Store manager fired for foiling robbery

by Big Tex 38 Replies latest social current

• 

  Abaddon

  czar

  earlier Pilgrims had a xenophobic reaction to living in Holland.

  http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter52.html

  Netherlands
  Most Dutch emigrants (55% before 1855) originated from those parts where rich marine clay-soil had led them to specialise in crop growing, namely the provinces of Zeeland, Groningen and later on also Friesland. Emigrants were for the most part day labourers working on the farms. Another important group (accounting for 31% of emigrants) consisted mainly of small farmers from the light sandy soil areas in the east and the south of the country.

  Nearly half of the Dutch departing between 1845 and 1849 belonged to a dissenting Protestant denomination called the ?Afgescheidenen?, or 'Seceded'.

  The Dutch have had a pretty good reputation for religious tolerence. 'Tolerence' and 'pragmatism' are the two chief strengths of Dutch culture. Usually people ran TO the Netherlands. I can't find any record of anything beyond religious quarrels between the main Dutch church and the Afgescheidenen, so religious oppression was not a major factor in movement of Dutch people to the USA - or Jewish people resident in the Netherlands.

  I've lived here for a while now, and although the Dutch can be annoyingly po-faced and up-tight at times, I feel some loyalty towards the place!

  "Emotions taking away from personal responsibility" is a bit different to suggesting that American society has a very "don't tred on me" approach to life. I agree with the latter. I'm happy to agree that over riding cultural values we both seem to roughly agree on can influence one's enculturation. But the unchanging nature of the , if you want, Jungian archetypes, despite the fact we are two centuries away from when that was arguably formed is... curious.

  Maybe it is John Wayne's fault...

  I assume you aren't counting such "anomalies" as the Balkan conflicts, Hitler, the Spanish Civil War... etc.. etc... etc...

  Oh, to be sure people kill each other everywhere and often for no particulary good reason. It's just the chronic, s p r e a d o u t, continual way you guys do it. And since WWII, the Western European countries have been comparatively free of either anolomic or chronic afflictions of murder.

  I mean, maybe we don't nationalize and industrialize our murders - maybe if we did we wouldn't have such a high "incidental" murder rate between civilians? Maybe because we have to go so far away to find a socially acceptable outlet for our homicidal instincts? Whereas all a Bosnian had to do was go next door and pop his neighbor and it still fell under "war"???

  Either or argument. It holds that either you have a murderous government or a murderous populace. There is plenty of evidence that are other possibilities, including one where no-one is especially murderous.

  I think it's down to the age of a society. Look at Japan. Feudal to the middle of the 19thC. Attitudes toward women, violence, individual freedom, environmental responsibiliy and animal ethics are less advanced from a Western European viewpoint. Spain. Only part of Europe occupied by Muslims. Lower levels of animal ethics than the rest of Europe. The Islamic world, which was basically for a large part stuck at 1875 up until the last 50 years. Attitudes toward women, violence, individual freedom, environmental responsibiliy and animal ethics are less advanced from a Western European viewpoint. The United States. Still has judicial execution; state-sanctioned killing. This is less advanced from a Western European viewpoint. One can argue that the Western European viewpoint isn't the best, obviously.

  Western Europe is not a perfect society. But we have been through what other societies have been through; industrialisation, capitalism, mass education, racial and sexual equality, religious tolerence and secularisation of society, killing as a judicial sanction.

  We've kept the good bits; the fact that this results in a measurably fairer and safer society is proof they are the good bits; the ideas that work.

  Maybe a first step to making America a more peaceful land is to end judicial execution and replace it with 'real' life sentences.

  Good discussion BTW
• 

  czarofmischief

  end judicial execution and replace it with 'real' life sentences.

  Maybe. I have no real opinion on the matter in either direction - as long as those guilty of heinous crimes are removed from society permanently. What is the difference between killing somebody or holding them in a 9x12 until they die? Not much from MY point of view, save that the latter might be a bit more cruel and produces by its very nature an underground network of those with criminal tendencies and know-how.

  I think maybe the old Danish custom of weregild might be revived more forcefully - we are already suing, why not standardize it a bit?

  But why would we WANT a more peaceful society? Maybe the world needs a slightly insane superpower. I would hesitate to embark on any course of action that might lead to a society that responds to terrorism the way Spain did - they cut and run.

