CA Douche Bag Of The Week

[+Dave 2,322]

http://blogs.westwor...red_for_cap.php

 

Way to go Sprint, another reason why you continue to suck. So here you go Sprint, the CA one finger salute

 

 

:fu2:

[Ruggbutt 45]

I'm going to call Sprint from my home phone and tell them I want to cancel because of this. Nevermind that I have Verizon service...............

[UnknownPilot 33]

Unbelievable. They should be given a little extra bonus (or extra vacation time or SOMETHING), but NOT punished.

 

The way the world has gotten and is going is absolutely disgusting.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Actually, having done private security for a mall, they put themselve in some serious liability going after the guy and laying their hands on him. Good samaritan laws don't protect you in stopping possible suspects of a crime. I'm sure it was quite obvious that the guy commited a crime, but unless you had witnessed the act, you don't have the authority to step in and take action like that. What if they went after the wrong guy and it was only by coincidence that this guy was running at the moment when that guard yelled for help. What if the guard cowards up and says that he wasn't talking about that guy? These two men would be totally screwed. ONLY law-enforcement officials have the authority and duty to apprehend subjects/suspects who have and may have POSSIBLY commited a crime. If I did that as a security guard, I would be fired. The guy that they caught can easily turn around and not only sue them, but Sprint as well since it was Sprint employees that were involved. I think getting fired is a little over-board, a write up would have sufficed. I understand that their intentions were to be pro-active in crime prevention, but their role in this case is limited to only being a witness and nothing more. So I wouldn't say Sprint is the douche bag of the week. They're doing what any other company would do. From my job experience, I understand their actions.

[Icarus999 70]

Actually, having done private security for a mall, they put themselve in some serious liability going after the guy and laying their hands on him. Good samaritan laws don't protect you in stopping possible suspects of a crime. I'm sure it was quite obvious that the guy commited a crime, but unless you had witnessed the act, you don't have the authority to step in and take action like that. What if they went after the wrong guy and it was only by coincidence that this guy was running at the moment when that guard yelled for help. What if the guard cowards up and says that he wasn't talking about that guy? These two men would be totally screwed. ONLY law-enforcement officials have the authority and duty to apprehend subjects/suspects who have and may have POSSIBLY commited a crime. If I did that as a security guard, I would be fired. The guy that they caught can easily turn around and not only sue them, but Sprint as well since it was Sprint employees that were involved. I think getting fired is a little over-board, a write up would have sufficed. I understand that their intentions were to be pro-active in crime prevention, but their role in this case is limited to only being a witness and nothing more. So I wouldn't say Sprint is the douche bag of the week. They're doing what any other company would do. From my job experience, I understand their actions.

 

I respect your experience as it reflects the current litigious atmosphere of our society. How did we get to this point where we are no longer able to act as men, our grandfathers would have chased down the scumbag

and slapped him around a bit for good measure. No one would loose their job and no one would get sued. It is pathetic.... what we have become.

[+Dave 2,322]

Going to have to disagree with you Dave on that. Those employees did what was right. Sprint was wrong. No court on the planet would of convicted those 2 of anything in this case. You can what if it to death but in this case it was pretty cut and dry. People can't go through life cowering in the face of adversity. Those guys did right, Sprint are douchebags.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Going to have to disagree with you Dave on that. Those employees did what was right. Sprint was wrong. No court on the planet would of convicted those 2 of anything in this case. You can what if it to death but in this case it was pretty cut and dry. People can't go through life cowering in the face of adversity. Those guys did right, Sprint are douchebags.

 

I wouldn't say Sprint is the ones that are douchebags, but more of the system in it's self that has caused companys to react this way. By firing the employees, Sprint is now protecting themselves from any possible law-suite that may occure from this. You say that no court on the planet would of convicted those two, however, there was a case a while back where some guy, breaking into somebody's house, injured himself by one of their knives that was laying out on the kitchen table, and was able to sue the homeowners and won! There are many more f***ed up court rulings throughout this country that gives Sprint a good reason to react this way. There are even many more regarding situations exactly like the one here with Sprint where the bad guy sues the employees and the company and wins. These are not the days where the hero triumphs. Hell, look at the UK with the messed up rulings going on over there against their own troops! We've already seen threads of that here at CA. Believe me Dave, the system right now is very messed up and it's keeping us from helping each other out. That's the douchebag of the week... the system.

[eraser_tr 29]

I'm going to call Sprint from my home phone and tell them I want to cancel because of this. Nevermind that I have Verizon service...............

 

 

Well I can safely rule out sprint for our next carrier when the verizon contract is up. Well at least the Apple store would probably have them in a heartbeat. And they can sue sprint and have a pretty good chance of winning.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

 

Server::

Believe me Dave, the system right now is very messed up and it's keeping us from helping each other out. That's the douchebag of the week... the system.

