No, I don’t. But sometimes people pay very dearly for mistakes that make them look bad enough.
Being a taxi driver is a tough gig. I’ve been assulted on serveral occasions. Fortunately most of the time it’s just been spit, but once I took a fist to the mouth through an open driver’s window. The driver was smart to turn his dash cam around, it’s probably the only thing that saved him from criminal charges.
1 Like
-
It is a good thing this Uber driver had a video dashcam. Perhaps Uber should hand those out to all their drivers (well, not if it makes them employees by the definition of the law) or at least strongly recommend they get one?
-
Surely this random guy, even though he is clearly in the wrong, doesn’t deserve to have his name and his dumb, drunk semi-violent mistakes plastered all over the interwebs? I mean he’s a Taco Bell marketing exec, that makes it specially newsworthy? Basically this guy is Florida Man.
2 Likes
He was lucky that wasn’t a cabbie with a ccw. The video could have ended alot more graphically. It does demonstrate an excellent example of restraint, especially in relation to some other current topics. Life has consequences, this jerk is fortunate he didn’t get a Darwin Award.
You mean he doesn’t deserve to be publicly embarrassed about his physical fucking assault on another human being?
You do realise that trauma to the head tends to make brain cells die? How about if he’d caught the driver square on the jaw and knocked him out, or stuck a thumb in the side of his eye blinding him?
Maybe broken a collar bone or injured his neck whilst rag-dolling his head around?
Poor guy, all embarrassed and whatnot.
5 Likes
And this is different from innumerable other attacks (domestic and otherwise) that go on every day how? Should all those people be plastered over the interwebs as well?
There is no question what this guy did was wrong, I just don’t feel “Taco Bell Exec” is a worthy reason to internet mob on someone.
And the only real lesson here is that all Uber and Taxi type drivers should have cameras on them 24/7.
I’m certainly not making the argument that assaults should be plastered all over the internet but I do not have any sympathy whatsoever for this douchebag. As to whether we should somehow be considerate of what the festering arsehole deserves… warning other people about his propensity for drunkenly attacking those around him for perceived sleights might be exactly what he deserves.
Can I ask, and I’m a little scared you answer in the affirmative, have you ever been attacked, in public, by a wantonly dangerous fuckwit, perhaps had your person physically and permanently damaged as a result? Have you had to deal with the psychological trauma of pesky, invasive thoughts of revenge, been troubled by the loss of agency and trust in people you do not know?
God, I hope not.
1 Like
Can I ask, and I’m a little scared you answer in the affirmative, have you ever had a single drunken mistake you made broadcast to the entire world via the Internet, such that you can never be employed, your friends and family distance themselves from you, and you begin to question your own existence such that you consider taking your own life?
God, I hope not.
Dude, I’ve never assaulted anyone. And if I was to do it in public, I would expect to reap the consequences of making a public shame of myself, and certainly not expect people to cover up the act in deference to some expectation of privacy, even though I may have killed someone with my actions. People who have been punched once have fallen back, knocked their head and died of a consequence of such a single, drunken mistake. We are responsible for our actions, especially those on view, in public in circumstances where others may see what we are doing and take action to avoid us.
Now, once the case has been heard and is a matter of public record I really wouldn’t expect anyone to be thinking about whether someone deserves their privacy over the clear message that people should avoid them.
Why you would seek to compare a crowd berating someone for a speech act to a potentially devastating physical assault is beyond me. I sometimes think you push out weird opinions to test the envelope of discourse, so am not wholly assured that you are always conversing in good faith. But assuming that is what you are doing in this case, you seem awfully ready to jump to this guys defence.
Perhaps it’s not the best reaction to immediately paste the guy all over the internet, I would prefer this came out after a trial. But sure as hell don’t think it is comparable, even if it is within some theoretical ball park, to a potentially life threatening assault.
And I’m not saying you don’t have a point about public shaming somewhere in your rhetorical pamphlet, I just think you are making terrible arguments to push that agenda.
Also, if you are being an ass on twitter, and those comments are public facing… FFS what do you expect exactly?
That’s my point – why did this need to be on the Internet at all? The driver has everything he needs (and every right) to press charges with the video evidence. The perp isn’t famous or interesting.
Also there is no evidence this was a “life threatening” assault. Assault, absolutely, but with a deadly weapon? Was hospitalization involved? Was there even an ounce of blood spilled? Nope.
I generally object to the idea that every dumb, drunken thing average people do is now fodder for being ostracized worldwide on the Internet, forever, and Google never forgets. Punishment does not fit the crime. It’s wildly disproportionate. Read the article I linked. Go ahead, read through. There are several examples in there. And it is SO RANDOM. How many times do you think this has happened and been on video and hasn’t been “leaked” online, but properly prosecuted? Or how many times this has happened not on video, and nobody found out? Random. Random. Random.
