The Plot Thickens.
- Thread starter Tiberius Jim
- Start date
For my part, I haven't bought anything at Radio Shack since 1999. I've stepped into their stores a time or two, and then quickly left. They're nothing but glorified cell phone retailers these days.
We don`t get RS in Africa.The damage is done, you signed the document. You're basically stipulating that you did take something. And, yes, a judge would take this case. This isn't the Supreme Court where they get to pick and choose. If you went to court, your case would be poor. You've already admitted and signed something stating that you've stolen from the store. Never sign anything like that without a laywer. Why did you sign it? You shot yourself in the foot right there.
At any rate, it's possibly saber rattling. You do need a lawyer now. They can give you proper advice. Sometimes another lawyer will know what to write back in legalese that will end the saber rattling. Or, they'll know when you're hosed and that you should just pay up. And, even if you did pay up, you'll need to have your lawyer review the agreement that they won't pursue you ever again over that. You need that sound legal advice.
Mr Awe
At any rate, it's possibly saber rattling. You do need a lawyer now. They can give you proper advice. Sometimes another lawyer will know what to write back in legalese that will end the saber rattling. Or, they'll know when you're hosed and that you should just pay up. And, even if you did pay up, you'll need to have your lawyer review the agreement that they won't pursue you ever again over that. You need that sound legal advice.
Mr Awe
I agree. Nicking the cable was a bad move. Admitting to it was a worse move. Signing a document admitting to it is simply the worst thing you could've done.
Based on that document alone, RS can demonstrate in court that you're dishonest, and a thief, and they could easily use that to connect the dots and say you were raiding the register. "He was willing to steal items out of the scrap bin. How do we know he wasn't stealing cash?"
Being that this is civil court, the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal court. The "preponderance of evidence" is in their favor thanks to the document you signed.
For your own good, get a lawyer and do it now.
This? Isn't true. I won't give legal advice because (1) I'm not allowed to, and (2) I don't know all the facts. But I do know that you're talking about 2 different things here. Yes, you took the cable and then gave it back. That does not amount to $350 in damages - no way. "Damages" requires that RS show that they were harmed in some way. They recovered the cable; they were made whole.
Now, if they're accusing you of taking $350 from them, they absolutely have to prove that event. It's not enough to say, Well, he took this $1 cable, see, he admitted it, so that means he took the $350. That's not anywhere near preponderance of the evidence; that's a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The letter you signed regarding the scrap cable wouldn't even be admissible in court (if they did file a complaint) to prove an allegation about the $350.
They also have the time logs, which show he was on duty when the money went missing. Does not his admission of stealing the cable indicate a pattern of behavior? Why would it not be admissible?
He definitely needs to find out what, exactly, the $350 is a settlement for, though. But I don't see why they would bother having him sign anything for the cable if it wouldn't actually do them any good in court. They must be playing at something here.
^^ The letter would be admissable. He should not have signed it.
Having said that, it's quite possible this is all saber rattling and that they use the letter as a prop to aid in that. I still think legal advice is advisable. However, the odds of RS taking him to court is minimal. In the unlikely case they did, Flux's case would be poor. However, the costs probably don't outweight the gain for RS so it probably would not happen.
The lesson here is, don't sign anything unless a lawyer says it's ok. Sometimes it can really damage you in an irreversible way. Here, it might be for show. But, often it is for real. Don't fall into that trap of thinking that it won't be admissable either. That's stupid thinking, or sticking your head in the sand. You can irreperably damage yourself by signing the wrong thing.
Luckily for Flux, I don't think that's the case here though. But, there was no reason for Flux to sign any paper that they stuck in front of his face.
Mr Awe
Having said that, it's quite possible this is all saber rattling and that they use the letter as a prop to aid in that. I still think legal advice is advisable. However, the odds of RS taking him to court is minimal. In the unlikely case they did, Flux's case would be poor. However, the costs probably don't outweight the gain for RS so it probably would not happen.
The lesson here is, don't sign anything unless a lawyer says it's ok. Sometimes it can really damage you in an irreversible way. Here, it might be for show. But, often it is for real. Don't fall into that trap of thinking that it won't be admissable either. That's stupid thinking, or sticking your head in the sand. You can irreperably damage yourself by signing the wrong thing.
Luckily for Flux, I don't think that's the case here though. But, there was no reason for Flux to sign any paper that they stuck in front of his face.
Mr Awe
They would still have to prove that Flux took it, and, really, nobody else had the opportunity to do so. Time logs are circumstantial evidence which, by itself, might get you to probable cause (in a criminal case), but not preponderance. His admission would not be admissible because it's not an admission to the $350 (relevance). And evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of the person as someone who would do this particular act.
Whether he should or should not have signed it is irrelevant. The rules of evidence would keep it out. The letter isn't admissible because it is hearsay: an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. But further, it isn't relevant, because it does not relate to the missing money, only the missing cable. And, as I said, you can't introduce evidence of something someone did wrong another time to prove that he did something wrong this time.
He has to be sued before he can file a counter claim. Don't forget, simply demanding payment is not harassment. Malicious prosecution, isn't that in criminal court?
