• Omar Mateen worked for G4S, company stocks plummet
    27 replies, posted
[QUOTE][B]Shares in global security contractor G4S this morning plummeted since the company admitted employing the terrorist who carried out the worst mass shooting in US history Since addressing Mateen, shares in the company have tumbled by as much as 8%.[/B] Omar Mateen, 29, was employed by the London-listed firm in 2007 and worked as a security guard. G4S, the world’s biggest security company, put Mateen through screening and background checks in 2007 and again in 2013, but neither occasion revealed anything ‘of concern’, the company said.[/QUOTE] Src: [URL]http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/13/g4s-share-price-plummets-after-company-admits-employing-orlando-gunman-5940847/[/URL] I wonder why G4S is even on the bourse anymore after all the frack it gets and now this. Also funny that they say they didn't find anything out of the ordinary on his checks, while other sources claim the perp had been on numerous FBI watchlists. Who knows though.
[QUOTE=Halahazam;50510851]Src: [URL]http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/13/g4s-share-price-plummets-after-company-admits-employing-orlando-gunman-5940847/[/URL] I wonder why G4S is even on the bourse anymore after all the frack it gets and now this. Also funny that they say they didn't find anything out of the ordinary on his checks, while other sources claim the perp had been on numerous FBI watchlists. Who knows though.[/QUOTE] I've got a number of questions: -Who is responsible of said checks? -In what do they consist? -Are those watchlists based on what? -Are those watchlists public?
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50511828]I've got a number of questions: -Who is responsible of said checks? -In what do they consist? -Are those watchlists based on what? -Are those watchlists public?[/QUOTE] Security Companies may or may not have easier access to those materials
Here's a question: Should we, as a free society who believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", punish people in the form of job prospects / firearm ownership without having ever been found guilty of a crime? Take this guy for instance -- he was investigated by the FBI multiple times, yet was never found guilty of any crime. He was on FBI watchlists -- but not because of any crimes he had been found guilty of. Is it right, then, to limit his career opportunities and gun ownership simply because the FBI didn't like him?
[QUOTE=geel9;50511897]Here's a question: Should we, as a free society who believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", punish people in the form of job prospects / firearm ownership without having ever been found guilty of a crime? Take this guy for instance -- he was investigated by the FBI multiple times, yet was never found guilty of any crime. He was on FBI watchlists -- but not because of any crimes he had been found guilty of. Is it right, then, to limit his career opportunities and gun ownership simply because the FBI didn't like him?[/QUOTE] Short and simple: No. Innocent until proven guilty.
[QUOTE=geel9;50511897]Here's a question: Should we, as a free society who believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", punish people in the form of job prospects / firearm ownership without having ever been found guilty of a crime? Take this guy for instance -- he was investigated by the FBI multiple times, yet was never found guilty of any crime. He was on FBI watchlists -- but not because of any crimes he had been found guilty of. Is it right, then, to limit his career opportunities and gun ownership simply because the FBI didn't like him?[/QUOTE] These lists are often very mysterious with very little oversight in updating them. There is no due process to be put on these lists and the process is highly-arbitrary. You can erroneously be on a "watch list" but you can't dispute being put on a "watch list" in America. It impossible to remove yourself from it since it is not unconstitutional for the FBI to "investigate" you. This is actually understandable. Unless they accuse me of a crime they can stalk me as much as they want (I'd prefer they did not watch me at all though). The problem arises when we start to hand out punishments restricting people from doing certain constitutionally-protected things because of such an arbitrary list. You can effectively, sidestep the Constitution in under 2 minutes. All you need to do is add the person to a 'watch list' and as there is no due process or way to dispute it, he can't do anything about it. Then, 2 minutes later you can proceed to violate his constitutional rights. It should never be this simple to do.
