Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Sued After Tech Punches Customer In Face

suraj.sun writes "A Verizon customer filed a lawsuit after the tech the company sent out got a little punchy. Instead of fixing the customer's problem, the tech allegedly hit him in the face. The New York Post says the tech attacked the customer after he asked to see some ID before allowing access to the apartment. From the article, '"You want to know my name? Here's my name," Benjamin snarled, slapping his ID card into Isakson's face, according to Isakson's account of the December 2008 confrontation. "The guy essentially snapped. He cold-cocked me, hit me two or three solid shots to the head while my hands were down," said Isakson, a limo driver. He said the pounding bloodied his face and broke his glasses. But things got uglier, Isakson said, when Benjamin squeezed him around the neck and pressed him up against the wall. "He's prepared to kill me," Isakson said. "That's all I could think of." The customer broke free and ran away. The Verizon tech then chased the customer until he was subdued by a neighbor who was an off-duty cop.'"

493 comments

  1. Dude by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    You got beat up by an IT guy. Either he is a paraplegic, elderly or both.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Dude by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      Calling Verizon techs IT guys is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's like calling a Comcast tech a "network engineer."

    2. Re:Dude by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's better then most of the names we want to call them.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for Best Buy and the so called "geek squad". At least the guy got it in the face verses being taped showering

    4. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding that would be like calling Geeks Mobile Competent sysadmins. Not to mention Im an IT guy and I have put plenty of foot to arse. Im not your average techy looking guy. But Im not going to beat up my customers either even if they ask for ID or even if there A holes. I'll just deal with it and fix there issue after all thats my job.

    5. Re:Dude by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. Ive seen some really dumb thugs doing this kind of work. To say they lacked customer service skills is something of an understatement.

      Recently, we upgraded my dad's directv service to HDTV and the guy they sent over was somewhat rude, but I didnt care as log as he got the job done. Turns out the job was harder than he thought so he said he was going to his van, left the dish in the snow, and never came back. Yep, he just said "fuck it" and went home. I doubt he got fired.

      A little while after that I got Dish network at my place and was talking with the installer. I told him Ive put up dishes before at old places. He looked surprised. he said that they have guys with 5 weeks training that cant even up a dish.

      5 WEEKS to mount and point a dish? Wow. These arent the brightest bulbs.

    6. Re:Dude by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, "lefty-loosey, righty-tighty" takes time to master.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    7. Re:Dude by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Our DirecTV guy pointed the dish to full signal strength by eye. He could find the satellite by memory.

    8. Re:Dude by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      As long as they ask politely, I don't see why you'd mind.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    9. Re:Dude by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

      The Verizon guy waved his hand and said "You don't need to see my identification." When the customer responded, "Uhhh, yes, I do." the Verizon guy proceeded to beat the shit out of him.

    10. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that hard if you have the signal meter where you can see or hear it (I got a signal just holding a dish pointing it around) or if you have the dish level/know where south is (they have degree markings).

      Now that I say not that hard, most people couldn't do it.

    11. Re:Dude by fataugie · · Score: 1

      too much caffine that morning?

      --

      WTF? Over?

    12. Re:Dude by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

      Oh, the stories I could tell...

      (I used to work in the "Damages" department of Dish. Essentially, all of the worst install stories got routed directly through my department.)

    13. Re:Dude by xanadu113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds more like meth to me...

      --
      -Myke
    14. Re:Dude by Taelron · · Score: 1

      I was at a job yesterday where the client had replaced their DSL service and the tech that AT&T sent out couldn't figure out how to get the new modem to work with the firewall they have in place. So a second tech came out and together they unplugged the Untrusted port and plugged it into one of the trusted ports basically just using the firewall as a hub. But nothing worked again because now the DSL modem and the Firewall were both fighting over assigning DHCP. The fix? They asked the client for the login information for the firewall, logged in and DELETED the DHCP service settings for both the trusted and WiFi networks. I get a call the client can get to the internet but none of her printers or network drives work anymore. I see what the AT&T techs did, undo the damage, move the untrusted line back to the right port and plugged back in the NAS device. Once I got the clients back on the right IP's suddenly they could print and access their network drives again. AT&T just walked out once they saw the internet up, even though they broke everything else.

    15. Re:Dude by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose you'd be willing to share...? I could use some entertainment today.

    16. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, it was Chuck Norris, disguised as your DirecTV guy...and the satellite MOVED to where the dish was pointing.
      Yeah, he's cool like that.

    17. Re:Dude by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not that hard if you have the signal meter where you can see or hear it.

      Exactly. We had a roofing company install the mount {for liability purporses} but I handled signal acquisition. Job took longer than I thought, though, 'cause the client wanted to be right there on the roof while I was doin' it. I'd get full sig, we'd step back, and the strength would drop right back off.

      Turns out that the client was heavy enough to bow the roof. With just 130lbs of me up there, it took less than 5 minutes.

      Anyone who can't use a compass and signal meter shouldn't be allowed to install an air filter, let alone a satellite dish.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    18. Re:Dude by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our DirecTV guy pointed the dish to full signal strength by eye.

      That's what you think.

      Pointing a dish by eye where you start picking up the signal is not too hard if you do it often. Even an amateur only needs a compass, a level and the software which calculates the elevation and bearing for your approximate position.

      Centering the dish with no tools to evaluate signal strength and no reference landmarks except the position of the sun? Buddy, you got taken by a lazy joker who figured out that you can't tell the difference.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    19. Re:Dude by jbuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've never used a compass and signal meter to install an air filter... Then again, I'm a bit of a cowboy when it comes to air filters. Like to shoot from the hip. Ya know.

      --
      -whoa, I'm jones'ing for a sig right about now...
    20. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know who that other guy is, but here's a few... *wink*

      *cracks nuckles*

      First, the common mistakes:

      You've got the classic case of fall/winter installations, where the tech doesn't take into account the fact that the dish they just installed is pointing through the branches of a (currently) leafless tree. Come spring, the customer calls in with no signal, and claims damage for holes in their wall, where they should not have been.

      Technicians also seem to be fond of drilling holes into carpet, without cutting it first. This is especially fun with Berber, when the entire carpet is one long, braided strand. Yeah for whole-room carpet replacement!

      Techs also don't always seem to check for a good line of sight when they should. I had many, many claims where a tech tried mounting the dish in 3, 4, 5, or more spots on a roof, without finding a good signal. That wouldn't be a problem, if they didn't drill holes each time...

      Ok, some exceptional stories:

      Technician finished a job, no problems, got in the van to leave, and backed through the customers fence.

      Technician, weighing ~285lbs, stood on top of customer's washing machine while running cable. Dented the lid badly enough that it wouldn't open.

      Technician, doing an installation at an apartment complex, removed 5 DirecTV dishes from the roof. Apparently he didn't realize that Dish's new customer wasn't the only person living there...

      Technician, when grounding the system he had just installed, soldered the wire directly to the hot water pipe leading to a shower. It took the customer a month to figure out why they were feeling mild electric shocks when showering.

      (And, just to prove customers can be bad, too, this one actually turned out to be the customer's fault...) A customer called in, extremely irate. He claimed that the tech, while installing a box in the master bedroom, went through his wife's underwear drawer, and then urinated in the bedroom. Of course, a claim was opened, the tech almost instantly lost his job, and it seemed that was that.
      Well, doing due diligence, the facts of the situation came out. It turns out that the customer hadn't moved necessary furniture away from the walls, as is requested. So the tech, needing access to a coax outlet behind a dresser, opened the top drawer, in order to use the inside of the lid as a handle to pull the furniture out. Right then, the customer came in, assumed the tech was after panties, and pushed the tech into the corner, holding him by the neck and yelling. The tech, terrified, peed his pants.


      I really should have blogged these when I still had that job, but I was worried about getting fired.

    21. Re:Dude by ooomphlaa · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like meth to me...

      +1 Considering some of the "techs" Verizon and Comcast have sent out to my locations this is most likely the case.

      --
      "I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me." --Hunter S. Thompson
    22. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most installer companies hire felons for the tax credits:

      http://www.hirenetwork.org/state_tax_credits.htm

      So next time you meet an installer that looks and acts like a thug, chances are they are one. /And it's harder than hell to fire them, unless they break parole.

    23. Re:Dude by gmack · · Score: 1

      I had an isp tech show up at a customers office, cut a phone extension and patch (electrical tape) cat5 cables onto the cat3 while ignoring the cat5 cable that I had left there. I don't think it even worked before he left.

      Doing unspeakable things to existing firewalls is standard industry practice. The tech is only required to make sure your internet connection works and everything else is the customer's problem.

    24. Re:Dude by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Anyone who can't use a compass and signal meter shouldn't be allowed to install an air filter

      I say we kickstart evolution again. Anyone found that dumb should be done the old fashioned British way! OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    25. Re:Dude by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      You'd probably be amazed at people who can sail with sextant navigation skills also. (I certainly am, and I feel safer with them than with GPS.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    26. Re:Dude by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I've seen them put holes in artisan masonry and other irreplaceable materials.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    27. Re:Dude by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      I'm curious: why would a tech need to drill into carpet?

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    28. Re:Dude by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      Yep, he just said "fuck it" and went home. I doubt he got fired.

      You should have called and cancelled the service, citing that specific reason. If enough people did that, maybe incompetence would actually get them fired.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    29. Re:Dude by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      ROFL.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    30. Re:Dude by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      I rate this funny and informational because your statement is a fact. They are more or less glorified cellphone in-house customer service reps.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    31. Re:Dude by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's how they work, they work to the letter of their contract. Their contract is to get you "on the internet". Whether that requires trashing your network or killing your firstborn, doesn't matter, after all they're not responsible for the collateral damage.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which side is left again?

    33. Re:Dude by HellProphet · · Score: 1

      Yeah it is so obvious now that DirecTV is so superior over cable tv. What a joke, having a dish for signal is absolute crap. I will take a physical line any day of the week.

    34. Re:Dude by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

      Sometimes people want the line to go straight through the floor, instead of through a wall jack. Doesn't make any sense to me, but it's one of those "customer is always right" sort of things.

    35. Re:Dude by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I had DirecTV for 7 years, the only times it went out were when the power went out (hardly their fault), and occasionally about 4 minutes before a really nasty storm would hit (nice to have the warning). Meanwhile, there were Comcast technicians out about once a week to fix the rats nest of cables actually sticking out of their relay (junction, whatever, not sure of the technical term) box. The only reason we (hesitantly) switched away was that FIOS was available. Probably the only reason I don't see Comcast trucks in my neighborhood very often is that most people have switched to FIOS. I should note that the Verizon techs who came to install it were (surprisingly) polite and competent, although I didn't ask to see their ID's and they may have been imposters...

    36. Re:Dude by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No they are not.

      And that is what you get when you pay a little over minumum wage.

      Comcast techs are dim bulbs as well because of the very low pay.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    37. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just didn't see him do it. He installed the dish on the outside of the house before putting in the receivers inside. He knew the approximate location of the satellite (as long as your mast is plumb, the elevation and azimuth will be almost exactly the same for a geographic region) and mounted it. He then used a device that powers the LNB (the white capped thing on the end of the arm on your dish) and reads the signal strength coming off of it. Some are more advanced and will actually show you the satellite ID, S/N ratio, etc. He then tweaked the dish for the strongest signal, then proceeded to run the indoor cabling and install your receivers. All you saw was he mounted the dish, hooked the receivers up, and they already were at "perfect" signal. Most people that have never worked as an installer don't realize that you don't have to use the receivers to peak and verify the signal. Those are only there now for people who move their dishes themselves and/or for diagnostic purposes so the customer can see the signal when calling for support.

  2. He's doin it wrong? by iamhigh · · Score: 0, Troll

    But things got uglier, Isakson said, when Benjamin squeezed him around the neck and pressed him up against the wall.

    I thought that was the nice way to treat customers?

    --
    No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    1. Re:He's doin it wrong? by BigJClark · · Score: 1

      He's living the dream, punching a customer.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    2. Re:He's doin it wrong? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And I thought that was how AT&T (formerly SBC) handled customers, not Verizon. They literally had to buy a new name just to hide the fact that they were jerks.

  3. So.... by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you !(*^&%$%^$#-ing hear me NOW????

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:So.... by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      It's probably hard to hear much of anything when your ears are bleeding.

    2. Re:So.... by syntotic · · Score: 1, Redundant

      WHo is in the picture? The tech or the allegdely attacked customer? Are you sure the customer was in his own house? What s the underlying moral of this story?

    3. Re:So.... by netruner · · Score: 5, Funny

      The previous post was brought to you by AT&T
      - Our service may suck, but our techs won't beat you up.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    4. Re:So.... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you !(*^&%$%^$#-ing hear me NOW????

      When reading this, did anybody else have the voice of Samuel L. Jackson going through their heads?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    5. Re:So.... by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      The underlying moral of the story is that if the guy on the other side of the peephole looks meaner than one of Michael Vick's dogs, ask for ID before opening it.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:So.... by twidarkling · · Score: 3, Funny

      I do NOW, so thanks for that.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    7. Re:So.... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "WHo is in the picture? The tech or the allegdely attacked customer?"

      That's what I was wondering. I'm looking at that photo thinking "why is that photo there? He can't be the tech, he looks mean as hell, like he just got out on parole, is that the customer?" Then I click to read the article and sure enough, that photo is the technician. If he showed up and said "I'm a Verizon Technician" I think I would have asked for ID too.

      "Benjamin was arrested and charged with assault"

      That's good. But FTFA....

      "But prosecutors offered to dismiss the case if Benjamin agreed to stay out of trouble for six months -- despite assuring Isakson there would be no deal, Isakson alleged. "According to what I was told, there was an error by the DA's staff," Isakson said. "They're giving this guy carte blanche to do this every six months."'

      Employee snaps and starts beating customers and gets a free pass? Wow, that's just wrong. And this is worse:

      "Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime. "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said."

      W....T....F....? "Well he hasn't beat any other customers so we're not going to do anything" Verizon said. Are you frickin' kidding me? Not only did this guy get no jail or even a fine, but he kept his job?

      Hey Verizon, are you hiring? Cuz apparently I have to kill at least 2 or more customers before I'd be fired.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking Mr. T

    9. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or have the shotgun leveled when you open it.

    10. Re:So.... by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can you !(*^&%$%^$#-ing hear me NOW????

      When reading this, did anybody else have the voice of Samuel L. Jackson going through their heads?

      I sure did! Then I heard him shout "VERIZON MOTHA-FUCKA! DO YOU USE IT?!"

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    11. Re:So.... by Sunshinerat · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a *^&%$%^$#-ing Verizon Tech on the plane!

      --
      Load New Commander (Y/N)?
    12. Re:So.... by 228e2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      This dude is in jean shorts, a green T and holding a glass of water . . . im 99.99999% sure that this is not his Verizon uniform, but they followed this dude home and caught a picture of him checking his mail. He probably looks pissed the hell off because there's 20 cameramen on his lawn for the 5th day in a row.

      But good job jumping to the conclusion the paper wanted you to jump to, all black men are thugs who just finished doing a bid.


      Yea, I cant really defend his actions, but that customer was probably the 15th straight guy who saw a black guy come to his door and ask for ID.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    13. Re:So.... by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 1

      W....T....F....? "Well he hasn't beat any other customers so we're not going to do anything" Verizon said

      This is not as bad as it sounds. Ok ok, just hear me out: IANAL but it appears that given the fact that verizon DIDNT fire him DESPITE his actions would mean an almost certain victory for the victim against Verizon in any civil suit along with hefty punitive damages. It would be even worse if the tech ends up hitting someone else and the second victim sued too.

    14. Re:So.... by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 1

      I think we all have the right to ask anybody for their ID before we let a stranger into our house. I don't doubt that a white, asian or latino tech would also be asked for their ID on numerous occasions. Just because they don't like it and there is a small chance they did it because of their race, does not give them a right to get violent.

    15. Re:So.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But good job jumping to the conclusion the paper wanted you to jump to, all black men are thugs who just finished doing a bid.

      You're an asshole for assuming this is about race. If you look at that picture and the only thing you notice about it is his skin color, then you're far more racist than the GP. Either your first reaction was "black guy! Run!" and you're defending him out of guilt, or you thought "black guy's being oppressed!" and you're defending him against some giant (nonexistent) racist conspiracy.

      Yea, I cant really defend his actions, but that customer was probably the 15th straight guy who saw a black guy come to his door and ask for ID.

      I'd ask for ID if I saw Eminem rolling up on my sidewalk. You're pretty much an idiot if you don't ID everyone who shows up at your door asking to come inside, whether black or white, young or old, rich or poor. That you want to paint this as a race issue says a lot more about you than it does the person you were replying to.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:So.... by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1
      But I thought America was controlled by the Free Market? The Holy Market will surely solve all problems and keep employees in line? Or is this perhaps an early symptom of Obamunism?

      He would be fired in filthy socialist Europe by now....

    17. Re:So.... by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

      verizon DIDNT fire him DESPITE his actions would mean an almost certain victory for the victim against Verizon in any civil suit along with hefty punitive damages

      That would indeed be some most enjoyable schadenfreude.

    18. Re:So.... by fostro1 · · Score: 0

      thats not Verizon's slogan, it's Verizon Wireless's...2 different companies...but...I guess its kinda funny...

    19. Re:So.... by MikeDataLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unions. Need I say more? :-)

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    20. Re:So.... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      That's because he's sitting behind you.

    21. Re:So.... by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime. "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said."

      So, in other words, Verizon thinks that the technician's behavior was ethical.

      Wow.

    22. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well goddamn it, a guy is not convicted of a crime by the legal system, and you expect HIS EMPLOYER TO FIRE HIM?! Guilty until proven innocent?!

    23. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An idiot? Really?

      I let people in without asking for ID. If I'm expecting them to be there, then that's good enough. If I'm not, then I probably don't let them in at all. I see no risk in this. It's not like I'm going to call Comcast and then some criminal claiming to be from Comcast will just happen to show up at my door at the time when the real guy said he would be there.

    24. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you !(*^&%$%^$#-ing hear me NOW????

      When reading this, did anybody else try to parse it as a regular expression?

    25. Re:So.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I let people in without asking for ID. If I'm expecting them to be there, then that's good enough.

      Whatever floats your boat, but you're still an idiot. Yes, the person will be legitimate 99.99% of the time. Given that it takes no time at all to verify ID, though, and that on-site workmen are used to being asked to do so, what valid excuse do you have for falling back to "security through coincidence"?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    26. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bad things could possibly happen by letting a fellow in that can't happen by opening the door to him to ask for ID?

      And it's not like it's hard to make a fake ID. I have no idea whatsoever what an official Verizon badge looks like, so the total cost is about ten minutes in effort and five dollars in printing costs to make a convincing one.

      If you really want to be paranoid, leave the guy outside while you call the company and verify that this is the right person with them. Or just realize that if he wants to do you harm, he's going to shove you inside and start doing that harm the moment you unlock your deadbolt, rather than wait patiently to see if you ask for ID or not.

    27. Re:So.... by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Maybe Conan the Technician can join Verizon.

    28. Re:So.... by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      "I've had it with these motherfucking customers of this motherfucking company!"

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    29. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VERIZON TECH: Just need your autograph and you're good to go.
      CUSTOMER: Where do I sign?
      VERIZON TECH: On the line above where it reads, "Bad Motherfucker."

    30. Re:So.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      He didn't say anything about race just the guy looked "mean as hell"

      I guess you missed this line from the post I was replying to:

      But good job jumping to the conclusion the paper wanted you to jump to, all black men are thugs who just finished doing a bid.

