Practically no one. So why the argument?
Link to where you mentioned OSHA before I brought it up?
Practically no one. So why the argument?
Wouldn't you be when you've been proven wrong again and again?![]()
He's dedicated, I'll give him that.
Oh, a goalpost move.
I don't understand your meaning here. Do you think the County Inland Regional Center is going to be sued for violating OSHA standards for a safe workplace?
I guess anything is possible, but that has nothing to do with the criminal investigation.
Practically?
So who said this wasn't an act of terrorism?
I have seen no one here say it wasn't.
And yet here you are acting as if someone did.
I think its hilarius that you put me on ignore when I pointed out that the similarities between what you do here and how the lawyer for the two terrorists argues. You couldn't have made it any more clearer that I finally got through to you what I've been trying to tell you. That is good enough for me.
Where was I proved wrong?
No goal post move. You keep arguing about this meeting the "definition" of workplace violence.
OSHA says there is no definition of workplace violence.
I never said anything about liability.
There is no codified definition of workplace violence. What you linked isn't an official definition, just what some scholars came up with.
The FBI has a working definition. You and OSHA can take it up with them.
Since the FBI is involved in the criminal investigation, I'm going to go with them.
So now it need to be codified?I never said anything about liability.
There is no codified definition of workplace violence. What you linked isn't an official definition, just what some scholars came up with.
Goalpost move.
He already linked something from the FBI. If he wants to use the FBI standard and they are leading the investigation then it is what it is. Then of course I went to look up counselor crayolas veracity.
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/What is workplace violence?
Workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors. Homicide is currently the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational injuries in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), of the 4,679 fatal workplace injuries that occurred in the United States in 2014, 403 were workplace homicides. [More...] However it manifests itself, workplace violence is a major concern for employers and employees nationwide.
No, the FBI has an article that mentions what some scholars think workplace violence is. Is that your definition of "working definition?"
Do you have any legal authority that the FBI's "working definition" is the applicable standard?
Do you have any authority that what you claim is the FBI's definition of WV is the one they actually use?
Sweet, what statute is that from?
I'm assuming you think OSHA's interpretation here takes priority?
OK, that's funny.
Priority over what?
nobody here said it wasn't terrorism, but it was pretty funny when chump started questioning everybody who suggested that it could be terrorism earlier in this thread (around pages 8-10)
I said I was open to anything. No one could expalin the specificity of the target; I was stuck on that.
Suddenly questioning is funny to you.
Over whatever the "working definition" you came up with is.
not sudden at all. your repe ive questioning has always been funny. almost to the same degree as boutons article spam, but not quite there
About as funny as a toros photographer being an expert in workplace violence
It would fit this situation also; so I don't see where you're going with this.
You're the one ranting about OSHA.
I am neither of those.
You're really getting upset here.
I just keep asking when people are obviously trying to duck the question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)