It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Navy vet gets fired for posting pics of DHS vehicles near Ferguson

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Good Lord! Did I wake up in North Korea?

"You no take picture of government vehicle! "




posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

"Oh, I see. Nevermind. This is rhetoric. Carry on."

Guess you haven't been paying attention if you think it's rhetoric.

www.cnn.com...

Welcome to civil forfeiture. It's one of the many "legal" tools to invalidate the 4th amendment.

One wonders how bad things have to get before people realize the constitution is just a piece of paper now.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
Good Lord! Did I wake up in North Korea?

"You no take picture of government vehicle! "


Nope. If this was North Korea, we wouldn't have heard about this, because the guy that took the picture would have been shot, instead of the hotel merely exercising its First Amendment right to disagree with the actions of one of its employees and terminate his employment.

Free society in action, my friends.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Whoa,hold up there. When did Missouri become a right to work state? I live here and it has yet to pass as far as I know.I googled it and I'm not finding anything that says we did become a right to work state. Please link if you have any info on this.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

That's not what public accommodation is. If you own a business open to the public that doesn't mean it is owned by the public, it simply means that you have entered into agreement with the public to do business with them and don't get to choose who isn't a member of the public.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: AgentShillington

"Oh, I see. Nevermind. This is rhetoric. Carry on."

Guess you haven't been paying attention if you think it's rhetoric.

www.cnn.com...

Welcome to civil forfeiture. It's one of the many "legal" tools to invalidate the 4th amendment.

One wonders how bad things have to get before people realize the constitution is just a piece of paper now.


Sounds like a crazy story happening in Philadelphia.. Oh look! This story is happening in Missouri. I live in Minnesota. So many State's Rights folks on this board decide that they don't like it when states decide to interpret the Constitution for themselves. Too bad we don't have... like a branch of government... that like.. dealt with how Laws are enforced... you know... like a judge... or maybe a bunch of judges... and then they could tell us if what the governments were doing were actually against the constitution... to keep stuff like that from spreading!

Wait.. you mean.. we DO have something like that? You mean its the Supreme Court?!?!? You mean.. the Supreme Court that is getting set to hear arguments about THIS VERY ISSUE?

Oh, thanks for the info.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Strange how when an employee breaks a rule and gets fired some of the same people are here with tthe " he/she broke the rules and has to pay the price" but give them the chance to call foul on the gov and call it tyrannical then they are all for the employee.
How many times has it been said you give up some rights when you decide to work for a company?
Are we going to act like he didn't sign something that says you can't take picture of people staying at the hotel?



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

I apologize, I what I mean is Missouri is an "at-will" employment state, Right-to-work covers things like requiring employees to sign union contracts as a condition of employment. I got the two confused. I looked, and you're right. Right-to-work is still mired in legislation, but at-will is active in the state.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Strange how when an employee breaks a rule and gets fired some of the same people are here with tthe " he/she broke the rules and has to pay the price" but give them the chance to call foul on the gov and call it tyrannical then they are all for the employee.
How many times has it been said you give up some rights when you decide to work for a company?
Are we going to act like he didn't sign something that says you can't take picture of people staying at the hotel?


Do we know he signed something?

Quite frankly, if he was aware that it was a rule NOT TO take pictures and he did, then, he got fired for it. Sucks to be him!

My issue is an X secret service agent calling him a "terrorist and having served your country dishonorably"!

Pot meet kettle!

This is an issue that has NOTHING to do with partisan nonsense!



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: UnBreakable
“You’re a terrorist and you have dishonorably served your country by posting the photos and video,” Bohnert told Paffrath, adding that if Paffrath re-posted the photos and video he will, “have the federal government knocking on your door and you will be incarcerated.”

Being fired for them losing a $150,000 contract is one thing, but isn't him being branded a terrorrist bit iof an overkill?


