What is L.P. thinking?

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by The Other Side

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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

[dannyboy]

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

nope, you are right. it makes him guilty. thats why they brought him back to work

i am not dealing with emotion and tears as you so eloquently suggest. i am taking the cold hard facts as they have been presented here, and drawn my conclusions from them

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.

yup, that pesky little part of our rights under the constitution. innocent until proven guilty. problem is, you seem to think the other way around. he is guilty of theft, without any proof to back it up. the company had the time to process all the information it had, it could have, if they felt it important enough, to have the state authorities investigate further if their abilities were not sufficient.

but they did not. so either the proof into the charge of theft by this employee did not exist, or they were too damn lazy to uncover it. my guess is the first.

so, under the constitution and the contract, the company failed to prove its charges to a reasonable degree of certainty, therefore they had to let him go back to work. which is the way it should be. you are Innocent until it is proven you are guilty.

kinda funny, so many of the ones that would argue about the guilt of this guy, and how he should be in jail are the same ones that would argue that the guys in gitmo are just innocents on their way to get married or out with the guys on a family vacation.

you are forgetting the simple concept of due process. and until his day in court, he is Innocent until proven guilty of felony theft. that is also why we have the executions after the trials instead of before them.

now, if you are bent on making examples of a industry that would impact theft, lets arrest every one that owns or works at a pawn shop, flea market, used goods stores, ebay, etc. without the mass ability to turn goods into cash, theives would not steal, right? so regardless of guilt or inocence, but to make a statement, lets just take them all to jail without a trial or hearing because they are all guilty.

yes, that does make a lot of sense.

d

[705red]

Tos you are all over the place! Please reread the entire thread and gather the correct information and than repost. Im not going to hold you hand and walk you trough it when its already spelled out for you.

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by 705red

Tos you are all over the place! Please reread the entire thread and gather the correct information and than repost. Im not going to hold you hand and walk you trough it when its already spelled out for you.

I had a strong feeling as I had been reading all his political posts over the last two months that his rambling, unfocused discourses were a pattern that would not be confined to politics.

[dannyboy]

i have a brother that is a die hard liberal democrat.

he is much like t in that he takes a stand, then develops the basis for his stand (regardless how stupid or crazy) from what he thinks is the truth and fact. very interesting the concepts he thinks he knows as fact, but the spin he puts on them is totally off base.

at least t has some time to actually do some research or at the very least takes the time to look up terminology.

as for my brother, hes just plain stupid.

d