First off, don't assume the authority to tell people what to post or not. It may not be important to you, but you're one fish not in an American sea. Second, dont think for a second that it's just "liberals" keeping the story going. In fact, in my anecdotal experience, more of my right wing friends keep bringing it up than my left wing.
Please elaborate.
It wasn't her place to attempt to prevent his entry and he was under no obligation to say anything to her. It's funny that you bring up the notion of a trial, though, as she tried him on the spot without him having engaged in any illicit behavior.
Be suspicious, be weary, but don't attempt to directly prohibit progress when it isn't your place to do so. Having misfortune befall you doesn't give you that right.
It wasn't her place to investigate anymore than it was her place to try and to convict. She determined he didn't belong there and acted accordingly.
Because...*clears throat*...it isn't your place to do so.
Okay.
Also not illegal.
Why would it be? Would it be suspicious if a bee buzzed in? (See what I did there?) If so, why would it?
It seems you're confusing private property with singular residence, somehow while actually acknowledging the difference. Odd.
"Could be" and "is" aren't the same thing. Such a determination is made after the fact by one whose place it is to do so.
And that would be determined after the fact by one whose place it is to do so.
It may or may not be, as determined after the fact by one whose place it is to do so.
If it's my place to make such a determination. That privilege may be mine as a property owner owner or it may have been passed to me as a tenant by the property owner.
What does that have to do with this incident? The door was open.
There's a distinction between common areas and singular residences. You may even be the outright owner of a singular residence within private property owned by someone else, but that doesn't make it your place to police the common areas.
Tenant ≠ owner.
I'm not comfortable making such a determination as it isn't my place to do so.
That doesn't grant one who does not own the property permission to directly prohibit another's progress.
One who hasn't been granted permission by the property owner to directly prohibit another's progress has no place doing so.
Requesting that proof constitutes a search. Can you cite a source that indicates she was granted permission to conduct a search?
An establishment's proprietor has the right to do so...some schmuck slurping his soup does not unless that right has been granted by the establishment's proprietor.
I understand your chain of thought and my position is that it does not apply here.
If everyone will excuse my white knighting, I am in agreeance with Pocket here, especially if it's a building where the locks and buzzer are installed and working. In fact, on the lease agreements in the few apartments I've lived specifically stated not letting in anyone that is not your guest. Further, as a resident and member of said community, it is their civic duty to be sure their community stays safe.
Cool story, that excuses the other kids behaviour how exactly?Apparently the girl being harassed is extremely racist and has no problems using gay slurs.
And that means forcibly blocking? Forcibly blocking is the kind of thing that leads to escalation and I seriously doubt property owners and/or managing parties suggest residents put themselves into what very well could become dangerous situations as it invites costly litigation.
I can appreciate that, but what actions to that end are actually permissible?
All signs point to him not not living there, seeing as he gained entry to the singular residence through the use of a key--the story would be very different had he not. What are the odds he gained entry in that manner only because he was being watched?
For the record, I didn't say you did.
I don't condone her being attacked online--I don't even condone her subsequent firing--but the degree to which her behavior was questionable is subjective. A reasonable "top" here, to my mind, would be seeking intervention from someone in a better position to assess the situation and act accordingly. Taking action directly would then be over the "top".
Nor could I. I think I've made it abundantly clear that what concerns me is her actions and not what motivated them: "Be weary, be suspicious, but don't directly prohibit progress."
That is and always has been my position, as indicated by my use of the word "directly" in reference to prohibiting progress. I appreciate you acknowledging this and indicating that you agree with it.
Sure but do we know who said it, or do we just blame the whole group?
In the example of the apartment, ironically, I would call the office and inform them if someone i didnt think belonged there was there.And that means forcibly blocking? Forcibly blocking is the kind of thing that leads to escalation and I seriously doubt property owners and/or managing parties suggest residents put themselves into what very well could become dangerous situations as it invites costly litigation.It seems more likely--and your own wording (re: not "letting in") supports this--that the directive is for residents to not actively grant entry of those who are not guests, which is to say not unlock a door that can't otherwise be opened.I can appreciate that, but what actions to that end are actually permissible?
All signs point to him not not living there, seeing as he gained entry to the singular residence through the use of a key--the story would be very different had he not. What are the odds he gained entry in that manner only because he was being watched?
For the record, I didn't say you did.
Does the part of the video depicting his gaining entry to the singular residence through the use of a key not provide context?
I acknowledge that we haven't been shown the events prior to his filming, though it's likely he was motivated to begin filming because of her actions and not because Aurora Borealis manifested in the sky above St. Louis.
I don't condone her being attacked online--I don't even condone her subsequent firing--but the degree to which her behavior was questionable is subjective. A reasonable "top" here, to my mind, would be seeking intervention from someone in a better position to assess the situation and act accordingly. Taking action directly would then be over the "top".
Nor could I. I think I've made it abundantly clear that what concerns me is her actions and not what motivated them: "Be weary, be suspicious, but don't directly prohibit progress."
That is and always has been my position, as indicated by my use of the word "directly" in reference to prohibiting progress. I appreciate you acknowledging this and indicating that you agree with it.
Acceptable Use Policy.
I suspect the action was taken because it was deemed to be in violation of forum guidelines rather than because of a disagreement with your position.
In the video where the group was cat calling, it would be the group. In the video where the one kid in particular said the bit about rape, the individual.
Respectfully, would you verify that the above post is as you intended it? I'm not sure what you're saying here. If it is as you intended, would you explain it further and not use short-forms (if that's what "bbn" is)?
Okay look at the first group, how do we know they are the same people(has this been confirmed?), the location is different to the other videos and since they came from the Pro-Life rally I would assume they are not the only MAGA hat wearing people in the area(The Group also looks much smaller then the one on the Steps of the Lincoln memorial which would be odd for the group of school kids to spilt up in a situation like this), the video is soo short there is zero context as well, there is no way to tell if they where provoked.
Thank you for the edit.
As the article indicates, there are a number of employers experimenting with changes to what office life means; with some changes showing more positive results than others. Unfortunately so much of the workforce doesn't actually experience office life, and I wonder if the difficulty of changing the manner in which those jobs are fulfilled may actually prevent change in the office sector--if that makes any sense.