SERVER THANKS for stepping up. I was going to poast simply Sprint did what it had to do in our system, but I didn't have the balls. You explained why too. Thanks.

 

usafmtl, the two persons probably don't have much wealth to confiscate by the system. Sprint has wealth that can be stripped.

 

 

We often like to blame "corporations" but we are afraid to talk among ourselves why our system defines persons as corporations. Thats why you always see me poasting the words "men and women." The system hates that.

 

 

Myself, I prefer T-Mobile all the way. Please nobody poast that T-M is part of Sprint.

[UnknownPilot 33]

T Mobile sucks balls. The service is horrible. The only thing they have going for them is CZJ as a spokeswoman.

[+Dave 2,322]

Server brought up a good point, the system sucks, but Sprint could of stood by their employees. Then again loyalty doesn't mean anything anymore either. Lose, lose situation here.

[GwynO 16]

I wouldn't say Sprint is the ones that are douchebags, but more of the system in it's self that has caused companys to react this way. By firing the employees, Sprint is now protecting themselves from any possible law-suite that may occure from this. You say that no court on the planet would of convicted those two, however, there was a case a while back where some guy, breaking into somebody's house, injured himself by one of their knives that was laying out on the kitchen table, and was able to sue the homeowners and won! There are many more f***ed up court rulings throughout this country that gives Sprint a good reason to react this way. There are even many more regarding situations exactly like the one here with Sprint where the bad guy sues the employees and the company and wins. These are not the days where the hero triumphs. Hell, look at the UK with the messed up rulings going on over there against their own troops! We've already seen threads of that here at CA. Believe me Dave, the system right now is very messed up and it's keeping us from helping each other out. That's the douchebag of the week... the system.

 

Having worked in security as well I concur that the system is messed up. But the employers share a responsibility in how much they let the system infringe on what's common sense. Before apprehending a shoplifter and detaining them under section 24 PACE Act 1984 (Citizens arrest), we had an acronym drilled into us which makes a mockery of the wording of the act. According to SCONE, we have to have "S"een the person with our own eyes, witnessed the person "C"oncealing an item or otherwise doing something to it to avoid payment e.g. removing tags, kept the person under continuous "O"bservation at all times, effect "N"one payment, and "E"xit the final point at which a sale could be made. This lunatic policy means that if a shoplifter looses you by going into a toilet, constant observation is lost, if they make it out of the shop they are no longer on your property of the store so the security firm or store won't cover you if something happens to you, but if you make the arrest inside the shop the person can turn around and say they still had opportunity to pay and intended to do so when you arrested them. It is a mine field of litigation opportunities that could favour the thieves. I say could, because than God, almost all the stores and businesses I worked for were more than happy to apply the letter of the law instead i.e

"Anyone who is without doubt in the act of committing an offence, or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be in the act of committing an offence, and

• Where an offence has been committed without doubt, anyone who is without doubt guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it

In order for the arrest to be lawful, the following two conditions must also be satisfied:

 

• It appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead
• The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following:
  • The person causing physical injury to himself or others
  • The person suffering physical injury
  • The person causing loss of or damage to property
  • The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him"

A few notable exceptions though, like the idiot manager of one store who went nose to nose with me trying to get me to stand down, convinced he could get me fired by the end of the working day.. my "crime" had been to question a group of youths who had been pointed out to me by store staff as removing security tags from bottles of vodka, the suspects made a series of turns through the clothing department where detagged bottles were later found, on challenging them at the door they volunteered to show me inside their coats and as they had nothing got off with an "unofficial" and general warning from me e.g. "Whether you did or you didn't do anything wrong, understand that going into a store with your hood up and picking up bottles when your under-age will get you noticed". Apparently I was wrong to challenge them because I didn't see them de-tag with my own eyes, and the word of two store staff eyewitnesses is not enough to constitute "reasonable grounds", besides which it wasn't store policy to apply that part of the law and I should only apply SCONE.

Luckily, my line manager put the store manager in his place and I kept my job because store policy or not I had not broken any laws, plus according to store policy I was only supposed to adhere to SCONE when making an arrest which was null and void in this case as a simple follow and challenge resolved the issue. I have known many security officers to have much less support, especially when things go to court though, that's how one particular security firm (cough) CHUBB came to be known by many as Could Help You, But Bollocks.

Sprint did not have to fire these guys, they should have unofficially given them a bonus or some other recognition and then sent them for a training course or some other. No harm came to the suspect, no broken bones, and if the States have a similar "reasonable grounds" clause it could be argued that no laws were broken either. At the most, they could have been suspended pending an internal investigation, but to just fire them smells like chicken to me on the part of the managers.

Edited April 29, 2010 by GwynO

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Wow, I started working retail when I was 16 and continued until I graduated... I honestly could not tell you how many times I detained shoplifters... got a pat on the back every time though, hell half the time the manager was running beside me.

 

Craig