      The article didn't say anything about the man's race. No one even brought it up until posters started whining about it. Go ahead: find one single reply to this story saying that the guy looked scary because he was black and not because he looks like a crackhead.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    31. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can say is that I will never do business with Verizon, and I will suggest that everyone I come into contact with do the same. :/

    32. Re:So.... by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As well as the fact that the company said no one would be coming inside. How hard would it be for a thug to follow a service van, watch him pull up, see the unit # for the NIU he's working on, and then go to that door. KNOCK KNOCK. Let me in I'm with "insert name here". Customer knows tech should be there. Voila, door opened. Distract customer, or send him to another room, grab something valuable, and then make an excuse to go back to the van. You're in and out in about 2 minutes. I'd ID too. Regardless.

    33. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how do you verify that ID is actually legitimate when you ask for it? Or is this just classic Slashdot posturing wherein you talk big but have never actually done this?

    34. Re:So.... by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      speaking of jumping to conclusions, where does the guys race have ANYTHING to do with it, for all you know the homeowner could be black as Denzel Washington and Lauryn Hills love child with a black panther flag on his door.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    35. Re:So.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you defective? What's so hard or tough about asking for ID? My father-in-law retired from working for the gas company, and he said people used to ask for his ID all the time. If they didn't, he'd tell them they ought to next time. You're not accusing the person or anything; you're just asking them to prove that they're who they say they are. Anyone who works on-site has been IDed hundreds of times and won't think a thing of it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    36. Re:So.... by norminator · · Score: 1

      AT&T: A TelCo that won't beat you up and try to kill you!

      *This message brought to you by GOB Bluth

    37. Re:So.... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Actually, the free market means that you hear about this sort of thing and then you never, ever use verizon and laugh at the people who do.

    38. Re:So.... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Like I was saying earlier in another thread, it has become unacceptable to actually punish offenders. It actually tends to be the victim of such incidents that gets in trouble. I've seen cases of delivery/servicemen getting attacked by a group of armed teenagers, and then get fired because they shot and killed (legally!) one of the thugs as it is against company policy to be armed on the job, even with a permit.

      Around here, if a tech like that showed up, demanded to be let in, and then punched me, he would have eaten lead.

      I hate seeing prosecutors dismissing cases like this. All we do is give slaps on the wrist anymore and say "dont do that again... or at least not soon."

    39. Re:So.... by daniel_mcl · · Score: 1

      The point is that, assuming we've got a guy following around Verizon trucks and pretending to be a tech, he's probably gone to the trouble of printing up some random ID card and laminating it. Since you don't even know what a Verizon ID card looks like it wouldn't even take any research on his part -- it'd just be a card with a downloaded Verizon logo on it, a photograph of him, and a fake name, that had been run through a laminating machine.

      --
      I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
    40. Re:So.... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Gotta love zero tolerance policies. They work so well dont they.

    41. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's black.

    42. Re:So.... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "What bad things could possibly happen by letting a fellow in that can't happen by opening the door to him to ask for ID?"

      It adds a layer between the outcomes of my having to use deadly force to defend myself in my home, or not having to. I am highly motivated to avoid that situation unless forced.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    43. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Comcast will just happen to show up at my door at the time when the real guy said he would be there.

      Anyone who shows up at the time the Comcast said they would is clearly not from Comcast. This is basic Bistromathics.

    44. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But good job jumping to the conclusion the paper wanted you to jump to, all black men are thugs who just finished doing a bid.

      No, the point is that if you're black you can get away with it. No sentence, not fired. Poor white guy would not get the same break I guarantee it.

      This is not the same as saying that all black men are thugs. (your words) Anybody can lose it, skin colour is irrelevant. Skin colour is relevant to how law and employers will respond however.

    45. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had it with these motherfucking techs on this motherfucking plane!

    46. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who works on-site has been IDed hundreds of times and won't think a thing of it.

      Did you even read the summary?

    47. Re:So.... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Zero tolerance works great, as long as it's a flexible zero tolerance policy. ...

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    48. Re:So.... by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      The problem you bring up is not just a problem with this scenario, but with a large number of the times we use physical IDs.
      Think about it: Aside from drivers' licenses for his own state, how many forms of ID will a typical person be able to verify as authentic on sight?
      Whether we are talking about a clerk at a store asking for a student ID to give a student discount (how many colleges are there in the world?), a citizen asking to see an investigator's badge (how many people know how to tell whether an investigator's badge is authentic?), or a bouncer asking to see ID at a club (do you really think he knows what all 50 states' drivers' licenses look like?) asking for ID is often relatively insecure way of confirming actual identity. But it is still standard practice and is generally considered basic due diligence. You may think it is a stupid practice, but you can't really fault this guy alone for following it.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    49. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You insult and then tell a story all while completely avoiding my actual question. Nice.

      I'll ask it again: how do you verify the ID that he presents? If you cannot verify the ID then there is clearly no point in asking for it in the first place.

      This time, try to avoid the irrelevant personal insults and rambling stories when you reply.

    50. Re:So.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      W....T....F....? "Well he hasn't beat any other customers so we're not going to do anything" Verizon said. Are you frickin' kidding me? Not only did this guy get no jail or even a fine, but he kept his job?

      Hey, labor is hard to come by. It's not like there are a lot of overqualified people all out looking for whatever jobs they can get.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    51. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ask him to shove the ID through the mail slot, or what? As soon as you open the door, he can get in, whether he has a legitimate ID to show you or not.

    52. Re:So.... by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      You're right about not needing to ask for ID.

      In this case, it's evident that asking for ID was the wrong decision. It assumes that having valid identification makes the tech a safe person (i.e. that Verizon doesn't employee dangerous people), or that Verizon would assume some sort of liability for the actions of criminally violent employees. Other companies might have higher standards, but trusting Verizon for anything is apparently a losing move.

      Instead of trusting a stranger who shows up at your door, don't let anyone in to your house if you have suspicions about them. The customer in question made the mistake of opening his door for someone he already had misgivings about. He would have been much better off ignoring this villain and simply requesting another appointment from Verizon.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    53. Re:So.... by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's a picture of the homeowner in TFA, and he's caucasian. Click on the next button under the photo caption to see him.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    54. Re:So.... by Zen+Hash · · Score: 1

      You just call the company and verify that the tech's visit is legit.

      --
      Here I sit, all broken hearted.
      Came to poop, but only farted.
    55. Re:So.... by nmos · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Comcast but if someone from claiming to be from Cablevision actually showed up at the scheduled time I sure as heck would ask for ID.

    56. Re:So.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It all depends on your definition of zero. Haven't you paid attention in your lecture about fuzzy logic? If zero is really big, it's almost as much as a little bit of one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:So.... by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Hey, as long as you leave it at least 6 months between kills you could go on forever...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    58. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to read meters for a local natural gas utility in my area and its alarming how many people DON'T ask for ID. A good number of homes had a note on the door that read "Gas man, basement door is open, go right in" or something to that effect. Even in the "rough" parts of town. As a meter reader in a city my truck could have been parked several blocks away and people assumed that because I wore a hat with a logo I must be the guy. So apparently anyone with a gas hat, flashlight, and PDA can do whatever they want. Go figure.

    59. Re:So.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      The point is that, assuming we've got a guy following around Verizon trucks and pretending to be a tech, he's probably gone to the trouble of printing up some random ID card and laminating it.

      There are crimes of opportunity all the time. No, checking ID won't stop the determined crook, but it might turn away the guy who saw an easy chance but isn't willing to risk more than a little bit.

      I guess I don't see the downside. It's not perfect protection, obviously, but it can help and there's no cost for doing it. Why not?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    60. Re:So.... by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      >as it is against company policy to be armed on the job, even with a permit.

      That's not legal though. at least not here in Mississippi where I live. Part of our Concealed Carry Law states that it is illegal for an employer to disallow employes to carry firearms as long as they are legally premitted to carry them.

      I've had to use this before when delivering pizza for one of the large national chains. I had an incident where I was forced to draw my sidearm while attempting to deliver the daily deposit to the bank and was almost fired by the big people in the national office until I sent them a nice copy of the law in a letter. I never heard from them again. Meanwhile my manager gave me a raise for not losing the store's money.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    61. Re:So.... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Luckily, we use integers to count people and offenses!

    62. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There most certainly is a cost. It costs you time and effort. These are small costs, but on the other hand it's an extremely small gain. Furthermore it costs in making you, and society in general, more paranoid for no particularly good reason.

      I'm really curious as to how somebody committing a crime of opportunity is going to have the right uniform and other accoutrements of the job to actually look like a real tech. Can't quite figure that one out.

      There are a million "nearly free" security measures that we could take but don't. Do you check under your car for a bomb every time you start it? If not, why not? It does no harm, and it could help, in theory. Do you have all packages delivered to your local post office instead of to the front door? The walk to the post office will probably do you good anyway, and this way you don't have to worry about whether to trust the delivery person by opening the door when he shows up.

      I personally don't see any benefit to asking for ID. If he's a criminal, he'll take me when I open the door to ask for it, or he'll have a fake. It simply doesn't help. I accept that other people disagree with this idea. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is being described as an idiot simply because I have applied my brain to this problem, considered the tradeoffs, and come up with a different answer than you did.

    63. Re:So.... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "The point is that, assuming we've got a guy following around Verizon trucks and pretending to be a tech, he's probably gone to the trouble of printing up some random ID card and laminating it."

      eh, not necessarily. Printing and laminating ID cards takes equipment or money and exposure ("Hi Kinkos can you laminate this fake Verizon badge for me?") something no one wants. It's like breaking into cars, how often do you hear about someone trying a slim jim vs just busting a window? It's very easy to just follow the van, wait for him to do his bit outside and leave, then go to the front door. If they ask for ID, just say "I forgot it at the office, I'll have to come back tomorrow if you really need to see it" and leave.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    64. Re:So.... by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      Right, there is no perfect protection. Security in any realm is just a series of barriers. Yes, I was alluding to the fact that crimes of chance happen and are frequent. Asking for an ID is an easy way to give the thug a humble out such as "oh, I left it in the van." It keeps the honest man honest, sorta like your spin-dial lock at the gym locker. A thug who's gonna just punch you and come in won't likely follow a van, but my point was that it is a simple measure to take. Most people are adverse to conflict, even thugs. The bombers who targeted an East Coast US Army base passed on a nearby US Air Force base for the simple fact they checked IDs and other very simple measures that they (the US thugs, I don't like calling them terrorists because they're not scaring anyone, least of which the US military) could have spent probably a couple hundred $$ and some time to defeat. However, they didn't. Most won't. Same with network security, or admin security for a message board. You add that extra step and most thugs will pass and go to the next door.

  4. Did the tech at least fix the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If not, the customer is going to have to wait another month for a new appointment.

    1. Re:Did the tech at least fix the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the other tech will be out from prison in a month's time.

  5. More to the Story? by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...

    1. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, its possible the guy snapped before and just took his frustration out on this guy. But yeah I feel like a lot is missing.

    2. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...

      You mean like the customer consenting to getting beat up, right? Because everyone knows that kicking someones ass is totally within your rights as a citizen of the USA, don't they?

    3. Re:More to the Story? by tsa · · Score: 1

      I guess the victim first told the Verizon guy how bad his company was, in not too friendly words, and hen asked him for an ID.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:More to the Story? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It honestly really doesn't matter -- unless this Isakson character physically assaulted the tech first, it makes no difference how obnoxious or belligerent he was being -- the tech had no right to assault him (even if he totally deserved it). What seems to have happened here is that a somewhat hot-headed tech who was already having a bad day went out to a house, just trying to do his job, and had some smartass give him all sorts of attitude for no reason and get in the way of him trying to get his job done. I have been in many similar situations before and can certainly see how someone of a violent temperament could snap and hit someone, but it certainly does not make it defensible.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:More to the Story? by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 3, Funny

      [the customer] asked to see some ID before allowing access to the apartment

      I think you are on to something. It seems more likely the alleged assailant has very strong feelings about the right to privacy and is making a statement about how a national ID card would be against the founding principles of this country; and that such a system does nothing ensure the safety of the public at all as the bureaucrats in Washington would have you believe, but in reality only serves to further the government's agenda towards a police state that will only result in violence towards its own citizens.

      Surely, I can't be the only one to have gathered that from the summary?

    6. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...

      There's no excuse for the attack - none. If it were me, that Verizon guy's brains would be on the floor from a .45 and I'd still sue Verizon and the tech's family for producing such an asshole and for the cost of the bullet. No, there wouldn't be any charges filed against me because I feared for my life in my own home.

    7. Re:More to the Story? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Probably because there is, however, no matter what the situation was, even if he belittled the guy's mother, you never have the right to cause physical harm to another human being (unless you are Jack Bauer from 24)

    8. Re:More to the Story? by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The man obviously made an affront to the tech's honor which the tech was obliged to address. It once was these incidences were decided by a brush of a glove across one's cheek and a dawn meeting, grim and immutable. To merely be bloodied about the nose describes a situation where the homeowner got off lightly. How far we've fallen from the civilized world of yore.

      Carry on then. Cheerio.

    9. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are on to something. It seems more likely the alleged assailant has very strong feelings about the right to privacy and is making a statement about how a national ID card would be against the founding principles of this country.

      National ID card? Like.. a passport?

    10. Re:More to the Story? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Having made your post, if you now shoot a Verizon technician it would probably be interpreted as premeditated.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    11. Re:More to the Story? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the key here is that Verizon told the customer that they would be able to fix it without sending a tech out. Then somebody comes out unannounced to fix the problem? He had every right to have his guard up.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    12. Re:More to the Story? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "National ID card? Like.. a passport?"

      No, because you are not required as a citizen of the US to apply for or have a passport.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:More to the Story? by Deanalator · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It could matter plenty. Does it bother you at all how ridiculously one sided this story is? It makes no sense. People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason. Even if it doesn't change the outcome of the sentencing, I am still curious to know what could have provoked that sort of behavior.

    14. Re:More to the Story? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If it's a simple case of criminal assault why is the guy suing Comcast at all?

      If I get beat up by some drunken idiot I don't sue his employer, I bring charges against him and claim criminal compensation for time off work (paid either by him or the state if he can't pay).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:More to the Story? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      You are 100% correct. Its just like the Abner Louima case here in New York City, cops just dont violate people for fun. Not saying that the cops are justified in their actions but some people can only take so much verbal abuse.

      That customer must have been a total piece of shit prick and probably even deserved the beating he took. I have dealt with plenty of snobby, nasty, pricks that deserve to be shot in the head and left to rot in the sun. But you just have to keep your cool, and get the job done as fast as possible to get away from these people.

      I do feel a bit bad for the tech, who knows what type of verbal abuse he had to put up with. I can imagine he has had plenty of it before and that day was his breaking point.

    16. Re:More to the Story? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean like the customer consenting to getting beat up, right?

      It's probably right there in the Verizon contract fine print.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    17. Re:More to the Story? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Disagree. If you have enough stress in your life, having someone be an asshole to you could make you snap and beat the shit out of them.

      In a nutshell, the cause of this guys rage may have absolutely nothing to do with the customer.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    18. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      assault is verbal, battery is physical, and no the tech did not deserve to be "assaulted" by an obnoxious or belligerent client. No, the client is not always right. and yes hitting people is dumb, even if they deserve it.

    19. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pwned.

    20. Re:More to the Story? by alta · · Score: 1

      In most states, if you are on the clock you are functioning as a representative of the company. That puts the company liable for your actions. If your driving a company car and get in a wreck, it usually doesn't even matter if you were on the clock or not.

      Regardless, most prosecutors are going to go after the party with the largest insurance policy.

      The CSR will get criminal prosecution I'm sure. Guilty or not, the civil trial against Verizon can still go on.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    21. Re:More to the Story? by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to disillusion you, but people DO just attack random strangers. It's not a frequent occurrence, but it's not uncommon, either. Ask your local misdemeanor prosecutors.

    22. Re:More to the Story? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, the cause of this guys rage may have absolutely nothing to do with the customer.

      And in another nutshell it could have everything to do with the customer.

    23. Re:More to the Story? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By that logic, shooting anybody in self defense could be considered premeditated. After all, you thought of it in advance and said that if your life was in danger, you would respond with lethal force.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    24. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having made your post, if you now shoot a Verizon technician it would probably be interpreted as premeditated.

      What about Comcast techs? Can he still shoot those?

      Why do I have this vision of Bugs Bunny confounding Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd?

      Bugs: You stay out of this. He doesn't have to shoot you now!
      Daffy: Well, I say he DOES!!! SO SHOOT ME NOW!!!
      Elmer shoots Daffy

    25. Re:More to the Story? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The story is ridiculously one sided, and like I said previously, the guy may have been being a total a-hole and may have TOTALLY deserved to be hit, but unless he struck first, there is no justification for a violent response. Even if Isakson struck first, it sounds that the response was above and beyond what was necessary for self defense. There are also many reasons that this one-sided response could be the whole story -- say this guy just caught his wife cheating on him and was right on the edge before he even got there. This guy could just be a violent sociopath with an assault record a mile long. There is not enough information here to really tell, but it does certainly seem at first glance that the tech was almost certainly in the wrong here, I can envision few scenarios in which is behavior would be acceptable.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    26. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The employer has more money.

    27. Re:More to the Story? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      I guess the victim first told the Verizon guy how bad his company was, in not too friendly words, and hen asked him for an ID.

      The victim could have said his mom wears combat boots and it wouldn't excuse violence.

      You don't subscribe to some sort of thug ethic do you, where brawling is the only honorable recourse and going to the authorities is somehow considered dishonorable? I knew guys like that when I used to work light industrial. They were total tick turds who didn't realize that some people go straight to the authorities under these circumstance to avoid the mayhem that would ensue if they did take it to the next level of violence themselves. There are some hard-core mo-fos out there that wouldn't otherwise draw the line at pugilism. The wisest let the cops handle things before they take justice into their own hands--or other implements.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    28. Re:More to the Story? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      If it's a simple case of criminal assault why is the guy suing Comcast at all?

      If I get beat up by some drunken idiot I don't sue his employer, I bring charges against him and claim criminal compensation for time off work (paid either by him or the state if he can't pay).

      First of all, the company in question is Verizon, not Comcast, but to get more to the root of your issue, this man was acting as a representative to Verizon when he showed up in uniform. Verizon also has a degree of liability in making their best attempt to only hire people that will not punch customers in the face.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    29. Re:More to the Story? by lessthan · · Score: 1

      I know that you are joking, but seriously, did those duels serve a purpose? Do we, as a species, need violence to keep all four wheels on the ground? How many vicious killing sprees are the result of a guy that "just snapped?" Would those crimes have happened if there had been an outlet for all that rage?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    30. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes there would. And if I was on the jury, you would be serving 20 to life.

      Have a nice day. Go back into your compound.

    31. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just asking for id is being a smartass? Depending on what sort of neighborhood you live in, just letting anyone who knocks on your door into the house might not be the smartest move.

    32. Re:More to the Story? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What seems to have happened here is that a somewhat hot-headed tech who was already having a bad day went out to a house, just trying to do his job, and had some smartass give him all sorts of attitude for no reason and get in the way of him trying to get his job done.

      Nope. Much as I've wanted to punch certain customers when I worked tech support, there's no way this is the victim's fault. If I saw that particular crackhead look-a-like sauntering up to my door, I'd also ask to see his ID before letting him in. How much could the victim possibly have egged him on considering the tech hadn't even made it in the front door yet?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    33. Re:More to the Story? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Drugs. And, I mean legit ones. Prednisone will wind me up tighter than a cheap clock, and any little thing can set me off. The first prescription was an interesting experience. I avoid it now as much as possible.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    34. Re:More to the Story? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      If it's a simple case of criminal assault why is the guy suing Comcast at all?

