Student 1 – MONICA SMITH In my research I read about Google Inc. and how they conduct business in relation to their diversity and inclusion plan currently and their need for future change in the years to come. Google’s new diversity and inclusion plan comes from a four-pronged approach in regards to how businesses incorporate diversity in their organization. Looking at the interoperation of Google, the first level in their four-pronged inclusive workplace model deals with things at an organizational level, specifically, “diversity within work organizations, relates to the organization’s internal relations with its own employees and reflects the “micro” system level— that of individuals and groups within the organization” (Mor Barak, 2017, p. 242). The second level of Mor Barak’s four-pronged inclusive workplace model is the community level stage. This stage involves “inclusion and corporate-community collaborations related to the organization’s sense of being a part of its surrounding community and the reciprocity embedded in this relationship” (Mor Barak, 2017, p. 259). The third level of the diversity and inclusion model is on a national level. This involves the “inclusion of disadvantaged groups through state/national collaborations, refers to the values that drive organizational policies with regard to disadvantaged populations such as welfare recipients, domestic violence victims, and youth in distress” (Mor Barak, 2017, p. 276). The final level of Mor Barak’s diversity and inclusion model is the international level. The fourth stage includes “inclusion through international collaborations, refers to the organization’s positions and practices related to the fair exchange of economic goods and Diversity and Inclusion Plan 10 services and the respectful cultural relationship with individuals and groups in other countries” (Mor Barak, 2017, p. 288). It is shown that with just four stages, like Google, we can create a more diverse and inclusive organization for Speedy Pro. We can diversify and become more inclusive in our organization, our community, our nation/state, and internationally. It only takes a few simple steps to completely change our business for the better. Student 2 – Sean D Determine which pieces of the best practices of the companies you researched that you will include in your program. Note why they have been found to be best practices and give examples of where they have been successful. The company I investigated was Apple. It made sense to me since they are a huge global brand that have brick and mortar stores practically everywhere. In my opinion, it would be easy for this company to say things and show data on DEI since they do have such a huge global reach. So, I wanted to look at the data myself and see some of their best practices. • • • • • They understand that their products are for everyone and to properly represent everyone, diversity is key. According to We’re all in, they’ve always known that in order to create the most personal technology in the world, they must consider the full range of human experiences. Apple incorporates a program called the Career Experience (CE). Basically, allowing lower-level workers integrate with other opportunities inside the Apple family. The Career Experience (CE) program gives Retail and AppleCare team members around the world opportunities to grow and contribute their talents to other teams across the company, from engineering to marketing and beyond (We’re all in, d.). They also hold themselves accountable by dedicating themselves to DEI. Gathering statistical data every year to track their progress and implement changes if necessary. This ensures their words are turned into action and not just window dressing to check a block in the diversity department. Inclusion and diversity measures are built into our annual review process for every leader, including those at the highest levels of the company, to create consistency in how we drive and track progress (We’re all in, d.). Apple has implemented mandatory unconscious bias and inclusive leadership training for all managers. Apple’s more than 15,000 managers take training on unconscious bias and inclusive leadership (We’re all in, d.). According to the Apple website, they don’t ask for salary history during the recruiting process. Their recruiters base offers on Apple employees in similar roles. And every year, they examine the compensation employees receive and ensure that we maintain pay equity. Those are just some of the best practices that caught my attention. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is key for the growth of any organization. Develop your vision statement for the organization around DEI. Here at Speedy Pro, we are dedicated to the growth and development of our employee no matter who they are. We are a very proud organization that embraces the whole concept of DEI, because we are nothing without all of you. Holding ourselves accountable for your future growth to take this company onto the global stage. Create 2-3 goals based upon your group's vision statement. Describe the actions you will take for each goals. (Use the SMART goals formula to help you write your goals) • • 35% of our employees will be engaged in some form of higher development, i.e. internal training sessions or advancing/obtaining their college degrees. o This will be tracked by HR. Information will be disseminated to the managers for the upcoming opportunities available to employees. And it will be leaderships responsibility to achieve the 35% of the workforce advancing themselves in the company. Investing in our people will pay the company in dividends in the long run. Helping us achieve a global platform. Pay