Fireman steals 8 bucks of stuff, may get fired

[BonzaiDuck]

Nothing morally righteous about it. I don't like thieves. I don't like having to keep everything under look and key. I won't have an employee that I don't completely trust. If someone will steal $10, they'll steal $1000.
There are no "ok" thieves, there is no gray area, you're a thief or you're not.

You can try and justify stealing "just a little bit" all you want, I'll never accept it. You have no right to take something that doesn't belong to you, and believing that it's ok tells me you're a person of no character.

Want respect, don't be a thief. Want trust, don't be a thief. Want to have a reputation as a man of honor, don't be a thief. I learned this by the time I was 7, it ain't rocket science.

Whatever you say, but the punishment should fit the crime. And even as you say it is a problem of character or morality, it doesn't negate my own points about it.

 

[Greenman]

Whatever you say, but the punishment should fit the crime. And even as you say it is a problem of character or morality, it doesn't negate my own points about it.

I agree, the punishment should fit the crime. I wouldn't put someone in prison for petty theft, the first time.

 

[CZroe]

Whatever you say, but the punishment should fit the crime. And even as you say it is a problem of character or morality, it doesn't negate my own points about it.

Firing an untrustworthy thief DOES fit the crime.

 

[DrDoug]

Firing an untrustworthy thief DOES fit the crime.

Yup, trustworthy thieves are the best employees! It's them darned untrustworthy ones that you can't trust.

Are the trustworthy ones the ones that screw the customer over instead? :biggrin:

 

[007ELmO]

What is a criminal? I got a 4th degree misdemeanor for getting 2 tickets in the same day, and almost lost my license due to points racked up in 6 months.

My CEO said don't worry, we had someone else who was like that and they could still drive to work, lol.

 

[CZroe]

Yup, trustworthy thieves are the best employees! It's them darned untrustworthy ones that you can't trust.

Are the trustworthy ones the ones that screw the customer over instead? :biggrin:

...as opposed to someone who had to steal to eat before you have them a job.

 

[007ELmO]

I have several employees that I can't trust, co-workers. It's unfortunate, and I still manage to work with them, but it's not as easy and productive as the couple that I do trust.

So think of it this way, if management cares about only employing trustworthy employees, they couldn't employ each other.

Being a consultant, I interact with many different businesses, and I have yet to find a manager that hasn't lied about one thing or another at some point. They care if they're being lied to, but if they're getting their CYA from you for anything else, they are happy. They all play the "game" while their employees do the dirty work. Management is half politics.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Firing an untrustworthy thief DOES fit the crime.

Not if the type of crime (shoplift) doesn't coincide with any risk to the employer.

I can imagine all sorts of scenarios, with an employee who takes his/her job seriously. A tax-preparer. Even a bank employee. You might find Bernie Madoff completely uninclined to steal a bag of Skittles from the local drug store, and a shoplifter in some white-collar accounting position who would never compromise his job or profession by pulling a "Madoff," embezzling funds or any such thing.

You can say "it's all theft!" but they are two completely different types of crime.

An employer might take the attitude that you pose, or they might see little or no connection between a first-time Skittles-heist and managing corporate accounts. If someone goes into a store with a wallet full of Franklins and steals a bag of Skittles, something else is going on with that. If they were to embezzle several Franklins-worth in their official position, that's about greed and real dishonesty -- it's a different moral problem, and a different sort of crime.

Now I'll say this: this had all been explored in an op-ed -- full-page -- I'd read some twenty years ago. But the thing that stood out: people from all walks of life and circumstances are caught stealing something ridiculously small or meaningless from some store. The remedy there is to fine them, apply some sort of sentence like community service, and bar them from the store.

What you're suggesting is that you ruin somebody's life for a transgression involving a bag of Skittles -- first time. Of course, if it's "first time," one can argue that they possibly did it before and "got away with it."

