up in London during the IRA era, has spent several hours underground in a tube train which LT didn't want to move to a station due to such a threat, and was living in Manchester at the time of the Arndale Centre incident, precisely how bomb threats are "an unrelated concept" to terrorism?

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Score Whore]

While he was a "contractor", the contract was likely not between him and the ultimate recipient of his work. Eg. the feds have a contract with his boss, not with him.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[kko]

Sorry, you should have said "the law books don't think it is terrorism". In a day and age where your president cannot pronounce the word "education" correctly, I would not be so sure ALL of the government or state is aware of the correct definition. And when you say "no one who actually has the power to charge him with a crime", you should sit down, and think about that phrase really hard too.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[geeber]

To my knowladge, "terroristic" isn't even a real word, except in the sense that even engrish words that come into common usage do get promoted to the OED or somesuch publication.

It probably would have taken you less time to find this page than it did to write your post.

Terroristic is the adjective form of terrorist.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[LMariachi]

No, it's "all legal," not "all good." Significant distinction.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[DunnoWhy]

Those threats from the IRA where indeed Terrorist Threats and not Terroristic Threats.

A Terroristic Threat is a threat made for the intent of coercion, influencing specific actions, or instilling fear. There does not need to be any proof that the the threat was supported by means or actual intent to follow through on the threat (at least in my jurisdiction).

Terrorist Threats are made for specific political agenda or change. I don't know much about Terrorist Threats, just that the motives are political.

So the kid who calls a bomb threat in to put off his midterm exam for a few days is making a Terroristic Threat. The guy who threatens to bomb a bridge unless the US pulls out of Iraq is making a Terrorist Threat. And a guy who implies he may go postal for getting released from a contract on unfriendly terms may be making a Terroristic Threat to make those who got rid of him afraid (or he may be making a simple joke that spooked someone, which apparently the police believe is the case after a brief investigation).

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[iNaya]

Next time, instead of saying a word isn't real "to your knowledge", why don't you check the word in a dictionary. It's a word. It's an adjective. The word has existed in real life for hundreds of years. Who modded that post insightful anyway?? Check a dictionary. Fool. You really think your knowledge includes the more than one million words in the English language? What kind of fool would presume to think they know whether or not a word is real? Arrgh. Me angry.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Crazyswedishguy]

To my knowledge, the word "knowladge" isn't a word... And I couldn't find it in the dictionary!

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[EQ]

What do you expect? Look at the editor who approved this. Kdawson. The biggest troll on Slashdot.

He uncritially and unthinkingly posts sensationalist bullshit like this all the time. Apparently he has the critical reasoning capacity equivalent to a bag of wet mice. Why or how Malda gave that idiot the job is a good question. If you want a left-leaning anti-government editor on /., go to Daily Kos or Huffington Post and get one of the better ones there. At least some of them can read and reason. Kdawson is an idiot and capable of neither. The article linked to is proof (as are many of his other past editorial decisions)

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[fuzz6y]

To my knowladge, "terroristic" isn't even a real word

Your "knowladge" is wrong in every respect. It is a word, it is not a bastardization, and it does not trace its origin to the American dialect.

except in the sense that even engrish words that come into common usage do get promoted to the OED or somesuch publication.

You are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. Every word, before it was a word, was not a word. English was not passed down from before time began, you know. There was a time when there were exactly zero real English words. Over time the sounds people made to communicate thoughts and ideas became widespread enough that outside their little group could understand them. It's every bit as true of "fish" as it is of "okay" and "pokemon."

I guess to you it matters a great deal whether the "little group" in question was some Japanese computer nerds, some smart-aleck newspapermen, or a small germanic tribe on a big rainy island. Too bad you were wrong about which category "terroristic" falls in. If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.

Hey, I think I just found a new sig.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[illuminatedwax]

American is a very strange dialect.

Not as strange as those weirdos who say "maths" and make bizarre puns based on words that rhyme.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Alioth]

I have to ask - is "terroristic" cromulent, though?

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Xiaran]

As a contractor working in Europe(mostly the UK and Germany) there is usually a clause defining the release conditions from both sides. Its usually in the four week notice period zone... ie they have to give me four weeks notice and so do I. The only exception I have come across has been with a financial services organisation where they the right to give one week notice and I had the right of four weeks.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Hognoxious]

The only exception I have come across has been with a financial services organisation where they the right to give one week notice and I had the right of four weeks.

Not sure that's enforceable - but in any case I wouldn't accept if the terms were unequal like that.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Hognoxious]

If he's what I'd class as a contractor, he is his own boss.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Hognoxious]

So which is it, it was right to fire and investigate

Shouldn't they be in the other order?

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[NereusRen]

As other people have noted, "terroristic" is a well-defined legalese term. If you're going to blame some dialect for growing out of control, it's the extremely precise demands of law that cause it, rather than the typical American bastardization of English. (And yes, I am American.)

From uslegal.com: "It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harrassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief."

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Hognoxious]

The person you're replying to is an American, so chances are he supports the IRA (who look like cute leprechauns) in their legitimate struggle agaist the evil imperialist limeys. Shame about their goal of a united communist Ireland and those links with the Gadaffi - or shame it got found out. And though he probably considers himself an expert, the chances are he couldn't point to Ireland on a map either.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Bloke down the pub]

I don't know what the correct term for the logical fallacy is, but it goes like this: if an error is made one way (nothing done to prevent the VT shootings) then you can correct it by making an error in the opposite direction (overreacting to the Nth degree over idle chat).

Or in slashdot terms: if you drive your car in first gear for four weeks before realising it's a stickshift, you can cancel it out if you drive it for the next month constantly in fifth.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[fatphil]

It's that island shaped like a shamrock, isn't it?

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Deadplant]

You make some good points except for this one:

Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason You must know that is not correct.
In fact it is ludicrous.

If upon reflection this is not obvious to you then consider these examples:
- firing a stripper because she is not attracted to you.
- firing a road-worker because you found out he is gay.
- firing an office worker because they are jewish.
- firing an accountant because she refuses to 'cook the books'

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[Qzukk]

Shouldn't they be in the other order?

In this case he was fired due to the comment, then investigated due to the comic he wrote about being fired over a comment.

Re:"Terroristic threat" != "terrorist threat"

[abb3w]

It probably would have taken you less time to find this page than it did to write your post.

Being old fashioned, I checked that it's not a novel construction by looking at my 1973 dead-tree dictionary first; however, turning up this link to indicate the same thing shouldn't have taken much longer.

Incidentally: Dammit, America, stop cowering in fear!!!

Sing along ... you know you want to!

[Hektor_Troy]

Matt Boyd Matt Boyd
Watcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
when they come for you
Matt Boyd, Matt Boyd
Watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do
when they come for you

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[binaryspiral]

Watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do
when they come for you

Well, he's going to make a comic about it... duh.

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[notque]

First they came for the web comic artists, and I did not speak out.

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[SuluSulu]

First they came for the web comic artists, and I did not speak out.
You just did.

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[dosius]

That whoosh you heard was the sound of a literary <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came ...">allusion</A> whizzing past your head.

-uso.

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[grolschie]

That whoosh you heard was the sound of a literary <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came ...">allusion</A> whizzing past your head.

-uso.

PREVIEW is your friend. :-)

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[grolschie]

Scratch that, I was just being dense! :-/

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[Jotii]

That whoosh you heard was the sound of pre-formatted HTML whizzing past your head.

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[jamiethehutt]

First they came for the web comic artists, and I did not speak out.

Well I was thinking:

First they came for the web comic artists, and I wasn't too bothered. Their a weird bunch and frankly anyone who draws furry porn maybe should be locked up, preemptively, just in case. :D

Re:Sing along ... you know you want to!

[Lord Omlette]

I know I'm nitpicking here, but he's the author, not the artist. The artist works for a video game company on the opposite coast.

chilling effects?

[scrain]

Regardless, the comic was at worst a vague veiled show of frustration against the establishment, not a threat to man or corporation.

As someone who is part of the organization of another major webcomic, things like this are frightening. I like to keep my jobs, personally.

Re:chilling effects?

[ClamIAm]

major webcomic

Haha, good one.

Also

[daveschroeder]

Unless you know everyone around you, this probably isn't an appropriate conversation for the workplace, which Boyd says is a verbatim transcript of what got him fired^H^H^H^H^Hreleased from a contract position that he can be released from at any time.

And this, even if joking, is probably not, all things considered, the wisest response. Only he, or people who know him well, knows he's not serious, frankly. Yeah, it's funny. But he already got fired for talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone in the face with a .22 to kill them, and then makes light of it to the point where someone got scared again. Do you think the police are monitoring his comic? Someone obviously complained, and it's the police's job to follow up, who then determined he's not actually a threat, according to his own description of the meeting with the detectives.

Can we find something else to get all in a huff about? I'm sure there's another story we can run about how the 2004 election was stolen.

Re:Also

[dynamo]

Um, this is worth gutting all in a huff about. The government is supposed to defend freedom, not take it away. He might have been stupid to say those things, but NONE WERE THREATS of any kind. nor was the comic. No one accused him of mental problems or being likely to hurt anyone.

The lack of intelligence in law enforcement is no excuse to trample on civil rights. The worst he should have gotten was probation.

Re:Also

[daveschroeder]

Huh?

He didn't "get" anything. If you mean probation with respect to his work, that's between him and his employer. It most absolutely is not the government's role in a situation like this to mandate that he keep a contract job that he can be removed from, legally, at any time.

Re:Also

[glwtta]

Only he, or people who know him well, knows he's not serious, frankly.

Well, I must be some kind of psychic then, because I've never met him and yet I was somehow convinced that he wasn't planning to murder people when I saw that comic.

Can we find something else to get all in a huff about?

Are you serious? The "presumed an insane killer until proven otherwise" attitude from his employers and the local police isn't enough to get in a huff about?

Re:Also

[Belial6]

I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason. The reason you don't tell them why you are firing them is because there are so many ways to that firing someone is illegal.

Re:Also

[daveschroeder]

Well, I must be some kind of psychic then, because I've never met him and yet I was somehow convinced that he wasn't planning to murder people when I saw that comic.

*Sigh*.

Ok, I'll explain this to you.

Without respect to his comic at all, someone at his place of work overheard him talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone in the face with a .22 to kill them. A coworker, who most likely didn't know him, or know him well since he's a contractor, reported this incident to their supervisor.

He was released from his contract position (which the employer has every right to do) for the incident.

If you can't understand that was a stupid or at least marginally unwise thing for him to do, then I don't know what to say. Of course it sucks that he got "fired"/released from his contract position for it, but then, this is why we say that actions have consequences.

At this point, the comic isn't involved. At all.

Are you serious? The "presumed an insane killer until proven otherwise" attitude from his employers and the local police isn't enough to get in a huff about?

Uh, I couldn't possibly care less about his employer. They acted correctly, given the complaint and the situation. You just simply don't say something like that unless you know everyone around you knows you're joking.

Remember, the web comic still has not come into play yet.

AFTER he was fired, he humorously recounted it in his comic, which someone at some point must have seen, and in which he made what someone determined to be a threat, even if it was 100% in jest and humor. The police followed up on said complaint, which it is their JOB to do - no "guilty until proven innocent" yet - and then determined there was no actual threat (which again, is their job).

Words and actions have meaning, and consequences. Yes, there is all sorts of nuance, but we can't have this "have it both ways" collective mentality we do where we think "gee, maybe we could have stopped the Virginia Tech shootings" but then allow people to make what can be interpreted by some to be verbal or written threats. Yes, I get the comic. Haha, funny, etc. But his phone conversation about shooting someone in the face multiple times with a .22 to kill them, which was a gun he just bought, was interpreted by someone who probably didn't know him to be a threat. Which she reported. While it would be great if the employer could parse through things and say, hey, we realize you were joking, it's possible his employer didn't know him that well either, since he was a contract employee. And frankly, they can release a contractor at any time regardless, so that point is moot.

This is a non-story, and yes I'm serious. But people started confusing "terroristic threat" with "terrorism", so I'm sure this will have a nice, long life on many a blog.

Re:Also

[Dragonslicer]

I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason.

True, you can't fire people based upon age, race, gender, sexual orientation (in some states), or one of a few other reasons commonly referred to as "protected classes". In most states, employment is "at will", meaning you can be fired for any reason other than being a member of one of these protected classes. Owning a gun or talking about buying a gun is, as far as I know, does not qualify you for a protected class.

Re:Also

[Dredd13]

This depends a great deal on where you live. In a lot of at-will states, it is sufficient to simply say "you are fired." You don't need a reason of any kind. It can be "because you wore a purple shirt today," and unless "purple shirt wearing" is a protected class against discrimination (hint - it isn't), it sticks. Every jurisdiction is different, but this is the way it actually works in a lot of locations. I know I've heard human resources attorneys in my state (NY) tell me this on multiple occasions.

Re:Also

[Hijacked Public]

A very level headed post, and mostly correct.

My only disagreement is with you claiming that the employer acted correctly. Traditional HR policies are mostly geared around doing everything possible to keep the company from being sued, even if that isn't the 'correct' thing to do morally or ethically or even rationally.

I think lending validity to hypersensitive reactions based on overheard conversations is not a good thing for a company's long term workplace environment. And in the broader sense, pretending that things like this make us safer detracts from real issues that actually would make us safer if we had time or inclination to address them. Firing everyone who verbalizes something that someone might feel is threatening won't get us any closer to figuring out the differences between all those people and the VT shooter.

Re:Also

[PopeRatzo]

True. What is being missed is that if this is a non-story, then the company acted improperly, if legally. It's like the kid being expelled from school for bringing a plastic gun to school for a pageant about the civil war.

If we are going to say that this is "no big deal" we should remember that this guy lost a job because of it, even though he posed no threat and was cleared by law enforcement.

All the jailhouse IANALs here at Slashdot love to talk about whether something is legal, but seldom about whether something is right.

Re:Also

[Score Whore]

You know, just because you have two or more people in a room together, it doesn't mean that it is a perfect time to consider all the moral, ethical, rational, political, or environmental challenges that face society today. Businesses have a specific purpose: to provide a particular service or product. It's not always appropriate (or ever appropriate) that a business completely goes off track and pursues some tangent because there is some miniscule possibility that somebody on slashdot might think that spending efforts psychoanalyzing some dork who doesn't have the social filters of a skunk will finally uncover the difference between an idiot and a sociopathic fuckwad who went and shot everybody they were jealous of because they felt bad for themselves.

For all you know this guy spent several hours a day shooting the shit with the clown in the next cubicle and had half the productivity that they expect. And finally he just pushed it over the edge.

Re:Also

[Score Whore]

Whatever. If you to peel the onion go ahead. But the point is, whatever enterprise people get up to for whatever reason, it usually has a specific purpose. That purpose usually isn't a debating society for whatever the social ill du jour happens to be. People saying that the business should turn into a support system for this possible dumb ass, just don't get it. The individuals that make up the business have better things to do with their time than analyze one idiot who lacks the insight into society to realize it's pretty fucking stupid to talk about having to shoot someone in the face repeatedly to kill them on the same day that some other asshat murders a bunch of people. He doesn't have an entitlement to be understood. If he does something that makes the people around him think he's not worth having around, then he just CLM-ed himself. Now he's gone one better and demonstrated that he lacks discretion. What employer is going to want to hire this guy if this is his response to being fired?

Re:Also

[NecroPuppy]

One facet to that... If you're in an "at will" state and they actually give you a reason (they don't have to), it has to actually be a legitimate reason.

They can't lie.
They can't make something up.
They can't be noticably discriminatory.

But all they do have to say is "you are fired", and if that's all they say, then there isn't much that can be done.

Re:Also

[fucksl4shd0t]

Can we get past the idea that businesses can do whatever they want so long as they are pursuing revenue? I think that that is the most dangerous idea facing society today, even if we have 100 college shootings.

Re:Also

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This is a story! That stupid busy bodies can get you fired for making an off hand not directly threatening remark in a conversation they had no business snooping on in the first place. And no I am not one who thinks VT could have been prevented the guy was sick. But as far as I know we are not allowed to arbitrarily lock up people we think are sick I.E. homeless people. It can be done but it is not easy I think the quickest way is for a parent or guardian to request he be committed. In which case that would have been his parents call and they did not make it.

Re:Also

[glwtta]

If you can't understand that was a stupid or at least marginally unwise thing for him to do, then I don't know what to say.

Likewise, if you can't understand the problem with the "He's a witch!" - "You're fired!" (or whatever the hell you want to call it) scenario, then I'm similarly at a loss.

we can't have this "have it both ways" collective mentality we do where we think "gee, maybe we could have stopped the Virginia Tech shootings" but then allow people to make what can be interpreted by some to be verbal or written threats.

a) I've never claimed that VT type shootings can be stopped in that manner, you are confusing me with someone else.
b) You are proposing an unrealistic standard for determining what people can, and cannot, say. The "a single person got their panties in a bunch" metric has never worked and never will.

And frankly, they can release a contractor at any time regardless, so that point is moot.

You keep harping on that - nobody is disputing their legal rights here, it's the amount of overreaction and douchebaggery that we are having a problem with.

This is a non-story, and yes I'm serious.

Clearly we care about different things. Respectfully, I will continue to dislike this, though you don't need to waste any more time talking about it.

Re:Also

[Score Whore]

Um. Did I espouse that idea? No, I pointed out that the GP's idea that the business' "failure" to jump into action to follow some (possibly) moral / ethical action isn't wrong or inappropriate. Businesses are people. Those people don't have any responsibility to spend their limited daytime hours performing deep psychological analysis of some idiot's astonishingly poorly thought out words.

What people should be taking from this isn't that some employer somewhere was mean to a webcomic author, but that said webcomic author is a perfect counter example of the phrase "don't be stupid."

Re:Also

[Jason Earl]

It always amuses me when people read articles like this and then take them at face value. You have no idea what the comic actually said in his conversation. You have no idea whether or not the person that complained was stupid. What you do know is that the person that complained to HR was apparently more credible a witness than the comic. You also know that the comic's manager apparently didn't think it was worth his time to try and save the guy's job.

