Re: Robbed at Gunpoint. Tmobile refused Law Enforcement's request for assistance

wrote in alt.cellular

> Hello,
>
> I was robbed at gunpoint earlier this evening and the theives took my
> Tmobile phone. Officers responded immediately and contacted Tmobile
> in an attempt to have the armed theives tracked. They used the phone
> soon after robbing me according to my usage records.
>
> The officer told me "Tmobile refused to help. They said that your
> situation of having a gun pointed in your face was not, 'Life
> threatening'".
>
> These guys threatened my life and are threats to society and Tmobile
> refused to help.

It was life threatening when the gun was pointed at your face. Once
they left with your phone your life is no longer being threatened.

>
> I called customer support and they stonewalled me, saying they cannot
> do anything or provide me with contact information to discuss my
> situation. I am trying to work my way up the chain at Tmobile and
> will try other was
>
> Has anyone else experienced this type of thing with Tmobile? I am
> seriously considering suing Tmobile for their refusal to help. I
> would be happy to join with others who might be considering the same.

Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the
constitution. All the police have to do is get a warrant for your
records. Or you should be able to log online and get them your self.
But the police have to get a warrant. If they do not then the case
quite likely would be thrown out.

>
> Thank you,
>
> r.a.g.
>
>



--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dickcr@comcast.net

foo.dickcr@comcast.net (Dick C) wrote in
news:Xns99686167FD868dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136:

> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the
> constitution.

You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the
(presumably) US Constitution.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

On Jul 9, 11:35 am, Dick C <foo.dic...@comcast.net> wrote:
> wrote in alt.cellular
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I was robbed at gunpoint earlier this evening and the theives took my
> > Tmobile phone. Officers responded immediately and contacted Tmobile
> > in an attempt to have the armed theives tracked. They used the phone
> > soon after robbing me according to my usage records.
>
> > The officer told me "Tmobile refused to help. They said that your
> > situation of having a gun pointed in your face was not, 'Life
> > threatening'".
>
> > These guys threatened my life and are threats to society and Tmobile
> > refused to help.
>
> It was life threatening when the gun was pointed at your face. Once
> they left with your phone your life is no longer being threatened.

And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not
'life threatening'?

> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the
> constitution.

Bull****. I reported the phone stolen at gunpoint and was working
with Law Enforcement to find the armed thugs.

> All the police have to do is get a warrant for your
> records. Or you should be able to log online and get them your self.

I didn't need records. What was needed of the location of armed
theives who definitely pose a clear and present danger to society.

> But the police have to get a warrant. If they do not then the case
> quite likely would be thrown out.

It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant. Tmobile's policy is bad
in this case.

At 09 Jul 2007 16:38:28 +0000 Bert Hyman wrote:

> You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the
> (presumably) US Constitution.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect T-Mo needs more than "robbed at gunpoints'"
word that the phone was, indeed, stolen, and that he isn't trying to
trick T-Mo into helping him track down an ex-wife or girlfriend.

My guess is that T-Mo needs something "official" like a warrant before
they'll hand location information to anyone- even a police officer
claiming to be investigating a case.

I remember once back about fifteen years ago when I managed a Radio Shack
store in Kansas, a police officer brought in a police scanner found at
the scene of a crime. Knowing that (in those days) we asked customers
their names and addresses at the point of purchase, he asked me to pull
the records of everyone who bought that model scanner recently. I told
him I wouldn't do it without a warrant- my customers gave me that info
to be placed on a mailing list for catalogs and sales flyers- not to be
potential suspects in a police investigation. (He never returned with a
warrant, for whatever reason.)

I'm sure T-Mo will comply with the law (they aren't stupid) but I'm
guessing a CSR is trained not to give that information to ANYONE over the
phone even they if they say they're a police officer.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-07-09, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> foo.dickcr@comcast.net (Dick C) wrote in
> news:Xns99686167FD868dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136:
>
>> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the
>> constitution.
>
> You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate the
> (presumably) US Constitution.

*ahem*

T-Mobile USA is a US company headquartered in Seattle. The *parent* company
is a foreign company.

On 2007-07-09, robbed_at_gunpoint@yahoo.com <robbed_at_gunpoint@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not
> 'life threatening'?

Your life isn't being threatened once they've left. Which is why I asked
the question I just asked.

> It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant.

Wrong.

sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steve Sobol) wrote in
news:slrnf952di.psj.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> On 2007-07-09, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> foo.dickcr@comcast.net (Dick C) wrote in
>> news:Xns99686167FD868dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136:
>>
>>> Your problem is that you are expecting the company to violate the
>>> constitution.
>>
>> You're going to have to explain to us how T-Mobile could violate
>> the (presumably) US Constitution.
>
> *ahem*
>
> T-Mobile USA is a US company headquartered in Seattle. The *parent*
> company is a foreign company.

You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could
violate the (presumably) US Constitution.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

On 2007-07-09, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could
> violate the (presumably) US Constitution.

Of course the corp can't, but the officers and employees can and the corp
can be held liable.

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
>On 2007-07-09, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could
>> violate the (presumably) US Constitution.
>
>Of course the corp can't, but the officers and employees can and the corp
>can be held liable.

No, they can't.

The US Constitution restricts government. It does not restrict
private individuals or corporations.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
>On 2007-07-09, robbed_at_gunpoint@yahoo.com <robbed_at_gunpoint@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And two guys who rob people by pointing gun in their faces is not
>> 'life threatening'?
>
>Your life isn't being threatened once they've left. Which is why I asked
>the question I just asked.

The point you seem to be missing is that the people now presumably in
posession of the cell phone have shown themselves to be armed and
dangerous by already holding up one person at gunpoint, and the cops
therefore obviously want to catch them to protect *other* people, not
the OP, from them.

>> It is my phone, they didn't need a warrant.
>
>Wrong.

I'm not convinced.

Any individual or corporation can *voluntarily* provide information to
the police without the need for a warrant and without that information
being thrown out of court. The purpose of a warrant is to *compel*
cooperation and to permit evidence thus obtained to be used when it
was obtained *against the will* of the people who had possession of it.

The thieves who stole the cell phone are not the ones in possession of
the information the cops want, i.e., the location of the cell phone.
Therefore, if T-Mobile were to voluntarily provide that information,
they would have no grounds to suppress the evidence.

Now, I suppose you could claim tht asking T-Mobile to provide
information about the location of a cell phone constitutes a wiretap,
and wiretaps require a warrant. The problem with that claim is that I
doubt a warrant is required when the owner of a phone *agrees* to have
a tap put on it. Since the OP is the only person who has the legal
right to object to a tap on his cell phone, if he agrees to it, there's
no reason for T-Mobile not to provide the requested information.

Also, I seem to recall that there have been court decisions that
location information provided by a cell phone is not protected by
wiretamp statutes.

Here's a question for you: If a thief steals a car with lojack, do the
police need to get a warrant before using the lojack transmitter to
locate the car?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

On 2007-07-10, Jonathan Kamens <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:

> No, they can't.
>
> The US Constitution restricts government. It does not restrict
> private individuals or corporations.

Um.

*going back and reading thread again*

Duh.

sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steve Sobol) wrote in
news:slrnf95mjj.cvp.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> On 2007-07-09, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> You're going to have to explain to us how any corporation could
>> violate the (presumably) US Constitution.
>
> Of course the corp can't, but the officers and employees can and
> the corp can be held liable.

Please explain how the officers or employees of any private business
in the US can violate any terms of the US Constitution.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Todd Allcock schrieb:
> [...] I'm
> guessing a CSR is trained not to give that information to ANYONE over the
> phone even they if they say they're a police officer.

Haven't you noticed that CSRs are always trained not to give ANY useful
information to anyone on the phone?

SCNR,
Andreas

On 2007-07-11, Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote:
> Todd Allcock schrieb:
>> [...] I'm
>> guessing a CSR is trained not to give that information to ANYONE over the
>> phone even they if they say they're a police officer.
>
> Haven't you noticed that CSRs are always trained not to give ANY useful
> information to anyone on the phone?

I don't want people giving out my personal info without a warrant, period.

On 2007-07-10, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:


> Please explain how the officers or employees of any private business
> in the US can violate any terms of the US Constitution.

Yeah, sorry, answered already (stupid mistake on my part)