Norm48327 schlimm, My apologies. I overlooked the fact he had been convicted. You kept referencing the news article and that somehow led me to believe it had not yet gone to trial.
schlimm,
My apologies. I overlooked the fact he had been convicted. You kept referencing the news article and that somehow led me to believe it had not yet gone to trial.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Norm
?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Norm48327Did you read the highlighted word? So far it is an allegation, not fact.
The judge who heard the case under oath concluded this was a hate crime. Everything points to that. I might ask why you seem to be unwilling to see that it is highly probable that this assault involved race? Or did you think this was some feud about the aesthetics of hairstyles?
Put any two people in a closed room for a couple of hours and an argument of some type will ensue.
Unless the conductor's hair was against regulation its nobody's business. In any case he did not deserve to be assaulted, and the culture at that railroad location (n word, racially motivated graffiti) appears to tolerate such behavior.
The assaulter got off easy with a soft firing. IMHO he should have been dealt with more harshly.
schlimm Norm48327 schlimm This was a racial crime, not about horseplay or the like. How can you determine that from a news article? That statement would surely get you out of jury duty. One can determine that by merely reading the article, even the headline. Here are some quotes which "concerns that: A former rail worker from northwest Indiana alleges in a federal lawsuit that he endured a racially hostile work environment at the railroad company where he worked, which culminated in an epithet-laced attack by a co-worker who cut off his dreadlocks with a knife. "In the lawsuit against a former co-worker, two managers and the railroad company, Perry said his time with Illinois Central was marked by swastikas drawn on restroom walls, the frequent use of the N-word and a routine disregard of workplace complaints by fellow minorities." “I think the railroad needs to be held accountable for their actions and inactions. This isn’t the first time they’ve had problems with racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace,” according to Perry’s lawyer, Stuart Chanen. “They don’t seem to get the message. Maybe they will this time.” If you read Overmod's post on Illinois statute on hate crimes, you can also see that race is a factor.
Norm48327 schlimm This was a racial crime, not about horseplay or the like. How can you determine that from a news article? That statement would surely get you out of jury duty.
schlimm This was a racial crime, not about horseplay or the like.
This was a racial crime, not about horseplay or the like.
How can you determine that from a news article? That statement would surely get you out of jury duty.
Did you read the highlighted word? So far it is an allegation, not fact.
Hate crime.
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits
Well, overmod,
The State of Illinois seems to have all bases covered. That's a pretty broad law.
John WR Norm48327When I said there is likely more to the story it was the result of my having been involved in aviation for over thirty years. The basis for that is that we try not to speculate of make a judgement on an incident prior to having as much information as possible. That usually means waiting for the NTSB final report. I refuse to jump to conclusions till all the information has been presented. Norm, I agree with you that I am not called to render a judgement in this case and for me to do so seems not particularly helpful to anyone invoked. I'm not sure about the extent of the NSTB's involvement here. You probably know more about that than I do. Clearly courts in Illinois are involved in the case and I suspect they will continue to be. John
Norm48327When I said there is likely more to the story it was the result of my having been involved in aviation for over thirty years. The basis for that is that we try not to speculate of make a judgement on an incident prior to having as much information as possible. That usually means waiting for the NTSB final report. I refuse to jump to conclusions till all the information has been presented.
Norm,
I agree with you that I am not called to render a judgement in this case and for me to do so seems not particularly helpful to anyone invoked.
I'm not sure about the extent of the NSTB's involvement here. You probably know more about that than I do. Clearly courts in Illinois are involved in the case and I suspect they will continue to be.
John
I guess I should have been clearer in my statement. The NTSB will not be involved. I was making reference to an accident investigation.
schlimm greyhounds Nope. The judge did not say that the perp railroad worker should have been charged with a felony hate crime. What the judge said was: "I really am very troubled as to why this case wasn't even ... investigated as a hate crime,” ---- and that quote is a very long way from what you are exaggerating. Investigated as a hate crime is not synonymous with "Should have been charged with a felony hate crime." I only said that with some confidence after speaking with lawyers who practiced in Cook for years, one a former asst. states attorney and another former City of Chicago asst. corporation counsel. It is sometimes known in that old boy's network as "judicial restraint," what we would call speaking in code. You also omitted the rest of what the judge is reported to have said: "Judge Allen Murphy expressed dismay that the case was not sent to felony court as a hate crime."Hate crimes are a felony and usually come under federal jurisdiction. This was a racial crime, not about horseplay or the like.
greyhounds Nope. The judge did not say that the perp railroad worker should have been charged with a felony hate crime. What the judge said was: "I really am very troubled as to why this case wasn't even ... investigated as a hate crime,” ---- and that quote is a very long way from what you are exaggerating. Investigated as a hate crime is not synonymous with "Should have been charged with a felony hate crime."
Nope. The judge did not say that the perp railroad worker should have been charged with a felony hate crime.
What the judge said was: "I really am very troubled as to why this case wasn't even ... investigated as a hate crime,” ---- and that quote is a very long way from what you are exaggerating. Investigated as a hate crime is not synonymous with "Should have been charged with a felony hate crime."
I only said that with some confidence after speaking with lawyers who practiced in Cook for years, one a former asst. states attorney and another former City of Chicago asst. corporation counsel. It is sometimes known in that old boy's network as "judicial restraint," what we would call speaking in code.
You also omitted the rest of what the judge is reported to have said: "Judge Allen Murphy expressed dismay that the case was not sent to felony court as a hate crime."Hate crimes are a felony and usually come under federal jurisdiction. This was a racial crime, not about horseplay or the like.
A quick perusal of the actual Illinois hate-crime statute involved clears this up.
(720 ILCS 5/12-7.1)
(from Ch. 38, par. 12-7.1)
Sec. 12-7.1.
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-2, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (b-5), hate crime is a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent offense.
(b-5) Hate crime is a Class 3 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent offense if committed:
(1) in a church, synagogue, mosque, or other
building, structure, or place used for religious worship or other religious purpose;
(2) in a cemetery, mortuary, or other facility used
for the purpose of burial or memorializing the dead;
(3) in a school or other educational facility,
including an administrative facility or public or private dormitory facility of or associated with the school or other educational facility;
(4) in a public park or an ethnic or religious
community center;
(5) on the real property comprising any location
specified in clauses (1) through (4) of this subsection (b-5); or
(6) on a public way within 1,000 feet of the real
property comprising any location specified in clauses (1) through (4) of this subsection (b-5).
Hope this precludes any more ... discussion ... about the 'felony' question.
schlimm In your zeal to get the whole story you seem to overlook the judge's opinion in sentencing the accused. That in itself says a good deal. And he also stated on record the perpetrator should have been charged with a felony hate crime. The term does not refer to horseplay or someone with a chip on his shoulder. It refers to crimes motivated by some form of bigotry, including most often race.
In your zeal to get the whole story you seem to overlook the judge's opinion in sentencing the accused. That in itself says a good deal. And he also stated on record the perpetrator should have been charged with a felony hate crime. The term does not refer to horseplay or someone with a chip on his shoulder. It refers to crimes motivated by some form of bigotry, including most often race.
Let's keep things straight here.
What was done to the conductor was very wrong. And I personally think the judge was remiss in failing to put the confessed perp behind bars for a few months. (In Cook, also known as "Crook", County it was probably a plea deal.) But everything else is just an allegation. Maybe a true allegation, but we'll have to see.
In the mean time, let us not exaggerate.
SALfanIf we knew the whole story, there is probably much more to it than hairstyle. I have worked with people with whom peaceful coexistence was impossible; one in particular was militant about his attitudes, had a huge chip on his shoulder about everything under the sun, and would file a complaint if you looked at him the wrong way. Obviously I don't know the individual in this situation, and I'm not implying that he was like the person I knew, but we don't know that he was blameless either. Better if we wait for more information before before jumping to conclusios.
John,
When I said there is likely more to the story it was the result of my having been involved in aviation for over thirty years. The basis for that is that we try not to speculate of make a judgement on an incident prior to having as much information as possible. That usually means waiting for the NTSB final report. I refuse to jump to conclusions till all the information has been presented.
BaltACD My company's Operating Rules have a rule prohibiting 'Horseplay'. What is horseplay for one, may not be horseplay for all.
My company's Operating Rules have a rule prohibiting 'Horseplay'. What is horseplay for one, may not be horseplay for all.
Yes, Sam, I agree we are kindred spirits. Like you I am also a veteran. I got my start in trains when I had to get home one night from Providence, RI to Warwick and realized I didn't have bus fare. A stranger suggested that a freight train would be pulling through the station soon and filled me in on the details. I took that terrible advice and did something that is unmentionable here which is just as well as it is something I would never, ever want to suggest. Once I got into the Army and could ride half fare in uniform I was able to afford to ride trains the right way.
