By on November 19, 2021

Tesla

A report by the Washington Post is detailing the lawsuit being brought against Tesla by a worker at its Fremont factory. Jessica Barraza, who has been working as a production associate on the Model 3, alleges a string of sexual harassment incidents suffered while working at the California automaker.

Barraza told the Post that coworkers often hurled vulgar comments about her appearance and was allegedly propositioned via text by someone in a supervisory lead role. It is also claimed that inappropriate touching occurred during work hours at the plant. The suit states that harassment in some form is said to have happened on almost a daily basis, triggering anxiety and forcing a medical leave.

It is suggested in the report that Barraza tried to bring her concerns to Tesla HR, filing complaints earlier this year but hearing only crickets. Compounding the problem, she says, is the tendency of Elon Musk himself to deploy an infantile nature in some of his tweets. As an example, Barraza point out the tweet he scripted on October 29 this year, where he put forth the name of a new university: Texas Institute of Technology & Science.

It doesn’t take much imagination to deduce this thinly veiled joke, given the acronym that would result from such a name. This was then followed by precious declarations by Musk that such a place would have ‘epic merch’ and be ‘universally admired’. It is suggested in the suit that this type of behavior likely emboldened some of Barraza’s harassers on the factory floor.

A supposed arbitration clause, which is apparently part of agreements signed when one takes a job at Tesla, makes lawsuits such as these rare birds. However, the company was recently compelled to fork out $137 million to a person named Owen Diaz who was found to be subjected to racial harassment at the same Fremont factory in which Barraza is alleging sexual harassment. It has been noted by other sources that Diaz was a contractor and potentially not obligated to sign the mythical arbitration agreement.

Even with such documents, it’s hardly Musk’s first brush with lawyers. Readers will recall the Tesla boss found himself in hot water after tweeting he would take the company private at a stock price of $420 per share and suggesting funding was secured. It turned out nothing of the sort, with only preliminary talks being on the table. Securities fraud charges soon appeared, and the matter was settled in September 2018 with Musk stepping down as Tesla chair and agreeing to have his public communications (such as tweets) vetted by the company.

That hasn’t stopped the man from mashing buttons on Twitter, of course, proven by the sample shown above. In fact, the SEC has taken Musk to task a number of times for tweets ranging in topic from how many cars Tesla expected to make in a calendar year to solar roof delivery numbers. For its part, Tesla responded on at least one occasion by saying the words were merely Musk’s opinion. And don’t forget: October this year isn’t the first time Musk has played with acronyms, baiting the SEC by suggesting an alternate description of its own name.

Think the lawyers vetted that one?

[Image: Telsa]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

83 Comments on “Employee Files Harassment Suit Against Tesla...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Unreal that people still have to put up with this BS at work.

  • avatar
    3800FAN

    Elons high intelligence is equally counter-acted by his maturity which hit stop in 10th grade.

  • avatar
    mcs

    This would never happen at GM or Ford:

    https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2019/01/gm-ford-smacked-with-harassment-lawsuits/

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Not surprising when you have 10000 people working in the same plant. I don’t doubt her story, as she has much to lose by telling it.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Americans can’t have fun. You hit on Ukrainian woman, she would take your hand, place it on her “Texas Institute of Technology and Science”, and will say – you can study here, but you must marry me (first/afterwards/may be).

  • avatar

    Why Trump is banned from twitter but Elon Musk is not? On the other hand Barraza sounds like a wise person. I would be careful with them. They can make Musk an offer he can’t refuse.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “Why Trump is banned from twitter but Elon Musk is not?”

      Several reasons:

      Musk has a genius IQ. If the other drops a few points, he won’t be coordinated enough to drink water…. oh… to late…

      Musk is a multi-billionaire. The other… we have yet to see his tax returns.

      Musk doesn’t encourage riots, seditious behaviour and white supremacy.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        Yep, white supremacy. Following that narrative just like the Rittenhouse case – a stellar example of white supremacy over other whites.

        Disclaimer: I’m a black Libertarian.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Lesson of the Rittenhouse case: playing Dirty Harry when you’re not usually ends up with people dead that shouldn’t be. Ask George Zimmerman how that works.

