Banks won't take Fort Hood shooting suspect's paychecks

[Grumpy]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ks-831173.html

[BlueStreak]

They're still paying that bastard? Well, I guess they would until he is officially convicted, but one still has to scratch his head and think, "WTF?".

Dave

[Fast_Eddie]

That doesn't seem legal.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

That doesn't seem legal.

Will your station accept advertising from anybody and everybody?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

They're still paying that bastard? Well, I guess they would until he is officially convicted, but one still has to scratch his head and think, "WTF?".

Dave

In this guys case, WTF seems appropriate. I there were any doubt about what he's done, it would be different.

As far as the money grubbing bankers go, it might be cheaper to tell him "your money's no good" and stand a lawsuit than to get exposed for taking his checks.

Myself, I'd tell him I didn't want his business...I guess that's still legal.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

In this guys case, WTF seems appropriate. I there were any doubt about what he's done, it would be different.

As far as the money grubbing bankers go, it might be cheaper to tell him "your money's no good" and stand a lawsuit than to get exposed for taking his checks.

Myself, I'd tell him I didn't want his business...I guess that's still legal.

Chas

Here's another one we agree on Chas. You don't have to do business with everyone that walks to your door, as long as your reason for rejecting the person is not based on race. Of course, you can reject a customer of any race, as long as there is a reason other than race. Damn, sound like a lawyer again.

As long as I'm lawyeriin' I'll comment on the pay continuation. I can understand the WTF, but I agree with the military on this one. The military has an interest in maintaining strict compliance with its regulations. If those regulations provide that a soldier stays in pay status until he or she is convicted, it's not up to the paymaster to make conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the accused. That would lead to non-uniform enforcement of the regulations. It would also have the paymaster stepping out of his role and assuming the status of judge - i.e., disregarding the chain of command.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Here's another one we agree on Chas. You don't have to do business with everyone that walks to your door, as long as your reason for rejecting the person is not based on race. Of course, you can reject a customer of any race, as long as there is a reason other than race. Damn, sound like a lawyer again.

As long as I'm lawyeriin' I'll comment on the pay continuation. I can understand the WTF, but I agree with the military on this one. The military has an interest in maintaining strict compliance with its regulations. If those regulations provide that a soldier stays in pay status until he or she is convicted, it's not up to the paymaster to make conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the accused. That would lead to non-uniform enforcement of the regulations. It would also have the paymaster stepping out of his role and assuming the status of judge - i.e., disregarding the chain of command.

Regards,

D-Ray

I understand what you're saying.

It's a shame that some slick gubbmitt mouthpiece can't develop a legal argument that the shooter's funds should be held in escrow until the conclusion of his trial, after which they should be dispersed by the court .

He can always sue. Penitentiary's DO provide a law library for the inmates.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the legal system hanging people out to dry. But in this case, well....he's fortunate we have a legal system as opposed to a justice system.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be this discussion, would we?

Chas

PS: Stole that last line from the local sheriff. Seems he marched a perp with a butcher knife under his shirt out of the local bar while holding a High Power in his ear.

That was his response when asked by the defense attorney as to what would have happened had his client pulled the butcher knife.

Still one of my buddy's favorite courtroom stories.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

I understand what you're saying.

It's a shame that some slick gubbmitt mouthpiece can't develop a legal argument that the shooter's funds should be held in escrow until the conclusion of his trial, after which they should be dispersed by the court .

He can always sue. Penitentiary's DO provide a law library for the inmates.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the legal system hanging people out to dry. But in this case, well....he's fortunate we have a legal system as opposed to a justice system.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be this discussion, would we?

Chas


.

agree..

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

agree..

You ignored the best part!!!

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Will your station accept advertising from anybody and everybody?

Nope. But if we don't we better have a damn good reason and be able to show that we apply the same standards to everyone or some porn peddler will end up owning CBS.