Poetry Forum

Full Version: Should Mich. Asst. AG Be Fired?:
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote:“I'm a Christian citizen exercising my First Amendment rights," Shirvell told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "I have no problem with the fact that Chris is a homosexual. I have a problem with the fact that he's advancing a radical homosexual agenda."

In April, using the moniker “Concerned Michigan Alumnus,” Shirvell started the blog Chris Armstrong Watch, describing Armstrong as a “Nazi-like” recruiter for “the cult that is homosexuality.”

source:

the above is a quote from the assistant D A, considering he's a public servant should he be sacked for his behaviour. (which is more than just a few nasty rants. )

i just saw the interview on AC 360 and this guy for me is something else.
for me it's more of a hate campaign than free speech. specially when the guy is using a video to get info.
Starting a blog implies to me that whatever his target is doing it's not illegal. I really don't think "vigilante stalker" is a psych profile which is compatible with the role of DA.
shouldn't he be allowed the same freedom we all have outside work?

personally i think the guy is to scared to say he's gay. his boss won't sack him even though he said on air he thinks him a bully.
(09-30-2010, 07:04 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]shouldn't he be allowed the same freedom we all have outside work?

It's a good question. The same question applies to the kids who post pictures of themselves on facebook, underage drinking, who subsequently have difficulties getting into college/jobs.

Whether it's "right" or not, the truth is that we all judge people/things/situations based on the information available to us. That's natural and normal and no amount of pontificating on what we should judge people on will change it.

On the basis of the information available to me it appears that this ADA, who has accepted the responsibility of protecting law abiding citizens, doesn't believe the law goes far enough. That he believes that he knows better than the people (who elected the lawmakers) what should / should not be allowed. And that he believes he has the right to attack someone the law he chose to represent considers innocent.

I don't believe that someone who thinks that way can be trusted to dispense justice impartially.

In short, he does have the same freedom we all have, but he has used that freedom to undermine himself.
i do agree with you but for the sake of the discussion i'll play devils advocate.

it doesn't seem to undermine it enough for his boss to sack him does it.
are you saying it isn't possible for us to work with someone we don't agree with or whose policies are different?
isn't that the way we should work, to try and change those policies from within. not that this person is doing that. my point is this; must we concur with our bosses in order to not undermine ourselves.

the boss himself says "the man's a bully but as far as supreme court rulings go i can't sack him"
isn't he in turn undermining the supreme court?

as far as the videoing goes, id say stalker. but doesn't someone holding office put himself in the firing line. the person is gay has views about gay freedoms and rights. (i presume) and rightly so.
this ada obviously takes umbridge at those facts. he thinks gays are perverts, he thinks a person who leads his ex university in such way should be beyond reproach. shouldn't he be allowed to voice those opinions?
(10-01-2010, 09:35 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]it doesn't seem to undermine it enough for his boss to sack him does it.

Maybe not, but you asked us whether we thought he should be fired. I do.

(10-01-2010, 09:35 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]are you saying it isn't possible for us to work with someone we don't agree with or whose policies are different?

Nope. I'm saying you might hire a pedophile to work on your fishing boat but you wouldn't hire one to babysit your kids. It's about whether his predispositions make it likely that he will / will not be able to do his job properly.

And expressing the predisposition isn't the problem. I'd far rather have pedo's trying to explain to me why it's OK to look a pictures of naked kids than keeping their thoughts to themselves, because that way I know who not to entrust my kids to.

So I'm not saying the guy shouldn't have expressed his opinions, or that he should be fired for doing so. I'm saying that the fact that he holds such opinions so strongly means he shouldn't have been given the big stick he wields as an ADA in the first place. But, OK, a mistake was made and now that we know something about him which we didn't realise at the time, we should rectify that mistake by taking the bit stick off him.

(10-01-2010, 09:35 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]the boss himself says "the man's a bully but as far as supreme court rulings go i can't sack him"
isn't he in turn undermining the supreme court?

No. The boss has expressed an opinion, that he disagrees with but abides by the decision. He hasn't attempted to orchestrate a campaign to achieve his personal aims in spite of the decision.

(10-01-2010, 09:35 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]doesn't someone holding office put himself in the firing line. the person is gay has views about gay freedoms and rights. (i presume) and rightly so.