[QUOTE=geel9;50511897]Is it right, then, to limit his career opportunities and gun ownership simply because the FBI didn't like him?[/QUOTE] one can still be found guilty of [I]conspiring to commit[/I] a crime if they make threats, and are found to be suicidal, unstable, etc which would lead to suspicion that they'd potentially go through with it. If there's no direct threats but it's still something where he could be a threat to society (key: mental instability or history of violence), that should probably be a footnote in background checks when procuring a weapon at the least the tl;dr I guess is being on a watch list shouldn't be a mark in itself, but if they actually find real, damning evidence with the watch process that you'll commit a crime, I don't think it's crazy to make considerations on whether someone's a threat to society and put blocks on some things until you can go through trial, contest the situation, have a psychiatric evaluation, whatever
[QUOTE=geel9;50511897]Here's a question: Should we, as a free society who believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", punish people in the form of job prospects / firearm ownership without having ever been found guilty of a crime? Take this guy for instance -- he was investigated by the FBI multiple times, yet was never found guilty of any crime. He was on FBI watchlists -- but not because of any crimes he had been found guilty of. Is it right, then, to limit his career opportunities and gun ownership simply because the FBI didn't like him?[/QUOTE] The court of public opinion does not follow any rules
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50511852]Security Companies may or may not have easier access to those materials[/QUOTE] It could simply be the case that Omar Mateen didn't simply show any flags in the job interviews and security screenings. It's not like he would want to give anything other than the best impression, if he wants to be hired.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50512465]The court of public opinion does not follow any rules[/QUOTE] Yes but the court of hiring discrimination and refusal to sell a gun to someone who legally can purchase one does. [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;50512340]one can still be found guilty of [I]conspiring to commit[/I] a crime if they make threats, and are found to be suicidal, unstable, etc which would lead to suspicion that they'd potentially go through with it. If there's no direct threats but it's still something where he could be a threat to society (key: mental instability or history of violence), that should probably be a footnote in background checks when procuring a weapon at the least the tl;dr I guess is being on a watch list shouldn't be a mark in itself, but if they actually find real, damning evidence with the watch process that you'll commit a crime, I don't think it's crazy to make considerations on whether someone's a threat to society and put blocks on some things until you can go through trial, contest the situation, have a psychiatric evaluation, whatever[/QUOTE] Being found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime would, in fact, be filed under "convicted of a crime", no?
[QUOTE=geel9;50512736]Yes but the court of hiring discrimination and refusal to sell a gun to someone who legally can purchase one does. [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] Being found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime would, in fact, be filed under "convicted of a crime", no?[/QUOTE] that's being convicted of a crime before a crime was committed, yeah. The point is "but if he didn't do anything" is a really vague and open position (though the rest of your post was pretty concise on it) that I see a lot of people bring up, but it seems like the wrong approach since it implies they have to [i]do the thing they were plotting[/i] in order to actually be guilty, but then the tragedy has happened and nothing got stopped. I'd be on the fence but leaning in favor of something as simple as a holding status on background checks [I]if there's a potentially high threat suspected and they're getting ready to pursue some prosecution[/I], but the way things work I guess at that point you might as well just raid them with the police and keep them in jail til trial
This really had nothing to do with the company. Like, G4S is a bigger contractor and had this guy worked for a sensitive site than they'd probably find out but he was a run of the mil security guard. For run of the mil security all you need is a clean criminal record and a 8-hour course. Which anyone can get. Also almost all those watch lists are confidential, they don't give them to security contractors unless probably it was a really sensitive site. And this guy didn't work for a sensitive site, thus he could be given the trust to carry a flashlight and walk around for eight hours in an empty building.
The scary part is G4S has the vast majority of security contacts for nuclear power sites across the country. If a home grown terrorist can find themselves working at one of those they could do a hell of a lot of damage. I'm not talking about causing a nuclear melt down or making a dirty bomb here. Nuclear sites are protected with military grade hardware, and in fact are the only purly civilian agency's that can purchase and own new production machine guns. Every guard is given one, so it's not like they're hidden away for special days. Someone like this gentleman would be damn hard to detect, being a natural born citizen with no major criminal background. They have to have a top secret clearance to work nuke, but if nothing shows up in the background check and all they people they interview say nothing of radical Intentions you've got it.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50513020]The scary part is G4S has the vast majority of security contacts for nuclear power sites across the country. If a home grown terrorist can find themselves working at one of those they could do a hell of a lot of damage. I'm not talking about causing a nuclear melt down or making a dirty bomb here. Nuclear sites are protected with military grade hardware, and in fact are the only purly civilian agency's that can purchase and own new production machine guns. Every guard is given one, so it's not like they're hidden away for special days. Someone like this gentleman would be damn hard to detect, being a natural born citizen with no major criminal background. They have to have a top secret clearance to work there, but if nothing shows up in the background check and ask they people they interview say nothing of radical Intentions you've got it.[/QUOTE] No way he would've gotten in. I want to get into G4S working the contract at the Indian Point NPP but they're seriously intense. Like, they mostly only hire ex-law enforcement and military to begin with and that's a position where you do actually get screened for. Whereas working as a night watchman at a warehouse or office complex doesn't require a fraction of the same scrutiny. All they need is for you to show up on time and not fall asleep. They're not comparable.
[QUOTE=dai;50512907]that's being convicted of a crime before a crime was committed, yeah. The point is "but if he didn't do anything" is a really vague and open position (though the rest of your post was pretty concise on it) that I see a lot of people bring up, but it seems like the wrong approach since it implies they have to [i]do the thing they were plotting[/i] in order to actually be guilty, but then the tragedy has happened and nothing got stopped. I'd be on the fence but leaning in favor of something as simple as a holding status on background checks [I]if there's a potentially high threat suspected and they're getting ready to pursue some prosecution[/I], but the way things work I guess at that point you might as well just raid them with the police and keep them in jail til trial[/QUOTE] I feel like you're intentionally misinterpreting my post here. I specifically said "convicted of a crime." If you're found guilty of conspiring to commit a crime, you have, by definition, been "convicted of a crime." At no point in my post did I say you had to actually commit a crime you were conspiring to commit.
haha g4s.... that company is going to shut down, just awful.
[QUOTE=geel9;50511897]Here's a question: Should we, as a free society who believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", punish people in the form of job prospects / firearm ownership without having ever been found guilty of a crime? Take this guy for instance -- he was investigated by the FBI multiple times, yet was never found guilty of any crime. He was on FBI watchlists -- but not because of any crimes he had been found guilty of. Is it right, then, to limit his career opportunities and gun ownership simply because the FBI didn't like him?[/QUOTE] This is a really important question and I'm glad you brought it up. I sense that I'm in the minority here, but I think that given the risk to society at large involved in firearm ownership, some form of increased firearm regulation is necessary. In almost all other aspects of our lives, we are subjected to regulation that infringes upon our otherwise constitutionally-protected freedom of thought and action. Practically speaking, our right to self-determination is balanced against the greater good of society. Even free speech itself isn't unconditional- "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater," as they say. In response to your actual question though: I don't agree with curtailing people's constitutional rights according to the document's current interpretation. For the record, I hate it when Democrats and Republicans alike try to pass shady laws that undermine constitutional rights. I despise TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation against Abortion Providers) just the same as I despise the often arbitrary and misguided attempts at firearm regulation. All that being said, I think it's time to revisit our interpretation of the text. I've never agreed that the Second Amendment grants unlimited access to firearms. It would be one thing if the text actually, unambiguously declared that the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But it should be clear to anyone that it does not. The phrase [I]a well-regulated militia[/I] simply wouldn't exist if the founders didn't intend for there to be some sort of regulation. So in short, I don't support assault-style weapons in the hands of common people. Believe me, I get the love for AR-15s, I really do. But the risk to society is pretty obvious. Not trying to sound like a pompous liberal here, but like, come on. Well-regulated militias on the other hand? Go for it! I'm a lot less worried about a militia than I am about some rando shooting up a theater. Sure the left loves to vilify militias, but I don't really see the point. I'm a Democrat and I don't trust the federal government any more than the most right-wing libertarian. The very existence of militias is a system of checks and balances in and of itself. I'm not advocating violence by any means, but I understand the roll they play as a safeguard. So yeah, that's where I stand. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50512296]These lists are often very mysterious with very little oversight in updating them. There is no due process to be put on these lists and the process is highly-arbitrary. You can erroneously be on a "watch list" but you can't dispute being put on a "watch list" in America. It impossible to remove yourself from it since it is not unconstitutional for the FBI to "investigate" you. This is actually understandable. Unless they accuse me of a crime they can stalk me as much as they want (I'd prefer they did not watch me at all though). The problem arises when we start to hand out punishments restricting people from doing certain constitutionally-protected things because of such an arbitrary list. You can effectively, sidestep the Constitution in under 2 minutes. All you need to do is add the person to a 'watch list' and as there is no due process or way to dispute it, he can't do anything about it. Then, 2 minutes later you can proceed to violate his constitutional rights. It should never be this simple to do.[/QUOTE] There are so many bullshit watchlists. It's a pretty well accepted rumor that TailsOS gets you on one.
To be fair, security companies have only access to arrest records; All police investigations and government watchlists are kept 100% confidential, the former due to Innocent until Proven Guilty and Due Progress, the latter due to National Security.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50523561]To be fair, security companies have only access to arrest records; All police investigations and government watchlists are kept 100% confidential, the former due to Innocent until Proven Guilty and Due Progress, the latter due to National Security.[/QUOTE] Except his co-worker reported him to the company and they still did not take action. It got so bad the co-worker quit his job. Very much G4S's fault for ignoring the reports.
[QUOTE=AK'z;50513712]haha g4s.... that company is going to shut down, just awful.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4S]G4S plc (formerly Group 4 Securicor) is a British multinational security services company headquartered in central London.[3] It is the world's largest security company measured by revenues and has operations in around 125 countries.[2][4] With 618,000 employees, it is world's third largest private employer, the largest European and African private employer, and among the largest on the London Stock Exchange.[2][5][6] G4S was founded in 2004 by the merger of the UK-based Securicor plc with the Denmark-based Group 4 Falck.[/url][/QUOTE] Oh yeah, clearly one employee doing something illegal in a capacity completely unrelated to the company is going to get them shut down.
[QUOTE]Worst mass shooting in US History[/quote] Kind of off-topic I guess but this is some ridiculous misinformation. This shooting was horrific, yes, but it's insulting to the native americans who died in the Wounded Knee massacre and their descendents. It's hardly the worst in US history.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50513043]No way he would've gotten in. I want to get into G4S working the contract at the Indian Point NPP but they're seriously intense. Like, they mostly only hire ex-law enforcement and military to begin with and that's a position where you do actually get screened for. Whereas working as a night watchman at a warehouse or office complex doesn't require a fraction of the same scrutiny. All they need is for you to show up on time and not fall asleep. They're not comparable.[/QUOTE] That's not entirely true. I know guys that protect nuke plants in Minnesota for G4S who've never served or been a police officer. One guy is a volunteer firefighter who had gone to University to be an officer but never applied and another had just worked security for 5 years. I'm assuming this guy had a few years of armed security under his belt, and so long as you can past the background and get a top secret clearance, along with the boot camp they put you through, you're in. So yes, its not like some no name with no experience can get the job. But with enough experience in just the field, not necessarily law enforcement or military, you can.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50524089]Kind of off-topic I guess but this is some ridiculous misinformation. This shooting was horrific, yes, but it's insulting to the native americans who died in the Wounded Knee massacre and their descendents. It's hardly the worst in US history.[/QUOTE] Guys I am going to get real off-topic here and ignore the modern context, or what people actually mean, but this is some ridiculous misinformation. Now being Texan myself, I am deeply offended that nobody recognizes the Alamo as the worst shooting in US history. I know it's a stretch cause it ain't really US history, but ehhhhh it had americans. So close enough. [sp]Not to insult native americans, but come on man you know what mass shootings they meant.[/sp]
[QUOTE=mcharest;50513752]All that being said, I think it's time to revisit our interpretation of the text. I've never agreed that the Second Amendment grants unlimited access to firearms. It would be one thing if the text actually, unambiguously declared that the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But it should be clear to anyone that it does not. The phrase [I]a well-regulated militia[/I] simply wouldn't exist if the founders didn't intend for there to be some sort of regulation.[/QUOTE] It does unambiguously declare that the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [quote]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote] The militia is used as the justification, but it doesn't imply there are any restrictions to the right.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50524089]Kind of off-topic I guess but this is some ridiculous misinformation. This shooting was horrific, yes, but it's insulting to the native americans who died in the Wounded Knee massacre and their descendents. It's hardly the worst in US history.[/QUOTE] That's like saying the US fighting the Mexicans should be considered 'shootings' back when they had control of Texas. The US government at the time basically considered the Indians as an enemy force back then. Plus, it was done by the government purposefully so. You can call it a massacre, but a 'shooting' is sensationalist and doesn't really convey the same meaning. Stop trying to be so pedantic.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50524576]That's like saying the US fighting the Mexicans should be considered 'shootings' back when they had control of Texas. [/QUOTE] Don't forget the Alamo.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50523905]Except his co-worker reported him to the company and they still did not take action. It got so bad the co-worker quit his job. Very much G4S's fault for ignoring the reports.[/QUOTE] And the FBI said there was no evidence for the report therefore they couldn't pursue anything; How can the company turn around and do anything after he pretty much got cleared by the FBI? That's just a massive wrongful termination lawsuit waiting for them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.