Timeline and Rant

DMS General
1

The timeline depicted in the thread linked below isn’t accurate. I’m going to set the record straight because this kind of manipulation isn’t okay.

  • July 13th the member took the tools (verified by RFID and security footage)
  • July 14th a thread on Talk informs the member that removing tools isn’t allowed (if they didn’t already know)
  • July 17th the tools are noticed to be missing
  • July 21st the Carrollton Police is informed of the incident

I’m told the tools were returned on August 14th but I don’t have anything in my own records to verify the date. If I recall correctly the board didn’t attempt to contact the member because the member was already aware that tools weren’t allowed to be taken offsite (via the Talk thread on July 14th if not sooner) and they chose to do nothing to rectify the situation in the week leading up to contacting the Carrollton Police.

Some relevant threads on Talk and the affidavit I filled out for the Carrollton Police are below for reference. The detective’s card is below as well though I have no idea if they still work there.

affidavit

card

TL;DR the police didn’t get involved until over a week had passed and the tools were gone for over a month. Food for thought, there are current members that have taken much more from the space with zero consequences thus far. It’s not because the crimes are unknown, it’s because the organization is unwilling or unable to get it together enough to do something about it. Wake the fuck up people. I like this place and I’d kind of like for it to stick around for a while longer. If you’re reading this then chances are you feel the same. If we don’t take care of it then it won’t last.

8 Likes
2

So the tl;dr is that he took the tools, then a day later asked “can I take tools offsite?” was told pretty clearly “no, unless you get a chair or board member to allow it”, three days after that it’s noticed the tools are missing (and have been gone for 4 days at that point). The police are then notified 8 days after the tools were removed.

So for him to say the tools had only been “borrowed” for 24 hours before the police were notified is a flat out lie. This type of manipulation is called gas lighting, and it’s not ok.

5 Likes
3

Gentlemen,

I don’t know what really happened here. But I know that DMS has earned a reputation for being unfriendly to anyone who doesn’t understand the shifting sands of our rules. Whenever new members ask me if they can take a tool home to use (which has been possible at various points in our history), I’m reluctant to tell them that even if someone has given them permission, they will probably be charged and arrested without notice if they do. It’s an unpleasant but effective deterrent that has been instilled in our culture.

I’m not taking a position on what happened. Only @ether8unny knows what his intentions were. Stating the facts as you understand them should be sufficient. I apologize if I missed a detail, but you’re not setting the record straight by correcting error and accusing someone of manipulating and gas lighting. If his facts don’t quite match up, it only looks like he’s making sense of things as he remembers them years later, and that you had access to something that could make the narrative a little more accurate. He is clearly communicating that he was treated unjustly, and in my experience, miscommunication at the Space, along with unjust treatment, is more than plausible.

Here are the facts as I see them:

  1. The tools were returned years ago.
  2. Nobody remembers exactly what happened years ago.
  3. Public record shows that charges were filed and later dismissed years ago.

Unless our goal is to promote a culture of mistrust, division, and fear, publicly hashing things out in this way, so long after the fact, can’t be healthy for our community’s culture or growth.

2 Likes
4

You most definitely missed the details. If that’s what you think then we can agree to disagree.

1 Like
5

We can. But to be clear, you’re adding your own presumptions to the facts. Demonstrating that a narrative is false does not automatically presume that someone is lying. It could also mean that they are in error, without an intent to lie.

1 Like
6

The original guy might be “misremembering”, but he was also shaming DMS for calling the cops on him “12-24 hours” after he took the tools “without contacting him”. I don’t think that is what actually happened, and I wish the original thread had stayed open long enough to clear it up.

3 Likes
7

So he’s an idiot instead of untrustworthy? Talk about presumptions more please.

8

Being in error does not presume idiocy either. The most respectable person you know has undoubtedly lived a life full of error, otherwise he never would have learned from his mistakes enough to be respectable.

If treated unfairly, I too would have a desire to lash out. In the thread, it’s clear that Luke announced that he would call the police well before he researched any facts beyond a tool missing. There was no grace here. Luke had every right to file charges. But to presume theft before all else? I disagree with that decision. A decision like that will always have unintended consequences. This is one of them.

1 Like
9

Our rules are as written, and he chose to ask someone that was not in a position to make a decision for an exception.

I wouldn’t call this unfair; the cops were not called until 8 days after the incident, and the member was aware they weren’t supposed to have the tools well before the police were involved. I suggest you read the old thread for context about the member asserting they should be able to remove tools, despite the repeated insistence that it was not permitted under the conditions present. It’s linked in the top post.

10 Likes
10

This was obviously not a case of accidental borrowing. Reading through the thread of him pretty much demanding a way to borrow an engine hoist shows he was told repeated the rules and disregarded them. He also could have then fessed up to the mistake of taking the jack and return it in a timely manner but didn’t. I also believe charges can be dropped if it was decided that circumstances deemed the situation to be an honest accident.

Makerspace is a place for builders, tinkerers, modifiers, restorers…etc. It is not a tool rental company as the offending person seems to have viewed it.

7 Likes
11

It’s funny, we actually have a very strong history about being accepting of mistakes/miscommunication when people own up to things. Mistakes happen and historically we’ve always recognized that. The people we aren’t so accepting of are the ones who lie or hide when something goes wrong.

There are countless threads on here about “I forgot to pay for my laser time!” or “crap, I accidentally brought this tool home!” where the people are treated kindly and no one gets in trouble, because they recognize the mistake and immediately work to correct it.

6 Likes
12

grabs popcorn

1 Like
13

Breaking a rule is not theft.

I’m not debating on what did or did not happen. I’m only speaking to the decision to file charges without courtesy, grace, or a show of goodwill. How we handle these issues at the Space makes a big impact on our community. And now we have another formerly suspended member that holds a grudge for a perceived wrong. I’m not saying these things can be avoided. But they can be mitigated by making wiser choices about how we sling our wrath.

Again, you seem to be arguing that the member broke a rule, and that everyone knew it. Theft is against the rules. But breaking a rule is not theft. You’ve actually made the argument that WE knew in advance that he broke the rules by taking tools home, and then we later brought up charges on him for theft without resolving the policy issue internally. I’m no attorney, but if a narrative like this were true, wouldn’t members that we discipline in this way have cause to bring charges against whoever filed false charges against them? I think that might be a liability.

I’m not taking a position on what did or didn’t happen. My point is that he is certainly acting like he was treated unfairly. You might not agree that it was unfair by your standards, but he is telling us that it was unfair by his. The charges were dropped years ago. Nobody knows what really happened, except now, he apparently just broke the rules. And today, we’re dealing with the fallout because of an administrative decision years ago to abandon all grace and fairness with our membership when junk goes missing.

14

Knowingly keeping an item you knew you were not supposed to have is theft.

He was well aware he was not supposed to have it by that point, and did not return the item but rather tried to hide it. If he had chosen to own up to it and indicate returning it when he was previously made aware, with no uncertainty, he could not remove tools then mercy. But choosing to hide that fact only adds to the fact he took it off the grounds and didn’t return it when he knew he shouldn’t.

Again, he stole the jack. He knew he wasn’t supposed to have it shortly after he took it, and chose to hide this fact. That still makes it theft. This is not an item of dispute.

I actually didn’t; we didn’t know that he took it until well after we made it clear to him that he wasn’t allowed to take tools off the grounds. He then not only still had the tool, but didn’t own up to the mistake and instead kept arguing about how he should be able to take tools off the grounds.

There are no false charges; theft is theft the moment you are aware you aren’t supposed to have it, and don’t immediately own up to it. He knew he wasn’t supposed to have it for 7 days before charges were filed.

4 Likes
15

It can be charged as theft, certainly. And it was. That doesn’t mean we should charge everyone who takes stuff home with theft.

I’m unable to attest to what anyone was or wasn’t aware of, nor do I wish to debate about what did or didn’t happen.

So he knew he wasn’t supposed to have it AFTER he took it, and then we charged him with theft because he didn’t confess to something he didn’t intend to do in the first place? If he took it by mistake, and found out later that he wasn’t supposed take it, that’s not theft, that’s a screw up. Hiding the fact that he had it isn’t theft either. It might be pride or cowardice, but neither of those are a crime.

I’m disputing it. Because being in possession of something that isn’t yours does not automatically presume an intention to steal. Possession of tools might be indistinguishable from theft in every way. It might even be something that you can callously send someone to jail over. But morally, if the intent was not theft, then it wasn’t. And that makes a difference in this organization, because failing to make a distinction between intention and action will only serve to divide us as a community. It’s empathetic negligence on our part.

If he was given permission by someone without authority, then that’s just a recipe for confusion, not a presumption of guilt. No one person here seems to have all the facts. I don’t feel qualified to debate the legal definition of what is or is not theft. I’m not a lawyer. What is lawful or unlawful isn’t even the point. I want to focus on what is just and unjust for us as a community. I’m not interested in rationalizing the mistakes of our past. I want to learn from them, apply what we learn, and become better than we are.

16

So of something is done without intent to be adverse to the rules, and you are notified that it is, how long should you have to come clean and make arrangements to make it right? It would appear a week isn’t enough time in your mind? It almost reads like you think if your intent is pure, you have no obligation to make it right at any point after you are notified.

2 Likes
17

so let people who willfully try to keep DMS property go unpunished? great idea for an org.

You clearly didn’t read the threads then. The entirety of that thread about him wanting to take the engine hoist is him being told not to take things. There was no lack of clarity on that point.

The fact he didn’t own up to the mistake, tried to hide it, and kept it, and continued to argue with people that kept telling him he can’t take things from the space yes, makes it theft.
If he had simply returned it, or said “hey, I didn’t know better. I’ll drop this off next time I’m in” it wouldn’t have been an issue. That’s a regular occurence, and that’s a mistake.
But he was aware he wasn’t supposed to have it, and did he try and acknowledge a mistake? no; he instead kept it and didn’t say a word.

Pride and cowardice don’t make your theft once you know about it any less of a crime. Once he knew he wasn’t supposed to have it and didn’t come forward that made it theft.

Except by concealing an item they know is not theirs, they are taking property.

Once he knew and chose not to do anything about it made it theft. Full stop.

If they acknowledged the mistake, or returned it in a timely fashion then we could have all just moved on. But that’s not what happened here. This wasn’t an honest mistake by the point the police were notified, because they knew they weren’t supposed to have it and kept it without telling anyone regardless.

Once they are informed the person had no authority, and they didn’t say anything about it, then it is guilt at that point. If he had told the board, the committee, etc that “hey, someone told me this was ok. I just found out it isn’t” then that is not confusion at that point, that’s guilt.

It’s quite clear. He took it out after asking someone not in a position. He was informed he was not allowed to remove tools the next day. He constantly insisted in that thread he should have the right too, whilst still not acknowledging to the board or committee he took something after being told he could. It was abundantly clear he wasn’t supposed to have it, but rather than own up to that or return it immediately kept holding onto it and not saying a word.

What is just for our community is mercy and learning from mistakes, but not letting willful acts go unpunished. Once he chose to try and conceal it, things became willful.

3 Likes
18

I can’t answer that. But I don’t believe we handled this well as an organization. When we found out the tools were missing, short of identifying the person that took them, we presumed the intention was theft and we prosecuted someone for it without further investigation. That’s a pattern I don’t think we should repeat.

19

No. We should seek to understand what we don’t know. Not presume to know it all.

My reading clearly showed that there was a dispute as to what was explicitly allowed in the rules, which included a discussion of loopholes–I miss Walter. From the perspective of someone trying to get their way without “technically” breaking the rules, there was a complete lack of clarity on that point.

…

I’d respond to the rest of this, but I feel that we aren’t hearing one another.

I’m making a distinction between what is permissible and what is beneficial. Everyone involved in this member’s drama had the right to do what they did. I’m not disputing that. I simply do not agree with the decisions that were made.

Justified or not, on these issues, we seem ruthless and devoid of grace, willing to destroy someone’s life without being damn certain we’re doing the right thing for all the right reasons.

Why do we do this?

20

Except he knew; there isn’t a grey area there.

There was a dispute as to some cases, such as whom could grant authority with respect to committee chairs. Regardless of that, the member in question hadn’t even asked a committee. When informed of the status of taking tools out, they clearly reacted with the belief they should be able to, despite them not being permitted to.

They understood by that point that, even if there were a couple of unclear cases, they did not ask any of the people with authority, and they had a tool they should not have had.

EDIT: This is going in circles; @Team_Moderators ?