What is L.P. thinking?

[dannyboy]

other

red is not the legal agent for the guy. he has lawyers. but red is very involved in the process, which helps.

In this case, there had to be some form of investigation by the district attorneys office to establish a premise for a charge, UPS doesnt set charges.

i beg to differ. i was involved in a case where the person that made the charges to the district attorneys office, lied to the grand jury, which handed down the warrants. all on the word of the "upstanding citizen". they never investigated it themselves. after bumping the case around for two years, it was dropped when at the final hearing the upstanding citizen did not show along with the other credible witnesses. there was no hard evidence to show what they alleged was true. to the contrary.

now, in this case, ups brings the case to the da. the da, on ups's word alone brings up the charges. never investigates, after all, ups's loss prevention did that, right?

see a former employee known to have stolen merchandise from the same company

your time line is off base. it would seem you have a penchant for putting a spin on the basic truth, to get to your version that you intend to believe as the truth.

d

 

[scratch]

Why are you getting involved? Where is his attorney? Hopefully you are NOT giving him legal advice.

TOS entire posts makes a lot of good points, I would like to add another. You took a day off work to stand up for this guy, so as a FT Driver you lost about $300 in pay. While I commend you for wanting to help someone, his attorney or someone from your Local should have done this, thats what they get paid for.

My Hub handles a major cell phone company, and theft of cell phones is a giant problem for our company.

 

[The Other Side]

other

red is not the legal agent for the guy. he has lawyers. but red is very involved in the process, which helps.

i beg to differ. i was involved in a case where the person that made the charges to the district attorneys office, lied to the grand jury, which handed down the warrants. all on the word of the "upstanding citizen". they never investigated it themselves. after bumping the case around for two years, it was dropped when at the final hearing the upstanding citizen did not show along with the other credible witnesses. there was no hard evidence to show what they alleged was true. to the contrary.

now, in this case, ups brings the case to the da. the da, on ups's word alone brings up the charges. never investigates, after all, ups's loss prevention did that, right?
your time line is off base. it would seem you have a penchant for putting a spin on the basic truth, to get to your version that you intend to believe as the truth.

d

Danny, I dont want to insult your intelligence anymore than you do yourself, but maybe if you read my post, you would have seen this line:

"There had to be enough Prima facie evidence to make an initial case against this young man."

This means "intial".

Simply put, how much investigation is needed other than the record at hand. We have a young man in possession of a stolen cell phone, taken from the very employer of this young man. The young man "BY HIS" own admission states that he "bought" it from a former employee in the UPS parking lot for a reduced amount because the seller needed money.

This is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.

What further needs to be investigated?

I'll tell you, what is the other guys name, address, phone number who sold it to him. How did he pay for it? Where did he get the cash to pay for it? or do all part timers walk around with a cool $100 bill stashed in their pockets for a rainy day?

Why hasnt Red given us this persons info? Why hasnt Red sought to expose the seller to the same degree that he is "standing" up for this young man.

Ill tell you, cause its most likely B.S.

You said: "red is not the legal agent for the guy. he has lawyers. but red is very involved in the process, which helps."

Emotional support is great, but taking time off work to hold someones hand is rediculous. Thats what attorneys are for. RED's over involvement takes a valuable asset away from UPS and the trade off is not worth the investment.

RED should differ his involvement to the local and return to his duties and leave the legalities to the professionals.

Just in case you think you understand contractual language, let me tell you a little something you dont know.

RED's involvement in this case, requiring him to miss work, under the auspices of Article 16- section 1 , can also get RED FIRED.

RED stated that he was not on OFFICIAL business, but the local was securing his time off so he can attend hearings, however, Article 16 section 1 provides that RED must be acting in an OFFICAL UNION matter and not babysitting a potential thief.

If I were RED, I wouldnt go to the well too many times on this issue.

This I can guarantee you.

If UPS can prove that RED used the local to secure time off for NON-OFFICIAL UNION BUSINESS, they could discharge him for dishonesty.

Sorry, but this is the truth. You may not like, but UPS will.

Article 16- section 1 is not to be abused by ANY teamster hourly for personal business.


Secondly, whatever this was suppose to suggest:

i beg to differ. i was involved in a case where the person that made the charges to the district attorneys office, lied to the grand jury, which handed down the warrants. all on the word of the "upstanding citizen". they never investigated it themselves. after bumping the case around for two years, it was dropped when at the final hearing the upstanding citizen did not show along with the other credible witnesses. there was no hard evidence to show what they alleged was true. to the contrary.

This is called supposition. It means nothing otherwise. Two years can do many things to a case.

Mainly, its kills them. Guilty people walk free sometimes.

I dont read with my heart, I read with a defined, balanced and objective mindset. This case is like many others I have personally seen, people steal and blame others.

Some claim that "ignorance" is their defense, but "ignorance" to the obvious is never a legitimate excuse.

As the saying goes, "excuses dont explain, and explanations dont excuse"

 

[dannyboy]

Danny, I dont want to insult your intelligence anymore than you do yourself, but maybe if you read my post, you would have seen this line:

"There had to be enough Prima facie evidence to make an initial case against this young man."

This means "intial".

first off, thank you for your appraisal of my intelligence.

now, the term prima facie evidence has the definition as follows:

proof of a fact or collection of facts, which creates a presumption of the existence of other facts, or from which some conclusion may be legally drawn, but which presumption or conclusion may be discredited or overcome by relevant proof.

and this is the basis for my contention that ups (lp) has either misrepresented the facts, or has intentionally falsified the evidence (leaving out evidence that shows he is not guilty of the charges).

the charge against the guy is felony theft. how, with the information given, and the statement given, is he guilty of the theft, and how does that evidence allow for the conclusion of guilt.

without a doubt he is in possession of a stolen phone. but they did not charge him with possessing it, only felony theft. big difference.

the right thing to have done is to amend the charges to reflect what the evidence shows, not to run around with your testosterone letting your mind make poor choices.

secondly, i dont agree with red that often, but the attack of his honesty via the desire to represent the guy is a bit off base. red has been involved during the whole process. as such, he can offer insight into several aspects of the case. he is also a witness to what has occurred and what has been said at the meetings between ups and the employee. as such, he can be called as a witness to the case.

even if not, red has not made any bones about why he is to be off. he has not made false claims to be off. he is off to take care of union business, and the follow up in this case. the verbiage you quoted is only if there is dishonesty, which does not apply in this case.

red has put his personal finances aside in this case. it is rare for a man to be so convinced in the cause of someone else that he is willing to lose income to assist in a wrong being corrected. but this is what happens when you believe in something that strongly.

as to the "story" i posted, it is relevant. it happened to me. the upstanding citizen gave false information to the da, then again to the grand jury. that same pf evidence is what the da used to prosecute me for vandalism. he misused the court system for his own personal jollies, and after two years of moving the case back, disappeared. he knew, had he given the statements under oath he would have been charged with perjury. so he no showed instead. costing me thousands to defend myself against the charges he brought against me for free. he used the system.

and while i do believe that the guy is guilty of possession, i believe that the LP guy is way off base on this one. seen that here too first hand. and when all is said and done, there will be no backlash against the guy that used the state to prosecute someone with no evidence of the crime they are prosecuting him on.

d

 

[The Other Side]

D,

Prima facie means just this:

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE -Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail.

Possession of stolen merchandise is enough to charge him with a crime, unless he produces the person who "allegedly" sold it to him.

Dont make this out to be CSI. Its a simple theft.

 

[dannyboy]

you are making my case for me.

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

the facts are he did rebut the presumption of theft by stating who he bought it off of and when.

facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail

exactly, the adequate facts prove that the underlying conduct was that of purchase of a stolen phone, not actually stealing the phone. but in this case, it has not yet prevailed

Possession of stolen merchandise is enough to charge him with a crime, unless he produces the person who "allegedly" sold it to him.

Dont make this out to be CSI. Its a simple theft.

thank you, you have made my point. i am glad you now understand. possession is enough to charge him with a crime........the crime of possession, not felony theft. and he did produce the person that sold it to him.

so you are right about all off it, with the exception of it being simple theft. they did not charge him with simple theft, it was felony theft. and he is not guilty of theft, he is at most guilty of possession

unless he produces the person who "allegedly" sold it to him

which he did.....so you are saying that you do not believe him guilty of possession since he did produce and name the person?

d

 

[705red]

Red, your local should provide access to attorneys both criminal and civil?


The local has reffered him to an attorney firm for his criminal and also civil suit that he will be filing against ups.

Why are you getting involved? Where is his attorney? Hopefully you are NOT giving him legal advice. Under some jurisdictions, this could be a violation of law.

