Arnold says "NO"

[Crookshanks]

The Drudge Report is reporting that Gov. Schwarznegger has said no clemency to "Tookie" Williams. Tookie now has approximately 10 hours and 45 minutes to live. :elephant

[JoeChalupa]

Put a fork in him....he's done.

[Murphy]

one word.........Justice

[xrayzebra]

Bout time. Pay back is hell.

[Mr. Peabody]

Tookie now has approximately 10 hours and 45 minutes to live. :elephant

The fact that you would be happy about this is troubling. :wtf

[Mr. Peabody]

Although I am anti-capital punishment, I agree with Schwarzenegger, it's not his place to overturn the jury's decision unless there was fault with the trial itself.

December 12, 2005
Gov. Schwarzenegger Denies Clemency for Crips Co-Founder
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday refused to spare the life of Stanley Tookie Williams, the founder of the murderous Crips gang who awaited execution after midnight in a case that stirred debate over capital punishment and the possibility of redemption on death row.


Schwarzenegger was unswayed by pleas from Hollywood stars and petitions from more than 50,000 people who said that Williams had made amends during more than two decades in prison by writing a memoir and children's books about the dangers of gangs.


"After studying the evidence, searching the history, listening to the arguments and wrestling with the profound consequences, I could find no justification for granting clemency," Schwarzenegger said, less than 12 hours before the execution. "The facts do not justify overturning the jury's verdict or the decisions of the courts in this case."


Schwarzenegger could have commuted the death sentence to life in prison without parole.


With a reprieve from the federal courts considered unlikely, Williams, 51, was set to die by injection at San Quentin State Prison early Tuesday for murdering four people in two 1979 holdups.


Williams' fate became one of the nation's biggest death-row cause celebres in decades.


Prosecutors and victims' advocates contended Williams was undeserving of clemency from the governor because he did not own up to his crimes and refused to inform on fellow gang members. They also argued that the Crips gang that Williams co-founded in Los Angeles in 1971 is responsible for hundreds of deaths, many of them in battles with the rival Bloods for turf and control of the drug trade.


Williams stood to become the 12th California condemned inmate executed since lawmakers reinstated the death penalty in 1977 after a brief hiatus.


Williams was condemned in 1981 for gunning down a clerk in a convenience store holdup and a mother, father and daughter in a motel robbery weeks later. Williams claimed he was innocent.


The last time a California governor granted clemency was in 1967, when Ronald Reagan spared a mentally infirm killer. Schwarzenegger -- a Republican who has come under fire from members of his own party as too accommodating to liberals -- rejected clemency twice before during his two years in office.


Just before the governor announced his decision on clemency, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied Williams' request for a reprieve, saying among other things that there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence."


In his last-ditch appeal, Williams claimed that he should have been allowed to argue at his trial that someone else killed one of the four victims, and that shoddy forensics connected him to the other killings.


Williams was convicted of killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at a Los Angeles motel the family owned, and Albert Owens, 26, a 7-Eleven clerk gunned down in Whittier.


Among the celebrities who took up Williams' cause were Jamie Foxx, who played the gang leader in a cable movie about Williams; rapper Snoop Dogg, himself a former Crip; Sister Helen Prejean, the nun depicted in "Dead Man Walking"; Bianca Jagger; and former "M..A..S..H" star Mike Farrell. During Williams' 24 years on death row, a Swiss legislator, college professors and others nominated him for the Nobel Prizes in peace and literature.


"If Stanley Williams does not merit clemency," defense attorney Peter Fleming Jr. asked, "what meaning does clemency retain in this state?"


The impending execution resulted in feverish preparations over the weekend by those on both sides of the debate, with the California Highway Patrol planning to tighten security outside the prison, where hundreds of protesters were expected.


A group of about three dozen death penalty protesters were joined by the Rev. Jesse Jackson as they marched across the Golden Gate Bridge after dawn Monday en route to the gates of San Quentin, where they were expected to rally with hundreds of people.


At least publicly, the person apparently least occupied with his fate seemed to be Williams himself.


"Me fearing what I'm facing, what possible good is it going to do for me? How is that going to benefit me?" Williams said in a recent interview. "If it's my time to be executed, what's all the ranting and raving going to do?"

[ElMuerto]

See you later Tookie.


Sooner rather than later. :smokin

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Something is seriously wrong with all of you

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I think the worst part in all this is the guy who once played a pregnant man is deciding whether you live or die.

[xrayzebra]

Something is seriously wrong with all of you

Why is that? You on both sides of the question? Some have posted in
favor of sparing him.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Why is that? You on both sides of the question? Some have posted in
favor of sparing him.
ok then, let me clarify, something is seriously wrong with being happy about another human being's death, especially one who has done nothing to you.

[Taco]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051212/051212_tookie_owens.standard.jpg
Feb. 28, 1979
Albert Owens, 26, is slain during a robbery at a 7-Eleven store in Pico Rivera, a town east of Los Angeles. Owens is found dead in a store room, shot twice in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun. The robbery nets $120.

***

March 11, 1979
Motel owners Tsai-Shai Yang, 63, her husband Yen-I Yang, 63, and their daughter Ye-Chen Li, 43, are killed during a robbery of the Brookhaven Motel on South Vermont Street in Los Angeles. The victims are shot at close-range with a 12-gauge shotgun. The robbery nets around $100.

***

March 13, 1981
Williams is found guilty for the first-degree murder and robbery of Albert Owens, the first-degree murders of Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Ye-Chen Li, and the robbery of Tsai-Shai Yang. The jury also finds true the allegation that Williams personally used the shotgun in each murder.

[xrayzebra]

ok then, let me clarify, something is seriously wrong with being happy about another human being's death, especially one who has done nothing to you.


I don't think anyone is happy with anyone's death. But punishment is
punishment. You do the crime you do the time. As far as him doing nothing
to me. That is a matter of opinion. I think he did a crime against society as
a whole, since, well some would argue otherwise, I am part of that society,
he has done something to me.

[Crookshanks]

I'm happy that justice is finally being served to Tookie. He's had 20 years of appeals - waay too long. He's lived 20 years longer than his 4 victims!

I'm sorry that Tookie decided to take this road - but it was HIS choice and now his choices have caught up to him.

[jcrod]

Well if he really did turn to God, then no it's not punishment, because he will suffer less by dying. I think leaving a man in prison is enitire life is worse than killing him. Its not like he suffers when he's dying.

[SA210]

The Drudge Report is reporting that Gov. Schwarznegger has said no clemency to "Tookie" Williams. Tookie now has approximately 10 hours and 45 minutes to live. :elephant
Wow, your THAT excited about someone's death?

[xrayzebra]

Wow, your THAT excited about someone's death?

Yeah, like blowing their brains out, while they lay on the floor. You excited
about their death. :depressed

[SA210]

Just like a Repuke to twist things around. Read what I said.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yeah, like blowing their brains out, while they lay on the floor. You excited
about their death. :depressed

Yes xray, because we don't support the death penalty, it means that we were all excited that those four people were murdered. :rolleyes

[boutons]

20 years x 12 x $2500/month minimum = $600,000 basic prison living costs, plus $1000s of legal $hours.

[SA210]

Xray, because I don't support the death penalty, am I against the troops? I just wanted to check in with you before I support the wrong thing here. Thanks in advance, I appreciate it.

[Mr. Peabody]

I thought I heard numorous reports of this man really making a difference behind bars.

If the man is doing something positive use him. Why not if there is something to be gained from him milk it. He might just give a loser or a murder hope that they too can turn their life around. I believe in using all resources for a betterment of earth and if that means using a killer so be it good might prevail from it.


Rehabilitation doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the death penalty. It's all about retribution.

[FromWayDowntown]

Rehabilitation doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the death penalty. It's all about retribution.

But I think that's part of the point. The death penalty is generally meted out to those who are deemed incapable of being rehabilitated -- in Texas law, the jury must answer 3 questions before deciding that a convict should be sentenced to death, and one of those questions concerns the likelihood of rehabilitation. Notwithstanding arguments against the death penalty in the first instance, if someone is deemed incapable of rehabilitation but then proves to be rehabilitated and motivated to make a positive use of his life, why not reconsider execution? The only reason for not doing so is a retributive bloodlust.

