Utah: Employee fires shots at stolen Home Depot vehicle, police say [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Utah: Employee fires shots at stolen Home Depot vehicle, police say


Wasatch
05-09-2011, 12:31
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15469673

The gist:

Home Depot employees used GPS to track down a company-owned stolen vehicle. The employees then confronted the suspected thief, who hurriedly backed the vehicle out, hitting another car. One of the employees tried to stop the vehicle by...you guessed it...shooting out the tires. What surprised me was that the employee actually hit at least one of the tires, because the thief was later apprehended while trying to change out a shot-out tire.

The foolhardy employee was cited for unlawful discharge of a firearm.

And hopefully all the employees involved in this incident will consider calling the police the next time they locate one of the company's stolen vehicles.

TrustMyG23
05-09-2011, 12:39
The employee's action is just plain stupid. The stolen item did not even belong to him and he put himself at risk. Not worth it!!

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 12:39
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15469673

The gist:

Home Depot employees used GPS to track down a company-owned stolen vehicle. The employees then confronted the suspected thief, who hurriedly backed the vehicle out, hitting another car. One of the employees tried to stop the vehicle by...you guessed it...shooting out the tires. What surprised me was that the employee actually hit at least one of the tires, because the thief was later apprehended while trying to change out a shot-out tire.

The foolhardy employee was cited for unlawful discharge of a firearm.

And hopefully all the employees involved in this incident will consider calling the police the next time they locate one of the company's stolen vehicles.

This type of "taking the law into your own hands" behavior is why many are opposed to CCW. CCW is for immediate protection of yourself and others, not to hunt down and discharge your weapon in a parking lot at a moving vehicle.

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 12:41
The employee's action is just plain stupid. The stolen item did not even belong to him and he put himself at risk. Not worth it!!

Not just himself, others as well. The vehicle could have lost control and killed an innocent bystander. Stray gun fire could have done the same thing.

Warp
05-09-2011, 12:41
This type of "taking the law into your own hands" behavior is why many are opposed to CCW. CCW is for immediate protection of yourself and others, not to hunt down and discharge your weapon in a parking lot at a moving vehicle.

Those who cite this kind of behavior as an excuse to be against lawful carry are using it as just that...an excuse. This kind of thing virtually never happens. thankfully somehow, some way, most people know better. Most.

Patchman
05-09-2011, 12:42
The article doesn't say whether when the employees approached the thief/driver, the employees were in their Home Depot uniforms or not.

Well, the employees' hearts were in the right place.

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 12:50
Well, the employees' hearts were in the right place.

No it wasn't. It was reckless and dangerous. He tried to play cop without any training or experience. It's just lucky no one was hurt or killed.

Warp
05-09-2011, 12:54
No it wasn't. It was reckless and dangerous. He tried to play cop without any training or experience. It's just lucky no one was hurt or killed.

You know his training history? What is it?

How about experience? What is it?

Come to think of it...who is the employee being discussed? I assume you have a pretty good source beside the article linked in the OP. It doesn't even seem to specify the gender of the employee. Can I see the other source(s) please? T

DaGroaner
05-09-2011, 12:56
No it wasn't. It was reckless and dangerous. He tried to play cop without any training or experience. It's just lucky no one was hurt or killed.

And look at how many people got their feelings hurt.

http://demotivatorsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wahmbulance-1.jpg

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 12:57
You know his training history? What is it?

How about experience? What is it?

Come to think of it...who is the employee being discussed?

Let's not be foolish here. If you want to defend this yahoo, that's fine. As a LEO, this type of person is dangerous.

Warp
05-09-2011, 12:59
Let's not be foolish here. If you want to defend this yahoo, that's fine. As a LEO, this type of person is dangerous.

I'm not defending anything. You have made statements, I am simply trying to find out whether you are making this all up as you go or actually have a source.

It seems to be the former. If you do have a source for any of it I'd very much appreciate a link, though.

