Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 219 posts

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#101

Post by pc86 »

jerrya wrote: post #51

From the nytimes article, the judgment will be paid by Oberlin's insurance company, it will not come out of the endowment, they have not apologized, they are not accepting they were wrong, there have been no resignations. Meredith Raimondo, the Dean of Students at the time, who was passing out flyers and far more, nine months ago to accept a position as Vice President of Student Affairs at Oglethorpe University https…

Even if it were to come out of the endowment, it's what, 2-3% total? I don't know how much universities typically pull out of an endowment each year but a 3% total drop can't impact yearly budgets in any meaningful way.

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#102

Post by xyzzyz »

lajamerr wrote: post #97
xyzzyz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only say that I thoroughly disagree with this, and I have every single society that has ever existed behind me.

So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime? I really ask you to consider this from a moral standpoint. Society isn't always right. Sometimes society just does things because it's easier, not because it's right.

> So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime?

Exactly right. I want to send a message to potential criminals. I think that it’s highly beneficial to sacrifice the well being of a criminal in order to prevent more people from being victimized by other criminals. I think preventing crime is a strong moral imperative, and this is significantly more important consideration than the rights of criminals. In fact, I think putting the latter above the right of the people to not be victimized is morally despicable. I hope that my position is clear.

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#103

Post by krzyk »

scarface74 wrote: post #66
atdrummond wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what happened here at all.

> If you witness a crime you can arrest the criminal He did not say “if you witness a crime you can call the police”. I don’t want a society where any random yokel thinks he can detain someone.

You can't argue with the law.

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#104

Post by lajamerr »

ALittleLight wrote: post #91
lajamerr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I'm not very keen on pinning blame/monetary responsibility on single individuals/companies to 'prevent/deter' unknown future crimes. We shouldn't be signaling with big punishments bigger than the crimes call for. We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuin…

This seems like an insane opinion to me. The college is extremely wealthy and made a considered choice to repeatedly slander a small business and attempt to bankrupt it. The college acted like a malevolent psychopath, not in the heat of the moment or at the end of some escalatory chain, but after plenty of time to consider and deliberate. The punishment must be a large dollar figure because the college is so rich - i…

I have no opinion on whether this particular college punishment is equal to the crime. I was responding to that one poster on the merits of punishing more significantly for crimes to deter other unrelated future people who may or may not commit similar crimes.

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#105

Post by remarkEon »

rayiner wrote: post #72
markdog12 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some more interesting context from your link: When the author anonymously interviewed students, he gathered the following responses: • “I totally have [taken things from a store downtown without paying for it]. I think I’ve stolen from Gibson’s twice. I took a packet of those noodles that come in boxes… It wasn’t expensive and I felt like it. I just preferred not paying for it, but I could have.” • A female student a…

They should do like Saudi Arabia and cut off their hands.

I'm going to be charitable, because I recognize the username since you usually comment with more verbose and thought-out text, and assume you meant to say "They should be thankful that Gibson's doesn't do like Saudi Arabia and cut off their hands".

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#106

Post by pc86 »

crackercrews wrote: post #45

> The college said then that the bakery’s “archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.” IIRC, the employee tried to take a photo of the shoplifter with his phone. The shoplifter took/smashed the phone or something. This makes it much more reasonable for the employee to try to stop the shoplifter from getting away. It wasn't like he tried to cuff the guy off the b…

It doesn't even qualify in this instance, but in what universe is thinking that people who commit crimes should be detained so they can be arrested an archaic thing?

You don't need to have a Blue Lives bumper sticker on your car to think that people being punished for committing crimes is a good thing.

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#107

Post by happyopossum »

scarface74 wrote: post #66
atdrummond wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what happened here at all.

> If you witness a crime you can arrest the criminal He did not say “if you witness a crime you can call the police”. I don’t want a society where any random yokel thinks he can detain someone.

Hate to break it to you, but that society has existed for centuries - it’s an accepted rule in most common-law countries.

For example, from Wikipedia:

“In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted vary by state.”

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#108

Post by pc86 »

crackercrews wrote: post #50
vwoolf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being an educational institution should involve more than just indulging the students The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) free-speech rankings seem like a good proxy for this: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-survey...

I can't find the link, but I read recently that FIRE came out against this verdict because they believe it infringes free speech. I agree the FIRE rankings are a good resource. But it's worth pointing out that FIRE opposes this verdict.

Whose free speech? This verdict doesn't have anything to do with the students protesting, does it? I thought it was based [almost?] entirely on the fact that the Dean of Students was handing out these ridiculous flyers.

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#109

Post by 7402 »

crackercrews wrote: post #50
vwoolf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being an educational institution should involve more than just indulging the students The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) free-speech rankings seem like a good proxy for this: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-survey...

I can't find the link, but I read recently that FIRE came out against this verdict because they believe it infringes free speech. I agree the FIRE rankings are a good resource. But it's worth pointing out that FIRE opposes this verdict.

That doesn't sound right. It doesn't match up with what I know of FIRE. I couldn't find anything to suggest that FIRE opposed the verdict in my searches. Please try to find the link - I'd like to see it.

I did find one document [0] that was a legal filing that references some FIRE documents discussing speech codes, but that was it. FIRE didn't sign it, and as far as I can tell FIRE had nothing to do with the filing supporting Oberlin.

Some of the attorneys signing the filing identified themselves as "Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Coalition Against Censorship, and Defending Rights & Dissent." NCAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Against_Cen...) and DRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Rights_%26_Dissent) are not the same thing as FIRE.

[0] https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/amicus-ncac_osc.pd...

Re: After a Legal Fight, Oberlin Says It Will Pay $36.59M to a Local Bakery

#110

Post by pc86 »

ncallaway wrote: post #100
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason police can detain people is because they are citizens. They don't have any special status that other Americans don't enjoy.

Qualified Immunity would have a large word with you. If an Officer makes a wrongful arrest in the line of duty, Qualified Immunity will go a long way to shielding them, whereas a citizen without Qualified Immunity would be subject to wrongful arrest lawsuits and kidnapping charges.

This is an excellent argument for getting rid of qualified immunity, but not a very good argument against citizens' right to detain those they see committing crimes.

I don't think there's much chance the cashier here grabbed the wrong person.

Post reply on HN