September 17, 2009

"It is important to note that this is not about urban crime, university crime, domestic crime, but an issue of workplace violence, which is becoming a growing concern around the country."

The murder of Annie Le.
Mr. Clark and Ms. Le worked in the same building — Mr. Clark as a technician and Ms. Le watching experiments with mice....
"It is important to note that this is not about urban crime, university crime, domestic crime, but an issue of workplace violence, which is becoming a growing concern around the country."

81 comments:

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

And all this time I thought it was just about cold blooded murder. I stand corrected.

s1c said...

Living just a short drive from the University and with a daughter now in college in NY this story has made me very sad and very worried about the daughter. The Courant has a good article recapping everything until the arrest this morning in Cromwell. Very sad for this young ladies family and fiance.

Pogo said...

I propose requiring employees to attend workshops on "Celebrate diversity: Don't kill your colleagues".

Role-playing is recommended.

David said...

University crime?

Yale employee. Yale student. Yale facility. Yale police involved.

Nah, it's not University Crime. It's Yale crime.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Somehow this all reminds me uncomfortably of the national fascination with Chandra Levy in the summer of 2001. If we start getting shark stories I'll be really worried.

former law student said...

She was a cutie pie and he liked egg rolls. I'd be surprised if he was not attracted to her.

Skyler said...

This is not "workplace violence" and it is offensive that this murder is being called so by anyone.

What's even more interesting is that this is playing in the news so much. I'm sorry for the lady and her family, but it's not national news.

Oh, except that it's a the center of the universe, an Ivy League school.

peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
peter hoh said...

Skyler, no Ivy League school is necessary. It played out as national news when that teenager disappeared on whatever island that was a few years ago.

Fred4Pres said...

Workplace violence?

Is it a growing problem or just a different subset of the various horrible crimes that take place? We have obviously made significant improvements in urban, domestic and school safety...but there remains the crimes that arise out of work.

To me this description minimizes what this was: murder.

sydney said...

"Mr. Clark grew up in a rented gray house in a working-class neighborhood of aspirations..."

What's a "neighborhood of aspirations"?

former law student said...

This is not "workplace violence" and it is offensive that this murder is being called so by anyone.

Why not? Because she's a student? She was killed by a co-worker.

The term is fairly broad by the way. When I researched workplace violence some years back, I learned the most dangerous workplace was a taxicab -- cab drivers were far more likely to be homicide victims than cops.

Her death was national news because she was cute, talented, missing, and about to be married. Compare the nationally known disappearance of Laci Peterson: cute, missing, and about to be a mom.

David said...

A neighborhood of aspirations is a place where "solids or liquids that should be swallowed into the stomach are instead breathed into the respiratory system, or where substances from the outside environment are accidentally breathed into the lungs."

This means it's quite a troubled neighborhood.

Susan said...

Have any stories yet explained why it took four days to find a body "inside a wall"? How did it get in there? Secret passage behind a bookcase? A freshly bricked-up alcove? For the love of God, Montressor, inquiring minds want to know!

wv: Smiry, which only makes me wonder what Chinese punctuation symbols look like.

DADvocate said...

I don't have a growing concern about workplace violence, but my co-workers do.

traditionalguy said...

It is a statutory crime of murder. It is also another example of using a religiously base morality system taken from the Bible in Moses's big ten, and therefore any enforcement by the State will deprive the suspect of his right to be free from an established religion. That is no different than saying that doubting Darwin's Theory in a public school textbook proves an establishment of a religion.

Invisible Man said...

It's a race war against Asians by the whites!

/Limbaugh'd

Shanna said...

And all this time I thought it was just about cold blooded murder. I stand corrected.

Yeah, i don't know that the reason matters, but to be killed because your mice cages weren't clean enough? Man.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

The story was also in the news because she was known to have gone into the building and never to have come out. I read somewhere that the cops looked at blueprints of the building to identify areas where her body could have been hidden.

This: "It is important to note that this is not ... domestic crime" interests me. When the Virginia Tech shooter killed his first two victims, in a dormitory, it was reported that the police made the stupid, unsupported, and fatal mistake of assuming that the shootings were "domestic" in nature, and that although they didn't know where the gunman was, he had probably left campus and was not of immediate concern. Thus the campus was not locked down. It was even initially reported that the woman was his girlfriend - in fact she didn't know him.

So in this case, where a woman was evidently killed by a man, I'm glad that "domestic violence" was not used as a glib explanation of what happened.

former law student said...
She was a cutie pie and he liked egg rolls. I'd be surprised if he was not attracted to her.


FLS, how do you get from his probably being attracted to her to his probably having killed her? Men commonly murder women who are cutie pies and to whom they are attracted?

knox said...

FLS, I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously if a job is inherently risky (like a cabdriver) you can categorize a murder as such. But surely you'd agree the term "workplace violence" (however broad) does not apply in this case.

Steven said...

I believe the main thoroughfare in the "neighborhood of aspirations" is the Boulevard of Dreams.

wv: logici, a sub-group within the Illuminati, characterized by their rigorous logic

former law student said...

how do you get from his probably being attracted to her to his probably having killed her

the other way around. If he killed her, as seems likely, I'd be surprised if it was purely because she didn't clean the hamster cages to his satisfaction.

I don't know how being attracted to her would enter the equation, but I believe it existed.

paul a'barge said...

Chief Lewis ... added: “We have to really educate ourselves who we work with and how we deal with each other and those issues.”

No, we have to really educate ourselves about how to defend ourselves and about how everyone who is not a criminal needs to have the right to carry a concealed handgun where ever they go, including at work.

Just because you're at work does not mean that you are safe and that you do not have to be prepared to defend yourself.

In trying to save her life, this young girl beat this guy up pretty well. If she had had a gun, the perp would be dead meat on a stainless steel slab right now.

If you are not a criminal or a nut job should have every right to be able to pull out a gun and blow away the mutt threatening your life.

Aaron said...

I just find the whole thing so sad. I really feel bad for all her loved ones, especially her fiance. i hope the killer, if it is clark or anyone else, gets death.

do they have the death penalty in connecticut? Well, they should if they don't.

btw, FLS, "he likes eggrolls?" wtf is that supposed to mean? and why are you saying something so inapproprate in this thread? is that your crappy way of saying he had a thing for asian women?

Most tactless thing since Kenye West took the mic from Taylor Swift.

William said...

I don't know about violence, but adultery is a common workplace sin.

knox said...

All the "workplace violence" nonsense and the lengthy quoting of the president of Yale are there simply to make a tabloid story sound Sociologically Important.

The NYT has a reputation to protect, after all.

paul a'barge said...

cab drivers were far more likely to be homicide victims than cops.

Cops have guns, you maroon.

former law student said...

knox, you're going to have to give me your definition of workplace violence. To me, being killed at the workplace (the lab) by a co-worker (the animal tech) qualifies.

vw phoop

"phoop there it is"
"you're phull of phoop"

paul a'barge said...

...I'd be surprised if it was purely because she didn't clean the hamster cages to his satisfaction.

She had a PhD and was doing graduate work. He was the one cleaning cages.

WTF?

former law student said...

wtf is that supposed to mean?

It means I read the linked article. In high school, Clark was a member of the Asian Awareness Club, "which made spring rolls for a faculty lunch and organized a trip to Chinatown for the Chinese New Year."

I should have speculated that Le was likely one Asian of which Clark was Aware.

former law student said...

Cops have guns, you maroon.

Cops are paid to catch bad guys. Cab drivers are paid to give people rides.

Martha said...

That is why the lab tech killed Annie Le---he wanted her to clean the cages and she must have refused. Pulling rank proved to be fatal.

knox said...

To me, being killed at the workplace (the lab) by a co-worker (the animal tech) qualifies.

Fair enough. But it just seems meaningless to emphasize it, as this story does. Like if someone walked in my house while I was working, and the story was reported as "Just Another Example of the Emerging Trend of Graphic Designer Violence."

He killed her because he's an evil jerk. Possibly he was attracted to her and she rejected him. That sort of thing has nothing to do with the "workplace."

former law student said...

Ah.

It wasn't an intruder, or a mugger. It wasn't someone who wandered in off the street. It wasn't an ex-boyfriend. The killer was someone who belonged there.

This leads to the thought that the security system was adequate, in that no outsider killed her, but also that personnel screening and monitoring likely failed.

Balfegor said...

Cops are paid to catch bad guys. Cab drivers are paid to give people rides.

Yes, and unarmed and they carry around substantial wads of cash on account of everyone paying them in cash. That would make them an ideal target for a robber.

knox said...

personnel screening and monitoring likely failed

Possibly. But that makes it sound like the crime was totally preventable, were it not for negligence on the employer's part. I think that's absurd: there are crazy, evil people. They will cause trouble wherever they go, eventually.

Well, whatever, agree to disagree.

traditionalguy said...

I expect that a Workers Comp claim for Death in the workplace will be paid on this one, but her estate will be banned from suing employer or a co worker for negligence.

Aaron said...

FLS

Here's some advice. step away from the keyboard or at least this thread. you don't do senstivity very well.

i mean seriously, what is your logic? he likes eggrolls therefore he would be attracted to her?

I actually feel stupider trying to understand your bizarre argument.

Here's a better and simpler argument to make. alot of guys have a thing for asian women and there is some evidence that he might be one of them, although that evidence could be coincidental. And wholly apart from being attracted to one particular group or another, she was a lovely woman. So it shouldn't surprise anyone if he was attracted to her. I am certain the police are looking very closely at that possibility.

As for the notion that it would lead to murder, it is obvious that attraction can lead to rage. Look at OJ. Look at millions of women who are killed, raped, etc. by men who profess to care for them. so yes, if he was attracted to her, he is much more likely to have killed her.

The police also said they had no romantic relationship. which isn't the same as saying that Clark didn't want one. i have heard rumors, for what they are worth, that he had an unrequited interest in her. it wouldn't be hard to imagine that with the wedding coming this clark guy decided it was now or never, and when rebuffed, flew into a rage. its not difficult to imagine at all.

And yes, the possibility that he had a thing for asian women figures into that too. if you don't see women as individuals, as persons, then its harder to actually feel compassion for them. bigoted love can quickly turn to bigoted hate. that's why all bigotry is bad.