Replacing someone is almost always a difficult job, especially if there services really are valuable to the business. Tons of time and effort get wasted on finding and interviewing candidates. When someone finally is hired there is paper work to be done, and orientation, and finally there is always a ramp up time while the new hire learns what the job actually entails. There is a cost involved in replacing employees even when all the employee has to do is pull the green potatoes out of the production line. The fact that this person's employer was willing to let him go for this particular infraction tells me that either A) his services weren't particularly valuable to the business in the first place and the complaint was a perfect excuse to let him go, or B) he struck his manager as the sort of person that might actually be a serial killer.

I suppose that it is possible that the manager, the person that complained, and everyone in HR is absolutely totally inept, but Occam's razor points to a simpler explanation.

Either way, it highlights a very important truth. If you like your job then you need to spend some time socializing with your co-workers. If you can't be absolutely sure that none of your co-workers would suspect you of being a serial killer then you have some work to do. If you can't handle that, then you need to take a job where you can work out of your basement.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

It shocks me to know that americans don't have a shred of protection in the workplace. No matter what you say, that concept of "protected classes" is doesn't amount to anything, since it is oh so very easy to find another irrelevant motive to fire anyone based on a whim. But that isn't enough. It shocks me even more realizing that americans, who frequently fall victim of their total lack of rights, talk about this issue as if it was completely normal and totally acceptable. It is not. No one should get fired just because the boss is PMSing or is having problems at home. No one should get fired because their boss doesn't approve what he does at home or in their spare time. The U.S. job market does not have the faintest resemblance to a developed, modern country which respects their worker's rights. It looks like it's based on feudalism, like medieval europe. The american workers amount to nothing more than peasants that are forced to please their master in each and every way, unless they want to be out of a job. And it is sad, really.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Words and actions have meaning, and consequences. Yes, there is all sorts of nuance, but we can't have this "have it both ways" collective mentality we do where we think "gee, maybe we could have stopped the Virginia Tech shootings" but then allow people to make what can be interpreted by some to be verbal or written threats.
Yes, we can. We can investigate whether the threat is serious or not. Not allowing anything that could be interpreted as a threat is ridiculously restrictive. Anything can be interpreted as a threat because words and actions do not have inherent meaning. Even if they did, people can and do misunderstand what was said.

Just because it was legal to let him go doesn't mean it was wise or right. It's hard to believe that hiring a replacement will be better for the company than it would've been to spend a bit of time establishing that it was a joke and then calming down the employee who brought the complaint.

Re:Also

[Thornae]

I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason.

Just FYI, and to show you that the US isn't the only Western country with a fascist government, in Australia... you can.

Under our Glorious Leader's "Work Choices" legislation, companies with less than 100 employees are exempt from the Unfair Dismissal laws. You're pregnant? Bye! You're Asian? Sorry! You're not willing to work unpaid overtime? Seeya!

(Okay, it's not quite that out of hand, but it's getting there. My sister was fired for being a volunteer fire-fighter.)

Re:Also

[Xiaran]

I would agree that he was probably unwise to say what he said in the workplace, but honestly is that a sackable offense? If I was the manager in that situation I probably would have taken him aside and mentioned that what he said , particularly at the time of saying it, was insensitive and potentially offensive to others. Im a contractor(albeit in the UK) and have never been released(ie sacked :) ) from my contract. Ive never worked in the US, but my wife is American and one day I might find myself there. Stories like this confuse and alarm me.

Ive also heard stories from Brits who have worked in the US and they tend to paint working in the US as painful and annoying. Please USians tell me this is not so. I like Americans. I mean Im married to one for starters :) Tell me working there is not a process of putting up with jerks.

Re:Also

[TFGeditor]

"Can we find something else to get all in a huff about? I'm sure there's another story we can run about how the 2004 election was stolen."

Mod parent "Troll."

The First and Second Amendments are certainly worth getting a "huff" about. And only whiny-ass losers think the only things worth discussing are "Satan Bush" and how he "stole" the 2004 election.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now I'm confused.

If an employee can quit because she is PMSing or having problems at home, or an employee can quit because he/she doesn't approve of what the boss does at home or in his or her spare time, why is it again the employer isn't allowed the same privilege?

Re:Also

[Bloke down the pub]

For all you know this guy spent several hours a day shooting the shit with the clown in the next cubicle and had half the productivity that they expect.

And for all you know, he didn't.

Re:Also

[Loucks]

Owning a gun or talking about buying a gun is, as far as I know, does not qualify you for a protected class.

I have to wonder why this is. What if I were fired for joining the wrong club? Publishing a book? Worshipping the wrong god?

It seems to me that, at a minimum, exercise of those rights protected by the Constitution should not be valid reasons for termination.

But hey, what do I know. Guns are scary and evil! A million moms can't be wrong.

Re:Also

[b0s0z0ku]

Owning a gun or talking about buying a gun is, as far as I know, does not qualify you for a protected class.

It's a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Since this is a *government* facility, are they allowed to dictate that employees aren't allowed to exercise their rights outside the workplace?

-b.

Re:Also

[rainman_bc]

Unless you know everyone around you, this [threepanelsoul.com] probably isn't an appropriate conversation for the workplace

Well owning a gun is constitutionally protected, and his right to talk about owning it should too be constitutionally protected. Honestly there's little wrong or in appropriate - he wasn't talking to the coworker who overheard the conversation...

Say he buys a gun for self defence. We can assume that he wants to defend himself; a .22 wouldn't adequately do the job, and that's what he was talking about. Perhaps not brilliant, but hardly horrible either.

Re:Also

[rainman_bc]

Owning a gun or talking about buying a gun is, as far as I know, does not qualify you for a protected class

Owning a LEGAL item, and talking about a LEGAL item is hardly a problem. It's consitutionally protected, get over it. Whether I agree with gun ownership or not is irrelevant as long as it's constitutionall protected.

Re:Also

[xystren]

Yet the vice-president can shoot someone accidentally, yet doesn't get fired, and this guy does for only talking about purchasing a gun?!?!?!?!?? WTF? Am I the only one that has an issue with this?

What's next? I'm not permitted to eat a burrito now because I might pass gas, and be guilty of potential terrorist threat for distributing bad smelling "gas"????

What a world we live in

Cheers,
Xyst

Re:Also

[jotok]

I disagree entirely. Dismissing someone and never providing any justification is a great way to get your company sued. At that point they can make up almost ANYTHING and score off of you in the courts. For this reason, most companies will not dismiss at-will employees without some reason--track record of mediocre performance, documented violations of rules & regs, etc.

That said, I think I know this guy's former employers, and they mostly a bunch of unmitigated douchebags...so really no suprise here.

Re:Also

[jstomel]

I work in a science lab. Recently a new rule was instituted, you can't throw anything that might concievably have been used to do science (which, being a science lab, is pretty much everything we use) in the trash. Apparently the janatorial staff had seen some tubes in the trash and were worried about catching some horrible mutant disease or something, dispite the fact that we don't actually work with any horrible mutant diseases. Whatever. My point is people will freak out and get scared over totally stupid shit all the time. If you respond by firing every employee who manages to scare the most scarable employee you will eventually end up with an organization that consists of one employee. And you will end up with science labs where no one is allowed to do science and janitors paid to empty trash bins with nothing in them.

Re:Also

[fishbowl]

>Are U.S. Attorneys a protected class? No, but Congress is investigating why some of them were fired even though they can be fired for
>any reason or no reason. Pure BS.

Uh, Congress is investigating because reasons *were* given that turned out to be lies. Congress doesn't care as much about the Attorneys issue as it does about officials lying to them.

Re:Also

[RexRhino]

Fascism is an authoritarian form of government, where amoung other things the culture and economy is centrally planned by the state.

An small employer being able to fire their employees for any reason they want is not fascist. You might argue that it is "anarchist" or something... you can argue that it is morally wrong. But it is a case of the government forgoing centralized authority, it is an example of a regression of the police state, so it is not fascist in any way, shape, or form.

Giving power to hire and fire to individuals and small companies is inherently anti-fascist. Power is being redirected from the vast state/police/corporate machinery into small, widely distributed organizations. It is about as anti-fascist as you can possibly get.

Re:Also

[fucksl4shd0t]

I disagree completely. Now, it's true that the conversation itself was a borderline conversation, and you'd have to consider the culture at the workplace to determine if it was appropriate. I have worked in places where such a conversation is not only appropriate, but occurs regularly. I've also worked in places that were the complete opposite, you could only talk about violence in movies or else you got in trouble. We don't know the culture, all we know is that he said it coincidentally on the day of the VT shootings, and there are several distinct possibilities here. 1) He said it like he did because he was thinking of how *he* would deal with a shooter. 2) He didn't know about the shootings (you may disregard this all you want, but I hadn't heard about them until 6pm, so it's a possibility anyway). 3) It was a continuation of a conversation that started before the VT shooting, which therefore means the employer should have fired the shooting for improper behavior.

Where I work, in a school lab, we actually talked about what we'd use for weapons in that situation and how we'd defeat the shooter before he killed us or anybody else, and our conversation was a bit more graphic than his. Of course, it was limited and private in nature (i.e. limited to me and another person, and when others appeared we broke it off and talked about other things because we were concerned they wouldn't appreciate the topic).

So, anyway, yes, I think the employer should have taken a few minutes and thought about it and that a better response would have been mediation between the webcomic guy and the wanna-be whistleblower. Consider the coworker's situation. Now she/he has learned that she can get someone fired by tattling on them. And the employer knows she's a knee-jerker. Do you really think this is going to affect the work environment in a positive way? Did the employer really do the right thing?

Re:Also

[KDR_11k]

Because the employee needs the money from the job to feed himself while the employer won't go hungry from missing an employee? Because being able to fire people at will is a great way to pressure them into illegal or unethical acts or just exploitation (like mandatory unpaid overtime)?

Re:Also

[fishbowl]

>why is it again the employer isn't allowed the same privilege?

One argument stems from the idea that it is in the interest of the state that the employee/employer relationship is weighted in favor of the employee. See, a corporation can generally afford to lose an employee, and it will not have a significant effect on that corporations ability to continue to do business. On the other hand, if an employee loses his job, he often becomes a burden on the state immediately, and if he fails to find another job, he becomes an increasingly expensive burden on the state (even if the state does nothing for him directly.)

So there is an argument that the employer should have certain responsibilities to the employee, where the employee's responsibilities are asymmetric. And there is a compelling state interest in this argument, so there is a basis by which it could be coded into law.

Re:Also

[rtb61]

Let's stick to logic, there are far more employees than employers, why would employees create a political system where they can get screwed over by employers, I know they did do it, are doing it and will be doing it in the future, I just want to know why ;)?

Re:Also

[joto]

Unless you know everyone around you, this probably isn't an appropriate conversation for the workplace

Why not? Because it's not work-related? Or because it's about choosing weapons for their inability to hurt people since all you want is target shooting? Would a conversation about killing real muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan be more suitable?

If your inability to understand speech is so unimaginatively great that you take this as a description of a killing, or as a wish to kill someone, you belong in mental care, not in a government position.

And this, even if joking, is probably not, all things considered, the wisest response.

Why not? Only people who are so retarded that they managed to misinterpret the first conversation will be able to misinterpret this as well. And those people should be locked up in institutions and receive proper psychiatric care.

But he already got fired for talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone in the face with a .22 to kill them, and then makes light of it to the point where someone got scared again.

No, he got fired for someone misinterpreting what he said (which is ok, his contract specifically allowed him to be fired for any reason, including the boss being an idiot). And then they continue to misinterpret what he says again. Do you think it's wise to continue to misinterpret people?

Do you think the police are monitoring his comic? Someone obviously complained, and it's the police's job to follow up, who then determined he's not actually a threat, according to his own description of the meeting with the detectives.

I believe that Maryland must be a very quiet place, if the police has time to spend on such nonsense.

Re:Also

[joto]

Owning a LEGAL item, and talking about a LEGAL item is hardly a problem.

You think so? Try talking about your dick to a female coworker then?

Re:Also

[Thornae]

Well, yes, I was using "fascist" mainly in the pejoritave sense, a la Rick. And I was actually referring to the overall ideals of our government, not the specific piece of legislation.

I could argue, however, that the Work Choices legislation does in fact encourage fascism, in that it allows employers to remove those who do not comply with some sort of societal norm from their positions.

Re:Also

[RexRhino]

I could argue, however, that the Work Choices legislation does in fact encourage fascism, in that it allows employers to remove those who do not comply with some sort of societal norm from their positions. Well, I agree with you it COULD encourage fascism, but not that it DOES encourage fascism. Sure, an employer could use that freedom to only hire people who comply with some sort of societal norm (to very minor effect, as these are small buisnesses and not big corporations that employ tens of thousands of people).

But it can be used for other legit reasons as well... such as starting a family buisness. Without the law, lets say a plumber would technically be "discriminating" by hiring his son as an assistant instead of a more qualified person. But we both know there is nothing racist or unfair about a guy hiring his son to teach him the family trade. Or, lets say an immigrant family from China opens a family resteraunt, and they want to hire other Chinese immigrants in the resteraunt in order to help them get started in a new country. There is nothing particularly sinister about such a thing, however those people would technically be commiting criminal activity under anti-discrimination laws.

The law is a lot like Free Speech. It is true, that a lot of Nazis have taken advantage of free speech to promote their hateful positions, but even more people (Martin Luther King, for example) used freedom of speech to promote peace and tolerance. Just because freedom can be abused, doesn't mean that freedom = abuse.

Re:Also

[cylcyl]

I hope you've learned your lesson and stopped wearing purple shirts after losing all those jobs for wearing it...

Re:Also

[tsdw]

a lot of people are saying that this was inappropriate conversation. Even the ones defending him say 'while it might have not been smart to talk about this at work' etc... NO .. there is NOTHING wrong with talking about this at work, in a theatre, on a bus, in a cafe ..ANYWHERE Holy shit, its not the government taking away our rights its apologists GIVING it all away Obviously he shouldn't have been fired for it, but thats neither here nor there for purposes of what I'm talking about. Im talking about the whole 'well it was right BUT he shouldn't have said it' crowd God damn I hope your not teaching your kids your short sightedness

Oi

[Shabadage]

Stupidity of this level makes my head hurt. I understand that he could be released at any time for any reason as a contractor; but they chose THIS TIME AND THIS REASON; which is complete bullshit. It sucks that he has no legal recourse; but outright stupidity like this really needs to be brought to light (as a lawsuit would no doubt do) to the rest of the world.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

Actually, I'm not sure he could have been released at any time for any reason. There are still some grounds that could give him cause for retribution. Imagine if he was let go because the new department head didn't like black people and he has a relative that is black. Imagine he was let go associating with a Democrat (or republican) presidential candidate.

There are such things as free speech, right to keep arms, and several other things. Now, This was a government job and with a crafty lawyer, it might be possible, that not only does something not sit well with his civil liberties but the continued harassment because of the notification to the law enforcement agencies and how the situation could have been presented to them, he might have some grounds for a case. Of course far more details are needed and a qualified lawyer in that area would need to determine if it is worth pursuing, but i don't think a summery dismissal of the situation because he signed some agreement is appropriate. He should have legal council simply because the cops are talking to him about possible violations, He should also be looking at how legal everything is that is happening to him (including being let go).

I'm not normally one to run and sue everyone. But neglecting to use the legal system when it is coming after you isn't very wise. I think something needs to be set straight about it, and something needs to be done so the next angry look you have because the printer jammed again or someone took the last cup of coffee without making another batch or refilling the water bottle at the cooler doesn't get you fired when a co worker who doesn't like you anyways says they got scared. This is complete bullshit and something needs to be done about it.

Re:Oi

[Dragonslicer]

There are still some grounds that could give him cause for retribution. Imagine if he was let go because the new department head didn't like black people and he has a relative that is black.

Race is specifically listed as a protected class for which you cannot fire someone. Talking about buying a gun and shooting people is not, regardless of it being a joke.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

I wasn't considering firing someone for race was the same thing here. The thing is, even in an at-will state, there has to be a somewhat valid reason, But especially because this was a government employer that isn't a cabinate position (like with the justice department and such), the reasons could have more restriction behind them. I would hope that the government couldn't fire you for something that is constitutionally guaranteed. And he was fired for talking about exorcising one of these rights and went on to talk about how hard it would be to accidentally kill someone. The later is probably were the issue is but the context doesn't justify it.

I still say he should seek counsel for this. I think he might have a case however week it might be. The supreme court has ruled on contract obligations before that were unfair or extraneously ridiculous. Getting fired because someone heard half a conversation or because you were over heard talking about using your constitutionally protected rights might fall into one of those categories.

Re:Oi

[reub2000]

I still say he should seek counsel for this. I think he might have a case however week it might be. The supreme court has ruled on contract obligations before that were unfair or extraneously ridiculous. Getting fired because someone heard half a conversation or because you were over heard talking about using your constitutionally protected rights might fall into one of those categories.

The constitution doesn't protect you from getting fired by a private employer. I think he would have an extremely weak case if he tried to sue. But IANAL.

Re:Oi

[Dragonslicer]

The thing is, even in an at-will state, there has to be a somewhat valid reason

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Oi

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The thing is, even in an at-will state, there has to be a somewhat valid reason

"You've changed, and I need to see other people."

Re:Oi

[geekoid]

Depends on his contract.

Is it a contract to complete a work?
In some states a contractor is exactly that, someone contract to get a piecs of work done. Meaning you can do it whereever, however and hire other people(at you expense) if you want to.
I have had contracts where I could sue for breech if they 'fired' me.

If you think you can be fired as a contractor, you are actually wrong. They can 'cancel' a contract.

If you have an hourly contract that is opened ended, you are A sucker.
unless you are getting paid 4 times what the employee makes.

This hourly contractor crap organization are pushing down' people throat is only a way to give them easier time to screw you.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

At-will means exactly what it means. But even in at-will states, there are restrictions.

It is generally used to distinguish between areas of employment where certain states protect workers from being terminated without good cause and area were the state doesn't have such protections. In case your wondering the at-will state doesn't have the protections. But there are other laws and regulations that override these protections. Even in an at will state, you can't be fired for race, national origin, sex, sometime age and so on. well, In all state you can be fired for these reasons except you have recourse to go after the employer if they do fire you for that reason.

In this case, the employer is the government. Even with a contract that says you can be terminated because of anything like wearing the wrong color shoes, you still cannot be terminated for something concerning a constitutionally protected right. Well, once again, you can be terminated but you can go back and sue the government employer.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

That would be a valid reason but you would likely get compensation from the states unemployment compensation fund. The difference is if they had a reason like "you stole from the company" you wouldn't be entitled to any unemployment compensation.

The unemployment costs except were a company goes out of business are paid out by the employer. Small companies get their fees increased and larger firms pay it directly to the state. (at least in ohio and Missouri) So it is in reality, losing a job for looking the wrong way, has the same effect as going to court and getting compensated for a short time while you look for another job.

Re:Oi

[reub2000]

He wasn't fired because he had said something that offended is employers, he was fired because he said something that made one of his co-workers uncomfortable. I think this makes the issue of first amendment protections moot. But IANAL.

Re:Oi

[unitron]

"...associating with a Democrat (or republican) presidential candidate."

"Democrat" is a noun. As a modifier of the noun "candidate" what you needed here was the adjective "Democratic".

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

Saying you support a democrat who wants to up and pull the troops from Iraq without thinking about the fallout and insecurity that would be left behind could make your co-workers uncomfortable. Would this means that anyone doing something like this should be able to be fired when I complain?

What makes the issues with the constitution important is that he lost a means of lively hood by an action connected to the government and this action effect one individual with a certain opinion as apposed to being a law effecting everyone. The thing is, Government employers are restricted in the same ways the states and federal governments are when it comes to the constitution. You could think killing is the worst thing a person could do and while being a government employer fire anyone who has had an abortion because the thought of killing an unborn child deeply offends you. So to get around the constitutional protections the Supreme Court has said exist that make a federal law on the subject unconstitutional, you could just instruct all government offices to fire anyone who support abortion or has had one. Whether you agree with abortion or not, this is a scary situation that we might be setting out selves up for here.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

If the sentence was describing the democratic process I would agree with you. But it was describing a group of people who have taken that name. It would be improper to use democratic in this sense.

The use of democratic instead of democrat tends to be a pet peeve of mine. It implies that a republican isn't a supporter of the democratic proccess. But the definition of democrat as in the democrat party isn't the same definition of democratic which is a description of a process.

They started doing/using it this ways to get that implication entirely. You could actually draw the inference that no one except a democrat can be democratic. This is just false and a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Because a party hijacked the definition of a word and used it for their benefit doesn't make it proper. The words existed before the democrats were a party and it existed before they took the name snd used the similarity to imply this.

I think the confusion comes from changing the name from democratic-republicans to just the democrat party. The democratic-republicans is a proper name/noun but this proper name/noun was elected to be democrat when they dropped the republicans part of it. The new proper name/noun takes on a different meaning when you change it to being an adjective. and in the example you reference, democrat as well as republican wasn't an adjective. The sentence "the president is a democrat" and "the democrat president" have the same meaning. Changing the proper name/noun from democrat to democratic changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Re:Oi

[unitron]

You will note that I said "Democratic", not "democratic". The real live genuine official name of the party is "The Democratic Party", not "The Democrat Party".

Newt Gingrich and company started pushing the idea of saying "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" at every opportunity not because they prefer poor grammar and usage (well, not just or primarily because of that), but because they wanted to turn "Democrat" into an epithet. Their deliberate corruption of the language has spread to others who don't necessarily share or even know about their agenda.

Re:Oi

[reub2000]

What he said up on the web for all to see. He wasn't fired for talking about pulling troops from Iraq. He was talking about holding a gun up to someones face and firing the gun. Seems very silly to fire somebody over that. However, I don't write his paycheck and don't decide how someone should get fired.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

I know what he said. I saying there is no difference.

And no, he wasn't talking about holding a gun to someone's face and firing it. He was talking about how hard he thought it would be to kill someone with the gun caliber he picked out so it should be a safe bet. This is what he said.

I don't see anything wrong with that and I don't see any differences in what he said or someone's political beliefs at a government job that isn't a cabinet position serving under the direction of a politician. I don't see how you can think it is different other then you would support one issue and not another because of personal beliefs.

Re:Oi

[reub2000]

According to the supreme court, there is a difference between political speech and stuff that is inapropriate. Which one do you think this falls under?

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

Giving the climate of the time and the recent shooting at VA tech, I would say political. Asserting you right to own a gun has long been a politically charge action. Especially in the work place were your terminated for talking about buying on because it is harmless enough that you would have to put it in someone's face and pull the trigger in a deliberate act to kill them and that was the reasoning for the safety he saw in getting a gun like that. IE no accidental deaths.

Re:Oi

[reub2000]

Um no. He was talking about ownership of a gun. He wasn't discussing gun control or gun laws.

Re:Oi

[sumdumass]

Ownership of a gun is directly related to gun control laws. What do you think gun control law attempt to prevent?

Anyways, if you disagree, that's still fine. I just think a panel of 12 peers should discus it though.

What is this country coming to?

[kjzk]

The person who reported him deserves to be shot anyways. /end terroristic threat

On a scale from one to ten

[noidentity]

"Fleen: Okay, on a scale of one to ten, are you more a) pissed; b) surprised; c) depressed by this turn of events?

Boyd: Gonna have to go with b) surprised."

I'll go with d) confused...err... 4) confus... 10) conf.. I dunno

Re:On a scale from one to ten

[Jarjarthejedi]

The answer is obviously 42...duh!

(Nice catch, no one else seemed to notice that :P)

Re:On a scale from one to ten

[Thornae]

Given the slightly irreverent, snappy tone of the rest of the interview, I'm pretty sure everyone who did notice that took it to be a deliberate non-sequitur in a humorous vein.

Re:On a scale from one to ten

[pla]

on a scale of one to ten, are you more a) pissed; b) surprised; c) depressed

Not to ignore the obvious joke there, but you could answer that question... You just need to break it out into subquestions to a main question, as such:
On a scale of one to ten, are you more:
a) pissed
b) surprised
c) depressed

Thus, a "correct" answer would take the form "3, 9, 4", or something like that.

Most surveys take a form very similar to that.

If you think about this

[zappepcs]

It gets kind of ridiculous.

If the VT shootings hadn't happened, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

There are many reasons that this episode shouldn't have happened, but people are afraid and over-react to 'err on the side of caution'. For many, better safe than sorry is the catchphrase of the week. They don't stop to think, or try to figure out what might be the level headed way to handle things.... like ask why they are talking about guns at work!

Now, why is it that the US in particular is so fearful? That is the better question, not 'is this guy going to shoot people?' For fscks sake, my retired mother has a 9mm which she uses at the gun range. I don't think that anyone will fear that she is a terrorist. Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!! There are millions of guns in the US and save for a few whackjobs, they generally are doing no harm to anyone. (street/drug/mafia crimes not counted) The point is that not everyone with a gun is a murderer. Not everyone from the middle east is a suicide bomber in training.

Re:If you think about this

[miskatonic alumnus]

There are many reasons that this episode shouldn't have happened, but people are afraid and over-react to 'err on the side of caution'. For many, better safe than sorry is the catchphrase of the week. They don't stop to think, or try to figure out what might be the level headed way to handle things

If everyone isn't terrified, you can't justify a war on terror.

Re:If you think about this

[glwtta]

If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

He would've still gotten the sack for no reason.

Re:If you think about this

[basic0]

Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!!

Good point. You ever notice that the real nutjobs out there that walk into some public area and spray bullets all over the place are always described as "quiet" and "shy" and "oh my, he never talked about guns" and "gee, it's so surprising because he was a really nice boy" etc etc..

I can't remember one time when they talked to people who knew one of these mass murderers after the fact and they've said anything remotely like "well, he did talk about guns a lot" and "he went to the shooting range every week".

I mean seriously, if you were planning to commit such a terrible crime, or any crime for that matter, would you let any details out before you did it? Why would you risk getting busted before the fact? Don't they teach "think like a criminal" to law enforcement anymore?

Actually, I don't suppose they could...then they'd have to march every new graduate right off the dais and into a paddywagon for "criminal thoughts".

Re:If you think about this

[cdrguru]

How are most criminals caught? Because they did something incredibly stupid. Like bragging about their exploits or what they were going to be doing.

In the current workplace environment some people are just a hair away from "going postal". At least once a month there is national news of a workplace shooting.

Re:If you think about this

[Slashdot Parent]

Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage.

For the record, he was not just talking about guns. He was talking about putting a gun in someone's face and pulling the trigger and how many times he would have to shoot someone in the face in order "to make sure the job is done".

Hopefully you could have seen the difference without the italics.

Re:Ah yes...

[daveschroeder]

1. The government didn't do anything to him.

2. He was released from a contract position that he can be released from at any time for talking about how many times you'd have to shoot someone in the face with a .22 to kill them, probably within earshot of someone who doesn't know him personally, on the day of the nation's worst mass shooting no less.

3. The police followed up after receiving a complaint when he recounted his firing in his comic implying that he now would have a reason to "go postal" (even if it was 100% a joke), which is their job, and determined that there was no threat, which he himself says in the interview.

4. Get a life.

One word : S U E

[unity100]

Additional words : t h e H E L L o u t t a t h e m

What the heck...

[EvilGoodGuy]

I'm really starting to get worried about our government, and the common American. All of this terrorist crap is turning into one big witch hunt. I don't like my neighboor, maybe I should report him and have the men with the black bags take him awawy...

Re:What the heck...

[1000StonedMonkeys]

So let's see...

1. Guy makes webcomic talking about going postal
2. Someone gets spooked, calls the Feds
3. Feds investigate, find nothing, no charges are filed

Yeah, we're turning into a real fscking police state here.

Re:What the heck...

[ebonum]

True indeed. In one way this is a great opportunity. One not since Chairman Mao was leading the cultural revolution have we seen this. Use something small to paint someone you don't like as a terrorist and they will be investigated, publicly humiliated, lose their job. It's great! To quote Steve Martin "Oh, common sense, we don't get that here" -Roxanne

Re:What the heck...

[vascy]

Everyone and anyone is a terrorist threat...
http://sphere.sourceforge.net/flik/images/20071007 .png

Re:What the heck...

[QuantumG]

They feds should not be "investigating" thought crimes.

If someone overheard him saying that he had shot some people, then the police could investigate.

Until then, there's no crime been committed, the police should butt the fuck out.

Re:What the heck...

[Quiet_Desperation]

I don't like my neighboor, maybe I should report him and have the men with the black bags take him awawy...

If you do, could you post the results and maybe a FAQ? I have some annoying neighbors, too.

Re:What the heck...

[NotmyNick]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you never did all that well in the reading comprehension section of your aptitude tests.

(admittedly)His version is that he was having a conversation about a future purchase of a gun and was fired for what his employer thought they understood from a third party who was eavesdropping on that conversation. To have your livelihood disrupted and be left with an embarrassing mark on your CV for the misapprehension in the mind of another doesn't strike me as just. He's had a stressor placed on his life, had a threat made against his liberty, and had his pursuit of happiness disrupted. All because of what was happening in the mind of another.

Re:What the heck...

[illuminatedwax]

I think it's more important to point out as an example of how innocent people can be fingered for horrible crimes. The problem with the US today is not that we are a police state just yet, but rather that most people these days don't think they are going to be affected if we do start taking away their liberties. "I haven't done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?"

Basically, you have to worry about when step 3 becomes "Police ransack his entire home, take his computers and lock him up for a couple days," and the general public thinks it just won't happen to them if we give police that power.

Re:What the heck...

[Cyberllama]

I'm less concerned about "becoming a police state" than I am about "law-enforcement wasting their time on obvious stupidity".

I Have no problem with the chain of events you outlined, but with #3, the investigation should have stopped after someone actually read the damn comic. It could have saved them countless hours spent:
1) Wasting Taxpayer money
2) Harassing an innocent man
3) Not pursuing real threats

It's clearly a joke. I can understand, perhaps, someone not being familiar with the whole concept of a "comic" and how they tend to incorporate "comedy" and thus are rarely serious. But the police should know better. The investigation should have taken 30 seconds for one person to read the comic and then be done with it.

And don't give me some crap about how "in a climate of fear blah blah blah every threat must be taken seriously blah blah blah". The fact of the matter is that in order for law enforcement to keep us as safe as possible, they need to prioritize. There simply isn't time to waste questioning an obviously innocent man just to create the appearance of "taking every threat seriously".

Re:What the heck...

[Asic Eng]

I don't see why even the investigation should have been justified. There is nothing in the web comic which could be construed as being threatening. I can see that someone might hear part of the conversation, and get spooked about that part, but I can't see how you could get spooked reading the comic, that's just way outside of the way any normal person would read it. That such a flimsy excuse would cause a police investigation, even to the point of bothering the guy at home is frankly absurd. And it does send the message "better watch what you are saying, we always have an eye on you".

Re:What the heck...

[nurb432]

You dont get it, the fact this sort of nonsence is even happenng at all is a sign we are slowly turning into a police state. ( and its frequency is increasing )

The fear of being harassed by the 'state' is what a police state is all about. Having to conform to the expected, guard your words, speak to no one you dont trust, where everyone is a 'spy'. One doesn't have to be carried off to detainment ( or shot ) every time to instill fear in the people. Do YOU want to be ruffed up by the cops? I doubt it.

Re:What the heck...

[jstomel]

"We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor, maam."

Re:What the heck...

[joto]

3. Feds investigate, find nothing, no charges are filed

Yeah, but why did the feds need to investigate anything beyond the actual web-comic? I mean, for any sane, normal person, it would be obvious that the person complaining needs to make his case a bit stronger. At least before the feds should start wasting taxpayer money on it. This should have been forgotten away in a closet (or wastebasket) the moment it came in.

Yeah, we're turning into a real fscking police state here.

More like an Idiocracy.

Yes, please: think about this

[daveschroeder]

"Terroristic threat" != "terrorism" or "terrorist threat"

It's not the "US" that's fearful. Someone overheard him talking about how many times you'd need to shoot someone in the face to kill them with a .22. Someone who probably doesn't know him personally at all (or at least well) overheard this and reported it. On the day of the biggest mass shooting in the US to boot (which was admittedly why he was even talking about it in the first place).

Then he got released from a position that he can, as a contractor, be released from at any time, for any reason.

Then he humorously recounted his "firing" the next day in his comic, which someone felt threatened by, and which they reported to the police. It is, in turn, the police's job to follow up on such a complaint, which they did, and after which he himself said the detectives determined that he wasn't actually a threat, and viewed samples of his work.

And yeah, there were a bunch of things that coalesced to make this happen, but all that means is that actions have consequences, and no matter how unfair you might think they are sometimes, it doesn't make it any less true. The government didn't do anything to him, he is not charged with any crime, and no one "censored" him (as is especially evidenced by the fact that the comics are exactly where they've always been: still up on the web).

Come back down to reality, here. Whenever there's a school or workplace shooting, everyone always rants about the "warning signs" and "why didn't anyone call the police when they guy was talking about shooting people in the face on the phone the other day?" (and NO, no one will necessarily know that he's joking, especially if they don't know him personally - that's stupid to talk about in a setting like work at all, much less one where you don't know everyone around you personally).

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[QuantumG]

It is, in turn, the police's job to follow up on such a complaint, which they did, and after which he himself said the detectives determined that he wasn't actually a threat, and viewed samples of his work. Uhhh, since when? Back before 9/11, such a 'complaint' would be met by the police with contempt.

"Has he committed any crime that you are aware of?"

"No? Then I'm sorry, the police can't get involved."

"Well, I'm sorry you're afraid, but he has a right to talk about whatever he wants."

Now that half the population consists of cry babies and worry warts, the police are being called in for every little thing that might be an indicator of some crime. Kinda makes you wonder how they are managing to police all the actual crime. Oh yeah, that's right, massive budget increases and unconstitutional powers.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[Guuge]

There might not be anything he can do about getting released and investigated, but that doesn't justify either event. People in his position have a right to be upset about frivolous firings, and citizens have a right to complain about police resources being wasted on obviously false leads.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[daveschroeder]

I guess that's why the legal concept and notion of "terroristic threat" (not with respect to "terrorism" or anything else) has been around for decades, then, and why police have investigated people merely threatening to kill others for just as long?

I'm not going to dispute that the political climate plays some role, but come on: people have been dismissed for much less, and had visits from police in response to a complain for lesser still. All before 9/11 and Bush, no less.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[Jasin Natael]

how they are managing to police all the actual crime[?] Oh yeah, that's right, massive budget increases and unconstitutional powers.

Umm, those are working?

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[QuantumG]

As far as I'm aware, he didn't threaten to shoot anyone.

And I remember a time where the only person you couldn't threaten to shoot was the president.

I find it interesting that 9/11 was almost 6 years ago.. there's people turning 18 now who were 12 or 13 when 9/11 happened. I dunno about you, but when I was 12 or 13 I had little concept of what freedoms adults had in society. As such, this year a whole generation of kids who have been raised in this 'political climate' are coming of age.

How will they see free speech and protest?

How might they vote?

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[pipingguy]

Someone overheard him talking about how many times you'd need to shoot someone in the face to kill them with a .22. Someone who probably doesn't know him personally at all (or at least well) overheard this and reported it.

If that is true then further investigation was warranted IMO.

Context is everything, and blabbing about virtual game experiences are better left to private conversation. Most people know this and realize that talking about such things will make others uncomfortable, if not alarmed.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[QuantumG]

Wow. You really think this?

The police have no right to impell you to answer questions unless you are being charged with a crime.

The fact that so many people are willing to answer questions without being charged, and without a lawyer present, is the reason why the police continue to harrass.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[pipingguy]

You must have missed the part where I said context is important.

If your grandmother was on a bus, for example, and overheard part of a discussion that included, "dropping the mag isn't necessarily a problem if you have extras, and you can kill them with your knife anyway" would you fault her for being a bit disturbed by that dialog?