As I said, the only thing to be learned here is that dash cams (inward and outward) are a good idea for uber and taxi drivers, as well as pepper spray.
And I’m not a fan of completely random, wildly disproportionate punishment for drunken mistakes.
Well. Ok. But you keep calling it a mistake. Sure seems like he meant it. 
Also, my point is that we don’t get to choose how badly our chosen method of assault might go. I’ve been punched a bunch of times but it was the random street assault that nearly blinded me. In the dark, from behind and sometimes even in full control, with supervision, violence can go way more badly wrong than we intend.
Also, I might be wary enough to publish stuff like this or, say, police violence when I suspect the assailant might have the resources to make such a record dissappear.
I’d prefer everyone was responsible but I’m not overly concerned about a thug’s feelings.
1 Like
Drunkenness does nothing for me.
If it’s deplorable enough to ruin his reputation sober, then all is well here.
1 Like
Is he really an executive? In Drucker’s books, an executive is someone with enormous discretion and direction over a substantial element of a firm’s assets and liabilities. Nowadays, the people answering the phones - and bless 'em, I wouldn’t like to do it - they’re executives.
In Europe, Google does indeed forget. I’ve come across a number of interesting people who have exorcised their reputational demons on Google. It’s amazing. “The right to be forgotten” - https://www.google.co.uk/policies/faq/.
2 Likes
At the street level? Yeah, I do. Oh sure, he doesn’t own a magnificently appointed Gulfstream, nor does he have a 20-room in Kensington, but he’s got the money and connections to abuse anyone he perceives as underneath him with impunity.
Well, just as long as there’s no video evidence.
You’d want to work with a guy who gets drunk and beats a stranger?
Taco Bell isn’t doing it because they want a better society, they’re doing it because of the PR problems related and because honestly if I was this guy’s colleague and he wasn’t fired, I’d seriously consider quitting.
Employment in most states is at-will, so no one is “allowing” Taco Bell to fire anyone, they can do so at their own discretion without justification.
He’ll be punished (not jailed), possibly sued, and he’ll find another job. He’s not even going to be charged with a felony. It’s far from life-ruining. Definitely a bump in the road, but that’s totally appropriate for randomly beating on someone.
3 Likes
That is one of my point: in most cultures on Earth, people try to forget what you do when you’re drunk. That doesn’t mean one should be immune from prosecution if they do something illegal while under the influence of alcohol, but that it is an even more compelling reason to not hold their behavior against them beyond whatever legal action they may be subjected to.
The alternative is to ban alcohol. To my knowledge, there are only two cases of such an outcome: Arab countries that follow the rules of Islam and Prohibition era US. See how the latter worked out (and the law of unintended consequences).
Even if the guy has never done anything but being a good coworker? It’s very easy to take out the pitchforks and decide to go and burn the sinner. That also has little to do with justice. Well, of course, that’s what you write in a comment on a website. You’ll allow me to doubt the reality of your assertion outside of that white room scenario you’ve considered it out of.
In case it wasn’t clear, I am NOT a citizen of the US nor do I work there (very fortunately on both counts). From the point of view of an European (at least this one), the very idea that a company can fire someone at will like you would a tissue paper after using it does not sit well. Of course, Taco bell isn’t acting in order to have a better society, but that’s precisely the reason why society should have rules so that a company isn’t going to make society worse for their perceived private benefit.
So you are in favor of the guy being punished beyond and above what the justice system may decide he deserves. I hope you do understand that at the end that reasoning is having any and everyone under the threat of having their lives ruined by society at large for whatever slight (true or not, by the way) they may be accused of.
1 Like
In vino, veritas, baby.
1 Like
For sure. If that’s what he’s like drunk, he’s probably a d-bag to work with. I’m betting that this was just an excuse that his boss had been looking for to justify his termination to corporate.
1 Like
I’ve been plenty drunk and I’ve never been close to beating a stranger. There’s a middle-ground between excess and prohibition, and that’s where self-control lives. If you can’t drink without randomly beating a stranger, maybe you’re not the type of person who should drink. It doesn’t take federal prohibition to figure that out. Being drunk is a shitty excuse for shitty actions.
There are plenty of “good workers” that I wouldn’t want to work with because they’re not good people. I have the privilege of choosing who I work with, and I exercise it. No one wants to work with an asshole, especially a violent one.
So you are in favor of the guy being punished beyond and above what the justice system may decide he deserves.
I’m all for the justice system punishing him appropriately. I don’t think internet vigilantism is a good thing.
I don’t think the video should have been posted to youtube… but I can understand why the driver would be pissed off enough to do it. And on the side of the employer: Let’s not pretend this guy was working a drive-thru slinging tacos… as an executive his actions in and outside of work reflect upon the company. His job was to literally sell the company to the public.
4 Likes
