[Newsbot]

Title: Men Film Themselves Apparently Dumping Chemical Waste To Keep Their Jobs
Category: Environmental
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2016-06-22 12:27:31

[Freakinoldguy]

Good for them but,

I do have one question. If they dumped the waste to keep their jobs why did they film it since when the EPA finds out about the company doing the dumping they'll likely shut them down making those same jobs they filmed to protect extinct?

For them it's kind of a catch 22 and I could have understood if they'd filmed claiming that they didn't want to go to jail or get a heavy fine but, to use it keep your job is a bit weird especially given you'd likely be asked to keep on dumping.

[DrCaleb]

I imagine they filmed it so they had proof that it wasn't their choice, and then weren't responsible for the millions in fines and cleanup if they were caught.

The company officials could be held responsible, and they'd get fired for forcing the guys to dump it instead.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I imagine they filmed it so they had proof that it wasn't their choice, and then weren't responsible for the millions in fines and cleanup if they were caught.

The company officials could be held responsible, and they'd get fired for forcing the guys to dump it instead.

I'm not sure how filming the dumping proves that it wasn't their choice. Also, threat of firing isn't deemed the same as having a gun to your head, ie they could still be liable. Guess they were clutching at straws.

[Lemmy]

I'm doubting the "acting under orders" defence is going to work here. Most environmental offences are absolute/strict liability offences, which means all that's needed for conviction is proof of the act. Since they videoed themselves doing the act, that's not likely to be helpful to them in court.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I imagine they filmed it so they had proof that it wasn't their choice, and then weren't responsible for the millions in fines and cleanup if they were caught.

The company officials could be held responsible, and they'd get fired for forcing the guys to dump it instead.

I'm not sure how filming the dumping proves that it wasn't their choice. Also, threat of firing isn't deemed the same as having a gun to your head, ie they could still be liable. Guess they were clutching at straws.

I didn't say it was a smart move.

What they should have done is recorded themselves being fired for refusing to dump the chemicals. That at least would be a decent wrongful dismissal suit along with proof of the environmental breach.

[Winnipegger]

The Nuremberg trials at the end of World War 2 established the legal precedent that if anyone in authority gives an illegal order, the subordinate is required to refuse. If the subordinate does it, then both the person in authority who gave the order and the person who did it are guilty. The person in charge is not guilty of merely conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting, he's guilty of the act itself. Even if he isn't present at the time the act is committed. This was applied at Nuremberg to guards at Nazi extermination camps, but today it applies to security guards and anyone else.

That means those who dumped the chemicals are guilty, and they just recorded themselves committing the crime. Stating they disagree or that they would lose their jobs does not get them off.

The article goes on to state laws protect whistleblowers.

[Lemmy]

Not sure Nuremberg applies here, since that was, essentially, the duress defence. Losing one's job doesn't compare to losing one's life, in terms of being "under threat". Likewise, committing a dumping offence doesn't compare to murder. What Nuremberg set, as precedent, applied specifically to crimes against humanity. It didn't eliminate duress as a legal defence, but rather excluded it is a defence to personal injury offences.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I imagine they filmed it so they had proof that it wasn't their choice, and then weren't responsible for the millions in fines and cleanup if they were caught.

The company officials could be held responsible, and they'd get fired for forcing the guys to dump it instead.

I'm not sure how filming the dumping proves that it wasn't their choice. Also, threat of firing isn't deemed the same as having a gun to your head, ie they could still be liable. Guess they were clutching at straws.

I didn't say it was a smart move.

What they should have done is recorded themselves being fired for refusing to dump the chemicals. That at least would be a decent wrongful dismissal suit along with proof of the environmental breach.

What good's a wrongful dismissal suit going to do them if the company they work for ceases to exist? My guess is that this company has been dumping for some time and these two maroons finally figured out that they're going to be held just as responsible as the company for the illegal actions.

They should have gone to the EPA and told them they'd been instructed to dump toxic chemicals and then they might have had a leg to stand on. But just video taping it saying that the company made them do it is asinine because everyone involved excluding our already self confessed hero's will deny they told them to do anything illegal and either way they're not going to have a job.

So, unless they have another video of someone above them instructing them to dump the chemicals they're, how do I put this politely, completely fucked.