      Because Comcast endangered the customer by sending out an unstable worker. If the story as the customer gives it is true, then I suspect Comcast has been negligent in their employee screening. You probably wouldn't ask your question if Comcast sent a rabid doberman pincer to the man's house--would you? Humans have a tremendous potential to be dangerous so the need is great to be careful with them. Plus, if the company isn't held responsible for the actions of the employees who represent them, it becomes a slippery slope. What is to stop Comcast from employing a team of bruisers that is sent to rough customers who demand good service?

      The best thing is to treat the negligence that Comcast has showed a crime and come down hard on them with tough punitive damages. We take a punitive approach with private citizens so it makes sense to do it with corporations. Both need to exhibit responsibility for their actions, or are companies exempt in your mind?

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    35. Re:More to the Story? by 45mm · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he was making a stand against racial profiling. I mean, who would believe a curious-looking black man could be a tech for Verizon! He was surely there to rob the place. Maybe they both should get to have a beer with Obama next!

    36. Re:More to the Story? by Akita24 · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how "People don't just attack random strangers" correlates with "there is always a reason." The reason is nutcase, the stranger wasn't random, he was the poor sap that was there when the nutcase snapped. No different that the dude going to the mall and shooting random people who just happened to be the unlucky assholes who were there. You should really get out more often and see just how fucked up the real world and real people can be.

    37. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      People don't just attack random strangers

      Some people do, actually, do just that. They're often crazy enough not to be even remotely employable, but I've had situations where I've dealt with people who were on the verge of attacking me with no provocation whatsoever.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    38. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      No, there wouldn't be any charges filed against me because I feared for my life in my own home.

      There would be in Queens.
      As always, know the laws of your local jurisdiction before you go getting all Dirty Harry on some service tech.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    39. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The awesome part is the binding arbitration clause....

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    40. Re:More to the Story? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      If it's a simple case of criminal assault why is the guy suing Comcast at all?

      Because the VZ employee was acting as a company agent, and its VZ responsiblity to ensure they aren't sending violent sociopaths to their customers houses.

      If I get beat up by some drunken idiot I don't sue his employer, I bring charges against him and claim criminal compensation for time off work (paid either by him or the state if he can't pay).

      If the drunken idiot is on the clock, you certainly can sue his employer. Yes, what an employee does in his off time is soley up to him... but this guy was there acting as a company representative.

    41. Re:More to the Story? by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Being a juror doesn't give you the magical ability to reinterpret the law or convince 11 other people that you aren't a clueless dipshit. Shooting someone who threatens you life in your home is easily defensible even in states that have repressive laws regarding the possession of firearms.

    42. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I get the feeling you typed this out on the verge of tears?

    43. Re:More to the Story? by Carik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason.

      You're right. I mean, sometimes the reason is that they were drunk, or they were dumb, or they were having a bad day, or the magic pixies told them to, but there's always a reason.

      Very few of those reasons are ones I would consider valid.

    44. Re:More to the Story? by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      How much could the victim possibly have egged him on considering the tech hadn't even made it in the front door yet?

      Well considering that back when I worked tech support I had plenty of calls that started with what could best be described as "a shitstorm of racial slurs (against white people like myself!), accusations of me and all my coworkers being homosexual and other general nastiness" I can definitely imagine that he managed to get out a whole bunch of undeserved crap. Hell, most of those calls I got weren't people who had been without DSL for weeks or anything like that, it would be people who's DSL had gone out minutes earlier due to the massive thunderstorm in their area and they felt that the best way to deal with the issue was to yell at some random stranger who would otherwise have done his best to help them.

      Hell, I've even had incidents in which I was extremely friendly (and so was the customer) and later on my employer would get a complaint about how I had supposedly blurted out racial slurs and other insults at the customer.

      I have no trouble imagining that this incident was a lot different from how the alleged victim describes it.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    45. Re:More to the Story? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, there wouldn't be any charges filed against me because I feared for my life in my own home.

      There could be, depending on where your home is.

      On the other hand if you were lucky the judge presiding might also be a Verizon customer.

    46. Re:More to the Story? by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      It makes no sense ...

      Where's an Ewok when you need one?

    47. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would those crimes have happened if there had been an outlet for all that rage?

      You mean like boxing, or MMA cagefights, or violent video games?

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    48. Re:More to the Story? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Uh huh....well everyone seems to be missing the obvious reason he went off....he took a long hard look at his career choice and snapped.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    49. Re:More to the Story? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Assuming there was a body left.

      I watched Le Femme Nikkita...

      --

      WTF? Over?

    50. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      I'll see your Femme Nikita and raise you a Delicatessen. :)

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    51. Re:More to the Story? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and verizon going into drooling CYA mode will not help them. If they were smart, they would have fired his ass right away and offered the guy he beat on something. Hell, a year of free service might have been enough. Now, VERIZON is getting a black eye in public, and looking like idiots who condone thuggish behavior by their Techs. Really makes ME want to get their service...

    52. Re:More to the Story? by Limburgher · · Score: 2, Funny

      That explains why I had to choose a login and password for the website, voicemail PIN, and safe word. . .

      --

      You are not the customer.

    53. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Oh Jesus. You are a fucking idiot. Did you just read the last sentence of the article OUT OF CONTEXT? IDIOT, they fixed the problem TWO DAYS LATER, and didn't need to send someone to do it. MOD PARENT -9000, FUCKING IDIOT WHO CAN'T READ.

    54. Re:More to the Story? by pitterpatter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Having made your post, if you now shoot a Verizon technician it would probably be interpreted as premeditated.

      Comcast technicians, of course, remain fair game.

    55. Re:More to the Story? by Darby · · Score: 2, Funny

      First of all, the company in question is Verizon, not Comcast

      This should have been obvious. If it were comcast it would have been the tech who got his ass beaten ;-)

    56. Re:More to the Story? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Did you look at the guy's picture? I'd be just as unwilling to let a white guy into my house who looked like that. Forget race - he looks like a thug.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    57. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the words of Wayne Coyne: "this is really how you die...one minute you're just cooking up someone's order of french fries and the next minute you're laying on the floor and they blow your brains out. There's no music, there's no significance, it's just random."

      Wayne Coyne

    58. Re:More to the Story? by ahodgson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because his sleezebag lawyer figures Verizon has more money than the tech. Duh.

    59. Re:More to the Story? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      I live in Tennessee. This is an unenlightened state, where they think that a homeowner can "defend" himself in his own home, using evil GUNS, of all things. Frankly, I am terrified living here. Who do these thugs think they are, trying to protect themselves from downtrodden Techs who are simply trying to relieve the stress of the job?

    60. Re:More to the Story? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Why do I have this vision of Bugs Bunny confounding Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd?

      Comcast season!
      Verizon season!
      Comcast season!
      Comcast season!

      *bang*

    61. Re:More to the Story? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      As another poster replied, we do have other outlets to release pent up emotion. The best one to defuse a pending explosion (or to contain one perhaps) is exercise -- go for a sprint, hit the heavy bag, jump rope. Something mindless that wears you out. It won't solve what got you to that state in the first place, but most people don't live in a state of impending explosion...some are just quicker to get there because of their circumstances or general attitude.

      Interesting question though -- do cold blooded pistols at dawn really satisfy anything primal? I mean, your heart is likely racing, and there's the nice loud report...but I'm not sure the intention is to release emotion. I think it's to serve a duty. Definitely not the same, and decidedly more barbaric, in some ways, than punching something in the nose because you're angry at the situation.

    62. Re:More to the Story? by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, the cops don't do ANYTHING, even when they know who did it. Sandpoint, ID cops have looked the other way while meth addicts have broken into cars, stolen the stereo and speakers, and left oil foot prints leading up to their front door. Must have just been easier to not deal with the paperwork. Nothing more to see here, move along.

      --
      -Myke
    63. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll?? You mods are on fucking crack again.

      Verbal assault is verbal, it's often called "terroristic threats" or "harassment."

      Plain old assault is physical - it's separate from battery in that you need not hit the person to assault them, all you have to do is TRY to hit them.

      You can be charged with assault even if you did not batter the victim.

    64. Re:More to the Story? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The customer was told that the tech wouldn't need to come in at all. Given the occasional news stories of people robbed or assaulted by someone posing as an employee of the cable service, gas, or power company, it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical and want to see identification.

      Considering how long it can take to get another appointment, the best revenge is to just note that you were denied access and leave with the problem still there. Laugh as you imagine them trying to get another appointment sometime in this decade. If you're typically very polite with customers and rated highly, you might even get away with noting that the customer said "just disconnect the damned thing" and then cut the cable.

    65. Re:More to the Story? by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being a juror doesn't give you the magical ability to reinterpret the law

      Actually it does much more than that. It allows you to decide whether or not the law is any good and whether you should let the person go regardless of whether or not you're convinced they broke the letter of the law, because you disagree with the law.

      It's known as jury nullification and is the single most important reason we even have trial by jury.

      That said, apart from that mistake, I don't disagree with your position.

    66. Re:More to the Story? by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      If they were smart, they would have fired his ass right away and offered the guy he beat on something. Hell, a year of free service might have been enough. Now, VERIZON is getting a black eye in public, and looking like idiots who condone thuggish behavior by their Techs. Really makes ME want to get their service...

      Maybe they were afraid he'd punch THEM in the face too?

      --
      -Myke
    67. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The effectiveness of guns, like that of any means of self-defense, is highly situationally specific. I guarantee you this guy had a self-defense tool that's that's part of every New York apartment -- the chain lock -- that, if used, could've prevented this from happening, just as surely as a gun could've. But few people use chain locks before opening their doors. Just the same, your gun would've done you no good if it were in the bedroom closet while the guy was wailing on you. Unless you were hoping to escape from him, then run to your bedroom, get the gun, load it, and manage to shoot the guy before he's on top of you again.

      Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings? Really? Do you leave your gun with bullets in it, lying around where your toddler can grab it readily? Of course you don't, but then there goes its self-defense effectiveness.
      And if you wear your gun when you answer the door, and the guy on the other side means you harm, you'd better hope you can get the shot off before he's on you, because when he sees that gun he is not going to back down while you're conscious enough to shoot him in the back.

      I don't think guns are evil. I believe everyone should know how to shoot and how to handle a firearm, and I absolutely would want a gun in an obviously threatening situation where the firearm is ready and the violence is foreseeable (say, a riot down the street, or a war zone). I just understand that guns are far less effective in realistic self-defense situations than hoplomaniacs believe.

      If anything would've kept the victim safer, it'd be having a big dog. Doesn't have to be a particularly vicious breed, just faithful and over fifty pounds. I can only chuckle at what would've happened if this goon had tried to pull a stunt like this near my stepmother's Lab.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    68. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh crap - it's the Verizon tech guy...

    69. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "assault is verbal, battery is physical"

      So you claim that assault rifles just shout very loudly and that this technician should be, ehm, charged with battery?

    70. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

      My feelings regarding guns are similar to yours, but the chest-pounding, dick-waving idiots who like to pretend that they're Rambo really, really piss me off.

    71. Re:More to the Story? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      This is not 'acceptable' by any stretch of the imagination. 'Forgivable', maybe. But that's absolutely as far as I'd go.

    72. Re:More to the Story? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, understood.

      Do you have trouble imagining that the tech's response was inappropriate?

      I teach my sons: "Fight words with words, and action with action."

    73. Re:More to the Story? by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Do you have trouble imagining that the customer may have shoved the tech or otherwise behaved (physically) in a threatening manner that to any sane person would indicate that the customer was about to attack the tech?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    74. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catching his wife cheating on him in NYC normally ends in a case of lead overdose. This is likely how it started. The customer must have called up several times regarding what time the tech was going to be on site which pissed off the tech. Once the tech showed up thinking that the customer would be ecstatic that he was on site, the customer gave the tech the look and said "You don't look like a Verizon tech". Once the customer asked the tech for ID, the tech felt racially profiled. Since he's accustomed to being racially profiled by the NYPD and realized the customer was not the boys in blue he snapped. The rest is history.

    75. Re:More to the Story? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do. Look at the guy. Look at the description of the events. Allegedly, the victim of the assault was being suspicious.

    76. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's possible the tech just snapped and went apeshit on the guy (after all, there are violent headcases out there...), why do I get the feeling that there's a whole lot more to the story than we're getting from the victim?...

      There's no excuse for the attack - none. If it were me, that Verizon guy's brains would be on the floor from a .45 and I'd still sue Verizon and the tech's family for producing such an asshole and for the cost of the bullet. No, there wouldn't be any charges filed against me because I feared for my life in my own home.

      You answer the door with a loaded .45?

      Anonymous Coward indeed...

    77. Re:More to the Story? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true.

      Self defense does not require you to be struck first. It merely requires a credible, immediate threat to your well being, and your response must be appropriate.

      If somebody is in your face and threatens to hit you, you can prevent that from happening by hitting first, if you think it is really going to happen.
      If somebody points a gun at you, ya, you can shoot first.

      If somebody online says they're going to come to your house and shoot you, you have to call the cops and give them the chance to ignore you first.

      However, the story mentions the tech chasing the customer. Even if the customer started the situation with physical threats and the tech was actually 'forced' to defend himself, he lost his self defense argument the second he decided to not run away at the first opportunity.

      IANAL though, so if you try to bring up this comment in your own self defense trial, I'm just going to laugh at you.

    78. Re:More to the Story? by matria · · Score: 1

      According to TFA Verizon told the guy that it wouldn't be necessary for a tech to come into his house. So he wasn't expecting anybody.

      "Robert Benjamin pounded Aubrey Isakson, 37, after the suspicious customer -- told earlier that the repair wouldn't require access to his Sunnyside apartment -- demanded ID and wouldn't let him inside..."

    79. Re:More to the Story? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      but the chest-pounding, dick-waving idiots who like to pretend that they're Rambo really, really piss me off.

      Naw, pity's more appropriate. They have to behave that way to compensate fro minuscule appendages.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    80. Re:More to the Story? by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      All I see in the description is Isakson's description of what happened along with pictures of pictures of Benjamin and him, both of which could have been picked deliberately to fit with the angle the paper was going for ("this poor guy was VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED by the cable guy!"), it's quite possible that Benjamin looks a lot more respectable when he's at work and that his side of the story includes "he called me a crackhead" and "...and then he shoved me", we've only heard one side of the story.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    81. Re:More to the Story? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      my ex took prednisone.. dosing up wasnt so bad but comming off that stuff... holy hell. seriously, thats probably half the reason we're divorced. that steroid turned her into mess, laughing one second, 10 seconds later bawling, 10 seconds later ready to punch somebody in the face. if your married i seriously recommend discussing the mental state those things will put you in when you change dosage. i see that you avoid it but just as a fair warning.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    82. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Property defense, perhaps; but part of living in a first-world country is that we accept that property defense is rightfully the jurisdiction of the law and its enforcers.

      See Texas, Florida, and 'Castle Laws' for the reasons you are wrong.

    83. Re:More to the Story? by hasbeard · · Score: 1

      Could you please publish your real name? If you get sent to my home, I want to make sure I don't say anything wrong.

    84. Re:More to the Story? by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      Most people don't participate in combat sports, so they don't prove anything. As for video games, they're far less of an outlet than any contact sport can be, combat or otherwise.

    85. Re:More to the Story? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm relatively certain that there's more to the story than we've been told. Most of what we were told appears to be unwitnessed actions reported by the victim. Even if he reported exactly what he remembers experiencing, it's guaranteed not to be what the accused experienced. And since many of the actions were unwitnessed, we don't know what happened where the stories differ. And we haven't even been TOLD the story reported by the accused.

      So there's definitely more to the story. If may be a bit doubtful that the "more to this story" would excuse the actions observed by a witness.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    86. Re:More to the Story? by lgw · · Score: 1

      I think you have that backwards. If they fire the tech, they implicitly admit wrongdoing by the tech, and are at *greater* risk in this lawsuit.

      By not firing him, they only put themselves at greater risk if there's a future lawsuit, and the new victim finds out about the history. Best approach for the company is to deny all wrongdoing by anyone ever, settle the lawsuit, *then* quietly fire the guy without cause.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    87. Re:More to the Story? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      > going to the mall and shooting random people who just happened to be the unlucky assholes who were there

      Wow, somebody who agrees with my opinion that people who go to malls are assholes.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    88. Re:More to the Story? by pbaer · · Score: 1

      The dog would bark loudly while you got you were attacked. Very few dogs unless they are trained to protect people will protect their master. Most people assume that because a dog is big and tough looking, he will attack an assailant, but this is rarely the case.

      --
      There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
    89. Re:More to the Story? by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      This guy could just be a violent sociopath with an assault record a mile long

      I would think that this would give the customer a pretty good reason to sue verizon. If the guy just snapped out of nowhere, it is a little bit less of verizon's fault (their liability insurance or something should cover the damages) but if they hired a guy to go by himself to customers homes without pulling up his criminal record...its lawyer time!

      --
      Bottles.
    90. Re:More to the Story? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings? Really? Do you leave your gun with bullets in it, lying around where your toddler can grab it readily?

      Barrel lock on my rifle, loaded magazine at all times. If it were a handgun I would suggest a trigger lock but I think firearms should intimidate potential assaliants there by giving them the chance to back off and avoid being shot, so a rifle is my personal choice for home defence. After all do you know how hard it is to get blood out of carpet? And it will always ruin the paint on your walls.

    91. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a toddler, but yes, I do keep a piece next to the door at all times.

      "Get off my lawn" gets taken to a whole new level.

    92. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing. However, do not be so cavalier on the question of consequences after a self-defense incident. Prisons do hold a number of guys who took for granted a "no-bill".

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    93. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Juries respond better if you had a self-defense plan and carried it out. They also respond better to the use of ammunition with names like "Federal Personal Defense Ammunition" as opposed to "Black Talons."

      So many people have a naive belief about what life is like after using force in self-defense. You should talk to someone who has had to do it, if you can get them to discuss it at all.

      You should document your home defense plan. It may very well happen that you need to convince a jury that you considered self-defense to be a last resort, and not something you were eager to do.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    94. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings? Really? "

      I do, sort of. We have a fairly detailed home defense plan. I can get away from you, get you away from me, get access to several weapons (not just a firearm), all quicker than you think, in the dark.

      It's not at all uncommon for me to answer the door with a .38 ready -- not "in hand" unless I'm already suspicious. If I am suspicious, and I'm looking around the house, it's with a very bright one-handed light and either a .38 revolver or a 12 ga. shotgun.
      Do you have a problem with that?

      As for defense outside my home, that's between me and what's in my pocket.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    95. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "It's known as jury nullification and is the single most important reason we even have trial by jury."

      And if you think the laws that allow a self-defense defense to a homicide are subject to jury nullification in some simple way, you haven't studied the subject very seriously.

      The question *will* be addressed, mind you, and probably during voir dire. Good luck!

      This is all assuming a grand jury will move a case like that forward. In order for that to happen in the first place, there would have to be some confounding element. A clear case of self-defense in a home invasion will not get past a Grand Jury.

      Talking about "jury nullification" without even hearing the specifics of a given case is exactly the kind of prejudice that will cause a mistrial.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    96. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "You can be charged with assault even if you did not batter the victim."

      Or if you restrain them against their will, or give them a reasonable apprehension that they are in imminent danger.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    97. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "If somebody points a gun at you, ya, you can shoot first."