If a guy like this, who chooses to make something positive out of his bad circumstances, can't be spared upon proof of his rehabilitation, why would any other death row inmate ever be inclined to try to make himself a better person? Put another way, don't we want to encourage even the worst amongst us to become better, or are we so satisfied that these people are so bad that we have no societal interest in encouraging growth and rehabilitation in that group?

[desflood]

Tookie will die. Let the riots begin.

[JoeChalupa]

From what I know...even my liberal ass seeks justice.

[gtownspur]

But I think that's part of the point. The death penalty is generally meted out to those who are deemed incapable of being rehabilitated -- in Texas law, the jury must answer 3 questions before deciding that a convict should be sentenced to death, and one of those questions concerns the likelihood of rehabilitation. Notwithstanding arguments against the death penalty in the first instance, if someone is deemed incapable of rehabilitation but then proves to be rehabilitated and motivated to make a positive use of his life, why not reconsider execution? The only reason for not doing so is a retributive bloodlust.

If a guy like this, who chooses to make something positive out of his bad circumstances, can't be spared upon proof of his rehabilitation, why would any other death row inmate ever be inclined to try to make himself a better person? Put another way, don't we want to encourage even the worst amongst us to become better, or are we so satisfied that these people are so bad that we have no societal interest in encouraging growth and rehabilitation in that group?

Part of rehabilitaition is knowing oneself is gulity for that which he's being rehabed for.

NEXT!!!

what a waste of legal advice.

GO back to overturning the "At will clause" for the sake of all of us.

[FromWayDowntown]

Part of rehabilitaition is knowing oneself is gulity for that which he's being rehabed for.

NEXT!!!

Again, my point goes beyond Tookie, gtown. I think that if someone is sentenced to death (and, again, my bias is against the death penalty, because I don't think we should judge each other in those terms and because I don't think the penalty can be meted out fairly) but proves himself to be rehabilitated, that is something that should go into the calculus of deciding whether or not he should be granted clemency. That's all. If you think that's wrong, so be it.


what a waste of legal advice.

When I offer up legal advice, you'll know it. I didn't realize that every policy argument I make on this board qualifies as legal advice.


GO back to overturning the "At will clause" for the sake of all of us.

To what "at will clause" are you referring? I know of no "at will clause" in any legal context. There is an "at will" doctrine that applies to employment environments, but I figured that a hard-core conservative like you would prefer that employers be able to fire employees whenever they wish without legal consequences. That's why I must assume that you're referring to something else. Surely, you're smarter than that.

[gtownspur]

I disagree with the employee at will clause only because it doesn't establish an equal relationship.

[FromWayDowntown]

I disagree with the employee at will clause only because it doesn't establish an equal relationship.

Then you don't understand at will relationships. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Tookie, but you might want to read a bit about at will employment before you argue that it should be abolished. At will relationships are actually quite equal in that an employer can terminate an employee at any time and for almost any reason without legal consequence and an employee can resign his employment at any time and for any reason without legal consequence.

I can't imagine that there is a conservative anywhere in the United States (other than you, I guess) who believes that contractual employment relationships are preferable to at will relationships. If that's your belief, so be it, but I think you'd disagree with the consequences if every employee was under contract and could only be terminated for just cause.

[gtownspur]

^ IN a legal sense yes, it does establish a legal equality between the two. But it does'nt have to be a choice between at will and contractual employment.

You see, for at will, the employee is the least priveleged. In say for instance like retail and other manual services, if you leave the company at will, they can screw you when you apply for another job, but if they leave you with out notice, you have no recourse.

[gtownspur]

ANd since retail jobs are expendable, the employer has the upper hand at all time.

[FromWayDowntown]

^ IN a legal sense yes, it does establish a legal equality between the two. But it does'nt have to be a choice between at will and contractual employment.

You see, for at will, the employee is the least priveleged. In say for instance like retail and other manual services, if you leave the company at will, they can screw you when you apply for another job, but if they leave you with out notice, you have no recourse.