People in polite societies take others' sensibilities into consideration when in public - I'd hate to think that you are one of those loud-talking cell phone users or someone that likes to provoke/force others to pay attention to you.

On the other hand, your UID is lower than mine so I'll defer to your judgment here in this forum.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[iggy_mon]

about how many times you'd need to shoot someone in the face to kill them with a .22

so, how many times? i'm doing researc... Oh! Dear! God! I! Kid!

... and i'm not liking my web-addy right now!
it's down, for now. (music band site)

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[QuantumG]

On the other hand, your UID is lower than mine so I'll defer to your judgment here in this forum. Well it's about bloody time! :)

would you fault her for being a bit disturbed by that dialog? She can be as disturbed as she likes.. but in a free society (as opposed to the fascist police state that the US is becoming) someone being 'disturbed' is not justification for calling in the g-men.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[pipingguy]

I humbly point out my "polite society" remark made earlier. Maybe you Americans are not ready for this yet.

Since Liz is in your country at the moment, please try to discourage your countrymen from spitting at her.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[QuantumG]

Your assumption that I'm an American is insulting.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[Achromatic1978]

And I remember a time where the only person you couldn't threaten to shoot was the president.

Exaggerate much? Are you saying that until recently it was quite acceptable to threaten to kill someone? I think not.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[Achromatic1978]

and blabbing about virtual game experiences

Uhh, video games had nothing to do with it, the conversation was about buying a real gun, and how you'd have to shoot someone in the face to kill them.

And while (supposedly) free to say it, the next day posting "Well, now I /do/ have a reason to go postal"? Probably not the wisest.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[pipingguy]

Many apologies, then. Americans make up, what, 90% of Slashdotters? My intent was not to offend. I guess some people are easily annoyed and defensive.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[QuantumG]

You, umm, really don't know do you?

Yes.. only 10 years ago "threatening" to do any act was not a crime.

Since then, celebreties who can't handle being "stalked" by fans have had laws passed to make stalking illegal.

The "terrorist" boogey-man has been dragged out to justify a new secret police force.

Ten years ago the words "land of the free" were said proudly by americans.. now the rest of the world uses these terms to mock them.

It's true, there never was a time when people were free to say anything they wanted to say.. but that ideal was a hell of a lot closer 10 years ago than it is today.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[Achromatic1978]

Thanks for coming, but so wrong it's not funny:

836.10 Written threats to kill or do bodily injury; punishment.--If any person writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter or inscribed communication, so written or composed, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, the person so writing or composing and so sending or procuring the sending of such letter or communication, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.--s. 1, ch. 6503, 1913; RGS 5094; CGL 7196; s. 995, ch. 71-136.

From Florida state legislature, notice the date, 1913. Shall I carry on and supply an example from Wisconsin, re "harassment with credible threat", 947.013, from 1984, as last revised? http://www.legis.state.wi.us/acts89-93/83Act336.pd f

So, yeah... uh, no, it's not only become a crime in the last decade because of celebrities scared of stalkers.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[Cadallin]

Did you read the statute at all? All that says its that its illegal write a letter saying "I'm going to kill X, Signed Y/Anonymous" It's very specific on this point. Which clearly meant that saying "You fucker, I'm going to kill/shoot you!" was perfectly legal. Which is what the GP was arguing in the first place. Citing a source that directly contradicts your argument isn't a very good way to win. Your other source is a little better, but all you've done is shown that some of the level of paranoia has existed in some states for 20 years. Besides, if someone accused of the "threatening" provisions of the law could convince a judge or jury that the the person feeling "threatened" was just a paranoid baby, they go free, and that was MUCH easier 20 years ago.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[instarx]

"Well, I'm sorry you're afraid, but he has a right to talk about whatever he wants."

But not without consequences. It has been well established that the employer had the right to fire him at will so what are you complaining about - everyone exercised their rights.

What you and everyone else here are missing is that all we know about this incident is what we have been told about it by the person who was fired. He comes across as very reasonable and a great guy in his own comics about himself, but we don't really know what other issues there had been, what other comments were made by him that day, or what the tone of his "face-shooting" comments were. Even in his own comic he says he said "Well, now I DO have a reason to go postal." That statement to his employer justified a police interview. Frankly, even if he was making jokes and having a high old time on the day 32 people were murdered I wouldn't want him in my office either.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[jstomel]

Spacifically the conversation was about how he was buying a particular gun because it would be very difficult to kill someone by accident with it and he didn't want to hurt anyone. How do you interpret that as a threat? It's like if I said "I don't want to kill anyone." and the response was "You're talking about killing people! You're dangerous!"

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[10101001 10101001]

Come back down to reality, here. Whenever there's a school or workplace shooting, everyone always rants about the "warning signs" and "why didn't anyone call the police when they guy was talking about shooting people in the face on the phone the other day?" (emphasis mine)

No. Many times when there's a shooting "of note" (ie, at a new venue, at a venue without a recent shooting, involves especially "innocent" victims, involves more people or bullets than most, etc), there is a large media obsession with many media personalities (journalists, reporters, random "experts", etc) who want to insert their own two cents of "wisdom" into the affair. Several even rant about "warning signs". Others discuss how "why didn't anyone call the police when they guy was talking about shooting people in the face on the phone the other day?". By far, these media personalities are a remote minority of the people and few people are interested in staging protests to have fired every media personality that's overly reactionary.

For example, I'd likely ignore a person talking about the complexities of killing a person with a .22 (or possibly talk to them, if they were nearby), not jumping to any conclusion that my boss need know just on that information; on the other hand, that's probably because I recognize that school/workplace shootings are exceedingly uncommon, having exceedingly low death rates, and are not stoppable even with a dictatorship. Having said all that, I can understand other employees with more insight into the person telling a supervisor. And I can possibly understand a boss firing an employee who seemed "dangerous" (though, in that case, one would likely call the police as well, as being fired does nothing to stop a person from "shooting up the place"). I have a much tougher time understanding being scared of the words in a comic strip or why the police felt the need to contact the author (perhaps it was just easier for them to try to gauge the "character" of the author than to try to access it through the medium). But then, I do think many people (including me) feel that the SOP for police is to ignore what sound like, on their face, ludicrous reports.

Re:Yes, please: think about this

[StikyPad]

As far as I'm aware, he didn't threaten to shoot anyone.

And he wasn't charged either.

And I remember a time where the only person you couldn't threaten to shoot was the president.

Actually, you can't even joke about it. As for "regular" people, threatening to harm/kill is easily translated into assault as long as something (anything really) emphasized your threat. A raised fist can be assault. Waving a gun. Threatening to run someone down and pointing to the truck you're supposedly going to do it with. Of course, the subject of this diatribe wasn't doing any of that, which is probably why he wasn't charged with anything.

Real terrorists

[noidentity]

Will the real terrorists please stand up? Yes, you, the one who intentionally works to incite fear in people. And you too.

Re:Real terrorists

[Watson Ladd]

And they are proud of it. That's not even counting the fearmongering.

Re:Real terrorists

[Tuoqui]

Everyone knows the real terrorists are in Washington controlling the media to scare everyone so they can pass more bullshit laws like DMCA's and Patriot Acts

sweet graphics

[kharchenko]

Current situation aside, I am jealous of how precise and effortless his graphics looks. Guy definitely has talent.

Re:sweet graphics

[maxume]

He don't be the fella that do the drawing.

Re:sweet graphics

[tacroy]

Matt doesn't draw them, Ian Mconville draws them. www.machall.com

First and Second Amendment

[SeaFox]

...fired from his government job [CC]. His conversation with a co-worker about a gun he intended to buy for target shooting was overheard by someone in a nearby cubicle.

I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this.

Re:First and Second Amendment

[ray-auch]

I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this.

They might not respond much, since anything they say is likely to get them fired...

Re:First and Second Amendment

[blackbear]

"I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this."

Unfortunately the NRA has been MIA on a lot of this type of stuff. It used to be that a member could ask them for help, and if you were in the right, they would give you a hand.

These days The NRA is more interested in what your political and marketing value it to them. For example, they've been actively opposing the case that recently led to an appeals court ruling in the DC Circuit that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down part of the DC gun ban. The NRA's fear was the the case would make its way to The SCOTUS and be lost, thereby creating a bad precedent like US vs. Miller.

Grass roots organizations like GOA or, here in Virginia VCDL, are much more likely to help you, but they lack the deep pockets and legal muscle of The NRA. It seems that The NRA, or at least the NRA-ILA, has fallen victim to the same self-importance as the politicians they lobby. The sad thing is that the true mission of The NRA, and what they excel at, firearms education, is more important than ever, but no longer seems to be their focus.

Nothing new

[bm_luethke]

This type of thing has been going on since at least the Oklahoma City bombing and I assume it wasn't new even then.

Back then I had given a friend that is interested in making primitive weapons a printout on how to make his own black powder. This was a day or two before the Oklahoma City bombing, he had another friend at work (on of the national labs) that did the same thing and brought it in to him - this was the day after the bombing. A co-worker saw it laying on his desk and decided he was getting ready to blow everything up, called the FBI, and started about a two month long investigation. Obviously it led nowhere.

A few years later someone in our college set off an "incendiary device" (the detectives later told me it was acid and aluminum foil in a plastic jug) and I was, once more, investigated for all sorts of nice things. Again, nothing came of it as there was nothing there. I do not recall now what they accused me of, I assume it would now be "terrorist" but back then there was some other hot-button label for it.

And you might as well have been whatever the most despicable thing you can think of if you were in a gun club during the mid-90's and the great crusade against "militias" (not to mention almost every single incident was somehow their fault). There was almost no one anywhere defending you then - you were an evil gun-toting maniac. It was MUCH more endemic than the current "terrorist" thing - and at least there *are* terrorist out there that want to do us harm even though we are over reacting.

After any event there are people that fly into a panic of stupid things, call someone, and it gets all blown out of proportion. Most law enforcement thinks it stupid and - like the Duke non-rape case - you will sometimes get a political position decide it is time to show the people they are "doing something" and you get to be the one screwed. If you are unlucky you get Nifong as the prosecutor, this is the local prosecutor being an ass.

Re:Nothing new

[flyingfsck]

Oh man, if I think of all the things I built as a teenager: It started with model airplanes and escalated to rockets and crackers and eventually lead to much bigger bangs that rattled the neighborhood. I stopped when I set a whole mountain on fire with a hot-air balloon gone wrong, but looking back I actually stopped because I ran out of pocket money. Chemicals are expensive...

Re:Nothing new

[tsdw]

Hell we used to make pipebombs, calcium carbide bombs, nitro (wasn't successful), smoke bombs, potato guns, acetylene bombs, all KINDS of fun bombs. My friends and I weren't and are not 'terrorists', just teenagers nowadays if someone does stuff like that their life can be ruined.

Guilty until proven innocent

[jonfr]

In the Police state of the U.S.A everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Not the other way around.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[Dragonslicer]

In the Police state of the U.S.A everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Not the other way around.

I won't argue the general point, but it doesn't apply to this situation. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal charges, not employment. There were no criminal charges filed.

In other news...

[commisaro]

...27 people were brutally killed today in a [i]barrage of caustic wit and irony[/i]. Prime suspects are satirists Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

Re:Better Safe Than Sorry?

[JrOldPhart]

The only way to cure random violence is lots of neutron bombs.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Anonymous Coward]

If his name is associated with this strip, he's gonna have a hard time with future employment if anyone bothers to do a background check (google search) and finds out about this debacle.

No. All he has to do is move away from the Fascist States of America. He's welcome over here in Europe. We're just that much smarter.

I got it figured out....

[3seas]

everyone is a terroristic threat, except those who aren't.

Oh I feel so much safer now....

Re:I got it figured out....

[daveschroeder]

"Terroristic threat" isn't the same as a "terrorist threat" or "terrorism". "Terroristic threat" is a very old legal concept in many jurisdictions in the United States, that has been around for a lot longer than anyone in the US has worried about "terrorism" or "terrorists".

Making what someone determines to be a threat of violence often falls under the legal guise of "terroristic threat". Of course, the detectives who followed up on this determined there was no threat, and he isn't charged with any crime. The only "negative" was that he lost his contract job (which, without knowing more, is almost certainly a job that he can be released from at any time, for any, or even no, reason).

RTFS

[argent]

Someone hasn't even been arrested. They've not been fired.

Um.

Read the fucking article.

Hell, read the fucking summary.

Amendments don't enter into it.

[Rhesusmonkey]

Regardless of how silly I think the reaction was, the right to free speech and right to bear arms don't apply when you're employed on someone else's time. You can polish guns, talk about anything you want, and generally be free when you aren't being payed by someone else to sit in thier little box under thier little rules. Would this be news if he'd been discussing mysoginistic or sexist plans and was relieved of his position? Of course not, thier box, thier rules. As if anyone under the thumb of corporate America has any delusions of freedom anyway, jeez.

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[fmobus]

Yeah, but the corporation we are talking about is the government itself. Funny, eh?

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[ebonum]

Sorry, but I bet if you read his employment agreement, it says, "Sexist talk = you get fired." I sincerely doubt it say anything about talking about buying a pistol. This is an item that can legally be bought in the US. Just like an HDDVD. He certainly didn't threaten anyone. Now if your rule is: "You may not discuss _anything_ not related to work on company time" Then fine. Fire they guy who talks about buying a HDDVD and this guy under the same rule.

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[cdrguru]

You misunderstand. If I come in to work and I don't like the way your haircut looks, as your boss I can fire you. You're gone and have no recourse other than to collect unemployment.

What I cannot do is fire you because you are black, female, have AIDS or are a homosexual. There are a few other protected classes as well, but not that many.

Your best bet is to become a member of a protected class and then the amount of documentation required to lay you off or fire you becomes prohibitive. They will keep you as the "token" no matter what because you are too much trouble to fire.

This is almost the complete opposite of Europe. In most European countries after you have been employed after a brief probationary period you pretty much cannot be fired for any reason. They can make your life hell, but they can't fire you.

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[DarthChris]

This is almost the complete opposite of Europe. In most European countries after you have been employed after a brief probationary period you pretty much cannot be fired for any reason. They can make your life hell, but they can't fire you.

That's an oversimplification. Here, in order to fire someone you need a real reason - saying you don't like someone's haircut isn't enough, but gross misconduct (etc) is.
Also, making someone's life hell can get you a lawsuit for constructive dismissal.

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[ebonum]

Indeed. You are partly correct. In the State of Texas, you can fire someone for smiling and being too happy all the time. In California or NY, that won't work, you better document everything, give the person written notice and time to correct their actions, and multiple warnings over a couple of months. So, in Texas, you can be fired for mentioning you want to buy a gun and go target shooting. In California, you will get a warning from HR that you had better not do that again. If you keep doing it, eventually, the legal dept will clear the way to fire you once they have assessed their liability.

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[Raideen]

Sure, that's why he was fired. But then they investigated him after he was fired when he wrote a comic about it, but I guess writing a comic about something that happened to you doesn't count as free speech.

Re:Amendments don't enter into it.

[geekoid]

That's actually not true. Well, ok you could, but you would loose in court.

"They will keep you as the "token" no matter what because you are too much trouble to fire."

you are one ignorant fuck, aren't you?

RTFA

[EvilGoodGuy]

Maybe you didn't read the article, but he got fired from his job for talking about a gun.

Re:RTFA

[1000StonedMonkeys]

I read TFA, I also read your comment, where you seem to equate being fired from your job (as a contractor) for saying something that upsets your coworkers to being taken away in black bags.

I think any manager that resolves a situation like this by firing someone is probably only qualified for government work, but losing one's job and losing one's liberty are two entirely separate things. The government investigation concerning his liberty seemed to be handled responsibly and come to the correct conclusion which was to file no charges.

Re:RTFA

[CptNerd]

Their decision was to file no charges "yet". They left him with the idea that they still could file charges in future, which is why he's keeping a low profile about this whole thing. If I got such a reaction from doing the same things he did, I'd keep my mouth shut for years, not even giving interviews, because there's no indication what would cause them to decide to file later. The amount of information that is public about this is just enough to cause people to restrict their own previously-allowed speech.

It's gone from "don't cry 'fire' in a crowded theater" to "don't talk about 'crying fire in a crowded theater'". Fear of workplace shootings has led to fear of talking about workplace shootings at work. And now, there is the fear of being fired for talking about workplace shootings at work. I'm certainly going to think twice before I say just about anything that could remotely cause fear in anyone who might be overhearing, because there's no way of knowing what could cause someone to be afraid of me, and no way of knowing how the company will react to that person's fear. I can't afford to lose my job or possibly be arrested for saying the wrong thing, especially since I don't know exactly what the 'wrong thing' might be.

What difference does that make?

[argent]

Then he got released from a position that he can, as a contractor, be released from at any time, for any reason.

Um, yes, it's easier to fire a contractor. What the hell difference does that make?

Whenever there's a school or workplace shooting, everyone always rants about the "warning signs" and "why didn't anyone call the police when they guy was talking about shooting people in the face on the phone the other day?"

Yes, buddy, that is EXACTLY the problem. People ask why completely impractical solutions like firing everyone who has a bad day and vents about it don't happen all the time, instead of when people are being stupid about an unpredictable incident.

Re:What difference does that make?

[Score Whore]

Um. he's getting paid Big Bucks(tm) as a contractor because he's supposed to work harder, with greater knowledge and more attention to details and staying on task. Blabbing about how hard it'll be to kill somebody with your teeny-tiny pop gun isn't likely in scope.

Re:What difference does that make?

[argent]

Yes, yes, I understand: that's all part of "why it's easier to fire contractors".

The point of this story isn't whether he should have been "staying on task"... not to mention that you have no idea whether he was sluffing off or not... but the attitude that a vivid turn of phrase is somehow comparable to terrorism.

Re:What difference does that make?

[Score Whore]

And you have no idea whether he was actually considered a terrorist. You might want to look into the phenomena of copycat crimes. And the statistics that such events trigger other similar events. So it is smart for the po-po to take it a little more seriously in the period after some fucktard does something stupid.

Re:What difference does that make?

[argent]

And you have no idea whether he was actually considered a terrorist.

