New York union guilty of murder (depraved indifference)

Unions have done great things for the common man in the past and are still one of the few entities standing up for Joe American and trying to slow the complete corporate control that looms on the horizon. There are definitely problems with a lot of todays unions, however, and they arise from their involvement with the government. Unions should not have government contracts. Unions need to fight much harder to gain ground in the corporate world and back out of our corrupt government. Wal*Mart and Mcdonald's are taking over the world and doing nothing for their employees. Just as any government thinks of foot soldiers as nothing more than a resource in a war -- one that needs to be mangaed carefully mind you, but a resource nonetheless -- corporations do not care about the people that work for them. Their only concern is their bottom line and they are more than willing to trade a cheap and plentiful resource (us) to increase their profits. We need unions today as much as we ever did. Unforunately many of them today are so tied in with the corporate/government/mafia as to be indistinguishable.

Disclaimer: I work for Smiths's Food and Drug, a division of the Kroger Corporation and I am a member of the United Food And Commercial Worker's Union

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Currently writing an email to the New York prosecutor's office asking for action. I will post email when I am done with it.

(From OP) So how long does it take to write an e-mail?

In your typical knee-jerk fashion it looks like another misguided attempt to take two distinct, disparate ideas and attempt to connect the dots and in in true Teabagger fashion: Ready, fire, aim.

Have fun with your little fantasy. Perhaps you could hold a "mock trial" in your mom's basement. Please check back in when the sock puppet judge arrives.

Snow happens. This weather event is eerily similar to Hurricane Katrina and since you can't blame the victims this time you use it as an opportunity to carry forth your agenda and bash an easy target.

Might want to turn off the daytime idiot lights, everyone can see you coming and yet they provide no illumination. Happy posting!

I work for nyc in one of the authoritys, In my opinion Nyc is the worse. They are like slave drivers.The city has rules that everyone must follow but the city as an authority does not follow their own rules. We as workers are protected by "osha" standards but they make the workers break those "standards" all the time. Call the union. lol The City of new york by nyc mayors executive order 75 city keeps the union delegates on its payroll. When you report in to work You have no time to go home. Plenty of times I have been at the time clock at punch out time and the stupidvisor would tell everyone to get back into uniform theres an "Emergency". Oh The best is on a friday at punch out time when your going home and your told that you have to work this weekend because they need you. Call out and you get a memo.I have seen men and women cry and family's hurt because of this treatment.
You think your going to be home with your family for christmas and christmas eve your told you MUST report to work and you had the day off. You wont belive But I have seen Plenty of times where workers were FORCED to report in on there vacations. You dont even want me to even get into the safety standards.

reply to post by kinda kurious


I sent one to both the State Attorney General's office and also to the the City of New York's District Attorney's office. Pretty much exactly the same thing I laid out here. Waiting on a response. Would you like me to post them? I am expecting the same response I usually get from government offices.

Form letter, Glad for your interest in the situation. We are looking into the problem you bring up.

Unless you go in and file a complaint personally, nothing ever gets done. I am expecting that I will get a response beginning or mid week next week. That is the usual response time for government. One week to approximate. UNLESS, it is like the last few articles I wrote somewhere else and the people did not want to refute my article.

If you want, I will post the emails.

Originally posted by cepheusdraco
Unions have done great things for the common man in the past and are still one of the few entities standing up for Joe American and trying to slow the complete corporate control that looms on the horizon. There are definitely problems with a lot of todays unions, however, and they arise from their involvement with the government. Unions should not have government contracts. Unions need to fight much harder to gain ground in the corporate world and back out of our corrupt government. Wal*Mart and Mcdonald's are taking over the world and doing nothing for their employees. Just as any government thinks of foot soldiers as nothing more than a resource in a war -- one that needs to be mangaed carefully mind you, but a resource nonetheless -- corporations do not care about the people that work for them. Their only concern is their bottom line and they are more than willing to trade a cheap and plentiful resource (us) to increase their profits. We need unions today as much as we ever did. Unforunately many of them today are so tied in with the corporate/government/mafia as to be indistinguishable.

