What is L.P. thinking?

[drewed]

Originally Posted by Hoaxster

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

OKAY hoke, i know you edited this like 3 times, from plain to bold then added Not PC.....lol

hey its an honest analogy, it could be a man whore just as much but im going from my point of view and since the majority of the people on this site are of the male gender...

[705red]

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 know you guys and gals from alaska preach no sex until marriage, but have you ever heard of condoms, should use one no matter who you are with until you can trust them.

[cachsux]

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

At the Cach UPS allows solicitors to set up booths at the inside entrances. Mostly banks and credit card companies that are primarily after the part timers. Apparently PT`s in debt make better workers.

As far as employees there is a bulletin board in the drivers lunch room that people put things up on.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by stevetheupsguy

Here we are on the 6th page of this thread
<snip>
Sorry for the length of this read. Just thought it required my .02¢.

Steve actually this is, IMO, a very worth while read. sheds some very good insight and common sense.
I'm glad for you that you didn't have to face prosecution. Or have to kill the guy to keep him at bay.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

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.

To me its not about anything else except the point that you either condone thievery or you do not. The guy either stole the phone or he bought it hot. Either one makes him a thief.

[dannyboy]

should use one no matter who you are with until you can trust them.

why is it some guys take greater care in where they park the truck than where they park the one eyed snake? i just dont get it.

anyway

The guy either stole the phone or he bought it hot

your contention is that he knew it was hot, mine is that he didnt.

as has been posted, you can get a new one free depending on the plan and phone. no one is arguing that he had the hot phone, only that he knew it was hot. and that is where the difference lies.

that being said, enough on the subject until trial date.

d

[over9five]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

that being said, enough on the subject until trial date.

d

C'mon, Danny, we've only gone 7 pages!

Put aside the trial for a minute. If you had this guy over to a party at your home, woudn't you keep an eye on him? Count the silverware before he leaves, so to speak?

I think I'll side on this with Tie. You know there's a REASON you're getting this nice phone so cheap out in the parking lot....

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

Again, it was never stated that this was a new blackberry, but represented as a used one.

The phone was no more then a couple of weeks old. Might be difficult to figure out in texas but most of us could look at it and see it was brand new.

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.

Either stole it or he bought a brand new blackberry hot. Either one makes him a thief. I will not pander to the thief nor will I try to alibi them. I'm amused by your attempts to attack me in order to defend a thief.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

why is it some guys take greater care in where they park the truck than where they park the one eyed snake? i just dont get it.

anyway
your contention is that he knew it was hot, mine is that he didnt.

as has been posted, you can get a new one free depending on the plan and phone. no one is arguing that he had the hot phone, only that he knew it was hot. and that is where the difference lies.

that being said, enough on the subject until trial date.

d

Danny ,
I don't believe the guy that sold him the brand new shiny new phone signed him up for a phone plan at the same time therefore he should have expected to pay full price for the phone.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by 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¢.

good for you steve but it really does not relate. This guy was in possessoin of a brand new blackberry phone. You were not in possession of baseball bat dripping with the blood of someone who had been assaulted.

You folks keep trying to throw doubt into this case but the facts are still there. guy is in possession of a brand new blackberry phone that must be pretty close to top shelf based on its quoted price. So the guy either stole it or he had to know he was buying this thing at a huge discount. Now maybe you routinely buy brand new items in parking lots at 75 percent discounts but I do not.

the point I have been making is pretty simple. If you're the reciever of stolen merchandise then you're just as guilty as the thief. if you don't create the market for the thief then you put the thief out of business.

[dannyboy]

ok 9.5, you talked me into it, but only one more post as tie is getting a bit red around the collar

The guy either stole the phone or he bought it hot

assumptions. there is knowing it is hit, or not knowing. i happen to think that he didnt know. and i suspect that is what got shown at the panel hearing, because managment would never have brought back an employee that either stole the phone, or in any way had any knowledge that it was stolen. sorry tie, been to too many panel hearings to believe that the ba pulled one on the management portion of the panel. and i also can not see, for all the bad rap union ba's have, of them condoning a thief as well.

If he is the fence he claims he was then he is still a thief.

i dont recall he ever claimed he was a fence. a fence is a thief, without question. but you are putting words in the guys mouth.

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

I don't believe the guy that sold him the brand new shiny new phone signed him up for a phone plan at the same time therefore he should have expected to pay full price for the phone.

and now we have a contrast, first you state that he knew how to activate the phone, then state the obvious, he bought a sim card and got a plan the normal way.

speaking of plans, they still cost from free to $149 with a plan, so not only was he stupid for buying a used phone in a parking lot for more than what it was worth, but he got took on the deal as well, not to mention that the phone was hot too!

one last thing, then done with this thread.

tie, everyone that is disagreeing with you is doing so on the inocent until proven guilty phenomina, something that a lot of people around the world dont understand. if guilty, the kid needs to pay the price. if innocent, ups needs to do the same.

until then, innocent man keeps job until it is shown he is guilty. and those that do disagree with you also dont support or condone thieves. but we also dont jump to conclusions that are faulty.