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 13:02
I'm not defending anything. You have made statements, I am simply trying to find out whether you are making this all up as you go or actually have a source.

It seems to be the former. If you do have a source for any of it I'd very much appreciate a link, though.

Anyone with any sort of LE training or experience knows you don't shoot at a fleeing MV. The collateral damage from an out of control vehicle outweighs any justification.

Warp
05-09-2011, 13:06
Anyone with any sort of LE training or experience knows you don't shoot at a fleeing MV. The collateral damage from an out of control vehicle outweighs any justification.

I've seen a video of a SWAT team member shooting the driver of a fleeing vehicle. This alone proves your statement inaccurate.

However, your statement does not even come close to supporting your statements.

The way I see it you don't know the training or experience of the employee, or even who the employee is. How do you even know he is a he? But you are happy to make absolute proclamations.


But that's enough of that. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 13:07
I've seen a video of a SWAT team member shooting the driver of a fleeing vehicle. This alone proves your statement inaccurate.

However, your statement does not even come close to supporting your statements.

The way I see it you don't know the training or experience of the employee, or even who the employee is. How do you even know he is a he? But you are happy to make absolute proclamations.


But that's enough of that. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Ahh, you've seen videos. Well then, you are indeed an expert. I'll yield to your expert opinion then. Maybe you can teach my departments next Use of Force Class :rofl:

RussP
05-09-2011, 13:18
Folks, play nice, please.

Jud325
05-09-2011, 14:00
Anyone with any sort of LE training or experience knows you don't shoot at a fleeing MV. The collateral damage from an out of control vehicle outweighs any justification.

Maybe he trained with the Chicago PD. :whistling:

schaibaa
05-09-2011, 14:11
No it wasn't. It was reckless and dangerous. He tried to play cop without any training or experience. It's just lucky no one was hurt or killed.

That's not what 'his heart was in the right place' means. It means that he thought he was doing the right thing, regardless of what actually is the right thing.

It was clearly a bonehead move - which is pretty much what warp said.

Warp
05-09-2011, 14:22
That's not what 'his heart was in the right place' means. It means that he thought he was doing the right thing, regardless of what actually is the right thing.

It was clearly a bonehead move - which is pretty much what warp said.

Correct.

In my first reply I stated that, fortunately, most people know better. This statement is based on the fact that, as far as we know (and I'm pretty sure the media would report on it) it almost never happens.

But hey...nobody was hurt and the thief was caught/arrested anyway.

Plus the employee was cited for his actions.

Dragoon44
05-09-2011, 14:56
So these rocket scientists know the vehicles location because it has a GPS locator on it. rather than calling the police and reporting the vehicle stolen and telling the police where it is at. they decide to go retrieve it themselves.

My guess is that some folks are going to be getting some pink slips here soon.

Here is a "What would you do scenario" what if you were a CCW'er that happened to see this incident. some guys surrounding another vehicle, the person in the vehicle attempts to get away and one of the guys ( who could be mistaken for attackers) pulls a gun and starts shooting at the vehicle.

Warp
05-09-2011, 15:04
So these rocket scientists know the vehicles location because it has a GPS locator on it. rather than calling the police and reporting the vehicle stolen and telling the police where it is at. they decide to go retrieve it themselves.

My guess is that some folks are going to be getting some pink slips here soon.

Here is a "What would you do scenario" what if you were a CCW'er that happened to see this incident. some guys surrounding another vehicle, the person in the vehicle attempts to get away and one of the guys ( who could be mistaken for attackers) pulls a gun and starts shooting at the vehicle.

Were the guys on foot in any kind of uniform or wearing anything that potentially affiliated them with any LEA or business?

How about the guy driving?

Note that the "other vehicle" is a Home Depot vehicle/truck, which I assume is clearly labeled as such.

Do the guys on foot say anything? I assume that if the fact you are armed is relevant you are close enough to hear whatever is being shouted.