Of course all of that assumes the guy is guilty, and we really have no idea on that subject given what we know.

And as for the actual topic, i really don't see what it accomplishes to say it is an issue of workplace violence.

Let's just hope the guilty are punished and the innocent find peace.

ironrailsironweights said...

do they have the death penalty in connecticut? Well, they should if they don't

They do, but it would apply in this case only if there were rape in addition to murder.

Peter

LarsPorsena said...

former law student said...

wtf is that supposed to mean?

It means I read the linked article. In high school, Clark was a member of the Asian Awareness Club, "which made spring rolls for a faculty lunch and organized a trip to Chinatown for the Chinese New Year.

'Asian Awareness Club'? WTF! No one could make this shit up. PC weirdness at the high school level.

Synova said...

I don't see the point of getting annoyed at FLS for the egg-roll comment. The suggestion that perhaps the killer had a fetish for Asians isn't offensive. The guy killed her. It's sort of assumed that he's not quite *right*.

The "workplace" crime thing seemed weird to me, too. I suppose they don't want panicking parents thinking that their daughters are in some sort of university specific danger, but even then I don't really see the point. Perhaps it's useful for the police to categorize crime to sort and study it, but as a layperson I'm left confused and wondering what sort of unique hazards lurk at work.

Oh, and I thought that the bit about learning how to deal with each other better was far more rude than "egg rolls" because it seemed to imply that the murder could have been avoided by better social skills.

8-|

And the care about the destruction of trust paired with extensive classes to talk about how to tell if your co-worker is going to kill you?

Oh, *that*s going to work. Sure it will.

Synova said...

BTW, do I have to say that "fetish" is a different sort of thing than "I think Asian women are hot?"

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Synova, yes, b/c what he said was:

"She was a cutie pie and he liked egg rolls. I'd be surprised if he was not attracted to her."

He didn't say weird, unbalanced fetish.

I'm surprised it's not the guys jumping on this. A man ought to be able to find a woman attractive as hell, and tell her so, without her being forced to wonder if he's going to kill her. Don't we all want to see a very pronounced difference made between a man pursuing a woman as a love interest, and a man stalking a woman and ultimately killing her? Do you want us to be justified in accusing you of threatening us if you say that we look nice?

Cedarford said...

"This is not "workplace violence" and it is offensive that this murder is being called so by anyone."

former law student said...

Why not? Because she's a student? She was killed by a co-worker.

The term is fairly broad by the way. When I researched workplace violence some years back, I learned the most dangerous workplace was a taxicab -- cab drivers were far more likely to be homicide victims than cops.


I hope you are not saying taxi cab drivers are "victims of workplace violence" instead of armed black street thugs doing robberies....

Same with bank cashiers, liquor store clerks, street whores. They aren't victims so much of "workplace violence" as it is they have jobs that make them more vulnerable, or an easier target of - murderers and robbers.

Reading the story...I note that the Police Chief was doing his best do disassociate Yale from any part of this.

And I also note this was apparantly a regular guy, charity work, no crimninal record, star athlete and apparantly well adjusted living with a girlfriend. So it is hard to see any screening picking him up as a workplace risk.

Aaron said...

Laura

I don't think it is radical to say that attraction relates to violence. again, look at OJ.

which is not the same as saying all men are OJ, or that all women should feel threatened by a man who is attracted to them. but it is a common motivating factor. Its all about having some perspective.

Of course FLS says it in a clumsy, ill-thought-out way. can't defend him. but the basic idea is inoffensive.

Synova said...

"He didn't say weird, unbalanced fetish."

Well, maybe I just assumed that part. I still think it's not worth getting upset about.

The weird "lets have classes" reaction of the university outweighs that in my mind by a far margin and I think it really did imply that better social awareness was the answer... so what did the girl not do right that made this guy go off on her?

Maybe it's just because Yale is philosophically incapable of understanding a world where someone might want to hurt you and it's NOT your fault?

"Chief Lewis ... added: “We have to really educate ourselves who we work with and how we deal with each other and those issues.”"

Let's just deal with each other better.

Egad.

Shanna said...

The weird "lets have classes" reaction of the university outweighs that in my mind by a far margin and I think it really did imply that better social awareness was the answer... so what did the girl not do right that made this guy go off on her?

Totally agree that that’s a horrendous phrasing by the Chief there. I don’t think some crazy person who kills someone and hides them in a wall is anything you can blame on the victim.

I think “let’s have some training” is some people’s answer to every problem, simply because it’s fairly easy and it’s easy to track, so you can tell everyone that you are doing something. That something may not help anybody, but by god you are taking action!

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Synova, have you ever read The Gift of Fear?

One of the things that book talks about is people setting aside their well-founded apprehension, based on their survival instinct, for stupid reasons like wanting to be nice or PC. The author compares a woman who gets on an elevator with a man who makes her feel funny with an animal in the forest who wants to approach a watering hole but feels that there might be a predator close by. The animal won't go until it feels safe, but the woman will get on the elevator - why? In order not to appear racist, or sexist, or thinking too highly of her desirability?

I don't know what the classes would be about, and none of us know yet the details of what happened between this woman and this man, but the fact is that people endanger themselves sometimes needlessly and for stupid reasons.

...

"I don't think it is radical to say that attraction relates to violence. again, look at OJ."

I don't think OJ was attracted to Nicole. I think he hated her and was obsessed by her, simultaneously, and had a screw loose, and killed her because he wanted to possess her and couldn't. I don't think attraction really had anything to do with it.

Aaron said...

Laura

Depends on how you define attraction. if you require a person to have real love and affection, yeah, OJ is eliminated. But i never understood it that way.

But that's an argument about definitions, which is pretty pointless to me.

Shanna

> I think “let’s have some training” is some people’s answer to every problem

Jeez tell me about it. i am the compliance officer for a company and the managment says, "hey, we should give training on fraud."

Mmm, yeah, here let me give it to you. "Don't committ fraud." There i told you about everything you need to know about not committing fraud.

i will give you three guesses on what my anti-murder presentation sounds like.

And yes, we often give these kinds of training just to look like we are doing something, especially because of regulations.

And indeed often the presentations are bad for companies. i saw an anti-fraud presentation where they went through the list of common scam, which begs the question, is this an anti-fraud presentation, or a how-to guide?

BJM said...

I thought it odd that Chief Lewis characterized Le's murder as workplace violence if he were trying to shield the university.

Wouldn't a finding of workplace violence expose Yale to litigation by Le's family?

Synova said...

"Synova, have you ever read The Gift of Fear?

One of the things that book talks about is people setting aside their well-founded apprehension, based on their survival instinct, for stupid reasons like wanting to be nice or PC.
"

It sounds like a really good book. I tend to get a bit annoyed at self-defense advice that amounts to borrowing fear. Being aware and trusting your own feelings and instincts sounds like a better approach.

Being too "nice" doesn't help if something goes wrong, either. I've heard that women tend to pull their punches for fear of hurting someone attacking them, and I believe it.

knox said...

The weird "lets have classes" reaction of the university

Yes, I meant to bring that up as well. How stupid. Oh, the mindset that says:

Terrorism = to be dealt with as a crime

Violent Crime = to be dealt with as a Teachable Moment.




wv = "ensuped" The system is just ensuped by these idiotic ideas.

Aaron said...

BJM

can't say in connecticut but most states recognize a tort for negligent hiring or retention. but only if the guy's record gave adequate warning. and really that only requires him to be the employee and exposed to her in the course of his employment. like you see cases where a cable guy comes to a woman's house for instalation and ends up raping her. that is a classic example. i would be pretty shocked if that isn't the rule in connecticut, too.

AJ Lynch said...

I'd define workplace violence as between co-workers,no?

I would not include a cab driver murdered in a robbery in that category. Unless it was two cabbies fighting over a fare.

Shanna said...

"Synova, have you ever read The Gift of Fear?

One of the things that book talks about is people setting aside their well-founded apprehension, based on their survival instinct, for stupid reasons like wanting to be nice or PC."


That book is excellent. Used to have a copy, but I lent it to someone.

Pogo said...

I promise to return it soon, Shanna.
I keed.
Great book.

Beth said...

Don't we all want to see a very pronounced difference made between a man pursuing a woman as a love interest, and a man stalking a woman and ultimately killing her?

True. Unfortunately, this guy had a prior background of stalking and bullying an ex-girlfriend in high school. She apparently also accused him of but declined to have him charged with rape. It's a shame he wasn't in jail for rape rather than working in this lab.

jamboree said...

There's not always a huge demarcation between a guy being intensely attracted to you, a stalker, and a psycho. I was initially stunned at how close dating and stalking could be when I was a teen and first experienced that *intense focus* guys get - what seemed like perfectly normal guys five minutes before. Not every guy, of course, but I wouldn't consider it uncommon either.

Some guy climbing your balcony in pursuit of you is flattering if you like him, but if you don't, it's chilling. A looks fetish has a dangerous side - ask any 14-yr-old blonde.

I have a gay friend who is into Asians (an academic actually). He's perfectly graphic about why. He likes that they look young longer and this makes him want to dominate them - uh, aggressively. The end.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Aaron said...

Laura

Depends on how you define attraction. if you require a person to have real love and affection, yeah, OJ is eliminated. But i never understood it that way.

But that's an argument about definitions, which is pretty pointless to me.

Shanna

> I think “let’s have some training” is some people’s answer to every problem

Jeez tell me about it. i am the compliance officer for a company and the managment says, "hey, we should give training on fraud."

Mmm, yeah, here let me give it to you. "Don't committ fraud." There i told you about everything you need to know about not committing fraud.


Aaron, I think it's beneficial to give some thought to complex issues rather than making them simple so you can get past them quickly.

"Don't commit fraud" ONLY works if the people you are talking to fully understand every way in which fraud manifests itself. If you are the compliance officer, you may know a hell of a lot more about this than anyone else and you shouldn't assume that they don't need more detailed information. For instance, I had to tell my techs at one point that they couldn't initial each other's work - that was falsifying. One would not think that necessary, but evidently it was. Some people will rationalize doing that doing what they want isn't REALLY fraud unless somebody spells out to them exactly what fraud is.

And I think that if you want to use the word "attraction" to span the entire range of men's attitude toward women they are interested in, from an anonymous "hey good lookin'!" such as amused my daughter yesterday when she was gassing her car, to stalking and murder, I think you're oversimplifying to the point of rendering the word "attraction" useless.

Charles said...

no crimninal record

There should have been. Most people would call this rape. Why he wasn't arrested is baffling.

>>When she found out her ex-boyfriend was a suspect in the murder of Annie Le, a young Branford woman flashed back to a high school dispute that led to a visit from the cops.

According to a 2003 police report obtained by the Independent earlier this week, she told police he forced her to have sex with him and he “confronted” her, when against his wishes, she sought to end the relationship. However, she declined to press charges. She is not to be confused with the suspect’s fiancee, who lives in Middletown.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/alleged_annie_l.php

Aaron said...

Laura

> "Don't commit fraud" ONLY works if the people you are talking to fully understand every way in which fraud manifests itself.

You can’t accidentally commit fraud.

> I think you're oversimplifying to the point of rendering the word "attraction" useless.

Orrr… maybe I am reading the dictionary. Here’s dictionary.com’s second definition of attract, for instance:

“to draw by appealing to the emotions or senses, by stimulating interest, or by exciting admiration; allure; invite: to attract attention; to attract admirers by one's charm.”

Go through all the definitions of related words, like “attractive,” “attraction,” etc. and guess what is not there? Words like “respect,” “love,” “feel genuine compassion for,” and so on. Ditto on numerous definition sites. So please, don’t pretend you are defending the purity of language. You are just another intellectual who feels like screwing with the meanings of words just because it strikes her fancy. Get a life.

Charles

I think you should be careful, though, about falling into the trap of thinking every bad thing is preventable. Now I should identify my potential biases: we are talking about my alma mater, but even if they knew, what should they make of it. The fact is that this woman didn’t press charges all the way through, so how would Yale know whether or not there was any truth to the charges? As the Duke Lacrosse case proves, false allegations are made and there are some people who go as far as to believe that absent a conviction you should not be treated as guilty. I think that is a bit extreme, but it is a common attitude.

Although I threw out the idea of negligent hiring, I haven’t seen anything that makes me think that this is what happened here. I think the truth is that sometimes you can’t predict who will go and kill someone. That’s a little scary, yes, but I think that’s life.

Aaron said...

This article contains alot of info about the case. their theory is close to what FLS was saying: he was fussy about lab issues and a control freak. I am still skeptical, but then there are some real nuts out there.

Personally i find it interesting how much the cards tell the tale.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/18/2009-09-18_murder_ink_a_pen_may_put_creep_in_prison_for_keeps.html

Laura(southernxyl) said...

OK, Aaron.

1 - Show me where I said attraction had anything to do with respect, love, or compassion.

2 - Show me where any dictionary in the world links attraction with murder.

3 - People absolutely can accidentally commit fraud if they embark upon a course of action that is fraudulent from a legal standpoint and they don't know that it is. Are you a compliance officer? If so, what do you conceive your job to be?

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Here is the link.

This is exactly the scenario that The Gift of Fear talks about: how to distinguish eccentric from dangerous.

Aaron said...

Laura

> 1 - Show me where I said attraction had anything to do with respect, love, or compassion.

Well, you were pretty vague in what you said it included, but it clearly included more than just, you know, attraction. For instance, here is what you wrote about OJ and his ex:

> I don't think OJ was attracted to Nicole. I think he hated her and was obsessed by her, simultaneously, and had a screw loose, and killed her because he wanted to possess her and couldn't. I don't think attraction really had anything to do with it.

So you are ultimately vague about what missing ingredient you are looking for, but you also clearly are defining attraction in some way that has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. And why is beyond me. The definitions of words is like driving on the left or right side of the road. Ultimately it doesn’t matter which you choose to do, but the important thing is that everyone do the same thing, or else you get a massive clusterfrak.

When you define a term in an idiosyncratic way that is not generally understood and not in the dictionaries, its like driving on the right side of the road in England: it creates a lot of needless difficulty, for little-to-no reward.

> 2 - Show me where any dictionary in the world links attraction with murder.

I didn’t realize that dictionaries were sources of information about the motives of crime. Where do you come up with this stuff?

And are you really telling me that you doubt that there is no link between attraction, broadly defined, and crime? What planet are you living on? The prevalence of rape and domestic violence alone should put lie to that bit of silliness. I really don’t understand what you think you are proving here.

> 3 - People absolutely can accidentally commit fraud if they embark upon a course of action that is fraudulent from a legal standpoint

“I didn’t mean to lie. Really.”

Sorry, but the elements of fraud are classically:

1) Uttering a falsehood
2) With knowledge that it is false
3) With intent to induce Plaintiff’s reliance
4) Actually causing such reliance
5) Where such reliance is reasonable
6) Resulting in damages.

You can’t do that accidentally.

> If so, what do you conceive your job to be?

1) to help the company’s employees understand the harder stuff (i.e. tougher than “don’t murder a person”).
2) to investigate complaints
3) kick people’s asses for breaking the rules, as necessary.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"And are you really telling me that you doubt that there is no link between attraction, broadly defined, and crime? What planet are you living on? The prevalence of rape and domestic violence alone should put lie to that bit of silliness."

