TexasCHLforum.com

Moby wrote:Taze me......ONCE......and when I get up someone is getting the butt kicking they have coming!

Have you ever been tazed? It hurts. It's not funny. And I hope the guy ends up owning the dealership!

The article says, "Harless is married to State Rep. Patricia Harless, who co-owns the dealership and is also named in the lawsuit."

I am curious if he was the only person who was shocked? Or was he one of many? I am also suspicious that more was happening than he just needed a job to buy a house. That is a lot to put up with. Was there some reason he couldn't turn his desk around to face the door?

That said, using a stun gun on employees is not acceptable. Unless there is more to it, I hope he wins.

snorri wrote:Would the police arrest the guy? Would the DA prosecute? In many cases, street justice would be more effective.

I disagree with street justice, call the cops and have a report filed. They will then know if it happens again the police will be called again and with the previous report you will likely find them more willing to arrest due to a pattern of harassment.

Personally I would probably let the first one slide with a written warning to management that if it happens again I'm calling the cops. That way they prove their point of messing with the new guy, and management can say don't do it again, and if it happens again you have a record of the previous incident.

I would doubt it would happen a second time if you meet with management and HR and have a signed letter detailing the incident, time, date, persons, etc. with a statement that you will pursue legal action if it happens again. That usually stops things like this quickly unless management is just stupid.

Jaguar wrote:

snorri wrote:Would the police arrest the guy? Would the DA prosecute? In many cases, street justice would be more effective.

I disagree with street justice, call the cops and have a report filed. They will then know if it happens again the police will be called again and with the previous report you will likely find them more willing to arrest due to a pattern of harassment.

Personally I would probably let the first one slide with a written warning to management that if it happens again I'm calling the cops. That way they prove their point of messing with the new guy, and management can say don't do it again, and if it happens again you have a record of the previous incident.

I would doubt it would happen a second time if you meet with management and HR and have a signed letter detailing the incident, time, date, persons, etc. with a statement that you will pursue legal action if it happens again. That usually stops things like this quickly unless management is just stupid.

The used car business is full of people who will do and say anything. It isn't the most scrupulous place IMHO. Most likely, the first written warning to management would result in getting a ticket to the unemployment line. Which may be a lot better than a regular diet of tasing!

Blindref757 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

snorri wrote:Would the police arrest the guy? Would the DA prosecute? In many cases, street justice would be more effective.

I disagree with street justice, call the cops and have a report filed. They will then know if it happens again the police will be called again and with the previous report you will likely find them more willing to arrest due to a pattern of harassment.

Personally I would probably let the first one slide with a written warning to management that if it happens again I'm calling the cops. That way they prove their point of messing with the new guy, and management can say don't do it again, and if it happens again you have a record of the previous incident.

I would doubt it would happen a second time if you meet with management and HR and have a signed letter detailing the incident, time, date, persons, etc. with a statement that you will pursue legal action if it happens again. That usually stops things like this quickly unless management is just stupid.

The used car business is full of people who will do and say anything. It isn't the most scrupulous place IMHO. Most likely, the first written warning to management would result in getting a ticket to the unemployment line. Which may be a lot better than a regular diet of tasing!

It would be better for me. I'd rather be unemployed than work in a hostile work environment. I'm too old to put up with too much of this kind of stuff. If management can't or won't fix it, time to move on.

C-dub wrote:Wouldn't even once be assault?

You betcha. On the positiuve, he's going to collect a nice check now from his employer and coworkers. Thats kind of the definition of a harmful and abusive work environment.

Oldgringo wrote:Have y'all thought that maybe the tazee was somehow, or other, "challenged"; e.g., 'hire the handicapped'?

You may have an excellent point.

Juvenile. Immature. Unprofessional. And criminal. The *jokers* could use a wake up call to show them that "just kidding" isn't going to cut it when you take something too far as an adult.

I am stunned at this behavior.

steveincowtown wrote:I am stunned at this behavior.

I'm shocked a bit, myself.

On one hand, the boss is in on the prank. On the other hand, the guy took it for 9mos. I'm sure there could be more to it, but this one as presented by the article will probably come down to jury instructions.

I'm in the 3 strikes camp. 1st time it happens, I tell everyone involved that it's not to happen again. 2nd time, management gets a formal complaint. 3rd time, I'm calling the cops, pressing charges, and suing the company in civil court.

Jaguar wrote: I disagree with street justice, call the cops and have a report filed.

You can disagree with it all you want but the reality is it works a lot better than calling the cops many times. In a perfect world it wouldn't be that way, but in a perfect world there wouldn't be bad guys.

Would Mr. Jones have been justified in shooting his attacker?

I'm surprised that no one yet seems to have caught on to the fact that the tazer is guilty of using deadly force on the tazee.

Let that sink in.

Bradley Jones is, according to video evidence, apparently the victim of a potentially deadly assault.

Make no mistake, a tazer is not a non-lethal weapon; it is a less-lethal weapon. There are numerous instances on record of even apparently healthy people sustaining serious injury and even dying as a result of being tazed.

bdickens wrote:Would Mr. Jones have been justified in shooting his attacker?

I'm surprised that no one yet seems to have caught on to the fact that the tazer is guilty of using deadly force on the tazee.

Let that sink in.

Bradley Jones is, according to video evidence, apparently the victim of a potentially deadly assault.

Make no mistake, a tazer is not a non-lethal weapon; it is a less-lethal weapon. There are numerous instances on record of even apparently healthy people sustaining serious injury and even dying as a result of being tazed.

That would fall under my own personal category of 'just because I can doesn't mean I should'. I also don't open fire on the new guy at the range who inadvertently muzzle-sweeps the entire left side of the firing line after he's changed mags...

I don't think I would, either. But I do know it would have happened only once.

But just change a couple of details and think about how that might affect use-of-force in this story.

What if the victim was had a heart or other health condition that made him much more vulnerable?

What if you witnessed the incident and were aware of the health problems of the victim?

What if it was a criminal using the tazer in an attempted robbery?