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
@Elaine
You said, “Don’t you get it? A young black man wearing a hoodie who is walking down a street at night may be cause enough for some people to believe that they are in imminent danger.”
Well, it does if you have a lick of sense. Most black folks would tell you the same thing. But, for people living in their own special little fantasy world, who knows??? Some of them think you ought to just lay there and let your head get beat in if you are white, and the attacker is a young black man.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well, bigfatmike. If you’re no wanting an ex post facto application of the law, do you believed that the verdict was correct based on current law?
“do you believed that the verdict was correct based on current law?”
I believe it was a hard case due to ambiguities in the evidence. I think it plausibly could have gone either way depending on the skill of the attorneys in convincingly presenting the evidence available.
Since the beginning I have argued that this was a tragedy that did not have to happen; and that the likelihood of it happening was enhance by poorly designed syg/self defense laws.
big fat mike – stand your ground was not used as a defense and was not available as a defense in the Zimmerman case. There was no place for Zimmerman to retreat to.
? “A young black man wearing a hoodie who is walking down a street at night may be cause enough for some people to believe that they are in imminent danger.”
Elaine, Has it really gotten to the point where you need to make up an absurd premise in order to have something to contribute? I guess it has.
“I’ll let my comments stand as a demonstration of your inept approach to lawmaking, and how you want Zimmerman to suffer at the hands of an ex post facto application thereof.”
Sorry. I never dreamed that when you asked about laws to apply to Zimmerman and everybody else you meant that they should be applied to Zimmerman right now.
Did anybody else get that – we are supposed to be talking about laws to apply to Zimmerman right now?
I truly though you were asking us about laws that should apply in a similar situation, or laws that should be applied in the future, or to a hypothetical situation based on the Zimmerman facts.
And I was also confused about the requirement that we present legislation ready text. Did every body catch that. We are supposed to be presenting the actual of text of laws to be enacted. When you called for laws to apply to everybody, I really thought you were calling for discussion regarding policy that ought to be enacted as law.
Sorry for the confusion. I have been reading this blog pretty closely for a couple of years now. I don’t think I recall a requirement that people who post remarks have to present legislation ready text. My bad.
bfm – you have yet to give us the racist remarks that Zimmermann used to the dispatcher. We are still waiting.
bigfatmike,
Don’t you get it? A young black man wearing a hoodie who is walking down a street at night may be cause enough for some people to believe that they are in imminent danger.
Elaine – Zimmerman did NOT identify him by color to the dispatcher.
@Elaine M. “Don’t you get it? A young black man wearing a hoodie who is walking down a street at night may be cause enough for some people to believe that they are in imminent danger.”
How true. I have become so concerned about hoodies that I have decided to remove them all from my wardrobe. No more hoodies! I feel much safer now.
But onto a more important point. There is so much that I don’t get. But I may have to visit the law library before I draft a response.
I just hope the moderators don’t start collecting a filing fee.
The prosecution were idiots for putting Rachel on the stand. Again, all complaints from the Trayvon contingent should be lodged against the prosecution. The Trayvon folks are losing this thread although BFM is putting up a valiant and righteous defense.
Nick – the prosecution was the C team while the defense was the A team.
bigfatmike,
I’ll let my comments stand as a demonstration of your inept approach to lawmaking, and how you want Zimmerman to suffer at the hands of an ex post facto application thereof.
“I think my suggestion would apply to them as well as Zimmerman.”
Again with a “suggestion”. More “out to” and “rule”. Create a damn law, man. You’re more than willing to take away the means of self-defense, now justify it fully.
“Create a damn law, man. You’re more than willing to take away the means of self-defense, now justify it fully.”
So now you are going to criticize me for not presenting text suitable to enact as legislation? Really?
That is the big knock on the idea that people with firearms ought to standby when they call the police?
It ought to. Let’s have a rule. -Too cowardly to propose law that would have universal effect.
“I am all for the 2nd amendment and self defense. But no one should be allowed to go looking for trouble and then claim self defense.”
I see a suspicious person outside of my neighbor’s house…three doors down at 11 PM. The suspicious person opens the unlocked door and enters the house. I hear a scream. I know the police are likely 10 minutes away. I grab my gun and go to render aid. -I went looking for trouble. Am I now supposed to stand down, or am I permitted to defend myself and my neighbor (a single woman and her two children)?