As far as the issue of the conductor here, I have expressed myself on the subject and I have not changed my view of it. However, I'm not here to harangue those who disagree with me. And all do not disagree with me here. In any event nothing you or I or anyone here says will influence the way the case is dealt with. So the best we can do is to agree to disagree.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
John WR;
My guess we are somewhat kindred spirits. I am 71, enjoy History ( any History, and RR History in particular). I am a Veteran and lived in the Memphis,Tn.area most of my adult life. As a teenager working in the construction trade in Memphis, I got to know another young man, also working as a truck driver for an Electrical Contractor in Memphis; he went on to be a great success in the music business, but that is another story..
As a teen I was able to be in and around the Round House at a local RR Yard, with a neighbor, more than once witnessing 'horseplay'; it was always done in good spirits, but I can look back,to see that it could have turned into an ugly situation,quickly. I also saw it at another facility where I had acquaintances, and similar 'horseplay'. Such activities can take place in those environment, as men are working hard together, and their 'horseplay' can sometimes be borderline to the dangerous side, ( welders putting a ground on a beam that a co-worker is about to strike an arc on) springs to mind. 'Venting' while on the job can be a double-edged sword.
I do not mean to condone unsafe, or the kind of 'horseplay' that the Conductor suffered, but as I said, I can see where given strained inter-personal relationships, on the job 'horseplay' can get, rapidly out of hand..
samfp1943 tree68 At risk of sounding like I'm taking management's side here, we simply don't know all of the facts. The implications of the earlier lawsuit notwithstanding, we don't know this isn't a case of someone figuratively repeatedly saying "punch me," then complaining that "he hit me first" when someone actually does. If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate, then the fellow that attacked him should still be held responsible for the attack, but the hate crime aspect then becomes a non-issue, as I see it. And to Norm's previous POST: Posted by Norm48327 on Wed, Feb 5 2014 12:51 PM Three sides to every story Crandell. The plaintiff's, the defendant's, and the truth. I suspect the latter is somewhere in between. Norm Methinks Norm 8327 and tree68 are pretty much on target. Absolutely we do not know the WHOLE story ! WE have heard just the Plaintiff's side ( Via his attorney) . Personaly, I have been cut up believing what an attorney has said. My main argument was to the point that Larry posted..."...If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate..." Rather than a 'chip on his shoulder'; The Conductor was "flaunting" his dreadlocks style hair do. Maybe, he was looking for a fight (?). My point was that the the First Line Supervisor should have been aware of the discord in the party of co-workers, and headed off the 'confrontation' before it got to the point that it did. The Supervisor should have been able to kick the potential problem up to a higher authority(?). Thus heading off the stage that things are at currently, "... the my lawyer can whip your lawyer stage..." It would have at least kept the CN/IC in a better position that it now finds itself, but then that why the Company has a whole department of Lawyers.
tree68 At risk of sounding like I'm taking management's side here, we simply don't know all of the facts. The implications of the earlier lawsuit notwithstanding, we don't know this isn't a case of someone figuratively repeatedly saying "punch me," then complaining that "he hit me first" when someone actually does. If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate, then the fellow that attacked him should still be held responsible for the attack, but the hate crime aspect then becomes a non-issue, as I see it.
At risk of sounding like I'm taking management's side here, we simply don't know all of the facts.
The implications of the earlier lawsuit notwithstanding, we don't know this isn't a case of someone figuratively repeatedly saying "punch me," then complaining that "he hit me first" when someone actually does.
If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate, then the fellow that attacked him should still be held responsible for the attack, but the hate crime aspect then becomes a non-issue, as I see it.
And to Norm's previous POST:
Three sides to every story Crandell. The plaintiff's, the defendant's, and the truth. I suspect the latter is somewhere in between.
Methinks Norm 8327 and tree68 are pretty much on target. Absolutely we do not know the WHOLE story !
WE have heard just the Plaintiff's side ( Via his attorney) . Personaly, I have been cut up believing what an attorney has said. My main argument was to the point that Larry posted..."...If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate..."