Disclaimer: I work for Smiths's Food and Drug, a division of the Kroger Corporation and I am a member of the United Food And Commercial Worker's Union

Just wanted to repost this guy's response, it's exactly what I would have said.

Also this is NOTHING new people. I lived most of my life up in the NorthEast(NJ) and yes NY has great snowplowing, when it's a little bit of snow, when it is a blizzard, NY has notoriously always had the very same issues, It isn't because the union slowed dwn the work, it's because they are generally inefficient all around, not enough workers/never calling them up and getting them in promptly(always has been a problem with NY) I remember the Blizzard in 1995 or 96 when our roads were clear in NJ and we couldn't get bread in our stores because it was transported through NY and PA, and NY was locked up as far as roads were concerned, none of the breadtrucks could get through. When it is truly a blizzard, every single time, sanitation and the governor has failed NY. And I do beleive that there were deaths caused back in 96 due to no EMT trucks being able to make it to homes in time, back then there were no lynch mobs waiting to string someone up, it was just known that you couldn't count on NY to keep up, never could, people forget this because I beleive it's been so long since a real "SNOWSTORM" has really hit the northeast.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Good luck with that mate. I can understand where you are coming from, but since the burden of proof will be on the DA, and Assistant DA, to prove that the Union had the intent to cause the 2 people to die, I'm guessing that there will be nobody in prison for Murder. Manslaughter maybe, Murder no. Unless the laws are different in the US compared to Australia. But AFAIK, in order to be charged with Murder, you have to be able to prove the INTENT to kill was there. Manslaughter usually covers death with no intent.

And to be honest, from the title of your thread, it seems like you intend on charging EVERY Union Member and Official with Murder. I know you have explained where you are coming from, but the title is VERY misleading.....

Even in a drunken state (since it is almost 0400H on New Years day here in Sydney), it seems like you have an agenda, or have a problem with the Unions. Which could be fair enough. But to me, you can't go round kicking and screaming that EVERYONE involved in the Sanitation Union is culpable for Murder, when it seems to me that only a few are up for possible Manslaughter charges, which to be honest, would be hard to prove in a court of law anyways.

As I said before, seems like you are pissed off about certain Union Officials/Members that may have screwed you around in the past, and you feel like railing against ALL Union Officials/Members. Hell, there are certain people I dislike that are involved with the Unions here in Australia (that coincidently work for the Aus Government), but just because I dislike them, I'm not gonna rail against the entire Union. Hell, I just think that the people are dickheads, and don't hold ANYTHING against the Union they are involved with.

That's just my 2 cents though dude......

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


It was YOUR boast and affects YOUR credibility. Just sayin'.

Do as you wish.

reply to post by TerribleTeam2


Fair enough, when I looked back at the OP when I was accused of attacking the entire union, I did not even look at the title. I will now ask the Mods if they can change it.

Also, it was union members that "snitched" on the union so I thought it would be obvious. I guess when writing it I was probably a little miffed to say the least.

As for being miffed about unions, as I said earlier in another comment, not miffed about unions in the private sector, if a private company wants to allow a union, good for them. But NOT one UNION should be allowed to be run in the government sector. It creates the government class of citizens, above the rest of us.

It creates the apparatchik of the communist government.

The government has my ire.

Thanks for the comment.

Thanks again for everyone commenting. KK, I will just post any response that I may get to my inquiry and I will also keep track of the investigation into the union action.

Again folks, thanks for the interest.

If this was in the US..

It's referred to colateral damage. Which when I last checked is quite accepted and tolerated in the US.

Cheers.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Nice hyperbole, typical I guess. Attack the messenger and not the message, include a completely off the wall comparison and be completely wrong to boot.

You are batting 1.000

"Off the wall" would be the phrase I would use to describe charging Mr. Plow with murder. You'd have an easier time charging Fox News an accessory to every anti-muslim hate crime committed in the last 10 years. I'm fairly certain that besides me there are likely not any other attorneys replying to thread. Regardless, have fun with your right-wing fantasy here.

