Discussion in 'Everything NBA' started by buddahfan, Sep 7, 2007.
Here's another look:
SLAM ONLINE | » Links: Isiah Thomas is Guilty
Hope he's vindicated. Frankly, I think it's a wash. I think this woman wants money and MSG is a boys' club.
Is Isaiah Thomas related to Clarence Thomas??? Anita Hill resurfaced today on GMA to dispute Justice Thomas' comments in his new book about her harrasment case against him back in the 90's...
You have to be careful what you say and do in the workplace these days. Here in California all managers working at corporations employing more than 50 employees are required to participate in or take a mandatory workplace harrasment course every two years.
Hopefully Zeke will win the appeals process, but using the "b" word freely at work doesn't help the cause...
I work in a female dominated workplace. It's a whole different world. You have to be conditioned to think a different way because you can't relate to women as you would to men. You have to be very careful.
I was actually the victim of this type of experience brought on by a married woman young enough to be my daughter.
It was an awful experience even with the company following up on it and reprimanding the aggressor.
I've been in that boat. Especially when it's a group that is fairly unfriendly/unhappy most days anyway.
Being a man, I used to sit back and watch the daily fights, revenge planning, just plain dissatisfaction with life play out in full color. Now, that has nothing to do with women being that way in general. It just happened to be the particular group I worked with. I'm currently in the same boat, but with a much happier group of women and there is much less turmoil.
It's just not the same as it used to be. It's not better or worse. Just different.
There is one thing that puzzles me about this verdict.
Let me begin by saying that if Zeke did use the terms toward the defendant that that the jury found him guilty of using than clearly he was guilty of harassment and calls into question his attitude toward women in general.
What puzzles me is that to my knowledge there was never any testimony brought in this trial that Zeke has used either of these terms towards other women that he has worked with over the years.
Does this mean that he has used these terms and other women will or will not now step forward to state such?
or does it mean
that he only used the words toward the defendant and no other woman whom he has worked with?
It is all very puzzling to me. You would think that after all of these years in which he has worked so hard to develop a professional executive image that he would now all of sudden start speaking derogatory cultural slang toward one woman only when he had to be aware aware of the consequence.
This decision by the jurors seems very strange to me especially given the defendant's past history with IBM.
Seems strange to me too. Obviously you can't treat people like that in the workplace...but you would have to be an idiot not to know that. So this woman earns 11 million dollars for claiming harrassment based almost exclusively on her word?.....You know there will be women lining up to file some lawsuits now.
Not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that prior bad acts can be brought up in a case like this. It's not about a pattern of behavior, but about specific acts committed against her - boss in power over a subordinate.
He has been a boss over women for years and many women. So I don't agree with your point on this. All of a sudden he gets into a power trip with only one specific women. If he was that much of a crud with women it would have come up in the media long before this trial. There are many Zeke haters out there who would have jumped at the chance to make him look bad, especially toward women.
The media can bring up stuff, if there is no gag order. I don't believe that there was a gag order.
How come no other women have gone to media with their story about Zeke? A perfect chance to get some revenge if he acted the same way toward them.
This all is very strange.
Well, you asked why there wasn't any testimony in this trail about him having engaged in things like this before. My only point is that those couldn't have been brought up in the trial anyway.
In any event, what he may or may not have done in the past doesn't have any bearing on what he did this time, when a jury sat, listened to the evidence, and found him guilty, which if you listen to what was presented seems to have been a pretty reasonable verdict.
Of course what he did in the past has everything to do with it. A person doesn't live there life in a vacuum as a series of random events with no consistency of behavior.
The jury found him guilty. That is the way it is.
But the proof was weak at best. How many witnesses were there that confirmed what he said to her. The only witness I believe that she brought testified what the defendant told her and actually heard him say it?
Would Zeke mistreat the defendant only in private and along with that never have a history of mistreating other female employees?
This whole thing is just strange.
O.J. in reverse.
Agree that when you have a case like this where it is not a felony, but a civil trial, patterns of previous behavior should be brought up by the defense to counteract the plaintiffs charges. I know these were supposedly specifics events/acts but since no one has heard of Isaiah involved such a thing before it would seem that if his attorneys didn't bring it up before, they definitely need to bring it up next time during the appeal process. (
Can't remember off hand if Clarence Thomas had any character witnesses in his trial?)
Also wonder if this case had been held in Los Angeles, would our star struck jurors let him off
We all know how effective our court system can be at times. Appeal, and bring anything you can to the table.
Clarence Thomas didn't go to trial did he? He just had a rough confirmation hearing I believe.
The appeal process is about judicial errors during the regular trial. I don't believe what you are suggesting can be done.
The problem for Zeke was. He didn't deny using the words. He didn't deny using them in her presence.
Trying to prove that they weren't directed at her was his problem. In harassment cases where the woman is the plaintiff, the defendant is automatically going to be found guilty by a jury unless, unless he can convince them otherwise. Zeke was not able to prove to the jury's satisfaction that what he said was not directed at her. Hence he was found guilty.
This is what is known as today's politically correct justice.
This article from Foxsports puts the blame on Dolan for poor handling of the situation:
FOX Sports on MSN - NBA - Dolan now in pantheon of bad sport owners
I probably should have finished the online law courses at University of Phoenix..., then I would have known this
Is it just me, or does Isaiah the Piston seem more like a memory and less like a living legend?
I don't even mean after this case. Just that he has travelled around in the Conference, it's like he has no connection back to Detroit in the last decade. Unlike Horn, Vinnie, Chuck, Joe, Laimbs etc.
I guess the same could be said about Worm.
Separate names with a comma.