          • 0 avatar
            kcflyer

            lesson from Rittenhouse case, try to kill an armed citizen, you might get shot. Only one killed on Capitol on Jan 6th was an unarmed trespasser. 5 killed in a parade after Biden calls Rittenhouse verdict a cause for riots. But Biden voters will overlook these unprovoked murders. Happened last year in Buffalo, but didn’t make national news because the Biden voter that drove her SUV though a line of people “only” hit three cops. She was only charged with simple assault. Rioters demanded her release.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            How about this for a better lesson:
            Don’t show up to a protest armed, and no one will get shot. Seems pretty simple to me. Maybe the kid should have sat that one out and let the authorities that he supposedly admired so much handle things.

            Stay home and play some Minecraft, kid. You’re not Dirty Harry.

            And the “Biden voter” crap is insulting. I voted for him. You think I’d be violent? Grow up.

          • 0 avatar
            dantes_inferno

            >lesson from Rittenhouse case, try to kill an armed citizen, you might get shot.

            Especially if you have a rap sheet as a pedo, arsonist and criminal in general.

            Had the verdict gone the other way – Bye-bye self-defense as well as neutralizing the 2nd Amendment (which was the agenda all along).

          • 0 avatar

            @FreedMike: Yeah, we played Dirty Harry with Wehrmacht. It did not end well for Wehrmacht. Or you would prefer to live under Nazi regime?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @dantes_inferno – I wasn’t referring to that.

          Only in America: Show up at a riot in a different town with an assault rifle. Shoot and kill 2 people, wound another. Get off scott free.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Apparently, the right to be a complete moron with a gun who thinks he’s Robocop shall not be abridged. Too bad about the dead folks, right?

          • 0 avatar
            dantes_inferno

            Shoot and kill 2 people, wound another in self-defense (which was confirmed by video footage and the prosecution witnesses own testimony). Get off scott free.

            There. I fixed it for you.

            Spoiler alert: Rittenhouse lived less than 20 minutes from the state line and has family in Wisconsin just over the state line. Conveniently omitted by the MSM because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I guess the concept of “better to walk away than put yourself in a position where may you have to shoot someone” hasn’t dawned on the Breitbart / happiness is a warm gun crowd. I mean, was Incel Kyle required to be at that protest? Nope. He opted to be there, even though he knew violence was a possibility.

            But ol’ Incel Kyle didn’t have to walk away, did he? Nope. He had a gun. And that gave him all the balls in the world. Same with George Zimmerman. Too bad people had to die to prove how ballsy they were, but hey…can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

            Seems to me showing up to a violent rally with violent people while armed means a high degree of certainty you have to “defend yourself.” In that case, better to stay the f**k away, wouldn’t you say?

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            I don’t know about everyone else here, but I wouldn’t need an AR-15 to defend myself against a guy with a skateboard.

            “lesson from Rittenhouse case, try to kill an armed citizen, you might get shot.”

            Unless you happened to be armed as well, then it wouldn’t go so well for the “armed citizen”.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @mcs:

            People forget that the best way to deal with violence is to avoid it when possible. To wit: if there’s a supposedly violent protest going on that no one’s making you attend, stay home.

            But then we have ol’ Incel Kyle. Now, does this guy look like he’s enough of a bada** to go in there like Chuck Norris and kick a** on all those supposedly violent protesters? Yeah, right. The guy blubbered his way through his court case like a two-year-old. Not exactly a bada**. But give this fool a gun, and he’s all protect and serve, even though he clearly had zero idea how to do that in the first place.

            Why should we be surprised he “had” to pull his gun to defend himself? He put himself into a bad situation that that he had to shoot his way out of. And now two people are dead. It’s a high price to pay for Incel Kyle’s need to prove what a bada** he is, if you ask me.

            But wait, there’s more…by doing this, he dragged We The People into a national debate that we didn’t need to have, wasted the law enforcement and court resources of that community, and even blew God knows how much taxpayer money. Everyone had to suffer because this idiot thought he was Dirty Harry.

            He should have stayed the f**k home and watched hentai.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Violently attacking an armed person is suicidal the last time I checked. In fact the attacker was released from a mental hospital earlier that day for attempting suicide.

            You could not hear that little fact at the trial and never mind the news media.

            But regardless, it comes do down to self defense. How it all came to be is irrelevant spin.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike:

            No, it’s not irrelevant spin. I’d say if there’s something going on that is so dangerous that you need to be armed to be there, and you’re not required to be there, the smart thing to do is to NOT be there.

            Whether Rittenhouse was criminally liable for all this is debatable. But it’s pretty clear to me he’s at least 50% responsible for this mess. If he’d had the good common sense to stay home, none of this would have happened.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            For sure a lot of people should’ve stayed home that night, involved or not. It depends on how far back you want to go, from the precise 2 minutes in question. Maybe some shouldn’t have lit things on fire.

            I don’t know. A lot of ‘what ifs’, but I know what’s legal and not. No one wants to talk about those though.

            I remember the first lesson in (business) law school was cut through all the BS thrown in and get directly to the exact facts and laws that pertain.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike:

            Should the protesters have been violent? No. But that’s a problem for the local authorities, not a 17-year-old kid…and particularly not THIS 17-year-old kid, who clearly had about as much common sense as a housefly. He went out of his way to show up to a protest he believed to be violent, and came armed to the teeth. What good was going to come of that?

            Actions have consequences. The consequences of Rittenhouse’s actions were that two people died, even if their deaths were unwitting. Legal or illegal, this incredibly foolish decision was 100% on him, and that – the RESPONSIBILITY – is what I’d like to see people acknowledge, versus shunt off with crap like “but it was legal,” or “but the protesters were violent,” or “but Biden.” If responsibility is taken, then maybe the next Rittenhouse thinks twice about doing something that dangerous.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yes some bad calls were made all around. Except are you saying the jury verdict was wrong?

            Of course not. The case should’ve never went to trial and was purely politically driven, 100%.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike:

            I’d say the jury’s verdict was questionable but not completely unexpected. And the prosecution wasn’t unreasonable – two people were shot dead by this guy, and when that happens, the mess tends to end up in a criminal court.

            What I am saying is that we should be focusing more on common sense and personal responsibility, which seems to go right out the window where the second amendment is concerned.

            To wit: do you have the “right” to show up to a political protest armed? Probably. Is that a dumb move that can end up with people getting killed for no reason? Yep.

            By the same token…cid George Zimmerman have the right to go chasing after Trayvon Martin in the the middle of the night? Probably. Was it a stupid idea? Yes.

            The common thread in both those cases is people – young men, in particular – who make monumentally bad, zero-common-sense, cop-wannabe decisions while armed, when they should have just left the problem to the real cops. But they didn’t, and people died who didn’t need to.

            It boils down to guns allowing people to act way more ballsy than they have any reason to be. Why not? In the end, the person with the gun has the ultimate upper hand. And if push comes to shove, they can shoot whoever makes them feel “threatened,” and if it gets to court, they’ll likely walk.

            I’m pretty sure all of this is NOT what the peoplw who wrote the Second Amendment had in mind, you know?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Questionable” verdict? How so?

            Would you not defend yourself the best you could at the point of being attacked, potentially fatal? Even if all you’ve got is a box cutter?

            Yeah I know you wouldn’t personally put yourself in such a situation, but just answer the question.

            Again, it doesn’t matter how the Kyle situation came to be, but whether he was justified in pulling the trigger.

            Maybe you personally would’ve shown more restraint, taken the severe beating, risk getting shot, possibly from your own rifle, or would’ve taken on the whole angry mob in hand to hand combat, but what’s the rule there?

            The only thing that really matter is what happened in those crucial two minutes. It could have totally gone the other way.

            On the surface it looked really bad for Kyle legally, until you dissect the facts of the case. Again, it should have never gone to trial. But he was tried and convicted by the news media and on social media so the prosecution had no choice.

            They also had no case. No one takes the time to actually look at the evidence frame by frame. Thank god for the videos or yes he would have been convicted, life in prison, no doubt about it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike:

            “Would you not defend yourself the best you could at the point of being attacked, potentially fatal? Even if all you’ve got is a box cutter?”

            The point is to avoid situations like that if possible, not put yourself into them. I think the problem I have with guns in relation to this is that they make some people who carry feel like they don’t have to avoid that kind of situation. And I think that was the case with Rittenhouse.

            If I were carrying a gun in public I’d probably be even more reticent to put myself into a situation where I’d need to use it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Again you sidestep the question, instead you pose the ethical one. Yes the average person, armed or not, would’ve stood by and done absolutely nothing, watching others light fires to property.

            OK fine, but most rioters would never in a million years violently attack a clearly armed person. I don’t know what goes through a person’s head on either side of the conflict, or what drugs they’re on, pure adrenaline, suicidal tendencies, etc, etc.

            Clearly a rifle is a bad idea in hand to hand combat and Kyle did try to run away.

            Except the thread has drifted far from the topic of murder, no?.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike:

            Since the legal question’s been answered, that leaves us with the ethical one. And, yeah, this kid was irresponsible, and therefore has to own his part of the problem.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            His heart was in the right place, from what I can tell. That’s what’s important to me and I’m sure he knows he made some bad calls that night that could’ve easily cost him his life, or life behind bars if there was no video evidence.

