View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Assuming, as Mr Kalgukshi does, that the package came from "abroad", that would mean that the hagwon owner actually contacted a drug dealer in a FOREIGN COUNTRY to get some weed delivered to HIS OWN HAGWON. |
Excellent point.
Quote: |
And, if they were trying to frame the guy, wouldn't they have addressed it to him in order to really cement their case AND ensure that he signs it? |
Another excellent point. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
desultude

Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seoultrader asked:
Quote: |
Why assume innocence?
His stupidity alone deserves imprisonment. |
Why assume innocence? Well, I guess that it is just that naive acceptance of one of the basic tenets of Western law. Innocent until proven otherwise. Pretty simple.
It may also be naive on my part, but my first instinct would have been to sign for the package, rather than have someone waiting for a package, and having the delivery man make an extra trip. Stupid me. I deserve to die.
I don't know the facts in the case, but if he loses his benefits even if he is innocent, that sucks. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, fair enough- let's assume he is innocent then and deal with the supposition that he was set up by his employer- any thoughts on that? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Okay, fair enough- let's assume he is innocent then and deal with the supposition that he was set up by his employer- any thoughts on that? |
Well, then we're assuming the employer is guilty of commiting crimes. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
Okay, fair enough- let's assume he is innocent then and deal with the supposition that he was set up by his employer- any thoughts on that? |
Well, then we're assuming the employer is guilty of commiting crimes. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.... |
Not exactly; what I mean is- let's assume that he did indeed unknowingly and naively sign for a package that had drugs- is the only way for that scenario to occur through his employer framing him? The issue of his innocence and the issue of an employer frame-up do not neccessarily have to go hand in hand (But then we'll moving from one wild improbable scenario to another- Occam's Razor...) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Kalgukshi
Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Location: Here or on the International Job Forums
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khyber wrote:
"....they should drug test the owner. If it's addressed to the school,(and the boy is a fool for signing) why isn't the owner also being charged?"
____________________________________________
I'm curious.
What charge would you have filed against the owner? Maintaining an address to which someone may send parcels and other mail from anywhere in the world.
Class A Felony?
The owner skates. The guy who signed for the parcel doesn't.
Experentia docet, but sometimes at a very serious price. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Haggard
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If his hagwon is like most others, the secretaries handle all incoming mail. They generally sign for everything and it's then distributed to teachers later. They do NOT normally seek out teachers to sign for specific packages on a regular basis simply because it's not feasible. Teachers are in class, and they can't pull them out every time a package comes, so the secretaries handle it. So you have to wonder why he was asked to sign for a package that was not addressed to him in the first place. This would seem to be the responsibility of the school on the surface. There are several possibilities.
1. He arranged to have it specifically not addressed in his name in order to provide himself cover if he got caught with the weed. I've seen others pull this off...successfully. He very possibly could have volunteered to sign for it, knowing that it was intended for him.
2. The package came from abroad, addressed in English, and it was addressed only to the hagwon without a specific teacher's name on it. In this case, it's possible that the secretary simply assumed it was intended for a foreign teacher there and asked him to sign for it because he was either A) the only whitey around at the time or b) the only whitey that worked there. If it's A, then there's a chance he got railroaded, although slim. If it's B and he was the only whitey working there, his signing for the package pretty much guarantees he was expecting it and/or knew who sent it.
The article says that he "was arrested and imprisoned just moments after signing for a package that was not addressed to him at his school"
This means that customs found the drugs, allowed them to go through to the destination, and was waiting in the wings for someone to sign for them. This also means that they could have easily alerted the school owner and possibly other employees of the school beforehand, and they were in on the sting and sought out this kid to sign instead of the normal routine of a Korean secretary signing for it.
A few more points:
I worked at a hagwon for 2 years and received numerous packages from different shipping companies during that time. Never once was I asked to sign for any of them.
If the package came from abroad, odds are he's either guilty or unbelievably naive. If it came from within Korea, there's a chance that he was set up. I still have a hard time believing that a hagwon would go through the time, effort, and risk of setting up a 22-year old on a bogus drug charge when they could just as easily manufacture some fake incompetency charges to get out of paying the bonuses and airfare.
Obviously there are a lot of variables the article doesn't cover that need to be known before anyone can make a reasonable judgment. Hopefully someone who knew him or worked at that Wonderland can come forward with some of those variables. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Seoultrader

Joined: 18 Jun 2003 Location: Ali's Insurgent Inn, Fallujah
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="desultude"]Seoultrader asked:
Quote: |
Why assume innocence? Well, I guess that it is just that naive acceptance of one of the basic tenets of Western law. Innocent until proven otherwise. Pretty simple.
It may also be naive on my part, but my first instinct would have been to sign for the package, rather than have someone waiting for a package, and having the delivery man make an extra trip. Stupid me. I deserve to die.
I don't know the facts in the case, but if he loses his benefits even if he is innocent, that sucks. |
I guess it's the old "it's better to free 1000 guilty men rather than imprison a single innocent one" argument. In the Western world, when you look at the number of total charges vs. conviction ratio, not to mention plea bargains, dropped charges due to lack of evidence, suspended sentences, etc etc...it turns out that most are in fact, guilty as sin.
Korean law is of course also based on this premise, but allows for more flexible interpretation.
Last edited by Seoultrader on Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Seoultrader

Joined: 18 Jun 2003 Location: Ali's Insurgent Inn, Fallujah
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blue Flower wrote: |
Seoultrader wrote: |
Why assume innocence?
His stupidity alone deserves imprisonment. |
You may call it stupidity, I call it naiveity. I would have done exactly the same thing under the circumstances. You just don't expect this sort of stuff to happen to you.
If it was his boss, then he must be a complete and utter *beep* to plan this. And the karmic retribution alone will be terrifying. I think a sponge in the next life. |
"karmic retribution" ???
I thought Wombat's passing was a lesson to you tree huggers.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
SarcasmKills

Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
"karmic retribution" ???
I thought Wombat's passing was a lesson to you tree huggers. |
Yeah.. what exactly happened to her anyways? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ghostinthemachine
Joined: 22 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seoultrader wrote
Quote: |
dropped charges due to lack of evidence |
What a bummer.
You must really miss the days when they used to throw a woman into a lake to see if she was a witch. If she drowned she was innocent. If she floated then they knew she was guilty and they burned her at the stake!
Welcome to the 21st century...I hope you enjoy your visit. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Seoultrader

Joined: 18 Jun 2003 Location: Ali's Insurgent Inn, Fallujah
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ghostinthemachine wrote: |
Seoultrader wrote
Quote: |
dropped charges due to lack of evidence |
What a bummer.
You must really miss the days when they used to throw a woman into a lake to see if she was a witch. If she drowned she was innocent. If she floated then they knew she was guilty and they burned her at the stake!
Welcome to the 21st century...I hope you enjoy your visit. |
Women are ALL witches. Great for sex though... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ghostinthemachine
Joined: 22 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm happy to hear you're getting your money's worth.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kiwioutofthenest

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
What the OP wants to know is if anyone knows this guy or is it all just a load of BS? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Haggard
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
What the OP wants to know is if anyone knows this guy or is it all just a load of BS? |
As the OP, I was hoping someone who knew him would come forward with more info, because the article does a poor job in that area.
And what exactly, are you proposing is a load of BS? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|