What is L.P. thinking?
- Thread starter 705red
- Start date
hondo
promoted to mediocrity
DEA successfully eliminated qualudes with a strategy targeting its manufacture.
trplnkl
555
I can't imagine a DA of a pretty large city preferring charges against anyone for a theft of such a small amount with out the insistence of UPS (or other victim). The investigation and prosecution for this so called crime will cost the tax payers much more than the stupid phone retails for without a service contract. However, victims have the right to press charges against a suspect, then the DA follows through. So yes, UPS can and probably does have a big influence in the proceeding of this case, simply by pressing charges.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
pressing charges is one thing. being guilty or being convicted is another.
a few years back, i pulled up a fence that was 5 feet inside my property line. even had the surveyor out to mark the whole area. neighbor decided to pull out the stakes and filed charges of destruction of private property, claiming the fence was on his property. they came to the house with an arrest warrant 7am as i was getting the kids ready to go to school.
since i happened to know the deputy, he agreed that i would "turn myself in" after i got off work.
long and short of the matter is this. this idiot tried to ruin my life, used the court system to harass and prosecute me, and when he failed to show up as a witness, the charges were dropped. it cost more than 6 grand, and when i sought damages, he was of course bankrupt.
so our system of justice and be missused by individuals and companies for their own agenda. but hopefully the truth and justice will prevail.
red, it is in the courts hands. there it needs to be decided. but if the charges are dropped or he is found innocent of the charge of stealing, i would suspect that ups should be the target of legal action, the lp guy in particular.
jmho
d
a few years back, i pulled up a fence that was 5 feet inside my property line. even had the surveyor out to mark the whole area. neighbor decided to pull out the stakes and filed charges of destruction of private property, claiming the fence was on his property. they came to the house with an arrest warrant 7am as i was getting the kids ready to go to school.
since i happened to know the deputy, he agreed that i would "turn myself in" after i got off work.
long and short of the matter is this. this idiot tried to ruin my life, used the court system to harass and prosecute me, and when he failed to show up as a witness, the charges were dropped. it cost more than 6 grand, and when i sought damages, he was of course bankrupt.
so our system of justice and be missused by individuals and companies for their own agenda. but hopefully the truth and justice will prevail.
red, it is in the courts hands. there it needs to be decided. but if the charges are dropped or he is found innocent of the charge of stealing, i would suspect that ups should be the target of legal action, the lp guy in particular.
jmho
d
tieguy
Banned
I agree hes guilty of being in possesion of stolen goods because possesion is 9/10ths of the law. The point is he was not charged with that he was charged with stealing the phone.
We don't know if he stole it or if he bought it. You don't know either. You know what he tells you and others. We do know he was in possession of a stolen phone thus the charge. To me there really is no difference between stealing it and buying it stolen.
If i was on trial for murder and during the court hearing i admitted that i jay walked, and was found innocent of the murder they would not find me guilty of jaywalking. Thats not the crime i was charged with.
If you were found in possession of a murdered body you would have a hard time winning the case in court. At the panel however possession is not enough ups has to have someone that says they saw you kill the guy. One of the benifits of a panel.
Why? Because ups management says hes a bad guy? This could have been you! Look he bought the phone, not on ups's time, not in a ups uniform and in a parking lot that ups is not held accountable if your car is vanadlized, broken into or stolen from!
He either bought a brand new blackberry stolen from one of our customers or he stole it. If we don't put a stop to the thievery then we won't have jobs to return to.
You ever have a sup that just didnt like you? by your post im sure you have pissed someone off at some point and time or you could just be a little company suck hole! Which is it.
Your going off on a tangent now Red. Some supervisor that does not like your guy did not instruct him to buy a stolen phone. Thanks for attacking me in order to defend your thief.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
guys
my suggestion is that we let the court decide what is real and what is not. anything else is counter productive.
bottom line is that sometimes lp gets a bit too excited about catching a thief and thinks they are doing a good job, when in fact they are doing a lot of what you are doing here, making statements about what you think instead of what really is.
lets just see what happens when he gets his day in court.
d
my suggestion is that we let the court decide what is real and what is not. anything else is counter productive.
bottom line is that sometimes lp gets a bit too excited about catching a thief and thinks they are doing a good job, when in fact they are doing a lot of what you are doing here, making statements about what you think instead of what really is.
lets just see what happens when he gets his day in court.
d
705red
Browncafe Steward
Tie unless you just admitted to having multiple user accounts i did not attack YOU.I agree hes guilty of being in possesion of stolen goods because possesion is 9/10ths of the law. The point is he was not charged with that he was charged with stealing the phone.
We don't know if he stole it or if he bought it. You don't know either. You know what he tells you and others. We do know he was in possession of a stolen phone thus the charge. To me there really is no difference between stealing it and buying it stolen.
If i was on trial for murder and during the court hearing i admitted that i jay walked, and was found innocent of the murder they would not find me guilty of jaywalking. Thats not the crime i was charged with.
If you were found in possession of a murdered body you would have a hard time winning the case in court. At the panel however possession is not enough ups has to have someone that says they saw you kill the guy. One of the benifits of a panel.
Why? Because ups management says hes a bad guy? This could have been you! Look he bought the phone, not on ups's time, not in a ups uniform and in a parking lot that ups is not held accountable if your car is vanadlized, broken into or stolen from!
He either bought a brand new blackberry stolen from one of our customers or he stole it. If we don't put a stop to the thievery then we won't have jobs to return to.
