Louisville man throws beer, shoves and kicks woman for rejecting him on second date

[u/Ashish_ank]

[u/DustExtra5976]

Looks like he got fired

[u/Desperate_Algae_40 → u/DustExtra5976]

That should be the least of his worries/punishments. He needs to be in prison for that.

[u/BienadictoXVI → u/DustExtra5976]

To the sun

[u/meldiane81 → u/DustExtra5976]

Oh?? Link me? 😊

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/DustExtra5976]

Ah, the mighty USA where justice is carried out not by the courts but by the institution of employment...

[u/DustExtra5976 → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

Surely you know the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/DustExtra5976]

The point is they should be. Losing your job because of a conviction makes sense. Being fired without a conviction for a perceived criminal offense is just the type of social justice that doesn't make any sense

This is not something an employer should have the power to punish

[u/ElectronicPhrase6050 → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

Imagine sincerely believing that a company firing someone who's bad for PR is an "American" or even uncommon thing lol.

You don't need a conviction when there's a video circulating of him assaulting her, it's already a potential PR nightmare for the company before the guilty verdict. 

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/ElectronicPhrase6050]

Considering that using this as a reason for letting someone go is specifically illegal in many countries, I think I'm safe saying they this is an USAism

You don't need a conviction when there's a video circulating of him assaulting her, it's already a potential PR nightmare for the company before the guilty verdict. 

[u/Fogmoz → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

If by “perceived criminal offense” you mean “caught on camera” then yeah they perceived the offense.

A private business has no requirement to assume innocence or wait for prosecution/conviction before making employment decisions. As long as it doesn’t violate a contract or constitute as discrimination, a business may fire an employee at-will.

[u/HauntingPsyche → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

There’s literally a video of him kicking and throat punching a woman. What more do you need to prove he’s worthy of losing his job

[u/DustExtra5976 → u/HauntingPsyche]

They created an argument from nothing 100% a bot or a loser. Do yourself a favor and ignore it.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/HauntingPsyche]

In most developed countries you can be literally Pol Pot outside of work and it is illegal for your employer to fire you. That is because most of the world recognizes that employers don't own your private life. Hope this helps

[u/-JimmyTheHand- → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

In most developed countries you can be literally Pol Pot outside of work and it is illegal for your employer to fire you.

Source?

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/-JimmyTheHand-]

You can find that for yourself, I'm sure, now that you know what to look for.

Edit: a hint is to look at employment law accross europe. While dismissal for bringing harm to a company's reputation is possible in various ways, the laws say that this has to be clearly demostrable to be legal. In some places this is clearly not legal unless it can be tied somehow to the employee's activity within the company (a private date obviously can't). In places where this rule is more relaxed, the employer must bring hard evidence that their bussiness suffered as a result of that employee's behaviour - they need to demosntrate loss of revenue or loss of .. something and that needs to be reflected in their internal/reviewable/auditable metrics. You realise that in practice that means that no employer will ever go through this process since actually being able to prove this without a doubt is really hard.

[u/-JimmyTheHand- → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

You can find that for yourself, I'm sure

AKA no I don't have a source for the obviously false claim I just made

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/-JimmyTheHand-]

read the hint, buddy

[u/-cumdogmillionaire- → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

You can get your employment terminated for this video in almost every single country that you can think of, without any criminal conviction. The UK, USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany all allow termination due to conduct that harms the companies reputation or negatively impacts coworkers safety. This falls under both of those categories.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/-cumdogmillionaire-]

In the UK and Germany, the employer must be able to prove the harm through their internal metrics. That is most probably not possible and even if it is, most employers won't go through the trouble of having their names dragged through the courts for this.

[u/Fogmoz → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

In “most developed countries” you can publicly assault someone and if you pay off the right people and/or escape conviction, your job can’t do anything about it. They have to keep you employed and put your coworkers & their reputation at risk.

