Recently I spoke at Utah Valley University about the private regulation of speech, particularly in businesses curtailing not just workplace speech but speech outside of the workplace. We have discussed such incidents where people were fired for YouTube videos or drunken scenes. This “little brother” problem falls outside of the first amendment which addresses government regulation of speech. As a result, businesses have wide latitude in punishing employees for private conduct, though some states have laws protecting some forms of speech and employment such as voting and political activities. We have a new such case involving a woman in Ontario who shot and posted a video of her berating a neighbor for flying a Mexican flag. The video caused many to be understandably angry with Tressy Capps, who didn’t seem to see how obnoxious she appeared in her own posted video. However, it has not escaped her employer, which proceeded to fire her.
The video below is incredibly insulting and intolerant in my view. Capps suggests that the family might want to move back to Mexico simply because they are flying the Mexican flag. Capps is described as a political activist and asks woman in the window
“Is that a Mexican flag in your front yard?” Capps is heard asking the homeowner, who is behind a window. You know we live in America right? This is the United States. So, why are you flying a Mexican flag in your front yard?”
The woman did not appear to understand English. Her husband Sigifredo Banuelos later told the media that he did not see what was offensive about flying the Mexican flag and that they fly both the American and Mexican flags.
Capps posted her video and not surprisingly received a harsh response. Her real estate company was not amused and fired her from an independent contactor position. For a real estate company in an area with a large Hispanic population, the decision was probably not viewed as a particularly difficult one. While the public confrontation did not involve her work, it certainly involved the clientele of her work. She made herself a liability and businesses are first to remove at-will employees who harm the bottom line.
I believe that there should be protection for private employees engaging in protected speech. However, when an employee seeks such notoriety and becomes such a liability, there is a stronger basis for the company acting to protect its business interests.
Woman Irate That Ontario Family Is Flying Mexican Flag In Their Front Yard
bigfatmike,
I find it funny that you are so concerned about someone putting words into your mouth, but then have the nerve to say “And who could forget the racist, ready to fight words of Zimmerman to the dispatcher.”
What were the “racist, ready to fight words” that Zimmerman used, and who is the source you rely on for those words?
Now, let’s get back to your proposed law requiring people who arm themselves to become unarmed before they exit their vehicle if the call the police.
Is a martial arts expert required to remain in their vehicle?
“I find it funny that you are so concerned about someone putting words into your mouth, but then have the nerve to say “And who could forget the racist, ready to fight words of Zimmerman to the dispatcher.””
Reminding people of Zimmerman’s words is not putting words in anyone’s mouth. It is calling attention to words spoken by Zimmerman and documented on the dispatcher tape.
And Zimmerman’s words are reasonable evidence of his state of mind near the time of the assault. If we are discussing assault then that seems particularly relevant to me.
We may not know exactly what happened on that walk way. But we have plenty of evidence of who pursued who, who relied on stereotypes and displayed racist attitudes, and who expressed fear that he was being followed.
Zimmerman created a dangerous situation that lead to tragedy.
It could have been avoided with a simple rule. If you feel the situation warrants calling the police then don’t pursue, standby for their assistance. It is especially important to standby if you are carrying a concealed firearm. If you are armed, call the police and pursue – then there is no reasonable belief that you acted in self defense.
bfm – give us those very dangerous racist words to the dispatcher that you are so concerned about that showed his state of mind. Do not forget that in even the best of communities the police are at least 15 minutes away.
Turley Grammar School.
“If George was fully within his right to determine that Trayvon Martin “looked suspicious,” was Trayvon also fully within his right to determine that Zimmerman–who followed him as he walked home–acted suspiciously?”
Sure! Trayvon Martin could have determined that Zimmerman was a predator who wanted to have sex with Martin (as Dee Dee alluded to post-trial. Fact is, individual citizens are welcome to determine whatever they want. -Just as Zimmerman observed/followed Martin, Martin was welcome to observe/follow Zimmerman.
Oh my, someone is trying to stir up trouble once again–even after Jonathan had to step in and delete comments previously on this thread.
The Trayvon lovers got their butts kicked ON THE TRAYVON THREAD, so Elaine starts another fight here, on an interesting thread about Mexicans. I guess for some, black folk are just the same as Mexicans, Indians, etc. They don’t have any of those folks in their neighborhoods or in their address books so they are just one big oppressed minority that must be saved by liberals. Truth is, many of these folks resent their “help.”
“Not all time. But any one who feels compelled to call police, especially when armed and not defending their own private property, ought to stand by and wait for police.”
