My company's Operating Rules have a rule prohibiting 'Horseplay'. What is horseplay for one, may not be horseplay for all.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
John
BaltACD My company's Operating Rules have a rule prohibiting 'Horseplay'. What is horseplay for one, may not be horseplay for all.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
Norm
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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 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.
Well, overmod,
The State of Illinois seems to have all bases covered. That's a pretty broad law.
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.
(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
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.
Did you read the highlighted word? So far it is an allegation, not fact.
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.
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?
?
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.