Tased and csonfused....err, pissed

[dendawg]

http://www.khou.com/home/Man-tasered...218622701.html

Man gets tased at work 24 times over nine months and eventually gets fired...then files suit.

I don't know about ya'll, but I wouldn't have waited nine months...I'd have hidden a bat in my office.

[Bloodsoul]

This is what happens when you make your co-worker watch Smurfs 2.

[Rageaholic]

I love how the boss calls this a frivolous lawsuit.

This is beyond hostile work environment.

[Aethian]

Anyone else read the comments?

[Rageaholic]

Anyone else read the comments?

Yeah, one of the guys thinks this is a case of "sour grapes". What an asshole.

[Andara Bledin]

I avoid random comment sections. They're usually full of sociopaths and cheerleaders, and little in the way of actual thoughtful commentary.

Anyway, if there are videos, the people involved are all fucked. And if the videos were removed by their creators for fear of prosecution, then they'll likely be hit with additional charges of interfering with the investigation by trying to destroy evidence.

[Ginger Tea]

If it's like Facebook, the videos might not be erased from servers, just no longer associated with any saved urls, I don't think it would be too hard for them to find a deleted video based off a users account.

[Duelist925]

Sourcefed did a video on this just the other day, and theres video that might be of him going in on a tasering of another co-worker himself, which could undermine his case a bit.

Sourcefed Video

[Panacea]

I don't know about ya'll, but I wouldn't have waited nine months...I'd have hidden a bat in my office.

In this job market, I don't blame him for keeping quiet. He wanted to buy a house. And when you respond to force with force, it must be reasonable force.

A taser is not considered a deadly weapon (in spite of the fact some people do die from them). A bat is.

Anyone else read the comments?

I did. Not surprised by the variation of "it's his own fault" vs "he's a victim" comments. There are some hints there's more to the story, since there are claims he was fired rather than quit, and was an active participant. If that's true it might hurt his case.

However, one thing is clear: this kind of horseplay should not have been tolerated by the owners. Screwing around with tasers is dangerous, and that might be enough for the case to proceed.

Anyway, if there are videos, the people involved are all fucked. And if the videos were removed by their creators for fear of prosecution, then they'll likely be hit with additional charges of interfering with the investigation by trying to destroy evidence.

It won't matter that they removed the videos. They existed, so the plaintiff's attorney will subpoena them during discovery. If the dealership owner claims not to have them, he can get hit with a big fine and even jail for contempt.

Plus, once something is on the internet it is there forever.

If it's like Facebook, the videos might not be erased from servers, just no longer associated with any saved urls, I don't think it would be too hard for them to find a deleted video based off a users account.

Agreed. YouTube probably has copies, and will get hit with a subpoena. I doubt YouTube will fight such a subpoena.

[Andara Bledin]

However, one thing is clear: this kind of horseplay should not have been tolerated by the owners. Screwing around with tasers is dangerous, and that might be enough for the case to proceed.

Regardless of anything else, the business owner is getting hit with a massive OSHA fine. And it's highly likely his insurance rates are going to jump quite a bit, too.

Even if the suit gets thrown out, the owner is going to be feeling the sting of allowing this sort of shit to go down on his property.

[Aethian]

From the way I read it, it was the owners that started and pushed this type of behavior?

[Nyoibo]

I read somewhere that it was either the owner or manager who supplied the taser, not sure where though.

[wolfie]

It won't matter that they removed the videos. They existed, so the plaintiff's attorney will subpoena them during discovery. If the dealership owner claims not to have them, he can get hit with a big fine and even jail for contempt.

Unless the grounds under which he claims not to have them is "The footage from our security cameras is deleted after X days. According to the plaintiff's allegations, the most recent incident for which he is demanding footage was X+Y days before he filed suit. Any footage for the day in question was deleted BEFORE we had reason to suspect that it would be subject to a subpoena".

That's why document retention/destruction policies are so common - if a business deletes ALL of a particular class of documents after a specified time period, they have a legitimate reason to no longer possess a particular document of that class if a court orders them to produce it.

[Andara Bledin]

Unless the grounds under which he claims not to have them is "The footage from our security cameras is deleted after X days. According to the plaintiff's allegations, the most recent incident for which he is demanding footage was X+Y days before he filed suit. Any footage for the day in question was deleted BEFORE we had reason to suspect that it would be subject to a subpoena".

That's great in that context.

But this is about videos uploaded to YouTube. If they scrubbed their YouTube account(s) in order to avoid those videos being used as evidence against them, they're screwed.