You ever have a sup that just didnt like you? by your post im sure you have pissed someone off at some point and time or you could just be a little company suck hole! Which is it.
Your going off on a tangent now Red. Some supervisor that does not like your guy did not instruct him to buy a stolen phone. Thanks for attacking me in order to defend your thief.
tieguy
Banned
Not sure Red could be a kiss , perhaps a chicago hug but it did kinda look like you took a shot at me in defense of your thief?
705red
Browncafe Steward
Was that psot after yours or finnadict? Someone need a hug today? Feeling a little more insecure than normal?
If i was going to take a shot at you i would do so in direct reply to you, like a man!
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
D, the sad part is that after all of this rhetoric the case will more than likely be pleaded out and will not see a courtroom.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
maybe, but the issue is the ability to withstand the assault of the legal system. the state, and those that use it for their own purposes, have unlimited tax funds to support the actions of the da.
the taxpayer has to not only fund the prosecution, but also his defense. and that really sucks.
in his case i would not plead if he can afford to have the trial. and why should he plead to possession, they can not offer that as they have not charged him with that.
and so it goes
d
the taxpayer has to not only fund the prosecution, but also his defense. and that really sucks.
in his case i would not plead if he can afford to have the trial. and why should he plead to possession, they can not offer that as they have not charged him with that.
and so it goes
d
Bloodybrown
Well-Known Member
Red, why do you always take on the bleeding heart cases??.....one of these days your going to look so stupid for backing a thug or thief ( you probably already have, but still don't learn your lesson) This guy knew what he was doing when he bought the phone. Chicago people are street smart and play all the angles as you and local do. I think you followed the wrong career path, you should have been a defense attorney and maybe OJ would have hired you for his case in Las vegas. I am sure you think he was innocent now as he was back in the nineties!!!!
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Lets break this whole thing down to the basics;
- The employee was NOT caught stealing. He bought a phone which later proved to be stolen by a different employee, who had NOT yet been caught or accused of theft.
- The employee voluntarily registered the phone...with serial#....with the Loss Prevention department of the company from whom he supposedly stole it.
- Posession of stolen goods is not in and of itself a crime. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution to prove that you KNEW it was stolen. There must be criminal intent. If you buy a ring at a pawnshop or used jewelry store, and the ring is subsequently proven to have been stolen, you are not guilty of a crime.
- A grievance panel...composed of equal union AND management representatives...decided to give this employee his job back.
- Upon what basis then....does a company pursue criminal charges against an employee who has been determined by a panel of its own representatives to be NOT GUILTY of the crime?
tieguy
Banned
company does not pursue charges. this is not a civil case. The DA looks at the evidence and decides to prosecute if the evidence is there. The real question here is why is the DA pursuing this lowly theft case against this guy. There must be some pretty damning evidence.
RockyRogue
Agent of Change
For the record, if I saw somebody stealing from my company, it wouldn't matter if I was Union or not. I'd still give that statement. Traitor? Maybe. Bad idea? Probably. But I HATE thieves! -Rocky
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
cach
so you are implying that the union condones covering up theft and the protection of thieves? that is what it sounds like.
tie
being stupid is not against the law. the act of registering the phone with security is exactly what one would do if they indeed believed the phone was a legit purchase. as for the da and the part ups is playing in this action, ups gave the da information. ups says we have proof of this guy stealing the phone. the da takes ups at its word and do their job.
the jury of his peers (the panel) has found the guy not guilty of theft. stupidity, fur sure, but he was not fired because of stupidity, was he. and the powers that be in lp could have fired him for possession of goods stolen from ups, but that was not the charge either.
lp put all their eggs in the felony theft charge at the panel, and the preponderance of the evidence did not support a guilty ruling by the panel.
remember, you have to show the guy is guilty, not just claim he is per your view.
the panel said he is not guilty (innocent for those of you that are learning challenged) of the charge of theft....... lets see what a court of law says.
d
so you are implying that the union condones covering up theft and the protection of thieves? that is what it sounds like.
tie
being stupid is not against the law. the act of registering the phone with security is exactly what one would do if they indeed believed the phone was a legit purchase. as for the da and the part ups is playing in this action, ups gave the da information. ups says we have proof of this guy stealing the phone. the da takes ups at its word and do their job.
the jury of his peers (the panel) has found the guy not guilty of theft. stupidity, fur sure, but he was not fired because of stupidity, was he. and the powers that be in lp could have fired him for possession of goods stolen from ups, but that was not the charge either.
lp put all their eggs in the felony theft charge at the panel, and the preponderance of the evidence did not support a guilty ruling by the panel.
remember, you have to show the guy is guilty, not just claim he is per your view.
the panel said he is not guilty (innocent for those of you that are learning challenged) of the charge of theft....... lets see what a court of law says.
d
2Slow
Well-Known Member
So Red is saying that these thieves stole cell phones, were caught and fired for it, then came back to UPS to sell it on their property at a later date? And this guy was completely innocent, had no idea about these people?
That smells of bull. C'mon are you telling me the bulk driver ( who comes to face with most every person in the building no matter what the oepration -center or hub - had no idea of what went on?
I don't know where these guys work, but in my building there are at least a thousand employees working twenty four hours a day. Also, people get fired all the time. I bet an average of two people a week get fired, most of them get their jobs back, some don't (and managment rarely talks about it).
What's my point? How can you be sure that this guy knew about the firing?
Similar threads
