If this story went down exactly as Mike suggests the agent will lose her job or at least her federal law enforcement qualification. On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.
I remember the old days, when employee missteps would cause calls for a repremand or retraining. These days it seems that everyone thinks that the slightest misstep should have you fired.
I just think there's another way to look at this situation. Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to ma…
God, I wish it was the way you describe it. Unfortunately, Mr. Incredible is the exception, not the rule. Most flunkies really don't care about the person in front of them - at least not enough to risk their job (which Mr. Incredible was doing every time he helped someone). Additionally, it has been my experience that American cops are not shy about showing overwhelming force. Nor are they shy about pushing the bound…
They consider their weapons and their other privileges a means to "intimidate and show power". And with this approach, no wonder when they get a chance, they do show power.
"So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out."
forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no?
"I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we all know.
This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works. It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not su…
If the employer wants that information, they can stump for a police background check. My private life is my private life, and there's no way that a checkbox on a form photocopied by the hundreds is going to give a balanced view of any arrest of mine. I have never been arrested, but if the employer actually needs that level of employee security - perhaps handling client money? - then it's the employer's duty to protec…
Sure. But a lot of employers have no such security requirements, yet ask anyway.
A guy I know was in a similar situation when trying to enter Australia. 20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest. So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested. He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home. When he told the border guy the f…
99.99% of all paperwork is done to cover somebody's ass in case something goes wrong. So if the guy is fine, nobody cares. If the guy makes trouble in Australia, border control's ass is covered - they asked about if he's a criminal, and he lied, so they could do nothing, so no blame on them. If there were no such question, eventually somebody would say "oh, if only border control would ask the right questions, we could avoid that - so let's assign blame to them". To prevent that, they have a cover. If you tell the truth, and the truth requires them taking additional risk, they will dispose of this risk as quickly and efficiently as they can - i.e. in that case, by denying entry. This way, their ass stays covered.
If this story went down exactly as Mike suggests the agent will lose her job or at least her federal law enforcement qualification. On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.
What? It's his word against hers and she's probably going to lie. Even if she doesn't lie this is not a firing offence because it's unliklely to piss off her boss in any way that makes them angry at her, rather than at some rich guy with a lawyer.
The boat in question[1] would appear to be a Coastal Craft 400 IPS[2]. Roughly, $1M CAD (roughly, $1M USD at today's rate). I don't have that kind of money lying around for anything, much less a boat, but I suppose I'd be a little pissed myself if all of it was in the hands of someone else due to red tape. 1. https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/ph... 2. http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-…