So, if you are unarmed, and call the police, you can exit your vehicle and follow a suspicious person, but if you have the potential to defend yourself, you cannot exit your vehicle. -Does that just apply to a gun, or is a baseball bat, or karate also a factor that would require you to remain in your vehicle?
What if you don’t call the police? Can you then exit your vehicle to see where the suspicious person went?
Since this is law to be applied to everyone, don’t you think we should use better words than “ought to”?
“Since this is law to be applied to everyone, don’t you think we should use better words than “ought to”?”
Again a silly attempt to deflect the conversation. No one here has made a comment anywhere close to legislation.
We have been discussion policy and what the law ought to reflect and we have been doing it on a blog in casual notes.
Or do you want to claim you did not notice that? Or do you want to claim you believe the other comments are text that ought to be enacted?
If you had strong points you would try to argue them.
Jack,
“Trayvon Martin had every right to be walking through the neighborhood, regardless of what clothing he decided to wear. He also had the right to do so at night.”
Good to know you believe that!
If George was fully within his right to determine that Trayvon Martin “looked suspicious,” was Trayvon also fully within his right to determine that Zimmerman–who followed him as he walked home–acted suspiciously?
Trayvon Martin had every right to be walking through the neighborhood, regardless of what clothing he decided to wear. He also had the right to do so at night. George Zimmerman was fully within his rights to determine that Martin looked suspicious.
What Elaine wants the stupid people to believe is that Trayvon Martin’s right to travel outweighed Zimmerman’s same right to travel. In fact, they are equal and only competing when in close proximity.
“What Elaine wants the stupid people to believe is that Trayvon Martin’s right to travel outweighed Zimmerman’s same right to travel. ”
Zimmerman did much more than travel. He pursued. He was hunting. Hunting has nothing to do with self defense.
http://wonkette.com/562449/derp-roundup-yes-stevie-wonder-truthers-are-a-thing
Excerpt:
A very patriotic lady in Ontario, California, (aka “the Inland Empire”) got canned from a contracting job with Coldwell Banker Real Estate, just because she uploaded a YouTube video showing her yelling at a Mexican lady for flying the flags of America and Mexico in her front yard. America-loving Inland Imperialist Tressy Capps says she’s not a racist, just a patriot. Oh, yes, and of course she’s also running for city council…
It is not known whether Ms. Capps also confronts people flying the Gadsden flag and tells them to go back to snake-land.
bigfatmike,
But Trayvon Martin was a young black man wearing a hoodie! What right did he have to be walking in that Florida neighborhood in the dark? Saint George of the Sunshine State was on patrol protecting residents from a dangerous individual armed with a can of iced tea and a package of Skittles.
Elaine – Iced Tea and Skittles make up 2 of the 3 ingredients of Purple Drank or Lean a narcotic drink that uses Robitussin DM as the third ingredient. Trayvon was probably both a drug user and a drug dealer. That never got into court but had there been a civil case his life would have been an open book. Trayvon is a thug and you should realize that and get off your high horse defending him.
bigfatmike,
As part of your proposed law, will you also grant authority to anyone walking through the neighborhood to assault a member of the neighborhood watch without consequence, up to and including the death of the neighborhood watch member? I ask because you appear to support Martin assaulting Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is supposed to take it.
“I ask because you appear to support Martin assaulting Zimmerman, and Zimmerman is supposed to take it.”
I hope that interested readers will read my remarks. I did not say anything at all to suggest that I support neighborhood watch, or anyone else, assaulting anyone at all.
A fair reading of my remarks make clear my suggested rule would do much to assure that professional LE will handle the situation.
I think it is always revealing when a person tries to put words in some one else’s mouth. It shows they don’t have strong arguments to defend their position.
Finally, when it comes to assessing who assaulted who, we ought to remember it was Zimmerman who followed Trayvon, who was doing nothing more suspicious than walking in the neighborhood. And who could forget the racist, ready to fight words of Zimmerman to the dispatcher.
bfm – Zimmermann did not make racist remarks, his words were taken out of context and changed by MSM to make it seem he was a racist. As a Block Watch captain I will keep someone in sight (in this case he lost sight of Martin) and try to be there for the police to direct them in the right direction. However, if someone Trayvon Martin’s size jumps me and beats my head into the concrete sidewalk I certainly will defend myself. I see no reason to become a victim to the job.
bigfatmike,
Zimmerman was not on patrol in a Neighborhood Watch capacity. He was on his way to the store. As such, is it your position that anyone who signs up to be a member of the Neighborhood Watch Program should relinquish their right to carry a concealed weapon, at all times?
