RadiumOne’s Board Is Now Deciding Whether to Dump the CEO | Hacker News Reader

RadiumOne’s Board Is Now Deciding Whether to Dump the CEO

recode.net

48 pointscoloneltcb31 comments

Am I in bizzaro world? Are we really trying to excuse this guy via the excuse of separating personal life and his responsibility as a CEO? This is a guy who has physically harmed someone else. And there are people who question whether or not the board should let him go?

This is not even a case of "allegedly". This is clear cut and the only reason he got away with it was because the judge threw out the tape. It seemed the cops were afraid he'd erase the tape so they seized it on that assumption.

Regardless he still plead guilty. As an employee would you really want to work for him? What about as a potential hire? This guy is toxic and should be thrown out

So is the consensus that this guy actually committed all counts of the allegations or is this article just really biased.

It's really hard to argue with a 30min video that supposedly showed the entire thing as it happened.

Disclaimer: I have not seen the video.

Good question. I haven't done any reading on this myself, I only know what my wife has been telling me, but my impression is that the video tape does exist and does show exactly what it's alleged to show, the only problem is it was thrown out (on a 4th amendment violation). Without the video tape, they couldn't get the felony convictions. But assuming the tape shows what is claimed, he seems pretty guilty.

He plead guilty to the charges.

He pled guilty to the two misdemeanor charges; the 43 felony charges he pled not guilty to. The document is embedded there in the link.

Wouldn't there be a case for some civil lawsuit?

People are guessing there was some payout to the girlfriend, because she's not pressing charges and not talking to the press.

Even without a payout this is very common in domestic abuse cases.

Considering he pleaded guilty to the charges?

He plead to a reduced set of charges, all misdemeanors.

There's no need for consensus about whether or not he committed the alleged assault; the security system in his apartment captured the entire thing, all 117 blows. That evidence was apparently improperly seized, however, and hence thrown out for procedural reasons.

"procedural reasons" actually means respecting human rights. He's pleaded guilty for misdemeanor. If you have some complaint about that, fix the police who shat on the procedure, denying a victim a probably well-deserved day in court.

I can't believe everybody is pounding on the company board, when the real scandal is that the police destroyed such an important procedure. With a felony he would have automatically been removed, and nobody would be mobbing on someone who's legally only a petty criminal.

Moreover, there is still this issue that justice is not about taking revenge on someone, but protecting society. There is, for example, the trouble that he twitted that he's innocent after pleading guilty, and that's a real problem for someone in a position of power, he's got a reality perception problem, combined with a tendency for violent domination I guess there is a big risk and he should probably be removed. But not in a mob attack and not based on illegal evidence.

One's employment can be terminated for many things which are much less than a felony. The ability to treat others with respect and command the respect of others is critical for a productive workplace.

The burden of proof for being a human piece of sh$t is lower than the legal bar for conviction. Items like "procedural" errors related to evidence that turn heinous crimes into misdemeanors can and should still be considered. This is not a situation where there is subtly to the crime. There is video. That video just couldn't be used in a court. It still happened. It still exists.

>all-male board

Sorry, why is this constantly re-iterated?

Does them being men mean they'll be less likely to want to can a (supposedly) abusive monster/someone whose position as CEO would bring them to popular ruin?

Edit: Spacing.

Yes, it probably does.

How deep did you go to pull that out of your ass?

How long have you been a member of RadiumOne's board of directors?

The question wasn't whether it was because they were on the board of directors for RadioOne, it was if it was because they were men.

People really like supporting and perpetuating statements about stereotypes eh?

> Should a board remove a CEO who is convicted of domestic violence and battery? The answer seems obvious: Yes.

Aggressive violence is worthy of punishment, but a question that seems persistent recently is whether a person's personal failings should be met with professional consequences. If so, it should also be considered to which positions and for what period of time those consequences should be applied.

Either way, the answer to that question hardly seems obvious.

Really? Seems rather obvious to me that he should be removed.

Domestic battery w/ 117 blows over 30 minutes, covering her mouth and threatening to kill her. I would have an extremely hard time working with someone who recently did that and especially does not appear overly repentant & rehabilitated (see deleted twitter comments).

The board should have removed him as soon as substantial allegations arose- this is not conducive to a respectful workplace.

Part of the job description of a CEO is "don't fuck up in public in a way that embarrasses the company". On this alone, he should be tossed.

I would agree with what you were saying if it was something minor like a drug charge where it's not a moral crime. But this is assault and battery and he would likely be going to prison if it weren't for a technicality. Such crimes bring into question whether he is fit to lead, whether employees would be willing or comfortable to work with him, whether vendors/clients would be ok with him, not to mention the PR backlash associated with keeping him (especially with an IPO around the corner). RadiumOne would be better off if they disassociated themselves as quickly as possible from the guy. Either the board should let him go or he should resign.

I find the recent trend about total inability to separate a persons' personal life from his professional disturbing. So for me the answer to the question should he be removed from his position is far from obvious yes.

If you feel mad about him getting away easy, ask for better training of cops to respect a person rights (a fourth amendment violation is far from technicality), suspension of the plea deals for DA or fix the system. By imposing your own extrajudical punishments you are undermining the court system as a whole.

They payment for a person's crime should end with the sentence. Even for a despicable deed like that.

There is a clear line drawn around criminal behavior and employment. It's considered disqualifying for most jobs to be convicted of a crime - and if he is convicted, he should be removed.

Should a CEO should be held to a lower standard than a janitor? Please. It's not enough for the average pay of the guy on top to be many multiples of the average, we now allow him to beat the sh*t out of people as well?

The Eich situation was quite different. His political donation was a feeble expression of his right of free speech. No laws broken. He just dared to be out of step with elite opinion.

Perhaps pg said it best:

"What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. [...] Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

> It's considered disqualifying for most jobs to be convicted of a crime

This is not even remotely true.

he's got a misdemeanor.

>By imposing your own extrajudical punishments you are undermining the court system as a whole.

Hardly. The justice system does not have a monopoly on punishment. There are punishments reserved for the justice system, including suspending freedom or even ending life. Because of the harshness of these punishments, there are safeguards to abuse, such as the 4th amendment. But there are other punishments for social deviants, not subject to the same safeguards. This guy is not protected from people calling him an abusive piece of shit on Twitter, nor should he be protected from being fired if his reputation is doing serious harm to his company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com