equality for each employee performing similar duties within the company. Our CFO will be the deciding factor on how we should spearhead this. o The company should start with the recruiting and the retention of our current and future employees. The gender pay gap, or any demographic pay gap, will not exist within Speedy Pro. Student 3 – BRENDAN LAP Just like many of us here in class, I also was in the military, the Army to be exact, having served 8 years. A wonderful thing that the Army basic training makes you realize is that you absolutely have to rely on your buddy to your left and right to support and protect you, no matter what their religious or racial background because you are all in this together. It takes a unified team to be successful. Understanding and bonding is formed through familiarity and shared experiences. The more time you spend with someone else who may be completely different than you, the more you understand. People who shut themselves out and stay locked inside their comfort zone can never hope to form that understanding. It seemed like semi annually or annually, my unit in the Army would hold full day diversity and EEO classes. While we all begrudgingly trudged to the classroom, we were thankful for the opportunity to come together and discuss these things because they are so important to discuss. These classes were made possible by our leadership chain all the way to the top who enabled our local diversity and EEOC Outreach Program Coordinators to put on these classes in order to educate us on the each other as diverse humans all working toward a common goal within the Army. One of the more important things they taught us was the actual complaint process in order to hold those responsible, accountable for their actions. Education on where to find the local EEO Counselor, deciding on counseling, filing a formal complaint, and the rest of the process are all very important into stopping discrimination in the workplace (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Staff, 2021). As a leader, these annual and semi annual lessons and reminders taught me just how important educating a workforce is on these subjects. Discussion and awareness of an organization’s EEO program and processes being equally so. When given the opportunity in the future, it has taught me to ensure I continue this education and push for it within whatever organization I am a part of. STUDENT 4 – JOSE DAVID Class, I am so very grateful to have served in the United States Army for 25 years. Working with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has been programmed into my brain and I understand the importance of it in the workforce. As I have prepared for postretirement, I have noticed DEI in just about all my training to include human resources, project management, resilience building leader program, and diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Workplace certification from University of South Florida. Leaders should treat everyone with respect and encourage their employees to have open communication. This will lead to embracing diversity and being inclusive. I never really had difficulties to be accepted regarding my ethnicity (Mexican). I always knew how to love my heritage, which is why small incidents of stereotyping did not humiliate me. In the military, you are treated as family and become part of a brotherhood through training or combat. We are taught to respect one another. One of many experiences where I felt belittled was being judged for my technical and tactical expertise due my ethnicity. In these situations, it motivated me to perform well and let my actions do the talking. I do hope that one day we all understand that we’re all HUMAN. We’re one species and we should start loving our differences/diversities about each other because that makes us unique. After looking at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the portion that might be applicable to my situation is discrimination by type (EEOC, n.d.). In the Army, we had our own policies and procedures, but this website is great to know in the civilian workforce. Some of the lessons learned is that everyone needs education. Leaders need leadership training. Majority of the workforce is reactive, and put training at the bottom of the priority list. While in the Army, I hated the monthly and yearly requirements of AR 350-1 (Army training and leader development) mandatory training requirements (Training army training and leader development, (n.d.). This set us up for success in having the required training necessary to be successful in the civilian workforce in reference to interpersonal skills and being able to work as team. STUDENT 5 – GREGORY ALLEN My initial thoughts based off the opening statements is that the case could go either way. Currently it is based off speculation of what each side has for evidence and what they can prove. The route that the prosecution will take is that Mr. Slager had mal-intent when he shot Mr. Scott 5 of 8 times while his back was facing towards Mr. Slager. Another aspect of this is that the prosecution team discusses the Taser in regards to Mr. Slager using it to cause pain on Mr. Scott several times. They do this my stating that as any reasonable human being would try to stop the cause of the pain as a natural reaction. The prosecution team also states how Mr. Slager staged the scene after he killed Mr. Scott. The finial route the prosecution team will take is that Mr. Scott ran because he knew he would be arrested for not paying child support. As far the defense team they will utilize Mr. Scotts pass history as a police officer to prove that there was no mal-intent and that it was just Mr. Slagers routine. They will do this through proving his last 4 years as an officer that 98% of his stops based on the same situation where only warnings and that the law states any vehicle malfunction a police officer needs to inform them. Another route the defense team will go is by speculating why Mr. Scott ran based of the $19,000 he owes in child support that does not occur in a few days that he could have ran for another reason. The defense team is pretty much going after Mr. Scotts reputation. The finial direction the defense team will go is that how would Mr. Slager know Mr. Scott was unarmed. He repeatedly yelled taser multiple times and Mr. Scott already showed that he ran, fought back, and his pass reputation which could have Mr. Slager think he could have a weapon. I fell that I would be impartial due to the fact that I take everything I hear with a grain of thought. This is because everyone has their own opinion but usually those opinions are based on hearsay and not actual facts. This is especially true with the media because they view it as how can they get more views, leave a few things out change the title up a little bit and use key words to get a rise out of people. Due to this reason I do not listen or watch the news and only see events that pop up in my search for other topics. STUDENT 6 – OSCAR What are your initial thoughts based on the opening statements? It is expected that the prosecution will provide incriminating evidence while the defense will provide all evidence that would prove the police officer innocent. My initial thoughts are that the opening statements would be contradicting. The prosecution would want the judge to find officer Slager guilty and thus charge him to the maximum sentence for a case of murder. On the other hand, the defense would wish the judge to find the officer innocent and thus release him immediately. If not possible, the defense would wish to lower the case from murder to manslaughter and thus lower the sentence. The defense would wish everyone to believe that the officer acted in self-defense and thus should not be charged for murder. What direction does it seem like the prosecution will take the case? For the prosecution, it seems that the case would be to prove the officer guilty of murder. Based on the new evidence, the prosecution will change its direction from anything related to self-defense to murder. The prosecution is not likely to base its arguments on the earlier filed report by the officer. Instead, it would rely on the new evidence from the video footage by a witness. The prosecution would show that the officer was not provoked or threatened in anyway. Instead, it would prove that the victim was scared of death and thus fled only to have the officer follow and shoot him. What direction does it seem like the defense will take the case? On the other hand, the defense is out to defend the officer. As a result, it is not likely to prove the authenticity of the footage. Instead, it would rely more on the officer’s filed report to prove his innocence. The defense would wish to have the case reduced from murder to manslaughter. Since the officer can be let free, it is better to have his case and sentence reduced. It would therefore base its findings more on the report the officer filed before the video footage and look for ways to deny any argument by the prosecution based on the footage. Do you feel like you could be an impartial juror in the trial? If I was one of the jurors, I would be impartial in the trial. I would wish to listen to both sides of the story and rely on what seems valid rather than being biased. Even though the public has been exposed to two different stories, the officer’s initial filed report and the footage, I would balance the two to get what seems more reliable. With the due process of the law, then juror should be impartial in order to listen to reason (Schwartz, 2016). I would demand that the defense and the prosecution consider the footage in the opening statements to make a fair ruling. STUDENT 7 – GREGORY ALLEN The fourth amendment applies to both cases in regards to the use of force. In Officer Slager would seem to have utilize the use of force incorrectly while Officer Watson utilized use of force appropriately. For Officer Slager he used deadly force while Officer Watson utilizing their taser. While the Fifth Amendment only applies to Officer Watson’s case due to them asking him if the drugs were his after he was tased and placed under arrest. I do not believe that the evidence was mishandled in Officer Watson’s case due to them already seeing the illegal narcotics prior to entering the house due to community caretaking. While Officer Slager mishandled evidence according to the prosecuting team by staging the crime scene. When Officer Watson entered the house fearing for the safety of a child they were in the right. As far as searching the house officer Watson was in the right. Officers can enter personal property off of exigent circumstances or the plain view exception. For example the plain view exception is if police are in your house lawfully as in you allowed them to enter and they see narcotics (Aslett Law Firm, 2021). While the exigent circumstances is when a police officer chases a person that has committed a crime into your home (Aslett Law Firm, 2021). Officer Watson was responding to a gas leak from a public road. From there this allowed Officer Watson to go onto the private property to inform the owner of the possible danger. From there Officer Watson saw the drugs through a window while approaching the property, this falls under the plain view. Officer Watson further investigated the premises where she looked through the back screen door that was already opened a little and saw a missing child. This allowed Officer Watson to enter the property based off emergency circumstances. A case similar to this is State v. Wright in which police got a tip about possible dog fights. Saw evidence of this from a public road which gave them the right to drive onto the property. Then they saw people and dogs running so they did a sweep of the surrounding property and found drugs laying around (H&U, 2021). Another case that is similar is Arp v. State. STUDENT 8 – GREG CAR • What parallels can you draw between the two scenarios? o Create and post a Venn diagram to show the similarities and differences between the cases. Slager Legal stop Shots fired Suspect killed Taser FourthAmendmentViolation Watson Entered housewithouta warrant Gun and drugs Plain view • Are there a specific constitutional amendments that you believe apply to the events in both cases? Fourth Amendment which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I felt that in both cases, both suspects Fourth Amendment rights were violated. • Was evidence in either case mishandled? Slager case, the cell phone video seems to show Officer Slager putting his taser next the Scott’s body, planting it to set a scene. • Based on what you know so far, do you think that the suspect's constitutional rights were violated in either of the cases? o If so, how? Yes, I believe in both cases, the suspects rights were violated. In the Watson scenario, the officer entered the home without a warrant. In the Slager case, excessive use of force and the use of deadly force that was unjustified. #1 Officer Michael Slager Scenario On the morning of April 4, 2015, Officer Michael Slager made a routine traffic stop after observing a car driving with a non-functional third brake light. Officer Slater approaches the vehicle and engages in a conversation with Walter Scott concerning the ownership of the vehicle and whether it is insured. After collecting Mr. Scott's driver's license, Officer Slager returns to his police cruiser and continues investigating. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Scott flees his vehicle with Officer Slager in pursuit. In his incident report, Officer Slager claims that he attempted to deploy his taser but that it did not function properly. Additionally, during a scuffle between the two men, Mr. Scott managed to obtain the officer's taser, which could still be used as a stun gun, even after the prongs had already been deployed. Officer Slager claims he feared for his life when the taser was taken from him. Moments later, Walter Scott is fatally shot multiple times by Officer Slager. Officer Slager radioed dispatch to let them know shots were fired and that his taser had been taken from him. The report states that when other officers arrived on the scene, they administered CPR to Mr. Scott but he ultimately succumbed to his wounds. The initial interaction was captured on video by the dashcam in Officer Slager's cruiser: #2 SCENARIO While on patrol Police Officer Watson thinks that she smells gas. Concerned that an emergency situation may exist, she exits her patrol vehicle and decides to approach several locations. As PO Watson approaches a residence she notes that the smell of gas has become very faint. However, PO Watson continues toward the residence. The gas smell is even more faint, and it appears that there is no gas leak at this location, but concludes that one may still exist in the area. PO Watson radios the station house and advises that she will check other locations in the area upon completion of this one. Sergeant Caruso contacts PO Watson asking her to be cautious approaching the location and not to proceed without cause. PO Watson acknowledges the radio message from Sgt. Caruso but proceeds. While at the front of the house, PO Watson decides to look into the window for her safety and observes what appears to be a table that contains “bricks” of a white substance. Additionally, there is an open “brick” with white powder on the table in front of it. PO Watson also observes what appears to be a firearm on the table. Unsure what to do next, she decides to walk around the house to make further observations. Once PO Watson arrives at the back of the house, she observes a sliding glass door that is accessible from the deck. After walking up the stairs, PO Watson observed the sliding glass door to be slightly ajar and looks inside. PO Watson then observes what appears to be a high-chair and a child’s play pen but does not see a child in plain view. Fearing that the child may be walking around the house where PO Watson has already observed a quantity of narcotics as well as a visible firearm, she proceeds into the home concerned that an emergency situation exists beyond that of the “gas leak.” Upon entry, PO Watson does not observe a child so she continues into the home, announces herself as a police officer and proceeds further. At that moment, a man, who identified himself as the owner appears from the hallway and states, “Get out of my house!” The man then yells, “Why are you here, did someone call me a drug dealer again?” The man, noticeably agitated, advanced toward PO Watson who while ordering him to stop, draws her “taser” from her belt and fires, striking the man, and placing him under arrest. PO Watson calls for back-up and when officers arrive, they search the house and find several packages containing alleged cocaine and several firearms. The man, now identified as Mr. Sanford, states spontaneously, “You entered my house, shoot me, and for what? Some drugs?” PO Watson then asks Mr. Sanford, "Are the drugs yours?” Mr. Sanford replied “Yes!” 
Purchase answer to see full attachment