The other part of it might involve somebody who had been in and out of the slammer for serious crimes: strong-arm bank-robbery, assault, etc. They get caught for stealing a DVD from a Blockbuster. A three-strikes law would have them back in the slammer for the last crime to do serious time.

I can't make a moral pronouncement about the three-strikes law, but it would have been the two serious crimes that governed the outcome.

Shoplifting small items is a childish act, by somebody acting out childishly. And I think if it were a public employee on-duty -- he/she has compromised his/her position. He/she has done more than just create "an appearance of impropriety" -- as Senator McCain had been censured for at the time of the Keating scandal. So . . . Fire the Fireman!

NOTE: And now that I think of it, that article I read 20 years ago wasn't an op-ed; it was a two-page "human interest" news story.

 

[Greenman]

So you'd be ok if your doctor took a couple dollars out of your wallet while you were changing? Or maybe your accountant skimmed 3 bucks out of your savings account? It's just a couple bucks right? Petty, almost not worth mentioning. That wouldn't make you decide that the person was untrustworthy? You'd just call it normal behavior and let it go?

Do you condone such things because you do them? Or is it that you've come to accept, or even expect such behavior from others?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

So you'd be ok if your doctor took a couple dollars out of your wallet while you were changing? Or maybe your accountant skimmed 3 bucks out of your savings account? It's just a couple bucks right? Petty, almost not worth mentioning. That wouldn't make you decide that the person was untrustworthy? You'd just call it normal behavior and let it go?

Do you condone such things because you do them? Or is it that you've come to accept, or even expect such behavior from others?

Again, no, I wouldn't be OK with that. Someone acting in their professional role, stealing from me? While doing their job? Of course not.

It's not the same thing. You will no doubt fail to see it, but it isn't the same thing. It's not about the "petty amounts" being the same. It's about somebody compromising their professional integrity. And I made it clear: If someone was "on duty" choosing to shoplift a candy-bar as in the fireman's case, it would justify firing them.

Employers will justify their actions in various ways. A misdemeanant caught with a package of M&Ms leaving the local convenience store is not likely to come to his employer's attention. Whether or not it eventually happens, whether or not he gets fired six months later -- I'm simply repeating what I'd read 20 years ago.

They're not the same type of crime. If I were your dentist, choosing to pick your wallet while you wait for your x-ray or otherwise confined to the dental chair, I'd lose business, wouldn't I? I'd ruin my reputation in my bread-and-butter work. No rational person, whether they'd once done a $2 shoplift or not, would do that.

This then gets down to whether you'd offer your investment portfolio to Bernie Madoff once he got out of prison. Of course you wouldn't! You can turn that around some way, with a scenario of a misdemeanor conviction on his record. But what are you going to look at to make those judgments? You're going to ask around to see whether he's an honest stockbroker.

 

[CZroe]

Not if the type of crime (shoplift) doesn't coincide with any risk to the employer.

I can imagine all sorts of scenarios, with an employee who takes his/her job seriously. A tax-preparer. Even a bank employee. You might find Bernie Madoff completely uninclined to steal a bag of Skittles from the local drug store, and a shoplifter in some white-collar accounting position who would never compromise his job or profession by pulling a "Madoff," embezzling funds or any such thing.

...and yet Robert Durst was arrested for stealing a sub sandwich with tens of thousands to his name and a family as rich and powerful as Madoff ever was.

Look: if they are dishonest and steal a sandwich they didn't have to steal then they are dishonest period. It indicates a deeper problem. They are inclined to do things they can get away with, some things a lot worse than $8. Did I mention that Robert Durst hacked his neighbor to pieces? There's no way I'd be comfortable with a petty thief doing my taxes or vacuuming my carpets. I don't even want them taking my order at a drive thru if I can help it.

You can say "it's all theft!" but they are two completely different types of crime.

Completely different is not the point. The point is that they are selfish, not trustworthy, and are likely to do other things they can get away with.