The employee is not "least privileged" as you imagine. If a company is telling prospective employers things about a person that aren't true, the employee has recourse in defamation -- it is a tort to defame a person's character by spreading false information that bears poorly upon that person.

That's not even really the problem. What do you propose as an alternative to at will employment? The only other option I see is contracts. Do you really want to make every employment relationship contractual?

And what does any of that have to do with the virtues of rehabilitation vs. retribution?

[SA210]

I would say the employer has the upperhand. Even if you have a defamation case, the employer still did the damage.

WTH? I agree with Gtown? Gtown must be a woman. :rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

I would say the employer has the upperhand. Even if you have a defamation case, the employer still did the damage.

WTH? I agree with Gtown?

In reality, the employer has the upper-hand in every employment relationship, since the employer is the one who decides whether to hire a person in the first place.

Even if contracts provided for termination for cause and defined cause to be poor performance, employers would have the upper hand in deciding what qualified as poor performance. I don't think you'd see a positive change for employees unless you unionized every field and allowed the bargaining power of the union to take the place of the bargaining power of a single employee.

[SA210]

That's the law, but that just doesn't seem right. The employer could be racist, but can say he fired u for performance.

[gtownspur]

In reality, the employer has the upper-hand in every employment relationship, since the employer is the one who decides whether to hire a person in the first place.

Even if contracts provided for termination for cause and defined cause to be poor performance, employers would have the upper hand in deciding what qualified as poor performance. I don't think you'd see a positive change for employees unless you unionized every field and allowed the bargaining power of the union to take the place of the bargaining power of a single employee.

You saw what that did for GM. :lol

[Vashner]

"Governator"...

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Supreme Court just denied his appeal.

[Vashner]

This case hits home for me. My father was shot in a robbery here in the 70's at an ice house. He worked there and they got robbed for under 100 bucks. The thing is my dad was a dickhead like me.. :) Former marine he handed the guy the money and said "fuck you" and was shot in the stomach with .357. Spent a year in hospital, much of that in ICU. Shit in a bag etc... Died several years later. I got more instant justice. There was an off duty SAPD detective that was one of my dad's best friends there playing pool. He shot the bad guy in the back of the head.

Really to do Tookie justice would be at midnight drop him off at a random Qwicky Mart and put a mop in his hands and then let him get robbed to see how it feels.. gurrgle gurgle you fuxxor...

[Ms. Kaleidescope]

I thought I heard numorous reports of this man really making a difference behind bars.

If the man is doing something positive use him. Why not if there is something to be gained from him milk it. He might just give a loser or a murder hope that they too can turn their life around. I believe in using all resources for a betterment of earth and if that means using a killer so be it good might prevail from it.

If he just sitting there doing nothing fry him.

My thoughts exactly...

Also, although I'm anti-death penalty, I do understand Arnold's hesitation at overturning a jury's verdict.

[1369]

Rehabilitation doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the death penalty. It's all about retribution.

It's not retribution, it's punishment. The death penalty is not a "deterrent", it is a punishment for one's actions.

[Nbadan]

Interesting read...

A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE

Stanley Tookie Williams' best hope for clemency may depend more on raising doubt about his guilt than on his redemption


Williams has maintained his innocence since the 1981 trial that sent him to death row, but he has been unable to produce the type of evidence that has led to exonerations in other cases -- DNA, a rock-solid alibi, recanting witnesses or a third-party confession.

Prosecutors maintain that the evidence against him was overwhelming. But the two federal courts that reviewed Williams' case did not appear to be overwhelmed, even though they upheld his convictions and death sentence.

The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses "whose credibility was highly suspect,'' U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in 1998. He noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the shotgun murders of three people at a Los Angeles motel and that the only testifying eyewitness to the killing of a convenience store clerk was "an accomplice who had a strong motive to lie.''

Four years later, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voiced similar qualms, saying the prosecution had relied on witnesses with "less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie" to win lenient treatment for their own crimes.

...

The witnesses

The case against Williams depends, ultimately, on the credibility of prosecution witnesses whom the jury found believable in spite of their unsavory backgrounds.

With no evidence that demonstrates his innocence, Williams and his supporters are left to argue that he was framed by witnesses who lied in exchange for leniency and railroaded by a prosecutor who engaged in racist tactics.