9.5, nope, if he came to my home, i would not watch him behind his back.

d

[UpstateNYUPSer]

Steve, hindsight is always 20/20, but my first thought after I read your post was that you had your family in the car and that should have been your first concern. I am most certainly glad that things worked out well for you and your family and I certainly hope that nothing like this ever happens to you again.

Back to the thread. This will never see a courtroom as it will be pleaded out, the severity of the plea based upon any priors.

I Googled the phrase "Possession is 9/10 of the law" and this is one of the responses that I got:

possession
n. 1) any article, object, asset or property which one owns, occupies, holds or has under control. 2) the act of owning, occupying, holding or having under control an article, object, asset or property. "Constructive possession" involves property which is not immediately held, but which one has the right to hold and the means to get (such as a key to a storeroom or safe deposit box). "Criminal possession" is the holding of property which it is illegal to possess such as controlled narcotics, stolen goods or liquor by a juvenile. The old adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is a rule of force and not of law, since ownership requires the right to possess as well as actual or constructive possession.
See also: possess

Bottom line, while the kid may not have physically taken the phone from the facility, he did not have the right to possess the phone as the seller of the phone did not have actual or constructive possession of the phone.

[IDoLessWorkThanMost]

The worst part is that the phone sold for what, 1/4 it's value? Obviously the thieves could have sold it on craigs or ebay for at least 1/2 it's value if not close to full value. The buyer IMO, for that reason alone, knew it was stolen merchandise.

If someone's selling a 10k diamond necklace for $2000 in the parking lot, mint condition, brand spanking new, obviously there's a problem with that!

I just cannot get a hold of any easoning that they didn't know it was stolen or didn't know about the stealing. The person knew about the thieves and knew it was hot.

The person/buyer registered and etc the phone thinking that if it was ever discovered , there would appear to be some innocence on their part.

The person bought the phone for 1/4 it's value brand spanking new, obviously "if it's too good to be true it probably is " applies to the naive, or in this case thief.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

Originally Posted by 705red

I know you guys and gals from alaska preach no sex until marriage...

I guess Palin's daughter missed that sermon.

[705red]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

Steve, hindsight is always 20/20, but my first thought after I read your post was that you had your family in the car and that should have been your first concern. I am most certainly glad that things worked out well for you and your family and I certainly hope that nothing like this ever happens to you again.

Back to the thread. This will never see a courtroom as it will be pleaded out, the severity of the plea based upon any priors.

I Googled the phrase "Possession is 9/10 of the law" and this is one of the responses that I got:

possession
n. 1) any article, object, asset or property which one owns, occupies, holds or has under control. 2) the act of owning, occupying, holding or having under control an article, object, asset or property. "Constructive possession" involves property which is not immediately held, but which one has the right to hold and the means to get (such as a key to a storeroom or safe deposit box). "Criminal possession" is the holding of property which it is illegal to possess such as controlled narcotics, stolen goods or liquor by a juvenile. The old adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law" is a rule of force and not of law, since ownership requires the right to possess as well as actual or constructive possession.
See also: possess

Bottom line, while the kid may not have physically taken the phone from the facility, he did not have the right to possess the phone as the seller of the phone did not have actual or constructive possession of the phone.

That would be fine if he was terminated and arrested for possesion, he was not. He can not be found guilty of it only innocent of stealing the phone.

Tie i do not condone theives, but i also dont condone half ***** management either that neglect to do their jobs properly.

[705red]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

I guess Palin's daughter missed that sermon.

You better be careful she could use her powers to attempt to have you removed from your job for talking bad about her family.lol

[BrownSuit]

Well on page 7 . . .

Drewed - Don't know if your question was ever answered, but Crawford Insurance handles almost all UPS Insurance situations. We pay them. If there is a claim then they pay it (or don't more often than not) and most of the time everybody is happy.

Everybody else -

Couple of thoughts - As was pointed out, whether he knew it or not, he was in possession of stolen goods.

Last Christmas, I personally got a Retailed $400 Blackberry from AT&T with a 1 year contract with the Brown discounts for $199.

I can't see the guy asking for $300 the first time.

Somebody briefly mentioned the locked situation earlier, why would you buy a phone, especially a blackberry, from somebody off the street. The phones are generally locked by the carrier and while you can unlock it's not easy . . .

Also a blackberry, if ever used for the data plan, requires the previous user to notify the phone company to have it removed. It's not a simple process (I've bought a blackberry off eBay before).

So it's not an easy process if you have the same carrier.

Back to the common sense issue, if he had to have a property pass to take it out, didn't the other guy have to have one to bring it in? Why not ask to see the property pass or better yet, take the seller to LP with him, have him state that he sold the goods, show him the property pass, and move on.

In the seven pages, I haven't heard this mentioned yet either.

