AMIT BALLAL
Super Moderator
I beg to differ. There can be multiple root causes against a problem.
How to explain deliberate sabotage?
- Thread starter Azaarus
- Start date
I beg to differ. There can be multiple root causes against a problem.
Thee Bouyyy
Multiple Personalities
Yes, agreed. What I mean to say is that, at least there might be one root cause for any given problem. It is not like that there is no root cause for any given problem if CAR is issued.
AMIT BALLAL
Super Moderator
Thanks for clarification. But it is not always possible to find a root cause and sometimes a particular problem can be due to common cause(s). IMHO, it is better to leave such a problem (if root cause is not known) alone to avoid tampering.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
That's fine if you are in the criminal justice business, but not if you are in the business of manufacturing and/or selling products. In this business, no one is trying to bring people to justice or make a case. They are trying to provide ROI to their shareholders and good service to their customers, maintain their reputation as a company that delivers quality products, and, always, always, always to avoid litigation, not to win it. Because when it comes to litigation, nobody wins except the lawyers.
Last edited:
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
I'm doubtful the customer is all that interested in the truth. Why would they be. They want the company to make good on its product (which I would guess it has already done) and enough information to make them feel confident that this is not something that is likely to recur in the foreseeable future.
Actually, law enforcement. For a successful prosecution, the threshold of evidence still exists.
Watchcat
Trusted Information Resource
?? In the US, law enforcement is generally considered part of the criminal justice system. In any case, I see no indication that the OP is interested in prosecution, so threshold of evidence for that purpose seems irrelevant to the discussion.
A police officer might make an arrest, but in order for a person to be convicted and sent to prison, evidence must exist to incriminate the individual. A person shipping defective products to a customer is a daily occurrence. Before one can prove it was done willfully with the intent of sabotage, either a confession or a preponderance of evidence must exist. Such threshold was not reached in this case, imo.
My comments are an attempt to remind the OP there are (potential) legal implications if he decides to blame the former employee and accuse her, in absentia, of deliberate sabotage, what is being portrayed as "the truth". So, I think, this is still relevant to the original question.
Similar threads