“I see a suspicious person outside of my neighbor’s house…three doors down at 11 PM. The suspicious person opens the unlocked door and enters the house. I hear a scream. I know the police are likely 10 minutes away. I grab my gun and go to render aid. -I went looking for trouble. Am I now supposed to stand down, or am I permitted to defend myself and my neighbor (a single woman and her two children)?”
Does witnessing the entry or hearing the scream change anything.
I would say that additional information or evidence offers the possibility of changing our understanding of the situation and the motives of the people involved.
To the best of my knowledge Zimmerman did not see any illegal activity or hear anything unusual.
So the situation where I suggest people standby for police assistance is nothing like the one you describe.
Imminent danger or evidence of an attack changes things.
“I don’t think there is anything legal about stalking.”
There isn’t. Now do your due diligence and cite the statute against stalking and tell us all how Zimmerman violated it. -Or is it that once again you want to have an ex post facto application of the law that would just apply to Zimmerman?
bettykath,
“According to police report, Zimmerman had no money and no credit card on him when he was cruising the neighborhood. On his way to the store for groceries? ”
Source? Link? What did Zimmerman have in his car?
Since you have been less than honest about Zimmerman’s nose, I see no reason to take your word alone on anything.
“Actually, we only have GZ’s word for it that Trayvon attacked him. If you bothered to listen to Rachael, you would know that the first blow was from GZ who knocked Trayvon’s phone to the ground.”
Oh yeah…because she could hear “grass”. 🙂
Tell me, bettykath; If you punch someone and in doing so your phone falls to the ground, how does that sound differently than if your phone falls out of your pocket when punched?
” Imo, it was GZ who intercepted and confronted Trayvon who just wanted to know why the creepy guy was following him.”
In your opinion? You’ll forgive me if I don’t find “your opinion” to be compelling evidence. And why didn’t you use “creep-ass cracker”? Isn’t that what Dee Dee said Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as? Or would that provide a hint of racism on the part of Saint Trayvon?
“The most credible witness was Rachael whose story didn’t change from her first interviews, through hours of disposition over 2 days and through hours of cross-examination over 2 days done by a man who ridiculed her, tried to humiliate her, and who was so condescending as to create vomit in those who weren’t cheering him on.”
What? No “IMO”? I didn’t find her to be close to credible, and neither did the jury.
“It is calling attention to words spoken by Zimmerman and documented on the dispatcher tape.”
Again, I’ll ask you to provide a source. The court transcript would be best as that would be a transcription made by a court-accepted stenographer.
“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.”
Are you prepared to adopt this as law?
What if you have a knife and use it to defend yourself? Would you then be unable to claim self-defense? (Most laws refer to “lethal weapon”)
Jack, “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?”
According to police report, Zimmerman had no money and no credit card on him when he was cruising the neighborhood. On his way to the store for groceries?
“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.”
Actually, we only have GZ’s word for it that Trayvon attacked him. If you bothered to listen to Rachael, you would know that the first blow was from GZ who knocked Trayvon’s phone to the ground. She also indicated that the older man was out of breath. I wonder why? Could it be that GZ was in such a hurry to end the call with the dispatcher that he had to hurry toward the back gate to intercept the “suspicious person”? Imo, it was GZ who intercepted and confronted Trayvon who just wanted to know why the creepy guy was following him. The most credible witness was Rachael whose story didn’t change from her first interviews, through hours of disposition over 2 days and through hours of cross-examination over 2 days done by a man who ridiculed her, tried to humiliate her, and who was so condescending as to create vomit in those who weren’t cheering him on.
bettykath – I followed the trial closely and I found Rachel to be a very poor witness. I think the jury found the same way. The defense ripped her to shreds. It was clear she had been coached by the prosecution and the attorney for the Martin family.
What strong points need to be made, bigfatmike? There was a trial. Zimmerman was found not guilty. The law as it is currently written was applied. I have no need to change the law. Apparently you do. As such, I have requested that you provide the suggested changes. The burden is on you to provide the suggestions and the compelling argument to adopt them.
You seem to get frustrated when asked to do something more than provide meaningless commentary.
“You seem to get frustrated when asked to do something more than provide meaningless commentary.”
I thought the point of this blog was commentary and the exchange of ideas.
And you, Jack, are the one that called for discussion of laws that apply to everyone, not just Zimmerman.
What happened, the conversation make you uncomfortable?
bigfatmike,
“No one here has made a comment anywhere close to legislation.”
