6 ms·

You're not missing anything. The local county has already said they won't prosecute the workers for violating the health order since Elon Musk is making them ch

You're not missing anything. The local county has already said they won't prosecute the workers for violating the health order since Elon Musk is making them choose between their health or their livelihoods. It's also unlikely the local county or state will prosecute Elon Musk since it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. However, it's very likely that Musk will be sued in civil court by one or more of his (ex) employees. There are a variety of different legal claims they could make, so it's hard to say what the outcome would be.

clouddrover 7y ago
> it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. Doesn't seem to be. These businesses in LA county have been charged: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi... https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-businesses-cited-for-remaining-open-during-coronavirus-shutdown/ https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-bus... Alameda county could do the same.
- masonic 7y ago
  The articles and their references don't quote any statute (the LADN has a list of defendants but no reference to criminal charges; the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties).
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    > the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers: https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-allegedly-non-essential-businesses-operating-in-violation-of-emergency-order https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-al... Look up the criminal case summary using the case number: http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx
    - masonic 7y ago
      No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers: You say "No", as if the article says otherwise, then quote a different source altogether. I was addressing specifically what the article did and didn't reference. Anyway, this confirms my earlier point about these articles not identifying a related state criminal statute. These charges are from the L.A. Administrative Code, and there is a statute specific to Los Angeles: "Sec. 8.77. Punishment of Violations. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both, for any person, during a local emergency declared pursuant to this chapter, to: ... 8.77(b). Do any act forbidden by any lawful rule, regulation, order or directive issued pursuant to this chapter, if such act is of a nature as to give, or be likely to give, assistance to any national enemy, or imperil the lives or property of other inhabitants of this City, or to prevent, hinder or delay the defense or protection thereof."
      - clouddrover 7y ago
        > You say "No", as if the article says otherwise Yes, because the article says otherwise. > then quote a different source altogether Yes, it's additional information because you're still not getting it.
m463 7y ago
I wonder what kind of lawsuit payoff employees would get if they went to work and caught coronavirus?
- natch 7y ago
  They can catch it at home just as easily, so it would be difficult to prove their claim. So I would think it would be a non-starter.
  - jpmoral 7y ago
    I agree it would be difficult to prove that they caught it at work, but saying they can catch it as easily at home just sounds like 'reopen' rhetoric to me.
    - natch 7y ago
      I think it's best to look at individual facts and claims as they are, without reference to their attachment to some political side or movement. It frees your mind so you can more easily think for yourself.
      - jpmoral 7y ago
        Alright, without any evidence to back it up there is no reason to believe that you are likely to catch covid at home as anywhere else. Edit: I don't even understand why there are 'political sides or movements' to this in the US. I am in Australia where there has been broad cooperation between politicians and people of different political beliefs. It hasn't been perfect of course but for the most part we have been listening to the medical and scientific experts.
        natch 7y ago
        The evidence to back it up is there though. The majority (in fact 66%) of new COVID-19 hospitalizations in New York state recently have been people who have been staying inside their home. Based on data from a sample of 1,000 patients at 100 hospitals. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocki...

clouddrover 7y ago

> it's difficult to pinpoint the actual criminal violation he could be charged with. Doesn't seem to be. These businesses in LA county have been charged: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi... https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-businesses-cited-for-remaining-open-during-coronavirus-shutdown/ https://www.dailynews.com/2020/05/12/60-nonessential-l-a-bus... Alameda county could do the same.

masonic 7y ago
The articles and their references don't quote any statute (the LADN has a list of defendants but no reference to criminal charges; the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties).
- clouddrover 7y ago
  > the article specifies only that they are pursuing cutoff of utilities to those properties No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers: https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-allegedly-non-essential-businesses-operating-in-violation-of-emergency-order https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-charges-10-more-al... Look up the criminal case summary using the case number: http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/index.aspx
  - masonic 7y ago
    No, it doesn't. Here are some case numbers: You say "No", as if the article says otherwise, then quote a different source altogether. I was addressing specifically what the article did and didn't reference. Anyway, this confirms my earlier point about these articles not identifying a related state criminal statute. These charges are from the L.A. Administrative Code, and there is a statute specific to Los Angeles: "Sec. 8.77. Punishment of Violations. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both, for any person, during a local emergency declared pursuant to this chapter, to: ... 8.77(b). Do any act forbidden by any lawful rule, regulation, order or directive issued pursuant to this chapter, if such act is of a nature as to give, or be likely to give, assistance to any national enemy, or imperil the lives or property of other inhabitants of this City, or to prevent, hinder or delay the defense or protection thereof."
    - clouddrover 7y ago
      > You say "No", as if the article says otherwise Yes, because the article says otherwise. > then quote a different source altogether Yes, it's additional information because you're still not getting it.

m463 7y ago

I wonder what kind of lawsuit payoff employees would get if they went to work and caught coronavirus?

natch 7y ago
They can catch it at home just as easily, so it would be difficult to prove their claim. So I would think it would be a non-starter.
- jpmoral 7y ago
  I agree it would be difficult to prove that they caught it at work, but saying they can catch it as easily at home just sounds like 'reopen' rhetoric to me.
  - natch 7y ago
    I think it's best to look at individual facts and claims as they are, without reference to their attachment to some political side or movement. It frees your mind so you can more easily think for yourself.
    - jpmoral 7y ago
      Alright, without any evidence to back it up there is no reason to believe that you are likely to catch covid at home as anywhere else. Edit: I don't even understand why there are 'political sides or movements' to this in the US. I am in Australia where there has been broad cooperation between politicians and people of different political beliefs. It hasn't been perfect of course but for the most part we have been listening to the medical and scientific experts.
      - natch 7y ago
        The evidence to back it up is there though. The majority (in fact 66%) of new COVID-19 hospitalizations in New York state recently have been people who have been staying inside their home. Based on data from a sample of 1,000 patients at 100 hospitals. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocki...