What is L.P. thinking?

[dannyboy]

My point has been he either stole it or his bought it at a 75 percent discount as he claims. We really don't know because thieves are pretty good liars too.

tie

one minute you are actually admitting the truth, that you really dont know what the truth is, because thieves are pretty good liars.

interesting thought that statement. when you extrapolate that a bit further using your method of deduction, because ups management are pretty good liars, then that would make them thieves as well?

Fact is he either stole the phone or bought it at a 75 percent discount knowing the thing was hot.

you are also stretching the truth of knowledge when you state that he bought it knowing it was hot. not fact, supposition on your part and the panel agreed. remember, ups management set in on this. they had a 50% say. so what the heck was it that they heard or didn't hear that made them think your/their LP department was way off base and brought the guy back to work? your guys. ups ,management. so they screwed up in your opinion? they heard the evidence and said he was not guilty. but you are assuming a lot of things and allowing your distaste for 705 to cloud your judgment to assume that he is guilty beyond doubt.

your usual discerning judgment has been turned off on this one. way off base

thief or receiver of stolen goods. Same thing a thief.

if that is the case, why not shut down all flea markets, ebay, pawn shops, etc. i guess the legal system does not see it your way?

Could he be an accomplice? Nobody knows that he wasn't. Besides without this person in question there wouldn't have been a market for the stolen merchandise. Kinda like a prostitute and a john. The john isn't the prostitute, yet he can be guilty of a crime.

89, maybe a lot of things. maybe he had help from the aliens in area 51?

nobody knows he wasnt, but nobody knows he was either. maybe you helped out? if i think that, does it make it so? after all, in your statement, why would i need proof?

what we do try and do in this country before we execute or jail someone is to have pretty good evidence of guilt. its called proof. and from the sounds of the evidence shown at the hearing, they did their deductions like you and tie. he could done this, he could done that. hell, why not charge him with an unsolved murder, after all, thieves are good liars, good liars also have murdered, charge him with first degree murder.

youve got the cart before the horse. he is not guilty until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. they tried to do that at a panel of 50% union, 50% management. and they determined that the proof was not there. and all these possible dream situations that you, tie and the lp guy dreamed up were just that. wet dreams designed to get a stupid kid fired. they did that, after hearing all the evidence presented. wonder why??????????

btw, a john is not charged with prostitution, its called solicitation. looking for one is not a crime, but if you will take the time to learn, paying for the services is where the crime takes place.

stupidity is not currently a crime. they did not charge him with possession of a stolen phone, they did not charge him with buying stolen goods. they charged him with stealing the phone. period. that is what the charge is. and the evidence shows????????

d

[drewed]

Isnt against company policy to solicit and buy from solicitors on company property?

[dannyboy]

it is, but we have a ups employee that is selling another employee a phone cause he found out he is going to be a dad. so while someone from the outside is barred from soliciting, our employees are not.

really not that unusual to see many part timers in the parking lot after a shift. happens all the time.

d

[drewed]

I was under the impression it included employees, like you cant be a 4 sale sign up on the bulletin bored, or a WANTED sign which would both be forms of solicitation not needed

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

tie

one minute you are actually admitting the truth, that you really dont know what the truth is, because thieves are pretty good liars.

interesting thought that statement. when you extrapolate that a bit further using your method of deduction, because ups management are pretty good liars, then that would make them thieves as well?



you are also stretching the truth of knowledge when you state that he bought it knowing it was hot. not fact, supposition on your part and the panel agreed. remember, ups management set in on this. they had a 50% say. so what the heck was it that they heard or didn't hear that made them think your/their LP department was way off base and brought the guy back to work? your guys. ups ,management. so they screwed up in your opinion? they heard the evidence and said he was not guilty. but you are assuming a lot of things and allowing your distaste for 705 to cloud your judgment to assume that he is guilty beyond doubt.

your usual discerning judgment has been turned off on this one. way off base



if that is the case, why not shut down all flea markets, ebay, pawn shops, etc. i guess the legal system does not see it your way?



89, maybe a lot of things. maybe he had help from the aliens in area 51?

nobody knows he wasnt, but nobody knows he was either. maybe you helped out? if i think that, does it make it so? after all, in your statement, why would i need proof?

what we do try and do in this country before we execute or jail someone is to have pretty good evidence of guilt. its called proof. and from the sounds of the evidence shown at the hearing, they did their deductions like you and tie. he could done this, he could done that. hell, why not charge him with an unsolved murder, after all, thieves are good liars, good liars also have murdered, charge him with first degree murder.

youve got the cart before the horse. he is not guilty until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. they tried to do that at a panel of 50% union, 50% management. and they determined that the proof was not there. and all these possible dream situations that you, tie and the lp guy dreamed up were just that. wet dreams designed to get a stupid kid fired. they did that, after hearing all the evidence presented. wonder why??????????

btw, a john is not charged with prostitution, its called solicitation. looking for one is not a crime, but if you will take the time to learn, paying for the services is where the crime takes place.

stupidity is not currently a crime. they did not charge him with possession of a stolen phone, they did not charge him with buying stolen goods. they charged him with stealing the phone. period. that is what the charge is. and the evidence shows????????

d

Danny I'm not going to let myself get drawn into semanitics nor am I going to allow others draw me off on tangents.

the guy was in possession of a stolen cell phone. He either stole it or his story is correct which means we are expected to believe he bought a brand new blackberry at a 75 percent discount and did not know it was hot. I think the guy is a liar and a thief. If he is the fence he claims he was then he is still a thief.

Danny I don't condone thievery nor do I alibi it.

[dannyboy]

He either stole it or his story is correct which means we are expected to believe he bought a brand new blackberry at a 75 percent discount and did not know it was hot.

and what i am saying is that a panel of union and company managers heard the evidence and the evidence showed them that he was believeable, moreso than the lp department. members of management and union that feel the same way you and i do, that a thief has no place at ups.

so if there is the slightest problem with the story, why did they let him go back to work? do you not have confidence in the ability if your managment team to get to the bottom of this issue and decide properly what should be done?

I think the guy is a liar and a thief

so ultimately it boils down to not what you or i think is, but what it actually is. the proof. not thoughts or feelings. what bothers me is that even if cleared by the legal system, you would still think he is guilty and treat him as such. i thought i knew you better than that.

and after the fat lady sings, we might know the rest of the story?

best

d

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by drewed

Isnt against company policy to solicit and buy from solicitors on company property?

The bulletin that hangs in our building reads that "Solicitation" is not allowed on company premises. To me that would be the seller not the buyer. Regardless, that was not the charge against him.

[drewed]

Yea I couldnt remember what exactly the policy was, Ill take a look when I get back to work, I was under the impression if you were participating in soliciattion in anyway

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

and what i am saying is that a panel of union and company managers heard the evidence and the evidence showed them that he was believeable, moreso than the lp department. members of management and union that feel the same way you and i do, that a thief has no place at ups.

so if there is the slightest problem with the story, why did they let him go back to work? do you not have confidence in the ability if your managment team to get to the bottom of this issue and decide properly what should be done?



so ultimately it boils down to not what you or i think is, but what it actually is. the proof. not thoughts or feelings. what bothers me is that even if cleared by the legal system, you would still think he is guilty and treat him as such. i thought i knew you better than that.

and after the fat lady sings, we might know the rest of the story?

best

d

as I previously stated the panel was an easy one for red to win. we'll see what happens when he goes to court. To me it does matter what I think. I don't condone or alibi thievery. I think its wonderful you guys want to kiss a thieves but. I just hope he does you the courtesy of wipeing himself first.....

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

Danny I'm not going to let myself get drawn into semanitics nor am I going to allow others draw me off on tangents.

the guy was in possession of a stolen cell phone. He either stole it or his story is correct which means we are expected to believe he bought a brand new blackberry at a 75 percent discount and did not know it was hot. I think the guy is a liar and a thief. If he is the fence he claims he was then he is still a thief.

Danny I don't condone thievery nor do I alibi it.

At this point in time no one has proven that this young man is either a thief or a liar. I can see how he didn't think of the phone as being brand new, it was never represented as brand new on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion and it seems that you would rather ASSume that anyone accused of any offense against UP$ is a liar. In you vast experience at UP$, have you eve seen anyone accused of something they were not guilty of?
Believe it or not, many people are naive to the ways of the world, even seven year employees of UP$. I myself believed for many years that UP$ management people were all upstanding and honest people. Time and experience has taught me better. Yet I do not automatically believe that ALL are dishonest.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by drewed

Yea I couldnt remember what exactly the policy was, Ill take a look when I get back to work, I was under the impression if you were participating in soliciattion in anyway

That could be true....I'll look also, now I'm not totally sure how it reads. lol.
I do know that we have a driver that sells burritos every morning and even the DM buys them.

[drewed]

Well the guy originally asked 300 for the phone which would mean it would have to be near new condition.

[drewed]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

That could be true....I'll look also, now I'm not totally sure how it reads. lol.
I do know that we have a driver that sells burritos every morning and even the DM buys them.

HAHA

the way straight to a cm's heart....through his stomach lol

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

as I previously stated the panel was an easy one for red to win. we'll see what happens when he goes to court. To me it does matter what I think. I don't condone or alibi thievery. I think its wonderful you guys want to kiss a thieves but. I just hope he does you the courtesy of wipeing himself first.....

Can you prove he is a thief ? Didn't think so.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

At this point in time no one has proven that this young man is either a thief or a liar. I can see how he didn't think of the phone as being brand new, it was never represented as brand new on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion and it seems that you would rather ASSume that anyone accused of any offense against UP$ is a liar. In you vast experience at UP$, have you eve seen anyone accused of something they were not guilty of?
Believe it or not, many people are naive to the ways of the world, even seven year employees of UP$. I myself believed for many years that UP$ management people were all upstanding and honest people. Time and experience has taught me better. Yet I do not automatically believe that ALL are dishonest.

nope . After all the good fairy probably dropped that stolen phone in his hands.

how was he to know that you don't buy brand new blackberrys for a 100 bucks?

apparently he knew how to activate a brand new blackberry but did not know you don't normally buy them for a 100 bucks. hmmmmm..........

spin your thief any way you want.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

Can you prove he is a thief ? Didn't think so.

already have. feel free to read through my posts.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by drewed

Well the guy originally asked 300 for the phone which would mean it would have to be near new condition.

Near new isn't the same thing as brand new, IMO, used is used. Personally I wouldn't buy a used cell phone period. I sure wouldn't buy one that I suspected might be stolen. I have turned down some pretty cheap offers on various merchandise because I thought there was a chance they were hot.

Fact is, if this young man even said he "wondered" about the origin of the cell phone, whether it was hot or not, I would have a hard time defending him. However if he looked me in the eye and said" I had no idea this phone was stolen" I would have to defend him as a steward or a lawyer.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

already have. feel free to read through my posts.

I have read your posts, Tie. YOU have proven nothing in this case. You don't even know all the details of this case. The only thing you have done is voice your self important opinion. Oh yeah and changed your approach.

[drewed]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

Fact is, if this young man even said he "wondered" about the origin of the cell phone, whether it was hot or not, I would have a hard time defending him. However if he looked me in the eye and said" I had no idea this phone was stolen" I would have to defend him as a steward or a lawyer.

Really bad analogy but if a women slept with all your friends, and pretty much everyone else you know and then ended up in your bed one night, would you go for it and wonder whether or not shes picked up a disease somewhere or would stay on the side of caution and kick her out?'

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

nope . After all the good fairy probably dropped that stolen phone in his hands.

how was he to know that you don't buy brand new blackberrys for a 100 bucks?

apparently he knew how to activate a brand new blackberry but did not know you don't normally buy them for a 100 bucks. hmmmmm..........

spin your thief any way you want.

Again, it was never stated that this was a new blackberry, but represented as a used one. Used cell phones are only worth what the market will yield. In this case it was a hundred bucks. I didn't read anywhere that he activated the phone himself. What was posted was the the seller removed his simm card and handed the phone over. Tie, even you could figure out by watching, how to do it.

The only spinning going on around here is you trying to make you stance believable.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by drewed

Really bad analogy but if a women slept with all your friends, and pretty much everyone else you know and then ended up in your bed one night, would you go for it and wonder whether or not shes picked up a disease somewhere or would stay on the side of caution and kick her out?'

I'd not sleep with her, but I would do my best to let her know that her interest was appreciated. But I don't understand the analogy.

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by drewed

Really bad analogy but if a women slept with all your friends, and pretty much everyone else you know and then ended up in your bed one night, would you go for it and wonder whether or not shes picked up a disease somewhere or would stay on the side of caution and kick her out?'

Not PC ... You're a Male Chauvinist Pig!

[drewed]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I'd not sleep with her, but I would do my best to let her know that her interest was appreciated. But I don't understand the analogy.

the analogy is its best to side with caution then have a question about what you did.

[stevetheupsguy]

Here we are on the 6th page of this thread and you guys/gals though not the members of the jury, are still bickering about whether this guy is guilty or not of stealing a cell phone. Red's point of LP saying he stole the phone while only being in possession of said phone is valid. Just because you have it, doesn't mean you stole said phone. Just as D never stole the C.O.D. money. There's a reason behind both of these stories. Red's guy says, he bought it from a guy that was hard up at the time. I understand that you find this hard to believe, Tie, as I find it hard to believe that O.J. didn't practically hack Nichole and her guy friends heads off. In our minds we draw a bunch of conclusions to what we see and hear. Fact of the matter, though, is that is our own opinion, as we weren't there and don't have the facts just the opinions drawn up in our minds. On the one hand this guy could be a cunning thief, who calculatingly stole or helped steal a cell phone and to cover his tracks registers the phone so that he looks like a victim of unwittingly buying stolen goods. On the other hand, he could be a guy that heard a story of someone hurting for cash and saw a good deal and decided to help the seller out of a jam. Either way, this is all we have to go on, as far as information goes. So we base our opinion on these facts. Now granted, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This forum is full of opinions and that's exactly why it's here. Pronouncing guilt or innocense is up to the courts, though. Just as O.J. was aquitted of murder, even though the majority of people that I have spoken to believe he did the crime, doesn't make the judiciary wrong. There are people who still think O.J. should go to jail for that crime. We as humans weigh in our minds the guilt or innocense of people daily, it's just the fact of how our minds work. These opinions that we form have no bearing on the guilt or innocense of anyone we hear about or see. What I'm basically trying to say here is that we can believe what we want about this case, but our belief of innocent or guilty has no bearing on the outcome. If 705 thinks his guy is innocent and got him off at the panel and goes to court to get him off at trial, and does so, good for him. 705 is the one who has the facts in front of himself. He has, through much thought, decided this gentleman must be innocent. Remember, 705 hates thieves , http://www.browncafe.com/forum/ups_l..._job_back.html, so I don't think he would knowingly represent a thief. Tie, as guilty as this guy "sounds", he's not, until proven to be guilty. As for name calling and such, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, without being bashed for their thinking, no matter how far fetched it may look to the reader. Not everything is as it appears all the time. Try taking a look at things from another viewpoint and it may change your opinion.

One day I was out and about with my family. We were driving on a road in Palm City, Florida. While driving, a pick up truck pulled out of a side street in front of us and went really slow in front of us. This pissed me off, as I was doing 45 and had to brake really hard to avoid hitting the pick up. I proceeded to go around in front of the pick up and slow down myself. This pissed the guy off and he started following me as I drove. I drove normal speed and he stayed right behind me. I pulled up to a light where I had to wait for the left turn arrow and the guy pulled up right behind me. I watched through my sideview mirror and saw him getting out of his pick up with a large stick. Rather than let the guy get close enough to my Explorer and break my windows, I ran up to him, knocked him on his butt, ripped the stick from his hands, flung it across the street and yelled at the guy before jumping back in my Explorer and driving a different way so he couldn't follow me. Someone else followed my though. Someone was on a cell phone with the police following me and I eventually got pulled over. The person on the phone in the other car stated to the police that I had gotten out of my truck with a baseball bat and beaten this guy before I took off again. I wondered, how this person could have seen this happen? After confessing to the police the judge threw the book at me and I'm now in the big house based on what the other driver saw, NOT!!! I took the police back to the scene of events and showed them the stick I had flung into the woods. The pick up driver was long gone and the police had no real case. Based on the "factual" statements of onlookers or witnesses I could be in jail now. Now, I know that if I had never allowed myself to get invloved in such a stupid situation none of the above would have ever happened. Sometimes we do silly things, and sometimes people see stuff a different way than it actually happened. I'm not saying it always happens this way, I'm just saying that it could. Sorry for the length of this read. Just thought it required my .02¢.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by drewed

the analogy is its best to side with caution then have a question about what you did.

oh