GUILTY PLEA DEAL ACCEPTED - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #114

[Sundog]

What you say may very well be the case. That does not mean it has to remain that way. That is my point, if the way things are being done are not in the best interest of the school and/ or students, maybe a change is in order. Which mean change existing rules. It can be done, if it is important enough.

I just checked online and Academic Student Employees (such as TA's, Research Assistants, etc.) successfully unionized recently. So any changes to their working conditions have to be part of the collective bargaining process.

At-will employees at universities are not represented by collective bargaining units and have very few employment rights. Union workers (including faculty and academic student employees) have lots of protections regarding their employment and dismissal based on the terms negotiated by their bargaining units.

Universities that don't have unionized academic student employees (or faculty) follow the guidelines that unionized universities follow, mostly, as they don't want to take a chance that their academic student employees (or faculty) will form a union due to their dissatisfaction with the employment rights and benefits provided.

WSU student workers successfully unionize

PULLMAN, Wash.-

www.nbcrightnow.com

 

[Dotta]

I just checked online and Academic Student Employees (such as TA's, Research Assistants, etc.) successfully unionized in January of 2025. So any changes to their working conditions have to be part of the collective bargaining process.

At-will employees at universities are not represented by collective bargaining units and have very few employment rights. Union workers (including faculty and academic student employees) have lots of protections regarding their employment and dismissal based on the terms of their bargaining units.

It is good for workers to have Union support.
So,
one shouldn't demonize Unions as a barrier to positive changes.
I'm sure Unions are the first to fight bullying and abuse
as their members are victims of such behaviour.

I write it not to argue
but present my general Point of View.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

As a thought, maybe the change could be they would start disciplinary action after four complaints or 6 complaints instead of 13 (or more)?

Disciplinary proceedings should never be based solely on a number. There need to be objective standards that the person isn't meeting or objective policies the person is violating. But regardless, let's say they started the disciplinary process earlier. So what? I seriously doubt that would have made any difference in this case.

Maybe change the vetting process for TAs?

The courts should not tell universities (even public universities) what their vetting processes should be. But regardless, what vetting process in this case was done inadequately in your opinion? What type of vetting would have been sufficient or would have revealed something that would have changed the outcome?

Maybe start a x day probationary period where a TA can be let go "at will".( just not working out). People at WSU were also terrorized by being blocked in, stalked, harassed.

Most, if not all, universities already have such policies for their employees. But BK was also a student. So his TA job was tied to his student status for which there are federal protections.

I don't know that a lawsuit is the way to get something like that in motion. But maybe it is the ONLY way to get something like that in motion. I could not say. But if anything good comes of it, like WSU and maybe other universities revisiting policies where they are keeping people who terrorize others on the payroll way too long, it would then be worthy.

This lawsuit will never do anything like that. I just don't think any meaningful change will come from it nor do I think the things you mentioned are meaningful change in this particular case. BK was literally there 4 months and in that time, disciplinary proceedings were started and he was ultimately let go. That's pretty fast actually. I don't see a scenario under which it would have happened faster.

MOO for all the above.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

TA's at universities are not "at will" employees (like university administrators who are "at will" employees and can be let go for any reason). TA's often have union protection now, and if not union membership, then at least the same protection as other employees and cannot be let go without a somewhat lengthy process that includes an improvement plan, etc.

As I remember, his department at WSU followed that course of action with regard to his employment as a TA.

Right, and there's a reason for this. That's the thing that I think is being overlooked in this lawsuit and all the calls for "change." The policies are there for a reason. In most cases, TA jobs are tied to a person's status as student. They're vulnerable positions because if you get on the bad side of faculty for any reason whatsoever (even benign reasons), you can be scapegoated or put under a microscope so all your mistakes are amplified. And if you lose your TA job, you likely are expelled as well, and that can hurt you for the rest of your life. It's not like a regular job where you can just apply somewhere else.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

What you say may very well be the case. That does not mean it has to remain that way. That is my point, if the way things are being done are not in the best interest of the school and/ or students, maybe a change is in order. Which mean change existing rules. It can be done, if it is important enough.

Well, first of all, some of these laws are FEDERAL laws, not laws specific to WSU. They're federal laws for a reason. They don't need to be changed, IMO. None of these policies would have changed what unfolded in this case. His job/student status at WSU is not responsible for his actions. Losing that job/student status would not have prevented him from killing. This isn't a case of negligence on the part of the university or of covering up criminal acts or anything that would have landed him in prison. What happened is an unfortunate tragedy, but the only person responsible is BK, not WSU's policies or procedures.

MOO.

 

[mickey2942]

"So the staff can resolve it"

Does that mean Sir Bryan will get his perfect organic bananas?

LOL. No more bananas for you. Problem solved.

 

[MissPie]

LOL. No more bananas for you. Problem solved.

Yes, you have no bananas.
We have no bananas for you.

 

[mickey2942]

Yes, you have no bananas.
We have no bananas for you.

I guess BK aka "Karen" doesn't realize yet, that he is, in fact, in prison. His "specialness" is over.

 

[Gemmie]

I guess BK aka "Karen" doesn't realize yet, that he is, in fact, in prison. His "specialness" is over.

BK = Banal Karen.

 

[Warwick7]

What you say may very well be the case. That does not mean it has to remain that way. That is my point, if the way things are being done are not in the best interest of the school and/ or students, maybe a change is in order. Which mean change existing rules. It can be done, if it is important enough.

Very true!
And we are talking about 13 complaints (that we know about) over only 90 days or so. We aren't talking a year...it was 90 days.

 

[Warwick7]

Disciplinary proceedings should never be based solely on a number. There need to be objective standards that the person isn't meeting or objective policies the person is violating. But regardless, let's say they started the disciplinary process earlier. So what? I seriously doubt that would have made any difference in this case.



The courts should not tell universities (even public universities) what their vetting processes should be. But regardless, what vetting process in this case was done inadequately in your opinion? What type of vetting would have been sufficient or would have revealed something that would have changed the outcome?



Most, if not all, universities already have such policies for their employees. But BK was also a student. So his TA job was tied to his student status for which there are federal protections.



This lawsuit will never do anything like that. I just don't think any meaningful change will come from it nor do I think the things you mentioned are meaningful change in this particular case. BK was literally there 4 months and in that time, disciplinary proceedings were started and he was ultimately let go. That's pretty fast actually. I don't see a scenario under which it would have happened faster.

MOO for all the above.

BBM
I respectfully disagree with what I emboldened. 13 or more complaints in 90 days (you say 120) is repulsive in MOO.

In M00 he wasn't just "ultimately let go."

In my own opinion:

Dec 19, 2023 The FBI gave Brett Payne Kohberger's name.

Dec 19, 2022 BK is officially terminated at his job.

Dec 20, 2022 Police started watching PA family home of BK — 6 days earlier than previously thought.

In M00 someone shared with the University that Kohberger was named. That same day he was terminated.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

BBM
I respectfully disagree with what I emboldened. 13 or more complaints in 90 days (you say 120) is repulsive in MOO.

In M00 he wasn't just "ultimately let go."

In my own opinion:

Dec 19, 2023 The FBI gave Brett Payne Kohberger's name.

Dec 19, 2022 BK is officially terminated at his job.

Dec 20, 2022 Police started watching PA family home of BK — 6 days earlier than previously thought.

In M00 someone shared with the University that Kohberger was named. That same day he was terminated.

Do we know the details of those 13 complaints? Admittedly, I haven't kept up with everything that's come out so it's possible I'm missing things. From what I've read, some of the complaints were vague feelings about him being "creepy." That is definitely not what I'd consider a complaint or something that would make it into an objective strategy for termination, especially if he's on the spectrum, which we know reduces ability to read social cues.

The other complaints have more teeth -- like him treating female students differently. But again, what exactly was the evidence? That's cause for an improvement plan and extra supervision. Schools (and employers in general) are REQUIRED to go by the evidence to avoid wrongful termination suits and mob mentality.

