AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Man Sued for 'Humiliating' a theif

41 7531
Thomas1st2
offline
Thomas1st2
1,943 posts
Peasant

A man has been sued by one of his employees who had stolen off him. His employee was writeing himself bussiness checks and taking them to the bank and cashing in. When his boss found out he put a sign around his neck saying:
'I am a theif I have stolen' and marched him to the police station. The theif got more than £15'000 off his boss for Human Right's and Humiliation. Basiccly this man has robbed his boss twice but a second time legally. He has also got out of prison and has not had to pay his boss back for stealing off him. I myself think this is a disgrace from the English Court, and that the theif should be put away and his boss should get his money back. Comment on your thoughts of this 'action' that the English law has let slip past them.

  • 41 Replies
Ghgt99
offline
Ghgt99
1,890 posts
Nomad

WHAT! That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. This is insane! I mean, my friend put a sign exactly like that on my neck because I stole his Mars Bar. I so could have sued him!! =P

Thomas1st2
offline
Thomas1st2
1,943 posts
Peasant

You stole his Mars bar XD what did the sign say. And yes you could of sued him for £15'000 or $16'500 Unforantley for you you forgot lol

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I think it's right that the boss had to pay for doing that to his employee, this is a most disgraceful thing he did. BUT, the thief still should have had to pay; one crime does not cancel another, both have to make amends for their crimes.

goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

I think it's right that the boss had to pay for doing that to his employee

Yep, citizens should not take the law into their own hands.
EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,220 posts
Nomad

They do that kind of stuff legally here in America, by court order.

Guess what? It's okay. He's a thief, and thieves do not deserve to maintain pride. They have stolen, they should lose their pride and their freedom.

After all, he was not physically hurt; therefore, no laws should have been broken. Pride is not a physical thing, and he can afford to lose it.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

I think it's right that the boss had to pay for doing that to his employee, this is a most disgraceful thing he did. BUT, the thief still should have had to pay; one crime does not cancel another, both have to make amends for their crimes.


Well, no. How is it disgraceful? He was stealing, the boss made him wear a sign admitting it.

Yep, citizens should not take the law into their own hands.


I really hope this was sarcastic. Us human beings aren't so pathetic that we can't even enforce our own policies!
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Well, no. How is it disgraceful? He was stealing, the boss made him wear a sign admitting it.

If not disgraceful, it's surely cruel; almost childish; unnecessary. You sound as if you would appreciate the reintroduction of the pillory.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

15,000 is just excessive. The sign can be barely considered offensive and it wasn't defamatory either, he was indeed a thief. Plus he reported the embezzler to the police right away.
A fine around 500 pounds would have been way fairer, even though imho its still too much.

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

After all, he was not physically hurt; therefore, no laws should have been broken. Pride is not a physical thing, and he can afford to lose it.


*Ahem*

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."


In the Supreme count case Furman v. Georgia those four principles exist to expound upon the right of a criminal to not have to go through cruel or unusual punishment. I believe the first principle dealing with degradation to human dignity applies here. Whether or not he was a thief he still has rights and his boss has absolutely no right to treat him as he did. I agree with goumas that $15,000 is excessive but the boss did commit a crime against the employee and deserved to be punished.

I really hope this was sarcastic. Us human beings aren't so pathetic that we can't even enforce our own policies!


Did you hear about the boss who caught his worker stealing and forced him to wear a sign about it on the way to the police station? I think that's a perfectly good example as to why a single human being cannot be trusted with "law" enforcement.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Did you hear about the boss who caught his worker stealing and forced him to wear a sign about it on the way to the police station? I think that's a perfectly good example as to why a single human being cannot be trusted with "law" enforcement.


Let's pretend that he didn't put a sign on the thief. Would you still be against him being allowed to take the man into the police station?

Correct me if I'm wrong but,

A. He took the man into the police station.

B. He put a sign on the man.

Because of B, you believe no one should be allowed to do A either?

If someone broke into my house and I had handcuffs laying around, should I have a right to handcuff the man and take him to the police?

http://i51.tinypic.com/2u5rl3d.jpg
Should he be allowed to sue me? These are the only handcuffs I own.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Because of B, you believe no one should be allowed to do A either?


In forcing him to wear the sign he attempted to punish the man outside of the law, this is wrong. Him taking the man to the police I have no problem with; sorry if that wasn't clear.

These are the only handcuffs I own.


If someone broke into my house and I had handcuffs laying around, should I have a right to handcuff the man and take him to the police?


Yes, the difference is that you would have acted in self defense while the boss was in no direct danger from the man.


Saucy.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Because of B, you believe no one should be allowed to do A either?

Hm? I never said taking the man to the police station was bad, it was surely the right thing to do.. he simply should have done it without B.

Should he be allowed to sue me? These are the only handcuffs I own.

No, since you didn't deliberately choose to humiliate him; you just used what you had at hand to prevent a crime.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

Just found an article about this topic:
The embezzler said that after being bundled into the van he was &quotunched and threatened with various tools" and feared he was going to be killed. The boss said no violence was used and that he bound Gilbertâs -the employee's- hands for his own protection.
Full article
The charges were false imprisonment.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

No, since you didn't deliberately choose to humiliate him; you just used what you had at hand to prevent a crime.


Oh good... sorry, I lied. I actually used regular handcuffs at first, then swapped them later on.

Yes, the difference is that you would have acted in self defense while the boss was in no direct danger from the man.


So even if the boss didn't put the sign on the man, you would be against him taking the man into the police station?
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

So even if the boss didn't put the sign on the man, you would be against him taking the man into the police station?


You know you really need to read all of my posts.

Him taking the man to the police I have no problem with; sorry if that wasn't clear.


Yeah.

After reading the article I feel as thought the employee did get off to easily but I still feel no sympathy for the boss and the money he was forced to pay out.
Showing 1-15 of 41