            I’m not sure if the news media just talks out if its A$$ and disregards the facts or if they’re technically in the entertainment industry to not be held liable. But I’ll do my own research before adopting their opinion every time.

      • 0 avatar
        MitchConner

        Some of you guys are so good at blindly stepping on rakes or shooting yourself in the foot you should go on Canada’s Got Talent and give Justin Trudeau and his black face Alibaba act a run for his money. Judges Rich Little, Jim Balsillie, Ben Johnson, and Terrance & Philip would all stand and applaud.

        Think of it. A Tim Horton’s breakfast, bottle of maple syrup, and vintage Blackberry could all be yours.

        Trump was censored by Facebook and Twitter because Silicon Valley is the epicenter of Team Donkey Progressive Liberal insanity — and even though California, especially the San Francisco Bay Area, has descended into an overpriced, over taxed, over regulated, crime infested third world hell hole with no middle class anybody with a brain in their head is fleeing — they couldn’t have Trump threaten their utopian vision for the rest of the country where everybody outside of the west coast and New York is a dumb rube who needs to be beaten down with bans and regulations and quotas until they, too, feel sitting in an inclusive drum circle bonging dried mushrooms grown in hippo flop while wearing black turtlenecks and Allbirds as the Al Gore Experience Dance Troupe acts out the death of Mother Earth before they fly off on a private jet to do it again in Portland is a productive use of time.

        Anybody wonder why we have a completely useless Vice President who is so vile she couldn’t even get 2% of her home state’s vote in her joke of a Presidential run? A Vice President as inept as the muddy diapered fool that’s her boss? Follow the money. Because there’s trillions of it in the San Francisco Bay Area. And that’s exactly where she was continuously kicked upstairs despite a track record that you’d have to be drunk, high, or dropped on the soft spot on your head as an infant to even think is mediocre. She was installed to do their bidding once Joe was out. And both Stupid Joe and her blew up in their faces.

        I lived in Silicon Valley for nearly 40 years. I sat in meetings in all of those companies. If anybody thinks you’re anything less than a hyper liberal goof — you’re out. If you’re an employee you’re made miserable until you quit. A vendor? Ghosted. A contractor? Not renewed. They cried and called in sick for a week after Hillary lost. They weren’t going to let that happen again — and look at what we got. Trump might’ve been a buffoon — but Biden is worse.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      When Elon Musk incites a riot at the U.S. Capitol, let Twitter know.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        Unless you happened to be armed as well, then it wouldn’t go so well for the “armed citizen”. Guess you didn’t bother to watch the video or listen to any of the facts. One of the men he shot was pointing a pistol at him. That man, unlike Kyle, was not legal to have a firearm.

        And the “Biden voter” crap is insulting. I voted for him. You think I’d be violent? Grow up

        Biden was angered by a jury hearing the evidence and declaring him innocent. Biden therefore owns the 5 dead in Wisconsin. Biden called Rittenhouse a white supremacist during the campaign. You knew that, you knew there was no evidentiary basis for that smear and yet you voted for him. His VP donated money to get rioters out of jail. His VP said the verdict was not “equitable” The man who killed an maimed at the parade was filmed protesting at the courthouse and was out on bail thanks to liberal bail reform. You voted for that. Own it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Funny how I get to “own” everything you accuse the guy I voted for of doing…meanwhile, what do you own? Nothing, I’d guess.

          Just like Incel Kyle doesn’t “own” any of the ridiculous actions – like showing up to a supposedly violent protest armed – that led to this whole mess. And, oh yeah…two dead people.

          But, hey…”Biden,” right?

          Derp…

          • 0 avatar
            kcflyer

            So the only people allowed to show at riots are like minded rioters? Right. I’ll remember that when the burning, looting and murdering “peaceful protest start in your neighborhood. If you don’t like your house/ business being destroyed, looted, and your life threatened just stay inside and hope help arrives. Good luck with that. Rittenhouse had every right to be there, you can argue it was ill advised but he committed no crime. He also had every right to be armed. If you don’t like that than repeal the 2nd amendment. Or move to a democrat run state with their unconstitutional laws that only impact law abiding citizens.