Please tell me how you get from
"to draw by appealing to the emotions or senses, by stimulating interest, or by exciting admiration; allure; invite: to attract attention; to attract admirers by one's charm."
to rape, domestic violence and murder. Please. A man admires a woman, so he rapes her? A woman appeals to a man's emotions or senses, so he beats her up? A woman stimulates a man's interest, so he kills her?

This is the kind of thing that caused the paleofeminists to reject any kind of compliment or other sign of approval or interest from a man. Next you'll be telling me that sex is rape.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think when men are attracted to women it's a good thing. Am I wrong?

...

Sorry, but the elements of fraud are classically:

1) Uttering a falsehood
2) With knowledge that it is false
3) With intent to induce Plaintiff’s reliance
4) Actually causing such reliance
5) Where such reliance is reasonable
6) Resulting in damages.

You can’t do that accidentally.


Oh, please. People do that accidentally all the time. They retain legal counsel, for instance, to make sure that what they want to do is within the letter of the law. As evidenced by you:

1) to help the company’s employees understand the harder stuff (i.e. tougher than “don’t murder a person”).

Are you telling me that in pursuit of not being fraudulent there is never a question of "you can say X but you can't say Y"? Never? You never are asked to render a judgment about whether or not an act crosses the line into fraud?

Aaron said...

Laura

> A man admires a woman, so he rapes her? A woman appeals to a man's emotions or senses, so he beats her up? A woman stimulates a man's interest, so he kills her?

All men, all the time? No. And I said that before. But don’t pretend that attraction, broadly defined, is not at the root of a lot of crime. What you keep doing is engaging in a logical fallacy.

If you say all A’s are B’s, does it follow that all B’s are A’s? No.

If you say many A’s are B’s, does it follow that many B’s are A’s? Again, no.

So if you say many crimes are motivated by attraction, broadly defined, does that mean that all attraction will lead to crime? For the third time, NO.

Logic is really not your strong suit, is it?

I mean first you get mad at me because my use of the word “attraction” didn’t include elements that you made up and weren’t in the dictionary. How does that make any sense? It would be like an umpire in a baseball game calling a strike out because he decided suddenly that the batter should have been hoping on one foot. Its crazy talk.

Then you took my pedestrian comment that often attraction leads to violence to mean that all attraction leads to violence--that every guy who wants to make love to a woman doesn’t care about consent, or some silliness.

> Next you'll be telling me that sex is rape.

Um, no, but apparently you want us to believe that attraction never motivates rape. Or at least isn’t a common motivation.

Seriously, are you this crazy? Or are you in a hole and forgetting the first rule of holes: stop digging.

> People do that accidentally all the time.

I guess I don’t want to know the people you hang out with, I guess, who lie accidentally the time. I mean outside of some condition torret’s syndrome, is this a big problem in your life? Darn it, I accidentally said I graduated from Columbia, the university, rather than Columbia the country.

> Are you telling me that in pursuit of not being fraudulent there is never a question of "you can say X but you can't say Y"?

Yes. You can say the truth. You cannot lie. End of lesson. Again, this is not actually hard.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Logic is really not your strong suit, is it?

Oh, yes it is.

You are the one who has not bridged the gap from

"to draw by appealing to the emotions or senses, by stimulating interest, or by exciting admiration; allure; invite: to attract attention; to attract admirers by one's charm"

which is the definition YOU offered

to violence, rape, murder.

I challenge you to prove that "you're cute" EVER leads to "I have to kill you now".

"If I can't have you nobody can" isn't attraction. It's domination and control.

Murder is not a crime of attraction, it is a crime of hate and the desire to destroy.

Also, your job is so easy and straightforward that "Don't lie!" and "Comply with the regs!" sums it up? No interpretation or thought required? Wow.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Oh, and:

Um, no, but apparently you want us to believe that attraction never motivates rape. Or at least isn’t a common motivation.

I absolutely and categorically disagree that men rape women because they are attracted to them. This is the "uncovered meat" theory of man-woman relations.

Aaron said...

Laura

> I challenge you to prove that "you're cute" EVER leads to "I have to kill you now".

Okay and for bonus points, I will use your own words to do it:

> I don't think OJ was attracted to Nicole. I think he hated her and was obsessed by her, simultaneously, and had a screw loose, and killed her because he wanted to possess her and couldn't. I don't think attraction really had anything to do with it.

Sure, you clearly don’t say that OJ was attracted to Nicole too (as was virtually all red blooded american males), because you have your idiosyncratic definition of “attraction” but aside from that, you have made exactly that connection. Heh.

Any other blindingly obvious facts you would like me to prove? Next I suppose you will ask me to prove that gravity pulls downward, and every action results in an equal and opposite reaction. Heh.

Or maybe even that lust is a factor in rape. Heh.

> Also, your job is so easy and straightforward that "Don't lie!" and "Comply with the regs!" sums it up? No interpretation or thought required? Wow.

No and either you know I didn’t say that, or you are too slow to get what I said. Take your pick.

> I absolutely and categorically disagree that men rape women because they are attracted to them.