An employer might take the attitude that you pose, or they might see little or no connection between a first-time Skittles-heist and managing corporate accounts. If someone goes into a store with a wallet full of Franklins and steals a bag of Skittles, something else is going on with that. If they were to embezzle several Franklins-worth in their official position, that's about greed and real dishonesty -- it's a different moral problem, and a different sort of crime.

Something else is going on with Mr. Lifeguard/Fireman. He thinks he is entitled to whatever he can get away with. That is a VERY dangerous person to trust/have around.

Now I'll say this: this had all been explored in an op-ed -- full-page -- I'd read some twenty years ago. But the thing that stood out: people from all walks of life and circumstances are caught stealing something ridiculously small or meaningless from some store. The remedy there is to fine them, apply some sort of sentence like community service, and bar them from the store.

What you're suggesting is that you ruin somebody's life for a transgression involving a bag of Skittles -- first time. Of course, if it's "first time," one can argue that they possibly did it before and "got away with it."

You may not realize this but I make my living catching shoplifters. I've caught kids who were supposed to go to college the next day. You know what? Good. It's best that they learn the lesson about consequences for their actions when they are young. It's extra paperwork but I prefer to catch minors so that they understand this before they have an adult record that will follow them around the rest of their lives.

The other part of it might involve somebody who had been in and out of the slammer for serious crimes: strong-arm bank-robbery, assault, etc. They get caught for stealing a DVD from a Blockbuster. A three-strikes law would have them back in the slammer for the last crime to do serious time.

Good. Obviously the person had no respect for the law to risk it and wouldn't have even thought twice had there not been laws/repercussions. Those are the people who need to be made into examples and yet you take pity.

 

[Zorkorist]

Do the crime, be prepared to do the time.

-John

 

[BonzaiDuck]

...and yet Robert Durst was arrested for stealing a sub sandwich with tens of thousands to his name and a family as rich and powerful as Madoff ever was.

Look: if they are dishonest and steal a sandwich they didn't have to steal then they are dishonest period. It indicates a deeper problem. They are inclined to do things they can get away with, some things a lot worse than $8. Did I mention that Robert Durst hacked his neighbor to pieces? There's no way I'd be comfortable with a petty thief doing my taxes or vacuuming my carpets. I don't even want them taking my order at a drive thru if I can help it.


Completely different is not the point. The point is that they are selfish, not trustworthy, and are likely to do other things they can get away with.


Something else is going on with Mr. Lifeguard/Fireman. He thinks he is entitled to whatever he can get away with. That is a VERY dangerous person to trust/have around.


You may not realize this but I make my living catching shoplifters. I've caught kids who were supposed to go to college the next day. You know what? Good. It's best that they learn the lesson about consequences for their actions when they are young. It's extra paperwork but I prefer to catch minors so that they understand this before they have an adult record that will follow them around the rest of their lives.


Good. Obviously the person had no respect for the law to risk it and wouldn't have even thought twice had there not been laws/repercussions. Those are the people who need to be made into examples and yet you take pity.

Can't understand how you conclude that.

Instead, this three-strikes law had come up as an issue in recent years in California. They had posed the argument that the shoplift of a DVD shouldn't warrant life in prison, despite the debt already paid to society for the other serious crimes.

Here, we're talking about a three-strikes law and a consequence to $5 theft. What do you think?

Also, you must be kidding. Robert Durst murdered all those people, stole a chicken sandwich and caught with marijuana in his car. So we assume your first-time shoplifter is possibly a dope-fiend and a serial murderer?

Go back to that novel by Nathanial Hawthorne -- "The Scarlet Letter." Woman forced to wear a big read A for having committed adultery. So I'm thinking: why not hack off the right hand of you Skittles-thief? That would teach him a lesson, wouldn't it?

Someone said "Do the crime, do the time." Usually something like that -- a $5 to $10 shoplift -- isn't going to have any time. It would be a fine. But what you're saying here, is that anybody who succumbs to the momentary aberration of lifting a bag of M&Ms should lose their job. And I'm saying the fireman should lose his job because he committed this petty crime in uniform, on duty.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's worse because he is in a position of trust.

