Soxbadger

Old testament god for the win!

Tex, Have your mother consult an attorney. The facts seem at minimum suspicious and the only risk is that they dont pay her 3 weeks severance. That is the biggest problem here, they didnt really make a substantial offer to convince your mother to leave. Youve got FMLA, let alone age discrimination, etc. Furthermore, at will is not that relevant. At will employment means that you can terminate someone for any reason or no reason, provided that the reason is not ILLEGAL or against the public policy of the state. So yes, I can terminate your mother at will, but no I can not terminate her because of her age or because she took FMLA, which would be the argument that your mother would be making. She would not be arguing breach of contract, so at will wont save them.

No matter how awful he was, he is considerably better than Wisconsin's other options for this season.

Tex, The best advice any lawyer can ever give you is, consult a lawyer that specializes in that area in that state. Every state has different laws with regard to employment. Many attorneys would gladly meet with her at no charge, but she may have to spend a few hundred dollars in the process. That being said, I assume that this matter is worth far more than a few hundred dollars. Do you want your mother to take a risk? Do you want to make sure that whatever happens at least she got good advice? If the answer is yes, strongly advise your mother to meet with an attorney before signing anything. At minimum having an attorney may give her leverage for a better deal. That being said, your mother is may be right, what they are doing is may be legal, they are offering her a severance package and she is signing away her rights. But that does not mean the act of eliminating her position or terminating her, etc is legal. It does not mean that she may not have legal recourse for their actions. But in most states you can legally sign away your rights for consideration. I have seen these agreements in Illinois, you really need to know what you are doing to fully understand the dynamics. There is age discrimination, medical leave, state specific labor laws, contract law, a miss understanding of any of these areas could result in your mother signing away her right to considerably more money. This is 20 years of your mothers life, I have to believe this is an important decision.

Y2hh, I agree the video isnt conclusive, but as of now its the only primary evidence I have. What is more interesting is that the police wanted to charge him with manslaughter.

And it turns out Im going to have to apologize if I insinuated the police didnt want to charge him. According to the yahoo article: http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video...topstories.html Damn it if that is true it means that the Prosecutor cared more about his career/conviction percentage than taking a case to trial and potentially losing.

Ive never seen him play. 2 years ago as a freshman he had pretty good stats. Wisconsin was really thin on QB so this was really good for them.

Balta, That is interesting. The first thing I tried to see was his nose, the second was blood spatter (couldnt find any) and the third was the back of his head.

Maryland QB Danny O'Brien is transferring to Wisconsin, he will have 2 years of eligibility starting this year.

Jabari Parker said he was considering Illinois under Weber...

Yeah I like Grimm as well, its on a good night because Friday is weak for programming besides for Fringe.

No that is just a convenient fact to latch on to to further support the agenda. Most people who are pro-syg, pro-c&c are also pro-police, pro-arrest. So this case conveniently gave me an opportunity where I could try and use certain facts to get people who otherwise may support c&c and syg on my side. I dont care what happens to Zimmerman or this case (as callous as that may sound), people die every day due to shootings, you dont get a ton of press for it. Most of the time those shootings dont present a chance to attack a theory of law that you strongly disagree with. This one did. You know the case is messed up when the normal players on the opposite sides of where they generally would be. My guess is that 99% of my posts involving police, etc are in support of the defendant.

Milkman, As Ive said, I dont care about this case at all. Its just a way to try and get my broader agenda across. For all I know Zimmerman acted completely in his rights. I just dont think he should have had those rights in the first place.

Y2hh, And I made a general point about the fact that in my experience, insurance companies are very good at ensuring their profitability. Maybe health insurance companies are the only exception, I dont deal with them that often, which is why I said "insurance companies", not "health insurance companies." Regardless it was about the fact that Im sure the health insurance companies will find a way to make money or change policies. They arent just going to sit and lose money, that was the point, and if youd like to disagree with it, so be it. Im not about to get into an argument over profit margins, because that really had nothing to do with the statement.