” As such, is it your position that anyone who signs up to be a member of the Neighborhood Watch Program should relinquish their right to carry a concealed weapon, at all times?”
Not all time. But any one who feels compelled to call police, especially when armed and not defending their own private property, ought to stand by and wait for police.
I think that is a really important idea – if you are not on your own property and you feel endangered enough to call police – stand by and wait for assistance.
Other wise there is a reasonable inference that you are hunting, looking for trouble.
My! How people have to twist themselves into a pretzel to turn Zimmerman into some sort of hero, amazing.
Annie – so Zimmermann is not allowed to protect himself from being beaten to death. Hmmm. Now I am a Block Watch captain and I take my job seriously. I do not go out armed, but I could. However, I do know that several of my neighbors are armed so I am less concerned for my safety. I am very sympathetic to Zimmermann. Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, was a thug. He attacked Zimmermann and got what he deserved. I am sorry he ended up dead, but when you attack someone and they defend themselves, that can be the result.
Those pesky Jesuits just seem to get in the way of what some might like to think about their role and mission.
“Do you think stalking people is acceptable? Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin.”
If you want to call what Zimmerman did with Trayvon Martin “stalking”, then YES it is acceptable.
“He was told by the dispatcher not to follow him.” -No. He was not told by the dispatcher to not follow him.
“Zimmerman instigated the trouble.” -Zimmerman acted in full compliance with the law during the entire encounter.
I know this is the wrong thread, but Elaine doesn’t know that.
Elaine, What law would you like to see created that would prevent someone from doing exactly what Zimmerman did? Should people be required to stay in their vehicle is someone they don’t know is walking through their neighborhood? Should people be limited in their movements around their neighborhoods if they see someone they don’t know?
I want you to tell us what laws you want to apply to everyone, not just Zimmerman. –I don’t think you can do that.
“I want you to tell us what laws you want to apply to everyone, not just Zimmerman.”
Well for one if you are acting as neighborhood watch and you think the situation is dangerous enough to call the police then you should stand by and not try to follow or apprehend.
And second if you are acting as neighborhood watch – without even the pretension of police power – then you should not be armed – just to be clear to every one that you are – only – a look and not any kind of enforcer.
I think those are pretty good rules that would assure safety for everyone – especially those who have a prefect right to be their – like Trayvon.
Paul,
Do you think stalking people is acceptable? Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin. He was told by the dispatcher not to follow him. Zimmerman instigated the trouble. I think most young men–or people of any age–would be frightened or freaked out if some stranger stalked them as they walked home in the dark. It appears Trayvon decided to confront his stalker, a wannabe cop–who seems to have a number of personal issues/problems…and has had a number of run-ins with police.
swarthmoremom,
Social Justice
http://www.jesuits.org/whatwedo?PAGE=DTN-20130520124035
Excerpt:
Jesuits believe that Christian faith demands a commitment to justice. This means confronting the structures of our world that perpetuate poverty and injustice. As the religious order declared at its 32nd General Congregation in 1975: “The mission of the Society of Jesus today is the service of faith, of which the promotion of justice is an absolute requirement.”
This mission takes many forms, including works of service, justice, dialogue, and advocacy around the world. And it is not without cost: more than 45 Jesuits have been killed for their work on behalf of the poor and marginalized since the declaration of the 32nd General Congregation. Among them are six Jesuit educators who, together with their housekeeper and her daughter, were slaughtered in the early morning hours of Nov. 16, 1989, by military officers in El Salvador.
“The first modern usage of the specific term “social justice” is typically attributed to Catholic thinkers from the 1840s, including to the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in Civiltà Cattolica, based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that rival capitalist and socialist theories, based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics as neither were sufficiently concerned with moral philosophy. Writing in 1861, the influential British philosopher, politician and economist, John Stuart Mill stated in Utilitarianism his view that “Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens, should be made in the utmost degree to converge.”[13]” wiki Started with the Jesuits in the 1840’s, Paul.
SWM – it was not in the vocabulary of the Jesuits I dealt with. However, there was the old saying, there are two types of Catholicism, the Jesuits and everyone else.
Paul C, Many catholic churches have peace and social justice ministries. You should know that if your were educated by Jesuits.
SWM – when I was educated by the Jesuits ‘social justice’ was not in their vocabulary.
Squeeky
I don’t know what will happen with wilson either, truth is I don’t believe any cop could go to jail in missouri for anything. But when you’re talking about black people it’s generally not a good idea to bring up rope in any context.
pitchforks are optional