  It's just the chronic, s p r e a d o u t, continual way you guys do it. And since WWII, the Western European countries have been comparatively free of either anolomic or chronic afflictions of murder.

  Could the massive U.S. presence since then have something to do with it?

  The Dutch have had a pretty good reputation for religious tolerence. 'Tolerence' and 'pragmatism' are the two chief strengths of Dutch culture. Usually people ran TO the Netherlands. I can't find any record of anything beyond religious quarrels between the main Dutch church and the Afgescheidenen, so religious oppression was not a major factor in movement of Dutch people to the USA - or Jewish people resident in the Netherlands.

  Oh yeah, I was never taught that the DUTCH were at fault. The Pilgrims were the xenophobes - having sought refuge in Holland, they were afraid of their children becoming Dutch and then fled to America. That's how the the story goes in school, at any rate.

  Maybe it is John Wayne's fault...

  But the presentation of the ideal was eternal - from Horatio Alger to the stories of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett - our culture is saturated with a man with a gun, or a hardworking loner acheiving the heights of wealth and prosperity. It's what we like, it's who we are.

  I do not think that our culture is going to "mature" anytime soon. In fact, I'm willing to gamble that the EU is going to collapse from internal rivalries and sheer differentiation. If we withdrew the U.S. presences in Germany, Italy, Turkey (as well as sundry smaller bases) would the E.U. still be able to settle their differences non-violently? You are taking the behavior of your society under the anomalous defense umbrella of the United States' hyperpower (which I am delighted by but not assuming will last) and considering it the "gold standard" by which all societies should be measured.

  I wonder, what was the murder rate in Londinium vs. Rome say, around 150 A.D.???

  CZAR
• 

  Abaddon

  Czar

  If people are 'removed from society permanently' they can't produce 'an underground network of those with criminal tendencies and know-how'. Please try to keep your arguments logical.

  I think maybe the old Danish custom of weregild might be revived more forcefully - we are already suing, why not standardize it a bit?

  If you want to live in a world where the rich can do what they like and not suffer for hurting others to the same extent as a poor man, go ahead.

  But why would we WANT a more peaceful society? Maybe the world needs a slightly insane superpower. I would hesitate to embark on any course of action that might lead to a society that responds to terrorism the way Spain did - they cut and run.

  Please don't turn my 'should have taken longer and gained support of Arab countries before invading' stance in to a 'run from terrorism one'. I promise to try and not misrepresent you.

  And since WWII, the Western European countries have been comparatively free of either anolomic or chronic afflictions of murder.

  Could the massive U.S. presence since then have something to do with it?

  AH, for god's sake czar, do you think the US troops have been patrolling the streets of Germany, Britain, Holland etc., keeping order? The sun does rise WITHOUT the help of American millitary power, you know. Nice of you to try and take the credit for European social trends and give it to a country that has yet to follow many of them!

  AND THE USA HAVE HAD A 'MASSIVE PRESENCE IN THE USA and that hasn't stopped them killing each other quite so enthusiastically!

  afraid of their children becoming Dutch

  So it was their fears of losing cultural identity that lead them to move rather than an attack on their religious freedoms by the Dutch? I'm glad we cleared that up. And as for what you were taught in schools; Pocahontas anyone?

  In fact, I'm willing to gamble that the EU is going to collapse from internal rivalries and sheer differentiation. If we withdrew the U.S. presences in Germany, Italy, Turkey (as well as sundry smaller bases) would the E.U. still be able to settle their differences non-violently? You are taking the behavior of your society under the anomalous defense umbrella of the United States' hyperpower (which I am delighted by but not assuming will last) and considering it the "gold standard" by which all societies should be measured.

  And this is you resorting to your prophecies of doom persona, with very little connection to reality. Do you seriously think the US bases were to impose internal security and co-operation on the EU nations? And that they had nothing to do with the Soviet block? THEN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR STOP SNIFFING THE GLUE.

  I wonder, what was the murder rate in Londinium vs. Rome say, around 150 A.D.???

  oh, counting the circus, Roime had a higher murder rate, but... who cares? We were talking about why AMERICANS kills each other far more often than any other developed country.
• 

  czarofmischief

  I think you have a dichotomous response going on:

  I would like to point out that you casually dismiss such "anomalous" actions of civilized nations as Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovania; Chechnya - even though such things have been going in Europe more or less constantly since... well, forever, but for the sake of the argument I would suggest that institutionalized murder has been a feature of European life since WWI.

