Workplace Violence, again - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

buffa98 · #46 09-13-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

LOL, nope.

I'm referring to the two guys in the news story who thought it was "bring your gun to work day."

OK.....

I ahve been reffered to as bubba before why I was asking........................

Skid Row Joe · #47 09-13-2010, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

I will have to do more research when I get a break here. It went to at least 1 if not 2 more appeals and the jobs were given back. If I remember the story about the case the reasoning behind the appeals decision was the fact that the cars could not be searched under the 4th amendment. The panel re established the car as a whooly owned peice of private property was not allowed to be searched with out Rresonable cause etc etc etc. And the rights of a corparation as a property owner ended at the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of a PROPERTY OWNER.

Again not trying to split hirs but in our last contract the company had to remove that clause from the contract about searching cars. What was put in was letting them know if you had (or the ability) to carry one.

Mostly because of hunting season guys getting off of night shift and heading stright into the field.

ALL plaintiffs claims were thrown out in favor of the Weyerhauser Co:

COURT'S CONCLUSION:
46 "We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments and, for the foregoing reasons,
we AFFIRM the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Weyco on all of plaintiffs' claims."

Apparently you chose not to read the decisions. Weyerhauser (Weyco) prevailed. None of your plaintiffs did.

No where were "the jobs given back" and even if they were - they had ZILCH/NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment Rights that YOU claimed.

Again, 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights had nothing to do with the case you falsely claimed they did.

I didn't even have to research anything to deduce that 2nd Amendment Rights do not extend to private property. The more I've read doing research tonight - the more my belief has been supported.

layback40 · #48 09-13-2010, 10:52 PM

I think we are all missing an ironic point. Kraft spends a lot of $$$ on metal detectors to make sure no metal gets out in product. It wouldnt cost that much for every one to walk through a metal detector on their way into work. This may cause some crazy to not think they could bring a hand gun into work.

buffa98 · #49 09-13-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

ALL plaintiffs claims were thrown out in favor of Weyco:
CONCLUSION
46 "We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments and, for the foregoing reasons,
we AFFIRM the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Weyco on all of plaintiffs' claims."

Apparently you chose not to read the decisions. Weyco prevailed. None of your plaintiffs did.

No where were "the jobs given back" and even if they were - they had ZILCH/NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment Rights that YOU claimed.

Again, 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights had nothing to do with the case you falsely claimed they did.

I didn't even have to research anything to deduce that 2nd Amendment Rights do not extend to private property. The more I've read doing research tonight - the more my belief has been supported.

I guess we are finding the same court cases. The people were re hired I know that for a fact. It was after at least 2 more appeals. As I stated in the earlier post I will contact someone who is more familiar with the case that I and get you the ruling!!

I remember the article in a copy of an NRA publication within the past couple of years. WEYco did lose as did Conoco Phillips for the same reasons.

PS you are correct it was not the second it was the 4th. Your rights to unlawful search do not end at your door. So under the castle doctrine which OK has(as well as TX GA and a few others) your PRIVATE PROPERTY(CAR) is an extention of your home.

The reason I bring this up to you is as you travel around the country in the motorcoach is that your home??

And if it is do you have the right to have a fire arm in it?

So if you stop at a Wal Mart with a firearm in your home(private property)
Does wal mart have the right to come out and search it if they have a no firearm policy on their CORPRATE property?

Skid Row Joe · #50 09-13-2010, 10:58 PM

The fired workers violated company policy, then apparently lied about it. Because according to court records, it was very well disseminated company information at that facility BY Weyco, (Weyerhauser Company) as regards to firearms prohibited on Weyco private property. The workers claimed they knew nothing of it. (Riiiiiiiight.)

Unless you (buffa98) can demonstrate otherwise......my guess is that the plaintiff was taped out financially in filing suit and hiring attorneys. It likely cost over $100,000.00 in legal fees - all lost. Then, normally, the plaintiff is looking at (2) or more appeals of $100,000.00 or more in legal costs.

All for what - after you already LOST the first District court trial? By willfully and knowingly bringing firearm(s) on private Weyco property, LYING IN COURT ABOUT IT, then, as an employee try to get your job back, when you've already lost the first case? I don't think so.

Skid Row Joe · #51 09-13-2010, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

I guess we are finding the same court cases. The people were re hired I know that for a fact. It was after at least 2 more appeals. As I stated in the earlier post I will contact someone who is more familiar with the case that I and get you the ruling!!
Patience young man patience!

I'm not that young! LOL!

At $100,000.00 a crack - how many times do you think this guy appealed?

If there was a Federal Court case win for your guy, why isn't it front and center on a Google search? My guess is because there isn't a win for your guy. That's why.

Chas H · #52 09-13-2010, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

That, and why a food processing worker would have need for "a 357 Magnum" handgun in her car?

Obviously she felt like excercising her 2nd amendment rights.

HuskyMan · #53 09-13-2010, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

I think we are all missing an ironic point. Kraft spends a lot of $$$ on metal detectors to make sure no metal gets out in product. It wouldnt cost that much for every one to walk through a metal detector on their way into work. This may cause some crazy to not think they could bring a hand gun into work.

the problem with this strategy is this: when someone becomes emotionally enraged, they are temporarily insane. no metal detector will stop them. they will come flying through that metal detector and go on their merry way, unless they are stopped by someone with the power to stop them. IMHO, that someone should be a well armed security guard who has the stones to put the brakes on the whacko.

Skid Row Joe · #54 09-13-2010, 11:08 PM

A buddy of mine a former pilot of 22 years for Continental Airlines filed suit and won a judgement in Federal court over the airline.

He spent $115,000.00 in legal fees to win. He thought Continental would offer a $1,000,000.00+ settlement. They didn't. He won and still walked away. Why?

Continental Airlines has/had (2) more appeals that my pal would have had to prevail in - to win final judgement.

At over $100,000.00 per case IN LEGAL FEES even when right - little guys walk away.

Sometimes (especially) when you're losing trials at the rate of $100,000.00+ per judgement - little people just walk away and get A LIFE.

I suspect your guy fired from Weyco (and losing 1 or more times in court) at a personal cost of $100,000.00 - did just that......he walked away, and got a life.

buffa98 · #55 09-13-2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

I'm not that young! LOL!

At $100,000.00 a crack - how many times do you think this guy appealed?

If there was a Federal Court case win for your guy, why isn't it front and center on a Google search? My guess is because there isn't a win for your guy. That's why.

I was trying to show respect for my elders sir