What is L.P. thinking?
- Thread starter 705red
- Start date
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
What the??? Are we still talking about hypotheticals? Here I am sitting at the bar and you guys are still hacking away at what's left of this tree.
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
That's it, my young, flaming monkey, friend. You're not invited. Oh, and by the way, what was LP thinking?
705red
Browncafe Steward
I didnt know steve had a son?Its ok Ill still be your son in law someday steve
tieguy
Banned
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
Browncafe Steward
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
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
From the promised LAND
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
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
IN VINO VERITAS
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
tieguy
Banned
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
Banned
tieguy
Banned
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?
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
Bringin Teh_Lulz
Last edited by a moderator:
MonavieLeaker
Bringin Teh_Lulz
UPSNewbie
Well-Known Member
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
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
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
Banned
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?
Similar threads