We (myself, the public defender at the first court date and the grievant) discussed options. He asked me what i would do and i told him what i would do but that it was his decision.

You keep saying "WE" refused this, "WE" said that.

Your point being?

It makes no difference where he bought the phone or from who. Recieving or purchasing stolen merchandise is still against the law. If he didnt know it was stolen, he should have, NOBODY buys a blackberry in parking lots and thinks it legitimate, unless your Tony Soprano.

In this case, there had to be some form of investigation by the district attorneys office to establish a premise for a charge, UPS doesnt set charges.

He was srrested by the police department and charged with felony theft because of what lp had told the police. The da wasnt there when he was handcuffed and dragged out in front of his coworkers!

There had to be enough Prima facie evidence to make an initial case against this young man. Ignornace is never a logical defense.

He did not deny buying the phone, he did deny stealing it himself, so he never should have been charged with staeling it! They should have charged him for being in posssesion.

I understand he is my teamster brother, but I for one have no sympathy for his situation. A person would have to be a complete idiot to walk into shipping company parking lot after a shift, see a former employee known to have stolen merchandise from the same company, get solicited for a phone at a 75% discount with no warranty, plan or insurance, pay for it, walk back into the same company and face the scrutiny of UPS security looking at a part time employee with a $500 dollar phone with a $9.50 an hour pay rate and ask for a property pass.

Actually hes a 9 year employee making close t0 $18 an hour, and he also has a fulltime job like many of the ptimers do. Not all of our ptimers live under poverty levels as you so claim they do.


This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Have you ever read any of your posts under current events?

My next question is this, Why hasnt the guy who allegedly sold him the phone been charged as well??

If you would have taken the time to read the whole thread, you would have seen that the other guy was fired with another employee several weeks before and also arrested.

If your "pet project" is telling the truth, then he should have already fingered the guys name to the district attorney and this guy arrested and charged with selling stolen merchandise, a crime by the way, UPS would be all OVER.

Pet project? Im sure theirs aot of people that do not like me, but not one of them would ever say that i am a liar, i tell it like i see it and i woont lie for anyone. As a man all i have is my word!

Now, if your man doesnt want to finger anyone, then shame on him, good luck on the conviction.

Again with a little reading on your part you would see in this thread were he said he bought it off of so and so.

A UPS panel case will have no bearing on this case in court. It lacks merit, investigation, or legal premise.

This whole charge lacks merit, but im sure the judge will wonder how the company that is pressing charges against this guy, will just put him back to work. No company retains theives and if ups's case was strong at panel why did they not deadlock it and wait to offer him his job back after the court case was over?

No union contract can violate STATE LAW. So, in other words, if the panel heard the case and determined he was eligible to return to work, yet, the circumstances were still a violation of State Law, then the charges can continue despite returning to work.

Read above paragraph again please.

Internal theft is a huge problem at our company. I hate it like the next guy.

We had a case last year where a driver was always showing claims on route in the "tens" of thousands of dollars each month. After a lengthy investigation and his house raided, the company found over 50K of merchandise in his home.

He was a "nice" guy too.

He asked everyone for help, we had no choice but the let the law of the land deal with him.

Theft no matter how small is a big deal.

All I can say is I hope his attorney, not you, provide him the proper legal advice and he learns a valuable lesson from the experience.

He has learned that no matter how ghard he works and no matter how many times he shows up to work it means nothing to this company and he is only a number that can be replaced in a blink of an eye even though he has 9 years of dedicated service.

 

[705red]

Danny, I dont want to insult your intelligence anymore than you do yourself, but maybe if you read my post, you would have seen this line:

"There had to be enough Prima facie evidence to make an initial case against this young man."

This means "intial".

Simply put, how much investigation is needed other than the record at hand. We have a young man in possession of a stolen cell phone, taken from the very employer of this young man. The young man "BY HIS" own admission states that he "bought" it from a former employee in the UPS parking lot for a reduced amount because the seller needed money.

This is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.

What further needs to be investigated?

I'll tell you, what is the other guys name, address, phone number who sold it to him. How did he pay for it? Where did he get the cash to pay for it? or do all part timers walk around with a cool $100 bill stashed in their pockets for a rainy day?

Im not sure if i went into detail on this, but the other guys had signed union waiver release forms, and no union steward was present. And again not all of our ptimers are in line at the food pantry or using link cards to buy groceries.

Why hasnt Red given us this persons info? Why hasnt Red sought to expose the seller to the same degree that he is "standing" up for this young man.

Ill tell you, cause its most likely B.S.

Show me what is bs about what i have posted!

You said: "red is not the legal agent for the guy. he has lawyers. but red is very involved in the process, which helps."

Emotional support is great, but taking time off work to hold someones hand is rediculous. Thats what attorneys are for. RED's over involvement takes a valuable asset away from UPS and the trade off is not worth the investment.

I would take off a week unpaid and sit in the court room for 15 hours a day to see justice done!

RED should differ his involvement to the local and return to his duties and leave the legalities to the professionals.

I handle all the grievances on the twilight shift, this employee is a twilight employee.

Just in case you think you understand contractual language, let me tell you a little something you dont know.

RED's involvement in this case, requiring him to miss work, under the auspices of Article 16- section 1 , can also get RED FIRED.

RED stated that he was not on OFFICIAL business, but the local was securing his time off so he can attend hearings, however, Article 16 section 1 provides that RED must be acting in an OFFICAL UNION matter and not babysitting a potential thief.

If I were RED, I wouldnt go to the well too many times on this issue.

This I can guarantee you.

If UPS can prove that RED used the local to secure time off for NON-OFFICIAL UNION BUSINESS, they could discharge him for dishonesty.

Sorry, but this is the truth. You may not like, but UPS will.

Article 16- section 1 is not to be abused by ANY teamster hourly for personal business.

I am in the court room as a witness to the happenings on this case from step one. I argued this case at low level and again at panel. I have a copy of the grievance resolution with me, and if i would abuse this article it would be for a round of golf and not to sit in a courtroom, this i assure you.

Secondly, whatever this was suppose to suggest:



This is called supposition. It means nothing otherwise. Two years can do many things to a case.

Mainly, its kills them. Guilty people walk free sometimes.

I dont read with my heart, I read with a defined, balanced and objective mindset. This case is like many others I have personally seen, people steal and blame others.

Some claim that "ignorance" is their defense, but "ignorance" to the obvious is never a legitimate excuse.

As the saying goes, "excuses dont explain, and explanations dont excuse"

 

[tieguy]

I am in the court room as a witness to the happenings on this case from step one. I argued this case at low level and again at panel. I have a copy of the grievance resolution with me, and if i would abuse this article it would be for a round of golf and not to sit in a courtroom, this i assure you.

witness to what? You weren't there when he bought it or stole it? The union process of getting a thief off at the panel does not really need to be witnessed in a court of law?

 

[dannyboy]

tie tie tie, same ole thing again. and the bad part is, when he is found not guilty, you will still be calling him a thief. shame.

let the court decide.

d

 

[705red]

I am in the court room as a witness to the happenings on this case from step one. I argued this case at low level and again at panel. I have a copy of the grievance resolution with me, and if i would abuse this article it would be for a round of golf and not to sit in a courtroom, this i assure you.

witness to what? You weren't there when he bought it or stole it? The union process of getting a thief off at the panel does not really need to be witnessed in a court of law?

Ive seen all of the evidence that ups has shown in their attempt to accuse him of being a theif. I will testify if needed to the FACT that even ups has agreed he is not guilty of these charges and has put him back to work. This is not second hand information as i sat on his case. Lets see what a judge or jury thinks about that!

 

[over9five]

tie tie tie, same ole thing again. and the bad part is, when he is found not guilty, you will still be calling him a thief. shame.

let the court decide.

d

Danny, if this was your $900 flat screen tv that was stolen, and this guy bought from someone in the parking lot, wouldn't you want him arrested?

If some idiot "bought" something of mine from some loser in a parking lot, I want to see him go to jail!

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Danny, if this was your $900 flat screen tv that was stolen, and this guy bought from someone in the parking lot, wouldn't you want him arrested?

If some idiot "bought" something of mine from some loser in a parking lot, I want to see him go to jail!

Not me, 9.5. Whether or not he knew about it is moot in my book. The actual thief should go to jail and the buyer should be given a good "talking" to, if ya know what I mean.

 

[The Other Side]

Ive seen all of the evidence that ups has shown in their attempt to accuse him of being a theif. I will testify if needed to the FACT that even ups has agreed he is not guilty of these charges and has put him back to work. This is not second hand information as i sat on his case. Lets see what a judge or jury thinks about that!

