What is L.P. thinking? - Page 10 - Brown Cafe

705red · 10-16-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewed

Its ok Ill still be your son in law someday steve

I didnt know steve had a son?

drewed · 10-16-2008, 07:21 PM

Just because you didnt get my vote for miss congeniality doesnt mean you have to be mean Red

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyboy

actually my friend, the contrary is true.

i didnt really think about it much, but a lurker brought my attention to the fact that i have not challenged you on the premise that you and you alone are the one that actually cares about theft at ups.

any one else that would take a different view than yours actually supports thieves and theft. you have stated as much.

i know better, and have the track record to prove it. and it bothers me greatly when customers leave because of issues involving theft at ups. i lost one years ago because of one of our drivers not being honest in his dealings with them.

so while i think that you could very well be wrong, you could also be right. what we need to do is let the legal system take its route and let the chips fall where they may. until then, to felony theft, he is innocent. buying stolen goods, there is no argument. knowing it was stolen is where the issue lies. and the 100 dollars allegedly paid is about the worth of a used phone of that type when you actually look at the options available.

tie, what was it that he was arrested for? not once have we said he was not in possession, he paid for it. as for the rest of what will come from you, i refer you to the panel hearing and a group of your contemporaries and their findings.

while you see it that way, i am more in the support mode of lp doing the proper background research before they go off. i have personally seen what shoddy intel gathering does to a person. and from what has been posted here......

again, just because i disagree with you does not my support of a thief make.

as for disappointment, we will get a chance to speak to that issue over a beer or two?

best

d

I think I've been pretty consitent on the same theme throughout this thread. This ain't someone who bought a used somewhat beat up item from a coworker at fair market value as dilli alludes to.

this is a ups employee who was caught with a high dollar brand new device that was stolen from UPS.

His claim then was to say he bought it from another employee at a 75 percent discount.

Brand new top of the line high dollar electronic item that someone could have sold for much more then a 100 dollars.

When thieves get caught red handed a common explanation is someone gave or sold them the item.

the alleged theif did not have to sell the item to another ups employee at a significant discount. He could have left the property and sold it for much more. But supposedly was in a charitable mood and decided to sell it for a mere 100 dollars.

the employee apparently knew enough about the product to be able to activate it but did not know he was buying a brand new top shelf item at a severly undervalued discount.

The fact the guy initially asked for 300 bucks and then agreed to 100 bucks did not set off any bells and whistles. We are apparently supposed to believe the guy believed himself a world class bargainer able to sweet talk people into taking a loss on top dollar high demand electronic devices.

Now Red believes the guys story because the guy was able to peform the miracle of impregnating his wife. Apparently his belief is that thieves are unable to reproduce.

However I have come to believe that you in fact do have the common sense to see through the bull

in this story so I was in fact somewhat dissapointed that you bought this fairy tale.

705red · 10-17-2008, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tieguy

Now Red believes the guys story because the guy was able to peform the miracle of impregnating his wife. Apparently his belief is that thieves are unable to reproduce.

I believe the guy because you as the company have been unable to PROVE him and me otherwise, its simple.

However I have come to believe that you in fact do have the common sense to see through the bull

in this story so I was in fact somewhat disappointed that you bought this fairy tale.

You speak of facts but yet you have none, at least not enough to drag someone out in handcuffs, throw them in jail and than have people a lot smarter than you put him back to work. Maybe we are disappointed that you keep sticking up for someone that is in charge of stopping thief's that obviously Isn't qualified for the job.

dannyboy · 10-17-2008, 06:17 AM

tie

couple of things

1 the thief did leave the property. he was in the parking lot. how did he get it out of the building with security?

2 when knucklehead bought the phone, it was not in a box. it was not a new phone. it was a used phone. much like a car that is driven off the parking lot right after you buy it. the value drops by 20-30% the minute it hits the pavement and you signed the paperwork. further more, if it was a delivery to a phone outlet, it could very well be a refurbished phone which would have a much lower retail sale price than a new phone.

