Man was tasered more than 20 times by co-workers while boss filmed the attacks

bradely jones

In this economy, some people will do anything to keep their job, but would you tolerate getting tasered more than 20 times for a 9 months period? Well, this guy did (presumably in fear of losing his job.

Bradley Jones is his name, he’s 45 and seems like a nice guy. If you should ever see him on the job, he’d probably smile at you with that face that says “good morning sir, I love my job.” However, in reality, deep down Mr. Jones wished he didn’t have to work for his employer anymore with all the abuse, but he can’t leave because he wants to buy a house and jobs are not easy to come by anymore.

Right here we have the basic gist to this story, the whole reason why he took the abuse. He wanted to buy a house, and at 45, that’s not going to be an easy task, so he played the humble fellow and took crap from his co-workers and boss.

The co-workers made videos of Mr. Jones being repeatedly shocked with a stun gun, and then have the crazy mind to post them on YouTube. Furthermore, his boss was the man behind the camera, and to make matters worse, his boss provided co-workers with the stun gun.

In the video below, you’ll see Mr. Jones laughing a little bit while being stun gunned by surprise, but don’t be fooled. As a man who wants to keep his job so badly, I’m guessing he would play it off as best as he could, especially since his boss is also in on the action. He would want to come off as a cool headed fellow who might later get to keep his job.

In the end though, Mr. Jones didn’t get that luxury, he was let go and thus now have the power to sue. More power to you Mr. Jones we hope you get $10 million at the end of this case humble sir. With that, you could visit Jamaica, take a trip to the beach, and lay in the sand while sipping on Hennessey.

[via KHOU]

Share this post

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

8 comments

  1. Seamus McSeamus

    [@JMJ]
    This is why dotTech is so amazing. People with differing opinions can debate and gain some insight, and never once does it deteriorate into ad hominem attacks or feces throwing.

    Respect, my friend.

    And, Ashraf? Whatever you’re doing to keep the trolls away, keep it up.

  2. JMJ

    I’m going to abandon my position and come over to your side of this debate. You see an victimization that I just don’t see. However, just in case I am wrong and because this is a zero-sum situation, for now, I defer to your opinion. In other words, pretending that I am on the bench, I will allow the case to proceed and not dismiss it out of hand.

    I admire your values. Remember the ending courtroom scene in ‘A Few Good Men”, where the Marine Corporal explained to the Private that, they indeed were guilty of negligence and conduct unbecoming because it was their duty, despite orders to contrary, to protect a fellow Marine? You, Sir, are my corporal.

    Almost-Aussie Brothers, always.

  3. Seamus McSeamus

    [@JMJ] I see your points and completely agree with your highway scenario. Anytime you get into an automobile there is a possibility you won’t get back out alive. It’s a risk we all knowingly take every day.

    In the workplace, though, there is the expectation of professional treatment. Your co-workers and especially your boss bear the burden of not using a taser on you. From the moment harassment begins, they are at fault. As I said, the guy’s inaction should be considered, but his harassers still must be held accountable. In the end, I suppose it’s the boss being a participant that dictates my position. Co-workers hazing one of their own is one thing, but when the boss joins in I think another level has been reached. The boss is supposed to be the arbiter of common sense, not captain of the company taser tag team.

    We could have that dinner together, but for every prawn you nicked from me, I would nick one from you. Then we’d have some beer, and discover that we agree about a great deal more than we disagree about. I truly don’t suffer fools easily, but this particular case just rubs me the wrong way.

    Still almost-Aussie brothers?

  4. JMJ

    I despise bullies and those who abuse power —physical, emotional, financial, political, etc., and whenever I see an instance of it, always prudently actively intervene to protect the vulnerable.
    However:
    @Raeldin – No, you’re right, there is no difference; both MAY be assaults. If he had filed a complaint or legal action after the first occurrence, then I would be inclined to hear his complaint and determine the degree of the “assault”, the damage caused, if any; and what relief(s) he deserved. Apparently, he did not consider these stupid, locker room acts to be “assaults” until after the money stopped. Before then, he was a willing participant in the dangerous, idiotic behavior, albeit, the short-end-of-the-stick participant. His choice.

    @Seamus McSeamus – I truly admire and share your unmitigated respect for Law. However, in general, the Law applies the test, “What would a prudent man do?” For example: If I am driving within the law and notice a speeding car coming toward me IN MY LANE but do nothing to avoid the predictable, imminent collision, then I am NOT acting as a prudent man and am partially LEGALLY culpable for the predictable outcome. These co-workers were NOT “speeding”, in that, their actions were not of themselves illegal, malicious or —more importantly– unwanted: The schmuck participated and encouraged them.

    You and I meet for dinner and, in your presence, I nick prawns from your plate, to the extent that you have to order another serving. I keep nicking those, too. The meal ends, we amicably go our separate ways and, a week later, I am sued for the value of the prawns and a criminal complaint is lodged against me for theft???

  5. Seamus McSeamus

    [@JMJ] This guy is certainly a sniveling, cowardly, spineless sack of meat – no disagreement there; but laws regarding workplace treatment weren’t written only to protect those of us who have a pair. However contemptible I might find him for his inability to stand up for himself, he is still protected by the same laws that anyone else would be protected by.

    An argument could be made that his failure to stand up for himself at least once makes him complicit, and I wouldn’t call that argument wrong. This would be a mitigating circumstance, but still would not nullify protection under the law.

  6. Raeldin

    [@JMJ] Any difference between this and being hit with a bat? I agree that he shouldn’t have let it happen more than once. His co-workers were just being stupid, and his boss goes way beyond stupid.

  7. JMJ

    [@Seamus McSeamus] On this one, we don’t see eye-to-eye. In any group of primates (and many other genera), there is a hierarchy, a pecking order. This guy chose to be the butt of jokes, the low boy in the pecking order for his own reasons. We all know people who, in order to belong –in order to be accepted, to be liked, let the other guy/gal go first, be captain of the team, be the prima donna; people who are the first to pick up the check for dinner, let their “friends” borrow and never return that album or rake or dress or money.

    This guy is not a teenager trying to find his way or an abused spouse who learned too late the monster she (much less often, he) married. This guy laughed along with his “tormenters”. Did he tell them to stop? Did he complain to human resources or its equivalent at his job? Did he consult with mental-health professionals during the period of “torment” ? I’ll bet not.

    Legal action is not the solution to being a wimp. Growing a pair is.

    He wanted a house? Gimme a break! He sounds like a prostitute who is willing to do things in order to buy a car, jewelry, etc., that, after the cash stops, are retroactively called degrading and for which compensation is deserved. I’ve listened to drug dealers rationalize their destructive behavior as pardonable because they “had to feed their families”. This guy is no different from either.

    IMO, the real pity is, that in our overly-litigious USA, he’ll probably get paid for being a pus… illanimous patsy.