      However, in NYC where this story took place, you would *also* be guilty of a felony weapon possession, no matter how strong your self-defense homicide defense may be.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    98. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you actually read the post that you copied from? He made the same point as you but he did it first.

    99. Re:More to the Story? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Because Comcast endangered the customer by sending out an unstable worker

      That worries me a lot. Are you really suggesting that his employer needs to give him continual psychological evaluations? How about regularly subjecting him to high stress situations to see if he will "snap"? Maybe pay someone else to follow him around all day to ensure compliance with company policy on not punching people in the face.

      Perhaps his family should be sued, after all they allowed him to go about freely when they should have insisted he get councilling for his anger issues.

      Your example of a team of "bruisers" is flawed. That would be Verizon setting up a group for the purpose of intimidating their customers. It would be an institutionalised and licensed attack. Clearly, Verizon never had any intention of getting this guy punched in the face. By your logic employees hold a lot of power over their employers too, because they can threaten to do things which will result in the employer being sued for vast sums of money. Well, that actually appears to be the case in this instance. In the UK though the fault clearly lies with the alleged criminal.

      There was a case in the news of a woman working at a nursery making indecent photos of the children there. She had passed all the Criminal Records Bureau checks, had no prior convictions, was qualified for the post etc. It's hard to see what more the nursery could have done to vet her, except perhaps paying for an extensive psychological profile which would basically mean almost no-one gets to work with kids due to it costing thousands of pounds and a very long time to check them out. It's actually pretty bad already, for example there is a massive shortage of Scout Masters because of the checks required and the stigma of wanting to work with children.

      The response to this has been to argue for more CCTV, more surveillance and spying. Is this really the world you want to live in?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    100. Re:More to the Story? by floop · · Score: 1

      Well there's Incitement to Violence which can be a valid legal defense for assault and can be a crime in itself depending on the circumstances.

    101. Re:More to the Story? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      If the drunken idiot's employer gave him my address and sent him to my house, I'd sue them.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    102. Re:More to the Story? by hey! · · Score: 1

      The behavior is highly breed specific. Some breeds are so defensive of their owners they'll automatically stand between them and any strangers. Small terriers whose ancestors were bred for courage can do amazing things. There was a case a couple years ago in Australia where an elderly Jack Russel terrier drove off a pair of pit bulls who attacked some children it had been playing with (the little terrier died as a result).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    103. Re:More to the Story? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      I see, so you can judge a book by its cover.

      Some of the nicest and funniest people I have met looked just as bad or worse than this guy.

    104. Re:More to the Story? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason.

      Objection! Assuming rationality not in evidence!

    105. Re:More to the Story? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      This is curious in the fact that every Verizon employee I've come in contact with has seemed like a psycho....

    106. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Unloaded guns are almost useless.
      2. Violence is rarely foreseeable.

      I could go much further especially about concealed carry, kids etc, but won't.

    107. Re:More to the Story? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Some of the nicest and funniest people I have met looked just as bad or worse than this guy.

      And they would have happily supplied ID. Asking for ID never hurts... unless you're dealing with a psycho who's supposed to be there.

    108. Re:More to the Story? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      I could not agree more however, the neatly dresses clean shaven guy at the door is just as likely as a
      guy that looks like the typical stereotype thug.

      So yeas ask for ID but not just on the basis of looks or dress.

      That was my point.

    109. Re:More to the Story? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see, so you can judge a book by its cover.

      Yes. Several million years of evolution have wired our brains to avoid people who look violently insane.

      Some of the nicest and funniest people I have met looked just as bad or worse than this guy.

      They're otherwise nice but go out of their way to look antisocial? Why would they do that?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    110. Re:More to the Story? by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps they dont care what shallow people think?

      They dont necesarily go out of their way, they just have no dress sense, or dont care about looks.

      When the drummer in my band, who looks fairly "Evil" shaves his goatee, everyone makes fun of him, his wife tells him he loks gormless.

      Still as I said above one should check ID of any unexpected commercial caller at your door, regarless of how they look.

      Strangely, sometimes the guy in the suit and tie is the evil one.

      I have met more assholes wearing suits than I have guys who look as you so cutely put it anti-social who are assholes.

    111. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a problem with that?

      I think it's a little excessive, but my point was: do you really do this every time? This happened in broad daylight, with the attacker being someone in a recognizable official uniform. I guarantee you this guy has a chain-lock on his door, and if he'd used it, the other guy couldn't have hit him without busting out the door frame first. So it's not an inadequate security strategy; it's a lapse in caution, which can happen to anyone. Home defense is like condoms: only effective if you're using it 100% of the time (and not 100% effective even then).

      As for the flashlight, be a little careful with that. If guns are this readily available in your jurisdiction, your intruder knows he'd better shoot first. The beam just shows where to point his. ('course, you probably don't want to shoot a shotgun blind in your darkened living room -- but you're more sure to kill his night vision if you just flip on the lights.) The guy breaking into your house always has this advantage: there's no way anybody he runs into in your house is his confused neighbor, or wife or teenage son having a midnight snack.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    112. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      See Texas, Florida, and 'Castle Laws' for the reasons you are wrong.

      I'm sorry, we appear to disagree about the definition of "first-world country."

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    113. Re:More to the Story? by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      While I agree with most of what you say, I had a few thoughts about the first scenario you described. Suppose this were a home, instead of an apartment. Then assume that he had at least used the chain lock, or better yet while talking though the intercom, he had asked the guy to hold his identification up to the peephole.Lets also hope that the homeowner also has a solid core wood door or a steel door with a wood veneer. Lets also hope that he has a reinforced door frame and a good quality dead bolt.

      Then, suppose the angry guy starts trying to kick open the well built door and door frame. It would most likely buy the homeowner and his entire family, sufficient time to retreat to the master bedroom and open the gun safe and grab the shotgun or a hand gun. In my scenario, lets assume there was an already loaded, double barrel shotgun or a partially loaded pump shotgun in the quick opening gun safe.. The guns in the gun safe, could already be loaded.

      If only a chain lock had been used instead, the family could probably still buy themselves enough time to open the gun safe, if they had a slide bolt on the door to the master bedroom. It would also help if that door were a solid core door that was better framed than the usual flimsy way that most interior and exterior doors are framed.

      I do not have much experience with guns, but that is my thinking on the subject. With a properly designed house and a few well thought plans, I believe that the family members could most likely get to their guns in time, in many scenarios.

      By the way, I don't like the way that most new homes put the children's bedrooms on the opposite end of the house, as the master bedroom. If an intruder were in the middle of the home late at night, the father should not have to walk past the burglars to get to the children's room.

      A slide bolt on the door to the master bedroom, would also reduce the chances of waking up, to suddenly find a gun pointed at the home owner's head.

    114. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dueling's utility was not in providing an outlet for aggression but in replacing the blood feud. Clan or family feuds were a big problem in the 17th century: offend someone of high stature and your families would be gunning for each other for the next sixty years--think Romeo and Juliet. The duel replaced that by allowing one to defend one's honor in a structured manner, and the matter was considered settled once the duel was over.

      What's interesting is that we've made a return to blood feud, only now it's rooted in social groups instead of families.

    115. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >do you really do this every time?

      Anytime I am alone, not expecting someone very specifically, or the least bit apprehensive about going to or through the door.

      I've lived in some areas with seriously high crime, and I've been a victim more than once.

      As for the flashlight, I use it in a "modified Weaver stance", learned from (aborted) police training. Basically, the light and the pistol are treated as a unit.

      Your points are well-taken. My intention for chiming in on this thread was to point out the harsh reality after someone lives out his fantasy of having a dead guy in his living room. It's not something you ever want, and it's going to change your life afterwards. I always encourage people to talk with someone who has been in this predicament. Few will ever mention it, never casually, and some of them you will have to write to in prison to get their story.

      I also realize no crisis ever goes as planned. I keep a clear head, and I'm not a "castle" or a "make my day" type of person (at all). I'm actually quite the leftie.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    116. Re:More to the Story? by iq+in+binary · · Score: 2, Funny

      The effectiveness of guns, like that of any means of self-defense, is highly situationally specific.

      Very true. However, anyone who is conscious about their safety (women in crime-riddled urban areas, perhaps), make sure to keep themselves in situations where their preferred method of self defense is viable.

      Unless you were hoping to escape from him, then run to your bedroom, get the gun, load it, and manage to shoot the guy before he's on top of you again.

      It's called a quicksafe or a slip, I have several. I can retrieve a gun from them in less than 2 seconds. For that matter, I keep my sidearm and "defense gun" (next to the front door, in a disguised quicksafe permanently attached to a small knick-knack table which is in itself permanently attached to the floor) fully loaded and ready to fire. And before you bring up the safety argument, keeping a snake or trigger locked handgun/rifle/shogun in a safe when you would intend on using it for self defense should the need arise is just plain stupid. If someone has defeated the first and second safety mechanisms (your presence, and your SAFE respectively), the third and fourth safety mechanisms are pointless, they already have access to the weapon.

      Or do you load a couple rounds and have your gun in hand every time the doorbell rings?//...// Of course you don't, but then there goes its self-defense effectiveness.

      Or like me, you keep it HOLSTERED (The holster is probably the most important gun safety device in use today). As a CCW holder, I can tell you as someone who usually doesn't undress until bed, I can keep even a full sized M1911A1 (my carry weapon) holstered, concealed, and at that even comfortably, myself at a whopping 175 lb, at 5'10" and a little bit of muscle to me. You have to be willing to wear a cover garment in the summer--in my case a Johnny Max 3-button breasted vest (not a hunting vest, a suit vest, classy yet fashionable given the current punk trend)--but it can be done if you keep your head about you. In my case even trained eyes don't scream "COVER GARMENT!" when I'm about town, they think I'm just another skinny college kid.

      //Really? Do you leave your gun with bullets in it, lying around where your toddler can grab it readily?//

      In all honesty I don't even know what to say to this, I've had the full 9 yards about this discussed with the type of people who were inclined to spit in my face just for voting McCain (and some have), and even they didn't say stupid things like this.

      And if you wear your gun when you answer the door, and the guy on the other side means you harm, you'd better hope you can get the shot off before he's on you, because when he sees that gun he is not going to back down while you're conscious enough to shoot him in the back.

      Unless the attacker is a hired hitman or someone trained to kill (I.E Military, Police, or Mall Ninja) this will not come to fruition. I've only ever made potential attackers aware of my gun, I've never had to draw. Unless you're dealing with multiple attackers or a trained killer, most critters are predators of opportunity and tend to work like electricity, they follow the path of least resistance. They're looking for an easy score, and the SERIOUS probability of death is not something they want to deal with. In the three instances in which I felt threatened enough to reach for my gun, it was the mere sight of blued steel that sparked a spontaneous dust trail as the would be attackers bolted. For your average citizen against your average crook which turns out to be about %90 of potential self defense situations the mere presence of a gun on the would be victim is all it takes to deescalate the situation almost instantly. For those that realize the fact that three instances in a lifetime is pretty high when I can pass for a college student: you're right, that is high. I happen to live in a bad area of town, I also happen to be white and wearing nice clothes (read: not $250 jeans, but nice enough to as

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    117. Re:More to the Story? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Have you fired a gun? Even putting holes in a paper target in a completely non-threatening situation has an emotional effect on me (for the better)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    118. Re:More to the Story? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you have to draw a line somewhere. What if I said he fought like a dairy farmer?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    119. Re:More to the Story? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. People can and do attack random strangers, for no apparent reason.

      For all we know, that Verizon tech could have a similar issue going on, though I doubt it. But you can't assume there was a reason, it is possible there really isn't.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    120. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a technician and having to deal with 'yet another ill-manored customer' sounds pretty valid to me.

    121. Re:More to the Story? by archmedes5 · · Score: 1

      The cops are just as likely to beat the crap out of you and throw you into jail as they are the suspect, more so as you're there and the suspect isn't, especially if you get short with them, they like to call that disorderly conduct.

    122. Re:More to the Story? by Audeo · · Score: 1

      What good is an unloaded gun? Might as well not have one or just get a baseball bat, it is a lot better tool for hitting someone than an unloaded gun.

    123. Re:More to the Story? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They dont necesarily go out of their way, they just have no dress sense, or dont care about looks.

      Wait, you thought I was talking about his clothing? That might explain the disconnect. I've had preppy, skater, hippie, and homeless friends over the years and never cared much about what they were wearing. I'm talking about the man's expression and attitude, not anything else.

      BTW, I understand what someone else said about having a bunch of reporters in your driveway making you cranky. Still, that guy was well past the "slightly annoyed" phase and well into the range of what you get when you've been pissed off for about 20 years straight.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    124. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTW. +6 funny.

    125. Re:More to the Story? by eison · · Score: 1

      No, that's not the key.
      Even if Verizon said they were sending a tech out, you still have every right to have your guard up.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    126. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong there, buster. Case currently being tried in Philadelphia has 5 kids who assaulted a guy in the subway. No reason except that they were bored and wanted something to do. The guy died.

    127. Re:More to the Story? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It was medieval cock waving. nothing more.

      Most "royals" were incredibly dis-honorble men and most people knoew it. they did t hat crap to try and show they were honorable.

      Just like the dimwitted morons in gangs that shoot someone for dissin him.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    128. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen him in his uniform? Have you seen him dressed the way he was on the day of the assault? Or are you basing this whole thing from a photo that was taken after the fact by a journo with a story that needed some 'edge'?

      The photo in the article looks like he is at home on his day off - none too amused by the knob with the camera pointed at him. Exactly like I'd look in the same situation, which has absolutely no bearing on how he or I would look during our day jobs.

      And if you think its ok to quickly judge someone based on their looks - do you also think its ok to quickly judge someones reasons for denying you lawful entry to a property? Or would you be insulted if I looked at you, saw a well dressed white guy cowering behind a door and assumed you were judging me based on race? Works both ways mate.

    129. Re:More to the Story? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      in other words the guy needs his ass kicked on a regular basis to deal with that rage?

      Honesty guys like him need to be beaten regularly to teach them about "rage".

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    130. Re:More to the Story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to look up the meaning of premeditated.

    131. Re:More to the Story? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Talking about "jury nullification" without even hearing the specifics of a given case is exactly the kind of prejudice that will cause a mistrial.

      Talking about jury nullification at all as a juror or even indicating that you have heard of the concept will cause an immediate mistrial or at least get you tossed off the jury immediately.

      And if you think the laws that allow a self-defense defense to a homicide are subject to jury nullification in some simple way, you haven't studied the subject very seriously.

      Any law that is involved in a case *that makes it to a jury* is subject to jury nullification. It has nothing to do with the specifics of the law, and it certainly isn't relevant in anything which hasn't reached a jury, so your objections are completely specious.

    132. Re:More to the Story? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Any law that is involved in a case *that makes it to a jury* is subject to jury nullification.

      Yes, but it's not as *simple* as it's made out to be (usually in tax protest and drug legalization circles, and almost never in any other context.)

      Good luck with it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    133. Re:More to the Story? by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Late response on this, but just to say it sounds like we see eye to eye on a lot. Good luck and keep safe.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    134. Re:More to the Story? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's not as *simple* as it's made out to be (usually in tax protest and drug legalization circles, and almost never in any other context.)

      I don't think you actually understand the concept. It is exactly as simple as it is in every case to which it applies. All it takes is one Juror (in the case where a unanimous verdict is required) to decide to vote his conscience instead of voting based on whether or not the law strictly applied to the particular case.

      All you have to do is vote "not guilty" when the evidence and a strict adherence to the judge's instructions demands a verdict of guilty and you have actively engaged in jury nullification. It is that simple.

  6. Finally, a tech living the dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can only look on in envy.

  7. Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I expect the tech assumed racism from being asked for his ID, much like Dr. Gates did in the encounter in Boston.

    1. Re:Racism by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I'd assume it has more to do with the fact he looks like a crackhead.

    2. Re:Racism by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Considering that the tech did not lose his job, or received essentially no punishment from the court system, it seems likely that there is significantly more to this story than what is in the article. This doesn't mean that the tech's actions were justified, merely that the evidence suggests that they were provoked.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same level of thug, I'd say. Harvard Prof. & Verizon tech repairman.

  8. Can you fear me now? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? What's my name, bitch! Say it!

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  9. Sigh by PPH · · Score: 1

    Another customer switches to Comcast.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Sigh by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What are you kidding? Getting the crap beat out of you vs dealing with Comcast? I'll take the beating any day.

      The real pisser is, the guy probably deserved it, but other people at Verizon are going to have to fricking kiss his feet every time he needs something just because one tech lost his temper.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  10. About right. by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    After dealing with Verizon about some fiber issues I can totally say I got it worse than this guy.

  11. Hero by pak9rabid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think his actions speak for 90% of the people that have ever worked a support job.

  12. Customer Service by Farlan · · Score: 1

    It appears that the verizon tech has got a case of the BOFH. -- on a side note, customer service these days leaves a lot to be desired...

    1. Re:Customer Service by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Nah a good BOFH would never leave any evidence behind.

      *Kicks roll of old carpet and bag of lime under desk*

  13. Why does he need ID? by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He shouldn't need to show identification. All Verizon guys walk around with an entourage of hundreds of jumpsuited, smiling techs and assistants. You really can't miss them.

    1. Re:Why does he need ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He shouldn't need to show identification. All Verizon guys walk around with an entourage of hundreds of jumpsuited, smiling techs and assistants. You really can't miss them.

      Yea right, My wife had a PGW worker ( Gas Works) knock on the door saying that he needed to check for a possible leak
      He was wearing PGW garb but when she asked for ID he said it was in the truck and would be right back. He never did come back.
      We called PGW asking and they said that no one was scheduled for our address. ALLWAYS ask for ID before letting someone into your house.

    2. Re:Why does he need ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...hundreds of jumpsuited, smiling techs and assistants.

      I initially read that as: assassins

    3. Re:Why does he need ID? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      The assassins are those two little guys in front to the left of the Verizon guy.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    4. Re:Why does he need ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't think "Whoosh" is enough here....

    5. Re:Why does he need ID? by arcade · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, what do you do when the guy shows you his ID? Let him in? Or do you make a point of always noting down what the ID says, closing and locking the door, figuring out what the company's phone number is, then call them and verify that it is the correct person at your door?

      If not - how do you know whether the ID is fake or not?

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    6. Re:Why does he need ID? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      You don't completely stop people, but you do create yet another hoop to jump through which the less intelligent criminals won't be able to manage.

      It's not 100% foolproof. Then again, if the "PGW worker" really wanted to get in he could probably have thrown a rock through the first floor window, charged in, beat and tied up the wife, and ransacked the place.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Why does he need ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And an ID card proves what? That the guy spent the extra $50 to print off a believable fake id? What do you expect the id to tell you?

    8. Re:Why does he need ID? by stimpleton · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am on a neigborhood watch committee. Police issue guidelines(Protect Your Home) done for our use include a recommendation all Utility type workers are asked for ID to protect against just this situation.

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    9. Re:Why does he need ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you missed the point

    10. Re:Why does he need ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooosh!

      You haven't seen enough commercials, I guess.

      "It's the network."

  14. Was it DSL related? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    You know, like maybe the customer was doubting that DSL was "broadband". (And I don't mean Josie and the Pussycats)

  15. Re:Whats Obama think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the comment under the picture the black guy is the tech

  16. This tech still has a job with Verizon by Caffeinated+Geek · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fact the Verizon tech still has a job is interesting.
    "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.
    The lesson here is if you work for Verizon you get to punch the customers as long as you only do it every now and then.

    1. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to the Communication Workers of America!

    2. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what that makes me think of... bobcats. http://www.xkcd.com/325/

    3. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      Well its a bad situation. The guy should have been fired for committing assault on the customer. More to the point though is this is a cry for money when verizon is not the person who snapped. He should be going after the tech guy for any damages. Reminds me of a story about a guy who got shot during a test drive and tried to sue the dealership for a circumstance that could not have been foreseen.

    4. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Wow, can I get this kind of slack where I work?
      .
      Excuse me, I have to go visit the office of some loud co-workers....

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    5. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Caffeinated+Geek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The bad is that in the American legal system you sue whoever has the money. In this case that is Verizon.
      The good is that maybe Verizon will think twice about keeping a psycho on their payroll. I think Verizon keeping this guy will show a court that they are not even attempting to weed out the bad actors on their payroll.
      I figure the reality is that if this guy snapped once he will again. The next guy (or his relatives) will have a really good case when they sue Verizon. There will be no argument that this was an unforeseen probability.
      I'm of the opinion that once an employee assaults a customer or another employee regardless of the circumstances, outside of self defense, he should be an ex-employee.

    6. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      Verizon is also a bad guy who should be punished though. They hired as their agent this guy who assaults customers, and then they continued to retain him after he assaulted customers. Corporatoins are, and should be, responsible for the actions of their agents.

    7. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by krou · · Score: 1

      "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said, as Benjamin punched him repeatedly in the face.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    8. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The fact the Verizon tech still has a job is interesting.

      "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.

      The lesson here is if you work for Verizon you get to punch the customers as long as you only do it every now and then.

      The employee still has a Job most likely because he is not White !!
      And that's not funny !

    9. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      That was my thought too -- I don't think I've ever worked in a job where you could beat the crap out of the customer and still keep your job, even if the DA dropped the charges. I would think even a loud verbal altercation that prompts the customer to complain would be enough to get a warning at least; but physical violence to the point of the poor bastard needing a doctor -- Verizon are idiots for keeping this guy on their payroll and even worse for defending him. I hope the customer wins the lawsuit.

    10. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well its a bad situation. The guy should have been fired for committing assault on the customer. More to the point though is this is a cry for money when verizon is not the person who snapped. He should be going after the tech guy for any damages.

      Bullshit. Verizon not only didn't do a background check and hired this guy and sent him to the customer's home (when it turns out they didn't need to even send him in the first place); when the guy beats the crap out of the customer they don't apologize -- in fact they call him "blameless" -- and they don't even fire the guy, practically guaranteeing this will happen again.

    11. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So maybe there's more to the story than "tech guy snapped"?

    12. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tool462 · · Score: 1

      While I don't like Verizon's response after the incident--the guy clearly should have lost his job--why should they have done a background check? Is it some job with access to sensitive information? Do Verizon techs carry weapons? Are they responsible for the well being of children or the elderly? I can't see any reason why Verizon should have a general policy of running background checks on their employees.

    13. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because their job sometimes requires them to go into people's houses. Are you an idiot?

    14. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      Did you even RTFA? The victim said verizon should have done a background check. The victim doesnt know if verizon had done so, and if the technician came back with a clean background check. There are some companies that do not fire for one transgression, in this case verizon stated he has done nothing since the incident and since he was not found guilty he was able to keep his job.

      And you want to know why I know this is a lawsuit for money? Because instead of going after the person who assaulted him for damages, he started a lawsuit with the company. If you were out to punish someone for them victimizing you, you dont file suit with the multi-billion dollar company you start with the offender.

    15. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      Most companies do a background check, what the parent poster missed was that the victim doesnt know if a background check was run or the results of it. Depending on the offenses and how long ago they occurred usually means the weight they have on the job.

      What most people dont realize is that the prosecution does not give you a deal like that if you have a history of violence.

      As I said before and I will say again, the victim is not looking for justice, he is looking to get money. Otherwise he would have gone after the other guy and not the multi-billion dollar company.

    16. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      And I agree on that point he should have been fired. IANAL but I would assume that it would put verizon in a bad situation to fire someone for something they were not convicted for doing.

    17. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Verizon are idiots for keeping this guy on their payroll

      No not really... They just don't want to get sued by two different parties at the same time for the same event and loose both cases...

    18. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Carik · · Score: 1

      Verizon not only didn't do a background check and hired this guy and sent him to the customer's home (when it turns out they didn't need to even send him in the first place)...

      We don't know that. Perhaps he has no history of violence or any sort of crime. Perhaps he does and was never caught. They may very well have done a background check and come up with nothing.

      Furthermore, we don't know that he didn't need to be there. We know the INITIAL claim was that the tech wouldn't need to enter the house, but we don't know what he found when he got there.

      That said... you're right that Verizon shouldn't have called the guy blameless, and they should have fired him, and they should have apologized.

    19. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      More to the point though is this is a cry for money when verizon is not the person who snapped. He should be going after the tech guy for any damages.

      Employers, particularly of employees employed in fields where there is a likelihood of friction with members of the public, have a responsibility to assure that their employees do not, among other things, do not harm others in the course of their employment.

      He should be going after the tech guy for any damages.

      Probably, but the tech's responsibility is not (neither, in fact, legally nor, IMO, morally) exclusive of Verizon's.

    20. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      So, if I am a utility company, should I hire a convicted child molester and just got out of jail as a service technician who would have to enter homes with young children? From another perspective, if I am a customer with children who needs a service technician to visit my home should I not care that the service technician is a child molester just released from prison? My answer to both questions is hell no, but to each his own I guess.

    21. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      where in TFA does it address Verizons failure to do a background check? unless by "background check" you mean BLACKground check" for all you know the VZ tech could have had a clean record, sure he looks like he killed his mom, but so what? the plantiffs lawyer says every company has a responsibility to screen employees, This is especially true with Verizon because of the level of interaction with customers. that does not mean Verizon didnt do this, that means hes a shady lawyer trying to make you assume they did not. dont get me wrong, i am NOT on the side of the defendant here, i probably would have stabbed the guy if he came into my house and attacked me. i wouldnt wanna kill him per se, that would be disproportionate, but a good shanking, that would be an effective deterrent and not necessarily be lethal.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    22. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "As a result, we will not take further action"

      They will, if he is convicted of assault and battery.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    23. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's not out to "punish someone" but rather to make sure that Verizon thinks twice before defending a thug who assaults someone in his own home? If their customers' safety isn't enough of a reason for them to act appropriately, perhaps this sort of thing should be much more costly for them.

    24. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, if the guy had a history of violence. Since he was not convicted of any crime, its not really a history.

      Just bcause the technician did not get convicted in a criminal case, does not mean a civil action to claim damages can not be filed. As I said before and I'm saying again, this guy just wants a payday as oppose to justice.

    25. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      Ding! Ding! you just said it with "Maybe he's not out to punish someone", he wants a payday. Just because the guy didnt get convicted, doesnt mean a civil action couldnt be brought against him.

      No where in the article does it state that a background check was not performed, only the victim says that. If the victim wanted to punish his attacker, he wouldnt sue the company.

      The fact that the prosecutor basically let him off, makes me suspicious that he was provoked into attacking the victim.

    26. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by mysidia · · Score: 1

      But according to the article, Verizon did not fire him. It's a good example demonstrating how Verizon condones such behavior, by continuing to employ workers who have demonstrated a history of such behavior, without adequate supervision.

      An example of proper supervision would have been to send two workers instead of 1. With all workers responsible for assisting the customer and reporting any infraction or inappropriate behavior by other workers.

    27. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Verizon can fire based on the customer's complaint without the burden of making a determination whether a court of law would find the employee guilty or not.

      In fact, at times, someone might commit a crime, but there not be strong enough evidence to convict and send to jail; the evidenciary standards for conviction are very high, behind a shadow of a reasonable doubt.

      However, the burden of evidence to shows a person almost certainly committed the crime is much less.

      Verizon has a duty to ensure they don't harm their customers, and part of that includes screening and continuously monitoring employees that interact with customers, especially ones that do so without management on site to monitor them.

      If they had any reasonable cause to believe an employee might pose a danger to a customer, and they did not perform properly to mitigate or warn the customer of the danger, then they may have been guilty of negligence.

    28. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Almost all companies perform some type of background check.

      The extent varies between two extremes on a scale of 1 to 10:

      (1) Just look at their resume [possiby], interview them, [optionally] call a reference are two.

      UP TO

      (10) Pulls credit reports from all major CRAs, pull CheXsystems, Certegy, Acxiom, ChoicePoint, Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Veromi, ZabaSearch, CIA Data, DocuSearch, Integrascan, and others, Extensive search of public records. Company employees scour records, and go in person to public records department of every city you've ever lived in, and look for records. Also look up records of your neighbors, and sets up interviews of your past neighbors to figure out who your other friends are, and other details about you. Sends men in black to all your friends for further interviews; asks all your teachers in grade school, high school, and college professors about you, sends agents to talk to your doctors and get copies of all your medical records. Compiles all information into an employee dossier, to be used for ultimately deciding whether to hire you or not.

      For the vast majority of companies, it's approximately a 5. If they don't perform basic due dilligence and background checks, they are exposing themselves to potential liability, not just their customers suing them, but the possibility of the employee ripping them off, or doing something illegal that causes great damage to the company's reputation, or results in direct financial losses.

    29. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I can think of a few reasons he might not want to go after the guy directly.

      (1) He might not have any money. It's useless to sue a penniless victim, you can't enforce the judgement; it doesn't encourage Verizon to fire him; it doesn't encourage Verizon to weed out employees like him (which they apparently aren't doing, as they didn't fire him).

      (2) Maybe Verizon management had some role in it. For example, perhaps Verizon treated their employee in a way that caused him to be stressed out, the person had a very bad day, his boss was putting a lot of undue pressure on him for one reason or another, treating the employee like crap; the customer asking to see his ID was the last straw.

      (3) Possibly the customer is afraid of retaliation should he sue him directly, the customer might find the frazzled employee knocking on the door a couple days after filing suit, waiting to finish the job...

    30. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the guy feels that verizon isn't entirely blameless in this, and that there isn't any point in suing somebody who likely doesn't have any assets. Would you spend tens of thousands of dollars on a lawyer for a suit that isn't likely to collect a single dime?

      By suing verizon he can probably get a lawyer to take the case on contingency.

      If Verizon has to pay out a few hundred thousand in a settlement to people assaulted by their workers every once in a while, then perhaps they'll give more thought to sending these guys out on their own to enter people's houses without any background checks.

    31. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      You assume too much. You assume based on the word of the victim that no background check was done (which one was done).

      The victim is not out to make an example otherwise he be going after the attacker.

      I bet there is more to the story that is being let on by the victim, since the story contains information from only the victim, but if you want to keep assuming that the victim would never lie, even to get a payday then I have a bridge in new york I'd like to sell you.

    32. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't know the victim at all, so I can only guess at his motives.

      However, if he goes after the attacker he'll just make himself a victim of the judicial process. Most likely his assailant would just put on a minimal pro se defense, and then declare bankruptcy once the trial is over. Suing somebody with no assets is just going to court to make a point, and that is a lot of money spent to just make a point. It isn't like the guy who beat him up would be punished in any way. The only way to punish him would be through a criminal case, and it sounds like thugs beating people up is just the way people live in the eyes of the DA...

    33. Re:This tech still has a job with Verizon by Geminii · · Score: 1
      The lesson here is if you work for Verizon you get to punch the customers as long as you only do it every now and then.

      They hiring?

  17. You don't need... by Dogbertius · · Score: 2, Funny

    Verizon rep: You don't need to see his identification. Bloodied customer: We don't need to see his identification. Verizon rep: These aren't the droids you are looking for. Bloodied customer: These aren't the droids we are looking for. Verizon rep: He can go about his violent business. Bloodied customer: You can go about your business. Verizon rep: Move along. Bloodied customer: Move along. Move along.

  18. a slight over reaction .. :) by viralMeme · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I figure 'Aubrey Isakson' is exaggerating the damage as this did happen in the United States of I'll-Sue-Your-Ass-off-Man !! Like, I worked front-desk in a tourist hostel, who forgot to give a guest his wake-up call. He threatened to sue them for missing his flight, meeting etc. Get the fuck out of my hotel, man !!!

    1. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      That might have been me. No, I won't hit you or otherwise assault you. But if you forget my wakeup call and I miss my flight, it will be YOU paying for my flight and lost time.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's the hotel's fault you can't operate an alarm clock?

    3. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Maybe. Of course, the original article has a photo gallery where they show other pictures, including Aubrey's "after" photo while he was being interviewed. While hardly pouring blood by the gallon with bits falling off him, he had some pretty serious glasses-shaped bruises around his eyes and on his nose, and the caption implied the interview took place sometime after the incident (meaning he had probably been to see a doctor if necessary, and at least washed his face and stopped any bleeding).

      So, unless he had the Verizon tech shove the ID a foot from his face then punched HIMSELF repeatedly, I'd say there's a pretty clear-cut case of assault.

      Oh, that, and the Verizon tech was caught by an off-duty cop nearby. Admittedly a neighbor of Aubrey's, but still, having a cop as a witness never hurts your case.

      Sorry, even if this was exaggerated, even slapping is behavior that is inappropriate for 2-year-olds in Romper Room. If any company ALLOWED A TECH WHO HAD PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED ME TO CONTINUE WORKING for the company, I'd do everything I could to make the incident as public as possible. And I'd certainly sue them for any medical expenses related to the incident.

      I don't know what Aubrey is suing for. Maybe he's gold-digging. But it looks like he has a valid case for at least medical reimbursement and a small punitive amount.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      Too bad the off-duty police officer who had to tackle/subdue the guy to keep him from continuing the attack would beg to differ with you.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    5. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Because it's the hotel's fault you can't operate an alarm clock?

      Because it's the hotel's fault that they advertise a service that make you think you don't need an alarm clock, and then don't deliver.

      Car analogy time: Imagine going to a full service gas station, and telling them which type of gas the car needs. If they fill it up with the wrong type, causing a breakdown, it's not the driver's fault for "not knowing how to fill up their car."

    6. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      haha that reminds me of a movie called Suburban Commando (arguably, the best Hulk Hogan movie ever)

      Troublemaker: Do you have any idea what we are gonna do to you If we find one itty bitty scratch on them?
      Shep Ramsey: Lemme guess. You're gonna pound my face, break every bone in my body, then you're gonna drag my body down a gravel road, and feed my remains to a wart hog. Is that about right? Troubemaker: What are you nuts? This is the '90s. We're gonna sue you.

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    7. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's not. There's no bruise marks on the throat, though.

      He apparently also broke his ankle running down the stairs to get away from this guy.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    8. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, probably not. Wake your own ass up.

    9. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Except that hotels make no guarantees about this particular service so you will lose the lawsuit every time. Much like what happens if your car gets broken into in the hotel parking lot. Most hotels would rather do what they can to appease you though as they'd prefer happy guests over mad guests. I did IT for a company that had 7 hotels. I saw this kind of crap all the time with guests coming up with any excuse in the book to get their room for free or to rack up discounts to get a better room. I know of a guest that put a bunch of food in her garbage in her hotel room room at Mandalay Bay. She waited for it to smell bad, then placed it outside her door and called the front desk to complain about the smell in the hallway so that they would be put her up in The Hotel which has much nicer rooms.

      As I said, this happens all the time. In short, you should rely on yourself to meet your schedule as only you are to blame for missing your flight. Same thing would happen if your cab broke down. They will most likely do their best to get you where you need to go, but if it is beyond their ability to fix and they decide you're not being reasonable they have plenty of solid legal ground. Too many people think you can sue of every little thing that happens and the sad reality is that far too many cases make it to the judge when they are obviously frivolous.

    10. Re:a slight over reaction .. :) by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Right. You get beat up *and* pursued by this guy, in your own home, the assailant has to be subdued by a police officer (where, there *was* one around when you needed one, lucky you!), you have a broken ankle which may heal perfectly and may not... and you're going to just let it go because someone criticizes you for being such a typical American and suing the guy?

      Who are you to say he's exaggerating his damage? Whatever evidence he has, will be a matter of record for a court, which will not rule on his say-so, but on the evidence. The testimony of the police officer who had to use force to stop a crime in progress isn't going to hurt one bit.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  19. And he's still running service! by Tsar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime. "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.

    Wow, they've gotten no complaints from the HUNDREDS of homes they've sent this guy into since "this incident." Makes you feel warm and trusting all over, doesn't it?

    Apparently "zero tolerance" doesn't mean the same thing to Verizon that it does where I work. Do they at least give their service techs "___ Days without Attacking a Customer" buttons?

    1. Re:And he's still running service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime. "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.

      Wow, they've gotten no complaints from the HUNDREDS of homes they've sent this guy into since "this incident." Makes you feel warm and trusting all over, doesn't it?

      Apparently "zero tolerance" doesn't mean the same thing to Verizon that it does where I work. Do they at least give their service techs "___ Days without Attacking a Customer" buttons?

      So, exactly what are you saying? The fact that he has previous acts of violence does weigh in his favor, in that there's no history of violence. Are you claiming that past performance is no indicator? Then you go and say that verizon isn't following a zero tolerance policy, but it seems like they're saying that violence has yet to be proven (there has been no conviction) and Verizon is doing nothing. What would you prefer, that Verizon fire the guy because of an unproven allegation? It seems to me that Verizon is waiting for the court to decide if any wrongdoing has occurred, rather than performing their own investigation; an argument could easily be made that Verizon should do their own investigation (and they probably will, before going to court). What would you have them do differently?

    2. Re:And he's still running service! by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      No, I'd like a suspension pending conclusion of investigation, or assignment to roles that don't necessitate the person be going to individual's homes. Corporate call-outs, or line maintenance, something like that.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    3. Re:And he's still running service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that tells me is that the customer was probably at fault, otherwise the tech would be out of a job. Verizon isn't going to stand up for a tech who goes around randomly punching people. This sounds like one of those cases where the "victim" is either exaggerating or making things up.

    4. Re:And he's still running service! by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Obviously, those HUNDREDS of homes are promptly paying their protection money.
      Chalk it up to a young Queens extortionist who hasn't learned the ropes. Always do it in private, and always make sure the victim knows it will get worse if he goes to the cops.
      Nice of Verizon to give him a second chance, though. They must see a great future in him.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    5. Re:And he's still running service! by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 1

      Verizon gives status updates on all their techs:

      Bill - Godlike
      Chris - Rampage
      Steve - Headshot

      Oh wait, I'm thinking Unreal Tournament...or...am I

    6. Re:And he's still running service! by pluther · · Score: 1

      Of course, an internal investigation on Verizon's part should be pretty simple:

      "Did you hit our customer then chase him down the street?"

      "Well, yeah, but..."

      "You're fired."

      At least, that's how it would go at any place that has an expectation of professionalism on the part of its employees.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    7. Re:And he's still running service! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      ...in that there's no history of violence. Are you claiming that past performance is no indicator?

      Verizon didn't say there was no history of violence. Verizon specifically said that "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless." In other words, this is basically legal weasel-talk for avoiding the subject of his history *before* the day of the incident.

      Also, note they didn't used the word "violence", they used the word "unethical" and "illegal". This particular choice of words is leading me to believe they're probably hiding something else as well (not just the fact that this guy hasn't been convicted in this one incident). PR departments of large corporations don't leave anything to chance. They control their communications regarding pending litigation very carefully. And there must be a reason that they're going off-script.

    8. Re:And he's still running service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime. "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action... and if you have a problem with that, let's take it outside @#$*#!@ where I can beat your &(@#ing @## mother#*&er! " Young said.

    9. Re:And he's still running service! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right - I totally misread the original quote. Thanks for the correction!

  20. I'd much rather read this... by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In "The Armed Citizen" in American Rifleman than on Slashdot.

    1. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Tihstae · · Score: 1

      In "The Armed Citizen" in American Rifleman than on Slashdot.

      This was in Queens (City of New York). The city government has made it quite clear that only felons are allowed to own weapons there. This wouldn't have happened in a state/city where the Second Amendment still exists. And I agree with you completely. This would have made a great article for the Armed Citizen. It is the one section I always read in American Rifleman.

    2. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Splab · · Score: 1

      Interesting how assaults like this continuously fail to happen here in Denmark where guns aren't allowed...

    3. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be rough having such a small penis.

    4. Re:I'd much rather read this... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't have happened in a state/city where the Second Amendment still exists.

      Yes, because both parties would've been armed, so nothing bad could've possibly happened.

    5. Re:I'd much rather read this... by porges · · Score: 1

      Are you sure which of them has the gun in that version?

    6. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't have happened in a state/city where the Second Amendment still exists.

      While I stand by the right of self-defense and the RKBA, unless you're in the habit of answering the door with a drawn gun, it would not have made a difference in this case. And if you are in the habit of answering the door with a drawn gun, it probably makes it hard to get any sort of service personnel to enter your home.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      Denmark is full of Danes. Danish people don't assault anyone over here either.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    8. Re:I'd much rather read this... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Yes, because both parties would've been armed, so nothing bad could've possibly happened.

      Something bad would have happened, but we would never have known that it was about the customer wanting to see id... And Verizon would not have had to decide whether to keep or fire the guy. And the DA would not have needed to come up with a silly excuse to let the guy go. So, a much simpler situation for everybody, indeed.

    9. Re:I'd much rather read this... by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      I'll bet the Verizon guy would've still shot first.

    10. Re:I'd much rather read this... by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      The city government has made it quite clear that only felons are allowed to own weapons there. This wouldn't have happened in a state/city where the Second Amendment still exists.

      Yes it would have. It just would've been the tech with the gun. (Or Verizon would have to pay techs more on account of how many of them end up as bodies on the doorsteps of people with nervous fingers.)

      Honestly, this kind of hoplomania is disconcerting. I believe a person should know how to shoot and I support the right to own guns, but I'm sick of seeing people ascribe magical social effects to widespread gun ownership as though nothing of this sort has ever happened in Houston.

      The real way this would never have happened is if Verizon acted promptly and properly, and fired the guy.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    11. Re:I'd much rather read this... by rainer_d · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It also doesn't happen a lot here in Switzerland, where all the adult male natives have assault riffles and ammunition at home (in case the country gets invaded).
      If the society is shit, banning guns is useless. Just ask the stabbed teenagers in the UK.
      That said, I don't really want to own a weapon (other than my exquisite collection of kitchen knives).
      Most of the problems the western world has (drugs, violence) are only symptoms of the decay of a society that has no direction, no leadership, no common consensus, no purpose other than monetary gains.
      While societies need regulation, laws, the sheer existence of laws (and even strict enforcement) doesn't automatically make those societies safer per-se.
      Politicians want to make us believe the opposite, though.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    12. Re:I'd much rather read this... by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, there are also places with very high rates of gun ownership where assaults like this continuously fail to happen - which hints at the possibility that firearms might not really have anything to do with this...

    13. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Splab · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree, was just pointing out the stupidity of the GP claiming lack of guns was the reason for assaults.

    14. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assaults like this also fail to occur in Japan where guns are not allowed. But interestingly, Japanese-Americans living in America commit violent crimes at about the same rate as Japanese people living in Japan. Maybe there is a genetic factor.

    15. Re:I'd much rather read this... by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      How many crack addicts do you have in Denmark?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    16. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rofl, look at that guy. I'd for sure have my pistol with me if he was knocking on my door, dood looks like he wants to punch you in the grill.

    17. Re:I'd much rather read this... by tristanreid · · Score: 1

      No common consensus is a source of societal decay? Really?

      You remind me of my French friends, who talk endlessly about the superiority of their society. Yeah, it's great if you were born there and have white skin like most of your lily-white population. There is so little social mobility, you basically have to be born at a certain level, with rare exceptions. If you are born without property, you aren't going to get it.

      My country (USA) is only a few hundred years old, but we've already gone through more social upheaval than most of Europe combined, in my personal opinion. You can point your finger at our failures all you want, but the fact that we've got such a heterogeneous population is our greatest strength, and we've earned it with a Civil War, endless struggles and compromises between immigrant populations, and thousands of civil-rights struggles. The moment you have increased immigration, let's see how enlightened you really are. Our 'nuts' on both sides aren't completely wrong, and the fact that we have such disparate opinions being shouted all the time, while it isn't efficient or convenient, that's why we have such great results over the long period. We are a dynamic country. Good luck being stale.

      -t.

    18. Re:I'd much rather read this... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I strongly believe the low incidence of violent crime in places like Denmark and Switzerland have to do with a generally higher intelligence among the populace, and numerous other cultural and societal differences that make those places not at all comparable to, in this case, New York City.

      Certainly, the absence of guns are a factor, but please note, no guns were involved in this incident -- not even with the police officer that was involved!

      I've been to both cities, and I can without any doubt assure you, Copenhagen is not Queens.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    19. Re:I'd much rather read this... by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      I didn't actually think of the USA.

      For most cases, what you accuse France of (lack of social permeability), is also true for the US.

      BTW: Over 20% of Switzerland's inhabitants are foreigners.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    20. Re:I'd much rather read this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It also doesn't happen a lot here in Switzerland"

      "Most of the problems the western world has (drugs, violence) are only symptoms of the decay of a society that has no direction, no leadership, no common consensus, no purpose other than monetary gains."

      Talk about contradiction. Switzerland is the definition of a muted, passive, do nothing, have no direction, neutral, banking country.

      You may not have many of the western problems, but you don't really DO anything of note either.

    21. Re:I'd much rather read this... by tristanreid · · Score: 1

      I don't think Switzerland's 'foreigners' from France or Germany really disprove my point.

      -t.

    22. Re:I'd much rather read this... by tristanreid · · Score: 1

      Ethnic make-up of Switzerland:
      German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%

      -t.

  21. Brings new meaning to the mob of red jumpsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha. I'll never look at a Verizon add the same. All of the sudden, that ever-present mob of red jumpsuits has become a bit more threatening -- of course, it was pretty creepy to begin with.

  22. Think Twice by CodeInspired · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is so damn funny. If we all start punching people in the face when they ask stupid questions, I'm guessing they will start RTFM. I'm off to the gym to start training.

  23. Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Want to know why medical costs are so high? Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits. Sure, it's sad you lost your leg, but you wouldn't have made ten million in ten life times. If the think the doctor made a mistake, settle for something reasonable, don't make the rest of us pay for the mistake. Verizon tech? I don't believe Verizon company policy involves punching customers. Why is Verizon paying for a stupid employee's action? Guess what, your cell phone bill isn't going to go down thanks to this lawsuit. The man who attacked should be being slapped with a suit, the person suing is just after a quick buck.

    This isn't about justice, it's about getting cash. Twits like this cost us hundreds of dollars a year in medical costs, repair bills, etc. Guess what -- your appliance tech gets to pay for insurance for in case a customer sues his pants off. A doctor gets to pay literally tens of thousands for insurance per year. Yeah, this guy got his face smashed, but now the rest of us will be paying for it. So, let me tip my hat and say: I hope your ****ing nose is crooked for the rest of your life, greedy twit.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by Caffeinated+Geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know I might agree with you if Verizon had disciplined the employee but considering they are quoted in the article as saying he still works for them I am going to say maybe this is one of those suites that makes sense. I'd prefer to think any company that is going to send technicians to my house would have a no punching the customer "even if he really deserves it" policy but maybe that's just me. You can have the crazed employees in your house that get to punch the customer for something unreasonable like asking for ID which I would bet if you check Verizon's web site is even a suggested behavior when you have tech come out.

    2. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The company didn't fire him, and the DA declined to press charges. So yeah, he's really pissed off that all he wanted was proof that the guy claiming to be a phone tech really was a phone tech, and he got punched 3 times in the face, strangled, and chased down the stairs. And Verizon is just like "Well he wasn't convinced, we can't punish him, have a nice day sir." Lolsuit is his only option left.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    3. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by bwalling · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's sad you lost your leg, but you wouldn't have made ten million in ten life times. If the think the doctor made a mistake, settle for something reasonable, don't make the rest of us pay for the mistake.

      What's the reasonable amount of money for the loss of a leg? No more walking, running, biking, basketball, soccer, etc. No more running around chasing after your kids in the park. No more being able to easily move the furniture around in your own home.

      I hate the sue happy culture as much as anyone, but this is an example of when you should sue for big bucks.

    4. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Why is Verizon paying for a stupid employee's action?

      Mostly because they haven't fired said stupid employee.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      If you, as an employer, send an employee to a customer's premises, you bear some responsibility for their actions while on site. Not necessarily 100% responsibility, but some responsibility. Most companies for which I've worked carry insurance to cover their backsides should an employee do something inappropriate. Larger companies frequently self-insure. Bottom line is that if you don't have confidence that your employee can comport himself appropriately, don't send him on a customer visit.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    6. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Thread over!

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    7. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company didn't fire him, and the DA declined to press charges.

      I would really like to find out why the DA didn't press charges before I pass judgment on this case. Something doesn't add up in this story.

    8. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Want to know why medical costs are so high? Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits.

      Really? Everything I've read says that it's a very small slice of the problem. For example, Texas passed a law that severely limited malpractice damages a few years back.

      They haven't seen a significant increase in the quality of care or cost control. They have, however, seen a big spike in doctors coming to practice in Texas.

      That's probably a good thing, since Texas has a high obesity rate and fewer doctors per capita than average. But would you want your life in the hands of a doctor who came to your city specifically because it's harder to sue him for malpractice there? I wouldn't.

      [src]

      It sounds to me like you don't think consumers should have any protections at all. If you can't sue a company for a) sending their representative who b) punches you in the face and then c) chokes you and finally d) chases you down a flight of stairs, then the company e) does not fire the representative who chased, choked, and punched you, then what do you think would be worthy of a lawsuit?

      This lawsuit will no doubt add fractions of a penny to your monthly Verizon bill, so I can see why you're indignant about it. But perhaps you'd happily a slightly lower bill for a slight increase in Verizon techs punching you in the face. I wouldn't make that trade, though.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    9. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I can attest to that, personally.
      Lost mine 2 years ago, and it's a bitch.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    10. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      So, let me tip my hat and say: I hope your ****ing nose is crooked for the rest of your life, greedy twit.

      You're kind of an unsympathetic so-and-so, aren't you?

      TFA doesn't even say what the victim is suing for. Or which of the parties he's suing. Kinda hard to say whether it's justified or not. The guy needed medical attention, new glasses, and probably missed some work.

      And then to conflate all this with the high cost of medical care? That's a little bit of a stretch.

      We provide the ability to sue for actual and punitive damages to compensate the wronged party and to discourage bad behavior. If Verizon sends techs to people's homes without any due diligence then they are liable for some punitive damages. Not to make those lucky victims rich, but to make sure they change their ways. The fact that they've still got the guy on the job, suggests that they might be a little lax in the background check department, too. Obviously, the blame for Mr. Benjamin's actions is his own. But if Verizon was willfully ignorant, it is OK to punish them as well.

      It could turn out that Benjamin had a clean background check, good references, no history of violence that anyone could have reasonably discovered. If Verizon did this check and got these results, then I'd agree that they are not at fault. And probably a judge would too. As to keeping the tech on after that -- that doesn't make them look too conscientious.

      Blaming victims for suing as a cause of "high costs" in medicine or anywhere is a pretty lame idea. The costs of criminal conduct (like Benjamin's alleged), and corporate negligence (like apparently Verizon's) are due to the fact that the perpetrators do bad things. It's not because they're punished that we pay, it's because they did it that we all suffer. It wasn't the customer's idea to get hit, nor did he write Verizon's screening policy. Just because justice is more costly than doing nothing doesn't mean it's better to do nothing.

      To say it's too expensive to consumers to make corporate entities behave responsibly is shortsighted and immoral. If you think punitive damages are expensive, consider the alternative of having government agents shadowing every employee with a crimes and ethics handbook -- restraining a phone tech from hitting his customer and rewriting a corporate HR manual to provide for screening. We punish people and businesses because we simply cannot catch every example of bad behavior and prevent it.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    11. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, it's sad you lost your leg, but you wouldn't have made ten million in ten life times

      No one is claiming you would have earned that much.. they are claiming that there are going to be ongoing expenses related to the loss of the leg (crutches, maintenance of artificial leg, installing a wheel chair ramp, etc.) and of course you're quality of life is now diminished because you may not be able to enjoy things you used to be able to, etc. And this is only if the hosipital made a mistake it shouldn't have.

      Verizon tech? I don't believe Verizon company policy involves punching customers. Why is Verizon paying for a stupid employee's action?

      Because it hired a nutjob and sent that nutjob to a customers home? Ya, its their job to NOT hire nutjobs.

      Guess what, your cell phone bill isn't going to go down thanks to this lawsuit.

      No, but hopefully it will cause VZ to be much more careful about the people it sends to my house. BTW, nobody gets a tech sent to their house for a CELL phone. This is either a land line or DSL.

      This isn't about justice, it's about getting cash. Twits like this cost us hundreds of dollars a year in medical costs, repair bills, etc. Guess what -- your appliance tech gets to pay for insurance for in case a customer sues his pants off. A doctor gets to pay literally tens of thousands for insurance per year. Yeah, this guy got his face smashed, but now the rest of us will be paying for it. So, let me tip my hat and say: I hope your ****ing nose is crooked for the rest of your life, greedy twit.

      Ya you know what, if it means VZ is more careful about who they hire, I think that's a good thing and I'm willing to pay the $0.0001 for it.

      The only people whining about suits like this are the scummy doctors and shit companies being held to some kind of standard, and you swallowed their lies hook line and sinker.

    12. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      Companies have no way of knowing if someone is a nutjob. Believe it or not, I don't want to have nutjobs working under me, so when it comes time to hire a new tech, you can bet I won't be hiring any nutjobs. You're acting like the company "wants" to hire nutjobs, or has some policy saying the must hire nutjobs.

      "He should have been fired." Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" How would you like it if some jerk decided to claim you did something you didn't in order to get you fired? One of our collection people where I work was talking to a customer one day, and I heard the customer raising a **** fit. Later that day, when the same customer came in, he claimed that the collection fellow had been cursing him out -- little did he know I was there the whole time listening in.

      If the man is guilty, then sue the employee. Once the employee is now branded a criminal, then sue Verizon if they don't fire said criminal. In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.

      As is, we have someone who was charged, but not convicted. It's tricky ground, but if anyone needs to be held accountable it should be the justice system that dismissed the case. The employer takes a risk if they fire someone over accusations.

      Doctors Insurance:
      http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/OPINION/803130304

      Not to mention, we get huge lawsuits like this all over the place. Sure, it can be spread out, but cases like this hurt all of us. If you think this is honestly a case of a company not caring about risking customer's lives, then there should be a criminal suit. Why money? Why isn't he trying to get people jailed? That's not what he wants, he wants (b$_$)b vacation plans.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    13. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      Yep, they self insure, which costs everyone money. The employer is responsible for properly screening their employees to insure that they do not hire nutjobs. However, it is in no way their fault if they take proper measures, and someone still goes nuts on them. If they do not take proper measures, then they should not be paying out $$$'s, they should be getting prison time. If this "poor victim" was really only out for justice, he should be making criminal charges, not looking for a quick buck. These people are interested in justice, they're interested in early retirement on our shoulders.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    14. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      Oh lol yeah he just got the **** beat out of him and the case was dismissed lol.

      Honestly, put your objective cap on for a moment and think about the situation.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    15. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by ultraexactzz · · Score: 1, Troll

      Lolsuit is his only option left.

      Oh Hai, I can haz settlement now?

      --
      Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
    16. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      Verizon is being sued for not firing a man who was never convicted of a crime. Legally, this man has no proof he was assaulted. There was an accusation, and the DA decided there wasn't enough evidence to charge the man. Now, on top of having been accused (and let off the hook) he should get fired? Shouldn't this be taken up with the DA?

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    17. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by pluther · · Score: 1

      Guess what, your cell phone bill isn't going to go down thanks to this lawsuit.

      Guess what, your cell phone bill isn't going to go up, either.

      A huge loss will eat into the company's profit a bit (but not very much compared to their overall income), but that will only affect you if you own Verizon stock.

      Verizon has already calculated what price level will maximize their profit. Customers expect regular raises in price, so they'll do that, regardless of any other costs.

      They're not going to raise it any more or less because of this guy.

      Nice try trying to bring in the health care debate, though. You have a citation I suppose for your belief that the only reason health care costs so much in this country is because of an epidemic of lawsuits?

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    18. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Want to know why medical costs are so high? Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits.

      Not only is that irrelevant to the case, its not true; regional and temporal differences, in actual malpractice payouts, or in legal limits on malpractice payouts, have no demonstrated link to overall medical costs, nor even to malpractice insurance rates.

      Sure, it's sad you lost your leg, but you wouldn't have made ten million in ten life times.

      If you make the median personal income of persons over 25 in the United States, you'll make $1 million in right about 30 years, which is considerably less than a "lifetime"; of course, lost income isn't the only harm from losing your leg.

      Verizon tech? I don't believe Verizon company policy involves punching customers. Why is Verizon paying for a stupid employee's action?

      Well, for one thing (for reasons which should be obvious) the liability of employers for the actions of employees assigned to work where friction with the public is foreseeable often extends to cover employees' actions when they deal with that friction poorly.

    19. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      this "poor victim" was really only out for justice, he should be making criminal charges

      (1) Only the government can "make criminal charges".
      (2) The government, in this case, decided to let the tech off of criminal charges, as long as he doesn't do anything else wrong (this sounds, superficially, pretty stupid, but remember that law enforcement has a limited budget, criminal trials cost money, and then imprisoning someone if they are convicted costs money; LE has to prioritize.)
      (3) Costing a company money when is the only way to get them to take steps to prevent recurrence. If it doesn't affect their cost of operation, they don't care that it happened.

    20. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "all he wanted was proof that the guy claiming to be a phone tech really was a phone tech, and he got punched 3 times in the face, strangled, and chased down the stairs." ...and all the DA wanted was proof that the Verizon tech was the one who did all that.

    21. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      (1) Only the government can "make criminal charges".

      You can, however, push for criminal charges. We don't "make" criminal charges, we press them.

      (2) The government, in this case, decided to let the tech off of criminal charges, as long as he doesn't do anything else wrong (this sounds, superficially, pretty stupid, but remember that law enforcement has a limited budget, criminal trials cost money, and then imprisoning someone if they are convicted costs money; LE has to prioritize.)

      Then blame the justice system, Verizon should not be punished. Verizon does not have a reason at the moment that would hold up in court. If they fired this man, and he sued, then they'd be in the same boat. Again, like I said in my OP, the DA is what's to blame.

      (3) Costing a company money when is the only way to get them to take steps to prevent recurrence. If it doesn't affect their cost of operation, they don't care that it happened.

      Costing them money is a good way to get investors angry. Throwing them in jail is a good way to get a few officials on the damn ball. The rich fellows sitting at the top aren't even going to feel a bump with this suit, but if they were getting dragged into criminal court?

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    22. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      "The company didn't fire him, and the DA declined to press charges."

      And yet you still think that everything went down just like the "victim" said? There's a lot missing to this story, as people who assault other people for no reason and are supposedly caught in the act by a policeman aren't often just let go.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    23. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      You can, however, push for criminal charges.

      Which the victim here did.

      We don't "make" criminal charges, we press them.

      Under the prosecutorial rules (I don't think this is a matter of law, so much as procedure) in some jurisdictions, the victim (of a crime for which there is a distinct victim) of a misdemeanor must support charges for them to be pursued by the government, which is all "pressing" charges is. It doesn't do you any good when the government chooses not to pursue charges.

      Verizon should not be punished.

      You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But, in fact, employers are, in many cases, legally responsible for acts by their employees (without absolving employees of their responsibility); while normally that does not extend to assaults, an exception to that is when employees are employed in positions where friction with the public is forseeable (the premise being that, where this is forseeable, the employer as an obligation to assure the employees appropriate behavior when that forseeable friction occurs.)

      Simply stating your belief that Verizon shouldn't be held responsible isn't making an argument for that position.

      Verizon does not have a reason at the moment that would hold up in court.

      Verizon doesn't have a reason for what? The words all make sense, and the sentence is grammatically correct, but its completely incoherent.

      If they fired this man, and he sued, then they'd be in the same boat.

      In most jobs, in most jurisdictions, you can be fired for assaulting a customer or a member of the public without being convicted of any crime first. I'd be interested in hearing your argument supporting your assertion that Verizon would be liable for anything if they fired this employee.

      Costing them money is a good way to get investors angry. Throwing them in jail is a good way to get a few officials on the damn ball. The rich fellows sitting at the top aren't even going to feel a bump with this suit, but if they were getting dragged into criminal court?

      Yeah, well, our system of law doesn't generally hold employers criminally liable for the actions of their employees (and certainly generally doesn't generally hold individual officers of a corporation, who are legally distinct from the corporation itself, criminally liable for the actions of the corporation's employees.) However, you are free to lobby for expanding the degree to which employers (and those employers executive employees) are responsible for crimes by employees, although some might find that hard to reconcile that with your earlier argument that employers shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of their employees.

    24. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >>Want to know why medical costs are so high?
      >> Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits.

      >Really?

      It is true, but I know enough medical doctors to be able to temper this notion with more reality than hysteria.

      I didn't get the impression that the GP was a medical doctor or hospital administrator or an accountant who deals with this particular sector.

      A hospital has many more institutional costs than malpractice insurance / litigation, and for a private practice the cost is significant but certainly not the barrier it's made out to be.

      Of course, in a few years I'm going to be the one paying for insurance as my spouse (knock on wood) enters medical practice. Ping me then for an update, yeah?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    25. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      NYC doesn't go all courtroom drama on every simple assault case. Basically the assailant has agreed to plead guilty, and in return, he is getting a deferred adjudication.

      The alternative would have been a straightforward hearing, and maybe a week in jail.

      This type of assault isn't considered all that serious a crime. It might be different if there was a witness or other evidence to show that the assailant intended to kill the victim, and it would be very different if the assailant had used a deadly weapon.

      Otherwise, not so much. This is how they deal with assault cases in New York City, get it?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    26. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If the guy had agreed to plead guilty, then how is it that Verizon states that there is no conviction? A guilty plea is a conviction.

      Or are they just never going to arraign this guy?

    27. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by CompMD · · Score: 1

      "Ya you know what, if it means VZ is more careful about who they hire, I think that's a good thing and I'm willing to pay the $0.0001 for it."

      Wait, do you mean .0001 dollars or .0001 cents?

    28. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A witness??? You mean like the off-duty cop who tackled the guy?

    29. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Companies have no way of knowing if someone is a nutjob. Believe it or not, I don't want to have nutjobs working under me, so when it comes time to hire a new tech, you can bet I won't be hiring any nutjobs. You're acting like the company "wants" to hire nutjobs, or has some policy saying the must hire nutjobs.

      I never said they wanted to hire nutjobs, but their screening is lacking. I hate to break this to you, but nobody that goes off like this his a complaint free record. They do have a way; proper screening, and monitoring the employee after they are hired.

      "He should have been fired." Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" How would you like it if some jerk decided to claim you did something you didn't in order to get you fired? One of our collection people where I work was talking to a customer one day, and I heard the customer raising a **** fit. Later that day, when the same customer came in, he claimed that the collection fellow had been cursing him out -- little did he know I was there the whole time listening in.

      That only applies to criminal cases. VZ can fire him for any reason, or no reason. And its really fucking clear in this case, being the employee was CAUGHT BY AN OFF DUTY COP WHILE CHASING THE CUSTOMER.

      If the man is guilty, then sue the employee. Once the employee is now branded a criminal, then sue Verizon if they don't fire said criminal. In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.

      Nope. VZ failed in their duty to make sure their employees can handle stress, THEY ARE LIABLE. Oh, and the employee would only be a "criminal" if criminal charges are filed.. but for some reason the procescutor is refusing to do so.

      In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.

      Again, did you miss the part where the employee wa CAUGHT BY AN OFF DUTY COP WHILE CHASING THE CUSTOMER?? Christ man, get a fucking grip on reality. You really want me to believe the customer beat his own face just to get some random VZ employee fired? WTF dude, you're not even in the same reality anymore.

      As is, we have someone who was charged, but not convicted. It's tricky ground, but if anyone needs to be held accountable it should be the justice system that dismissed the case. The employer takes a risk if they fire someone over accusations.

      No they don't; employers can fire anyone for any reason, or for no reason. They can fire you for not liking the color of your shirt today.

      Doctors Insurance:
      http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/OPINION/803130304

      Oh... a poor doctor crying he has to pay more for insurance. Whaaa, my $450,000 / yr salary isn't enough, wahhh!! Yup, no conflict of interest there. No sir. After all, why SHOULDN'T he be able to leave a scaple inside a patient, and his only penelty should be "oh, sorry about that!"

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25120613/

      Not to mention, we get huge lawsuits like this all over the place. Sure, it can be spread out, but cases like this hurt all of us. If you think this is honestly a case of a company not caring about risking customer's lives, then there should be a criminal suit. Why money? Why isn't he trying to get people jailed? That's not what he wants, he wants (b$_$)b vacation plans.

      Because you can't put a company in jail? Because he has MEDICAL BILLS which will need to be paid? Why should HIS health insurance pay because of the actions of VZ's employee? Because the victim CAN'T FILE A CRIMINAL SUIT? God damn, d

    30. Re:Yay, lets sue the company he works for! by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      You're so convinced that you want to be right you're making up facts that don't even exist. Get over yourself. Do you know what happens to a store clerk that sells goods to a minor? Right, companies can't be jailed...

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  24. My experience with a tech who wanted in by swb · · Score: 1, Interesting

    (I should have tacked this on to my other post...)

    About 15 years ago I lived in an apartment in a generally good but transient urban area. One day while home from work, I heard a knock at the door, a muffled "maintenance" and someone start to key their way in.

    I yelled "Who is it?" and grabbed my handgun and shoved it in the front of my jeans. The maintenance guy had stopped entering and said "maintenance" again. I grabbed the door and pulled it open and asked what he wanted. He was holding tools and said he needed to do some wiring for a new intercom.

    At this point, he saw my gun and stepped back. I just turned around and walked back to the kitchen and said "Go ahead". He came and must have worked real fast, as he wasn't there more than 5 minutes. I suspect he just faked work and came back later when I was gone.

    It was the last entry by maintenance I had in my apartment.

    1. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by aicrules · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So I guess if you lived in a neighborhood that wasn't generally good you would have just shot 6 rounds through the door in response? Yeesh!

    2. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I should have tacked this on to my other post...)

      About 15 years ago I lived in an apartment in a generally good but transient urban area. One day while home from work, I heard a knock at the door, a muffled "maintenance" and someone start to key their way in.

      I yelled "Who is it?" and grabbed my handgun and shoved it in the front of my jeans. The maintenance guy had stopped entering and said "maintenance" again. I grabbed the door and pulled it open and asked what he wanted. He was holding tools and said he needed to do some wiring for a new intercom.

      At this point, he saw my gun and stepped back. I just turned around and walked back to the kitchen and said "Go ahead". He came and must have worked real fast, as he wasn't there more than 5 minutes. I suspect he just faked work and came back later when I was gone.

      It was the last entry by maintenance I had in my apartment.

      Sounds like you have a smart landlord, he left you to do all the repairs yourself!

    3. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by theelectron · · Score: 1

      Probably not, why would you assume that?

    4. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In your pants? great, that would have done you exactly ZERO (0) good if he was an armed intruder... well, it would ahve got you shot.

      Learn proper security if you are going to use a weapon.

      Otherwise we will read this headline:
      "Man shoots his own balls off, no loss reported."

      Nasd a hand gun in an apartm,ent? christ, how many neighbor were you going to endanger?

      USe the right firearm for the situation.

      Pretty pathetic all around.

      Note: This isn't about having a firearm, it's about you use and choice, both of which was poor.

      I'm all for an armed public.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Because your response to someone knocking on your door IN a generally good neighborhood included visibly displaying your firearm...

    6. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. Assuming the man was up to no good, you are basically telling him that he has two options: to steal from/assault someone else in your apartment, or to return with a gun and train himself so that he can take you by surprise. Either way, the process of "natural selection" in that environment will weed out the criminals who are not armed, so that those who are well practised with firearms will dominate. More people will die. Statistics on fatal injury during crimes in the United States versus other western European countries confirm this.

          You have saved yourself once, but made everything more dangerous for yourself and those around you in the future.

    7. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words you are a paranoid sissy who overreacts and makes non-dangerous situations much more dangerous by introducing a weapon.

      Why exactly are you mentioning this to random people?

    8. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect he just faked work and came back later when I was gone.

      It was the last entry by maintenance I had in my apartment.

      You get to pick one of these.

    9. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Had a similar situation, but as we'd just been burglarized recently, I was a little more worried about who was on the other side of the door.

      The maintenance guy saw our shotgun, but as I wasn't in a fire position, waited while I put it back up. Office management wasn't too thrilled and gave me a call, but one explanation and purchase receipt later, t'was all sympatico. At present, they don't come in 'less one of us is there, though, so it may've helped in that regard.

      {For those who ask what it "helped", be glad you've never had a nosy landlord.}

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    10. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      Meh...strong words coming from an Anonymous Coward.

      I'm assuming it's his legal right to have that firearm where he lives, so why the overreaction about him having a firearm on him? According to the story, he never pulled the gun on the maintenance worker - which would be a different thing entirely. (And at that point, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.)

    11. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you are a gun owner, and therefore obviously evil. Duh.

    12. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooo... I guess your kitchen never got fixed?

      I wouldn't want to work near a guy with a gun in his pants either.

    13. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your logic is this:

      "His response was more escalated than I think was warranted by the situation. Therefore, there are probably no limits to how far he would go in a worse situation."

      In nerd language: It's like you have a graph in your mind. The level of response as a function of situation. R(S) would be the function, something like R = mS + b, if it's a straight line. You have your idea of where that line should be--your own slope and intercept. So you see one data point where his response is above your line, and you extrapolate out, as though his entire line is shifted up by that same amount. But maybe he has a shallower slope.

    14. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is true. If he hadn't specifically mentioned that the neighborhood was generally good, I wouldn't have seen any implied linear or exponential escalation in response. Maybe he loads up every time he opens a door no matter what neighborhood he's in.

    15. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by residieu · · Score: 1

      So what exactly did you prove? If I was your maintenance guy, I would avoid your apartment at all costs from now on. Got a leaky faucet? Well... I'll get around to looking at that... eventually... after you move out. But, I bet showing off your gun made you feel like a big man.

    16. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      Maybe--but I'm pointing out that a single point does not a trend make. It might be that he has a higher intercept, but shallower slope.

      Or it might be that he evaluates "having a gun visible in the front of his pants, in his home" as a lower response than you do--that's easily possible, and even seems likely. It doesn't mean he'd shoot anyone for less reason than you.

    17. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by theelectron · · Score: 1

      It sounded more like it was a response to someone trying to gain entry to his house without invitation, not someone simply knocking on the door. I know I'd not feel comfortable in that situation. Would you?

    18. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by slimshady945 · · Score: 1

      One day while home from work, I heard a knock at the door, a muffled "maintenance" and someone start to key their way in.

      Someone trying to enter my domicile without my permission would make me a bit edgy too.

    19. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by daveywest · · Score: 1

      For a while I was working maintenance at an apartment complex. Someone needed their doorbell fixed. I knocked on the door, and no one responded, so I used the key to enter while announcing my presence. I spent about a half hour in there, when suddenly the pile of blankets in the bedroom starts to move and the resident rolls over and freaks out. I apologized and quickly wrapped up.

      Thankfully, the manager thought it was funny, but the resident's husband got a little angry. Personally, I thought he should just stop giving her roofies.

    20. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you know of.... Thats why installed my own camera and alarm security system (internal only, none of that ADHT shit) I even know when people walk up to my door, and it's amazing what you see outside your own apartment door sometimes, even in a nice neighborhood. Plus being a Concealed Permit Holder in Texas keeps me feeling ok, but I am still just as aware of my surroundings. That's one of the biggest problems with lots of people today, they have no sense of awareness anymore, they just trudge through the day, look at the ground when they walk, and don't look at people in the eye. Society can be civilized and still be able to protect itself. Sure I could keep walking down the street and bump into the 3 gangster wannabes walking my way (even if I'm carrying) but instead I avoid situations altogether. The person not paying attention doesn't have that option. The police are not there to protect you, they are there to deter the small area they are in (read: line-of-sight to their car) It is up to you to protect yourself. Cops are there to put your body in a bag and whoever did it in jail for 6 months (read: fucked up justice system).

    21. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by aicrules · · Score: 1

      eh...I probably would have shot them through the door considering the transient nature of the neighborhood :)

    22. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot and an asshole. Only an insecure prick like yourself would use a gun to intimidate a building maintenance man trying to do his job. I would have had your ass evicted.

    23. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      I'd agree, except he lives in an apartment and the person coming in said "maintenance" and had a key. Most apartments have language in the rental agreement that allows for maintenance personnel to enter as needed.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    24. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "One day while home from work, I heard a knock at the door, a muffled \"maintenance\" and someone start to key their way in."

      That's trespass where I live, even for the property owner. I'm speaking as a landlord/property owner.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    25. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "I would have had your ass evicted."

      Not so fast. The "maintenance man" broke the law, unless he was responding to a legitimate emergency.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    26. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and grabbed my handgun and shoved it in the front of my jeans....At this point, he saw my gun and stepped back.

      Wow dude you are pretty bad ass. Do you watch a lot of Charles Bronson movies? Or are you more of a Clint Eastwood kind of guy?

      I have guns also but I don't go flashing them around in an effort to intimidate the apartment maintenance guy.

    27. Re:My experience with a tech who wanted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a 24-hour notice requirement. We can legally deny anyone entry (including the landlord) without 24-hours notice- barring some emergency like a gas/water leak or police matter.

      Of course our landlord usually gives us about 12 hours and we let him in anyway, but if he showed up with no notice, I might think about saying no.

  25. One would assume... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    ...that the customer could essentially sue Verizon and win a blank check, assuming the suit is heard by the right judge. If I was Verizon I think I would fly down (over, up to) the customer with that check and assure him that the tech is not ony fired, but charged.

    Then again, we are dealing with US Cell Carriers. The reality is probably more likely that the tech won employee of the month.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    1. Re:One would assume... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Verizon != Verizon Wireless. This has nothing to do with a cell phone..

    2. Re:One would assume... by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Being beat up doesn't equal "blank check," nor should it. Apparently his injuries amounted to a bloody nose or lip and broken eyeglasses. There's no mention of hospitalization, eye trauma, broken teeth or bones, bruised ribs, or anything serious. In our country we rush for people to be punished without thinking over the long-term consequences. Do we want companies on the hook for infinite sums of money for relatively minor incidents such as these? Would you be happy for this guy to get $10 million for a nosebleed if it means your phone rates permanently go up? Should the Verizon tech be fired, banned from working, forced to turn to a life of crime, in and out of taxpayer supported jail for the rest of his life, his kids put on taxpayer supported welfare, over this one episode that did not cause any lasting harm?

      I could see this guy getting from five to $50K for his trouble, sorry you were beat up, here take a little vacation. I could see the tech given the choice of resigning or paying back the lawsuit award through salary deductions. And certainly being made to attend anger management classes as a condition of continued employment. But nobody's life has been wrecked, so far, over this. Verizon was judicious, imo, to keep it that way.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    3. Re:One would assume... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      @xigxag: "Being beat up doesn't equal "blank check," nor should it."

      Ok, what kind of world do you think we live in? You're describing reasonable people in a reasonable, civil suite. Or, put it another way, your describing two private parties that might have a little money who met at a bar and one got off a sucker punch. The reality is much different. I was describing the reality. For one, an argument could be made, as they often are in these kinds of suites, that the tech was acting as an agent for Verizon, and as such, for all the victim knew, was carrying out Verizon's customer support policies. Bring in Verizon to refute that claim. More money. The tech went to the guy's house; an argument could be made for home invasion, the tech could simply refute that, but it still carries the possibility of tainting Verizon further; more money. And so on. When you're involved in something like an assault, and your acting as an agent for somebody else, I would be very surprised that the scenario spills out quite the way you seem to be implying; ie; a simple disagreement that ended with a bloody nose. No freakin' way.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:One would assume... by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Home invasion? As you know, requires intent. The alleged assailant's behavior as it plays in the paper appears to be unpremeditated. "He snapped," the victim was quoted to say, which would undermine the home invasion scenario.

      But overall what you say is undeniable - the possibility exists for Verizon's teat to be squeezed in a big way. I missed the fractured ankle in my first read of the story and that changes matters somewhat, although it would irk me to see this guy get some kind of life-transforming settlement. I still think that "blank check" level amounts would be excessive if the goal is for him to be made whole.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  26. Coming Up Next... by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    ...on When Keepin' It Real, Goes Wrong. .

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  27. Cell phone CS... by Banach · · Score: 1

    This is how I feel anyway when I deal with customer service/techs - sometimes it would be a relief to have one deck me and get it over with instead of rolling through their script...

  28. It's reported... by east+coast · · Score: 2, Funny

    The words of the Verizon tech before the attack was supposedly "Mister, if you don't shut up I'm gonna kick one hundred percent of your ass!"

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  29. Percussive Maintenance by Tekfactory · · Score: 4, Funny

    NO CARRIER

  30. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he had a good reason to punch him in the face?

  31. Re:Whats Obama think? by anglico · · Score: 1

    I read the article, it appears by the pics that the the black guy is the tech and the customer is white.

  32. Isakson should get a bat/gun. And grow a pair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Benjamin looks like a thug.

  33. I wonder if the 'tech' related to gates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is, Henry Louis (not bill)...

  34. Re:Whats Obama think? by drukawski · · Score: 2, Funny

    You guys are right, I think this was handled stupidly.

  35. Respondiat Superior? by LaminatorX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless the dude had a history of violence/instability that they were aware of and ignored, I can't see why VZ should be held liable.

    The dude should be charged criminally with assault.

    1. Re:Respondiat Superior? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He represents that company. As such the company has a certian degree of respopnsibility.

      I wonder if Verizon protects there employees from liability?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Respondiat Superior? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      FTFA: Benjamin was arrested and charged with assault.

      But prosecutors offered to dismiss the case if Benjamin agreed to stay out of trouble for six months -- despite assuring Isakson there would be no deal, Isakson alleged.

      I'm thinking that Isakson is some kinda world class prick if, after talking to him for a while, they turned to the guy who beat him up and said, "Ahhhhh, don't do it again."

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Respondiat Superior? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Unless the dude had a history of violence/instability that they were aware of and ignored, I can't see why VZ should be held liable.

      The dude should be charged criminally with assault.

      According to TFA, he's still on the job!

      Verizon spokesman Rich Young said the company has "zero tolerance for any sort of unethical or illegal behavior" and noted Benjamin was not convicted of any crime.

      "In the months since this incident, his conduct has been blameless. As a result, we will not take further action," Young said.

      So do you think it's OK to hold them liable next time?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Respondiat Superior? by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Well, to be honest, the only way to find out if the dude did have a history of violence/instability would be to hold Verizon liable.

      Verizon is not going to volunteer that information out of sheer benevolence. I suspect the initial contact the guy will see from Verizon will be something like:

      "Verizon takes pride in our commitment to customer service.... .... Rest assured that any necessary corrective action will be taken after a through investigation. ... .... would like to offer you a free month of service to demonstrate our commitment to customer service."

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    5. Re:Respondiat Superior? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      As a small business owner, I agree with the grandparent. If I have done a reasonable effort of making sure that my employees do not have a history of violence, then I would certainly hope not to get sued when one of them takes it upon themselves to do something wrong. Of course, I realize that this is America, and suing the tech guy won't get you any money, so instead you have to sue the company who could have done nothing to prevent the incident, resulting in increased cost to all the company's customers.
      I'm kind of old-fashioned I guess, but I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions and not blaming somebody else that has money that can be gotten.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Respondiat Superior? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the dude had a history of violence/instability that they were aware of and ignored, I can't see why VZ should be held liable.

      The dude should be charged criminally with assault.

      Because he still works for Verizon. By keeping the technician employed AFTER a violent episode, Verizon is further endangering other clients. If I punched out my client at my job, I would be behind bars and unemployed. But then again, I work for Oracle; our clients enjoy abuse. (I KID I, KID!)

    7. Re:Respondiat Superior? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never attended law school.

    8. Re:Respondiat Superior? by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Verizon should be held liable if they don't fire technicians that assault customers.

    9. Re:Respondiat Superior? by signingis · · Score: 1

      Where employees?

      --

      I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.
  36. ID? by BDaniels · · Score: 1

    'Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!'

  37. beat up? sat on is more likely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fatass IT guy sat on a customer.

  38. It's like Funny Farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chevy Chase runs up to the moving truck, "where have you guys been? You're a day late! I want a refund!". They moving guys promptly started throwing his furniture in the pond! haha. The tech was probably overworked, stressed out, had enough.

  39. People don't just attack random strangers(?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason."

    You're kidding, right? Have you ever worked a job that dealt with the public? Have you ever walked down the street in a major city? Have you ever visited a bar? I've seen plenty of one-sided situations and I suspect a lot of people on Slashdot have also.

  40. Waves hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need to see his identification.

    Move along.

  41. Re:I'm a peace loving man by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    What the HELL are you on, or talking about?
    Wow...

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  42. Techs should stick to... by itsanx · · Score: 3, Funny
  43. Russell Crowe Verizon Tech: Can i hit you now mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only techs could punch people over the phone to... that's the dream.
    you gotta know either this guy or the last guy he dealt with needed a punch.. unless the verizon tech is russel crowe, i haven't seen him anything lately.. and i mean, we know he likes to throw phones at people... so perfect move for him.

  44. Well.... by jmerlin · · Score: 1

    Looks like Verizon wants to share your personal information, so why shouldn't they share their own? Hypocrisy much?

    Additionally, between this guy and the others at Verizon who can't do math, it seems like they've lowered their employment standards quite dramatically?

  45. Bailout Bean Counters by yup2000 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is obviously Verizon's fault.
    The aggressive customer acquisition and retention training program clearly has too much bandwidth. Verizon cannot continue without bailouts.

  46. Yabut by sconeu · · Score: 1

    You've got all those hot Danish chicks there....

    Makes life a lot more pleasant

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  47. Punch cards for ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Verizon employees get punch cards for ID.

  48. Previously Documented Behavior... by Xin+Jing · · Score: 1

    It's unfortunate, but referencing the particulars of this case and comparing them to racial overtones and perceptions, I'm surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. It's a tribute to employer screening and training of their field reps, a matter of luck or a bit of both. Either way, apparently it can be dangerous to ask a stranger to show identification at your door. Companies don't want to get sued for the inappropriate actions of a loose cannon, yet they are the first line of defense against this kind of behavior. Ironically, the Verizon rep was irritated by the request (or the way the request was presented) to produce identification and validate his integrity. Yet his overreaction made it mandatory to produce that very same information when he was apprehended for assaulting the client; clearly he wasn't thinking too far ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if the employee had previous behavioral issues that had been noticed or addressed by his Verizon supervisors. It wouldn't surprise me if Verizon distanced themselves from this individual by mandating a drug test and a no-pay suspension for inappropriate behavior pending formal investigative findings.

  49. As a Former Tech Support Person of 12 years... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...I have a begrudging respect for the Verizon guy.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:As a Former Tech Support Person of 12 years... by atari2600 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What made you stay in tech support for 12 years? Not enough "respect" for yourself?

    2. Re:As a Former Tech Support Person of 12 years... by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      LOL, funny. Yeah, in telecom if you're in any job more than 2 years people say, "OK, what's wrong with them."

    3. Re:As a Former Tech Support Person of 12 years... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Well, small company and I was supporting my product. Which makes it even worse I guess.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:As a Former Tech Support Person of 12 years... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      I was in tech support for about that long. It's interesting how much money you can make when you're the only tech out of 20 others who has more than 3 years' experience, the only tech out of 50 who has more than five years' experience, and the only tech out of ten thousand who can walk into a helpdesk and show them in one day how to cut their operational costs by seven figures while making the techs' lives about a thousand percent less stressful. In most business positions this expertise can be found in industry veterans who've kept their ears open over the years. In tech support, genuine long-termers are very difficult to find, and a percentage of those are, as you intimate, washouts who only retain their jobs out of inertia rather than ability.

  50. You can't sue Verizon... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    ...you have to take it to the binding arbitration board, which is probably funded entirely by Verizon, made up of people hand picked by Verizon, and may even exist on Verizon's corporate grounds. But no really, they'll be impartial. Honest. If not, you can take your complaint to the binding arbitration board.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:You can't sue Verizon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read up on the law a little better.

  51. Use an intercom and a peephole for the front door by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

    Some homes have an intercom and a peephole by the front door. When someone rings their doorbell, they can answer the door without opening the door. They can just talk to guy through the intercom and ask them to hold up their ID to the peephole. They even have wide angle peepholes now.

    I had a newspaper route as a 12 year old boy, back in the 1960s, and had to go door to door, once a month, collecting the money. Several of my customers had intercoms back then. I would just hear a voice from the intercom, asking what I wanted. Eventually, the housewife would come to the door and had me cash or a check.

    About once a year, I hear about a rapist or or guys doing a home invasion, pretending to be water company employees or something like that. So, I do not think is is unreasonable to ask to see the guys ID before letting him in.

    In this case the Verizon repairman probably thought he was being asked to show his ID, just because he was black. In the photo in the article, the Verizon employee does not appear to be wearing a uniform or even a shirt with the Verizon name on it, so it is understandable that the customer would be suspicious. The photo just shows a 30-something guy wearing a T-shirt and shorts. The customer had every right to be suspicious and ask to see his ID. If some people are reluctant to open their front doors to 12 year old white newspaper boy, then surely they would be at least as suspicious of a guy wearing a T-shirt and shorts.

    By the way, I once helped install a door on a new house and could hardly believe the amazingly flimsy method used to install most door frames, using wooden shims and a few small short nails and screws. How did anyone ever think that was as acceptable method of installing a door? If I ever have a custom home built, I will find a way to make the door frame much more sturdy. I would use either a solid core wood door or a steel door with a wood veneer. I would also use a good quality deadbolt on the door. However, I am not an expert on the subject.

  52. you wanna know about my mother? by jjeffries · · Score: 1

    Maybe he's a replicant. He doesn't have time to mess around.

  53. i dont get it... by nimbius · · Score: 2, Funny

    it happened in New York...and in accordance with verizons standard operating procedures for the empire state physical violence is the second step to trouble-resolution, right after shouting and gesturing obscenities.
    the technician may not have been properly trained, and mistook the customer for telco equipment...this happens occasionally and other companies like AT&T can certainly attest that customers, especially if on fire, tend to resemble things like routers.

    why yes, Ive done some PR work before, why do you ask?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  54. Ready now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you ready now for an iPhone?

  55. Attitude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the attitude of most support techs is less then helpfull

    i aint surprised the tech smaked the customer about

    that tech was probably busy enjoying a long lunch while billing time to a different customer when the call came in

    and i hope the customer gets 50 % of the techs wages for the rest of that guys life

  56. Re:Use an intercom and a peephole for the front do by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

    Here is something that I forgot to mention in my post above. That is that I would have liked to have known both sides of the story. I deal with the public at work, and occasionally run across customers who are incredibly angry and rude just because some very minor mistake has been made (which does not happen very often). That is despite the fact that our business offers unusually good quality for a very reasonable price, especially when compared to our other local competitors. We also gladly do refunds. Most of our customers are very happy and most are return customers. Many say they will recommend us to their friends.

    Despite that, over the years, I have occasionally had angry pushy customers shouting at me for 30 minutes or more. In those rare instances, it is usually about some minor mistake made by some other employee who is not on dutry at the time. There is usually absolutely no possible way to provide them with what they need that day. In one case, a pushy customer made various threatening comments such as "I'll just sleep with your wife to get even." In a few cases, as I was trying to revise some complicated paperwork, they would interrupt me about every 15 seconds, to complain that I am taking too long. I have actually had to say, "if you keep interrupting me every 15 seconds," I definitely can not do get this done quickly.

    In such instances, it takes strong self control, to not loose it an just punch the unbelievably rude customer. I have sometimes asked them to please go to our competitors in the future. We are not so desperate for customers that we need to put up with that. What little they are paying us, does not make it worthwhile for us to be shouted at for 30 minutes or so, so I always hope they will never come back again. Behind the counter, we have a list of customers the we never want to do business with again.

    In one case, an angry pushy customer, said he was going to complain to my boss and try to get me fired. He asked when would the owner be in. I said dad will be in this afternoon, you can talk to him then.

    The point is, that in some situations, it is understandable that the employee could only take so much abuse, before just loosing it and blowing up and punching the guy. I just wish I knew what both sides of the story were in this situation. Many of us had probably had situations like that at work. So when comparing this to my previous post, I am not sure which would best fit the facts.

  57. if THAT guy came to my door... by fostro1 · · Score: 0

    I would probably ask for ID...lulz

  58. new verizon commercial by sneakyimp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    can you here me *NOW* you little bitch???

  59. Lawsuit by sjames · · Score: 1

    Deap-Sea Comics should sue Verizon for trademark violations.

  60. Similar Experience with Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just had a similar service order done by Verizon in the same area.

    Verizon network guy got into my building unannounced. He had not called to give me a heads up that they were even coming that day. I happened to be home and was glad they sent someone quickly, but was caught at an odd time and would have appreciated some kind of heads up.

    The gentleman knocked on my door wearing no sort of uniform or ID. No one had showed at the scheduled time earlier in the week. I assumed he was a new neighbor at first.

    He told me it was my fault no one had showed for the appointed day because the doorstep call directory didn't list our names yet. I apologized that no one gave them our contact numbers. He told us of course they do have our contact numbers, but if he had not found us in the door directory he would have left as well. I was too intimidated to inquire further how that counted as a completed or attempted work order. Maybe they are afraid of giving out personal cell phone numbers? It seems that Verizon should be providing traveling techs these accommodations.

    I would wildly speculate that their internal system tracking does not differentiate between time allotted to perform house calls, and actual time performing work that can be documented at those calls. If that's the case, it shouldn't be a high pressure for them to work as quickly as possible, and they should be able to take the time to introduce themselves at the door and offer some sort of ID. If there is no sort of Verizon badge, and we're left to stare blankly at someone's driver's license, it's probably very annoying to be deployed ill-equipped by your company, especially if god forbid you don't have a license or ID card. Basically that's what we're saying here. It's not the customer's fault if Verizon doesn't professionalize their workforce. It's Verizon's fault for creating ambiguous situations.

    I can definitely see how someone might ask for ID from a non-uniformed, in this case unannounced service technician. In my case I recognized his network tools but I had to look really closely for some clue. My tech was a fresh faced, blue-eyed construction worker type in boots, old jeans and a sweaty t-shirt, but blaming me for his company's lack of customer service due to a call box not being set up seemed pretty bold.

    It's also a rough job in the heat of the Summer, meaning that a lot of capable people who would do the job probably aren't willing to for the salary they may be getting offered. I can see how these techs, if truly underpaid and ambiguously equipped by their company to face a skeptical public, would be very anxious to return to their air conditioned cars. But I can also see how a company that was willing to make the job more alluring to more customer-centric employees would not have any of these sorts of problems.

    After dealing with a blotched ticket and a tech who wanted to blame the situation on something so simple as a door buzzer, I am long-term lost business.

  61. you are such a chickenshit bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucking guys with the self-defense killing fantasies make those of us who are responsible gun owners look like nuts by association.

    You don't live in an action movie, you dumb chunk of crap. You will never get the opportunity to make up for your feelings of weakness and victimization by a self-defense killing, and if you do shoot someone, you'll panic and kill a paraplegic soliciting money for charity and spend the rest of your life in prison.

    The only unfortunate part will be that someone will have to die to get you taken out of society forever.

  62. IANAL by xigxag · · Score: 1

    He was charged with assault and apparently given the option of accepting an ACD, Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, which is a standard disposition that means your case will be sealed if you can stay out of trouble. An ACD is a way of accomplishing two things: First of all it does away with the need for a trial. In NYC probably 95+% of all cases MUST end with some kind of pre-trial disposition or plea, or else the court docket would be utterly unmanageable -- they'd have to hire 10x as many judges, public defenders, court clerks, court officers, build more courthouses, hire maintenance staff, etc., all at considerable taxpayer expense. Either that or the defendants' constitutional right to speedy trials would be absurdly infringed. So basically, in minor cases, its in everyone's interest to dispose of them as quickly as possible instead of having a long drawn-out trial. Remember, this guy is presumed innocent so far (an ACD is prior to the entry of a guilty plea) and can easily argue that he was pushed or spat at and there were mitigating factors which led to the assault. There's no guarantee of a conviction at all. Secondly, as a society we have an interest keeping low-level offenders from permanently ruining their lives and becoming a massive drain on the taxpayers. This is a guy with a regular job who has heretofore led a relatively clean life. (We know this because he would not be offered an ACD otherwise.) So locking him up and throwing away the key, or otherwise grinding him under the wheels of the criminal justice system, would not help anyone, least of all the victim who wants to seek compensation from his assailant.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  63. Now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...who was on the other end of the "Can you hear me now?" calls. I'ld've snapped too

  64. It's not right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should some Comcast tech be driving around kicking customer's asses? No, obviously not.

    But...

    I'm fairly sure attitude on the customer's part contributed; you can be a snarky prick to others, service techs, coworkers, fellow travellers on the road, what have you, but every time you do you risk getting pummeled. You take that risk at all times when dealing with others but being an ass and treating people like shit improves your odds dramatically.

    Free country and all. Do as you will. Most of you will get away with it. Some of you will spend the rest of your life trying to forget that day you got beat down because you gave a stranger some lip.

    Enjoy.

  65. New Business Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Beat up customers
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: PROFIT!

  66. Here's the thing. by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

    In this same situation, assaulting me in my house, assuming the story is true, the guy would be dead.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  67. Re:film izle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's somebody attempting to raise their web site's ranking on Google. Wish we could delete crap like this.

  68. Beer Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry guys, Obama will shout you a beer after the shit storm settles.

  69. Re:More to the Story? Klingon?? by pbhj · · Score: 1

    The man obviously made an affront to the tech's honor which the tech was obliged to address.

    Customer: "Hey techy, I bet you're one of those dorkmeisters who learnt Klingon at college?! You probably dress up in Star Wars [sic] when you're off work."
    Tech: "Star Wars ....?" {explodes in rage}

  70. SOP by BenBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Funny, that's pretty much the way Verizon always treated me as a customer ...

  71. Verizon Beer Summit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we pretend the Verizon tech is a police officer and the Verizon customer is a teacher coming home from abroad.
    now the teacher asks the police officer for ID and get's punched in the face. case closed everyone go to the beer summit!

  72. ETF by ZX3+Junglist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, these verizon early termination fees are *really* getting out of hand..

  73. Doesnt shock me at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When asking why I was suddenly ineligible for DSL after being eligible for it for years, I was told to go fuck myself and die.

    By the tech support agents at verizon.

    Needless to say I'm a happy time warner customer. Sure I'm paying more. but the service is much better, and even at DSL rated speeds, I still get much better transfer rates, it's more like being on a T1 (at least downloads) than DSL which claims to be at 1.5 mbps, but you end up getting the transfer rates of a 768k 80% of the time. Plus there's bursting on cable, where DSL doesnt seem to have that.

    Either way, verizon lost a customer. Only reason I use their cell service is because it's paid for by my job. Otherwise, I hate them.

  74. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever the case may be, whatever reason the tech may have had to assault this customer..
    One thing sure is true: through this action he has gained himself instant stardom!
    And people, you have to admit.. it certainly is funny!

  75. Unjust by tarlss · · Score: 1

    Verizon guy was a bully. plain and simple. He should go to jail and the victim should get monetary compensation. 50k sounds about right. Unless the perpetrator is punished and the victim is rewarded, we're just perpetuating a society that allows bigger and stronger people to get away with violence just because they can. If the victim was a woman, this would have been shocking, since it was a man, there are some people that are on the assaulter's side!

  76. Innocent until convicted (Re:So...) by mi · · Score: 1

    Not only did this guy get no jail or even a fine, but he kept his job?

    Actually, this is, how things are supposed to be. No conviction — no punishment (of any kind), just ask the folks arguing for the release of Guantanamo detainees, for a flame-baiting example...

    Our understanding of this story is purely one-sided...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  77. I always worry by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    about shit like this. Anytime I expect someone to come to my house that isn't friend or family, I may not ask for an ID but I always come to the door with a wrench or other heavy tool in my back pocket. It really doesn't surprise me this happened. I've never had a single tech from cable cos that seemed like they even graduated grade school, let alone were competent with electronics. The last guy that came to my home took the modem I own (after telling him THREE times it was indeed MINE) and swapped it with a rental modem and then activated it. The guy couldn't speak more than 5 words of english. Had to call in my account activation three times because his own company couldn't understand him. Then I saw him checking his personal email on my computer. It's been three weeks and my modem is still missing.

  78. Swearing is good for you by marcus · · Score: 1

    Go ahead, let it out.

    You'll feel better

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
  79. Uh, carpet on the floor perhaps? by marcus · · Score: 1

    And crawlspace under the floor.

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
  80. Wow by marcus · · Score: 1

    I haven't thought about "Fuzzy Logic" in a decade.

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    1. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my memory of it got fuzzy as well. It's hard to keep up with buzzwords that got out of fashion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.