  I think that perhaps it is not the violence of America that is the anomaly - it is the peaceable nature of Western European citizenry that is unusual. The low murder rates in whatever nations you are including in your rather specious definiton of "civilized" are what are unusual. It's circular reasoning to put low murder rates as an aspect of "correct" civilization and then to dismiss all other related cultures for their high murder rates. Most of American civilization is descended from the European ones - to completely divorce us in a cultural relationship would just be dishonest.

  I guess you are referring to Britain, France, and Holland in your definition of "civilized" nations. You are also rather casually differentiating between war and criminal individual murder. Now, your need for war to guarantee your borders has diminished due to U.S. presence and threat of U.S. force against an aggressor (admittedly anti-Soviet, but Britain doesn't need to tangle with Russia over the Crimea anytime soon... again...). Look how rapidly (relatively) the response to the situation in Bosnia was. What would have been a minor affair just one hudnred years ago became a huge international peacekeeping effort. So the European outlet for violence, instituionalized murder, has been held in abeyance by American force - and lately, by U.S. led NATO. Thus, your kneejerk desire to put the American in his place is countered by logic and fact. I understand you don't like my country's government, attitudes, and policies.

  Now, a cultural and philosophical discussion. I can tell you why Americans love violence. As for WHY Europeans only like to fight on battlefields, I have no idea. You're just weird that way. An American woman or man is far more likely to shoot, stab, or bludgeon their cheating spouse to death than a French one. An American is far more likely to kill in defense of property rights.

  What would you suggest as to the cause of our choosing violence?

  I am enjoying this, surprisingly...

  CZAR
• 

  czarofmischief

  So it was their fears of losing cultural identity that lead them to move rather than an attack on their religious freedoms by the Dutch? I'm glad we cleared that up. And as for what you were taught in schools; Pocahontas anyone?

  I thought you promised never to misrepresent me. I never said crap about Pocohantas... leave colors of the wind girl out of this... ha ha ha...

  CZAR
• 

  Abaddon

  czar

  I would like to point out that you casually dismiss such "anomalous" actions of civilized nations as Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovania; Chechnya - even though such things have been going in Europe more or less constantly since... well, forever, but for the sake of the argument I would suggest that institutionalized murder has been a feature of European life since WWI.

  Yes, I know that in a discussion about why America is so violent today in the 21st Century, when Western Europe has been far less violent since WWII you can try to shift the focus by introducing countries that are NOT part of Western Europe, and INCLUDING WWII's institutionalized murder. But as we are talking about why America is so violent today in the 21st Century, when Western Europe has been far less violent since WWII it really doesn't so any good, does it?

  Oh, this just gets better and better...

  I think that perhaps it is not the violence of America that is the anomaly - it is the peaceable nature of Western European citizenry that is unusual.

  The low murder rates in whatever nations you are including in your rather specious definiton of "civilized" are what are unusual. It's circular reasoning to put low murder rates as an aspect of "correct" civilization and then to dismiss all other related cultures for their high murder rates. Most of American civilization is descended from the European ones - to completely divorce us in a cultural relationship would just be dishonest.

  Here's the stats;

  As you can see ALL the countries higher than the USA have clear reasons for their high murder rates;

  They are either lethal due to massive drug crime, or due to social turmoil following on from the end of apartheid or Communism, have a tribal social structure, or are unstable post-colonial African countries.

  They ALL have a massive differential in terms of GDP per capita from the USA (2nd highest in world). Most have a large difference in the level of educational attainment.

  And LOADS of countries that are not European have low murder rates. It's just most are poor and undeveloped, so I couldn't make fair comparisons to the USA.

  How can the USA be so closely linked, in terms of murder rate, to countries it has nothing in common with as regards social pressures or deprevation?

  I guess you are referring to Britain, France, and Holland in your definition of "civilized" nations. You are also rather casually differentiating between war and criminal individual murder. Now, your need for war to guarantee your borders has diminished due to U.S. presence and threat of U.S. force against an aggressor (admittedly anti-Soviet, but Britain doesn't need to tangle with Russia over the Crimea anytime soon... again...). Look how rapidly (relatively) the response to the situation in Bosnia was. What would have been a minor affair just one hudnred years ago became a huge international peacekeeping effort. So the European outlet for violence, instituionalized murder, has been held in abeyance by American force - and lately, by U.S. led NATO.

