3 ms·

i think back to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon-musk-tried-to-destroy-tesla-whistleblower-martin-tripp https://www.bloomberg.com/ne

by shoo 8y ago

i think back to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon-musk-tried-to-destroy-tesla-whistleblower-martin-tripp https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon... (previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19378658 ) > Later that day, Tripp heard from the sheriff’s department in Storey County, Nev. Tesla’s security department had passed a tip to police. An anonymous caller had contacted the company to say Tripp was planning a mass shooting at the Gigafactory. it sounds like there's a reasonably high probability that some one high up at Telsa arranged for some bullshit report to be made to police claiming an ex-employee whistleblower was going to go on a shooting spree at the factory. I'd like to see this bullshit report investigated and prosecuted as attempted-murder-(by-cop), this behaviour by any employer to any former employee, let alone a whistleblower, is completely unacceptable. It makes it a bit hard to take other claims made by the same company about other former employees seriously given that in some cases the company is observably acting in a very toxic and fraudulent manner.

2cukng498 8y ago
> prosecuted as attempted-murder-(by-cop), this behaviour by any employer to any former employee, let alone a whistleblower, is completely unacceptable. So the only evidence that we have as to whether this anonymous call did or did not occur is the statements by Tesla alleging that it did, and you choose to believe that it didn't. Why? I can understand holding Telsa to a higher burden of proof, - concluding that we don't have enough evidence - but why jump to claiming it was all made up? Without some evidence indicating it was fabricated, that sounds like a rather slanderous accusation to make.
- shoo 8y ago
  > did, and you choose to believe that it didn't. Why? maybe the call was indeed real, but the call was from someone in management at Telsa, or someone at arms length that they got to do make the call. i agree this is speculation, if there is evidence that this is the case then whoever was involved stuffed up pretty badly. maybe i'm completely off the mark. as I said, i'd like to see it investigated. Regardless of whether there was actually a call, or who made it, it's difficult to understand what other motivation any party other than Telsa trying to suppress a whistleblower would have to chase after the former employee. again, this is speculation, but i'd bet on it.
BluSyn 8y ago
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

by shoo 8y ago

2cukng498 8y ago

> prosecuted as attempted-murder-(by-cop), this behaviour by any employer to any former employee, let alone a whistleblower, is completely unacceptable. So the only evidence that we have as to whether this anonymous call did or did not occur is the statements by Tesla alleging that it did, and you choose to believe that it didn't. Why? I can understand holding Telsa to a higher burden of proof, - concluding that we don't have enough evidence - but why jump to claiming it was all made up? Without some evidence indicating it was fabricated, that sounds like a rather slanderous accusation to make.

shoo 8y ago
> did, and you choose to believe that it didn't. Why? maybe the call was indeed real, but the call was from someone in management at Telsa, or someone at arms length that they got to do make the call. i agree this is speculation, if there is evidence that this is the case then whoever was involved stuffed up pretty badly. maybe i'm completely off the mark. as I said, i'd like to see it investigated. Regardless of whether there was actually a call, or who made it, it's difficult to understand what other motivation any party other than Telsa trying to suppress a whistleblower would have to chase after the former employee. again, this is speculation, but i'd bet on it.

BluSyn 8y ago

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.