[badge315]

Originally Posted by norton

Gee, maybe he should have thought of this before he tried to screw over the car dealer.

Did you read the same story as the rest of us? Because I think you have that backwards.

[Javelin]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Easy to give away other peoples' money, eh?

Whose pocket is the 2.2 million going to come out of? It's not going to be the pocket of the employee who made the mistake, I'll tell you that much.

I see what you are saying... but I am not hearing any logic. They made a false claim getting an innocent man arrested and did it with malicious intent. Now they got called on it and he now has grounds to seek justified legal recourse for the Dealerships use of using non-justified legal recourse.

See the difference? He will win, the dealership will lose and pay big. You screw around with a man and his time he will have time to screw around with you and your wallet.

And the world goes round and round.

[Halojumper]

It's slightly off topic, but think of it as a sidebar, a while back my mom was buying a car and a dealer was giving her a real bad time. He finally got her to take a test drive so she took their car and went to another dealer and bought a car from them. She asked the salesman if he would return the test drive car and get hers back. Of course, he happily agreed.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

[NeverMore1701]

Originally Posted by Halojumper

It's slightly off topic, but think of it as a sidebar, a while back my mom was buying a car and a dealer was giving her a real bad time. He finally got her to take a test drive so she took their car and went to another dealer and bought a car from them. She asked the salesman if he would return the test drive car and get hers back. Of course, he happily agreed.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Heh heh, I like it!

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Javelin

I see what you are saying... but I am not hearing any logic. They made a false claim

Define "they."

Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.

More to the point, unless someone in this thread is privy to details that the rest of us are not, neither is anyone else.

When my guy got drunk and drove a car through a house, the dealership's insurance paid the liability claim. That was a clear case--he was driving a dealership-owned car, so anything he hit while he was driving the car, the dealership was liable for.

If he'd driven his dealership-owned car to someone's house and assaulted that person, the dealership would NOT have been responsible, in any way. If the person who was assaulted chose to sue the dealership, and the story made the news, the GT crowd would be up in arms about how sue-happy the country is.

All I'm asking is that people stop and think for a second before calling for blood. Is that really too much to ask?

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by lunarspeak

im fully done about the car and am wondering about devildogs obsessive need to be right...

I don't have anything like OCD, if that's what you mean.

Trying not to sound too much like a sanctimonious *******, here's why: people who choose to be ignorant, rather than taking a few seconds to think or a few minutes to educate themselves, make me deeply sad and angry.

I'm a smart guy, but I'm no Einstein. I'm not a genius by any means. And I'm certainly not an expert on everything. Therefore, I try quite hard to keep my mouth shut on topics I don't know about (although I definitely fail, sometimes). I don't step into cop threads and talk about what it's like to be a cop, because I've never been a cop. I don't volunteer medical diagnoses, because I've never been a doctor.

If there is something that interests me, and I want to have an opinion about it, I take a few minutes and read about it first. In the internet age this is easier than it's ever been. You have (almost literally) all of human knowledge at your fingertips, yet you choose to remain willfully ignorant. (I don't mean "you" specifically, I'm speaking to a generic "you." A recent thread on HIV and circumcision illustrates my point pretty clearly, I think.)

I know about car dealerships. I'm trying to point out that the dealership, in this case, may or may not really be liable. We don't have nearly enough facts to make that determination.

In light of that, I am trying to get people to take a step back and think for a second before spouting off with "they should have to pay for that guy's job forever and college for all of his kids and buy him a house and a dog!" The world would be a better place if people genuinely tried not to form conclusions without having the facts, and didn't get defensive when people point out what they're doing. People get emotionally attached to their own ignorance, for some unknown and unknowable reason.

I, in my tiny way, am trying to combat that ignorance. Why I do it here, I have no idea. I certainly don't change many peoples' minds. Most of GT surely thinks I'm an arrogant prick (I don't come off that way in real life, oddly enough). But that's what it is. I'm not obsessive about being right. It just bugs the hell out of me when others insist on being wrong, in the face of the facts.

[Javelin]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Define "they."

Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.

More to the point, unless someone in this thread is privy to details that the rest of us are not, neither is anyone else.

When my guy got drunk and drove a car through a house, the dealership's insurance paid the liability claim. That was a clear case--he was driving a dealership-owned car, so anything he hit while he was driving the car, the dealership was liable for.

If he'd driven his dealership-owned car to someone's house and assaulted that person, the dealership would NOT have been responsible, in any way. If the person who was assaulted chose to sue the dealership, and the story made the news, the GT crowd would be up in arms about how sue-happy the country is.

All I'm asking is that people stop and think for a second before calling for blood. Is that really too much to ask?

