705red
Browncafe Steward
Danny I'm very dissapointed in your support of the thief. I expected as much from Red since he has no sense.
No sense? Whos the one that went into management? I no think it was me!
Danny I'm very dissapointed in your support of the thief. I expected as much from Red since he has no sense.
No sense? Whos the one that went into management? I no think it was me!
Youre at the bar, and still on BC? now steve, we all know youre a lock for miss congeniality but wow thats just dedication.
I didnt know steve had a son?Its ok Ill still be your son in law someday steve
actually my friend, the contrary is true.
i didnt really think about it much, but a lurker brought my attention to the fact that i have not challenged you on the premise that you and you alone are the one that actually cares about theft at ups.
any one else that would take a different view than yours actually supports thieves and theft. you have stated as much.
i know better, and have the track record to prove it. and it bothers me greatly when customers leave because of issues involving theft at ups. i lost one years ago because of one of our drivers not being honest in his dealings with them.
so while i think that you could very well be wrong, you could also be right. what we need to do is let the legal system take its route and let the chips fall where they may. until then, to felony theft, he is innocent. buying stolen goods, there is no argument. knowing it was stolen is where the issue lies. and the 100 dollars allegedly paid is about the worth of a used phone of that type when you actually look at the options available.
tie, what was it that he was arrested for? not once have we said he was not in possession, he paid for it. as for the rest of what will come from you, i refer you to the panel hearing and a group of your contemporaries and their findings.
while you see it that way, i am more in the support mode of lp doing the proper background research before they go off. i have personally seen what shoddy intel gathering does to a person. and from what has been posted here......
again, just because i disagree with you does not my support of a thief make.
as for disappointment, we will get a chance to speak to that issue over a beer or two?
best
d
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 in this story so I was in fact somewhat disappointed that you bought this fairy tale.
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 in this story so I was in fact somewhat dissapointed that you bought this fairy tale.
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.
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?
Don't know
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.
Weak argument. Condition of item would have been brand new , mint if he actually bought it. Common thief explanation is always that he bought it.
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?
In maryland 400 dollars is the minimum for a felony. I believe 400 dollars may be a common dollar amount for most of the country.
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.
Red should say so then. Reds style of defense is dispicable. He will attack reputation of the LP person, arresting officer , DA and judge in order to defend on low life thief.
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.
Reds thief says it happened we don't know. Reds thief will spin whatever story he thinks will save his lying thieving behind.
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.
A jury is a little bit of a stretch. The LP Guy had to prove the guy stole the phone. Possession of the stolen item was not enough to prove guilt. Weak process slanted in favor of the thief as you well know.
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?
I've been to panel hearings too. I have seen the opposite of what you describe.
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.
Yea its possible that he may have been mentally challenged and too stupid to know he was buying something hot. If thats the case Red should say so.
everything the guy did points to stupidity, but not criminal intent.
Fair enough line of defense. Red tells us . Is the guy a complete idiot?
His claim then was to say he bought it from another employee at a 75 percent discount.
When thieves get caught red handed a common explanation is someone gave or sold them the item.
**************
Is it against the law to be stupid?
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?