          • 0 avatar
            khory

            I don’t get the “he shouldn’t have been there” line of thought when proclaiming Kyle’s guilt. Avoiding the area may have been wiser for him but his presence was not illegal nor was his possession of a long gun. His presence does not give his assailants the right to attack him. Once they crossed that line they are in violation of the law and it becomes a self-defense situation. It’s as simple as that.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @kcflyer:
            “So the only people allowed to show at riots are like minded rioters?”

            Never said anyone had the right to riot. Not once. You’re putting words in my mouth. Pretty low of you…but I digress.

            But here’s the thing about riots: they’re a problem for the local authorities, not a 17-year-old kid.

            Lawlessness is solved by the law, not by some stupid 17-year-old cop wannabee.

            @khory:
            I’m not saying Incel Kyle is guilty or not guilty legally. I’m saying those two corpses he left behind are at least partially on him. He went out of his way to go to that protest, and did it armed to the teeth. What good comes of that? You tell me.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Lawlessness is solved by the law”

            Rule of law is such a quaint notion since 1/1/20.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            People who go to riots are there because they want to cause trouble or have it find them. Easy access to guns just makes it worse. In Vancouver there was a huge riot post Stanley Cup loss. No guns. No deaths.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “like showing up to a supposedly violent protest armed – that led to this whole mess…”

            Let’s back up a couple of steps here FreedMike.

            First of all, he didn’t just “show up.” He was asked by his former employer, a used car lot, to come to Kenosha to help defend property.

            Why was Kyle asked by a local, minority-owned, uninsured used car lot to come to Kenosha with a gun? Because local law enforcement was standing down against repeated cases of rioters setting fire to its property. And the Democratic governor refused to send in the national guard to quell the riots.

            I agree that KR shouldn’t have been there. Had law enforcement done its job, he wouldn’t have been asked to come.

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            Curious how the likes of FreedMike and TTAC’s other token Leftists seem so very eager to align themselves on the same side as rioting, criminal vermin, isn’t it?

            They rally to defend those feral societal elements that most sane and rational people would understand to be actively working against the very concept of civilization, rather than a young man who – in legally defending himself from their attacks – thankfully ridded us of two examples of such filth.

            No one should claim surprise when civilized people judge Leftists by the company they keep…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            What, I have to either side with the rioters, or a wannabe vigilante like Kyle Rittenhouse?

            Wrong…I stand against both.

            Awfully sorry if that disappoints you.

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            FreedMike, I strongly suggest you reexamine the wisdom of your political beliefs before claiming to “stand against” the very societal vermin you empower and embolden with said beliefs.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Master Baiter
            “He was asked by his former employer, a used car lot, to come to Kenosha to help defend property.”

            What kind of irresponsible a**hole asks a minor to go grab a gun and “defend his property”? Here’s a hint for that idiot: call 911, not a kid.

            And here’s a hint for the other idiot in this twosome: tell the property owner, “I’m not really comfortable with this. Maybe you should call 911.”

            These two together clearly have an IQ 0f 6 and the common sense of a mosquito. Your argument has an IQ of 13.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @Master Baiter
            “He was asked by his former employer, a used car lot, to come to Kenosha to help defend property.”

            No he wasn’t.

            From the trial:

            During Friday’s testimony, family members of the man who owns the car dealership destroyed during the unrest – and where the shootings took place – took the stand. They testified that they did not ask anyone to come and protect the property.

            “Did you ever have any discussions that day with anyone about protecting or guarding either of the Car Source locations, or Car Doctor?” Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked.

            Anmol Khindri, inventory manager at Car Source, replied: “No, sir.”

            https://www.fox6now.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-car-dealership-march

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I’d strongly suggest you stop thinking anyone who disagrees with you is “emboldening rioters,” but I’m sure I’d be wasting my breath.

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            Sure, Mike. How very wrong of me to judge you and your beliefs by your own innumerable statements espousing the same Leftist ideology we’ve all seen spreading societal chaos throughout this dying nation.

            I’m fairly sure you weren’t in that red Ford Escape with Darrell Brooks this weekend, either… but your politics helped put him behind the wheel.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @mcs:
            What’s more important here – that the kid wasn’t asked to come defend someone’s property, or that someone here actually tried to justify what happened with that BS story?

            To be clear: we’re talking about someone who was apparently OK that an adult asked a 17-old-kid to grab a gun and come defend his property, that the 17 year old kid actually did it, and ***that there was nothing wrong with any of that.*** Perfectly reasonable thing to do. Nothing to see. Move along.

            In reality, asking a minor kid to go grab a gun and put his life on the line for your property is BEYOND wrong.