I think that his lawyer has a case against both to be honest. But the money is with the dealership so that's probably where the interests in litigation will be emphasized.

As far as sue-crazy... well that's just the world we live in and there is nothing the GT community or anyone else is going to have much say in.

[lunarspeak]

ok..you say your not obsessed with this by replying to my comment with a 22 line response.

you could have easily called me ignorant,a jerk go to heck but you wrote a "novel" witch included a quote a link refferances to einstein,circumcision,and used the word sanctimonious..

im really not trying to give you a hard time DD ..but its just so funny how emoitionaly involved you have become with this...

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Javelin

I think that his lawyer has a case against both to be honest.

Again--you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think it's unlikely that either of us know enough of the facts to really judge.

But the money is with the dealership so that's probably where the interests in litigation will be emphasized.

And the truth comes out. Doesn't matter who's wrong, just matters who has money.

Doesn't that make you angry? Aren't you offended?

As far as sue-crazy... well that's just the world we live in and there is nothing the GT community or anyone else is going to have much say in.

I beg to differ, my friend. We all change the world, one little bit at a time.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by lunarspeak

you could have easily called me ignorant,a jerk go to heck

Why would I?

[Trapped_in_Kali]

Well IMHO the employee who reported this to the LEOs must have had the authority to make a police report regarding theft of company property. Would the police have taken the report from just any salesman with out data from the manager?
The "theft" report was of company owned property made (I'm assuming) by someone given the authority to file police reports in the companies name for the company.
Then the company is responsible. If not the city should be sued.
You may think it is no big deal the have an arrest for felony GTA on your record but some people do.

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Define "they."

Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Trapped_in_Kali

Well IMHO the employee who reported this to the LEOs must have had the authority to make a police report regarding theft of company property.

What makes you think that?

Would the police have taken the report from just any salesman with out data from the manager?

I don't know. It depends on the cop that answered the phone and how convincing whomever called in the theft report was, I suppose.

The "theft" report was of company owned property made (I'm assuming) by someone given the authority to file police reports in the companies name for the company.

You know what they say about assuming.

All I'm doing is choosing not to assume. Why should I? Why not just wait to form an opinion until I have more facts? None of us trust the media in general, so why trust them in this case?

If the management team at the dealership sat down and had a meeting and decided this was the best way to deal with the situation, then sure, the dealership should definitely be liable.

But what if (and I'm making this up) a salesman realized he'd made a mistake after the customer re-signed, and came up with this harebrained scheme on his own? What if he pretended to be a sales manager when he called the cops, trying to cover his own ass and fix his mistake? What if he did that from his personal cell phone, even? What if he lied to management about it and they not only weren't aware of this, but would have stopped it if they had known? How does it make sense for the dealership to be liable then?

We don't know what happened. We only know a few of the details. All I'm saying is, why jump to conclusions?

You may think it is no big deal the have an arrest for felony GTA on your record but some people do.

Where did I say it was "no big deal"? I neither said nor implied that anywhere in this thread.

[DanaT]

How much would the men on here think is acceptable amount of compensation for being sexually assaulted my another man? $10? $100? $10000? $1M?

What sexual assault you say? Well if I were to force a female to disrobe on front of me against here will, that is sexual assault. If I forced a female to allow me to touch her genitals against her will, that is sexual assault. If I whip out my hose to take a leak, that is a sex crime.

So how much is it worth to you men to be forced to take off you clothes and have your genitals touched by another man against your will?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

...



And the truth comes out. Doesn't matter who's wrong, just matters who has money.
...

And much of that money is made in a way that FORCED you to leave that line of work, because you couldn't stand the lying (your words).

The facts that we know are already outlined in this thread,

- dude buys car
- someone from dealer reports the car stolen
- dude gets arrested on false charge

I tell you, if you were in that dude's shoes, and your livelihood was at stake, not only would the note of the song you sing would be different, but you'd be singing a completely different song.

I would be completely INCENSED if some asshat at a dealership caused my arrest, booking, fingerprinting etc over something like this. Really, I would have started out at a figure 4-5x higher.

In the final analysis, we have a system for dealing with issues like this. The dealership, or someone in their employ went outside the clearly defined lines of what is permissible to sustain/maintain a profit. They were the ones (if it was one dude, a collusion or the entire dealership it does not matter) who opened a can of whoop ass.

The dude, having suffered damages, is now using the framework of the system EXACTLY as is allowed by law to exact justice. I cannot comprehend how you fail to connect those dots.

If he had, on release from jail torched the car and then torched a few more cars at the dealership and the paint balled a few other cars...and then try to sue, I would be singing a different song.

My conclusion is, you are allowing your your "dealership" bias to over-ride that portion of your brain that deals with logic. (and I don't of course mean to be insulting in any way - we all have our biases.)

[frizz]

Originally Posted by norton

Gee, maybe he should have thought of this before he tried to screw over the car dealer.

You don't even know if he tried to screw them over. You are GUESSING and you don't have a good reason to make that guess.

Really. Explain what he did "to screw over the car dealer."

[badge315]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Define "they."

Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.

More to the point, unless someone in this thread is privy to details that the rest of us are not, neither is anyone else.

When my guy got drunk and drove a car through a house, the dealership's insurance paid the liability claim. That was a clear case--he was driving a dealership-owned car, so anything he hit while he was driving the car, the dealership was liable for.

If he'd driven his dealership-owned car to someone's house and assaulted that person, the dealership would NOT have been responsible, in any way. If the person who was assaulted chose to sue the dealership, and the story made the news, the GT crowd would be up in arms about how sue-happy the country is.

All I'm asking is that people stop and think for a second before calling for blood. Is that really too much to ask?

The dealership is liable because:

A) The employee was acting as an agent of the dealership
B) The employee's criminal act was committed while performing his duties as an employee of the dealership
C) The dealership would have been a direct beneficiary of the employee's criminal act

Originally Posted by devildog2067

All I'm doing is choosing not to assume. Why should I? Why not just wait to form an opinion until I have more facts? None of us trust the media in general, so why trust them in this case?

If you really believe that, then you should refrain from forming an opinion about or commenting on any news story ever again, because they never include all the facts.

[frizz]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Define "they."

Whether an employer is liable for the criminal actions of his or her employee depend very much on the details of the act. I don't know enough about this particular act to know whether or not the dealership should be made to pay.

More to the point, unless someone in this thread is privy to details that the rest of us are not, neither is anyone else.

The police said that a manager of the company told them that the customer stole the car, and the cop the manager was talking to informed the manager that the police would try to arrest the customer.

The employees were conducting the business of the employer and one or more of the employees were in management positions. In conducting the business, specifically trying to recover money, they committed a civil wrong against the customer. These are not contested facts.

The law is not murky in this situation. The employer is responsible for what its employees did.

Why else would the company president be kissing butt and playing make-nice?

[norton]

Originally Posted by frizz

You don't even know if he tried to screw them over. You are GUESSING and you don't have a good reason to make that guess.

Really. Explain what he did "to screw over the car dealer."

None of us "know". We weren't there. And written stories are almost always full of mistakes and bias.

I like to take the road less traveled. I am not always in favor of the "little guy". Plus I know several people who would only be too glad to do the same thing to a dealership. They are the same people who think everyone is trying to screw them over.
Have a nice day

[ray9898]

The car dealer is without question liable. The manager who reported the car stolen was acting as an agent of his employer and was empowered by them to file legal action on behalf of the dealership. For example, the dealership he is employeed by is the victim of the theft and not the manager personally as a private citizen. That is the difference and why his employer is involved.

[frizz]

Originally Posted by norton

None of us "know". We weren't there. And written stories are almost always full of mistakes and bias.

I like to take the road less traveled. I am not always in favor of the "little guy". Plus I know several people who would only be too glad to do the same thing to a dealership. They are the same people who think everyone is trying to screw them over.
Have a nice day

If you don't know, then why are you so adamant that the purchaser did something wrong? There is no evidence that he did, but there is clear evidence that the dealership did something wrong.

[Hawkeye16]

Suing for $2.2 million for 4 hours in jail? What a shmuck. At most he should get legal fees paid for and the car for free, at most.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[redbaron007]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Suing for $2.2 million for 4 hours in jail? What a shmuck. At most he should get legal fees paid for and the car for free, at most.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Shirley...you jest!




red

[Tongo]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Suing for $2.2 million for 4 hours in jail? What a shmuck. At most he should get legal fees paid for and the car for free, at most.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

You did read where they guy who bought the car was a Nurse and could potentially (likely) have employment issues due to the arrest?

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Suing for $2.2 million for 4 hours in jail? What a shmuck. At most he should get legal fees paid for and the car for free, at most.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

What's the name of the dealership where you work?

[frizz]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Suing for $2.2 million for 4 hours in jail? What a shmuck. At most he should get legal fees paid for and the car for free, at most.

You might see it differently if someone made a false report to the police that resulted in your arrest. As several posters have pointed out... an arrest, even with dropped charges and nothing more, will follow him for the rest of his career and create professional licensing problems for him.

And what about the disgusting act of lying to the police to get you thrown in the slammer? This wasn't an inadvertent accident; it was deliberate and malicious, so it deserves punishment.