Sure. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to criticise the guy.


Quote:Maybe not, but you asked us whether we thought he should be fired. I do.
fair comment
Quote:Nope. I'm saying you might hire a pedophile to work on your fishing boat but you wouldn't hire one to babysit your kids. It's about whether his predispositions make it likely that he will / will not be able to do his job properly.
it does appear that his boss thinks the guy is good at his job.
Quote:So I'm not saying the guy shouldn't have expressed his opinions, or that he should be fired for doing so. I'm saying that the fact that he holds such opinions so strongly means he shouldn't have been given the big stick he wields as an ADA in the first place. But, OK, a mistake was made and now that we know something about him which we didn't realise at the time, we should rectify that mistake by taking the bit stick off him.
well i can't argue with the logic. but if he has rights he has rights. again while his boss thinks him a bully he also thinks him capable of doing the job. the thing is a pedo has committed some crime this person hasn't. no charges have been brought against by the alleged victim so wouldn't sacking him when no charges have been laid be unfair.?

Quote:No. The boss has expressed an opinion, that he disagrees with but abides by the decision. He hasn't attempted to orchestrate a campaign to achieve his personal aims in spite of the decision.

people have been sacked for similar behaviour and failed in the fighting of said sackings. as his boss he has the right to sack the guy. from other supreme court cases the odds are that any litigation by the alleged stalker over his dismissal would fail. what i'm asking is that if that's the case why not just sack him ?
(10-01-2010, 11:08 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]it does appear that his boss thinks the guy is good at his job.
The guy's boss knows more about him than you or I but if we simply assume that his judgement is sound then what is the point of discussing the matter?

(10-01-2010, 11:08 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]well i can't argue with the logic. but if he has rights he has rights. again while his boss thinks him a bully he also thinks him capable of doing the job. the thing is a pedo has committed some crime...
My argument doesn't assume anyone has committed a crime, merely to want to. And it doesn't require a pedo: you wouldn't employ someone who hates cats to work in an animal shelter; you wouldn't employ someone illiterate to work in a library; you wouldn't employ someone afraid of the water to work as a lifeguard;...

(10-01-2010, 11:08 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]wouldn't sacking him when no charges have been laid be unfair.?
If he's not up to the job he's not up to the job. It was unfair (to the candidate for the position he was chosen ahead of, and to the public whose taxpayer dollars are being used to pay him for doing a job he cannot do responsibly) to have given him the job in the first place and it would be unfair to allow him to keep it.

(10-01-2010, 11:08 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]people have been sacked for similar behaviour and failed in the fighting of said sackings. as his boss he has the right to sack the guy. from other supreme court cases the odds are that any litigation by the alleged stalker over his dismissal would fail. what i'm asking is that if that's the case why not just sack him ?

That's a question only his boss can answer.


Quote:My argument doesn't assume anyone has committed a crime, merely to want to. And it doesn't require a pedo: you wouldn't employ someone who hates cats to work in an animal shelter; you wouldn't employ someone illiterate to work in a library; you wouldn't employ someone afraid of the water to work as a lifeguard;...

so if someone works for the gov and doesn't like gays and voices such dislike through different ways they should be sacked? would the same rule work should he dislike catholics or jews or muslims. by saying "don't say those things or we'll sack you" are we curtailing his rights as a citizen

isn't it possible to distance yourself from your beliefs in order to be fair? don't judges have to do it all the time?

yes i wouldn't hire anyone as a life gard who cant swim but them not being able to swim could be the cause of his death. i doubt the blogg would kill this idiot, same with illiteracy and the library worker litracey is actually needed.

in the ada's job a liking of homosexuals isn't.
I think the lengths he's gone to specifically antagonize people (a kid, no less) goes far beyond "voicing his dislike". Besides, the position he holds means he must be held under a certain ethical standard which he certainly does not meet.

Sack him, I say. If his immediate superior can't do it (for whatever reason, I don't know), the way he's represented himself thus far should be enough grounds for other higher ups to step in and decide that he's too much of a douchebag to still be permitted to work for and represent the government. That is if the government has any dignity and decency left.
i can usually argue both sides but it's not so easy with someone like this.
if he wasn't an ada the line would be less clear and one could argue free speech (except for the vids)
but i give in. the guys a douche.