Hindsight is 20/20. It feels great to say that we could potentially prevent this in the future if we change policies, but the truth is, nothing (that we know of) WSU did was outside the standard or the law. While we can be horrified that someone with 13 complaints against him is still employed, the reason he's protected is to also protect the other guy (not BK) who did nothing wrong, but was on the punishment end of workplace mobbing and lost his job just because he offended someone and everyone else jumped on him for it. That's why those laws and protections exist. We may not like how they were applied in this case, but those laws are necessary to protect others.

It's like when we say innocent until proven guilty. We may not like that some criminals walk because of it, but we have to have the laws in place to protect the truly innocent. We take the good with the bad.

Regardless, even if WSU had terminated BK, IMO, there is literally nothing WSU could have done to prevent murder of students at an entirely different school, off campus and outside of school hours. Nothing. And the entire lawsuit is based on that premise, so I have a hard time seeing it gain traction.

Employers and schools are not responsible for the actions of their employees and students outside of employment/school.

MOO.

 

[Megnut]

Do we know the details of those 13 complaints? Admittedly, I haven't kept up with everything that's come out so it's possible I'm missing things. From what I've read, some of the complaints were vague feelings about him being "creepy." That is definitely not what I'd consider a complaint or something that would make it into an objective strategy for termination, especially if he's on the spectrum, which we know reduces ability to read social cues.

The other complaints have more teeth -- like him treating female students differently. But again, what exactly was the evidence? That's cause for an improvement plan and extra supervision. Schools (and employers in general) are REQUIRED to go by the evidence to avoid wrongful termination suits and mob mentality.

Hindsight is 20/20. It feels great to say that we could potentially prevent this in the future if we change policies, but the truth is, nothing (that we know of) WSU did was outside the standard or the law. While we can be horrified that someone with 13 complaints against him is still employed, the reason he's protected is to also protect the other guy (not BK) who did nothing wrong, but was on the punishment end of workplace mobbing and lost his job just because he offended someone and everyone else jumped on him for it. That's why those laws and protections exist. We may not like how they were applied in this case, but those laws are necessary to protect others.

It's like when we say innocent until proven guilty. We may not like that some criminals walk because of it, but we have to have the laws in place to protect the truly innocent. We take the good with the bad.

Regardless, even if WSU had terminated BK, IMO, there is literally nothing WSU could have done to prevent murder of students at an entirely different school, off campus and outside of school hours. Nothing. And the entire lawsuit is based on that premise, so I have a hard time seeing it gain traction.

Employers and schools are not responsible for the actions of their employees and students outside of employment/school.

MOO.

IMO there is only one way to open those files to see what those complaints consisted of, a lawsuit.

If he worked for a company like FedEx or UPS, I think we'd see the same lawsuit. The families have said repeatedly, it's not about money; it's about transparency and accountability, a hand a lawsuit forces. Just how many complaints, of what nature, how or whether resolved, etc.

WSU might come through the process unscathed, perhaps vindicated, having dealt properly with BK, but the only way the families can know that is to get behind the curtain.

It's hard to hear about BK and his meal grievances and see people wondering whether the families have a right to confront his employer.

If the famikies have questions, this is the right way to seek answers. In civil court, the legal way.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

IMO there is only one way to open those files to see what those complaints consisted of, a lawsuit.

But what makes you think that? IMO, most of those files will be sealed. There are very strict laws regarding academic and employment records. I'm not sure we'll ever know what those complaints consisted of. Even the victims' families may not get that far. I doubt we'll learn anymore than what's already been leaked, if it even gets that far.

If he worked for a company like FedEx or UPS, I think we'd see the same lawsuit. The families have said repeatedly, it's not about money; it's about transparency and accountability, a hand a lawsuit forces. Just how many complaints, of what nature, how or whether resolved, etc.