Williams was convicted of murdering Albert Lee Owens, 26, a clerk at a 7-Eleven in Whittier (Los Angeles County), who was ordered to lie on the floor and then shot in the back during a $120 robbery on Feb. 27, 1979. He was also convicted of murdering Yen-I Yang, 76, and Tsai-Shai Yang, 63, owners of the Brookhaven Motel in Los Angeles, and their daughter, Yee-Chen Lin, 43, all shot to death during a $100 robbery on March 11, 1979.

No fingerprints, blood or clothing at either crime scene connected Williams to the shootings. The main physical evidence against him was a shell casing at the motel, matched to Williams' shotgun by a sheriff's expert whose testing methods have been derided as "junk science'' by an expert hired by Williams' current lawyers. Last week, the state Supreme Court rejected a defense request for new tests of the gun.

The chief eyewitness was Alfred Coward, who took part in the 7-Eleven robbery and was given immunity from prosecution. He testified that Williams had led a group of four men into the store, forced Owens into a storage room at gunpoint, shot the clerk and later laughed about it, imitating the sounds Owens made as he died.

Another of the robbers, Tony Sims, did not testify at Williams' trial but implicated him at Sims' own murder trial, which resulted in a life sentence.

Other prosecution witnesses said Williams had confessed to one or both sets of murders. Samuel Coleman, who was arrested along with Williams and was given immunity from prosecution, testified that Williams had admitted to the motel killings. Williams' lawyers said that Coleman was not alleged to have had any connection with the killings and that it was never clear why he needed immunity.

At a 1994 hearing, Coleman said police had beaten him and threatened to charge him with murder unless he testified against Williams. However, federal courts found that his testimony had been voluntary and noted that he had a lawyer at the time of the trial.

James and Ester Garrett, in whose home Williams regularly stayed, both quoted Williams as telling them, separately, that he had committed both sets of murders and had referred to the motel victims as "Buddhaheads.'' Another witness, jailhouse informant George Oglesby, also testified that Williams had admitted to the killings and said Williams had plotted a pretrial jailbreak in which Coward, the prospective prosecution witness, would be killed.

Williams, who had no serious criminal record despite eight years as a leader of the Crips, did not testify and told his lawyer not to present any witnesses at the penalty phase. At one point, the jury foreman told the judge that Williams was seen mouthing a threat to "get each and every one'' of the jurors who had convicted him.

The defense

Defense witnesses included three who said Williams was elsewhere at the time of the murders and one who said Oglesby was known for spreading false information in jail. Williams' claim of innocence, during and since the trial, has focused on discrediting the prosecution witnesses.

In a recent filing with the state Supreme Court that sought unsuccessfully to reopen the case, Williams' lawyers said the Garretts both had criminal records, faced felony charges at the time of the trial and had been given money and leniency by prosecutors for their testimony.

The lawyers described James Garrett as a "career criminal and police informant'' and accused prosecutors of concealing evidence that might have implicated him in the killing of a former crime partner and might have made him a logical suspect in the motel murders. Garrett, who died in 1996, was given probation or light sentences for a series of post-1981 crimes, including two shootings, and "knew that he could continue to call in favors for the rest of his criminal career,'' Williams' lawyers said.

Coward, who was not prosecuted for his role in the 7-Eleven murder, continued his life of crime and is now in a Canadian prison on a manslaughter conviction for beating a man to death during a 1999 robbery, Williams' lawyers said.

They also said Los Angeles prosecutors had arranged for the appointment of a lawyer for Coleman who would assure his testimony against Williams -- a claim disputed by prosecutors, who said the lawyer was independent and well respected.

Williams and his backers also say the trial was infused with racism. Deputy District Attorney Robert Martin removed three African Americans from the jury, but the racial composition of the jury remains in dispute -- in particular, the race of an apparently dark-skinned juror of Filipino descent who also might have been black.

Nine judges on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- four short of the necessary majority -- said in February that Williams should get a new hearing on the juror removals.

