Former Mets acting general manager Zack Scott has been found not guilty on charges of driving while intoxicated and driving while ability impaired, according to reports from Anthony Rieber of Newsday and Tim Britton of the Athletic. (Scott was found to have committed two traffic violations and fined $200.00).
The charges stemmed from a late August arrest in White Plains, New York. Arresting officers alleged at the time that Scott had failed a field sobriety test, a claim disputed by the trial court. In announcing the court’s verdict, Judge Eric Press wrote this morning that “Mr. Scott performed the tests in a manner in which no neutral observer would conclude he was drunk, especially to the point of intoxication” (Britton link).
Scott had been leading the New York baseball operations department at the time. After 17 years in the Red Sox’s front office, he was hired by the Mets as an assistant general manager last December. He took over as GM on an interim basis a month later, when then-GM Jared Porter was fired once Porter’s past sexual harassment of a reporter had been made public.
Scott spent seven-plus months as acting GM and looked a strong candidate to assume the position permanently before his arrest. The Mets placed Scott on administrative leave the day after his arrest was made public, with team president Sandy Alderson assuming control of daily baseball ops through the end of the season. After the season, the Mets moved on from Scott entirely. A few weeks later, Billy Eppler was hired as general manager.
It’s presently unclear if/when Scott will attempt to pursue new opportunities within Major League Baseball. He released a statement this morning (via Britton), which reads in part: “I am thankful for today’s verdict. Nevertheless, I regret choices I made on August 31, resulting in circumstances that led to my arrest. … Professionally, I’m grateful to Sandy Alderson for the opportunity to lead baseball operations for the Mets and wish my former teammates nothing but the best going forward. I believe this humbling experience will make me a better husband, father, son, friend and leader, and I look forward to what the future holds.“
“Police said they found Scott sleeping in his car, stopped at a traffic light, around 4 a.m. Tuesday in White Plains — hours after he left a fundraiser at owner Steve Cohen’s home in Greenwich, Conn. Scott was initially “disoriented and confused,” the Westchester County District Attorney’s office said, and admitted to drinking earlier in the night. Scott failed three field sobriety tests, and after he was arrested, refused to submit to a chemical test to determine his blood-alcohol content.”
But not guilty of driving while intoxicated.
Yeah, very interesting decision. He clearly had been drinking and failed three field sobriety tests. Curious how that can lead to an acquittal, unless errors were made by the arresting officers.
Nothing about that statement says he was clearly guilty of drunk driving. This is why lawyers make a lot of money. What was his bac? Did they ever take a blood test? Were the field sobriety test administered properly? Couldn’t he have just taken too many of his prescription pills? He most likely was driving drunk but thats not how the law works
Taking too many prescription pills and driving a car is also a DUI.
The take away to this is he was 100% guilty in reality of driving while drunk, but managed to walk free on a technicality. Now, whether the technicality was just a loophole in the law or through some financial or social coercion is undetermined.
“Technicalities”
Aka, things that make someone innocent or guilty.
I think the court ruling was that you or I would have observed he passed the field sobriety test and the officer over reached in asserting a failed test(s).
It’s called a bribe
Or a good lawyer.
Or a bad lawyer, depending on your perspective.
The error made by the arresting officers was that they failed to recognize that Scott was an executive with a Major League Baseball team. Not guilty!
I’m not so sure he actually failed the tests. That’s what the officers said but they are paid to say that stuff. Their job is to help the prosecutor convict people no matter what. Based on the quote, “Mr. Scott performed the tests in a manner in which no neutral observer would conclude he was drunk.” That’s the thing. Police officers are not neutral observers. Far from it. It seems the judge agreed that he didn’t fail the sobriety tests. That was all the evidence against him right there and it appeared to be no evidence at all. Whether there was still alcohol in his system or not is unknown. Not knowing is no reason to convict someone.
He definitely made some bad decisions that day because no one should drive when they might fall asleep behind the wheel. There still isn’t nearly enough information or evidence to convict him of driving under the influence. The smart thing he did was refuse to take the breathalyzer.
It always shocks me how many people are dumb enough to ever take a breathalyzer. Even if you are stone cold sober you should never take it. No person is forced to help people who are trying to prosecute them and no one should be. If officers need a defendant to help them prosecute himself they really don’t have a case.
Surprisingly many defendants every day still help them with their own prosecution. At this point they only ask people to take the breathalyzer because they know that for some reason so many people are still dumb enough to take it. You really shouldn’t take the field sobriety test either. No field sobriety test, no breathalyzer, no evidence. The only thing going against a defendant in that case is an officer saying he believes the man was drunk with no proof. That’s not even a case. It would get thrown out right away.
I thought not taking the breathalyzer was an admission of guilt?
@JoeBrady: Refusal of a breathalyzer is in no way an admission of guilt nor should it be. That would be like saying a defendant who refuses to testify in his own trial is an admission of guilt. Only a guilty plea is considered an admission of guilt. Maybe a confession but that is actually just evidence of guilt. People have the right to refuse to help the prosecution prosecute them. To consider a breathalyzer refusal an admission of guilt would be a terrible infringement of rights. I know people who never take breathalyzers even though they don’t drink. It can’t be an admission of guilt in their case because they clearly aren’t guilty. If it’s not an admission of guilt for them it’s not an admission of guilt for anyone.
You make a good point though. A lot of people believe what you just said. That’s why they take the breathalyzer. They think they are getting points for “cooperating” or something. In reality they are digging their own grave and the officer is chuckling in his mind watching them do it. A police officer might want you to believe a breathalyzer refusal is an admission of guilt but it is not in any way.
He wasn’t driving; he was sleeping in his car.
His career is damaged no the less.
I can answer this. I’m a Texas LEO and I’m guessing since he was found asleep and not actually driving, they acquitted. This happens A LOT, at least here in the Houston area. If you don’t have witnesses stating he was driving or catch him operating the vehicle, at best you have Public Intoxication and whatever other minor charges you can drum up. For DWI you have to show them driving.
Silly I know. Especially considering he’s in a vehicle, in a lane of traffic, probably with it running. But it happens all the time.
Thanks for the perspective. That’s helpful and seems likely.
Two questions. What’s an LEO? Second, so it possible that Scott’s refusal to take a blood test likely might have helped him here?
law enforcement officer.
Unfortunately you are always told to refuse the test.
If you want a chance in court. You NEVER submit to a field sobriety test or blood test.
Really? That’s interesting.
In MN, if you refuse the test, you automatically lose your license. You signed away that right when you signed for the license.
Same with Indiana.
I know a career LEO who only used blood samples. He said the field tests could be too easily beaten by a sharp lawyer.
Or someone could just not drink and drive thereby affording them the ability to pass a hundred field sobriety and blood tests.
Each state has different laws. Some states if you are behind the wheel and the engine is on you are considered a driver
@Astros2017: you are right about different laws in different states. In some states the law is (or at least was) you were considered DUI if the keys were in the ignition. A lot of people said they passed that law to make more money. Some officers would go to college areas and find students sitting in their car outside of a party listening to music or something not driving. Just parked while they were drunk to listen to music. You have to have keys in to turn the radio on so they were getting hit with DUI’s and reviewing massive fines.
The funny think was when keyless starter cars came out. A lot of people started trying to use that law against them and say they weren’t DUI because there was no key in the ignition. I’m not sure how that turned out though. I don’t know if they changed the law or if now people can sit drunk in their cars when they are parked because they don’t need a key anymore. I did find it funny though that a law they passed to drastically widen the number of people they could charge with DUI ended up drastically limiting the number of people they could charge.
Being sleep deprived is more dangerous than driving drunk. There’s been several studies about this. If your found sleeping in your car on the road it should automatically come with a reckless driving charge.
Yes, he could have been exhausted, causing him to fall asleep….and yes, there should be a charge for that.
@iverbure. I travel I80 in the Sandhills area of Nebraska all the time. It’s very common to see semis tractor trailers pulled off on the exit ramps sleeping rather than the rest areas or truck stops. So you are suggesting the cops should be giving them reckless driving? I never see law enforcement hassle these truckers by the way.
He worked for the Mets of course he was exhausted. Probably why he was drinking as well.
Not shocking at all. Rich people get away crimes all the time
He didn’t commit a crime
That’s bs
I think it may depend on the state. I seem to remember Tony LaRussa arrested for D.U.I. in Jupiter, FL when he was passed out at a traffic light. He did subsequently fail the field sobriety test. Personally, I feel zero sympathy for someone drinking and driving, especially if they get off with a technicality. Nearly everyone knows someone, or has heard of someone, who died or was seriously injured at the hands of a drunk driver.
divebomb – If what you claim is the law in Texas, that’s total BS.
