What is L.P. thinking?

[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(Ret)]

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(Ret)]

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

I guess Palin's daughter missed that sermon.

 

[705red]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[tieguy]

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?

Mr. Red,

( are we back to a formal relationship honey?) Again I respect your passion for defending the guy. You are an asset to the ranks.

Regardless of whether the guy stole it or bought it hot he knew what he was doing and I believe he is a thief.

Keep defending him Red , even the thieves need a savior.

 

[705red]

Tie there is a difference in what one believes and what one can prove.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about management stealing from hourlies.

 

[tieguy]

Tie there is a difference in what one believes and what one can prove.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about management stealing from hourlies.

this is true. You applied a common tactic I chose to ignore where the defender tries to steer you away from the guilt of his client.

 

[705red]

Tie your not one of these managers that allow the company to profit more while taking an hour of ot away from an employee, not to mention maybe even violating dot laws because they are over 14 hours in falsifying their lunch records?

 

[cachsux]

Keep defending him Red , even the thieves need a savior.

Red H Christ?