            The problem here isn’t a riot, or a kid showing up to a riot with a gun – it’s the idea that it’s OK for a kid to show up to a riot armed. That idea, that mindset, that this is just the way to get things done, is the very problem. Same with the Capitol riots. Same with just about any other riot. And if you had a problem with that, you were “with the rioters,” or “with the people who were stealing the election.” And so on.

            This is going to happen again and again and again until people wake the hell up and stop with this kind of BS thinking.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Rather than shouting at each other over the Rittenhouse case look at the facts.

            In Canada we have had some riots. The Vancouver hockey riots, the Richard (hockey) Riot and the G8 Riot in Toronto. With no shootings or deaths.

            During the G8 Riot the police corralled everyone in the area, and held them there until things cooled down.

            Basically everyone in the vicinity was treated as a rioter. And that does serve as a lesson, if there is a riot, you should not be in the area. Let those trained and hired to handle it, handle it.

            Was Rittenhouse there to protect a family member?

            Was Rittenhouse there to protect his household or his personal property?

            If not then why was a teenager, with his mother’s permission allowed to enter into an area where crime/violence was taking place?

            Under the state laws the verdict of not guilty was the correct one for the charges laid.

            That does not imply that the laws are logical or just. Much as Rittenhouse in my opinion should have been found guilty of some crime, the rioters should also be found guilty of crimes.

            Unfortunately the USA appears to have created a system/society where incarceration and crime exceed that of other 1st world nations. It appears that a cycle of incarceration/criminal activity has been created and rather than make the changes to prevent crime, the focus has been on punishment. Except it can be argued for those who commit multi-million dollar white collar crimes.

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            “The problem here isn’t a riot…”

            Stop right there. That is a ridiculously inaccurate statement that further demonstrates the dangers of your Leftist bent and its harmful effects on civilized society.

            If there wasn’t a riot, Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn’t have had a reason to be there.

            If Leftists hadn’t fanned the flames of “racial injustice” in light of a justified, non-fatal police shooting, there probably wouldn’t have been a riot.

            For that matter, there would have been few if any riots at all over the past seven years if only Leftists/BLM could discern the actual differences between justified exterminations like Michael Brown, from the wrongful murders of the likes of Trayvon Martin.

            On second thought, it’s not that your ilk CAN’T tell the difference, Mike. It’s that you derive power and influence specifically from ignoring that difference, appealing to a victimization mindset over actual facts to build up your political base.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “If Leftists hadn’t fanned the flames of “racial injustice” in light of a justified, non-fatal police shooting, there probably wouldn’t have been a riot.”

            And if rightists hadn’t fanned the flames of “stolen elections,” we wouldn’t have had the national disgrace at the Capitol on January 6th. Of course, then again, when it comes to the various racial riots, the President of the United States didn’t hold a rally for the rioters a couple of hours beforehand. Gee, how could THAT have gone wrong?

            Physician, heal thyself.

            Far as rioters are concerned, I’ve made myself pretty clear, but since you seem to have cotton in your ears, here’s my stand: arrest all of them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. That’s done by law enforcement, not by a stupid 17-year-old kid who clearly has all the common sense of a gnat. That clear enough?

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            Sigh. I’d laugh you off as merely pathetic if your line of thinking wasn’t so obviously, critically harmful to civilized society.

            “And if rightists hadn’t fanned the flames of “stolen elections…”

            Silly me, I assumed you possessed higher-level thinking skills and the ability to extrapolate that without the aforementioned riots in Ferguson, etc. preceding his election in 2016 (and, further back, the racial victimization pandering from the Obama WH) Trump would probably have been a laughable, cautionary footnote in history, and not a one-term president (likely two-term, at this rate.)

            “I’ve made myself pretty clear, but since you seem to have cotton in your ears, here’s my stand: arrest all of them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”

            Yep, and that threat of prosecution sure has worked, huh? There’s very little point to jailing vermin… you really need to kill it, as many civilized people are realizing.

            And to repeat, it’s your victim-pandering politics that led to the Trump presidency, Kyle Rittenhouse to travel to Kenosha and Darrell Brooks to murder five innocent people this weekend. Not mine. Own it.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            @Master Baiter
            “He was asked by his former employer, a used car lot, to come to Kenosha to help defend property.”

            “No he wasn’t.

            From the trial:

            During Friday’s testimony, family members of the man who owns the car dealership destroyed during the unrest – and where the shootings took place – took the stand. They testified that they did not ask anyone to come and protect the property.”