So all someone has to do to get out of a DWI is pass out, or pretend to pass out? Ridiculous. In most states if you’re drunk in the driver’s seat with the keys in the ignition, even if the engine is off, you’re guilty of DWI. There was an entire episode of Everybody Loves Raymond that dealt with this scenario.
With pushbutton cars if the engine is running or if you’re on the road and you’re passed out in the driver’s seat, you’ll be found guilty.
And I’m guessing the officers had body cams that showed the failed field sobriety tests.
@Fever Pitch Guy: I think your right about the engine having to be running in push button cars if they are parked. It’s kind of a BS law for key cars though. If the engine has to be running in a push button, why doesn’t it have to be running in a key car? I only bring that up because I have met people who got DUI’s when I was in college. It was the same officer doing it to everyone. The car was parked and the key was put in but it was only turned far enough for the radio to be on. In several cases they never moved the car or cranked the engine at all. The car would frequently be sitting in the same spot for days. One of my friends literally couldn’t drive the car because the engine wouldn’t even start. He still got convicted. If people who can afford push button cars can have the radio on people who can’t should be able to as well. I agree with the existence of most DUI laws because DUI is really dangerous. The laws are really abused by law enforcement though. Every time they hand one out it means 10’s of thousands of dollars to the county. They really have nothing better to do then charge people who are obviously not even going to drive because the engine isn’t even on? They use that key law as a technicality to charge people with a pretty serious crime when in some of those cases the defendant is no threat to anyone at all. Those kind of charges can follow you around and I’ve known people who lost their jobs over it. In all seriousness, if the engine isn’t running and the car is in a parking space, they shouldn’t be able to charge anyone with a DUI no matter where the key is. It’s all about money and they don’t care how they effect someone else’s life to get it.
Yes I think most of us agree a key in an ignition shouldn’t imply intent to drive if the engine isn’t running and the vehicle is in a driveway or parking lot.
If somebody is drunk and waiting for a ride, they should be able to listen to the radio with the engine off.
This unbridled discrimination against keys is wrong! Keyed Cars Matter!
He wasn’t actually driving the car at the time. Bet he had a drink to celebrate the verdict.
Cohen magically teleported himself in his car to the location where he was found drunk.
I mean Scott.
Friends don’t let friends post and drive.
JK
I had two drinks once over a 4 hour span. Was very tired driving home. I got pulled over for going 10 under. The field sobriety tests I failed all three on the side of New Jersey turn pike 15 degrees outside tractor trailers flying by. They hauled my ass away. Blew .02 and .018. They then wanted to take me to piss in a cup so they could check my BAC through my pee. I refused the chemical test too at this point I had nothing more to prove my innocence.
It’s not always cut and dry.
vfgg
SO just because you are arrested, that makes you automatically guilty? works in Russia? He should sue for wrongful termination.
Must be nice to be wealthy and be able to afford high priced lawyers. It wouldn’t even surprise me if Cohen paid for the lawyers considering he was drinking booze at his property earlier that night.
Lawyers and money mean different outcomes for the well off vs regular people. Money counts.
It’s not what you know, it’s WHO you know.
it’s not who you know,it’s who you ……oh nevermind.
@schwender So you missed the whole, “Police said” part of the story?
Again and again, day in and day out, government officials including police are revealed to lie, and lie, then lie some more, but you believe them, often unconditionally.
Small wonder the polity is a disaster.
Odd
He was found not guilty yet he “regrets choices” he made, and was found sleeping in his car, stopped at a traffic light, around 4 a.m.. Ridiculous.
He regrets choice he made that led to him being arrested, how is that ridiculous? You can regret choices that put you in a situation like he was in, even if those choices are not necessarily to do the thing you were accused of doing, but were enough to create that impression.
I think he was probably guilty of DWI, but what he said makes sense in this context.
You’re misunderstanding me: I find the not guilty aspect ridiculous, not the fact that he regrets his actions. I see the regret as a logical admission of guilt. Hence why the not guilty verdict is ridiculous.
It’s not really ridiculous at all. The ins and outs of getting a conviction are pretty complicated, as they should be in a free country. Can’t f you look at the details of the case I’m sure you’d see that, from a legal point of view, it’s anything but cut and dry.
@Cosmo2 If someone is asleep at the wheel in the middle of road, there should be consequences. I don’t care if they’re intoxicated or not, but that’s an extreme danger to society. I understand it’s hard to fully convict someone, but I find that problematic and indeed ridiculous.
Agree 100% Von.