That is because you want to create law that applies only to George Zimmerman. When asked to create law that applies to everyone, you balk.
Either you don’t believe in Equal Protection or the prohibition on ex post facto law, or you just don’t care. Res ipsa loquitur
“That is because you want to create law that applies only to George Zimmerman. When asked to create law that applies to everyone, you balk.”
You are cracking me up.
Some claim that concealed carry permits in Florida are approaching 1 million. I think my suggestion would apply to them as well as Zimmerman.
Groundhog’s Day was a horrible flick.
“Zimmerman did much more than travel. He pursued. He was hunting. Hunting has nothing to do with self defense.”
So, in your new law, if a person sees a suspicious person walking through their neighborhood, that person is no longer allowed to leave their home or car. They must remain on their own property. Does that only apply if they call the cops? Does that only apply if they are carrying a concealed weapon?
Pursued/ Hunting/ Stalking -whatever…In this context, all lawful activities for which you want to create a restriction.
At least you’re right about none of them being part of self-defense.
“So, in your new law, if a person sees a suspicious person walking through their neighborhood, that person is no longer allowed to leave their home or car. They must remain on their own property. Does that only apply if they call the cops? Does that only apply if they are carrying a concealed weapon?….
Pursued/ Hunting/ Stalking -whatever…In this context, all lawful activities for which you want to create a restriction.”
I did not suggest anything that would prevent a person from leaving their home or their car, nothing that would require them to remain on their own property.
Once again a lame attempt to put words in my mouth. Unfortunately for you, you can win the debate by making stuff up.
If you had an argument to make, you would make it.
I don’t think there is anything legal about stalking.
Once again, if you feel it is dangerous enough to call the police then don’t pursue, stand by for assistance from the police.
That seems like a good rule to me.
bigfatmike,
“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.”
But you’re comfortable with making sure that anyone who walks around in their own neighborhood should be unarmed so that they can be subject to assault without defense.
Does that also apply to women? If a woman is walking around the neighborhood, as a member of the neighborhood watch, do you support putting them in a defenseless position?
What about the person who is not in their vehicle, but just walking around their neighborhood, while carrying a concealed weapon, and see someone suspicious? Should they be prohibited from calling the cops? Do they have to hide their weapon in the bushes or return home and disarm before calling the cops?
“But you’re comfortable with making sure that anyone who walks around in their own neighborhood should be unarmed so that they can be subject to assault without defense.”
Once again a lame attempt to put words in my mouth. I invite interested readers to read my remarks.
I have never suggested that people be prevented from arming themselves.
Once again, if you had an argument to make, you would make it.
“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?”
It would seem that an unarmed person would exercise restraint because in the situation described they feel threatened enough to call the police. I would not propose a special rule for them because it would seem that self interest would be enough to ensure reasonable decisions.
But in Florida we have granted those armed with a fire arm special privileges. They are no longer required to retreat before using the weapon. It seems entirely reasonable that when they recognize danger and call police that we require then to cease pursuit and wait for LE.
To allow an armed person to continue pursuing someone seems to grant them a right to hunt. That clearly has nothing to do with self defense.
Once again, if it is dangerous enough to call the police, then standby till LE is on the scene.
That seems very reasonable to me.
bfm – you seem to like the word ‘hunting’ but really it is following. Whether they are armed or not makes no difference.
“you seem to like the word ‘hunting’ but really it is following. Whether they are armed or not makes no difference.”
My point is that it ought to make a difference in a stand your ground state when we have evidence that the armed person perceives danger – which is indicated by the call to police. Of course there could be other ways that we know the person perceives danger or strong potential for a fight.
If we give people the right to use a fire arm without trying first to retreat, we ought to, at least, require that they not pursue a dangerous situation or cause a confrontation.
Zimmerman, clearly, perceived a problem serious enough to call police. If he had waited for police this almost certainly would not have happened. If he had been required to retreat before using his weapon this might have been averted. Unfortunately Zimmerman when looking for trouble secure in the knowledge that he could shoot under most any circumstances and claim self defense. That should not happen.
I am all for the 2nd amendment and self defense. But no one should be allowed to go looking for trouble and then claim self defense.
bfm – you are aware that Zimmermann did not use the retreat defense. He used straight self-defense. Trayvon Martin was beating his head again the concrete sidewalk. Ergo, no place to retreat. To save himself he pulled his gun and shot Martin. Sadly, Martin died, but he is the cause of his own demise.