[drewed]

Thanks Brownsuit, so its a complete possibility the insurance company is pursuing the charges.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by BrownSuit

Well on page 7 . . .

Drewed - Don't know if your question was ever answered, but Crawford Insurance handles almost all UPS Insurance situations. We pay them. If there is a claim then they pay it (or don't more often than not) and most of the time everybody is happy.

Everybody else -

Couple of thoughts - As was pointed out, whether he knew it or not, he was in possession of stolen goods.
That is part of this debate, he was not charged with possession of stolen goods. He was charged with stealing the phone.

Last Christmas, I personally got a Retailed $400 Blackberry from AT&T with a 1 year contract with the Brown discounts for $199.

I can't see the guy asking for $300 the first time.
The thief/seller was trying to unload a hot phone.

Somebody briefly mentioned the locked situation earlier, why would you buy a phone, especially a blackberry, from somebody off the street. The phones are generally locked by the carrier and while you can unlock it's not easy . .
I don't personally know much about the locked/unlocked aspect of these things. Did not changing out the simms card take care of that? .

Also a blackberry, if ever used for the data plan, requires the previous user to notify the phone company to have it removed. It's not a simple process (I've bought a blackberry off eBay before).
Hmmmmm, maybe you should be charged with phone theft also. It's already been said on here that Ebay is an outlet for HOT merchandise. j/k

So it's not an easy process if you have the same carrier.
OK, here are two "IFs" that have no relevance because they are unknown factors at this point.

Back to the common sense issue, if he had to have a property pass to take it out, didn't the other guy have to have one to bring it in? Why not ask to see the property pass or better yet, take the seller to LP with him, have him state that he sold the goods, show him the property pass, and move on.

In the seven pages, I haven't heard this mentioned yet either.
I think the lack of common sense by the buyer is the major reason this topic is even an issue.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by tieguy

To me its not about anything else except the point that you either condone thievery or you do not. The guy either stole the phone or he bought it hot. Either one makes him a thief.

I would agree with you if he knew ( or as I said in a previous post"suspected") it was HOT, however I believe that he didn't know.
I do not automatically believe that every person that buys HOT goods are master criminals anymore than I believe that all UP$ management people are lying conniving s just because many that I have known are.
There is no proof been offered here that would indicate this young man previously knew the seller nor that he even knew of the thefts. I work in a relatively small center, there are several employees that I would recognize on sight but I do not know them or anything about them. There have been many times that I hear of someone being fired from the local sort, the preload, etc months after the firing happens. To assume this young man knew the seller or of the stolen phones is nothing more than that ...assumption.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by 705red

You better be careful she could use her powers to attempt to have you removed from your job for talking bad about her family.lol

Nawwwww, as long as he isn't shooting at a protected species while drunk in his package car and using a tazzer(sp?)on a 10 year old boy, he should be OK.
However taking pot shots at a teen age girl for making a mistake is pretty low in my books.

[dannyboy]

some peoples sense of humor is drawn to the lowest denominator.

d

[dilligaf]

Originally Posted by tieguy

Danny I'm sorry to hear about your experience. But this incident is much simpler. The guy has already admitted to buying the stolen Blackberry at a 75 percent discount. It is common thing when someone is caught to admit to some lesser crime make us believe he is being truthful.

I understand the bad taste in your mouth with LP. But I don't understand your tolerance for this thief that red is defending. Too me its two different types of issues.

See Tie, Here is where you try and turn things around. You always try and twist the truth. See the part that is in red. Those are your words, no one elses. You clearly state "The guy has already admitted to buying the stolen Blackberry at a 75 percent discount."

[705red]

Originally Posted by tieguy

good for you steve but it really does not relate. This guy was in possessoin of a brand new blackberry phone. You were not in possession of baseball bat dripping with the blood of someone who had been assaulted.

You folks keep trying to throw doubt into this case but the facts are still there. guy is in possession of a brand new blackberry phone that must be pretty close to top shelf based on its quoted price. So the guy either stole it or he had to know he was buying this thing at a huge discount. Now maybe you routinely buy brand new items in parking lots at 75 percent discounts but I do not.

the point I have been making is pretty simple. If you're the reciever of stolen merchandise then you're just as guilty as the thief. if you don't create the market for the thief then you put the thief out of business.

Let me ask you your opinion on this mr.tie. If you have managers and sups forcing drivers to input their lunch everyday and the driver does not take it, should these sups get fired for dishonesty/stealing from the employees?

Now becareful how you answer because this has just been brought to my attention by some drivers. Should the drivers have the sups handcuffed and dragged out in a police car for theft?

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

See Tie, Here is where you try and turn things around. You always try and twist the truth. See the part that is in red. Those are your words, no one elses. You clearly state "The guy has already admitted to buying the stolen Blackberry at a 75 percent discount."

Geez Dilli,

Just like a woman, I have already explained all this about three thousand times just so you can then show up on page eight of this thread to make some ambigous point. Go back and read my previous posts with an open mind and lets kill this thread.