I know that he was fired for a stupid reason, which happened to be easier because he was a contractor. The fact that it was easier because he was a contractor is irrelevant. The fact that he was fired for a stupid reason isn't.

Re:What difference does that make?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, he's a contractor because they come out of a different budget. It's consultants that make the big bucks.

Re:What difference does that make?

[jstomel]

I am impressed by your knowledge of his contract terms. Could you post a link to where you read them?

Ridiculous...

[Bert64]

Surely he has a case for unfair dismissal...
If guns are legal to own, then they have absoloutely no right to fire him for buying, or intending to buy one.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Dragonslicer]

If the state he was working in has "at will" employment laws, no, he doesn't have a case. And he wasn't fired for buying a gun or intending to buy a gun, he was fired for talking in the office about guns.

Re:Ridiculous...

[evilviper]

If guns are legal to own, then they have absoloutely no right to fire him for buying, or intending to buy one.

Really? Because I'm thinking of renting a truck, and filling it up with bags of fertilizer.

Nothing illegal about that.

Re:Ridiculous...

[innocent_white_lamb]

Farmers do that every day of the week.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Chelloveck]

If the state he was working in has "at will" employment laws, no, he doesn't have a case. And he wasn't fired for buying a gun or intending to buy a gun, he was fired for talking in the office about guns.

I was fired once for similar reasons. I talked with two different lawyers, and both had the same answer. "Gee, that sucks, but there's no legal grounds to sue." Both said that unless you could make a case for sexual or racial discrimination, there's absolutely nothing you can do. "At will" means you can be fired at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. (The flip side is that you can leave the job at any time, and the employer can't sue you either.)

So yeah, it sucks. Hopefully he can generate enough publicity so employers don't feel they have to "do something" about every offhand comment. But for himself, he's out of luck. Sorry, dude.

Re:Ridiculous...

[erik_fredricks]

If guns are legal to own, then they have absoloutely no right to fire him for buying, or intending to buy one.

This is Maryland we're talking about here. In terms of gun control laws, it might as well be Canada. In a state where the authorities are sympathetic to the RKBA, he might have a case. In Maryland, good luck even finding a lawyer who'd argue it.

Re:Ridiculous...

[cgenman]

And if a co-worker overheard you say that, it still wouldn't be grounds for dismissal. A few pointed questions, maybe, but not a dismissal.

jeez

[JustNiz]

...and here we are back in the McCarthy era again.
Has anyone called him a communist yet?

Re:jeez

[thomasa]

Got it backwards. It was the
communists that got him fired.

Re:jeez

[Jerry Rivers]

"It was the
communists that got him fired."

So are you saying the US Government is communist?

Re:jeez

[thomasa]

Someone posted the below web site somewhere:

"REVISED: If the United States Were A Free Country"

http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/

I thought it was pretty good.

Re:jeez

[kaizokuace]

terrorists ARE the new communists. As long as there is a scapegoat people at the top can get away with anything and the sheep just follow suit.

after columbine

[sentientbrendan]

immediately after columbine, back when I was in middle school (I guess that was quite a while ago) I remember a lot of kids getting expelled because for no particular reason other than that they were problem kids, had ADD, were loners, acted out a little, etc. If they made the administration nervous, they'd chuck them out the door. School and government bureaucrats tend to fear people who stick out more than anyone else.

In context it's kind of hilarious because our school had a problem with gang violence (it was the suburbs and middle school, so this wasn't exactly the stuff you see in the movies, but it was pretty bad), that the administration more or less ignored.

Re:after columbine

[bladesjester]

There are times I am amazed that *I* wasn't expelled from school after those sorts of stories started being televised heavily.

It was pretty well known that I had both trained in martial arts for years and had a sizeable collection of swords and other weapons (which sort of goes hand in hand with the martial training).

Re:after columbine

[pipingguy]

Would you estimate that the school officials were more afraid of gang retribution than losing their jobs?

Re:after columbine

[aadvancedGIR]

You need to be really stupid to see a loner teenager, say to yourself "This kind of boy might go postal if pissed off" ...and decide to ruin his chances to go to college.

It's the world we live in today

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found it better to be quiet and not say much at any job I have today. If I have a private life, I keep it at that. It's too bad, because it would be nice to got to work as myself and feel I fit it in. Instead, I put on the face of yet another zombie trudging through my daily tasks. Don't dare mention anything that may be construed as sexual harassment, bias against any race or minority, or implying anything even remotely related to violence. The power is in the hands of the people who play the "victim" card, and I only count the days until something better can come along. Things can't always be this bad........

Re:It's the world we live in today

[dltaylor]

> Things can't always be this bad........

No, they are going to get MUCH, MUCH, worse.

Re:It's the world we live in today

[kaizokuace]

If the govt is smart (i.e. about their self interests) they will not let it get much worse. Maybe a bit more but not too bad. If it gets really out of hand then I believe people will revolt or something like that. Imagine what this country would be like if that happened! crazy man.

Re:So what get over it

[zrobotics]

I don't want to feed such obvious flamebait by responding in kind.

It just makes me sad that there are people so lacking in any form of self-respect or dignity that they have to resort to trolling. This lonely person, conveniently hiding behind his mask of anonymity, has chosen to make remarks that he/she (most likely a he) knows will either disgust or anger nearly anyone who reads them. He isn't even expecting a response. It's enough for him to imagine the reactions of the people who read his comment and are momentarily offended. Once one stops to think about the tragedy of this desperate cry for attention, it's difficult to dismiss him as unimportant. The fact that, even in a place where it's always possible to make a new account and erase any past mistakes, the only way anyone will pay attention to him is if he is so blatantly offensive that anyone reading his comment is offended. Either that, or his sense of humor is so mal-adjusted that he would be amused if his own parents were brutally murdered. Tragic in either case.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

Provided any country will let him in after this. Which is doubtful.

Re:So...?

[dltaylor]

His "interview" with the detectives will now show up on every background check, which are common with job applications, whether disclosed or not, so his ability to earn a living has been compromised. He will also end up flagged for airline travel, be abused and humiliated by TSA every time he flies, so his freedom to travel has been compromised. It is possible that his passport, if any, could be revoked or refused renewal, as well. The grounds for that are not disclosed, so it's hard to tell. Apartment rental agreements also often include background checks, so he may not be able to live where he chooses. This man will be "punished" for the rest of his life, regardless of whether he is ever arrested, or not. Even if he is arrested and is judged "not guilty", the record of his arrest is not expunged, nor is his cost of defense reimbursed, so he is still punished. Meanwhile, the persons who set this upon him walk unimpeded. If there were any justice, they would rot in hell for violating the Commandment against false witness.

"Better safe than sorry" is an expression of cowardice. Life is a series of risks beginning with the genetic selection at conception. Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal trauma, disease, ...), should we all stop having them? Get over it.

Gently down the slippery slope

[Original Replica]

Like many other crimes these days, it is the implication that you might do the crime that is becoming illegal, or in this case punishable. Like the virtual rape in second life http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/15 25222. Or things like prosecuting someone who thinks they are flirting with a minor. Sure things like murder, pedophilia and terroism aren't going to have any vocal champions, but it grows into things like outlawing marijuana flavored candy.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119442.html "Several jurisdictions, including Chicago, already have banned cannabis-flavored candy; Georgia is on the verge of prohibiting sales to minors; and legislators in other states have proposed their own restrictions or bans. Before the whole country is overwhelmed by the urge to prohibit anything that tastes like pot, let's pause to consider the aim of such legislation. Ban proponents do not claim the candy itself is dangerous. Rather, they object to the ideas it represents."

Let's face it, ideas and presumed intentions are becoming criminal. George Orwell called it.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[Original Replica]

I'm not a big fan of potheads myself, but why would you pass a law against a flavor, if not to criminalize an idea? My point is that these type of laws are moving from the abhorrent (pedophilia) to the simply dumb (pot). It's a progression in a distrubing direction. It's parallel to extending the extra legal protection from assault police officers get into: it is illegal to publicly criticize law enforcement agents.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[Score Whore]

Um. When people have experiences those experiences have a way of desensitizing people. We pull way back from the line of child sex in order to make sure people are able to feel a sense of disgust by the idea. May be a stupid plan to ban the taste of pot in candy, soda, whatever, but it's not criminalizing the idea of smoking pot.

If you don't believe me do this. Go somewhere where the flavor has been banned from candy and find a cop and tell him you just thought of someone smoking pot. You're not going to get arrested.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[DarkSarin]

Wait, there's pot-flavored candy? Oh crap, I know some people who are going to be buying a ton of that...

Personally, I think that marijuana is just as dumb as the rest of the drugs--if you need chemical alterations to enjoy life, then you need help.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[Nazlfrag]

Booze is the #1 chemical alteration people use to enjoy life. Would you ban that? If you need help to enjoy life on a day to day basis, the solution inevitably will be drugs. Synthetic pharmaceutical drugs with hazardous and potentially life threatening consequences. Some prefer natural and safer alternatives, regardless of their legal status. Our society should treat us as intelligent adults capable of making our own choices, not naughty children who don't know what's good for them. This is especially true for pot flavoured candy, something which only dentists should object to.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[R3d M3rcury]

Ooh. And down the slippery slope we go.

How about candy cigarettes? Should we ban those because it might desensitize kids to the idea that smoking is bad for them?

How about video games where the main character is a criminal and he shoots policemen? That's a pretty vile and disgusting idea. Should there be a law that bans these videogames? After all, when they "experience the experience" vicariously through virtual means, it's more than likely they'll try the real thing some day or at least become desensitized to how wrong it is.

Is that really what you're trying to say?

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[Plaid Phantom]

How about video games where the main character is a criminal and he shoots policemen? That's a pretty vile and disgusting idea. Should there be a law that bans these videogames?

They're working on that.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[Score Whore]

I have no idea why you are addressing your questions at me, as I took no position. I answered the question as to why someone might want to ban pot flavored candy. Whether it's the answer that such proponents actually believe I don't know. I don't really care. I just pointed out that banning one thing does not criminalize a related idea. Ie. banning downed cattle from human consumption is absolutely nothing at all like criminalizing the idea of eating meat.

Desensitization is a real phenomena. Your spastic response doesn't change that particular truth.

Every time I point out that someone is showing evidence of being completely stupid the "delicate flower, can't we all just get alone" (and the "I disagree but am incapable of forming a cogent argument") mods hammer me down as flame bait or troll, but you know what? You appear to be exceptionally stupid. I say this to help you. Now you can review the several flaws in your thinking that led to your post and better yourself. To give you an example of the stupidity you exhibit and the basic flaw in your post, I will address to you a question that implies a position you never claimed:

"You want to have anal sex with six year old boys, is that what you are trying to say?"

An answer to your question: the only thing I'm trying to say is that I get tired of reading morons with some paranoid agenda spewing logically inconsistent crap.

Of course, now I have to add that it's laughable how freakishly monomanic you are about your video games that conversations that have nothing whatsoever to do with them cause you to leap into a passive aggressive defense. Why don't you save your energy for the next Jack Thompson story?

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[AndroSyn]

How about candy cigarettes? Should we ban those because it might desensitize kids to the idea that smoking is bad for them?

In fact many places throughout the world ban them. According to the following page: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7257/362

Candy cigarettes have reportedly been restricted or banned in many countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Australia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. In the United States, legislation banning candy cigarettes has been proposed unsuccessfully at the federal level in 1970 and in 1990, in 11 states, and in New York City. Only one US jurisdiction, North Dakota, has ever banned candy cigarettes. (That ban in 1953 was repealed in 1967.)

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[h2_plus_O]

Booze is the #1 chemical alteration people use to enjoy life. Would you ban that?

It's already been tried. Hopefully, they'll notice soon that the war on drugs is going almost as well.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[wizzahd]

Maybe you guys aren't aware of this, but, uh, marijuana, regardless of what I think about it, is illegal. As far as I know, they can criminalize an illegal substance or anything representing it and it's totally fine because, once again, it's an illegal substance. Besides that fact, even as someone who does indulge on occasion, I do not think that kids should be getting their hands on pot-flavored lollypops that "taste good, just like pot!" and give them incentive to smoke. Imagine a 10 year old with a joint in his mouth.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[smchris]

It's a basic Chomskyism: "The freer the society the more well-honed and sophisticated its system of thought control and indoctrination." (Introducing Chomsky, '96, p. 139).

It was interesting to see how apartheid South Africa, with a foot each in the first and third worlds, only got wise to the power of "positive" internal propaganda in the final few years. As a thuggish police state dissidents would just "slip in the prison shower" or clumsily trip out that 5th floor window. But in the final years they ran billboards and the like that implied successful blacks drank this and drove that and by implication said it was your own fault if you weren't a successful black. Brand/lifestyle conformity. The U.S. on the other hand? Home of Madison Avenue. Americans don't stand a chance to be anything but clones who vicariously feel free in TV automobile commercials.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[KDR_11k]

Yeah but why not ban all racist texts and speech to prevent people from becoming racist and assault minorities? Surely racist assaults are more dangerous than pot.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[csk_1975]

Maybe not arrested but they may well go all Rodney King on you for being a smartass.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[hesiod]

> As far as I know, they can criminalize [...] anything representing [an illegal substance] and it's totally fine because [...] it's an illegal substance.

I'm not entirely sure about the basis of your argument. Does that mean that marijuana-leaf shirts can be made illegal? That could easily be considered an infringement of free speech (although it may be a hard argument to win if actually tested).

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[wizzahd]

Yeah, you're both (you and the previous poster) correct I suppose.

Really, though, if I had kids I wouldn't want them eating pot flavored candy. Again, although I do partake, I have a strong belief that kids + drugs = :( and I really think (read: hope) that that is the basis for this law.

Re:Gently down the slippery slope

[tsdw]

if you need chemical alterations to enjoy life, then you need help. Weed IS the help

I wonder

[saikou]

Will NRA provide any help to him? A lawyer, perhaps? A big compensation and all?
After all, if people will get fired left and right because they were talking about weapons, that'd pretty much kill NRA, no?

I guess

[Lars T.]

he had it coming.

Hoplophobes

[Detritus]

In many government agencies, a large percentage of the new people in upper management are hoplophobes. They've never served in the military or lived in an area where gun ownership is common and accepted. They've probably never touched a firearm in their whole life. This causes problems when they are asked to make rational decisions about personnel or firearms policy and their kneejerk reaction is that "guns are evil" and "all gun owners are potential mass murderers". Instead of thinking, they let their fear dictate their actions.

Re:Hoplophobes

[epine]

In many government agencies, a large percentage of the new people in upper management are hoplophobes. They've never served in the military or lived in an area where gun ownership is common and accepted. They've probably never touched a firearm in their whole life. From http://www.wordspy.com/words/hoplophobia.asp

Never heard of hoplophobia? Most people haven't. The made-up word to describe people who fear guns hasn't caught on. Not even longtime gun enthusiasts are familiar with the term.

"We lead the state in sales, but we've never heard that," said Norman Van Wagenen, whose family has been in the firearms business in Provo since 1958.

The Utah Shooting Sports Council is trying to get hoplophobia into the local vernacular as well as the often bitter gun rights debate.

Just the other week I was chased down the local bike trail by a juvenile pit bull who was snapping joyfully at my heels, all in good spirits, no doubt, while the owner who was 50m down the trail from the dog when he engaged me stood around and did nothing to recall or control the animal. I'm sure he was about to tell me that if only I had the experience of cradling a pit bull puppy in my loving arms, I would no longer suffer the anguish of pibuphobia.

On the contrary, if the average dog owner is representative of the average gun owner, my irrationality knows no bounds.

Re:Hoplophobes

[florescent_beige]

I have no fear of guns at all. Terrified of bullets though.

Re:Hoplophobes

[Hognoxious]

So did you shoot the dog or not?

Sucks to be you.

[Frogbert]

God I'm glad I live in a country where this shit just doesn't happen.

Re:Sucks to be you.

[Oswald]

My wife and I might be in the market in about a year and a half. How's the weather there? And is English the native tongue?

Re:So...?

[Threni]

Sounds like you need some sort of timeout on how long this sort of stuff hangs around. In the UK convictions (except in certain situations) expire after a while. And he wasn't even arrested. How would that end up being noticeable when he's flying? And when he's renting etc - do members of the public have access to police records so that every chat is noted? Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for having a faulty brake light?

> Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal
> trauma, disease, ...), should we all stop having them? Get over it.

No, but we should investigate potential threats to my safety. That's sort of what I pay tax for.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

Uh. Seriously. Do you realize how hard it is to just get up and move to another country? You can't just arrive on its doorstep and say "Here I am! Let me in so I can get a job!"

You'd be on the next plane out of the country.

Usually, you need to either have family there who will sponsor you, a job already, be a refugee, or be fabulously wealthy and/or famous. Just being an average joe cartoonist from the States with an arrest record definitely won't cut it. Except maybe in some place incredibly poor country that can't afford to even issue visas or do background checks.

"Contract" != "less rights"

[SuperBanana]

Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.

Only within the terms of his contract. Sorry, just couldn't resist after you made "contract" italics and got all righteous. "Contract employee" does not mean "company's little bitch", and in fact, a contract worker can have more protection from sudden termination. Most of us are "at will" employees, and simply having something in your contract that prohibits your employer from firing you for no reason, gives you more rights. If worded reasonably (ie not "I AM UNFIREABLE FOR A YEAR!"), you MAY get that concession.

If you don't like being an at-will employee: get fired for no reason, sue, and get it far up enough to MAYBE be heard by the supreme court, because they're the ones who set the horrendous precedent in the first place. You don't have a prayer of getting legislation even presented, much less making it past committee, because of all the lobbying.

Re:"Contract" != "less rights"

[26199]

What a strange world the US is...

Re:"Contract" != "less rights"

[ArhcAngel]

Last year I reported physical abuse from a co-worker (we were both contractors) and the next day I was released with no explanation. I had been there 20 months and had been approached about being converted to an employee. I did a little digging and found out they told my agency I was "mentally unstable". They ended up hiring the guy who hit me and making him lead tech. You'll forgive me if I am skeptical.