It's hearsay. The hotel didn't publish this information, a guy that got fired from them is the one claiming this. I'm not going to suggest whether or not it was said, but I am certainly under the belief that the hotel would NEVER admit to saying something like that.


It is a double hearsay both from the man, but given to the man by the hotel security boss by way of a threat, since the security boss has no federal input, and could likely be sued if he was being untruthful and threatening. Since the man put his pictures up again, we'll see what happens. What happened to the police vehicles? if they are still there in the park, how'd the hotel lose money?
There's no mention about if nobody else saw or didn't see the vehicles either, if it's piggin' hotel car park anyway.
edit on 17-11-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
"If you see something, say something"...

Oh wait, that's not how it works, looks like somebody misunderstood the instructions.

Boba



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Strange how when an employee breaks a rule and gets fired some of the same people are here with tthe " he/she broke the rules and has to pay the price" but give them the chance to call foul on the gov and call it tyrannical then they are all for the employee.
How many times has it been said you give up some rights when you decide to work for a company?
Are we going to act like he didn't sign something that says you can't take picture of people staying at the hotel?


Surely one can tell the difference between the action of the government, funded by all taxpayers, and supposedly public servants for all and the decisions of a private employer, yes?

In addition, AgentShillington had a very, very valid point. All the information we have is what this individual CLAIMS to have happened. He could have very easily been fired for taking pictures with his eager little camera into windows of guest rooms and just puts up this story as an excuse. We don't know for sure if he is even telling the truth or not.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Every job I have ever had told me to not to take pictures of the patrons and I imagine that sinice hotels won't give out any sort of info of who is staying there then I would be willing to bet my big you he is not supposed to take pictures of people staying there.
And the terrorists threat is coming from the pissed of job less employee, hardly an unbiased source.

If he was in fact called a terrorist then that is the only issue but the loss of his job was 100% on him
edit on thMon, 17 Nov 2014 13:54:10 -0600America/Chicago1120141080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: seeker1963

Every job I have ever had told me to not to take pictures of the patrons and I imagine that sinice hotels won't give out any sort of info of who is staying there then I would be willing to bet my big you he is not supposed to take pictures of people staying there.
And the terrorists threat is coming from the pissed of job less employee, hardly an unbiased source.

If he was in fact called a terrorist then that is the only issue but the lose of his job was 100% on him


I am not taking an issue with that statement whatsoever. I actually agree with it! *mark that on your calendar*


I always say there are 2 sides to every story and then the truth somewhere in the middle.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you saying that the gov is how fired him?
It was the hotel that fired him per the blaze.
All the gov did was back out of the contract.
Sure that was the catalyst for the firing but it was still the hotel that did the termination.
And agree all we have is a blaze article and not a huge fan of them as a neutral source, especially when we are talking the gov
edit on thMon, 17 Nov 2014 13:54:42 -0600America/Chicago1120144280 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Thank you for further illustrating the point I was trying to make with my hyperbole, appreciate it



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

What?



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you saying that the gov is how fired him?
It was the hotel that fired him per the blaze.
All the gov did was back out of the contract.
Sure that was the catalyst for the firing but it was still the hotel that did the termination.
And agree all we have is a blaze article and not a huge fan of them as a neutral source, especially when we are talking the gov


Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. Was responding to the issue that complaining about governmental actions is not the same as those of a private employer. The government did not fire him and he broke no law that I can see from the article. However, the hotel has every right to fire him.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
The whole point of the hyperbole was "Different rules for everyone gets confusing don't ya know." I am not as skilled as some people here at communication, I admit.

You helped illustrate it for me by correcting my mistake and throwing in public accommodation, which is not the same as public property. Another variable, which makes things more confusing.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Somehow this post has morphed into employee/employer rights over employment. The gist I had intended is the larger picture of there being @100 DHS autos parked near Ferguson, the person (i.e. terrorist) suffering the consequences by bringing it to light, and the implications when the grand jury decision comes down. I think that certain factions are expecting this to be a bigger event than previously thought.




top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join