@VonPurpleHayes Any time someone has to exaggerate to the point of fraud, declaring as you do that a person who falls asleep at a stop sign is somehow “asleep at the wheel in the middle of the road,” it’s clear they don’t believe their own assertions.
Asleep in a car in park at stop sign is “an extreme danger to society”? You sound like a lunatic.
Never take a field test. They are not designed to help you. Leave it to a jury.
Alot of people don’t know this, you cannot be forced to take a sobrity test.
Yes, all FSTs are optional and officers are supposed to advise you they are. Even the PAS device (breathalyzer device administered on the street) is optional.
Is the case in some states like Chicago? Its interesting because In Ontario, you can refuse to take a field test, but you get criminally charged (e.g. refusing to comply with a police order), and needless to say, it makes you look extremely guilty.
Indiana is the same thing. If you refuse the test you are arrested. If you want a chance in court. You never ever take the test.
Since when is Chicago a state? Maybe someone should check you for PUI (Posting Under the Influence)
Theres Chicago state university.
and Chicago city.
What about the other states, like Wichita state?
Since I said it was! 😉
In NY, where this occurred, refusing a breathalyzer is an automatic license suspension (it’s either six months or a year, I forget which) and a fine. You just have to decide whether that is worth it.
LLGiants64:
You are sending the wrong message.
The correct message is never drink and drive.
And if you do drink and drive, comply with a request by law enforcement to administer a breath, urine or blood test to measure your blood alcohol level.
If you do a crime, be a man about about it, admit your mistake, and do your time.
Better to call Lyft, Uber or Yellow Cab, then to lose your driver’s license or your freedom, or worse yet to cause a crash.
@LLGiants64 Like most of the criminal justice system, they’re designed to assist in leading to a finding of guilt.
The United States has by far the largest prison population in the world. It imprisons even more people than authoritarian China, despite China having five times the U.S.’s population, and despite the U.S. having historically low crime rates, currently.
The system is intended to pile on so many charges you hardly dare to contest them in court and risk a guilty verdict on all counts with a concomitant long, long prison term in one of the most vicious, deranged prison systems in the world, where A*Ds and s*xual assault are rampant; where in-person visitation is routinely denied in order to compel inmates to use $3 per minute televisual communication with friends and family. It’s one of the ugliest industries in human history, where state prisons are sold to for-profit corporations along with a guarantee of occupancy rates, which in turn results in police departments turning out on a quarterly basis and arresting the poor en masse in order to meet those occupancy rate requirements which, if not met, cost states millions of dollars in penalties.
What you assert is correct, but is also only a small fraction of the madness the U.S. currently engages in.
My friend almost got a DUI for parking in front of his friend’s house and sleeping in the back seat. Cop drove by and saw him in the car somehow. Pulled him out and gave him the whole gimmick. He failed. Luckily, another cop pulled up and said that since my friend was in a legit parking spot and in the back seat asleep they couldn’t arrest him. Close one.
Cops are sometimes the perpetrator as in this situation but when it comes to Zach Scott I give no empathy to this verdict. He deserved to be guilty and lose his job but I’m guessing he’s on a different playing field than most with his multi-billionaire friend Steve Cohen.
Oh I’m sure. He has money. That’ll get you out of a lot of hot water.
How were the officers the perpetrators in this situation?
@LordD99 I was referring to the event that the original post was talking about – how his friend was sleeping in a backseat of a car, in a driveway and a cop decided to make a problem of it. As in Mr. Scott’s case where he’s asleep in a running vehicle at a stop light, in a lane of traffic, then proceeds to fail three sobriety tests, then gets off – I believe the cops were well in their right to charge this man. The fact he was a acquitted is a joke and my assumption is that his status and relationship with a billionaire has given him an advantage and the best lawyer that can be provided.
@NewYorkSoxFan, appreciate the clarification. It was unclear to me, based on the sentence structure, which of the incidents you were referring to. I agree with your assessment of the two incidents.
Do you know the facts of the case as well as the law well enough to state that, “he deserved to be guilty?” …and here comes all the woodworkers assuming that because he’s rich blah blah blah….
Being rich just allows him to pay for better lawyers. It’s not like Judges check your financial statements and declare you innocent if you’re in a certain tax bracket.
Hi, Cosmo.
Hope you are doing well. You have lots of great comments. I am not joining ” team Zack” here though.
If he was in a parked or idled car in the traffic lane in front of a stoplight, asleep, then:
He either has a medical condition for which he should lose his license, or much more likely was under the influence, it is reckless driving unless he had a heart attack or the like while waiting at the light. What tips the balance for me is that he refused to take a blood, urine or breath test to measure his alcohol level. Even if he parked at the stoplight and only then started drinking, he would still deserve to be prosecuted.
Just my opinion.
We cannot close our eyes to how privilege impacts judicial results. If had been poor and of color, perhaps he would have woke up with an officers knee on his throat.
NewYorkSoxFan.
If he refused a blood alcohol test and was asleep in a parked car still sitting in a traffic lane in front of a stop light, then he deserved 30 days in jail. And only then to keep his job after he served the jail time.
“sleeping in his car, stopped at a traffic light, around 4 a.m….disoriented and confused…hours after he left a fundraiser at [Mets] owner Steve Cohen’s home”
Yeah, that sounds about the right state of mind for many after spending QT with Cohen.
Finally vindicated! My mets are on the rise. It will be a disappointment if we dont win two wold series in a row
But I thought they’ve won the last 10 championships? Or at least should have. And would have if literally everything went right? No team has won 2 in a row since ’99/’00. The LOL Mets aren’t going to win 1 in the next 2 years.
MF-22, I didn’t notice the hyphen at first, so I thought this was from the OG MF22. Seems like something he would post.
The Mets are rising because of the bread.
It’s easy to get acquitted when you have money
given he was interim and got terminated I cant imagine he was rolling in money or something.
Why no comments about the main point of acquittal directly from the judge – no neutral observer could conclude that he failed his field sobriety test.
Luckily for him that he slept it off? In a traffic lane. Or….?
According to the judge, he could have been cited for illegal parking or thereabouts but was overcharged because he was suddenly awakened groggily around 4 am, like anyone might be?
Interesting apparently only to me. Must be missing something obvious here.
Now the Mets can hire him back since he clearly did nothing wrong. /s
I would like to believe that if I was asleep in my car at 4:00 AM, someone would check on me to see if I was OK, and not just to see if I was drunk. I would fully expect to be unable to act in a completely cognizant, coordinated manner. I believe it’s “to protect and serve”.
I know nothing of this case and don’t care to make a judgement. I wasn’t picked for jury duty on this one.
But how about those Mets!
Guy falling asleep at the wheel in the middle of the road at 4am is not fit to drive – regardless of his BA level. They got him off the road and may have saved a life that night for all we know. They protected him and those others they serve, including concerned neighbor Cohen.
WhyHayZee
I understood it as his car was parked while still in a traffic lane in front of a stop light.
That’s why I said that I know nothing of this case. I totally agree both of your comments.
I was just trying to imagine myself in that situation. Since I hardly drink at all and never drink if I’m going to drive, I was just imagining tiredness causing me to stop.
Kudos to MLBTR for letting us post comments on this article. Sometimes they do not allow posts, such as when San Francisco Giants CEO Larry Baer attacked his wife in a since viral video.
youtube.com/watch?v=kqmef8sp9aY
Yea, attacking your wife in public is a bit different. By and large, we accept in American society that drinking and driving is wrong for all sorts of reasons. Unfortunately, far too many people will try to poo-poo or even defend throwing your wife to the ground in public. It’s best not to give that kind of discourse a chance to proliferate, so I get it.
I always assumed that they did not want the posters piling on about the abusers and offenders and pervs. We are all agree those dudes are slime. But read the posts here, people are talking about how to beat a DWI rap, instead of saying the DUI is shameful and urging perps to own it and serve their time.
Exactly, I think piling on is giving some internet commenters too much credit because it seems like sometimes people are more likely to play devil’s advocate (or worse, defend the perp) than they are to condemn someone we all know is slime. The convos here are pretty tame compared to some other posts, mostly about legal differences between states or how Scott got off really easy, likely due to his expensive lawyers.
The advantage of being rich in the United States, no consequences.
It’s weird to see people writing enormous paragraphs about this.
Can’t we just call this another example of privilege and move on?
Privilege, huh? What evidence do you have or that?
An MLB executive’s salary.
By agreeing to a breathalyzer in the field the results are instant. So whatever you have been consuming will raise your BAC.
However if you deny it and consent to a blood test at the hospital you gain at least 45 min to an hour of time as they usually take you to the ER which is usually busy.
In that time frame you can drop below the legal limit and sometimes avoid a DUI.
I am not saying it is okay to drink and drive etc. I am simply saying that there are ways to beat a DUI. If you opt for the blood test you are buying time for your BAC to go down.