Red, my friend, your intentions may be right in your heart, but wrong in application.

ANYTHING you may have heard at PANEL would be HEARSAY and NOT admissible in a court of law. UPS itself would have to come in and testify as to WHAT they said, WHY they said it and you could not communicate this for them.

I think, and this is my personal observation, your in way over your head.

No matter what was said at a panel hearing, remember, there is law to consider, not just your feelings.

At panel, there is no sworn testimony, no witnesses, no video or audio and no stenographer. The person in question was NOT under oath at panel and neither YOU or the Local business agent can TESTIFY for him.

I know you want to help him out and all, but dont you think this is rather silly to invest this much effort in?

You yourself said there was a PLEA agreement offered? Well, what was it? Was it for a reduced charge of possession?

What circumstance did the prosecutor use to file a felony charge? What have you left out that we dont know? Why would the DA offer a plea agreement if the guy disputed UPS's charge with a PROVEABLE alibi?

What has this guy told a court so far? Why was the case postponed?

How do you expect to be a witness for him if all you have is hearsay evidence? This will never be allowed.

I dont want to throw out a bunch of legal terms and latin phrases to you, but I have one in mind I would like you to learn:

fate accompli-an accomplished fact; a thing already done: The enemy's defeat was a fait accompli long before the formal surrender.

Your man knew he was purchasing an expensive cell phone from a former employee who was known to have stolen merchandise from the company before and recently arrested and fired. This FACT sealed his fate.

You cannot ignore that someone would "knowlingly" purchase an expensive cell phone at a huge discount and NOT know it was probably stolen.

The relationship between the seller and your man "suggests" that they had a close relationship, one built on trust, and it could be suggested that your man was in on it the whole time.

Why would a "former" employee, recently arrested and fired from UPS approach your man and offer to sell him a phone out of the blue, unless your man knew the inside scoop on the phone to begin with.

Your man claims to be innocent, yet, pays the seller $100 in a parking lot of the very employer where the phone was stolen and takes it into LP for a property pass and not having the brains to know that LP would write down the serial number and other identifiable info from the phone and match it up with a database of stolen merchandise.

This is not something an innocent man does, its something a thief would do who believed he got something for nothing.

An innocent man would decline to buy the phone, contact UPS and report a former employee trying to sell phones in the parking lot.

All that baloney about helping out his family and needing food and stuff...yeah right.

I dont buy it. It makes no sense at all.

If your man had a reasonable alibi, I am sure the DA would not prosecute.

But, the fact that he was offered a plea deal, suggests on the surface that there is more to this story than your telling us.

I hope you have more evidence than pounding on your chest.

 

[tieguy]

tie tie tie, same ole thing again. and the bad part is, when he is found not guilty, you will still be calling him a thief. shame.

let the court decide.

d

Danny,

I've seen too many of these. Like to believe the guy the with the pregnant wife is an innocent victim but ..I've just seen too many of these. And yes Reds best defense is to attack the LP guy and throw in a little mix of evil corporation in cahoots with local law enforcement and hopefully it will work for the guy and he will escape with no consequences and learn from his mistake and never make the same mistake again....but buddy I've seen way too many of these. And regardless of what kind of sell his lawyer spins and the union boss supporting him in court might work ....but dang Danny I have seen way too many of these and there is a darn good chance the guy was in cahoots with the original thief and at the very least he had to know you don't buy brand new blackberrys for a song and dance.

And I know you had a bad experience and I know you have compassion for victims of our LP department but buddy you know what I'm telling you .......seen a lot of great people over the years that I thought were solid citizens who all of a sudden came up dirty on the thievery detector. Every single one of those thieves had great stories about how they were innocent victims because a thief not only is a thief but he is also a terrific liar.

And as a final thought if Red has been working out of the CACH hub then you have seen plenty of thieves over they years. So I hope your instincts are good on this one but I think the guy is spining some BS.

 

[trplnkl]

Red, my friend, your intentions may be right in your heart, but wrong in application.

ANYTHING you may have heard at PANEL would be HEARSAY and NOT admissible in a court of law. UPS itself would have to come in and testify as to WHAT they said, WHY they said it and you could not communicate this for them.

I think, and this is my personal observation, your in way over your head.

No matter what was said at a panel hearing, remember, there is law to consider, not just your feelings.

At panel, there is no sworn testimony, no witnesses, no video or audio and no stenographer. The person in question was NOT under oath at panel and neither YOU or the Local business agent can TESTIFY for him.

I know you want to help him out and all, but dont you think this is rather silly to invest this much effort in?

You yourself said there was a PLEA agreement offered? Well, what was it? Was it for a reduced charge of possession?

What circumstance did the prosecutor use to file a felony charge? What have you left out that we dont know? Why would the DA offer a plea agreement if the guy disputed UPS's charge with a PROVEABLE alibi?

What has this guy told a court so far? Why was the case postponed?

How do you expect to be a witness for him if all you have is hearsay evidence? This will never be allowed.

I dont want to throw out a bunch of legal terms and latin phrases to you, but I have one in mind I would like you to learn:

fate accompli-an accomplished fact; a thing already done: The enemy's defeat was a fait accompli long before the formal surrender.

Your man knew he was purchasing an expensive cell phone from a former employee who was known to have stolen merchandise from the company before and recently arrested and fired. This FACT sealed his fate.

You cannot ignore that someone would "knowlingly" purchase an expensive cell phone at a huge discount and NOT know it was probably stolen.

The relationship between the seller and your man "suggests" that they had a close relationship, one built on trust, and it could be suggested that your man was in on it the whole time.

Why would a "former" employee, recently arrested and fired from UPS approach your man and offer to sell him a phone out of the blue, unless your man knew the inside scoop on the phone to begin with.

Your man claims to be innocent, yet, pays the seller $100 in a parking lot of the very employer where the phone was stolen and takes it into LP for a property pass and not having the brains to know that LP would write down the serial number and other identifiable info from the phone and match it up with a database of stolen merchandise.

This is not something an innocent man does, its something a thief would do who believed he got something for nothing.

An innocent man would decline to buy the phone, contact UPS and report a former employee trying to sell phones in the parking lot.

All that baloney about helping out his family and needing food and stuff...yeah right.

I dont buy it. It makes no sense at all.

If your man had a reasonable alibi, I am sure the DA would not prosecute.

But, the fact that he was offered a plea deal, suggests on the surface that there is more to this story than your telling us.

I hope you have more evidence than pounding on your chest.

Well, with some of the "facts" that you state here it is plain to see that either you failed to read what has been posted about this case or you don't understand what you read or you would rather ignore what has been presented. Get YOUR facts straight.

 

[dannyboy]

tos

t said it well

but let me just point out why. take the first deduction you make past your inability to actually believe strongly in something.......oh wait, you do believe strongly, just in a lot of the wrong stuff.

ANYTHING you may have heard at PANEL would be HEARSAY and NOT admissible in a court of law. UPS itself would have to come in and testify as to WHAT they said, WHY they said it and you could not communicate this for them.

you are assuming that ups was the only one there? the union was not at the panel? ups is the only one that actually knows what was said, and the poor union is just to stupid to be able to testify. and what would make reds testimony hearsay, and not that of the company? he was there. he has the paperwork that declared him not guilty. so why would you think that only ups could give testimony, but everyone elses would be hearsay.

see what i am saying. you throw around all those neato legal terms, but you really have no idea as to the legal application in this case.

9.5, did i ever say that he is not guilty of possession? but that is not what we are dealing with here.

as to the lesser charges, i would take a serious guess that the charge of possession was not one that was offered. my guess is that lesser charges than felony theft, but still theft were offered, and that is why they were refused.

tie, you are correct, i have seen a lot of thieves at ups. some were even pretty close to me, people i saw every day, went out to eat with, etc.

but i have also seen the misuse of that power that is delegated to the lp department. lazy people (maybe just over worked) that do not attempt to do the proper investigation, but instead jump to a lot of conclusions that are not borne out by the proof. much like tos's post above. maybe this, and if that, and when this could have happened, and bingo, we have enough "proof" to have him arrested and jailed.

i think you will need to have a little more faith in the guys at the panel. they very much understand the guy screwed up. did something that was bone headed and wrong. and putting him back to work without backpay is a clear warning that he did do wrong. kinda the corp version of taking him out behind the woodshed (that ought to sooth the savage 9.5).

d

 

[over9five]

I guess my feeling is that you should throw people who buy stolen property into jail. This would send a message to other people who would buy stolen property.
If the people who actually steal the stuff have no-one to sell it to, I see crime dropping. (No reason to steal it if no-one will buy it from you because they'll go to jail).

This guy gets off, the only message he gets is "it's OK to buy stolen property".

It's not OK with me.

 

[dilligaf]

Come on Over, being gullible isn't a crime. He might need to be slapped upside the head, but go to jail? You and Daniel (Daniel, go read Driver helper) need to have a little tolerance. As do some others.

 

[The Other Side]

tos

t said it well

but let me just point out why. take the first deduction you make past your inability to actually believe strongly in something.......oh wait, you do believe strongly, just in a lot of the wrong stuff.



you are assuming that ups was the only one there? the union was not at the panel? ups is the only one that actually knows what was said, and the poor union is just to stupid to be able to testify. and what would make reds testimony hearsay, and not that of the company? he was there. he has the paperwork that declared him not guilty. so why would you think that only ups could give testimony, but everyone elses would be hearsay.

see what i am saying. you throw around all those neato legal terms, but you really have no idea as to the legal application in this case.

9.5, did i ever say that he is not guilty of possession? but that is not what we are dealing with here.

as to the lesser charges, i would take a serious guess that the charge of possession was not one that was offered. my guess is that lesser charges than felony theft, but still theft were offered, and that is why they were refused.

tie, you are correct, i have seen a lot of thieves at ups. some were even pretty close to me, people i saw every day, went out to eat with, etc.

but i have also seen the misuse of that power that is delegated to the lp department. lazy people (maybe just over worked) that do not attempt to do the proper investigation, but instead jump to a lot of conclusions that are not borne out by the proof. much like tos's post above. maybe this, and if that, and when this could have happened, and bingo, we have enough "proof" to have him arrested and jailed.

i think you will need to have a little more faith in the guys at the panel. they very much understand the guy screwed up. did something that was bone headed and wrong. and putting him back to work without backpay is a clear warning that he did do wrong. kinda the corp version of taking him out behind the woodshed (that ought to sooth the savage 9.5).

d

Ahh Danny,

How far shall I break this down for you. As I said before to you on this case. You have to take your personal emotional feelings out of the equation and use the facts at hand.

Here it is again. A panel hearing is NOT A TRIAL. There is NO SWORN TESTIMONY, NO WITNESSES, NO VIDEO, NO AUDIO, no RECORDED TESTIMONY. The only thing RED could testify to, would be what HE said only. Everything else would be HEARSAY.

A Union agreement can NEVER, EVER circumvent STATE or LOCAL LAW.

No matter what the outcome of three union guys and three company guys (panel), the COMPANY can still pursue its LEGAL options in this case.

There is NOTHING in the NMA that PRECLUDES the company from excersising its legal options.

Now, I guarantee you that the panel hearing did not "DECLARE HIM NOT GUILTY" and RED will NOT have any such ruling or finding in writing.

What a panel does is hear both sides in approximately 10 mins each side.

Then it votes on each sides position. The majority rules. Now, this is not to say a person is INNOCENT. Its to determine if rules were followed and the contract violated. Now, without seeing the record, I cannot guess as to why the panel ruled to re-instate him to the job. There is "innocent until proven guilty" language in our NMA, and maybe the company just did not have enough to convince the panel that the termination met this standard.

I believe this is what may have been ruled, but that does not make him INNOCENT.

The company, because of its limited search and seizure restrictions can differ any investigation to the local authorities in all cases. Because the State has the power to supoena, search and interogate, its more likely to get to the truth of the matter, and I am sure this is what UPS wants to find out.

With millions of dollars in losses each month, getting to the source of theft is what is intended.

We all have a stake in the company being protected from theft. If this young man is a bigger part of an internal theft ring, then by all means, look up his keister with a microscope for all I care.

But, dont bring tears to the case.

He's in possession of a stolen phone, stolen from his employer, stolen by a known thief previously fired for stealing, sold in the very parking lot of the very company that it was stolen from, sold to a "friend" of the thief comfortable enough to know that he will NOT be turned in and for a price less than rediculous to be an honest sale.

What more needs to be said?

Danny, like I said, there are many things to consider, one of them is another latin term:

CAVEAT EMPTOR

Main Entry: caveat emp·tor Pronunciation: \-ˈem(p)-tər, -ˌtȯr\ Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware Date: 1523 : a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk

This is what the young man in question did. He took the risk, now he faces a criminal charge.

Another poster said it correctly, make him an example for others, buying stolen merchandise does not pay. Finding this young man not guilty would only make it ok for others to steal and sell company merchandise to each other with impunity.