Certainly there is a significant potential for the guys on foot to be viewed as assailants. Just one of the reasons the employee's actions were dumb.

I'd probably go "holy **** what the ****!?!?" and take cover, possibly while gripping my pistol, and watching...followed shortly by getting on the phone.

RussP
05-09-2011, 15:07
Were the guys on foot in any kind of uniform or wearing anything that potentially affiliated them with any LEA or business?

How about the guy driving?

Note that the "other vehicle" is a Home Depot vehicle/truck, which I assume is clearly labeled as such.

Do the guys on foot say anything? I assume that if the fact you are armed is relevant you are close enough to hear whatever is being shouted.

Certainly there is a significant potential for the guys on foot to be viewed as assailants. Just one of the reasons the employee's actions were dumb.Doesn't Home Depot rent trucks for customers to take away bulky purchases? I believe they do. So, if I saw this happening, I'd think a Home Depot customer was having problems.

Patchman
05-09-2011, 15:11
Here is a "What would you do scenario" what if you were a CCW'er that happened to see this incident. some guys surrounding another vehicle, the person in the vehicle attempts to get away and one of the guys ( who could be mistaken for attackers) pulls a gun and starts shooting at the vehicle.

Where I'm from the Home Depot uniform is red shirt w/ black pants. So a CCWer could claim defending himself from members of the "Bloods" gang.

Unless of course the employees were wearing their Home Depot red aprons at the time. :supergrin:

Misty02
05-09-2011, 15:22
So these rocket scientists know the vehicles location because it has a GPS locator on it. rather than calling the police and reporting the vehicle stolen and telling the police where it is at. they decide to go retrieve it themselves.

My guess is that some folks are going to be getting some pink slips here soon.

Here is a "What would you do scenario" what if you were a CCW'er that happened to see this incident. some guys surrounding another vehicle, the person in the vehicle attempts to get away and one of the guys ( who could be mistaken for attackers) pulls a gun and starts shooting at the vehicle.

Most of those scenarios are easy (for my way of dealing with things) more so when I'm driving by and can put plenty of distance between them and call 911. First distance and then the call.

.

Warp
05-09-2011, 15:24
Doesn't Home Depot rent trucks for customers to take away bulky purchases? I believe they do. So, if I saw this happening, I'd think a Home Depot customer was having problems.

I know they rent smaller trucks that are just regular pickups. I don't know if they rent the larger ones.

My response is surely bias since I have read the article, obviously. I cannot help but picture the employees as wearing home depot attire while the guy driving the home depot truck is not...and it stands to reason as well, IMO, that the employees probably said something about their truck.

tonyparson
05-09-2011, 15:36
Where I'm from the Home Depot uniform is red shirt w/ black pants. So a CCWer could claim defending himself from members of the "Bloods" gang.

Unless of course the employees were wearing their Home Depot red aprons at the time. :supergrin:

Where I'm from the Home Depot workers wear regular street clothes with an orange vest.

BamaTrooper
05-09-2011, 15:40
This type of "taking the law into your own hands" behavior is why many are opposed to CCW. CCW is for immediate protection of yourself and others, not to hunt down and discharge your weapon in a parking lot at a moving vehicle.

CCW has no direct influence in this situation; I bet the guy would have done it with a rifle or an open carried gun. This is an episode of bad decision making. He might have been better off shooting the driver when he back toward him (attempted to run him down, whatever); at least then he had "fear" as a mitigating factor.

Patchman
05-09-2011, 15:47
Where I'm from the Home Depot workers wear regular street clothes with an orange vest.

I bet a concealment gun vest. :whistling:

RussP
05-09-2011, 16:23
This type of "taking the law into your own hands" behavior is why many are opposed to CCW.Let me reword that and see if you agree.

The perception of "taking the law into your own hands" behavior, illustrated by this event, is why many are opposed to CCW.

How's that?

Toorop
05-09-2011, 16:28
Usually CCWers are highly trained individuals. According to many they are often better shots then their local law enforcement and they often boast about it on the gun forums and boards. I am suprised the thief was not killed.

I am picturing a CCWer standing there with an empty gun. Empty mags and a larger gun on the floor smoke coming from the barrel as the gun rests in slidelock on the pavement. The steely eyed CCWer reload his BUG and scans the area with an amazingly high level of situational awareness and waits for the cops to show up and cleanup the mess because they are always minutes away when the seconds count.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 16:29
Oh and open carry would have prevented this.

mikegun
05-09-2011, 17:14
no harm, no foul....

cowboy1964
05-09-2011, 17:16
Yet another example of why not everyone should have a gun, 2nd Amendment or not.

fmfdocglock
05-09-2011, 17:45
Were they wearing special Homey D logo tactical gear?:rofl:

Warp
05-09-2011, 18:09
Usually CCWers are highly trained individuals.

Sounds like a good explanation for why the employee hit his target.

jdavionic
05-09-2011, 18:29
Usually CCWers are highly trained individuals. According to many they are often better shots then their local law enforcement and they often boast about it on the gun forums and boards.
Funny, what I've seen is CCWers that are very concerned about 'doing the right thing'. And those that have been involved in incidents rarely "boast" about them. Some seek advice on how to handle the situation(s) better. Some never mention the incidents at all due to fear of legal actions, etc.

So I'm not sure why you chose to grab such a broad brush to attack.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 18:29
Sounds like a good explanation for why the employee hit his target.

Was his target the car, the tires, or the criminal? I believe we are speculating he was shooting at the tires but it has not been confirmed.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 18:34
Funny, what I've seen is CCWers that are very concerned about 'doing the right thing'. And those that have been involved in incidents rarely "boast" about them. Some seek advice on how to handle the situation(s) better. Some never mention the incidents at all due to fear of legal actions, etc.

So I'm not sure why you chose to grab such a broad brush to attack.

First off I am not attacking. I was talking about how CCWers boast about ther shooting abilities not incidents in which CCWers acted as heroes. I see CCWers as the knights of olde. Glocktalk is just a board where we can discuss our ideas and help each other out while we go on about our lives which may include preventing crimes and defending ourselves, our families, and others as the case may be.

Please show me where I said they boast about their incidents?

jdavionic
05-09-2011, 18:40
First off I am not attacking. I was talking about how CCWers boast about ther shooting abilities not incidents in which CCWers acted as heroes. I see CCWers as the knights of olde. Glocktalk is just a board where we can discuss our ideas and help each other out while we go on about our lives which may include preventing crimes and defending ourselves, our families, and others as the case may be.

Please show me where I said they boast about their incidents?

Sure...this part of your rant was just meant to convey that CCWers claim to be better target shooters :upeyes:

I am picturing a CCWer standing there with an empty gun. Empty mags and a larger gun on the floor smoke coming from the barrel as the gun rests in slidelock on the pavement. The steely eyed CCWer reload his BUG and scans the area with an amazingly high level of situational awareness and waits for the cops to show up and cleanup the mess because they are always minutes away when the seconds count.

Deye76
05-09-2011, 18:43
"In my first reply I stated that, fortunately, most people know better. This statement is based on the fact that, as far as we know (and I'm pretty sure the media would report on it) it almost never happens."

Got a source? or you making this up as you go?

Warp
05-09-2011, 18:43
First off I am not attacking.

I disagree.

"In my first reply I stated that, fortunately, most people know better. This statement is based on the fact that, as far as we know (and I'm pretty sure the media would report on it) it almost never happens."

Got a source? or you making this up as you go?

You want me to prove a negative now?

If there have been a large number of incidents reported where a licensed carrier shot at the tires of a fleeing vehicle I apologize for missing them. I would appreciate seeing them.

Deye76
05-09-2011, 18:47
Hey you made a statement, is it based on fact? or speculation?

Toorop
05-09-2011, 19:05
I disagree.

You know what they say about opinions. Either way I was wondering if you had any proof or inside knowledge that the CCWer in question was shooting at the tires or the criminal or what? And can you post some evidence. My statements still stand.

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:07
You know what they say about opinions. Either way I was wondering if you had any proof or inside knowledge that the CCWer in question was shooting at the tires or the criminal or what? And can you post some evidence. My statements still stand.

Reasonable to assume based on the the circumstances of the incident + your statement than CCW holders are usually highly trained individuals.

Highly trained individual + fleeing stolen vehicle they are attempting to recover + tire shot out = tire was intentionally shot. Unless and until we get more information this is the most logical conclusion. At least, that's how I see it. If you believe differently feel free to post it up. I am sure other people could come to different conclusions...and none of us may even be correct. We will probably never know...

Deye76
05-09-2011, 19:10
"Reasonable to assume"

I see it's OK for you to "assume", but others must have definitive proof/sources.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 19:10
Sure...this part of your rant was just meant to convey that CCWers claim to be better target shooters :upeyes:
Not at all. I was trying to show just how highly trained your average CCWer is when compared to the standard the media often uses, a police officer. CCWers often boast that they are better shots then local LEOs. They say it and I was just taking them at their word.

Heck, I'm surprised that the Obama administration did not use CCWers and went with the Navy SEALs. That's just me though.

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:11
"Reasonable to assume"

I see it's OK for you to "assume", but others must have definitive proof/sources.

I articulated the logic behind my reasoning, basing it upon what we know. Do you disagree with it?

Do you have an alternative opinion?

Toorop
05-09-2011, 19:14
Reasonable to assume based on the the circumstances of the incident + your statement than CCW holders are usually highly trained individuals.

Highly trained individual + fleeing stolen vehicle they are attempting to recover + tire shot out = tire was intentionally shot. Unless and until we get more information this is the most logical conclusion. At least, that's how I see it. If you believe differently feel free to post it up. I am sure other people could come to different conclusions...and none of us may even be correct. We will probably never know...
I would assume the CCWer was shooting the criminal and not the car. A highly trained CCWer would know that a car is a much more deadly weapon then a gun. We've all seen it written on various gunboards. Why stop the car when you can stop the criminal?

If some knife wielding maniac attacks you are you going to attempt to shoot the knife or the maniac?

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:16
I would assume the CCWer was shooting the criminal and not the car. A highly trained CCWer would know that a car is a much more deadly weapon then a gun. We've all seen it written on various gunboards. Why stop the car when you can stop the criminal?

If some knife wielding maniac attacks you are you going to attempt to shoot the knife or the maniac?

Because the truck is fleeing...not trying to run you over.

Also, the truck is the means of locomotion for the criminal in the Utah scenario. In your knife wielding scenario the maniac is the means of locomotion of the knife. Thus truck = manic. ;)

Deye76
05-09-2011, 19:16
I disagree with your assumptions.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 19:25
Because the truck is fleeing...not trying to run you over.

Also, the truck is the means of locomotion for the criminal in the Utah scenario. In your knife wielding scenario the maniac is the means of locomotion of the knife. Thus truck = manic. ;)

So now the highly trained CCWer shot a fleeing man? Is that You are saying? Could he not have used the truck as a weapon to murder innocent people?

The knife and the truck are weapons and should be treated as such. I am sorry but that is a fact. If you have inside knowledge as your posts seem to suggest you think your assumptions are better then are s ere, please post it.

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:29
So now the highly trained CCWer shot a fleeing man? Is that You are saying? Could he not have used the truck as a weapon to murder innocent people?

The knife and the truck are weapons and should be treated as such. I am sorry but that is a fact. If you have inside knowledge as your posts seem to suggest you think your assumptions are better then are s ere, please post it.

The actions/behaviors of the individual possessing said item/weapon are a factor in determining the current threat. Agree?

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:30
I disagree with your assumptions.

Which assumptions and why?

