Assaulted by Amtrak Conductor

[TVRM610]

Is there a difference between posting this conductor's name and Joseph H. Boardman's?

What is the official policy regarding naming names of Amtrak employees here?

In the past, members have been able to name, describe, and post pictures of employees when describing both positive and negative experiences. If the Moderators want to change the rules, that's fine, but it's never been a problem before.

 

[Guest]

Is there a difference between posting this conductor's name and Joseph H. Boardman's?

What is the official policy regarding naming names of Amtrak employees here?

In the past, members have been able to name, describe, and post pictures of employees when describing both positive and negative experiences. If the Moderators want to change the rules, that's fine, but it's never been a problem before.

There is a BIG difference between calling out an employee for poor performance versus accusing someone in a public forum of breaking the law. Let’s have some sense, here.

 

[leemell]

Is there a difference between posting this conductor's name and Joseph H. Boardman's?

What is the official policy regarding naming names of Amtrak employees here?

The key to this problem is that there is an accusation to a criminal act, that is quite beyond just bad service or rude behavior.

 

[AlanB]

Is there a difference between posting this conductor's name and Joseph H. Boardman's?

What is the official policy regarding naming names of Amtrak employees here?

In the past, members have been able to name, describe, and post pictures of employees when describing both positive and negative experiences. If the Moderators want to change the rules, that's fine, but it's never been a problem before.

Actually we've always frowned on posting the last names of employees, especially bad ones. We've been a bit more lax with the names of the good ones.

Not saying that one hasn't slipped past us, but in general that's been the rule.

 

[George B]

Is there a difference between posting this conductor's name and Joseph H. Boardman's?

What is the official policy regarding naming names of Amtrak employees here?

In the past, members have been able to name, describe, and post pictures of employees when describing both positive and negative experiences. If the Moderators want to change the rules, that's fine, but it's never been a problem before.

Had he just come on here and complained about the conductor pushing him, then there might not be any heartburn about posting a name. But since he keeps talking about legal action and using words like “assault” and “battery”, then you are directly accusing someone of breaking the law, and the circumstances change. This is the reason why the topic should be abandoned or closed until there is legal closure to the matter.

Talk all you want about poor performance on the job. You start discussing legal matters in a public forum when you are an involved party, and you could be asking for trouble you or the site owners don’t want. Libel, defamation, and slander laws (like them or not) are there to protect people from unfair and unfounded accusation unless proven by fact, admittance, or in a court. If this conductor did in fact break the law and were to face legal charges at some point, public defamation in a forum like this just creates loopholes that lawyers can use to have cases thrown out, and you have now deprived a victim from seeking justice. The site owner has the ultimate say, but I strongly suggest this topic be put aside for now.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Plus any amtrak lawyers visiting this forum could go after us.

 

[Guest]

Plus any amtrak lawyers visiting this forum could go after us.

Just wait until the OP goes to court over this and has what he posted here thrown back in his face under cross-examination. The OP may stand behind his words here, but things change when it is a lawyer twisting your words around and using them against you.

 

[TVRM610]

Is there a difference between posting this conductor's name and Joseph H. Boardman's?

What is the official policy regarding naming names of Amtrak employees here?

In the past, members have been able to name, describe, and post pictures of employees when describing both positive and negative experiences. If the Moderators want to change the rules, that's fine, but it's never been a problem before.

Actually we've always frowned on posting the last names of employees, especially bad ones. We've been a bit more lax with the names of the good ones.

Not saying that one hasn't slipped past us, but in general that's been the rule.

That's true... I don't recall seeing many (if any) full names. Mostly just first names. Well except for J. Boardman and David Gunn. ha.

After reading George B's post I understand how this is a different situation..

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Libel, defamation, and slander laws (like them or not) are there to protect people from unfair and unfounded accusation unless proven by fact, admittance, or in a court.

Yet another silly myth that our good friends Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe have proven completely inaccurate.

 

[Ryan]

Well they're there to protect some people - just not all of them, it seems.

 

[jis]

Notwithstanding all that, the forum owners still need to protect themselves from getting involved in defamation and libel suits inadvertently. They tend to be expensive and could effectively lead to the discontinuance of the forum, which would overall be a bad thing. My advice would be to do everything necessary to avoid that eventuality.

 

[oldtimer]

Notwithstanding all that, the forum owners still need to protect themselves from getting involved in defamation and libel suits inadvertently. They tend to be expensive and could effectively lead to the discontinuance of the forum, which would overall be a bad thing. My advice would be to do everything necessary to avoid that eventuality.

I agree totally with this post.

I had served in my railroad career as a union representative for 25+ years and held several offices in that time too many to list. If the incident occurred as alleged by the OP and it was reported I am positive that Amtrak would start the process of a formal investigation into the incident

at the least. They may also have the Amtrak PD investigate and if it were found to be a valid complaint they would proceed with criminal charges against the conductor involved. If action is taken by the Amt. PD I strongly believe from past experience that the complainant would be afforded transportation, food and lodging for the complainant to testify. If the Amtrak PD does proceed with criminal charges and the court system does not find the person guilty Amtrak will still proceed with a formal investigation. ( I have had this happen and Amtrak does not believe in double jeopardy.) Most Amtrak formal investigations are basically "kangaroo courts", The prosecutor, judge, and the person that assesses the discipline are all Amtrak management employees. The complainant may be called upon to testify over the telephone. (What happened to the right to face your accuser?) I speak from experience of handling approximately 1,000 cases. The vast majority of these have been attendance cases which are basically indefensible. I can only remember approximately 10 of these cases where charges were not sustained, or dismissed by the hearing officer. There are 2 levels of appeal in the company after the trial before the case goes to any impartial review. I can tell you that with the exception of attendance and Rule G (drug and alcohol) cases most cases that I have personally handled have had the discipline mitigated at some level. I have had to represent all employees at the best of my ability as unions have a duty of representation that they can be held accountable for.

I can assure the OP if his claim was justifiable that it will be investigated and the individual will be held accountable.

PS I also know that the union rep. for the conductors union (UTU) in Chicago is a frequent reader and a guest poster here

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In the US libel is not limited to truth or fiction. Rather, to be found guilty of libel an author or publicist would have to make intentionally misleading claims they themselves believed to be baseless. But how exactly do you prove what a defendant believed when they made a given claim? It's rather difficult to know what someone truly believed at any given point in time unless they alone volunteer that information. You cannot force anyone to self-incriminate so you're essentially at the mercy of the defendant's willingness to contradict themselves. And that, my friends, in the primary reason so many people get away with even the most blatant of lies.

 

[jis]

But either way one can go bankrupt keeping the lawyers engaged to make all this happen or not. So best is to stay away from situations where such might become necessary if at all possible.