Jenks, The difference is protection the law affords. In Illinois they would clearly charge and let the facts settle it out. In Florida the law puts up a barrier for the police to even charge me. The entire point Im making, is that this is all subjective and based on facts. Why you would ever prevent the police from charging someone and doing a full investigation is mind blowing.

Jenks, Unfortunately my reasonable interpretation of the events was that if I didnt shoot you immediately that you would kidnap the child. /shrugs The bottom line is that it shouldnt even be a question, I should not have a right to intervene. The law is terrible and I cant really see any justification for it.

Jenks, What if your kid is yelling "hes kidnapping me". Do I get to shoot first and ask questions later? The law (imo) is terrible.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) They couldn't just shoot me for taking a kid. That's not putting their lives at risk as all of these laws talk about. Jenks, I believe you are incorrect. From Florida: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or Kidnapping is a forcible felony. There if I believe force is necessary to prevent the kidnapping of another person, I can use deadly force. That is right from the statute, which is why I created the fact pattern, explicitly based on what the law allows. The law allows me to shoot someone if I think they are kidnapping someone.

I dont believe in C&C nor do I believe in the codification of stand your ground. For me this is simply about using this event to get my agenda across. I dont care if its white on white, black on black or alien on alien, you give me events that are going to make people question laws I disagree with, I am going to hammer on the absurdity of the law until the cows come home. Self-Defense is already well established in common law, no need to expand it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) No, they're actually not. But because taking peoples word for it often results in repeating false information, here are some actual numbers from publicly traded for profit insurance companies. Last Quarter, 2011 Humana : Net profit margin 2.20%, 3.85% Aetna: Net profit margin 4.35%, 5.88% Universal American: Net profit margin -3.52%, 0.01% Wellpoint: Net profit margin 2.19%, 4.36% UnitedHealth: Net profit margin 4.85% 5.05% AmeriGroup: Net profit margin 1.99% 3.10% HealthNet: Net profit margin 2.14% 0.61% As you can see...profit margins in the health insurance industry are actually quite low and always have been. The BIGGEST companies may hit 5% on a VERY good year. They often hit 2-3%. Now, for kicks, let's compare it to big pharma: Pfizer: Net profit margin 8.92% 12.96% Merck: Net profit margin 12.55% 13.30% Eli Lilly: Net profit margin 14.19% 17.90% Bristol Myers: Net profit margin 22.57% 24.76% Glaxo Smith: Net profit margin 18.40% 19.93% Roche: Net profit margin 20.54% 22.44% Pharma makes, on average, 2-4+ TIMES the profit margins that insurance companies make. I think you completely missed the point, I said "insurance companies" not just limited to medical insurance. That being said, they are still making a profit, which is not that common in today's economy. Insurance companies for the most part dont lose money, that is the point. Its not about how much profit they make, its about the fact they almost always make profit.

Jenks, Im still not sure why as a society we want random people intervening in random events. For example: Right and what if someone thinks YOU are the strange man, and see YOU with your kid and your kid is screaming because they dont want to leave the park. And they confront you, you tell them to mind their own business, continue to take your kid away and they shoot you because they believe you were kidnapping the child. I dont believe citizens should take the law into their own hands, unless they absolutely know what is going on. IE If you know the kid and you know who is parent is, then you can intervene. But if they are random people, how the hell do you know what is going on. Youre not going to convince me that people should be allowed to be armed and get in conflicts that they have no idea about, that is just not going to end well.

Y2hh, Batman goes through a huge ethical dilemma over whether he should kill the Joker, these are important facts, sir.

Im not too worried about insurance companies, they are very good at making money.

Y2hh, Batman doesnt use a gun and doesnt kill, had Zimmerman used a batman utility belt, you sure as hell better believe Id be defending him!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,3175723.story If this kid had died I wonder what people here would say about it. What do you mean, this is the exact opposite fact pattern and the one most people expect, the police charge the person with a crime, then you let the facts sort themselves out. But the facts in that case indicate that someone may have broke the law, the man may not have been allowed to own a gun due to 2 prior firearm convictions, what do you want the police to do, conveniently forget the law?