Hoplophiliacs

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

In many walks a life, there are not an insignificant number of people who are hoplophiliacs. Often they have served in the military or grew up in an enviornment where gun ownership is common and accepted. They've probably handled hundreds of firearms throughout their life. This causes problems where they are asked to make rational decisions about personnel or firearms policy and their kneejerk reaction is that "guns are safe" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Instead of thinking, they let their desires dictate their actions.

Re:Hoplophiliacs

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I dunno, that sounds pretty reasonable. I don't recall a gun ever shooting someone all by itself.

Re:Hoplophiliacs

[Catbeller]

Well, nuclear bombs never killed anyone without human assistance, yet we don't let everyone own a bomb.

Re:Hoplophiliacs

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Nukes have no strategic value beyond deterrence. Guns are way different.

Re:Hoplophiliacs

[quag7]

This is long. You may want to skip it. It's kind of a rant.

I honestly have to assume that at least some people who are afraid of guns and gun owners watch a hell of a lot of television. It's also fairly interesting the amount of stereotyping which goes on unchallenged about gun owners and their motivations. In many cases the people who routinely stereotype gun owners are the same ones who get bent out of shape when they, themselves, are stereotyped in some way.

My gun has killed a few hundred soda cans.

That's it.

All of the time and energy that could be spent actually trying to do something to address the completely fucked way this culture has come to regard and often glorify violence is spent in this bizarrely misguided struggle to take guns away from the people least likely to abuse them, and then money and time spent fighting these same efforts - money that could be used for gun safety education or some other effort to address the disturbing turn this country has taken in the past few years. I *am* afraid. I am afraid of the complete lack of ethics or sense of citizenship - by which I mean membership in and ownership of a society - that people seem to feel. I watch people litter and tag their own communities, pissing in the proverbial same river they drink from. It makes no sense to me. I certainly do not think that violence *isn't* a problem or that violence is over-hyped. There's a problem in the US, and it needs addressing - we have become an ugly, decadent culture, somehow...

But the guns follow; they certainly do not lead. If that was the case, we would have had the problems we have now a hundred years ago.

But the tone of this debate isn't helping. I admit that I contribute to it because I get wound up, insulted, and feel threatened sometimes by things I hear others advocate which would directly impact me, personally.

Most disturbing is the sanctimonious "I am so incredibly enlightened" attitude that some people who have an agenda against gun owners seem to have. In particular, this is vexing coming from the Left, who will (rightly) point to the abuses of this administration and its taste for police-state style surveillance measures against its own citizens, the illegal detention of people they refuse to charge with a crime, phony wars fought under completely false pretexts, and so on. And yet they will, in the end, suggest to you that they are entirely comfortable with this government having a completely monopoly on guns. In the end, even the loudest critics of government, would not want to be far from the safety of its embrace. Which is revolting to me, personally, but there it is.

There are people who, even after all of the incompetence, malfeasance, corruption, and crass cruelty of this administration, still trust them more than they do their neighbors. It really bothered me to watch the gun confiscation that went on in New Orleans, even when something that everyone said was impossible happened - and civilization broke down completely. There were few police around at all, but there were enough, apparently, to take guns from homeowners and residents, leaving them at the mercy of looters and criminals. This scenario was, until Katrina, a supposedly paranoid hypothetical that people claimed time and time again would not - and could not - happen in modern America. And yet, it did, and the police did the absolute worst thing they could (The NRA actually sued over this, and won).

If you ask me who we should really be afraid of, it's not peaceable gun owners. It's people who are paranoid and afraid of the freedoms of others. It's not just the serious, organized, politically active gun control advocates either - it's the people who think all homosexuals are potential pedophiles, or people who want to control what you can read or watch or listen to. It's the person in the room who wants all conversations sanitized because someone *might* be offended by something being discussed. Its the busybodies who report their neighbors to H

Re:Hoplophiliacs

[warm sushi]

As an anti-gun person I say "Great post!"

Long post? Yes, but hey, I read books too.

Well thought out, articulate and reasoned.

I'd mod you up, but you'll be at +5 (worth reading) in no time.

terrorism is about creating fear

[mdmarkus]

So if someone gets scared, i guess you're a terrorist. I'd say, "Laugh, it's a joke", but it's a more realistic definition that i've seen put forward lately...

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Mad-cat]

Except he wouldn't be allowed to bring his new gun.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

By the way. You haven't got a clue where I live or how many citizenships I hold. So please apply your presumptions elsewhere.

keeping one's mouth shut

[SuperBanana]

It gets kind of ridiculous. If the VT shootings hadn't happened, this whole episode wouldn't have happened. If nobody read his comics, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

If he had kept his mouth shut at work about describing in graphic detail how to kill someone with a 22 rifle, this whole episode wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't cracked a joke in the termination "meeting" (or invented it in the webcomic) which could pretty clearly be misinterpreted, this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

I read the two comic strips, and I have zero sympathy for him. Both discussions/comments were incredibly stupid, if that's what he actually said. He's a complete idiot if he didn't think describing in graphic detail:

You'd practically have to put it in someone's face and pull the trigger. And even then, fire a few more times to make sure the job is done

Ummm...if I overheard that, I'd probably say something like, "Guys. Not appropriate workplace conversation." Oh, and then it gets better.

But I didn't have any reason to go postal. Well, hypothetically, NOW I do. I mean, wait, no.

Niiiiiiice. Put that on your list of top ten things not to say on the exit interview.

He's guilty of, at most, assault- and before a bunch of slashdotters go screaming about "free speech", guess what? Threatening speech simply needs to leave the victim feeling threatened. It doesn't matter what you thought, meant, felt, whatever. It's how the receiver felt. And I'd be pretty creeped out if I was present at his termination meeting and heard, "well, i didn't have a reason to go postal. Until now." I'd probably write it off as nervous humor, but I'd also have a pretty graphic image of making tomorrow's mid-day news, and NOT in a good way.

Re:keeping one's mouth shut

[ZenShadow]

First of all, from my understanding (IANAL) of the law, assault would require that the comments be directed at a particular person. The person in question was eavesdropping on the conversation, and therefore could in no way be construed as a potential target of the comment -- and that's forgetting the context of the conversation, which was obviously "I don't want a weapon, I want to shoot targets, so I bought a weapon that's harder to screw up and kill someone with."

Sorry, you've got to have a screw loose to construe that conversation as threatening, assuming that the quotes are accurate.

Secondly, I've heard worse in the workplace on many occasions, and we all laugh and move on. If you're so scared of your own shadow that you can't stop and think about it for a minute before running to mommy, then you're part of the problem, not the solution. You are what the real terrorists are trying to create.

--S

Re:keeping one's mouth shut

[jrockway]

> It doesn't matter what you thought, meant, felt, whatever. It's how the receiver felt.

Really? In that case, I feel threatened by your post and am calling the police. The fact that people like you are out in society scares me to the point that I can't sleep at night. STOP TERRORIZING ME!

Re:keeping one's mouth shut

[bladesjester]

I agree that the current psychological bent of the average workplace is screwed up (and sadly, this seems to be average).

An incident when I was working at a non-profit as an admin comes to mind. I was bringing a new computer to one of the desks in a shared office. I pulled out my pocket knife to open the box, and the woman who was standing nearby went and complained to my boss that she felt threatened that I had a knife.

The really sad part is that he tried to have a talk with me about it *shakes head*

gun owner class

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas, being a gun owner may be a protected class, but that may only apply if you are married to your sister.s

Welcome!

[flyroper]

Welcome to Republican America!

this isn't security, it's securrorism.

[User 956]

This whole mess proves that America doesn't care about security. But it does show that the securrorists have won.

As an NRA Instructor...

[SixFactor]

... I can only advise him to first obtain legal counsel to seek to address his firing, if he really wants to. The NRA can be asked to assist, but frankly, as others have pointed out, his being a contractor diminishes his chances of getting his job back, since he can be released for any reason whatsoever. And to pursue the point further, would he really want to go back to that job?

This situation is problematic for him from several angles: posing a terroristic threat, creating a hostile work environment, not to mention goofing off and talking about your hobby wasting company time (you know, like cruising /. while at work :-). These are balanced against freedom of speech... and that's about it. Technically, it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. IMO, his options are pretty limited, if non-existent, and the success path is not clear.

Generally, I advise my students to limit discussing this very fun hobby to when they know they can talk without being overheard. This is not an attempt to censor folks, but a recommendation to be prudent, realizing that not everyone shares our enthusiasm, and that sadly, there is an aura of fear that grows among the more fearful when firearms are casually discussed.

Fortunately for me, where I work, many of us are NRA members and we have been told that people feel safer with us around. I take it as a compliment, and do my best to educate the ignorant but willing to learn (but then again, there are those who choose to remain ignorant, and you can only go so far with them). I specialize in teaching those who've never held a firearm before in their lives.

Re:As an NRA Instructor...

[strikethree]

Sheep, Sheepdog, or Wolf: Choose.

Sheepdog FYI.

strike

Re:As an NRA Instructor...

[Britz]

Guns are dagerous. Period. I feel much safer if they are not around. Funny thing is, if a school shooting actually does happen, it is the only time where it would be much safer if more people had guns. But that is the only time that current gun laws are questioned. And then every nut points to the obvious that if someone had a gun they may have had a chance to stop the shooting.

Another proof that people are stupid. And stupid people should not handle guns. Case closed.

Re:As an NRA Instructor...

[khallow]

A few remarks here. First, you talk of "feeling" safer not being safer. Please don't confuse the two again. Second, while it appears the number of accidental deaths is disputed, it's still apparent that most gun deaths in the US (with a notoriously high rate of gun deaths per capita) are due to homicide or suicide not due to accident. Third, with proper licensing, you can make sure guns are in in trained hands. For example, here's the requirements for concealed carry in Ohio. I think it's too light, but this filters out a lot of the stupid people IMHO.

Re:As an NRA Instructor...

[tsdw]

Guns are dagerous. Period. - no they are not And stupid people should not handle guns - now your getting somewhere .. gun's arn't dangerous, stupid people with guns are.

Re:As an NRA Instructor...

[Britz]

By describing the hype around an incident (that is VERY uncommon) where it would be good if more people had guns but in which many people call for tighter restrictions on the sale of guns I simply proved that the vast majority of people are pretty stupid (I wouldn't even exclude myself, since I also proved to myself that I am stupid many times before). Many very stupid people even carry those NRA membership cards.

I agree that stupid people shouldn't handle guns. We are getting somewhere... Let's see where that will lead us, shall we?

Guns Don't Shoot Paper Targets!

[fm6]

People shoot paper targets!

Still, it's pretty hard to shoot a paper target without a gun...

Re:Guns Don't Shoot Paper Targets!

[SixFactor]

Blowguns
Bows: recurve, compound, and cross
harpoon guns
spitballs
and lasers... mounted on the heads of frickin' sharks.

Re:Guns Don't Shoot Paper Targets!

[fm6]

• Blowguns: limited range, don't make proper holes.
  
• Bows: hard to hide under your jacket.
  
• Harpoon guns: too hard to load.
  
• Spitballs: no penetration
  
• Lasers: too expensive
  
• Sharks: too hard to train
  

Re:Guns Don't Shoot Paper Targets!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Still, it's pretty hard to shoot a paper target without a gun...

Maybe if you throw the bullet really hard...

Re:blacks ftw

[kko]

Do you mean Giuliani is a real negro?

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[ray-auch]

In the first strip he talks about how hard it is to kill someone with a .22. A .22 is used in the Virginia Tech massacre.

As was a 9mm semi-auto glock. Which would be a lot easier to kill someone with.

Had the perp at VT _only_ had a .22 he would probably have been stopped a lot earlier, and would have killed far fewer people with his shots.

Be careful if trying to explain that to anyone whilst at work though...

Re:So...?

[Frosty Piss]

do members of the public have access to police records?

Generally yes, they are a matter of public record. More often than not, you have to pay for them, but they can be had quite legally. Police are, after all, in the public employ.

If you see the coppers responding to some domestic or whatever in your apartment complex, or the house accross the street, you are quite free and able to run right down to the Cop Shop and request a copy of the report. No problems.

Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for having a faulty brake light?

Why pretend? They don't care, it's a public record. You can have it (sometimes for a price).

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Arcturax]

Good lord, this is a terribly wrong statement! But then you probably don't know a lot about guns. It's ok, most people don't but I think it is something people should get educated on.

You can take a .22 and sit it next to a 30.06 round. The 30.06 round utterly dwarfs the .22. It's big, it's mean and it's bottle necked and the .22 is this little stubby looking thing in a tiny straight walled case. So it's not surprising that a lot of people totally underestimate the little .22.

This of course, is a big mistake. Never underestimate any bullet, least of all a .22 These are actually one of the bullets of choice of assassins. They are accurate, tend to fragment in a human target and have a deadly range of up to a mile or more and are easily silenced. The little .22 is nasty once it hits flesh. It tends to bounce around inside the body rather than go out the other end. Bounce off bone and leave bits of itself in organs. Tiny, hard to operate on bits. People think the bullet can't go far, you need to be close to kill someone etc, and that is why people are often careless with these, firing them without checking what is beyond their target. The .22 also loves to ricochet off of trees and take an unexpected path. A lot of firearms accidents happen this way, and the .22 is often the culprit when a rifle is the weapon involved in an accidental shooting.

Now is it deadlier than a 30.06? That's debatable certainly, but to think that a .22 is not "that deadly" is a bad and could be a fatal mistake, for you or someone else. The VT shooter did use a .22 as well as a 9mm and he inflicted savage and fatal wounds with both weapons.

Re:So...?

[dltaylor]

> In the UK convictions (except in certain situations) expire after a while.

But the records are kept forever. "Never know when you might need them." What do you think happens to all of the motorway and street-corner camera and sound records? Automatically purged after no crime is reported for a year, or something?

> How would that end up being noticeable when he's flying?

TSA is a government agency. He'll be pulled from the security line for "special attention", if he's (a potential terrorist, remember) allowed to fly at all.

> And when he's renting etc - do members of the public have access to police records so that every chat is noted? Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for having a faulty brake light?

Through licensed civilian investigators, yes. I did a contract for a computer security company that (reasonably, IMO) did a background check. Since the contract was executed in California, I was entitled to, and received, a copy of the results.

> No, but we should investigate potential threats to my safety.

How could any person with functional faculties regard this as a threat?

Even if so, the investigation itself triggers so many unconscionable consequences for the subject that it makes the rest of the citizenry complicit in state terrorism (mild in this case, so far, but an endpoint in the range of actions to the torture and murder of the presumably innocent until proven guilty that are all justified by the same excuses).

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Speedracer1870]

Not all speech is protected. Doesn't he know that only rainbows and gummi bears are appropriate topics when not in your house with the radio blaring? Maybe he was fired for talking about that instead of doing what he is paid to do...you know...work.

Paranoia?

[cazbar]

"he was visited by representatives of local law enforcement investigating him on suspicion of making a "terroristic threat" using the Internet"

These people weren't from Boston were they?

Re:So...?

[kko]

The funny thing is that the real terrorists will laugh at him being searched by TSA.

As a poster above mentioned, the securrorists have won.

Re:at will employment

[HomelessInLaJolla]

you can quit without cause Corporations aren't very polite with an employee who dares to exercise their right to leave if the company has been screwing them blind. In the companies' eyes you'll still have been fired.

That little distinction makes a whole lot of difference to the next round of potential employers--and to the unemployment office.

Yes

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal trauma, disease, ...), should we all stop having them?

Yes

Or women should be willing to have sex with me. But damnit, if I cannot get any, I want others not to get any as well /selfpitingrant

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[kko]

AHAHAHAHAH. Tons of countries don't have those restrictions, dude. You're describing a scenario that looks a lot like US Immigration requirements. Those requirements do not apply everywhere.

You all may as well face it.

[iminplaya]

You are guilty until you can prove your innocence. It is now shoot first, ask questions later. Such a shame.

BAH!

McCarthyism

[zaax]

McCarthyism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism looks likes its alive and well in the Good'ol USA

In other news - Turd deemed a terrorist threat

[unity100]

Informed by a local citizen of a certain strong smell, FBI is now interviewing a piece of Turd as a possible suspect on grounds of its presence in the area at the time of event. No further information has been released by officials yet.

Re:So...?

[dkf]

All your rights are belong to the fascists.

Or at least they will be if you don't fight to take back what you should already have according to the constitution. I really hope that the fight won't require actual battles on the streets though.

Re:So...?

[Kjella]

Generally yes, they are a matter of public record. More often than not, you have to pay for them, but they can be had quite legally. Police are, after all, in the public employ.

Why pretend? They don't care, it's a public record. You can have it (sometimes for a price).

Man, what a peeping tom society. Let me introduce you to the Norwegian rules:
1. Your police record is private
2. As a general rule, employers may not demand to see your police record. You actually have to apply to get a copy of your own police record with a legitimate reason.

You have three types of police reocrds:
1. General, which you need to
a) get a taxi permit
b) get a lawyer permit
c) to work as a fireman
d) to be a driving instructor
e) be daily manager in certain financial companies
Speeding tickets don't show at all, misdemeanors disappear after 2 years, crimes after 5 or 10 years. The police can choose to filter out anything they feel is not relevant too, based on the reason for your application.

2. Full, which you need to
a) apply for police academy
b) work in the police
c) work in prison service/parole officer
d) security guard
e) airport employee
f) adoption
g) anything classified
Here everything stands forever. That doesn't mean any automatic disqualification, but it's all there.

3. Special
Several different forms which strictly list crimes relevant to the job. One big exception is
a) Working in kindergarten
b) Working in child services
c) Working in schools
Here, there is a rather broad inclusion of what might be relevant.

Here there is a strong culture that once you've served your punishment, the case is settled. There's no "felons can't vote", there's no public registers, it really is buried unless you stand before the court again, then your past criminal record is brought up again.

I smell $$$

[flyingfsck]

Wooo, I can see the line-up of lawyers wanting to handle his case! He should walk away from this defamation and unfair dismissal suit with a very handsome package.

Whoever responsible for firing him..