3 the company, in a moment of honesty, put a real value of $400 dollars on the phone, much much less than the minimum needed for felony theft
now, he was charged with felony theft. by their own admission it is not felony theft. so why did lp fudge the numbers to try and get a felony conviction?

4 did you ever think that red might have had the guy that stole it,give him the statement as to what actually happened? as a shop steward gathering all the information on the case, including interviews with all the parties that have participated or have direct knowledge on the matter is critical to get to the truth of the matter.

5 again when the knucklehead bought the phone, the seller of the phone lied. he stated that he had family issues and had to sell the phone to come up with money. seen that happen many times while at ups. guys get in trouble, in over their heads, need money pretty bad. so instead of using a pawn shop, they try to sell items to fellow workers. so while the phone might have been stolen, he paid for the phone thinking it was legit.

6 the last one that i have been repeating. a jury made up of equal numbers of union and company members listened to the EVIDENCE. they heard both sides. i am sure that the lp department has some experience in getting thieves out of our company, and are not inept at their job? and this jury, after listening to the evidence ruled by majority that he was not guilty of theft, or stealing. something you have admitted by default when you brushed it off as easy.

ive been to panel hearings. easy is not anywhere close to what they are. but for union officials that hate thieves, (i know, some of them are thieves themselves) and company management types to both agree that he is innocent, they had to have had overwhelming evidence that he was not guilty. or the company overshot the headlights with the charges?

as for the buying of stolen goods, and possession of same, it is interesting. if i buy something that i in good faith believe is legit, but turns out to be stolen, what are my legal liabilities? a fence that buys and sells items that are stolen, that is one thing. but a stupid guy that makes a boneheaded decision.... there is a big difference.

everything the guy did points to stupidity, but not criminal intent.

and if you were to fire people in the grounds of stupidity, i would suggest ups might have to shut down a week or two to find replacements.

as for the lp guy and the charges, as a shop steward, i would also have defended the guy against the theft charges. had it been possession of stolen goods, that is another story with different input and outcomes.

but instead we have to deal with the case at hand, with the charges at hand, not some other tangent of what he knew or didnt know, and the 1000 value for only 100. that is all irrelevant to the discussion of being fired for felony theft. which is what this was about.

btw, i do admire your passion for the job, it is what makes you special.

red, while there are times i totally disagree with you, i think you did the right thing by defending the guy. might be stupid. hell, he might actually be a thief. who knows. but the proof is plain, he did not steal the phone, and you defended him against those charges. and did so in a way that proved beyond doubt that he did not steal from ups.

let us know how it turns out at the hearing.

One question tie. is possession of stolen goods a charge that would have lp call the police and have an employee arrested for? or is it something that would be handled differently? and why would a person savvy in theft of items with serial numbers, register a phone with his employer knowing that the phone would pop up later on as a stolen phone? i dont see criminals running out to the police and registering guns that they have stolen, just to make it look like they didnt do it. that is a pretty big stretch of the imagination.

i would think the thief would not want that type of attention drawn to himself?

best

d ps, as far as the disappointment, sorry. that will be something you will have to deal with. charge him with possession, you and i would agree. charge him with felony theft, when you let the actual thieves quit? what is the guy supposed to do, live the rest of his life as a felon when he is in fact not? you want to be the one that signs off on him having a felony record when the actual felon you let walk?

that is not the tie i know and respect. that is not the one that i have spoken with that has human compassion and a driving force for justice. i am the one that is disappointed

dilligaf · 10-17-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tieguy

I think I've been pretty consitent on the same theme throughout this thread. This ain't someone who bought a used somewhat beat up item from a coworker at fair market value as dilli alludes to.
I in no way shape or form ever said anything about a somewhat beat up
item bought at fair market value.

this is a ups employee who was caught with a high dollar brand new device that was stolen from UPS.

Yes he was caught with a device apparently stolen from UPS. That does NOT mean that he stole it. And like asked earlier, "How did the true thief get it past security to begin with?".

His claim then was to say he bought it from another employee at a 75 percent discount.