Rather than a 'chip on his shoulder'; The Conductor was "flaunting" his dreadlocks style hair do. Maybe, he was looking for a fight (?). My point was that the the First Line Supervisor should have been aware of the discord in the party of co-workers, and headed off the 'confrontation' before it got to the point that it did. The Supervisor should have been able to kick the potential problem up to a higher authority(?). Thus heading off the stage that things are at currently, "... the my lawyer can whip your lawyer stage..." It would have at least kept the CN/IC in a better position that it now finds itself, but then that why the Company has a whole department of Lawyers.
Are you serious right now? Is it 1960 again? Why in the world would a hairstyle cause an employee to become so enraged he physically assaults someone with a deadly weapon?
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
I agree that this was wrong.
When I read, "attacked from behind with a knife", I picture a very violent event, a "Bowie knife with a jagged edge", a tussle with one of those involved possibly being thrown to the ground and an attendant amount of yelling and screaming and such...
But then I read where one of the company statements was that is was "characterized as horseplay"...
I picture that as more like the victim was engrossed in doing something and the "attacker" tiptoed up behind him and stealthily selected one long braid of the hair-do and using the small blade of his pen-knife quickly severed the hair somewhere along its length and then ran away, giggling, while victim turned around and said, "Hey! What'd you do?"
UNACCEPTABLE behavior on the part of the "attacker", but hardly a violent "ATTACK from behind with a knife".
When I was a kid, the fashion for a while was loose baggy pants held up with an elastic waist band and it was "funny" for a jokester to sneak up from behind and jerk the pants down, exposing the persons underwear (if they were rich enough to afford underwear). Do that today and you might end up on the sexual predator list, depending on how savvy a lawyer is engaged by the victim of the "joke".
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
dakotafredOh, come on!
Fred,
If you are inviting me to come with you to meet men with facial hair I happily accept the invitation. I am interest in US railroad history. And my impression is that a lot of railroaders in the 19th and 20th centuries sported facial hair as well as a lot of other men from that age. So yes, anyone who would criticize you for that style reveals his own ignorance. But I certainly hope the people who criticized you at least limited their behavior to personal uncalled for remarks and none of them actually attacked you.
samfp1943 I think you know the answer... A person who effect a 'style' such as that, or any other facial type change; is just limiting their ability to get or improve their employment in the business world. They have IMHO severely limited their potential opportunities, particularly, when interacting with face-to-face customer contact.
Sam,
I am one of the "older people." I am 74. I would never ever deliberately disfigure my own body with a tattoo. And as far as piercings go I would never even have my own ears pierced much less have other parts of my body pierced. That can lead to health problems. But I am conservative enough to still believe in the Declaration of Independence including the right to "pursuit of happiness." If other people do things to their bodies that have no effect on me I see no reason to get involved.
In this care there was no tattoo and no body piercing. And there is an attack with a knife from behind. If my life experience teaches me anything it teaches me that as people go about their business they should be safe and secure and not have to worry about attacks from behind with a knife or any other kinds of attacks.
Norm48327As a point of curiosity, would you hire some youngster with a punk haircut that is dyed parrot green to interact with your customers?
The issue here is that one man came up behind another man and attacked the second man with a knife.
To satisfy your curiosity, I have never owned a business of any kind. If I did own a business where my employees had direct contact with the public I doubt I would consider hair color as disqualifying an applicant. Where I live (New Jersey) many people dye their hair. A green haired employee is as no more likely to repel some customers as he is likely to attract others.
But the CN/IC is a freight railroad. There is no direct customer interaction by operating employees. So the issue is really the attack with a knife.
ACYNobody had any obligation to impress them. Back in the 1950's and 1960's, there were hip young folks who were attacked & had their hair (scalp and facial) forceably cut by the upstanding protectors of public morality and decency. Guess that's why Kris Kristofferson wrote "Jesus Was A Capricorn". It's been fifty or sixty years now, and some folks still don't get the idea of Constitutional rights. If a person wants to pursue his happiness by having long hair, he shouldn't be physically attacked for it. He should also not expect to be offered the Presidency of the Company. Look at the rulebook. If it says he can't have hair longer than a certain length, then he needs to cut it or quit (or work to get the rule changed). If the rulebook doesn't prohibit long hair, then it's nobody else's business. In any event, the Company needs to be proactive in preventing physical attacks against anybody. That's the Company Police's job, after all. I suppose there may be facts we haven't heard here, because we have only heard one side; but unless something pretty remarkable is revealed, it looks like the guy has a good case.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.