[elborrachogato]

I'm betting the person responsible for firing him was female. I can't stand working under a woman... A few months ago a co-worker got fired for saying a certain design looked "a little gay".. word got passed around by 2 other female employees and when the director heard she just stormed out of her office knocking over several chairs and started screaming at this poor dude firing him on the spot. The thing that sucked the worst was that he was one of the few hard working employees we had and it took us weeks of busting our asses to recover.

Re:Whoever responsible for firing him..

[elborrachogato]

i got 2 kids to feed and a sick wife. I miss 2 paychecks and we're on the street so its not really a choice right now. I can only blame myself but im trying now

Re:Whoever responsible for firing him..

[Jerry Rivers]

"I'm betting the person responsible for firing him was female. I can't stand working under a woman..."

So you experience one obviously bad female supervisor and therefore all female supervisors are bad huh.

Re:Whoever responsible for firing him..

[quag7]

I've worked for women supervisors for 8 years now, and I've never had any problems. The most petty, hormonal thing to happen to me at work was from a dude, the first guy I worked for when I came on board.

I think a lot of guys who complain about working for women have some personal issues they need to sort out. I'm sure there are bad female bosses, but I've done alright now, 3 for 3.

Re:Whoever responsible for firing him..

[Hognoxious]

Purely anecdotal, I've worked for several and for me it's a bimodal distribution - they're either really good or totally useless. Never had a female boss who was so-so.

Re: Some of them do tak about guns, but so what?

[evought]

... I can't remember one time when they talked to people who knew one of these mass murderers after the fact and they've said anything remotely like "well, he did talk about guns a lot" and "he went to the shooting range every week". ...

The shooter at my college did talk about guns. His dad was a collector. He had a valid firearms permit and got occasional copies of American Rifleman or some such. When I roomed with the guy, we talked about guns on occasion. I had grown up, not with guns, but near enough to respect them and be a decent shot. My father-in-law is also a gun collector (has some beautiful historical pieces--- I collect bows myself) and my wife grew up with guns. None of the rest of us are mass murderers. And no, even having been through a shooting, I am not a paranoid, pro-nanny state, anti-gun lobbyist. Some sane limits, if handled well. The shooting did leave me rather messed up for a bit and it took a while for me to get back to picking up a firearm (or even being around them), but eventually I had to straighten myself out; there aren't boogey men in every closet and I already knew what Hell looked like.

The problem with profiling is that most of the time it just plain *does not* work, especially with psychopaths who are often experts at manipulation. The problem with over-reaching gun-control is that there are not and cannot be enough police in enough places at the right times. They certainly weren't a help on campus that night. Besides, is a cop going to come out and shoot a coy dog for me when it goes after my chickens? Bad stuff happens, even to good people, even when we try to control all the variables, perhaps especially when we do. We all die someday and just have to deal with it.

I wonder what people will do when a *cop* goes on a rampage. That will just break their little minds...

Re:So...?

[Frosty Piss]

Here there is a strong culture that once you've served your punishment, the case is settled. There's no "felons can't vote", there's no public registers, it really is buried unless you stand before the court again, then your past criminal record is brought up again.

This is a problem here (USA). In a very real way, once you fuck up, you're screwed for life. It's really not much of an incentive to stay clean/legit/legal.

They burned witches didn't they?

[flyingfsck]

You have to view the latest witch hunts in the proper historical context of the Salem Witch Trials with the resultant drownings and burnings, as well as the McCarthy Communist Hunts and resultant firings and character assassinations. I think, looking back at those, the USA eventually may enter the Renaissance...

Yeah!

[toby]

There's nothing a good lawsuit can't fix!

Re:Yeah!

[unity100]

this is different. this is a just case, not a moron's morondom.

Re:Yeah!

[evilviper]

There's nothing a good lawsuit can't fix!

In the absence of law enforcement taking appropriate action, and otherwise the lack of laws that would force them to do the right thing, what's the alternative? Should we all go through life, accepting that we have no rights, and avoid doing anything, living in fear of saying anything someone mildly dislikes?

What's the alternative to suing?

Sure, there are frivolous lawsuits, but that doesn't mean people should stop filing lawsuits for legitimate reasons.

Contract Employee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is all this because he's a contract employee he can be fired for _any reason_ crap come in?

He must not have a very good contract. I'm a contract employee, and you'd better believe my contracts certainly don't allow me to fired for any reason. Actually, it would be pretty difficult for one of my employers to fire me for any reason other than not completing the job I was contracted to do. If was fired for "no reason", it would usually mean them paying me to not show up.

"fear" worse than "love"

[evought]

People who are afraid are generally the bigger problem, not just with guns, but with anything. Fear is unreasoning.

In the case of guns, people who were brought up in areas where they were normal (I am not talking inner cities...), are generally taught firearm safety and respect for weapons. They are tools, like chainsaws, sticks of dynamite, kitchen knives, and scalpels. They all have their uses and their dangers. People who hate guns and are afraid of them do not see them as tools (for any use) and do not see any other side than fear.

I respect people who do not like guns and want nothing to do personally with guns, just as I respect vegetarians (especially as I was one for a while). I respect people who are concerned about guns, crime, and gun safety. I do not respect people who hate guns, who hate omnivores, who are rampant homophobes, etc. There are a lot of those around. Oddly, a lot of the people who hate guns, seem to want to enforce a ban of them *with guns*. I don't think they understand the disconnect. Why is Policeman Bob a priori and *always* more trustworthy than Farmer Joe? Why think Policeman Bob is always going to be closer to hand when someone else with a gun shows up? They weren't there at VA Tech. Guns exist. Hating them doesn't change that. Learning a bit about them at least provides an understanding of the problem and might be a small piece of the solution.

Note, that on the other side, it is not "gun-lovers" that is a problem, it is people with other kinds of unreasoning fears, such as (rabid) fear of government oppression, rabid racial hatred, rabid isolationism, and extreme fundamentalism. Poking the beehive with a stick (actually oppressing them) just makes things worse. There are actually reasonable people in the middle.

now he has a use for that gun...

[timmarhy]

on the fucking jerk off who reported him for no reason at all.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Fulcrum of Evil]

In the first strip he talks about how hard it is to kill someone with a .22. A .22 is used in the Virginia Tech massacre.

Cho used a Walther P22, which is semi-auto. I have one, and I have no idea who Cho'd get it - it's finicky as hell and really not that great for shooting people with. It is cheap, though. Matt was talking about a .22 bolt action, which requires you to cycle the action after each shot. It's also long and unwieldy - not nearly as good as the P22. Basically, it's the sort of gun you hand to a cub scout and tell him to go shoot some cans.

The USA eats itsself alive...

[FFFish]

...from the inside out.

The levels of crazy in the USA just keep skyrocketing. Everything seems to create hysteria, panic, and endless problems for ordinary, innocent people.

The country is fubared.

Re:at will employment

[fishbowl]

>if you were hired as an "at will" employee, sure you can be fired without cause. and you can quit without cause.

If you bring genuine value to your employer, they will consider carefully before letting you go for a frivolous cause.

Another word: transmogrify! Why? 'Cuz it's neat!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Additional words : t h e H E L L o u t t a t h e m

Uh, those are letters. They are only words when they are, like, stuck together.

I hope this helps.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[flyingfsck]

Depends on where you work. I work at a large defence company. We regularly talk about bombs, missiles, guns, hand-guns and so forth. We even go shooting each other as a team activity - OK, it is paint ball...

Re:So...?

[Artifakt]

"And he wasn't even arrested. How would that end up being noticeable when he's flying?"

Before the Twin Towers, the U.S. had a number of watch-lists of people who were not supposed to be allowed to enter the country via air, or fly internally on domestic airlines. Total numbers for these lists were around 110,000 people. After the Homeland Security Dept was organized, the lists were consolidated and reviewed, and the total numbers rapidly rose to about 480,000 by about mid 2003. Since then they have risen at a slower rate, but the total enrollment is now estimated at about 575,000 suspect individuals.
      It's been revealed by various people in agencies such as the FBI that people are known have been put on the list in error, but it appears nearly impossible to get them taken off. (Homeland Security itself has not admitted to any mistakes, nor will they reveal how much or how little of their budget is committed to keeping records current and accurate. Reports of problems seem to come entirely from whistle blowers in various federal and state agencies, and from individuals. Personally, I suspect this means they are under-reported, but that's admittedly just my opinion.).
      Senator Ted Kennedy was restricted from flying by several airlines because his name matched an IRA member suspected of involvement in 1960's70's era shootings - this real suspect was apparently already long dead, but the FBI themselves supposedly forwarded that info and no changes were made until the senator's repeated complaints convinced someone in Dept of Homeland Security to add a note. Even then the dept. chose to keep the name on the list, apparently just in case the FBI, British MI-6 and the U.S. state department are all in error on this one.
        Several state governments have advanced the claim that some of their residents were put on the list from tips forwarded by their ex-spouses after bitter divorces. Investigations that showed these people's names were also falsely added to sex offender registries, meth-abuse registries and other such records do not, in general, cause Homeland Security to review placement on the no fly lists.

"Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for having a faulty brake light?"

No, in most states you also have to pay 20$-35$ for the report. In some states you don't have to pretend to be anything though, they will simply give you a report based on vehicle liscnce number, without even asking why you want it. Lat I checked, only 14 states currently have tighter restrictions than that.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

Name one. And show me the evidence.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

Well? Where are these "tons" of countries hmm? You should do some research and know what you are talking about before you chime in with your uninformed opinion.

Oh I'm sure you'll probably come up with Sierra Leone or something. Come to think of it Sierra Leone wouldn't even work if he doesn't have any employable skills beyond cartoonist. Well maybe he could just get a job illegally somewhere. That should provide him with lots of career prospects. Lets just hope he knows a language other than English.

Virtually EVERY English speaking country has the requirements I have already outlined. His only real opportunity is to apply while in the States for a job in another country and let them get a permit for him. Just showing up and expecting to stay and work will get him nowhere, except maybe deported.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[compro01]

In the first strip he talks about how hard it is to kill someone with a .22. A .22 is used in the Virginia Tech massacre.

i'm pretty sure both of his guns were 9mm (approx. .354). can't remember what guns they were and i don't really feel like looking it up.

are you afraid of plutonium?

[circletimessquare]

there is irrational fear, then there is rational fear. there is nothing wrong with rational fear at all, it keeps you alive. in fact, people without fear often wind up quite dead and often do incredibly stupid things

Re:are you afraid of plutonium?

[khallow]

The point is that there isn't any reason for rational fear of guns just as there isn't for plutonium. Being threatened with a gun or being shot at is one thing, but feeling fear merely because there is a gun somewhere near you is irrational.

Sad Reality...

[__aaclcg7560]

Even the new guy with a comic on Dilbert isn't safe.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[bladesjester]

I always thought it was amusing when some of my profs would ask me what my body count was over the weekend. I'd invariably get really freaked out looks from at least a few people in the room.

(It should be noted that I taught fencing in college) =]

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[flyingfsck]

Now try this one during one of those silly hand-gun restrictions arguments: "Guns don't kill people........ I kill people.......". :)

Our pre-crime units are standing by...

[mrraven]

The ticket says Anderton, oh shit... If you don't get google "minority report" and "P K Dick."

Re:Our pre-crime units are standing by...

[KDR_11k]

I know better than to type "Dick" into any search engine.

Three steps to destroy anyone they don't like

[Catbeller]

1. Define terrorist as someone that frightens.
2. Say that laws are insufficient to protect us from terrorists.
3. Redefine what frightens.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[bladesjester]

I've had that discussion too. Our tagline ended up being "Guns don't kill people. Swords do. (Unless you're James and then you don't need weapons)"

Standard conversations on that topic usually went something like the following:
"Guns kill people"
"No, people kill other people. Guns are just a tool. I could probably kill every person in this room before any of you could get out."
"Yeah, but see you'd need a weapon to kill us and you don't have one"
"Um... I hate to break it to you, but I *am* a weapon... and so is everything else in this room"
*uncomfortable look*

That's a Great Comic!

[dcollins]

All I have to say is this: "That's a Great Comic!". The expression on his face in the middle panel, which totally undermines the words he's saying at the time, is absolutely brilliant. (Much like "Don't you get it? I'm a people person!!" from Office Space.) LOL funny!

http://www.threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2007-0 4-30

True - don't be a tool - see it as a tool

[dbIII]

OK - I learned how to shoot a gun at age seven and think big black powder guns are cool (co-worker made his own inch diameter cartidges out of discarded heat exchanger tubing. When you have to throw out twelve metre lengths and you have designed the test gear you can find some safe offcuts for cartridges). However, I still cannot understand the obsession in the USA for not seeing the things as tools but some stupid and dangerous badge of freedom that some even want to carry around concealed. Why do cililians have military weapons anyway - paticularly military sidearms that are easily concealed and have a high rate of fire?

Re:True - don't be a tool - see it as a tool

[evought]

My understanding of concealed carry is two-fold:

1) Having the weapon concealed freaks less people out. Because of the unreasoning fear of guns, an unconcealed weapon can cause a public disturbance, even though the carrier is well within their rights. Many areas have an ordinance about "Armed to the fear of the people" which is subjectively defined. Look at the current incident. If less people were irrational, I think that unconcealed weapons would be more common.

I went armed at points in Arlington (could not in DC), not with a firearm but a sword cane, partly because I needed a cane at the time and it was a salve to pride and partly because I had still not recovered from my distaste for guns, was a proficient fencer, and had to walk through violent neighborhoods. I could not have carried a sword at my hip without drawing negative attention. In some nearby areas people had been mugged even when not alone and hurt even when not resisting (generally with knives or other low-tech weapons, not firearms, perhaps because of noise). Also, contrary to people's fascination with them, guns are not necessarily good at close quarters when fast-reactions are needed.

I was getting used to the weight of chainmail at the time (re-enactment) and sometimes wore a mail shirt under my sweats when walking at night. I occasionally thought of one of our members who had an encounter in Central Park when returning from an event and was mugged while wearing armor under her cloths and carrying a broadsword (she was a master fencer). The mugger, who tried to stab her, got a nasty surprise. Generally, I would prefer to avoid an encounter entirely rather than play the hero, but sometimes escape is not an option, particularly with a bum leg. Even if slim, a fighting chance is a chance.

2) An unconcealed weapon makes you an immediate target in an incident. Whether this reason counters the possibility that a displayed weapon might deter an incident in the first place I am not sure, but I think that the possibility that someone might be carrying in CCW areas probably gives some second thoughts.

Anyway, there are all kinds of questions, many of them carry to beyond guns, and the first step in getting answers is admitting that there *are* questions.

Re:True - don't be a tool - see it as a tool

[dbIII]

So is it legal to carry concealed weapons into banks, shops etc where there is a large chance of armed robbery in the first place? Does the shopowner get to gun you down if you look like you are about to draw? It all sounds like a third world attitude - or wild west if you prefer.

Re:True - don't be a tool - see it as a tool

[evought]

Banks and some other places don't allow weapons by policy, even where otherwise legal. In some places I need to leave my knife (just a small belt knife) in the car or check it with security. Not a big deal. As far as effectiveness, do you think its being illegal is going to stop a bank robber from carrying a gun into a bank? They already intend to break the law. The fact that guns were not allowed on VA Tech campus did little to stop Cho; he was not bothered by the consequences. The fact is that in many cases, the rule of law is upheld by common consent and a common intent to abide by the law. People do not avoid gunning down bank employees because they do not have guns, they don't do it because they have no intention of robbing a bank. Criminals, obviously, don't fit that equation.

The "Wild West" was not necessarily bad because of the presence of guns, but because of the absence of law. What law was there was often corrupt and in league with organized crime. Any frontier is first peopled by con-artists, smugglers, and racketeers. Anybody with a need to start fresh, no conscience, and who wants to make a buck. Getting a badge is a great path to power. There were probably just as many guns in the South (note that many confederates provided their own guns during the war), but law and culture was better established. Similarly, here in a rural farm belt, there are guns all over, but very few shootings compared to urban areas where carrying firearms is illegal.

In a lot of "Third World" areas (I hate that term), including Iraq, the situation is similar--- no law or corrupt law. A police chief in the Anbhar province of Iraq recently said that a third of his police force was untrustworthy and in league with either organized crime or insurgents. In that kind of situation, everyone fends for themselves and no one knows who is really dangerous. In those situations, legal or not, people will die rather than give up their guns, because it is a matter of life or death that they have them. Look at Rwanda and other places, too. Look at Chicago during prohibition, where there was widespread corruption.

Re:True - don't be a tool - see it as a tool

[dbIII]

As far as effectiveness, do you think its being illegal is going to stop a bank robber from carrying a gun into a bank?

No, it just gives security a reason to act before somebody gets shot and to work out who the perpertrators are. It may make no difference in the USA but in some countries the armed robbers are identified by police and guards by the fact they are carrying guns and get targeted immediately. As for civilians legally carrying concealed weapons, paticularly military sidearms, I do not think I will ever understand the justifications I have heard. It must be a cultural thing.

Oh well...

[curious.corn]

... glad this story made it on the frontpage, his strips are awesome, I'm bookmarking the site. The one about the self assessment questionnaire is just pure genius! :)

yea it sux

[kaizokuace]

Sure, he did something that could have gotten him fired (and did) and there is really no defense for him but you know I have been a fan of his comic stuff for a while now so lets just say that he didn't deserve it really, and that people are dicks and/or dumb.

Anyone see the censored comic?

[Thornae]

On the main page for Three Panel Soul, Matt says "Sorry folks, I just had to take this down," obviously referring to a comic (or a rant) originally posted as a coda to the trio of comics that got him in trouble. I'm presuming the "Alchemy and Pastries" one is a quick replacement due to legal threats.

So, did anyone see what got taken down? What was it about?

This is the internet, goddamnit. Someone must have a copy...

Re:Anyone see the censored comic?

[Badge 17]

There was no censored comic - there was, however, a rant that Matt Boyd took down, presumably on the (very sensible) principle that if you're in bullshit up to your head, keep your mouth closed. There wasn't any information in the rant that isn't in the fleen interview.

Re:Anyone see the censored comic?

[Thornae]

Thanks - the initial article I read (before /. ran the story) seemed to imply there was a comic about the arrest.
Re-reading it shows that I was inferring this from a couple of unclear sentences, so I probably should have figured that out.

