I will agree mob mentality when asking for a pound of flesh often results in more pounds asked for then available.
I will admit I'm lazy and don’t go actively seeking people doing wrong as I said I'm lazy but also because I aint perfect and glass houses and all.
I sit on both sides of the fence on this issue so please don’t feel as if I'm attacking you. Simply would like to hear your reasoning and points of view.
Serious questions for you and
@wind gypsy though. You say employer is too much. What about sponsors? social groups like this one? mutual friends? Would you feel different if a game warden from another area or state had done this. What if it was your kid’s teacher? Sheriff of your county? Where do you draw the line.
My point is if you are willing to roast him at all then it seems a little silly to set a moral boundary at employer. I don’t remember anyone pulling up on the Cecil the lion dude. And he did it all legally. They roasted that dude for months and hounded him so much he had to close his business. This guy actually did wrong. And I don’t see how he could explain away wanton waste. And this isn’t the first time he did wrong either. Seems making bad decisions is in this guy’s DNA.
I see sponsors as fair, if the sponsorship is related to the crime.
I see something local as fair. If you live in the community, even if you do not have kids in school, I say feel free to contact the school board.
The nature of a crime also plays into it. If someone used their position of trust (teacher, police officer, nurse) to aid wrong doing, I see driving them out of that position as good, especially if there is an established pattern. So, I would set a lower bar for going beyond the local. Though, in nursing at least, the state board would be the proper way to file a complaint and get an investigation, so I would faver contacting the board over an employer.
The Cecil the lion case is actually an example that made me wary of situations like this. He caught far more flack than he deserved, and I'm willing to bet few people local to him had that much of a problem with it (say 1%), but you expand that 1% to the global scale and allow easy access with the internet and the blowback gets magnified out of proportion.
I see discussing remote wrong doing as a valuable way to identify the norms of a group. But, the action those discussions spur us to should generally be closer to home.
As for bad decisions being in this guys character, that may be, but we have constructed a justice system in our society and I see wrestling with how to improve that as more valuable than trying to taking things into our own hands because we don't like how that system handled a case.
In the end, we are all crooked timber, it takes time and effort to straighten and build with crooked timber, press to fast and it breaks, don't try at all and the structure fails. Recognizing that I too am crooked timber, my arguments are not dictates, though I hope they are persuasive.
Sorry for the verbose reply, though it still feels too abbreviated to me. Yes, I have a problem.
Edited to correct spelling.