Anyone know what happened in Stonecrest? (eat, design, kitchens) - Page 12 - City-Data Forum

chicagomichauds · 01-24-2012, 07:10 PM

I can understand from a family perspective why she did not call police, but I still think it was morally wrong of her not to call police. Did she also attempt to hide the evidence?

This whole case is so disturbing on many levels.

saralee · 01-24-2012, 08:55 PM

Generally speaking, in the US, people are not required to report a crime simply because they are aware of it. Of course, there are exceptions. Such as the case with mandatory reporters, where the law requires people in specific professions to report crimes and it's extended to teachers, social workers, daycare providers, etc and it's limited to instances of child abuse and neglect.

A few states extend the above to crimes involving the disabled and the elderly.

Then there are "Good Samaritan" laws, which some states have, but the scenarios where reporting is required are very specific. It involves a person needing to be saved, not reporting the crime itself.

coped · 01-25-2012, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saralee

Generally speaking, in the US, people are not required to report a crime simply because they are aware of it. Of course, there are exceptions. Such as the case with mandatory reporters, where the law requires people in specific professions to report crimes and it's extended to teachers, social workers, daycare providers, etc and it's limited to instances of child abuse and neglect.

A few states extend the above to crimes involving the disabled and the elderly.

Then there are "Good Samaritan" laws, which some states have, but the scenarios where reporting is required are very specific. It involves a person needing to be saved, not reporting the crime itself.

Yeah. She was only aware that her brother said he committed a crime. She didn't witness it. And all this information came from police reports, so she clearly she did cooperate with police when questioned.

cc0789 · 01-26-2012, 11:25 AM

[quote=coped;22698606]Yeah. She was only aware that her brother said he committed a crime. She didn't witness it. quote]

He was covered, dripping in blood, and left blood all over the door, counter, and put the bloody knife in a cup. Then put his clothes in her closet. But she was only aware that her brother said he committed a crime? He also told her he was going to dump the evidence, so she knew of a future crime.

On another note, the news says a background check was never done, but he revealed his felonies in the interview. I'm sure this poor woman had no idea. Flying Biscuit is definitely responsible. They are trying to say that they were trying to give this man a chance.... yet not giving the rest of their employees a chance by actually conducting a complete background check to see what exactly they were dealing with. He had already robbed a store that he worked at!! I hate hyper litigation, but these parents need to sue for wrongful death. Put me on the jury!

Feltdesigner · 01-26-2012, 01:05 PM

Most kitchens have at least one guy who has been to jail....

Not sure how Flying Biscuit can be held responsible for this murder if it's documented that he told them about his felonies. I can see if he had a murder charge on his record but if he robbed a bank or former place of employment how does that put up a red flag for a possible murder?

Not trying to ruffle feathers... just wondering why Flying Biscuit would be responsible for this death. Is it mandatory to tell all employees a coworker has a record?

GoPhils · 01-26-2012, 01:16 PM

I admit I haven't followed this story that closely. But wasn't the victim the manager? Wouldn't she probably know about the convictions? But it appears she hadn't been there that long so she probably wasn't the one that hired this guy? Speaking of which, it was probably the manager at the time that hired him, not the company's headquarters. I agree with Felt that a robbery is not necessarily a precursor to murder, although I would imagine that a store would not want to hire someone that had robbed a previous store they worked at, right?

Feltdesigner · 01-26-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoPhils

I admit I haven't followed this story that closely. But wasn't the victim the manager? Wouldn't she probably know about the convictions? But it appears she hadn't been there that long so she probably wasn't the one that hired this guy? Speaking of which, it was probably the manager at the time that hired him, not the company's headquarters. I agree with Felt that a robbery is not necessarily a precursor to murder, although I would imagine that a store would not want to hire someone that had robbed a previous store they worked at, right?

I wouldn't let a guy with a robbery on his record close, open or work the register...but I don't see how the Flying Biscuit is responsible for her murder.

coped · 01-26-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feltdesigner

Not trying to ruffle feathers... just wondering why Flying Biscuit would be responsible for this death. Is it mandatory to tell all employees a coworker has a record?

No. Flying Biscuit is not in any way responsible for the death. They did however break a specific statute by hiring a felon at a place with an alcohol license who had been out of jail for less than three years. That is the only thing they can be held liable for. Of course that doesn't preclude a potential civil suit from the family.

A requirement to tell all employees about an employee's criminal record would for the most part be counter-productive. These records are public anyway.

In this case, Flying Biscuit should have definitely done a background check to verify the details of the conviction after he revealed it. I would not have been comfortable hiring someone who had already robbed a place he worked at so soon after prison. They probably were not aware of the ALE's three-year law either. Technically, it is not legal to refuse to hire someone based solely on a criminal record. In this case, the details would have raised a glaring red flag.

But the implications of instituting some law that employers MUST perform background checks or MUST inform all other employees about someone's background would really have much more widespread negative consequence. It would effectively be a tax on small businesses and might indirectly increase crime because of fewer former felons being able to find legitimate work.

Another side of the whole background check thing is that people with misdemeanor underage drinking, trespassing, etc. charges from 20 years ago are being disqualified from jobs because of the reach of technology. Many companies find it much easier just to have a blanket, unwritten policy not to hire anyone with ANY type of record, even if it's just an arrest, than to look at the details of each case. They get around the law then by saying that the person lied on his/her application by not revealing this long-forgotten bar fight one night when they were 18. But if they reveal it on the application, they don't grant an interview. Some states allow for concealment of misdemeanor records after a certain period - 5 to 10 years. North Carolina does not. You can have only one CHARGE expunged from your record in your lifetime. Convictions can only be expunged if you were under 18. For some reason there are exceptions for underage drinking and a 15-year exception for robbery.

coped · 01-26-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cc0789

He was covered, dripping in blood, and left blood all over the door, counter, and put the bloody knife in a cup. Then put his clothes in her closet. But she was only aware that her brother said he committed a crime? He also told her he was going to dump the evidence, so she knew of a future crime.

And how do we know these details? She readily made them available to police when she was questioned the next day. She did her part. Do you really want to mandate that people rat out their relatives IMMEDIATELY. That will just make it dangerous for relatives of criminals and also make those relatives less likely to come forward.

mayday30 · 01-26-2012, 02:37 PM

Flying Biscuit will be sued and held responsible almost guaranteed. It was there responsibility as the employer to protect and secure the employees and customers. If they new he had felonies and did not disclose that to the closing manager or properly protect her they are responsible. I have been through something not on such a large scale but we had an individual who had a felony assault and battery. He got in an argument with a fellow associate and hit him. The company was sued for not providing a safe work environment and had to pay out 10k. This was about 16 years ago. They should have never left that man alone with any employee let alone a female.