Any person who denies the plain reality that rape doesn’t happen without lust is beclowning themselves. Really it is blind theory over reality. Which is not to say a woman is at all to blame for being raped. But the reason why they are not to blame isn’t because the woman did nothing to arouse the lust, but because the man has an absolute responsibility to cage it regardless. The reason why dressing “slutty” doesn’t make the woman responsible for being raped is because she had a right to do it.

Its like freedom of speech. Are there some things that are legal to say that nonetheless might provoke a violent response? Of course there is. Does that mean that if you say a sufficiently provocative thing it is your fault if you are assaulted? Again no. the fault for crime lies solely with the criminal.

Paleofeminists of the “all sex is rape” variety have been making that argument for years largely based on the theoretical realization that admitting that lust plays a role in rape gets you that much closer to taliban type restrictions on dress, where the man is considered an uncontrollable beast that the women best not provoke. But there is no science behind the theory that rape is not about lust, only an attempt to rationalize a fact they consider inconvenient, probably because they don’t believe so much in personal responsibility. And funny, I thought just a moment ago you disagreed with the Paleos. Silly me.

And since you are a little slow on the uptake let me be clear: I am NOT either 1) blaming women for being raped or 2) excusing their rapists. I am just telling you that your theoretical explanation doesn’t hold water.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Also, your job is so easy and straightforward that "Don't lie!" and "Comply with the regs!" sums it up? No interpretation or thought required? Wow.

No and either you know I didn’t say that, or you are too slow to get what I said. Take your pick.


Oh, yes, it is. You denied that training to help employees avoid fraudulent behavor amounts to anything more than "don't lie".

One final time, and I'm done with this.

Please explain to me, as I have repeatedly asked, the process that leads a man from "I am attracted to that woman" to "I am going to kill her." Either explain it, or stop telling me I'm an idiot for not understanding it. I get "I can't bear it if she leaves me" - that is not attraction. I get "Stupid bitch isn't going to make a fool out of me" - that is not attraction. I get "I am so angry at her that I am going to slit her throat" - that is not attraction.

I also get "She's cute - I'm going to ask her out." That's attraction. "She's cute - I'm going to whistle or holler 'Hey, baby!'" That's attraction. Note lack of violent, destructive behavior toward the object of attraction.

So tell me, using the definition you provided:

Attraction ---------> Murder

What is the link? Where's the logic?

Aaron said...

Laura

> [me] No and [1] either you know I didn’t say that, or [2] you are too slow to get what I said. Take your pick.

> [you] Oh, yes, it is. You denied that training to help employees avoid fraudulent behavor amounts to anything more than "don't lie".

And did I say it was my entire job? No. So I guess by default you are going with option two.

> Please explain to me, as I have repeatedly asked, the process that leads a man from "I am attracted to that woman" to "I am going to kill her." Either explain it, or stop telling me I'm an idiot for not understanding it. I get "I can't bear it if she leaves me" - that is not attraction.

Um, it is according to the dictionary. Maybe not your own personal mental dictionary, but according to the one the rest of us use, yes.

Its funny how you keep answering my question but fail to understand that you are answering it. its really stunning. This must be what it is like to realize that in a room full of a million monkeys and a million typewriters, one of them is hammering out Macbeth. You know statistically it is possible, even inevitable, but you keep wondering how the hell is it that he can write all of this without any understanding of what he is writing?

Laura(southernxyl) said...

OJ looking at Nicole:

"She's pretty. I am attracted to her. I believe I'll slit her throat, so that she's dead and buried. Yes, that will get me what I want."

This makes sense to you?

Laura(southernxyl) said...

It's not my personal definition of attraction. It's the one you provided.

Link these things:

"to draw by appealing to the emotions or senses"

-> Murder.

"by stimulating interest"

-> Murder.

"or by exciting admiration"

-> Murder.

"allure"

-> Murder.

"invite"

-> Murder.

"to attract attention"

-> Murder.

"to attract admirers by one's charm"

-> Murder.

...I understand why you can't do it. I can't either.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Also, perhaps you can explain to me how this is a crime of attraction and lust.

Youngtown police detectives have arrested a Phoenix man accused of sexually assaulting an elderly woman who has advanced Alzheimer’s and dementia.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Or this.

COURTHOUSE — A man who dragged an elderly Hatboro woman from her home in the dead of night and sexually assaulted her on her lawn faces state prison time.

Enrique Santacruz Perez, 39, formerly of the 2500 block of Horsham Road, Hatboro, pleaded guilty in Montgomery County Court on Friday to charges of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and simple assault in connection with the September 2007 assault of the 74-year-old woman.

Aaron said...

Laura

> OJ looking at Nicole:

> "She's pretty. I am attracted to her. I believe I'll slit her throat, so that she's dead and buried. Yes, that will get me what I want."

> This makes sense to you?

What makes sense is that OJ felt that she was his, not allowed to leave him, not allowed to flirt with some tennis player, so he flew into a rage and killed them both. Why did he feel this way? Why did he feel he had a right, or even a desire, to possess her? Because he was attracted to her. No, not by your silly definition, but the one the rest of us use.