Nice metaphor, btw.

Re:Another word: transmogrify! Why? 'Cuz it's neat

[unity100]

they can be properly placed as words when /. script allows it. try making up words here by leaving spaces among the letters, and more space among the words and see what happens.

There is your mistake

[Hyperhaplo]

Regardless of who fired him, if 'management' want to fire someone then fine. They must then accept that what that person did does not get done until they are replaced. I have had this in reverse: I was removed from a position (to another position of the same level) and when the previous position was not filled they expected me to upkeep the role.

Forget it. No. Go jump in the lake.

Use the managementese variations of these words to tell them that if they want to remove someone then they need to replace the person or not have that position filled.

What are you going to do next time? I'd recomend reading the book Death March to gain an insight into this area of management.

Advice: Don't let it happen again. It is not your fault.
However, by all means, work overtime if they feel like compensating you accordingly.

Re:So...?

[blackest_k]

Sounds like you need some sort of timeout on how long this sort of stuff hangs around. In the UK convictions (except in certain situations) expire after a while.

That is what I used to think, but actually they don't. Any time a criminal records check is carried out any convictions (excluding most motoring related offenses) will be dug up.

http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=1871

http://www.disclosure-scotland.org.uk/PDF/WEEDING% 20POLICY%20revised%20060307.pdf

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/Retent ion%20of%20Records.pdf

This last Link is the most interesting however you might want to consider that your ip address will be recorded by the police server that holds this document if you click on the link. Paranoid? maybe but when you realise that any "intelligence" is almost certain to be recorded on the PNC . Accessing this document may well count as intelligence after all why would a good citizen want to know this. surely only an activist, political malcontent, and potential terrorist would want to know?

heres an extract.

"1.3 The Retention Guidelines are based on a format of restricting access to PNC data,
rather than the deletion of that data. The restriction of access is achieved by setting
strict time periods after which the relevant event histories will 'step down' and only
be open to inspection by the police. Following the 'step down' other users of PNC
will be unaware of the existence of such records, save for those occasions where
the individual is the subject of an Enhanced Check under the Criminal Records
Bureau vetting process. In those cases the data should be dealt with as intelligence
and only disclosed, where the relevance test has been applied, on the authority of
the Chief Officer. The 'step down' time periods are based on the following criteria,
as set out in detail in the chart at Appendix 1;
The age of the subject
The final outcome
The sentence imposed
The offence category
1.4 All non conviction events, for example acquittals and arrests, will be 'stepped down'
when the relevant entry is made on the PNC. This will ensure that such data is only
open to inspection by the police.
1.5 It is recognised that the introduction of these guidelines may have implications for
the business of the non police agencies with which the police currently share PNC
data. Work is already under way to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the
needs of all stake holders.
1.6 Applications from non police agencies to access nominal records on the PNC will
be considered by a Panel chaired by the ACPO lead for Recording and Disclosure
of Convictions.
Background
2.1 The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 amended PACE, and removed the

Re:Ah yes...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

He was released from a contract position that he can be released from at any time

How can you possibly know that? IANAL but I suspect it depends on the terms of the contract, which I haven't read. Have you?

You're completely and 100% wrong

[daveschroeder]

His interview with police will not show up on any background check, of any kind, anywhere, ever.

He will not be on any TSA, or any other, watch lists (and wouldn't be even if he was convicted of a crime - WTF? Oh, you're one of those people who think "terroristic threat" somehow is equated with "terrorism", even though they're utterly and completely different concepts, and unrelated).

He will not be "punished", for anything, and the only way anyone will know about this is because of the life it will have on blogs, and no one in any official capacity, save for possibly the individual detectives who talked to him about it remembering with their own minds, will have any knowledge of it.

I can't believe how wrong your entire post was, and that it got modded up to boot.

Re:You're completely and 100% wrong

[jstomel]

His interview with police will not show up on any background check, of any kind, anywhere, ever. Unless someone, you know, googles him or something. But what are the chances of that happening?

Re:You're completely and 100% wrong

[daveschroeder]

Unless someone, you know, googles him or something. But what are the chances of that happening?

Yeah, uh, and as I said:

and the only way anyone will know about this is because of the life it will have on blogs

I'm not making any negative judgments against him for choosing to do this, but it's him who chose to air this incident.

Not the government, and not his employer.

I can't believe you don't see the distinction.

Wow. Just...wow.

Everyone is a spy

[nurb432]

Its starting to sound like the old USSR more and more every day.

"presumed an insane killer"

[nurb432]

You see, if *everyone* is assumed to be either guilty ( copyright infringement, etc ) or about to become guilty ( terrorist, dangerous wierdo, etc ) then its easier for the government to strip us of our rights and control us.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[nanoflower]

No, you are wrong. If you were to say you didn't like rainbows, people might take that as an anti-gay statement. So, only gummi bears is a safe topic for discussion

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Hognoxious]

Virtually EVERY English speaking country has the requirements I have already outlined.

The one that speaks English properly doesn't. If you can say "I claim asylum" you're fine.

Nothing new, BTW.

[b0s0z0ku]

Let's face it, ideas and presumed intentions are becoming criminal. George Orwell called it.

Look at the Montana Sedition Trials in the early 1900s (mostly during WW I). People were arrested and sometimes jailed for *years* for saying that they were members of the IWW ("Wobblies") or disagreeing with the war/telling people that war bonds were worthless. Today's country isn't perfect, but freedom of thought and speech were curtailed then, too, and the punishments for comparatively small acts were worse than anything that would get meted out today.

Much more here: http://www.seditionproject.net/photogallery.html

-b.

Re:at will employment

[MysteriousPreacher]

Depends on whether the right people like or dislike you as well. Politically motivated decisions are rife in some companies, particularly when it comes to promotions and dismissals. It's less common in Europe since employee protection tends to be a bit better, i.e. if you boss fires you without good reason then it's going to cost the company a lot of money and that's difficult to cover-up.

IMHO...

[Chr0n0]

...when this sort of things starts happening, then "Terrorism" has achieved it's purpose...

Re:So...?

[b0s0z0ku]

Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for having a faulty brake light?

No, but there are places that specialize in investigations, aggregation of police data. For something like $100, you can buy a "full report" (accuracy not guaranteed since agencies don't report everything) on a person.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that arrest records should be sealed entirely at the discretion of the arrested party and that conviction records for misdemeanors should expire after three to six years, depending on the severity of the crime. People change, etc. And an arrest record even without a conviction can be used as a "blacklist" of sorts.

Senior year of college, I told a scumbag cop who had just shut down a 9/11 benefit concert and hit my friend in the face in the process: "Shouldn't you be in NYC helping clean up instead of harassing students who are actually trying to make a difference and help?" He arrested me for felony riot, disregarding an official order, harassment, and disorderly conduct.

The two first, most serious charges were dropped by a judge in the preliminary hearing within a few days. The other two charges (which were ticketable offenses, not even misdemeanors in Pennsylvania) stuck. Instead of fighting the charges tooth and nail on grounds of freedom of speech, my attorney advised me to plead no contest to the charges in exchange for community service, a fine, and probation. I stupidly followed his advice. Result: 6 8-hr days on what was basically a county chain gang, and a year's probation after graduation. Fortunately, the judge ordering the probation let me serve it out of state with no reporting requirements and an agreement that I not come back to PA for the duration (good fucking riddance!).

Anyway, despite there being no formal convictions, I found it difficult to find work after college, and the State didn't let me take my Fundamentals of Engineering (EIT) exams on the grounds of the two summary charges not being dropped. Call it a 21st century version of a 20th century blacklist.

Fortunately, I ended up starting my own IT business as a result -- oddly enough, people didn't seem to check on freelancers too closely -- am making *more* than I ever would have as an employee. Passed my EIT exam and am thinking of partnering with a professional engineer and starting an engineering consulting company. So the last laugh might well be mine.

-b.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[b0s0z0ku]

Except he wouldn't be allowed to bring his new gun.

Depends where. Not every European country is as strict as the UK. Switzerland and Austria have pretty liberal gun laws AFAIK.

-b.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[MysteriousPreacher]

True, I emigrated to the moon and found few restrictions in place. I didn't even to show my passport. Finding work and oxygen has been a bit tricky but I'm optimistic.

U.S. immigration are a total pain in the arse, I've seen that when friends have tried to get in to the US - even married couples where one of them is US citizen. Even if the rules technically allow immigration, the implementation can be very patchy. I know at least 2 people who have waited almost a year now to get permission to work in Ireland - one of them a US citizen (a professional worker with decent savings and impeccable work/security history) married to an EU citizen.

An American friend tried recently to come and work in Europe and despite being married, the process too so long that it was no longer financially viable to wait any longer. That's not just US citizens but pretty much anyone who isn't an EU citizen is going to have a miserable time getting residency.

Some other European countries might be more lax but not from what I've seen. I've looked at Ireland, UK and Denmark.

JUDGE!!!

[db32]

I need a ruling here. Is this a violation of Godwin's Law? I mean its close...

Re:Bet ME

[MightyMartian]

I feel for you, but you've got to move past it. Their fuckers, and they got fucked for it. Get your priorities straight. Your health and your financial viability are what count. Some old job run by a pack of self-serving idiots is the past.

Re:at will employment

[Hognoxious]

If you bring genuine value to your employer, they will consider carefully before letting you go for a frivolous cause.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Or maybe things are just different on your planet.

Smokers Are Also Not Protected

[EgoWumpus]

You are correct here; see the debates regarding whether employers can fire employees who smoke at home, or in other places when they're not 'on the job'.

You would think.

[StarKruzr]

But that assumes a lot about the employer's hiring manager.

no, it's rational fear

[circletimessquare]

simply being around a gun for an extended period of time increases my chance of death due to accident or intent

Re:no, it's rational fear

[khallow]

That's not a good reason for fear. Automobiles increase your chance of death as well (and it's about the same order of magnitude too). Yet I don't see a reason to fear automobiles.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

If you walk into say, spain, and say "I claim asylum" from the United States they would laugh at you.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Jerry Rivers]

Bollocks. You will still need a Work Permit. Virtually EVERY single Nordic country has similar rules.

Here is what he would need, fluency in Swedish notwithstanding (source - Embassy of Sweden http://www.swedenabroad.com/Page____21904.aspx):

  "You must have a work permit in order to work in Sweden. If you are going to work for less than three months you also need to have a visa and if you are going to work for more than three months you also need a residence permit.

A work permit can usually be granted if there is a shortage of labour in a specific field, or if you have obtained employment as part of an international exchange programme.

Your application for a work permit should be made to the Embassy of Sweden or the appropriate Consulate General (see right). If the Embassy finds it necessary you will be summoned to a personal interview, in which case the Embassy will contact you. Your application may then be forwarded to the Swedish Migration Board for decision.

The Swedish Migration Board or the Embassy will make a decision in your case when all the necessary documents have been received. The Embassy will inform you when a decision has been made in your case.

You are required to enclose the following documents with your application (note that all documents must be submitted in original)

        * Two fully completed and signed application forms

        * Two passport photos taken within the past six months
            -Photos that do not conform to these standards will be rejected and may cause delay in processing the application. For more information please see
            > photo guidelines

        * A valid passport and two photocopies of the identity page of the passport. Please note that even if you are not yet a holder of a valid passport it is possible to apply for residence permit. You can forward your passport to the Embassy later

        * If you are employed by an institute or company in China, you should enclose a letter of introduction from this institute or company, as well as a copy of the letter. The letter should state your position at the institute or company, and should also include the address of your employer, contact person and telephone number. The letter must be signed

        * An "Offer of employment". The Offer of employment should be made on the appropriate form from AMS that your employer in Sweden can receive from the Employment Office, if possible this should be signed by the local trade union representative and must of course be approved by the AMS. Important: The minimum salary required at present is SEK 13000 a month before tax. Some form of accommodation must have been arranged for you in Sweden

        * Written documentation in English of your education and/or work experience and a photocopy of the said document

        * You are required to pay an application fee. If your application is rejected, the fee will not be refunded. The application fee is currently 1120 RMB.

You should hand in your application to the Embassy at least 10 weeks before your departure to Sweden. If you fail to supply the necessary documents mentioned above, the decision-making process of your case may be delayed. The Embassy may call you for additional documents or information if necessary.

For further information concerning residence permit for studies you may contact the Embassy of Sweden or see the website of the Migration Board."

Re:at will employment

[fishbowl]

It's not another planet, it's the other side of the table.

Have you ever been in a situation where you had to make the decision to fire someone? It a corporate environment where you were not the sole authority? You would not believe how complicated the process is, when there is *cause*.

damn, now i am flagged

[crAckZ]

while scrolling i see my name, matt boyd. while i am not the man in the article i hope this doesn't end up haunting me one day. i would hate to go to the airport and get stopped as a terrorist.

To the NRA mobile!

[Lotharjade]

How long till the NRA gets involved? I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to come to the rescue.

Now all I can envision is a bunch of pudgy NRA lawyers going "To the NRA mobile!" with a shocked look on their faces. Then falling and stumbling over themselves as they try to get to, and into a Lincoln Town Car. "huff huff huff"

Similar event happened to a friend

[chiph]

A friend was a programmer for one of the nation's largest banks, and was chit-chatting in a conference room prior to the meeting starting. Someone asked him what his hobbies were, and he mentioned that he restored old cars, and shot pistols competitively (bowling pin matches, IIRC).

One of the people in the meeting later called corporate security, saying they felt threatened by him. Security immediately escorted him out of the building (he was a full-time employee in an at-will state, so this was within their rights).

It later came out that the person who called security was bucking for a promotion, and wanted his job. Got it, too.
Isn't corporate politics fun?

Chip H.

Really?

[warm sushi]

"Owning a gun or talking about buying a gun is, as far as I know, does not qualify you for a protected class."

Oh yeah? I guess you feel lucky then, punk!

Re:yro?

[AmiAthena]

Wow, you just gave me a flashback. I miss the Trojan Room coffee cam.

there IS a reason to fear automobiles

[circletimessquare]

they do increase your chances of death. unfortunately, there is no suitable alternative to them: they have a function: free, as in whereever you want to go, transportation

what is a gun good for? killing someone and... killing someone. nothing else

not much use besides its dangeorus use, therefore, avoidable and unnecessary in civilian life

Re:there IS a reason to fear automobiles

[khallow]

I don't see the problem. Just because a tool's primary use is to kill people doesn't mean that it can't be useful to a responsible private citizen. Society and law universally recognizes that there are times when you need to kill in self-defense or to prevent imminent deliberate grave injury to another person. In such situations, there is no suitable alternative to guns. Further, guns can be used in a nonlethal way as a tool of coercion. Ie, brandish a weapon in front of a burglar or mugger in order to get them to retreat from the scene or to apprehend them for law enforcement. Given the high rate of crime in many societies such as the US, this means that guns in the hands of potential victims do have a positive benefit in reducing crime.

Good point

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I learned this about a decade ago when my brother-in-law, during a particularly acrimonious divorce from my sister, threatened to burn down my house. The police report cited a "terroristic threat." (No prosecution since I was the only witness to the threat, but at least the report was on record in case he did something for real.)

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Hognoxious]

But that's irrelevant, as Spain isn't the country that speaks English properly. In any case, just claim to be Rumanian or a Kurd. You'd get in fine.

wisdom

[circletimessquare]

tells us that we are frail and make communication and identification errors

you seem to make judgments about the value of a gun in civilian life as if the humans who wield it are never erring completely ethical and ever vigilant

the point is, you CAN be victimized by crime. but the chance of being victimized and the amount of harm that can befall you when victimized is lower than the amount of harm and the chance of harm that can befall you just by having a tool for killing people close around with easy access

fact: the more the guns around, the more senseless harm that befalls people

look at johannesburg, or palestine, or rio de janiero, or iraq: high rates of gun ownership. are you saying that guns in those communities decreases crime?

more guns=more senseless deaths

now go ahead and pull out your favortie nra propaganda on that point

more guns=more senseless deaths is a concept easily appreciated by anyone with a passing understanding of what easy access to guns in human society is really like

Simple

[Slashdot Parent]

There are protected classes that are defined in federal law. So could you be fired for joining the wrong club? Yes, if that club does not imply that you are a protected class member (you could not be fired for joining the National Society of Black Engineers, but you could be fired for joining some other random club).

Could you be fired for publishing a book? Yes.

For worshiping the wrong god? No. Religion is a protected class.

It seems to me that, at a minimum, exercise of those rights protected by the Constitution should not be valid reasons for termination.

This is nonsense. You have freedom of speech, but you can certainly be fired if you walk into work one day and tell your boss that he is a loser, nobody who will never go anywhere in the company nor get anywhere in life and that the company would be better off if he just left and never came back. All of that may be true, but you are definitely now out of a job.

It's not your employer's duty to protect your constitutional rights, and you have no right to employment. Welcome to 'at will' employment.

That would be great

[Slashdot Parent]

That would be great if he was an actual employee, which he was not.

Any more questions?

Re:So...?

[Slashdot Parent]

A police interview is not public record and would never show up on a background check.

An actual arrest is public record, and will sometimes show up.

Regarding landlords, of which I am one, I would never deny an application due to an arrest record. If, on the other hand, he was convicted of some type of violent crime, you're right, he'd be out on his ear.

they didn't care

[sentientbrendan]

if anyone involved cared, they could have had a police officer on campus (my high school always had an on campus officer) and that probably would have cleared up the problem. As near as I could tell, the problem with our school, and most schools that have drug or violence problems on campus (every school has an off campus problem...) is that the administrators don't know or don't care about it. Generally not knowing is an indication of not caring, or just being incompetent, or some mixture thereof.

A lot of problems in our school's exist right now because jobs like principle are really cushy, high paying, and don't have a lot of accountability (the rest of the problems I would lay on the difficulty of hiring competent teachers and firing incompetent ones with current union rules). The sort of job that attracts just the wrong sort of person. Administrators often delegate all of their responsibilities to other staff members and spend most of their time hiding out in their office doing god knows what.

Re:poor choice of topic in workplace conversation

[Speedracer1870]

Touche! How could I have been so insensitive :)