Brand new top of the line high dollar electronic item that someone could have sold for much more then a 100 dollars.

When thieves get caught red handed a common explanation is someone gave or sold them the item.

the alleged theif did not have to sell the item to another ups employee at a significant discount. He could have left the property and sold it for much more. But supposedly was in a charitable mood and decided to sell it for a mere 100 dollars.

the employee apparently knew enough about the product to be able to activate it but did not know he was buying a brand new top shelf item at a severly undervalued discount.

The fact the guy initially asked for 300 bucks and then agreed to 100 bucks did not set off any bells and whistles. We are apparently supposed to believe the guy believed himself a world class bargainer able to sweet talk people into taking a loss on top dollar high demand electronic devices.

Now Red believes the guys story because the guy was able to peform the miracle of impregnating his wife. Apparently his belief is that thieves are unable to reproduce.

You keep using this line and it is not even accurate. Just mgt using whatever means available to prove guilt?

However I have come to believe that you in fact do have the common sense to see through the bull

in this story so I was in fact somewhat dissapointed that you bought this fairy tale.

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 705red

You speak of facts but yet you have none, at least not enough to drag someone out in handcuffs, throw them in jail and than have people a lot smarter than you put him back to work. Maybe we are disappointed that you keep sticking up for someone that is in charge of stopping thief's that obviously Isn't qualified for the job.

Indeed they did Red they had someone in possession of a stolen item. that is generally plenty enough to slap the cuffs on someone. Thats plenty of justification Red. Maybe in the world of chicago unions and chicago mobs possession is nothing but everywhere else if you're holding a stolen item then you get a free ride to the police station. I think this part of your post bothers me the worst Red. That LP guy did his job and did it well. He caught a guy with a stolen blackberry. The LP Guy did not stick that blackberry in your thiefs hands he caught him with it. Defend your thief all you want but don't attack the reputation of the LP guy who did his job and did it very well.

Red I honestly believe you are better then this. Walk the high ground red. Don't sell your morals and integrity to the devil to save one thief.

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyboy

tie

couple of things

1 the thief did leave the property. he was in the parking lot. how did he get it out of the building with security?

Don't know

2 when knucklehead bought the phone, it was not in a box. it was not a new phone. it was a used phone. much like a car that is driven off the parking lot right after you buy it. the value drops by 20-30% the minute it hits the pavement and you signed the paperwork. further more, if it was a delivery to a phone outlet, it could very well be a refurbished phone which would have a much lower retail sale price than a new phone.

Weak argument. Condition of item would have been brand new , mint if he actually bought it. Common thief explanation is always that he bought it.

3 the company, in a moment of honesty, put a real value of $400 dollars on the phone, much much less than the minimum needed for felony theft
now, he was charged with felony theft. by their own admission it is not felony theft. so why did lp fudge the numbers to try and get a felony conviction?

In maryland 400 dollars is the minimum for a felony. I believe 400 dollars may be a common dollar amount for most of the country.

4 did you ever think that red might have had the guy that stole it,give him the statement as to what actually happened? as a shop steward gathering all the information on the case, including interviews with all the parties that have participated or have direct knowledge on the matter is critical to get to the truth of the matter.

Red should say so then. Reds style of defense is dispicable. He will attack reputation of the LP person, arresting officer , DA and judge in order to defend on low life thief.

5 again when the knucklehead bought the phone, the seller of the phone lied. he stated that he had family issues and had to sell the phone to come up with money. seen that happen many times while at ups. guys get in trouble, in over their heads, need money pretty bad. so instead of using a pawn shop, they try to sell items to fellow workers. so while the phone might have been stolen, he paid for the phone thinking it was legit.

Reds thief says it happened we don't know. Reds thief will spin whatever story he thinks will save his lying thieving behind.

6 the last one that i have been repeating. a jury made up of equal numbers of union and company members listened to the EVIDENCE. they heard both sides. i am sure that the lp department has some experience in getting thieves out of our company, and are not inept at their job? and this jury, after listening to the evidence ruled by majority that he was not guilty of theft, or stealing. something you have admitted by default when you brushed it off as easy.

A jury is a little bit of a stretch. The LP Guy had to prove the guy stole the phone. Possession of the stolen item was not enough to prove guilt. Weak process slanted in favor of the thief as you well know.

ive been to panel hearings. easy is not anywhere close to what they are. but for union officials that hate thieves, (i know, some of them are thieves themselves) and company management types to both agree that he is innocent, they had to have had overwhelming evidence that he was not guilty. or the company overshot the headlights with the charges?

I've been to panel hearings too. I have seen the opposite of what you describe.

as for the buying of stolen goods, and possession of same, it is interesting. if i buy something that i in good faith believe is legit, but turns out to be stolen, what are my legal liabilities? a fence that buys and sells items that are stolen, that is one thing. but a stupid guy that makes a boneheaded decision.... there is a big difference.

Yea its possible that he may have been mentally challenged and too stupid to know he was buying something hot. If thats the case Red should say so.

everything the guy did points to stupidity, but not criminal intent.

Fair enough line of defense. Red tells us . Is the guy a complete idiot?

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 09:04 AM

Red,

Danny does raise a point that your client may have been stupid. What is the intelligence level of the person. Does he meet the criteria of simpleton or complete idiot required to think he could actually buy a brand new high dollar, latest model , high demand electronic device at a 75 percent discount?

Second question. Did you ever talk to the first thief that your current thief claims he bought the device from?

MonavieLeaker · 10-17-2008, 09:20 AM

[quote=tieguy;415153]

His claim then was to say he bought it from another employee at a 75 percent discount.

When thieves get caught red handed a common explanation is someone gave or sold them the item.

**************

upsgrunt · 10-17-2008, 03:11 PM

Is it against the law to be stupid?

MonavieLeaker · 10-17-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsgrunt

Is it against the law to be stupid?

If that were the case jails would be over run by ups sups

UPSNewbie · 10-17-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonavieLeaker

If that were the case jails would be over run by ups sups

dannyboy · 10-17-2008, 04:34 PM

actually tie, i must take issue with several things that you posted.

but i have been informed that i have been a bit long winded so i will keep it short.

your defense of the lp guy is..... well......expected. but not warrented

he did not do a great job. he charged the guy with something that the guy was not guilty of. all because he did not follow up on the case. might be that since he is in a very large delivery center, he does not have the time. but on a case like this, he should have followed up on all of the angles. then case closed. but instead he took shortcuts and could not prove his case at the panel.

and if it is no better in court.......

d

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 07:45 PM

[quote=dannyboy;415490]actually tie, i must take issue with several things that you posted.

but i have been informed that i have been a bit long winded so i will keep it short.

I'm surprised someone would think you were long winded...I do apologize for any extra typing I may have caused you.

your defense of the lp guy is..... well......expected. but not warrented

he did not do a great job. he charged the guy with something that the guy was not guilty of. all because he did not follow up on the case. might be that since he is in a very large delivery center, he does not have the time. but on a case like this, he should have followed up on all of the angles. then case closed. but instead he took shortcuts and could not prove his case at the panel.

Perhaps you are right , but we don't know for sure since we only have one very passionate and perhaps slightly biased witness to the events.

His success came from busting the thieves involved in and retrieving at least one stolen phone. That person was in possession and only served up someone who had already gotten caught. Somehow he knew the persons name who he says sold him the phone yet everything else was a blur to him. More holes in the story. Perhaps Red could get a copy of the panel decision and black out the names so we could review it?

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonavieLeaker

If that were the case jails would be over run by ups sups

Monavie this is a debate between various members of the brown cafe community , who have different perspectives on the issue. We are passionate in our opinions and thats all good.
Danny and Red have been shop stewards for a long time and have their experiences and opinions. I actually have a lot of experience dealing with theft issues , panel decisions and the support of law enforcement with these types of cases. My arguing the merits of this case should at least afford me the respect that I at least have that perspective based on similar cases I have seen.

Just because I take a position that you may disagree with does not afford you the right to jump in and start firing flames at me. If you have something more then a dislike for management to add to the debate then feel free.

If you don't like to read opposing opinions then the best thing you can is either avoid this thread or find a site to join where everyone thinks exactly like you do.

tieguy · 10-17-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upsgrunt

Is it against the law to be stupid?

if stupidity was a viable defense then no criminals would go to jail.

MonavieLeaker · 10-17-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tieguy

Monavie this is a debate between various members of the brown cafe community , who have different perspectives on the issue. We are passionate in our opinions and thats all good.
Danny and Red have been shop stewards for a long time and have their experiences and opinions. I actually have a lot of experience dealing with theft issues , panel decisions and the support of law enforcement with these types of cases. My arguing the merits of this case should at least afford me the respect that I at least have that perspective based on similar cases I have seen.

Just because I take a position that you may disagree with does not afford you the right to jump in and start firing flames at me. If you have something more then a dislike for management to add to the debate then feel free.

If you don't like to read opposing opinions then the best thing you can is either avoid this thread or find a site to join where everyone thinks exactly like you do.

My apoligies...No hard feelings

stevetheupsguy · 10-18-2008, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tieguy

if stupidity was a viable defense then no criminals would go to jail.

Stupid is as stupid does, LT. Day'an! Ooops, sorry that's another thread. Wow, page 10 already.

dannyboy · 10-18-2008, 05:33 AM

steve

you are right, 10 pages of deep discussions on a subject that both sides are very passionate about, but yet nothing that would warrant moderation by the mods.

that is the essence of what bc is. the exchange of information without attacks upon another person (flaming) instead of attacking the view held.

tie, i too would love more information. as i said, you could be more right than wrong, or the opposite as well.

d

UpstateNYUPSer · 10-18-2008, 05:36 AM

10 pages of (for the most part) insightful, thoughtful discussion which exposes the beliefs and convictions of the posters and presented in a mature, intelligent fashion. d is right, that is the essence of this forum and is one reason I am nearing 2,500 posts in one year (either that or I need to get a life).

I still contend this case will not see a courtroom as it will be plea bargained.

dannyboy · 10-18-2008, 05:39 AM

they cant, unless they also brought those lesser charges against him.

you cant just arrest someone, then decide well we dont have enough to charge him on that charge, so we will plead to a lesser charge that we didnt think about.

what would be a lesser charge to possession?

d

UpstateNYUPSer · 10-18-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyboy

they cant, unless they also brought those lesser charges against him.

you cant just arrest someone, then decide well we dont have enough to charge him on that charge, so we will plead to a lesser charge that we didnt think about.

what would be a lesser charge to possession?

d

d, I am not that familiar with our criminal justice system so I would not know off hand what a lesser charge would be. I just have a gut feeling that this will be negotiated between the lawyers and will not see a courtroom.

705red · 10-18-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

d, I am not that familiar with our criminal justice system so I would not know off hand what a lesser charge would be. I just have a gut feeling that this will be negotiated between the lawyers and will not see a courtroom.

We already refused the plea bargain at the last court date, they wanted him to plead guilty to a mideameanor theft charge.

Tie you had asked if i talked to the other theives and the answer is no, they waived their union rights to representation and to were hand cuffed and took away in a police car.

The next court date is a month from today on nov, 18th.

stevetheupsguy · 10-18-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyboy

steve

you are right, 10 pages of deep discussions on a subject that both sides are very passionate about, but yet nothing that would warrant moderation by the mods.

that is the essence of what bc is. the exchange of information without attacks upon another person (flaming) instead of attacking the view held.

tie, i too would love more information. as i said, you could be more right than wrong, or the opposite as well.

d

I totally agree, except, you guys have said everything there is to say on this matter. Guilty, Innocent, Stupid and Naive; It's all there. Now we just have to wait and see the verdict/outcome so we can have 10 more pages, (maybe 11 after this post), of rebuttal. Have a good "discussion". I'll still sit here and read along.