Thanks for the info, bluedana. I'm really having a hard time believing that they would even try to connect the dots from me taking something that was essentially worthless to them (remember, they were going to throw it in the trash) to me taking hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars from the cash registers. The only thing I signed is a declaration of position on the matter of the missing money in which I explained that I did not take a single cent from the register. I also explained that while I took the cable, it had been my understanding that such things were allowed due to the attitudes of my superiors. I continued to say that had I known this item was considered merchandise, even though it was in a bin in the corner of the back room with no packaging, coiled up among a crapload of other cables, and was destined to just be thrown out, I wouldn't have touched the damn thing.
In other words, I'm having a hard time seeing them trying to use that to show that I'm a hardened criminal. Besides, a single event does not a pattern make.
If they really thought I was stealing money from the register, I wouldn't have been put on "administrative leave". I'd have been lead out by local police in handcuffs. The fact that they never pressed any criminal charges tells me a lot, namely "We have no idea who did this."
In other words, I'm having a hard time seeing them trying to use that to show that I'm a hardened criminal. Besides, a single event does not a pattern make.
If they really thought I was stealing money from the register, I wouldn't have been put on "administrative leave". I'd have been lead out by local police in handcuffs. The fact that they never pressed any criminal charges tells me a lot, namely "We have no idea who did this."
This is way I never sign any disciplinary forms or the like on a job. Hell I was refuse to sign any write-ups I would get. The handful of times I as forced to (do it or get fired) I would always write under my signature "signed under protest, threatened with loss of job by <then the person's name who made the threat"
I learned a long time ago, nothing good comes of signing legal-shit that a job shoves under your nose, unless it's directly related to you job duties.
I learned a long time ago, nothing good comes of signing legal-shit that a job shoves under your nose, unless it's directly related to you job duties.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
^In my neck of the woods, that would have gotten you fired regardless. Not saying you're wrong, but the bosses in this area won't put up with the "help" getting "uppity"...
Nope, nope, nope. It's the statement of the defendant. It's admissable. They would have to prove that it is his signature. It's also totally relevent. It presumabely states that he took the cable without permissione (e.g. theft). However, they'd have to prove the damages and (going back to what I said before), even if RS wins it's unlikely to be worth their trouble.
It's not sufficient by itself to insure that RS wins. But, it's makes their case strong.
However, you're missing the larger issue. Never sign anything like that. Why Flux would sign anything admitting to anything is beyond me. Here, sign this. Duh, ok, you got a pen? No.
Yeah, I agree, the liklihood of RS talking Flux to court is probably minimal. He still shouldn't have signed it.
Mr Awe
Hmm. Well, if that's the nature of the document that you signed, it doesn't sound too bad. Although, you are admitting that you took the cable still. At any rate, they're unlikely to sue you, just not enough for them to gain.
Actually, ages and ages ago I worked in retail. Someone there did steal from the register. The store never did prosecute, just fired him. There's not always enough for them to gain in order to prosecute or sue. So, no, don't assume too much about what they believe. For retail jobs like that, they can dismiss you without cause. Their only requirement is that they can't attribute a criminal reason for the termination. You've got no contract with them, they can terminate you for no reason. If they're suscpicious, they can terminate you but not give a reason.
Again, the big issue here, and I hope you've learned it through this most likely unharmful situation, is that you should not just sign a document just because they put it in front of you. Switch the brain on and decide that it's not in your interest to sign a thing for them.
Mr Awe
When I went through my 'your rights' seminar with the UFCW, they told us never sign anything that might be used as evidence in criminal charges. Learn the following phrases:
-- Are you accusing me of theft?
-- (if yes) Do you plan to press charges?
--- (if no) They why do you want me to sign a document admitting to a criminal act?
--- (if yes) I refuse to sign anything till my attorney reads it.
-- (if they do call the cops) I am exercising my right not to self-incriminate, I demand my attorney be present for any further questioning.
--- (if they do not call the cops) I refuse to sign this document (take the paper or demand a copy) and request either HR or Labor board arbitration to address these false charges and my unlawful detention in this office.
-- Are you accusing me of theft?
-- (if yes) Do you plan to press charges?
--- (if no) They why do you want me to sign a document admitting to a criminal act?
--- (if yes) I refuse to sign anything till my attorney reads it.
-- (if they do call the cops) I am exercising my right not to self-incriminate, I demand my attorney be present for any further questioning.
--- (if they do not call the cops) I refuse to sign this document (take the paper or demand a copy) and request either HR or Labor board arbitration to address these false charges and my unlawful detention in this office.
Yeah he fucked himself, but not to much so I would think. The main thing is making it clear that he was given permission, and if this was a "normal" thing for the store that he wasn't/isn't the only one doing it.I'm not so sure about all this. Since Flux is an admitted cable thief, won't Time Warner, Comcast, and other heavy hitters jump on the prosecutorial bandwagon?
What?
Stop looking at me!
Hey, I thought the thread title should've been - "The Plot Thickens as it Cools."
Did you sign any kind of non-disclosure agreement? Anything that would prevent you from blogging about it and submitting the link to Digg? (I suppose we could even Digg this thread, with the links at the bottom.)
People should know what dicks Radio Shack are.
People should know what dicks Radio Shack are.