“Developed” he says… thanks, but I’ll pass.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/Fogmoz]

Explain to me why you think that the employer should be able to do something about it. Assuming that the output of the employee at their job has not changed at all, why should the employer be allowed to do anything about it?

you can publicly assault someone and if you pay off the right people

how "developed" are we talking here if bribery is rampart?

[u/Fogmoz → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

As I said, barring contractual obligation or discrimination, I don’t think a private employer should be required to maintain employment of a potentially dangerous/harmful individual. Conversely, I don’t think they should be required to fire such an individual, either. Nathan’s employers decided his employment wasn’t worth the optics or associated risks; that’s their choice. Your notion of “developed” removes that choice.

My response with the bribery was taking your idea of a developed nation to the extreme, because an unfortunate side-effect of requiring a conviction is that all of the power and responsibility is given to the courts - and to those who can influence the courts. Social pressure isn’t perfect, either, but at least it’s in the public view. Courts require faith in the system, and too often the system can be manipulated.

Also like… getting back to the specifics of this event, it’s one thing if there was a “he said/she said” - there I could understand not wanting to make assumptions - but this was in full view of the recording. He assaulted her. There is zero question, zero need to deliberate. Her decision to press charges guarantees a conviction in any fair or honorable court. His employers are exercising their right to get ahead of the situation before it can cause problems for them, too.

[u/-JimmyTheHand- → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

a perceived criminal offense

I agree but this was not that lol

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/-JimmyTheHand-]

It is a perceived criminal offense until a conviction is made, no?

[u/Triquetrums → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

If by perceived you mean we saw it? Sure, we all perceived it.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/Triquetrums]

The whole legal system everywhere in the world exists specifically to not let people act on "perceived" evidence.

[u/Triquetrums → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

Again, if by perceived you mean something that can be observed, then you are wrong. There is video proof that we can all see with our eyes. 

I don't think you are using the word perceived right here. Nobody thinks he might have commited a crime. He did. We all saw it. Unfortunately the justice system takes more time than our eyes.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/Triquetrums]

Unfortunately the justice system takes more time than our eyes.

Until it does, it's just your opinion, not a fact, and it should not have any consequences on that person. It certainly shouldn't be legal to be let go based on the opinion of the employer, which is where we started the conversation: this is an American dream, not something that most countries allow

[u/-JimmyTheHand- → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

It depends how you want to interpret it.

If I witness something illegal I'm not thinking hey I didn't witness a crime because no one has been convicted. If you want to see it that way you can though.

[u/Inevitable-Menu2998 → u/-JimmyTheHand-]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. That's not what we're discussing here. What I'm talking about here is the fact that in most developed countries, the employer cannot act leagally on an opinion and must rely on fact. If a person hasn't been convicted of a crime, they cannot be dismissed for being a criminal regardless of the evidence against them. They can be dismissed if they're under arrest, of course, but not for being a criminal - they're dismissed for not showing up for work.

[u/goronmask → u/Inevitable-Menu2998]

Perceived criminal offense? What the fuck are you on about, did you watch the video? Of course this is something an employer can punish. If you are caught on camera assaulting a woman like that then you are a piece of shit and I don’t think a decent business wants to employ that. This has nothing to do with a conviction.

[u/dotesdoto → u/DustExtra5976]

Fired from what job? Mcdonalds?

[u/Ink-Sky → u/dotesdoto]

You shouldn't patronise them at the expense of service workers.

[u/dotesdoto → u/Ink-Sky]

What?

[u/Babajji → u/dotesdoto]

Waffle House. McD workers are pretty peaceful, WH is a UFC recruiting camp 😂

[u/plainjane202567 → u/Babajji]

I’m crying. This is too accurate.

[u/BitWardenEternal → u/dotesdoto]

Wdym?

[u/dotesdoto → u/BitWardenEternal]

It doesn't really need any further explaining.

[u/BitWardenEternal → u/dotesdoto]

It really does. Why are you asserting he works at McDonald’s?

[u/sbearman → u/BitWardenEternal]

Right? Like wtf does that mean? A lot of people bust their ass everyday at mcdonalds for shitbags like this guy.