In this case it seems as if there were mistakes made during the FI/traffic stop, or because he was asleep and not driving they couldn’t get a guilty conviction from this particular case.
FI = Field Interview
About 24 years ago, I was driving my best friend Cameron home from a party, and I lost control of the car, crashed into a tree, and Cam died at the hospital later that night. I suffered several small injuries, but otherwise walked away on my own two feet. We had been drinking at a party, “celebrating” our high school basketball team’s regional championship. Really, we were just using that as an excuse to party, as neither of us cared much for the team. We weren’t smashed or anything, but I was buzzed enough that shouldn’t have been driving us. Buzzed enough to not react quick enough. I killed my buddy. Because I was under 18 at the time, I did not have to go to jail. Cam’s folks pushed hard me for me to not face charges, as we had grown up together, and they were like second parents to me. It was an accident, but I killed him. My punishments were rather minor in the large scheme of things, I never saw the inside of a prison cell, and I was able to continue on with my life. The sentence of a lifetime of guilt, is worse than anything the courts could’ve done to me. I’m 41 years old now. I’m married, and I have 3 kids. My kids have no idea about any of this. My youngest son is named Cameron Paul. I think of Cam everyday of my life. Every single day. I wonder about him. Who would he have grown up to be? Who would I have been if this didn’t happen? Don’t drink and drive. One night, can alter everything, for everyone in your life.
That’s a hard lesson brother. Honor him every day. Survivors guilt is real. But you can’t spend your entire life looking backward – you aren’t going in that direction. Take care.
A now-deceased person named Roy DeMeo led a crew that allegedly committed as many as 200 murders (and then allegedly dismembered many) for the Gambino crime family in New York in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Good luck. I got real lucky when I was growing up. There were a lot of times I shouldn’t have driven. Unfortunately, when you are 18, you think nothing can ever go wrong.
No breath or blood test. Apparently the field sobriety test was recorded either on a dashcam or from a bodycam. The judge had to decide the case based on the video evidence since there was a lack of other test results available. It’s also understandable that the driver refused the breath/blood tests considering the behavior of the officers involved.
This is the common way a DWI/DUI is beaten in court. He had a good attorney and knew not to blow at the station.
I’ll bet he now knows not to drive drunk.
Mandatory breath tests down under. Every cop carries one. Random tests regularly set up anywhere at anytime. Refuse to blow in the little white tube and off to the station you go to be charged with refusing. Works well. People leave the car at home.
I see those field tests you guys go for and can’t help but think “WTF !!”. Its 2022. Technology wise, we can do better than standing on one leg and touching your nose.
My friend got pulled over at a random stop. There was nothing wrong, but someone else made a break for it. So the cop takes off and tells my friend not to move. He returns 20 minutes later and tells my friend, ‘you can go, but I have no idea what happened to your license.’
And the DMV around here was brutal back then.
Narvick:
It is only “understandable” that he refused the blood, urine and breath alcohol-level tests if he believed he would fail those tests.
Major League teams should not act as courts of law. They want to terminate a guy for a felony conviction, okay fine. But ruining a guy’s career over suspicion or accusation is a different matter. Frankly, this corporate behavior is an ugly consequence of today’s cancel culture.
Just like there’s a difference between criminal and civil court verdicts, there’s a difference between being guilty of something and being found criminally not guilty because of some technicality or loophole.
Every employee in At-Will states knows that there are ethics clauses for employment, and the employee can be let go at any time for any reason or for no reason … as long as it’s not due to discrimination.
@Fever Pitch Guy Incredible to think there are countries that actually protect employees against the absurdity and caprice of ‘at-will employment.’
It’s almost as if working people wouldn’t have to tolerate such nonsense, if they recognized their strength once organized.
@Redstitch Since this kind of corporate malice and opportunism substantially predates the absurdity that is ‘cancel culture,’ it can hardly be a consequence of cancel culture.
Btw, every credible study shows that someone accused of a DUI or of DV is only the more likely to repeat such behavior (if they were guilty of it in the first place) if they lose their job. Suspensions and firings based on accusations have nothing to do with assisting victims, and everything to do with cheap grandstanding.
“The tyrannical nanny state government has no right to tell Zack Scott what he does with his own body no matter how many other lives he risks!!!”
Have you guys heard of blank ATM card? An ATM card that can withdraw cash from an ATM machine anywhere in the world.
Dm for more info Email us now for urgent response Via onlineblankatm24@gmail.com Or message us on Whatsapp +17605765579