How many lawsuits have we seen of families suing the employer even though the employment itself had nothing to do with the tragedy? Obviously, if someone is working pizza delivery and they assault or kill someone while on the job pretending to deliver a pizza, then a lawsuit is fair game if the employee had other complaints regarding his behavior on the job.

But 99% of murderers work somewhere or attend school and in most cases, that employer or school is completely unrelated to their murder (such as in this case). How many of those cases results in a lawsuit against school or employer? I'm genuinely asking because this is the first I'm seeing it.

WSU might come through the process unscathed, perhaps vindicated, having dealt properly with BK, but the pint way the families can know that is to get behind the curtain.

I guess I'm wondering is it the family's business how WSU, a university, dealt with an employee when it has nothing to do with their daughter's murder? To me, there's nothing for WSU to be vindicated for and there's no reason for the families to know what's in the university's private emails, procedures and paperwork.

It's akin to saying that when someone kills or assaults someone else, then the victim's family has a right to private records from every single place the criminal has ever been, every school or job they've held, just in case there were missed red flags. That would be a horrible precedent to set, IMO.

It's hard to hear about BK and his meal grievances and see people wondering whether the families have a right to confront his employer.

If the famikies have questions, this is the right way to seek answers. In civil court, the legal way.

JMO

We'll just have to agree to disagree. This is misuse of the court system, IMO. I get that they're grieving and this may feel like the right thing to do right now, but it is not the right thing to do, IMO.

MOO.

 

[KSwizzle]

I still think they should have taken him to trial with the death penalty, all the details that came out after, I still don't believe anyone would not vote for it

In his mind he won in the end, killed innocent people, strung the courts along and wasted a lot of taxpayer money, and then got to last second scoop up a plea, not allocute and his "fans" are sending him tons of money

Personally I think the prosecutor really dropped the ball, moo

 

[Chloegirl]

I am exhausted at the thought of BK existing. I'm so done with him I don't even know where to start that sentence. I don't wish ill on most people, I don't like advantage takers and this is way far beyond that. JMOO

 

[mickey2942]

I am exhausted at the thought of BK existing. I'm so done with him I don't even know where to start that sentence. I don't wish ill on most people, I don't like advantage stickers and this is way far beyond that. JMOO

I think BK is not living his best life. Prison staff can take bullying and misery to a degree of which almost borders on being inhumane, except when you realize the types of people they inflict their abuse on. Psychological abuse, daily can be difficult to deal with, even for hard core psychopaths.

There is a very thin line between those incarcerated in prison and those who work there. INMO.

But, I really don't care. People in prison end up there based on their choices.

https://idun.augsburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=etd

Interesting research on psychopathy and correctional officers.

 

[Boxer]

I still think they should have taken him to trial with the death penalty, all the details that came out after, I still don't believe anyone would not vote for it

In his mind he won in the end, killed innocent people, strung the courts along and wasted a lot of taxpayer money, and then got to last second scoop up a plea, not allocute and his "fans" are sending him tons of money

Personally I think the prosecutor really dropped the ball, moo

The DNA ruling about forensic genealogy evidence from the cells left in the sheath snap being admissible was by the Idaho State supreme court. Should the US supreme court make a different ruling, BK would walk on appeal.
So it was a strategic decision to permanently deny him freedom.

 

[minazoe]

The DNA ruling about forensic genealogy evidence from the cells left in the sheath snap being admissible was by the Idaho State supreme court. Should the US supreme court make a different ruling, BK would walk on appeal.
So it was a strategic decision to permanently deny him freedom.

it is completely bizarre... honestly they should have let the people decide DP or no DP based on mitigating or aggravating circumstances. although he claims to be on the spectrum and having certain issues and disabilities, I still think his level of functionality is quite high and he also fit enough to kill 4 young healthy people in a single go, so mitigation seems scarce..like almost non-existent.

Visual Snow? not really a mitigation factor either..like saying you can't give me the DP because I have tinnitus...

I think it was disgraceful and I was not satisfied. I hope somehow it all gets reversed and sent to a jury trial. mOO