Did it ultimately make sense in the sense that it helped him get what he wanted? Um, no, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a common thought pattern that plays itself out all the time, even if it is ultimately illogical. Its sort of like when a man went to prison for attacking a gay man, claiming he had made a pass at him. Norm MacDonald quipped, “so because he doesn’t like gay men making a pass at him, he committed assault and now is in prison. Wow, that plan backfired.” If you want to say criminals often cut their nose to spite their face you will get no argument from me. But just because what they do is ultimately harmful to their interests doesn’t mean that there is a flaw in my logic—just theirs.

So in the same form as your logic. “She is so pretty. She was mine. She still should be mine. And she is flirting with that tennis player. I’ll teach her a lesson. I’ll f---ing kill her.” Its not “logical” in the sense that his actions support his ultimate interest, but I do believe that is very likely exactly what went through OJ’s mind that night.

Really, you are in a hole. Stop digging.

> I understand why you can't do it. I can't either.

Except you have.

> Also, perhaps you can explain to me how this is a crime of attraction and lust.

Um, are you telling me that elderly women are never attractive to anyone? Not even to really weird people? are you under the impression that elder couples never have sex?

Look, maybe the mistake you seem to be making here is actually in a weird way admirable. People have the tendency to assume that because a certain mentality is beyond their ability to have, that no one else has it. you can’t imagine yourself in a million years killing someone you are attracted to, let alone your attraction creating the rage in the first place, so you don’t think anyone else does. Its like a discussion of the existence of racism I had with a man once in college. I said it still existed even though I believe it is on its death bed. And he said, “I don’t think racism is a problem. one time my frat wanted to admit a black guy. Well, one guy spoke up and said he shouldn’t be allowed in because he was black. So I stood up and said that his skin color was beside the point and the rest of the frat agreed and we let him in.” so I responded, “did you just hear yourself. Your frat was interested in admitting a black dude and someone thought that the mere fact he was black justified excluding him, and even believed the rest of the frat would agree with him. its great you disagreed and your frat went with you, but you still have that guy who felt differently. Now suppose 10 years down the road he is a public school teacher teaching black students. Do you think he will treat them equally?”

That man couldn’t recognize the bigot in his own story because he could only see his own admirable racial neutral mentality. But that didn’t mean bigotry doesn’t exist. It just means it is harder to recognize.

Likewise, you keep describing men being attracted to women and then killing them, but you can’t recognize the phenomenon that attraction can lead to hate and violence. Maybe its because its thankfully an utterly foreign mentality to you and being so foreign to you, you can’t imagine it in others. By comparison, while it is equally foreign to my way of thinking, I don’t make the mistake of thinking everyone thinks the way I do.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Really, you are in a hole. Stop digging."

I'm not in a hole, Aaron. I know what a hole is and I would recognize one if I were in it.

What makes sense is that OJ felt that she was his,

this is possessiveness, not attraction

not allowed to leave him,

this is control, not attraction

not allowed to flirt with some tennis player,

jealousy, not attraction

so he flew into a rage

not attraction

and killed them both. Why did he feel this way? Why did he feel he had a right, or even a desire, to possess her?

Because he has narcissistic personality disorder, would be my guess. And because when she left him, it hurt his pride. Their relationship needed to be over when he said it was over, not when she said it was.

Because he was attracted to her. No, not by your silly definition, but the one the rest of us use.

Aaron. Please. I am using the definition of attraction that you provided. You keep saying it's my definition. It's not, it's yours. Have you forgotten this?

Aaron said...
Laura
...

Orrr… maybe I am reading the dictionary. Here’s dictionary.com’s second definition of attract, for instance:

“to draw by appealing to the emotions or senses, by stimulating interest, or by exciting admiration; allure; invite: to attract attention; to attract admirers by one's charm.”
...
9/18/09 7:50 AM


It's the definition you provided, Aaron. And it says nothing about possessiveness, control, jealousy, or rage. Maybe you need to look for that hole, yourself.

As to why those men raped those old women, it was due to a desire to hurt them. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Aaron said...

Laura

Sings the Alice in Chains classic, “Love hate love.” Here we go again...

> this is possessiveness, not attraction

And what, pray tell, motivated that possessiveness. Why did he want to possess her? I am sure he said, “damn, she is so ugly, inside and out that I must have her.” Does that make sense to you?

> jealousy, not attraction

Are you typically jealous when a person that you find repulsive is with someone else? You don’t think your desire to have that person be yours, however health or unhealthy that desire or your subsequent actions might be, has a teensy bit to do with finding that person attractive in some manner?

> I am using the definition of attraction that you provided.

No, you are not. You keep adding things to it.

> it was due to a desire to hurt them. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Look, if you don’t get why it is physically impossible for a man to cause penetrative rape without, ahem, some attraction, there’s no help for you.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

I have added nothing to your definition.

OJ did not kill Nicole because he was attracted to her. He killed her in a jealous rage.

If I lived in your world I would have to live in fear all the time because any time a man looked at me approvingly I would have to equate that with murderous rage.

Now I am done with this.

Aaron said...

Laura

if you think jealousy is possible without attraction, you are yes, changing the definition of attraction.

And once again, just because some men are driven to criminal rage by attraction doesn't mean all men are, or even many of them.