Postal Worker Accused of Dumping Mail in Trash

Jiro said:
*shrug*

that's not how it works in legal case. it's very semantic and specific all the way down to a period and comma. that's why it's not a serious case.
Click to expand...

In my legal dictionary destruction is defined as rendering the subject useless. If you throw something away it can no longer be used.
 
jonnyghost said:
In my legal dictionary destruction is defined as rendering the subject useless. If you throw something away it can no longer be used.
Click to expand...

sure in your own court but in Judge Judy's court... that won't fly. even a public defender won't use that kind of line :lol:
 
Jiro said:
therefore... a misdemeanor. a spank on the wrist.

I would prefer that he kept it so that it would lead to theft or mail fraud which carriers a more serious penalty plus jail time.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to keep it. If you steal something and throw it away it is still theft. If someone goes to the store and steals something and goes home and thows it away they still stole from the store.
 
diehardbiker said:
If you read history, I still remember back then when USPS experiment with E mail, decided it was not profitable enough so sold to MCI communications (Now its Verizon). USPS didn't have enough patience, they did trial run for 6 months and decided drop it. Because the idea was sold, nothing USPS can do to get it back. Damage has been done. If USPS had patience, and wait for 2 or 3 years, they will see profit right there.
Click to expand...

The fact is the post office, like everything else, is not immune to change.

And, conveniently, the government doesn't need a warrant for private email, it's contents are given freely to the government.

The argument of profit is moot, mail had been government funded up until 1982, not eons ago. It's a political subject.

I'd rather the government handle mail and protect our right to privacy.
 
Jiro said:
sure in your own court but in Judge Judy's court... that won't fly. even a public defender won't use that kind of line :lol:
Click to expand...

Thats what legal dictionaries are for. To provide legal deffinitions. What he did falls under the legal deffinition of destruction. And there is no need for insults
 
jonnyghost said:
He doesn't have to keep it. If you steal something and throw it away it is still theft. If someone goes to the store and steals something and goes home and thows it away they still stole from the store.
Click to expand...

nope. that's not what happened in here. and that's not even a proper legal analogy.

how do you steal something that was in your possession legally? see? lol. can your legal dictionary explains that?
 
Jiro said:
nope. that's not what happened in here. and that's not even a proper legal analogy.

how do you steal something that was in your possession legally? see? lol. can your legal dictionary explains that?
Click to expand...

Ok, if you're paid to deliver a car to it's owner and you dont then you stole it. If you're delivering money to the bank for someone and don't it stealing. If you keep something that is not yours then you stole it. As soon as you keep it instead of delivering it then you no longer posess it legally. The fact that he destroyed it after he stole it doesnt change the fact that he stole it.
 
Paperless option does not increase the security. Just giving crooks more time to figure out but will get it if they really wanted it badly.

The advantage of not using paperless is that you EXPECT it to arrive at your house. If it didn't arrive, call bank or whoever the creditor it was. Online, there is no way for you know if anyone cracked in your account. You see, no difference really.

Just like this, thieves stole money though technology rather than mail. You can read it, and it will tell you what these crooks did, you will think twice about paperless... No difference really.

Global Hackers Deftly Lift $45 Million From ATMs - Rochester, News, Weather, Sports, and Events - 13WHAM.com

Evo Dragon said:
I use to click "paperless" setting online when i pay bill statement on internet without delivery mail to home. I don't trust postman or someone steal it from mailbox.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Paperless option does not increase the security. Just giving crooks more time to figure out but will get it if they really wanted it badly.

The advantage of not using paperless is that you EXPECT it to arrive at your house. If it didn't arrive, call bank or whoever the creditor it was. Online, there is no way for you know if anyone cracked in your account. You see, no difference really.

Just like this, thieves stole money though technology rather than mail. You can read it, and it will tell you what these crooks did, you will think twice about paperless... No difference really.

Global Hackers Deftly Lift $45 Million From ATMs - Rochester, News, Weather, Sports, and Events - 13WHAM.com
Click to expand...

not quite easy to hack into bank. you have to log in to access paperless statement.

this option is much more secure than mail.
 
Jiro said:
not quite easy to hack into bank. you have to log in to access paperless statement.

this option is much more secure than mail.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have same thought as well.
 
jonnyghost said:
Ok, if you're paid to deliver a car to it's owner and you dont then you stole it.
Click to expand...
nope. it's called bad business. you failed to deliver.

jonnyghost said:
If you're delivering money to the bank for someone and don't it stealing.
Click to expand...
nope. it's called incompetence. you failed to deliver.

jonnyghost said:
If you keep something that is not yours then you stole it.
Click to expand...
yup. but that's not what this postal worker did.

jonnyghost said:
As soon as you keep it instead of delivering it then you no longer posess it legally.
Click to expand...
yup. but that's not what this postal did.

jonnyghost said:
The fact that he destroyed it after he stole it doesnt change the fact that he stole it.
Click to expand...
nope. that's not what happened in here.

don't get me wrong. what this postal worker did was condemnable but you should at least get it right - in legal sense. I'm not going to punish him with wrong things.
 
Jiro said:
nope. it's called bad business. you failed to deliver.


nope. it's called incompetence. you failed to deliver.


yup. but that's not what this postal worker did.


yup. but that's not what this postal did.


nope. that's not what happened in here.

don't get me wrong. what this postal worker did was condemnable but you should at least get it right - in legal sense. I'm not going to punish him with wrong things.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless the law includes destruction as well as theft so what he did still falls under that law if you call it theft or not. And it's not incompetence that we're taling about. He intentionally did it. If it was incompetence then yes I would agree that is not theft.
 
Legal definition of theft
"The unauthorized taking and removal of the Personal Property of another by an individual who intends to permanently deprive the owner of it"

He did not have authorization to remove the mail from it's rout to destination. By destroying it he "permanently deprive the owner of it" He does not have to keep it.
 
jonnyghost said:
Well, regardless the law includes destruction as well as theft so what he did still falls under that law if you call it theft or not. And it's not incompetence that we're taling about. He intentionally did it. If it was incompetence then yes I would agree that is not theft.
Click to expand...

jonnyghost said:
Legal definition of theft
"The unauthorized taking and removal of the Personal Property of another by an individual who intends to permanently deprive the owner of it"

He did not have authorization to remove the mail from it's rout to destination. By destroying it he "permanently deprive the owner of it" He does not have to keep it.
Click to expand...

why don't we leave this legal mumba jumba to court and lawyers?
 
Then what are we discussing? :lol: It's all good I was just having a fun argument.
 
Back
Top