It may not be a crime to unknowingly buy stolen property, but you don't get to keep the stuff if the owner or police track it down. It happened to a friend. He bought a used bike from a dealer and it turned out to be stolen. He had to give the bike back and go back to the dealer to get his money. If he bought it from a private seller, he'd have probably been out of luck.
Sooo... how did they get into the house? Did the first person there break in? Or was it just unlocked?
This looks like a ridiculous scam... there has to be some kind of crime involved.
This looks like a ridiculous scam... there has to be some kind of crime involved.
brandonbull
Diamond Member
- May 3, 2005
- 6,365
- 1,223
- 126
Yeah, If you buy a $10k Rolex from some guy on the street for $100, you would get in trouble.
Receiving stolen goods is generally buying or acquiring the possession of property knowing (or believing in some jurisdictions) that it had been obtained through theft, embezzlement, larceny, or extortion by someone else. The crime is separate from the crime of stealing the property. To be convicted, the receiver must know the goods were stolen at the time he receives them and had the intent to aid the thief. Paying for the goods or intending to collect the reward for returning them are not defenses. Depending on the value of the property received, receiving-stolen-property is either a misdemeanor or a felony.
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,930
- 3,909
- 136
Originally posted by: jjsole
ATTENTION ATOT POSTERS:
I also live in Tacoma, WA, in the white house on the corner (yep, the one with the driveway in front), and since I'm moving I would like to invite you all to come by and take anything you want. Free!
Is it the one with the streetlight in front?
It was a rental property, so I'm guessing it was unlocked to show to tenants. If it was locked, that's breaking and entering even if the ad said everything free.
Generally you have to have some concrete knowledge. "Belief" is so tough to prove that very very few jurisdictions are that picky about it. It's against the law to buy stolen goods, but in almost all cases (including this one) you have to KNOW the goods were stolen before you can get in trouble for it.
A clever enough comment, but when you've been embarassed in a thread as badly as you have been in this one, you might just want stay out of it
I knew I needed a good laugh to start the weekend. :laugh:
Thanks.
It's good to see you're not in support of preventing this kind of occurrence from happening again.
The funniest part was your lecture about 3rd grade comprehension skills. Children that young know to not take items from strangers. If it were a group of 3rd graders who saw that Craigslist post, that house likely would not have been stolen from.
Wow. I'm left speechless. It's like, you're capable of reading in an academic sense, but your ability to actually process the information is just...not there. Amazing.
This discussion has nothing to do with where my "support" is, you said the people who did this broke the law, which they didn't. It's been proven they didn't, and it's been proven you're completely, utterly wrong. So, in typical fashion for those who've been proven wrong and are too stupid to recover, you've simply changed the subject to one that never even existed. Congrats!
Your second comment is just....there's no way I can make fun of you to make you appear stupider than you already doing yourself. Regardless of whether you have the comprehension skills of a third grader (for what it's worth, you don't, they're clearly smarter than you) you certainly are entertaining. I take it back, please continue posting in this thread, it's fun to smack you down. It's like swatting a fly with a Buick.
I didn't think it was possible for me to laugh any harder than before. But surely enough.
Steal: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right.
Theft: the act of stealing.
Burglary: the act of entering a building or other premises with the intent to commit theft.
Intent: the state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
To sit there and say there was never an intent to steal, well, I just hope you're not running for judge in your state anytime soon. And I'd just laugh even harder if this happened to you and you realized that the person who listed the ad also cannot be held fully accountable. Maybe not all of them had intent to steal, but I'm damned sure that many of them did.
Really then, Mr Wizard? Well thank you for pointing out the error of my ways! By all means, please explain your posting earlier that every single person who took something should be prosecuted?
Every single person, even those who didn't have intent, should be prosecuted, eh? Fair enough! You sir, should become a judge, because clearly you have the level head and clarity of mind to execute the job properly!
How would you like to prove which ones had intent? If it's so clear that many of them did, surely you've seen something I missed. Surely you wouldn't waste tax dollars on prosecuting people you knew you could never, ever convict. Please, I am an idiot and you are a genius, I would simply love to hear your plan of attack for proving that people who took the stuff had intent to commit burglary.
I anxiously away your responses! I am positively certain that you are about to completely dispel my foolish notions of how the law works, and you are going to explain why the police themselves said it's not a criminal matter. Please don't deprive me of your unbounded knowledge, I need to be educated here
You are an idiot. Read your own definitions. They did have permission, so they weren't commiting theft or burglary, nor did they have intent to. The fault in this is with the person who gave permission when they didn't have the authority to. This really isn't that hard to understand.
Wow, this thread gets bumped again.
Permission was given from the wrong person, not the owner. And how can you sit there and agree with the full definition that they had the right to take anything?
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1556&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
possession of stolen goods:
n. the crime of possession of goods which one knows or which any reasonable person would realize were stolen. It is generally a felony. Innocent possession is not a crime, but the goods are generally returned to the legal owner.
But the funny part in it all was someone who didn't seem to understand online forums. Nobody ever has their opinions changed here. And when all they can do is add insults, and poorly formed insults at that, that was the funniest part. And to think I would somehow be embarrassed when all I wished was for the victim to have the people responsible held accountable... made me laugh.
Back to the subject at hand, I hope to think we are all reasonable people here (see definition of possession of stolen goods above). But I've certainly been proven wrong before.
But I've got more important things to do than sit here forever bickering moot points that no one cares about.
But hey, we live in America where everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Hell, even different judges have different opinions on the law.
There it is folks, the siren call of a loser who's been piled on and beaten so badly that he's completely given up, and wants to make one last lame attempt at exiting gracefully.
It was fun having you in the thread, man. You do wonders for the ol' self-esteem.
Does not matter what they thought, if they did not have permission from the owner then yes it does fit the definition of steal. They took property without permission. Its that simple.
Same as if the speed limit changed but you did not see the sign you will still get a ticket even though you still thought the limit was higher.
No. Wow, no. This thread is bringing the dumbasses out the woodwork.
That's not an analagous situation at all. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law. These people didn't assume it was okay because there was no sign that said otherwise, they assumed it was okay because they'd been TOLD it was okay by someone THEY THOUGHT WAS THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE.
If someone was driving down the road and passed a normal-looking spped limit sign that said the speed limit was 50, and they got pulled over because the sign was a fake and the actual speed limit was 30, THEN they wouldn't be in trouble. That's a comparable situation. They were following what they thought was the speed limit, not going however fast they wanted because they didn't see a sign that told them how fast they could go
For the love of God, stop posting in this thread in this thread when you have no idea what is going on, people
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter