True, forgot all about the tenure system, which I barely understand beyond the memes as it is.

Still, earlier discussion holds; outrage that they didn’t fire him yet makes zero sense.

Now, as Devil’s Advocate arguing against you and me, Harvard could choose to drop him at the mere hint of an accusation. You don’t have a right to a job and not getting fired without proven cause in any state but I want to say Montana? The rest are “Right to Work.”

Back on Team “Give them a second for crying out loud,” we’re talking about Harvard, allegedly one of the best colleges in the world. We can expect them to do right by probably investigating this properly, and we’d hope any employer we’d ever work for would bother to take more than a femtosecond to figure out if there’s evidence supporting an accusation against us.

Obviously a lot of countries do have Big R “Rights” as far as labor goes, but the US is not one of them.

Hot take because Line Must Go Up is being blamed on "For the Shareholders!" lately, but:

It’s not just publicly traded companies. Private companies have greedy C-suites too.

At a guess, such cooperation would undermine Lenovo’s profit margin and would thus be a non-starter for them.

Enter government regulation, to pinch corporations by the ear and drag them to doing what’s right for society.

Apologies - didn’t realize I was talking to someone who has bouts of nihilism mixed in with their political activism like rocks in a salad.

Enjoy the block!

True, but your implication that I’m not doing enough while I’m sitting here complaining is just as well-served to the mirror.

Administrative Leave starts when a formal investigation begins. You’re basically calling for Chapter 10 of a book to be over when Chapter 1 barely started.

In other words, your question amounts to:

“An investigation started? Shouldn’t it be over before it began?”

No, that’s not how investigations work.

I have no idea if “Fire!” in a crowded theater is covered by a different statute or not in my state without looking it up, but yes, Disorderly Conduct would be what I would use in that scenario too. Getting too specific with a statute can result in the defendant getting off on a technicality. You make the arrest for F.S.S. 69.420 “Fire In A Crowded Theater” and then in trial a year later it turns out “crowded” per case law is 100+ people, but the theater only had 99 that day.

Involuntary psychiatric holds tend to ruin people’s lives much more than a simple non-violent misdemeanor arrest, not to mention you have to demonstrate there is an imminent risk of harm and they appear mentally ill.

• Imminent Risk of Harm - Kinda? I’d call it probable risk of harm in the next few hours or days.

• Mental Illness - Certainly not, they were just angry at each other.

Actually no, both were very much “This person definitely needs to be removed from the public before someone gets hurt” and (virtually) all we had was that catch-all statute.

TLDR:

1. Lady kicks open a door to a church with 300+ people and screams “None of you are getting to heaven on my watch!” Panic, chaos, everyone assuming she was a mass shooter and went running for the doors.

2. Roomate vs. Roommate increasingly tense arguing and 911 calling on each other “fearing for their lives.” This being Florida, both had guns “and weren’t afraid to use them.” The last call was them arguing at each other on their porch and a neighbor called 911 because it seemed like it was getting heated to her.

You can read the post I made about my termination. I’d sticky it on my profile like I did on Reddit, but I don’t think lemmy.world has a “sticky” feature:

https://lemmy.world/post/43267939

I want to get off Mr. Reagan’s Wild Ride.

I want to get off Mr. Reagan’s Wild Ride.

I want to get off Mr. Reagan’s Wild Ride.

I want to get off Mr. Reagan’s Wild Ride.

Used to be, yeah. Got fired about 6 years ago now.

Build a large enough catalogue of bulk data and anything can be used to track you.

We bought “It’s just so we can catch the terrorists!” hook, line, and sinker post-9/11.

But when “terrorism” is redefined as “making people in power upset,” we’re in big trouble.

So don’t say anything rude about Donald Trump or the FBI will seek you out:

https://invidious.perennialte.ch/watch?v=QS4bVx74nxU

What did we get from Detroit? Bloated low tech shit boxes that barely make it past warranty.

Don’t forget the bailouts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy

And if there’s anything we know about nimby curmudgeons, it’s that they’re on the rise and rewarded for their behavior, generally. Just look at the lady who retired off of calling a toddler the n-slur for social media.

The 2/2 (I think?) arrests I’ve made for Disorderly Conduct, both times reminded me of how bizarre it is that the statute is so incredibly powerful and nobody seems to notice or care.

First off, 90% of your comment is ad hominem or straw-man.

Secondly, it’s abundantly clear you don’t know what a political ally is. You’re confusing the term with “friend” or “exactly the same in beliefs.”

Me.

Presumably you’re doing all this shit-stirring because you think the US is on the wrong path (i.e. oppressing people), so people who want to stop the oppression it’s doing are on your side. Even if you only care about certain people it’s oppressing, and they only care about certain people it’s oppressing, you both want to stop the oppression, yes?

Otherwise I guess you’re just an agitator with no real goal, which would be kinda funny if you’re just openly admitting to out of the blue.

Because it’s going to it might be far more than one person.

Fixed that for you.

How many? 2? 5? Will that number be over the line in the sand for enough Americans to Do Something™?

Obviously we’ll probably see shortly, but my suspicion is we’ll mostly hold up some signs in the street or in Congress, complain on social media that nobody is doing anything, and move on with our paycheck-to-paycheck existence.

We are an inherently selfish people; few of us will risk our necks for others.

I mostly agree with you (because most of it is pure fact and not opinion) and it mostly doesn’t refute what I said (because it’s also factual).

So you’ve confirmed your goal here is to get into a nasty fight with your (alleged) allies.

I’ll pass on the offer, but enjoy your day.

I think 1 is unlikely because it’s NYPD and ICE

I don’t know where you got that opinion from. Such things are truly routine for large local and most federal agencies. You don’t hear about it for the same reason you don’t hear people discussing gum chewing techniques; it’s simply mundane and near-universal to them. There’s going to be crossover between ICE and some of the more frequent federal deputizers, i.e. the U.S. Marshalls. I know this because I used to be a cop and plenty of my colleagues would be routinely snatched up and deputized for some quick federal thing, which was treated as an absolute nothing burger by all parties.

Comforting yourself with the idea that your opponent is so overwhelmingly incompetent that there’s no way they could do anything dangerous is such a bad plan.

2 is true broadly because there isn’t a law forbidding it in general, but there is a law against lying about being a public servant.

Frankly, I read the New York statute on the matter the other day and it didn’t give me a clear idea that what they (allegedly) did in this case is illegal. They are “public servants” by the apparent definition New York uses. Will it be argued in court very soon? I surely hope so, and I surely hope they carve out a more explicit ban on this kind of thing.

But as you say, it’s all barely worth discussing because few prosecutors would risk their literal or metaphorical necks going after ICE/NYPD.