Depraved indifference might get thrown around if someone blindly fired a machine gun into a building and hit someone, pushed a kid into the water and walked away, or dumped a passed out drunk in the middle of the road.

This is the kind of thread that is posted by someone who has little to no experience or understanding of the law beyond the simple reading of a wikipedia article. My guess would be the OP is a first-year law student who found a new word in his textbook that he liked. However, I think presuming the OP has already graduated with a four year degree from an accredited university, a necessary prerequisite for law school, would be giving him entirely too much credit.

reply to post by andrewh7


Typical of someone that has NO IDEA about law. You are attacking the messenger, not the argument.

Soooooooo, who is the progenitor of the absurd? Oh, that would be YOU.

Attack the argument, not the presenter.

For your INFORMATION, any evidence in a court of law that is NOT argued against, is CONSIDERED to be verified.

Got anything else?

reply to post by WeBrooklyn


hey they think it's all fun and games, but low and behold if you gotta do things that are unsafe and that is what you have to do for your job, then you are owed something extra for having to do unsafe things.

I as a worker don't mind doing unsafe things, but that costs extra and it is entirely up to me if I do it, plain and simple. I am a rigger, osha tries to apply to me but the very nature of my job pits the responsibility of my own skin, onto me and those whom I trust enough to perform my work with. I love doing unsafe things, but that is also because I get rewarded for it. You take away those rewards and I go on strike. Simple as that.

So yes while you looking on the outside looking in think it's all fun and games that's great--but the guy asking me if I worked there and I had any idea how easy it is, hasn't worked there either so I don't get the point. I would imagine the poster I am replying to knows more than either of us and he says the city is a slave driver -- after experiencing government first hand I wouldn't put anything past them either.

Workers have the right to strike, union or no union, if you die because you are dependent on the system then that is your own bloody fault. The system fails people all the time, only an idiot would trust their lives to it.

Considering it was difficult to do their job in the first place. The city is to blame more than any one else. I lived in Rochester, NY for awhile, they get a lot of lake effect all the time in the winter. They have parking rules, when it snows every one parks on the same side of the street, that way the plows get through. In New York they were parked on both sides of the street, no wonder the plows couldn't get through. I say the blame can laid squarely on the shoulders of Mayor Michael Bloomberg for not having a comprehensive plan for snow removal in the city.

reply to post by alonzo730


Yes, I blamed him for not calling a snow emergency. I also blamed him for telling people to go out on Monday. I am ALSO wondering why the hell the city of New York allows both sides of the street parking.

Problem is, these are mistakes of IDIOCY on his part. He did not purposefully do something to cause problems, did he?

He did not attempt to cause problems during a blizzard which is ultimately caused harm. Or are you going to defend the actions taken by the union?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Typical of someone that has NO IDEA about law. You are attacking the messenger, not the argument.

Soooooooo, who is the progenitor of the absurd? Oh, that would be YOU.

Attack the argument, not the presenter.

For your INFORMATION, any evidence in a court of law that is NOT argued against, is CONSIDERED to be verified.

Got anything else?

I am licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan. How about you? You produced a poorly written argument using a completely inapplicable legal doctrine. Any prosecutor who brought a depraved indifference charge against a guy who failed to plow a street is likely going to lose his job. In a criminal case, the prosecutor carries the entire burden to prove the elements of a crime and the Defendant carries no burden whatsoever but is free to offer into evidence any fact that contradicts or mitigates those produced by the prosecution.

Depraved indifference murder was traditionally reserved for exceptionally heinous cases of involuntary manslaughter, where the perpetrator's conduct was so wanton and devoid of regard for human life that it could reasonably be equated with intent to kill. How you could possibly compare blindly firing a gun into a schoolhouse or leaving a baby on the train tracks to failing to plow snow is beyond reason. Failing to plow a road is not going to see anyone prosecuted for murder because this act in no way rises to that level of recklessness necessary. Why don't you produce a single case citation of a plow guy being successfully prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter simply because he didn't plow the road? You have none and any judge who's been practicing for more than 10 minutes would simply dismiss your terrible case.

Go sit for a bar exam and then start dictating to me what you think the law is.

reply to post by andrewh7


There you go, you are attempting to argue that because it has not happened before, it cannot be used.

Sorry, because of this, you CANNOT use case law or precedent can you?

Just because I am not licensed, does not mean anything does it? Well?

The definition created by Drunken Driving case law could be my precedence. Just because a drunk drive does not know that his actions COULD cause a death, does NOT mean that he should not be held liable for his actions.

Or are you now going to argue against Drunk Driving laws.

Sorry to tell you this, I have a mind like a steel trap. If you are going to attempt to equate things, better be ready to argue them.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by andrewh7

 

The definition created by Drunken Driving case law could be my precedence. Just because a drunk drive does not know that his actions COULD cause a death, does NOT mean that he should not be held liable for his actions.

Or are you now going to argue against Drunk Driving laws.

Sorry to tell you this, I have a mind like a steel trap. If you are going to attempt to equate things, better be ready to argue them.

You really do not know anything about the law at all. I am not a doctor so I don't go around pretending I know how to transplant a kidney. Not plowing a road because of a labor dispute is absolutely nothing like getting drunk, operating a vehicle, and killing someone. Someone who did the latter could easily and appropriately be charged with involuntary manslaughter, assuming the person who drove the vehicle did not set out to kill a person. This kind of conduct rises to the level of criminal negligence.

I am not attempting to equate anything. You are trying to classify failing to plow a road as criminally negligent conduct when the primary motivation behind this move was your inherent distrust or hatred of labor unions. The law does not exist to provide you or anyone else with the opportunistic means punish political foes with frivolous criminal charges.

If you are going to make some wacky off-the-wall assertion about how the law should be applied, then you have to provide analogous case law or perhaps the statute's legislative notes that indicate that those who wrote it intended it to be applied in this manner.

Honestly, aren't you right-wing extremists supposed to be AGAINST judicial activism or attempting to write new law from the bench? Most statutes are inherently vague so that they can be applied to a variety of cases that share the same key elements. There is going to be many decades of case law defining depraved indifference and I guarantee that none of it is analogous to this case. By all means, give me a citation.

YOU WONT FIND ANY! Why? Because half the population of Michigan would be in jail for not salting their sidewalks quick enough. If you fail to salt your sidewalk and someone slips, you might be open to a civil suit, but you aren't going to be put in jail. A civil case has a much lower burden of proof and even then the allegedly negligent party may not pay a dime if the danger was open and obvious or adequate warning was provided. (States vary on this issue).

reply to post by andrewh7

You really do not know anything about the law at all. I am not a doctor so I don't go around pretending I know how to transplant a kidney. Not plowing a road because of a labor dispute is absolutely nothing like getting drunk, operating a vehicle, and killing someone. Someone who did the latter could easily and appropriately be charged with involuntary manslaughter, assuming the person who drove the vehicle did not set out to kill a person. This kind of conduct rises to the level of criminal negligence.

YOU ARE NO LAWYER! YOU ARE A LIAR!

First off, you do NOT address what I stated.

Depraved Indifference-

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

You have a blizzard condition, where EVERYONE knows that it is a dangerous condition. Evidence 1
You have people that is there job to clear the roads.-Evidendence 2
You have people that are told to purposefully told to not do their jobs.-Evidence 3
You have people that DIE due to emergency that could not get to them because of the lack of action.-Evidence 4


NOW- here is the FACTS OF LAW

"To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting. "

Now you can ASSUME that some of us do not know the LAW, but of course YOU would be wrong.

Just because YOU may not be able to get a conviction because you are a paid off component of the judicial system, does not mean I could not get them convicted.

By the way, how bout being destroyed by a non lawyer, how does that feel?

You have zero evidence. The only thing we know so far is a politician made a claim that can't be verified because the politician now refuses to cooperate after making the claim. Imagine that. You have nothing right now except a unsubstantiated charge. Yet, you're still pretending this really happened.