What is your opinion? Can you articulate how you arrived at it?

This discussion thing doesn't work very well if you don't have any opinions of your own.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 19:33
The actions/behaviors of the individual possessing said item/weapon are a factor in determining the current threat. Agree?

I agree. I assume the man was going to use the car and try to go on a rampage of epic proportions the likes of which would call for a ban on trucks with unnecessary features! And that the CCWer was shooting at the driver and not the tires. Agree?

Deye76
05-09-2011, 19:33
"This discussion thing doesn't work very well if you don't have any opinions of your own."


So now, your speculation, has changed to opinions. You are, making this up as you go. Or practicing being a lawyer.

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:35
I agree. I assume the man was going to use the car and try to go on a rampage of epic proportions the likes of which would call for a ban on trucks with unnecessary features! And that the CCWer was shooting at the driver and not the tires. Agree?


lol

Ban "unnecessary features" on trucks. Sure, why not? There's nothing in the Constitution about that, right?

Patchman
05-09-2011, 19:40
You are making this up as you go.

:rofl::rofl: A number of CI posters do.

Warp
05-09-2011, 19:42
"This discussion thing doesn't work very well if you don't have any opinions of your own."


So now, your speculation, has changed to opinions. You are, making this up as you go. Or practicing being a lawyer.

...that isn't a change.

But if you believe they are different, I will rephrase: This discussion thing doesn't work very well if you don't have speculations of your own. It's easy to sit there and disagree with everything, for no reason. It is an entirely different thing to articulate why you disagree or, even better, explain your differing viewpoint/opinion/speculation/whatever you want to call it.

I am hoping you can provide some positive, valuable input of your own.

beatcop
05-09-2011, 20:12
What is this thread about? Going off course.....part of a HD store clerk's duty description prob doesn't have "carry gun" in it, but hey, he's got a story to tell at the bar.

Note to self, 120 grain bullet does not stop a moving 3,000lb vehicle....ever.

Don't shoot over property.

And just for fun: bad guy pulls out gun and kills clerk claiming self-defense from excessive force.

Warp
05-09-2011, 20:21
What is this thread about? Going off course.....part of a HD store clerk's duty description prob doesn't have "carry gun" in it, but hey, he's got a story to tell at the bar.

Note to self, 120 grain bullet does not stop a moving 3,000lb vehicle....ever.

Don't shoot over property.

And just for fun: bad guy pulls out gun and kills clerk claiming self-defense from excessive force.

That pretty much sums it up, I'd say.

Gokyo
05-09-2011, 20:25
The collateral damage from an out of control vehicle outweighs any justification.
Oh is that why the LEO do high speed pursuits and use spike chains.

Wait that does not make sense.

NMG26
05-09-2011, 20:44
Were they wearing special Homey D logo tactical gear?:rofl:

LOL Homey D!!!!!!!!!!! Orange up man!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

Toorop
05-09-2011, 21:00
lol

Ban "unnecessary features" on trucks. Sure, why not? There's nothing in the Constitution about that, right?
When they become as big a nuisance as what the criminal had in mind when he stole the truck. National security would have threatened.

I don't have proof and this is speculation unlike our inside knowledge. ;)

Warp
05-09-2011, 21:04
Wut ?

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 21:12
Let me reword that and see if you agree.

The perception of "taking the law into your own hands" behavior, illustrated by this event, is why many are opposed to CCW.

How's that?

Yeah, that works.

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 21:14
Usually CCWers are highly trained individuals. According to many they are often better shots then their local law enforcement and they often boast about it on the gun forums and boards. I am suprised the thief was not killed.

I am picturing a CCWer standing there with an empty gun. Empty mags and a larger gun on the floor smoke coming from the barrel as the gun rests in slidelock on the pavement. The steely eyed CCWer reload his BUG and scans the area with an amazingly high level of situational awareness and waits for the cops to show up and cleanup the mess because they are always minutes away when the seconds count.

If he had, the CCW would probably have been arrested. I don't know about Utah law, but in NJ deadly force is NOT authorized in the protection of property.

mrsurfboard
05-09-2011, 21:22
Oh is that why the LEO do high speed pursuits and use spike chains.

Wait that does not make sense.

Let me educate you, spike strips allow for a controlled deflation of the tires. They don't blow out the tires and cause the car to go out of control. Understand? Also high speed pursuits in general are only done for specific set of serious crimes in most states. I could post my state's Attorney General Guideline on pursuits if you'd like.

You know what, here you go
http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/vehpurs_2009.pdf

zbusdriver
05-09-2011, 22:30
...Note that the "other vehicle" is a Home Depot vehicle/truck, which I assume is clearly labeled as such....


I know they rent smaller trucks that are just regular pickups. I don't know if they rent the larger ones.

My response is surely bias since I have read the article, obviously. I cannot help but picture the employees as wearing home depot attire while the guy driving the home depot truck is not...and it stands to reason as well, IMO, that the employees probably said something about their truck.

Warp, I believe you when you said that you have read the article...BUT...:upeyes:

Just before 10 a.m. Friday, a company vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of Home Depot... the vehicle did not belong to Home Depot, but rather another business.

Warp
05-09-2011, 22:44
Warp, I believe you when you said that you have read the article...BUT...:upeyes:

Just before 10 a.m. Friday, a company vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of Home Depot... the vehicle did not belong to Home Depot, but rather another business.

I guess when I read it I only absorbed the

a company vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of Home Depot as well as the OP's "Home Depot employees used GPS to track down a company-owned stolen vehicle."

I apologize for the minor slip up in my reading of the article as well as my trusting the OP's (incorrect, I now realize) paraphrasing. I did not realize it had such a negative effect on you. I will be more careful in the future.


Edit: Do you know what the best part of all this is? You get to call out pretty much everybody in this thread now. Do you know why? We've been going on and on about what Home Depot employees wear. But guess what? They weren't Home Depot Employees

Employees of the company that owned the vehicle


So given the context of my statement (visualizing employees wearing attire that matches the markings of the vehicle/truck in question) my statement stands because, as you can see, the employees in question worked for the company that owned the vehicle anyway.

Beautiful, no?

zbusdriver
05-09-2011, 23:06
I guess when I read it I only absorbed the

a company vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of Home Depot as well as the OP's "Home Depot employees used GPS to track down a company-owned stolen vehicle."

I apologize for the minor slip up in my reading of the article as well as my trusting the OP's (incorrect, I now realize) paraphrasing. I did not realize it had such a negative effect on you. I will be more careful in the future.


Edit: Do you know what the best part of all this is? You get to call out pretty much everybody in this thread now. Do you know why? We've been going on and on about what Home Depot employees wear. But guess what? They weren't Home Depot Employees

Employees of the company that owned the vehicle


So given the context of my statement (visualizing employees wearing attire that matches the markings of the vehicle/truck in question) my statement stands because, as you can see, the employees in question worked for the company that owned the vehicle anyway.

Beautiful, no?

:wavey:

Patchman
05-10-2011, 04:55
Warp, I believe you when you said that you have read the article...BUT...:upeyes:

Just before 10 a.m. Friday, a company vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of Home Depot... the vehicle did not belong to Home Depot, but rather another business.

Beautiful.

Oooops, it wasn't Home Depot? :rofl::rofl:

Patchman
05-10-2011, 05:00
May 9th, 2011 @ 2:58pm
By Pat Reavy

SALT LAKE CITY Police arrested a man who they say stole a company pickup truck Friday and cited an employee who allegedly tried to stop the robber from getting away by firing a gun at it.

Just before 10 a.m. Friday, a company vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of Home Depot, 328 W. 2100 South. Contrary to earlier information released by police, the vehicle did not belong to Home Depot, but rather another business.

Guess it depended on when you read the link.