<p>The firing couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person.</p>
<p>But here’s the troubling thought…
Was Shirvell unusual, and if so, in what way? Was his bigotry unusual or merely his willingness to display it so overtly and publicly?</p>
<p>Though I vehemently disagreed with his bigotry, that was really the least of my concerns as a Michigan student. My problem was the obsessive harassment and stalking. Shirvell goes on and on and ON about how it’s his political opinion and he’s entitled to his political opinion, and I really couldn’t care less what he thinks of gay people, my problem was the scary obsessive behavior. Be a homophobe if you want to be, if you really must, but don’t stand outside peoples houses with a camera.</p>
<p>^^^
I understand your point, but I’m concerned about the less obvious, more insidious ways in which bigotry, as well as an obvious condoning of bullying, may play out in the course of one’s duties as an ass’t district attorney.</p>
<p>Well, it appears that Shirvell was not smart enough to keep his actions within the zone of First Amendment protection. I would just like to repeat something I posted way back in the beginning of this thread:
Cox should be taking a share of the blame for this.</p>
<p>^^^
Right. I’m not so sure that Cox isn’t the greater problem. Shirvell was over-the-top, but undercover can be far more problematic.</p>
<p>Shirvell’s lawyer says that HE is “the innocent victim” in this saga. Please.</p>
<p>^^^
When’s his term up, and what’s the scuttlebutt on his aspirations? 'Nuther term, or on up the political ladder?</p>
<p>It certainly too long enough but it’s nice to finally see the right thing happened.</p>
<p>It is about time. I knew the stalking info would get even worse. He is NO INNOCENT VICTIM.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what happened at the hearing to decide whether to issue a personal protection order against Shirvell? Chris Armstrong filed for the order last month, requesting that Shirvell be banned from having any contact with him and the hearing was delayed from Oct. 4 to Oct. 25.</p>
<p>^^^I don’t wish to give erroneous information but I read a story in the past day that said that the request for the protection order was dropped. I also read that U of Mich will now allow Shirvell on their campus but not to have contact with Armstrong.</p>
<p>OK, in my attempt to back up the information I posted in #192, I found an article that addresses both issues…that the request for a protection order was dropped and also that UMich has modified its ban on Shirvell.</p>
<p>[U-M’s</a> ban on Andrew Shirvell modified | freep.com | Detroit Free Press](<a href=“http://www.freep.com/article/20101103/NEWS06/101103029/1320/U-Ms-ban-on-Andrew-Shirvell-modified]U-M’s”>http://www.freep.com/article/20101103/NEWS06/101103029/1320/U-Ms-ban-on-Andrew-Shirvell-modified)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One hopes Chris Armstrong has plenty of friends watching his back. Look what Shirvell did when he was Asst AG and now he’s been fired … he’ll think it’s for his view points but I suspect it’s more for his undoubtedly harassing way in which they were delivered.</p>
<p>Thanks Soozievt. I looked at your link and that article was dated 11-3, but it refers to Shirvell as an assistant AG. Did he get his job back?</p>
<p>csfnap…after that article, he was fired from his job. I quoted that particular article to explain the two points.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why I was disappointed that the campus ban was modified-- he is allowed on campus but he has to stay away from places where Chris could reasonably be. (Also yes, it is true the PPO order was dropped and that people have filed for Shirvell’s disbarment-- this is covered HEAVILY in the local papers). I would have preferred that the campus ban was removed later after some of the ruckus of this has died down. I am hoping that Shirvell isn’t as crazy as he seems, because if he is I would worry for Chris’ safety. He’s never threatened him that I know of, but I hope losing his job wouldn’t push him over the edge. Unfortunately these are the kinds of things that have occurred to me as all this is going on, I am sure I am just paranoid but I can’t help but worry. There is another article about this in the school paper and the local paper every day, this issue has been on fire the last month or two and Shirvell has been getting increasingly distressed by all the negative consequences of his actions, from what I can tell watching his interviews and such.</p>
<p>Oh, and pretty much the whole campus has rallied like mad behind Chris. I haven’t been to a university event where this issue hasn’t been brought up and support expressed ever since it hit mainstream media, and the school paper is keeping it in the news as much as possible. So he probably has several thousand friends watching his back. 
I don’t know him personally but there has been an overwhelming outpouring of support for him from the campus since people started becoming aware of this.</p>
<p>An update on the case for those who are interested:</p>
<p>[Jury</a> orders lawyer to pay $4.5 million to gay University of Michigan alumnus - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/justice/michigan-shirvell-defamation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2]Jury”>http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/justice/michigan-shirvell-defamation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had forgotten all about this case until i see the news about it yesterday. I am so delighted at the result.</p>
<p>You would thing a supposed lawyer would know the difference between freedom of speech and spreading a bunch of nasty lies and rumors about someone. It’s doubtful the victim of his nastiness will actually see much of this money, but that doesn’t seem to have been his motivation.</p>
<p>Not normally a fan of litigation, but in this case i give the courts a big thumbs up!</p>