-John

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It's worse because he is in a position of trust.

-John

Yes. And he compromised that trust under the situation we've pointed out.

You know, of course, that California has had some very serious wildfires over the years since around 2003.

Who do you think they "trust" in fighting those fires?

 

[Zorkorist]

Anyone, can fight a fire, of course.

-John

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Anyone, can fight a fire, of course.

-John

Prisoners, from the state prison system, when they need the manpower.

And the state is being overpowered with these blazes. It's taking money away from other things, like road repair.

 

[Zorkorist]

Congrats on passing 10,000 posts!

Not everyone can do that

-John

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Congrats on passing 10,000 posts!

Not everyone can do that

-John

Been here since 2004. I've got fast fingers. What can I say?

 

[Mai72]

We have police that hang out at WaWa for hours, drink free coffee, and do nothing. Granted, I live in a resort town and its winter.

As for this fireman I'm on the fence. Yea, it's only $8. That's not the point. It's the act and he was committing theft. Also, he's a civil servent and his actions are a reflection on the community. Why the hell did he steal $8 worth of merchandise. Don't people think about the repercussions? Stupid.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

We have police that hang out at WaWa for hours, drink free coffee, and do nothing. Granted, I live in a resort town and its winter.

As for this fireman I'm on the fence. Yea, it's only $8. That's not the point. It's the act and he was committing theft. Also, he's a civil servent and his actions are a reflection on the community. Why the hell did he steal $8 worth of merchandise. Don't people think about the repercussions? Stupid.

that's the question, isn't it? But I still stand by my argument: He was in uniform; he did it while he was on the job. He would have been apprehended while in uniform and on the job. There's the reflection on the public service.

Suppose he was not in uniform, not on the job, and he gets stopped for the first time with the blood-alcohol level over the legal limit? I think it's at least the same level of crime -- a misdemeanor.

And that recalls this recent case in Texas, with the public prosecutor in Austin who was caught driving drunk. She refused to resign, and that led to a budget slug-fest between her investigative outfit and the governor.

In our town and back in the '70s, we had a City Manager who was considered tops. Caught driving drunk. I can't remember what happened.

But you'll find people in these high-profile positions so that their misdemeanor becomes at least local news. Which again begs the question.

Ordinarily, these run-of-the-mill misdemeanors -- shoplifts and DWI -- aren't newsworthy for the average violator. They are certainly newsworthy when a celebrity like Winona Ryder or Lindsay Lohan gets caught, or in Ryder's case it was a matter of grand theft for what she attempted to shoplift. $4K or $5K worth of stuff.

Back in '06, I was elected as treasurer for a local political club -- a PAC. The outgoing treasurer became president. There were reporting requirements and deadlines, and I wanted to see bank statements, check registers -- all of it. Her books were a total ruse. The club accounts were not supposed to be personal accounts -- she'd been told at the beginning what to do. But she put the accounts in her own name. We had to go to the county central committee to force the issue.

She said she'd left us with a balance of some $2,200. It was $200. we got an audit committee together, solicited all the bank records going back to her first month in office, and determined that she'd embezzled $5,000+. We were determined to file charges. I don't know what the central committee did or how they might have influenced things, but the case was "null-processed." They didn't want it in the papers, ya see.

And the irony of it: she was an employee in her day-job for an association or union of correction officers.

But we got our act together. A few years afterward, we were a client of the Kindee-Durkee accounting firm, which handled Diane Feinstein's campaign fund. And, unlike the other clients, we were insisting on bank statements. Since we actually "caught" the disappearance of some $4,000, it was restored and Durkee offered an excuse. A year later, the s*** hit the fan; FBI had frozen all the accounts. Durkee went to prison. Feinstein lost millions. I think our account was restored as it was.

And folks, that's not shoplifting a bag of Skittles.