worried4future

I'm fine with that if we can remove the technical error rate and barriers to actually executing these people.

If you're caught in a situation like this you should not be in jail on death row for twenty years waiting for your execution while your lawyers try to find some narrow legal loophole to postpone your execution.

E.g. Iryna Zarutska's killer (Decarlos Dejuan Brown). He should be dead already.

I do not seek perfection.

We have a justice system which makes those determinations, its not about perfection, it never has been.

Its not about vengeance or a desire for closure, I simply do not want these people to continue to exist. They offer no benefit to my society, they contribute nothing beneficial and never will, the sooner they are erased the better for society.

Can you have compassion, love even, for someone who has been the victim of horrific acts? Honest question, what are your limits of compassion?

Do you have compassion, love, or have you given a thought to the next victim of these criminals?

> So you're ok with the state killing criminals?

Yes.

> What if they get the wrong person?

Don't kill those.

> assuming he must be guilty of something awful

He is. He is guilty of doing something his employer didn't like and they fired him for it.

Nonsense.

If you read the original article it specifically says he sought out the protestors.

> he went to the lounge on the 10th floor of Google’s New York City office around lunchtime to check out the protest.

Is a single google cafeteria/lounge employee being terminated for happening to be in the lounge when the protest happened? Of course not because that would be nonsense.

His commentary isn't the exonerating statement you seem to think it is.

By his own admission he sought to join the protestors (he went to the lounge on the 10th floor of Google’s New York City office around lunchtime to check out the protest) and spent an indeterminate amount of time talking with protestors the first time around (I talked to folks who were standing up, passing out flyers, doing other roles)

Anyway it doesn't matter if he spent 40 minutes talking to them, four hours talking to them or 4 minutes talking to them

And, as I pointed out in my original comment, google has massive information asymmetry here.

They have video and email and message history and badge access times and maybe audio recording and maybe more, who knows.

So far we only have this one person's recollection of the events, where he has a huge bias towards trying to minimize his involvement.

I also don't think this counts as a strike, at least the actions taken do not fully fall within the protections of a strike even if they were striking for a reason for which strikes are permitted. Disruptive protest like what this was isn't a legal strike.

Anyway I have no objection to them taking things to the NLRB, I just don't think they will win. I suspect google will settle by paying some or most of the terminated employees some severance or some other token gesture and will consider themselves lucky to be rid of activist employees.

> Google apparently fired some 20+ employees who either weren't involved the protest at all, or whose alleged participation remains unclear

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but there is deep information asymmetry here and google has all the advantage and must have anticipated that this would end up in discovery and litigation and that the records of the terminated people's employment would be subject to it. That means their chat history, their email history and office surveillance footage.

I have a hard time believing that google would have fired people where the sum of their recorded actions couldn't be reasonably construed to be disruptive.

The meat of it is here:

> Google “retaliated against approximately 50 employees and interfered with their Section 7 rights by terminating and/or placing them on administrative leave in response to their protected concerted activity, namely, participation (or perceived participation) in a peaceful, non-disruptive protest that was directly and explicitly connected to their terms and conditions of work,” the complaint reads.

Seems very thin to call on the NLRA here. The "protesters" stated goals were to disrupt work even for people not a member of the non-union (therefore not a strike) which is not a protected activity. Moreover, were any of these employees or any members of the minority union actually working on the Israeli contracts they objected to? While you can protest against your job duties under the NLRA (or job duties of your collective union members) I don't see that you can protest against company functions which aren't job duties you or your class aren't a part of.

If the workers had just walked off the job and peacefully and non-disruptively protested in front of the building and refused to go back to their job until they (or other members of the minority union) had their job duties modified so they were not working on those projects and google had fired them, that seems like it would violate the NLRA.

Anyway this seems like some fun FAFO. I wonder how many of the people who got fired were even members of the non-union before the "protest".

Apologies for calling it by it's historical name instead of the revisionist one the British gave it.

I'm not saying they aren't capable of committing war crimes or genocide or whatever other terms you want to use. Clearly Israel is eminently capable of simply flattening Gaza (and Judaea/Samaria if they wanted) and they are restrained enough to not do so.

I'm saying I don't think they are by any objective measure and the constant fixation with accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide, combined with the disgusting amount of antisemitism I've seen after 10/7 has led me to the conclusion that accusing them of imagined crimes is deeply rooted in antisemitism.

Because genocide definitionally requires intent.

> Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part..

Wikipedia