  Thus, your kneejerk desire to put the American in his place is countered by logic and fact.

  Nope, by evasion and attempt to steal the credit of European social programs for the US Army (who were notably non-integrational for the largest part).

  And how, pray, can that Army send it's peace-unto-you-fellow-man vibes over the base walls so effectively in Europe, but has no effect in the USA? To argue that an Army can introduce an effect not seen in its homeland

  I understand you don't like my country's government, attitudes, and policies.

  Government and policies and the attitudes that drive them. The people and a whole bunch of other American attitudes I am fine with, even if some have the political commonsense of a hammer.

  Now, a cultural and philosophical discussion. I can tell you why Americans love violence. As for WHY Europeans only like to fight on battlefields, I have no idea. You're just weird that way. An American woman or man is far more likely to shoot, stab, or bludgeon their cheating spouse to death than a French one.

  Oh, but in France that's considered a crime of passion. You get a reduced sentence. I didn't say EUrope was perfect, did I?

  An American is far more likely to kill in defense of property rights.

  Mmm... in some countries you have to be AT RISK to kill in your own house. Good for accidental 'self-defence' killings of family members, bad for the occasions the intruder was going to kill you anyway.

  What would you suggest as to the cause of our choosing violence?

  America has institutionalised state violence (the death penalty) and in other aspects from my hoitey-toity arrogant Western European society point-of-view is a less mature culture. I mean, the personal efforts of individuals aside (Americans as individuals are more charitable than Europeans as individuals; it's your government that is mean) in the USA 'care for the poor' is an oxymoron.

  I am enjoying this, surprisingly...

  Me too.
• 

  czarofmischief

  in the USA 'care for the poor' is an oxymoron.

  You need to drop the attitude that just because we don't put everything in to a nice and easy welfare system, that the poor in our country are hard up. No, it isn't easy to be poor. That said, the poor in our country, depending on the state they live in (some of which are bigger and more populous than France) have a greater or lesser degree of social welfare system to back them up... and they have it a LOT easier than in many other countries. They can get food stamps to eat. They can get subsidized housing, to live. the concept is they will eventually overcome their poverty. There are numerous charities and private programs that do uncountable work. You won't see any stats, because its too hard to find.

  All children under eighteen are eligible for health insurance under both federal and state programs in all 50 states. Sheer ignorance and laziness on the part of the parents is the only reason they don't. Andthere is the crux of the problem.

  If they are poor, it's because they don't want to do the work it takes to become rich. If they are rich, they either inherited (ooh, that dirty word for you leftists, with your freakish dreams of confiscating all the money everywhere) or they developed something for a market. I don't want to redistribute the wealth. Why would I? Why should I share with the cretins all around me, when it's me putting together a novel every night while they sit around renting porn with their food stamps?

  Social mobility is ridiculously easy here. If you are smart, hard working, and learn how to work the system (instead of just coasting through on a monthly check) you can get yourself ahead. IF you ain't, or you make a mistake, you file for bankruptcy and That's how it is here. You pull your own weight. Single mothers going to nursing school - that's the American way. Single mothers sitting at home farting into the couches while watching Springer - that's the welfare american way.

  And if somebody wants to drink himself to death, he's free to do that. Just not in my corner.

  CZAR
• 

  Abaddon

  czar

  You need to drop the attitude that just because we don't put everything in to a nice and easy welfare system, that the poor in our country are hard up.

  They are. It's not an attitude, it's statistical comparisons with comparable countries.

  No, it isn't easy to be poor. That said, the poor in our country, depending on the state they live in (some of which are bigger and more populous than France) have a greater or lesser degree of social welfare system to back them up... and they have it a LOT easier than in many other countries.

  But not as easy as comparably wealthy or developed countries. Which is the point. If the US were being compared to Chad and was better in welfare provison they'd be no surprise. It's when there's a big difference between the USA and say, the Netherlands, that one wonders.

  They can get food stamps to eat.

  Mmmm... how socially inclusive.

  They can get subsidized housing, to live. the concept is they will eventually overcome their poverty. There are numerous charities and private programs that do uncountable work. You won't see any stats, because its too hard to find.

  Didn't I already say that the American's were indivdually very charitable and it was the government that sucked?

  All children under eighteen are eligible for health insurance under both federal and state programs in all 50 states. Sheer ignorance and laziness on the part of the parents is the only reason they don't. Andthere is the crux of the problem.

  If they are poor, it's because they don't want to do the work it takes to become rich.

  So the fact that the economic system in the USA is set up so that 46.4% of the money is held by 20% of the people means that the other 80% of the people are lazy, or are being screwed by policies which benefit the rich?

  Which is it czar; I doubt you're in the 20% with the 46.4%, so remember, you're lazy too (if richness or poorness is a pure function of inclination to work).

  If they are rich, they either inherited (ooh, that dirty word for you leftists, with your freakish dreams of confiscating all the money everywhere)

  Make sure you know what I think before making yourself look silly with straw mman arguments based on ignornace.

  ...or they developed something for a market. I don't want to redistribute the wealth. Why would I? Why should I share with the cretins all around me, when it's me putting together a novel every night while they sit around renting porn with their food stamps?

  Good luck with the novel; is it based on your paranoid fantasies of the left rising in revolt after the monkey steals another election? As for cretins around me, I prefer to give them a hand up rather than step over them. Wolves feed their sick and injured. I think I have better social morals than a wolf. You blame them; seems you refuse to accept the system could CAUSE and INSTITUTIONALISE poverty.

  Maybe an examination of how, say black incomes have remained static as a percentage of white incomes for decades would be a cursory lesson that the system can both cause and institutionalise poverty.

  Social mobility is ridiculously easy here.

  Yup, lose your job and you'll be collecting food parcels before you know it. Or was the car park of the church in Texas I saw on TV the other day (full of new cars and people who'd recently lost work and were now in economic freefall) just happen to be full of the stupid and the lazy? I mean, I know it was Texas, but I thought Bush was an exception...?

  Does this mean you've given up your arguement that US troops send love-unto-your-fellow-man vibes (which reduce overall murder rates) out of millitary bases, but only when they are based in Western Europe? Good. It was a dumb argument.
• 

  confusedjw

  This is reply that I got from the CEO of Long John Silvers. Any suggestions on what I should write back? If indeed true I have much less to complain about concerning the situation. I feel like I now need to communicate with the employee and the reporter who wrote the story.

  ***************************************************************************

  October 11, 2004
  
  Thank you for your thoughts on the recent events in our Richardson,
  Texas location. We always want to hear feedback from our customers.
  
  Unfortunately, the media coverage of the event has been one-sided. In
  order to respect the employee's privacy, we have not been able to
  reveal all the facts of the situation. However, I can tell you the
  following:
  
  Our top priority is the safety of our employees and our customers. We
  are fortunate that the employee's spur-of-the-moment decision turned
  out the way it did, but we need to set the facts straight on what
  happened. The employee told us that during the robbery, he realized
  the first thief did not appear to have a gun: "When I seen he only had
  his hand as a gun, I got mad." At that point, he said he grabbed a
  hammer and hit the suspect in the head. This is in the employee's
  signed statement.
  
  Although the media has portrayed this employee as a person fearing he
  was about to be killed, his own statement indicates he took action
  because he believed the robber was unarmed and that he was "mad" about
  it. His actions escalated the violence during a situation that was
  already potentially violent, and put his life and the lives of his
  employees at risk.
  Recently, Terrie Dort, the Executive Director of the National Food
  Service Security Council, issued a statement in support of Long John
  Silver's policy: "The vast majority of retail robberies result in lost
  money, but not lost lives. Responding to an attempted robbery in a
  violent manner dramatically increases the risk of harm to employees and
  customers."
  
  In a serious situation such as this, we appreciate that there may be
  differences in opinion. While we respect your perspective, we must
  stand by the decision we made because it supports our first priority of
  keeping our employees and customers safe. The decision was made after
  a careful evaluation of all the facts, many of which are not currently
  public.
  
  We appreciate your interest in this situation, and we hope now that you
  know more of the facts, we'll see you again soon in one of our
  restaurants.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Steve Davis President and COO, Long John Silver's, Inc., and A&W
  Restaurants, Inc.