Williams' lawyers also accused Martin of racism for telling jurors, in his closing argument, that seeing Williams in the courtroom was like seeing a "Bengal tiger in captivity in the zoo.'' Defense lawyers noted that the state Supreme Court had overturned two later death sentences in cases prosecuted by Martin because of questions about whether race had motivated his juror selections.

San Francisco Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/MNG60G468I1.DTL&hw=williams+evidence+death&sn=021&sc=150)

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I'm surprised nobody has posted this, and if they have, my apologies.

http://www.michaelsavage.com

Pictures of Tookie's victims.

[Nbadan]

For those of you interested in following live coverage...

http://kpfa.org /

is running coverage of the state murder of Stanley Tookie Williams until 1 am.

http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=157....

Running interesting interviews now with live coverage beginning later from the gate of the death house.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I've been wanting SOME coverage, so thanks.

I mean, for everybody saying that LA's going to go up in flames, nobody sure seems to be covering it.

[Nbadan]

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/terminator_3__rise_of_the_machines/arnold_schwarzenegger/terminator11.jpg

Hasta la vista Tookie!

[jochhejaam]

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/terminator_3__rise_of_the_machines/arnold_schwarzenegger/terminator11.jpg

Hasta la vista Tookie!
Do you have one of the coffins of Tookie's victims?

[Phil E.Buster]

I'm glad this is finally over.

[Taco]

I'm surprised nobody has posted this, and if they have, my apologies.

http://www.michaelsavage.com

Pictures of Tookie's victims.

Damn :depressed

[MannyIsGod]

It's not retribution, it's punishment. The death penalty is not a "deterrent", it is a punishment for one's actions.
You sure thats what the official stance is? Becaue I'm pretty sure its not.

[1369]

Official stance? You mean as what the letter of the law says the death penalty is?

[MannyIsGod]

Official stance? You mean as what the letter of the law says the death penalty is?
I guess it isn't an "official" stance persay, but when I hear/read our leaders justification for the practice the top reason is deterence.

[gtownspur]

The only deterrence the death penalty would offer would be for the already charged.
No one has been arguing for deterence. Manny you know better, people usually use the eye for an eye, or the "justice must be served" moniker.

[Yonivore]

I believe that if the death penalty were carried out swiftly, within a year of conviction, it would be a deterrent.

[smeagol]

I believe that if the death penalty were carried out swiftly, within a year of conviction, it would be a deterrent.
That's unrealistic. One year is too short of a a period of time. In concept, you might me right, though.

[Extra Stout]

I believe that if the death penalty were carried out swiftly, within a year of conviction, it would be a deterrent.
You are probably correct.

In order to accomplish that, either the appeals process must be accelerated exponentially, or we would have to accept a greater number of innocents mistakenly being executed.

[Useruser666]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178536,00.html

A reporter's story from witnessing the execution.

[FromWayDowntown]

I believe that if the death penalty were carried out swiftly, within a year of conviction, it would be a deterrent.

Sure. And we should limit the appellate process because juries are infalliable and appellate courts shouldn't need more than a couple of weeks to see that for themselves. Getting all of the formalities of the process out of the way will expedite the satisfaction of that Old Testament bloodlust.

We've been imposing death sentences for decades. The commission rate for capital crimes has shown no signs of reversing its upward trend. I don't see how expediting the process will manifest some societal change that the imposition of death in the first instance hasn't.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't see how expediting the process will manifest some societal change that the imposition of death in the first instance hasn't.

because, prisons are country clubs. didn't you know that? people are lining up to spend 20 years on death row rent-free. we should all be so lucky.

[boutons]

"employers would have the upper hand in deciding what qualified as poor performance. "

in other countries, industrial courts handle conflicts between employers and employees, such as justification for termination. US is fairly primitive in employee rights. Employers can you treat you like shit, and you have little or no recourse.

why does getting a job mean giving up your rights to justice?

Those of you who defend employers as infinitely powerful without retribution have just been brainwashed by "employer think" which is exactly what the corps want, docile drones who shut the fuck up when they get screwed.

[baseline bum]

Fuck Tookie. When I think of all the people that have died (some I knew personally) due to his bullshit Crips gang I can't feel an ounce of compassion for that piece of shit.