            I know that’s what they testified, but that point is disputed by KR’s lawyers who claim that he WAS asked to protect the property. If the dealership’s owners had admitted to asking him, they would have faced possible charges for having done that. It’s a question of who you choose to believe.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @C5 are you denying that systemic racism does not exist? That non-violent and legal protest like Colin Kaepernick’s are not met with vitriol and contempt?

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            Racism exists, Arthur. But don’t lecture me about others’ failings or burn down my business if you want me to be sympathetic to your cause.

            And Colin Kaepernick is nothing more than a sh|tty football player who found a way to infamy for something other than being a sh|tty football player.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    One of my clients recently had to do a major investigation of sexually harassing and inappropriate behavior. They ended up figuring out that about 1 in 10 of the men there were repeat offenders. It shocked everyone, but it shouldn’t have; this is a completely endemic problem, in white-collar environments too.

    In my career I’ve seen sexual harassment of a general counsel of a Fortune 100 company by the CEO; of a lawfirm partner who generates $3M in business by another partner in the same firm; and of a workplace investigator (!) by one of the men she was investigating.

    It’s not just a plant/factory thing, or the creepy FedEx guy saying cringe things to the receptionist who can’t leave the front desk.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      There’s a lot of attitudes and other shizzle left over from the office circa the 1950s which unfortunately is still present in today’s society, but OTOH, there is the issue of folks seemingly being brought up to be perpetual victims! Yes, some of we guys are and will always be chauvinistic pigs, and perhaps a good kick to the nether region is what they deserve, as that sort of behavior in a professional setting is unacceptable. But then again, there are some who might inadvertently subconsciously draw out that behavior by others, and ruin someone’s career over it by claiming harassment if they back into a colleague as they’re both reaching for the coffee in the breakroom!

      My motto at work: treat everyone with respect, don’t go where you shouldn’t go with the opposite gender, and be a gentleman at all times!

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Much as I hate to admit it, sgeffe has a point. I’ve seen women get away with stuff at the office that a man NEVER would.

        To wit: around 2000, a female coworker put up a picture of a super-hunky Black guy wearing nothing but some kind of skimpy African-style loincloth get-up, holding a spear. Let’s sum up: white lady with picture of a Black stud spearc*ucker on her cube wall. Nothing to see here…move along. The picture never came down to the best of my knowledge.

        A few years later, the head manager at the WaMu office I worked at took a picture of herself and her second in command flashing their breasts, New Orleans Mardi Gras-style, while they were at happy hour. They then sent the picture to two male managers via company email. The men got fired because they passed the picture along; the female managers kept their jobs. And, no, I never saw the picture (though knowing the ladies in question, I don’t think I was missing much).

        Granted, this was all quite a few years back, and I’ve been working from home pretty much 2010, so I can only hope the standards have changed.

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          >I’ve seen women get away with stuff at the office that a man NEVER would.

          Haven’t you gotten the memo? It’s popular conventional wisdom among certain circles (the non-sleepers) that men are the cause of ALL of society’s ills. We are the scourge (despite being the ones who BUILT this society).

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, men aren’t the scourge. Men who act like idiots around the opposite (or even the same) sex are a scourge. And vice versa.

        • 0 avatar
          bullnuke

          “Much as I hate to admit it, sgeffe has a point. I’ve seen women get away with stuff at the office that a man NEVER would.”. There may be a problem if you, “hate to admit it” when discussing information or facts that are personally observed. Would it have been better to ignore,obfuscate, or lie about what is personally seen or known? Either way, this doesn’t allow folks to put much trust or weight in much of your commentary.

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    Didn’t we have one of these incidents (Rivian, I believe) posted here a few days ago? For this “incident”, as well as that last one, perhaps thinking folks will reserve judgement until more information is revealed. Rushing to judgement, guessing, relating “similar” incidents from days of yore are pretty much a waste of time.

  • avatar
    3SpeedAutomatic

    I started my professional career in the early 80s. Yes, there were Playboy jokes passed around the office and what not. By the early 90s, the company clamped down on such attitudes and many bad practices were stopped cold in their tracks.
    The issues arose when outside contractors or specialist were hired to assist in new technology or business practices. Many came with contrary attitudes or bad habits connected to their “inflated self worth”. As an example, a newly hired VP developed an affair with a long time secretary who was suddenly promoted 3 times within 18 months. To avoid a harassment lawsuit, the inflated pay rate of the secretary was frozen till her pay rate caught with COLA increases. The VP was dismissed and all bonuses, stock options, and privlidges were revoked.
    Based on the above, all new contractors, staff, and leadership (both men and women) were grilled on company practices and policies with little tolerance for exceptions.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Um, how does a mom who drives her 17 YO son to a riot while he’s carrying an AR-15 he’s too young to have not even get charged? In fact, why wasn’t the incel of incels charged with a weapons violation?

    Kyle knew what he did. Will he end up perfectly normal? Probably not. Will he become a practitioner of self-medicating and/or washing those pills down with bourbon? Maybe. Will he find Jesus or Buddha or becomes a Zen monk? Again, maybe. Six hour a day gym rat or a 400lb social security drawing meat-bag? We don’t know.

    I predict TMZ will run a segment on him when he’s 32. Years later, his address never has changed.

    Disclosure time: I’m a gun owner and a VA, over MD, because of their gun laws.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “Um, how does a mom who drives her 17 YO son to a riot while he’s carrying an AR-15 he’s too young to have not even get charged?”

    Because you have the facts wrong. I suspect because you’ve been brainwashed by a corporate media that has mis-stated the facts of this case from day one, even though video of the incident was released almost immediately.

    KR was not in possession of the gun when he crossed from IL to WI. The gun was already in Wisconsin, in a gun safe, at a friend’s house. And whether you think it’s right or wrong, 17YOs are allowed to carry long guns in Wisconsin.

    You should really seek out better sources of information.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Nothing to see here.

      First, we have a stupid 17-year-old who makes a special trip out of town so he can show up to a protest he thinks will be violent. Brilliant plan, kid! The only smarter plan I can dream up is making an out-of-state trip to a Hell’s Angels bar. Nothing could POSSIBLY go wrong with either of those little adventures.

      But wait, his plan gets even more brilliant…he picks up a gun on the way to the protest! Woot! Some might the question the wisdom the idea of taking a gun to a violent protest, but it’s all good because it’s legal to pick up a gun at a friend’s house and the state is stupid enough to let stupid 17-year-olds carry “long rifles” in public to supposedly violent protests.

      I literally have no idea how all this got out of hand. None whatsoever.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        Literally everything you said is a lie as it pertains to the facts of this story. First, he did not make a special trip out of town. He worked there. After the local authority’s set a travel limit he chose to spend the previous night after work with a friend in town. When you had a job did you consider going to work as a special trip out of town? He took a gun to an area that had been attacked by violent protesters for days. Sounds like a good reason to me (and it is his constitutional right) He didn’t “pick up a gun on the way” it was his rifle, and he was trained pretty well in its use. He volunteered to protect a business from Biden voters. He did that. They later threatened to kill him and then tried to make good on those threats. He defended himself. A jury watched video’s of the actual events and heard all the facts and testimony. But you think he is stupid so that’s all that matters. Do you also say his is racist like your idiot president and VP say?

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          FM and his ilk have constructed a cognitive bubble that’s impenetrable to facts, reason and logic.

          No one is suggesting what KR did was the act of a genius. But exhibiting less than perfect judgement as a 17YO is not a crime.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    at FM “Never said anyone had the right to riot. Not once. You’re putting words in my mouth. Pretty low of you”

    No you never said that, and I never said you did. What you did say was that Rittenhouse had no business being there. So please explain why not. It was the community where he worked as a lifeguard. I was where his father lives. He was asked by a business owner to help protect his business. Because, despite your ignorance of the facts, the police had failed the previous day from keeping another of this business oweners locations from being burned out by the domestic terrorist from BLM and Antifa. So this young man stepped up and offered to help. He provided basic first aid to the rioters and those they attacked. For his trouble he was given death threats and later violently assaulted. He defended himself. After the shootings he tried to turn himself into the police and was pepper sprayed and told to go home. The cops were overwhelmed, ineffective and likely scared to do there jobs for fear of being tarred by Biden voters as racist. This is nothing new. Biden and most democrat leaders have openly supported riots for years and you knew that when you gave him your vote.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mcs: @mikey: I’ve been in snow in Texas as far south as Austin.
  • mikey: Right …If that is indeed is Dallas Texas …A down vest !!! Seriously ?
  • ajla: I don’t know. Having owned the H/K/G 3.3TT for awhile now there are definitely some quirks to turbo...
  • golden2husky: Amazing that Honda used adhesive as a fix and that passed muster with the attorneys…contrast that...
  • Corey Lewis: The NA market definitely did not receive the full trim range.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber