Home emptied after hoax online ad

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

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

Obviously crimes were commited. The house wasn't simply removed of items, it was ranshacked, items destroyed and grafittii painted. Crappy neighbors and disinterested law enforcement seems more like it than a bunch of unknowing craigslist "gleaners"

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

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

If the best you have to counter something to to call someone a childess name then maybe you need some help in the maturity department.

And no they were not told by someone that thought was the owner. They saw a ad listing free house rip it up. They never spoke to anybody, they never saw anyone, and they did not have any rights to go in the house. They broke the law, pure and simple.

 

[Agentbolt]

items destroyed and grafittii painted

Yes, those were crimes. Nobody posted "Oh, also feel free to damage stuff/spraypaint everything" There's no argument there. Most of this thread has been an argument over whether the people who simply took stuff committed a crime, which it's been abundantly proven that they didn't.

Anyone who smashed/wrecked/vandalized the place, that's a different story.

 

[Agentbolt]

If the best you have to counter something to to call someone a childess name then maybe you need some help in the maturity department.

And no they were not told by someone that thought was the owner. They saw a ad listing free house rip it up. They never spoke to anybody, they never saw anyone, and they did not have any rights to go in the house. They broke the law, pure and simple

My counter did not consist of a single, childish name. There was one in there, but it was buried in a logical rebuttal to the ridiculous argument posted previously. If that's all you were capable of reading because you have the intellect of a prairie dog, that's hardly my fault.

The Ad was posted by someone claiming to be the owner, the house was called "my" house several times in it. If you are so droolingly, completely stupid that you aren't even AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL AD'S CONTENT, then you are completely beyond help and should probably simply kill yourself

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

If the best you have to counter something to to call someone a childess name then maybe you need some help in the maturity department.

And no they were not told by someone that thought was the owner. They saw a ad listing free house rip it up. They never spoke to anybody, they never saw anyone, and they did not have any rights to go in the house. They broke the law, pure and simple

My counter did not consist of a single, childish name. There was one in there, but it was buried in a logical rebuttal to the ridiculous argument posted previously. If that's all you were capable of reading because you have the intellect of a prairie dog, that's hardly my fault.

The Ad was posted by someone claiming to be the owner, the house was called "my" house several times in it. If you are so droolingly, completely stupid that you aren't even AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL AD'S CONTENT, then you are completely beyond help and should probably simply kill yourself

Yea cause calling someone/group "dumbasses" is really mature. :roll: Then adding even more mature writing to say "kill yourself".

So if I post a sign in your front yard that says "Please rip my house to pieces, thanks" then anybody that goes in should not be arrested. Yea ok. So how much did your house cost, not your parents?

 

[Agentbolt]

So if I post a sign in your front yard that says "Please rip my house to pieces, thanks" then anybody that goes in should not be arrested. Yea ok. So how much did your house cost, not your parents?

Legally speaking, no, they shouldn't. You do realize this is entirely a LEGAL debate, not a moral one, right? Please, please tell me your feeble, tiny brain is at least that functional.

What in God's name does the value of my house have to do with the legalities of THIS case? Christ, HOW STUPID ARE YOU? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. You are quickly outshining cubby as the brightest, most fierce star of ignorance in this thread.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

So if I post a sign in your front yard that says "Please rip my house to pieces, thanks" then anybody that goes in should not be arrested. Yea ok. So how much did your house cost, not your parents?

Legally speaking, no, they shouldn't. You do realize this is entirely a LEGAL debate, not a moral one, right? Please, please tell me your feeble, tiny brain is at least that functional.

What in God's name does the value of my house have to do with the legalities of THIS case? Christ, HOW STUPID ARE YOU? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. You are quickly outshining cubby as the brightest, most fierce star of ignorance in this thread.

So since you have nothing to argue with you just keep acting like a little child and calling people names. How nice.
So you have a house that is yours?

 

[Agentbolt]

So since you have nothing to argue with you just keep acting like a little child and calling people names. How nice

Make a counter-argument or get out. Your original, wretched argument carries no water, and since then you're simply whining and puling about how mean I'm being. Arguments don't get decided by tears, you big baby.

I don't own a house. I rent an apartment. That has NOTHING to do with whether the people who took stuff from THIS house broke the law or not.

You are embarrasing yourself.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

So since you have nothing to argue with you just keep acting like a little child and calling people names. How nice

Make a counter-argument or get out. Your original, wretched argument carries no water, and since then you're simply whining and puling about how mean I'm being. Arguments don't get decided by tears, you big baby.

I don't own a house. I rent an apartment. That has NOTHING to do with whether the people who took stuff from THIS house broke the law or not.

You are embarrasing yourself.

Thats what I thought. When you grow up and maybe, a big one, can buy your own house/trailer then you will know. Until then keep calling people names and show how little you know of the law and your lack of maturity.

And yes they did break the law. they entered a house that did not belong to them or have permission from the legal owner or anybody that has legal rights to allow entry. If you think I am wrong feel free to call the local police department and they will back me up. Or better yet break into a house and when you get caught just say someone said you could go in. Then tell it to the judge after you get arrested and then to your cell mate.
My grandfather was a cop, I have taken several law classes when in college, and also a couple of classes in law enforcement. I also did legal aid work while in college.

 

[Agentbolt]

If you think I am wrong feel free to call the local police department and they will back me up

Perhaps I should simply call that police department and ask, considering they already said there was no criminal activity in this case. If it's a civil matter, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

You lose. You are using childish, petty arguments in the vaine of 'If you had a house you'd understand', as if my ownership of a house would somehow affect whether the law was broken or not in a case in another freaking state. You clearly do not understand what this debate is about and therefore you are continuing to go off on these unbelievable tangents that have absolutely ZERO to do with THIS CASE.

The most depressing aspect of this argument is that you are clearly older than me. I could understand this kind of mindless idiocy from someone who was, say, 12. You have peaked as a person and should definitely, absolutely drown yourself and save the planet the trouble of taking care of you, due to your complete inability to function as a normal, intelligent human being.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

So if I post a sign in your front yard that says "Please rip my house to pieces, thanks" then anybody that goes in should not be arrested. Yea ok. So how much did your house cost, not your parents?

Legally speaking, no, they shouldn't. You do realize this is entirely a LEGAL debate, not a moral one, right? Please, please tell me your feeble, tiny brain is at least that functional.

What in God's name does the value of my house have to do with the legalities of THIS case? Christ, HOW STUPID ARE YOU? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. You are quickly outshining cubby as the brightest, most fierce star of ignorance in this thread.

damn.

while you may be right cut out the name calling. it is not needed. All it does is show your immaturity and ignorance.

 

[Agentbolt]

while you may be right cut out the name calling. it is not needed. All it does is show your immaturity and ignorance.

You know what, you're absolutely correct. I've stepped outside the bounds of good taste and now I'm simply detracting from my own point by arguing in this manner.

Considering at this point I'm not even responding to real arguments, simply stating the same still-to-be-disproven points over and over again to people who simply do not know what they are talking about, I'm done arguing about this. It's pointless, at this point I'm arguing with a few brick walls.

 

[cubby1223]

Look, Agentbolt, I still stand by my original comment concerning you on the first page, but you are so incredibly persistent. I will put it to you so simply - why you haven't been able to figure it out yet, I don't know. Makes me wonder...

Here is the difference of opinion:
You believe everyone who took items from the residency thought that the ad was legit and are completely innocent.

I believe those came to the residency to check out the situation, realized that it was not a legit ad, and those who stole did so knowing fully well they were burglarizing the place.


The only problem is, the only way you're conversing and exchanging thoughts is by childish insults. And if you want to stay believing everyone who stole items from the residency are 100% innocent, go right ahead. But your continuing insults revolving around the conflict in this thread that you still haven't fully grasped... Did you ever once stop to *think* and maybe even question if there's another way to view the situation? All you want to do is shout "I'm right, and you're dumber than a 3rd grader!"

 

[rbV5]

Perhaps I should simply call that police department and ask, considering they already said there was no criminal activity in this case. If it's a civil matter, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED

That is incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it, or whether you use CAPS. Tacoma police stated that MOST of the parties involved would "likely" not face charges even if they knew who they were. This simply acknowleges that they will not pursue charges, not that crimes were not committed. Calling it a civil matter, simply takes the burden off the local jurisdiction to "make a case", and leaves it to the victim. The burden of proof in a civil action is less than in a criminal action. A civil action is brought by the victim, and only needs to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is 51% or more liable (responsible) for the "damages", while a criminal action is brought by the State or Federal government. The prosecutor has to prove to the judge or jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty of the "crime" charged.

The fact that they "consider" the ad placer a relative of the home owner (has this even been proven? I know both the owner and sister had disputed that), was the reference for the statement of the civil matter by Tacoma Police. That doesn't make it a fact, nor is the Tacoma Police departement the last word on whether criminal charges are filed. In fact, the statement made by Tacoma Detective Gretchen Ellis seems to indicate they don't really know if the ad placer committed a crime or not :

But prosecutors are not even sure if there is a law against posting a malicious advert. ?If you were even going to charge someone with this, what would you charge them with?? Gretchen Ellis, a detective with the Tacoma Police Department, asked. ?This is something new.?

Link

Certainly this is nowhere near clear-cut as you make it out to be. Definately there is a question of legality concerning the ad placer, but without a doubt at least "some" crimes were commited no matter if the Tacoma Police choose to pursue them or not. There is a history of family disputes, lack of local resources to persue crime, and a perceived lack of precedent to quide prosecuters to file charges. Clearly your condescending replies are totally uncalled for if not just outright incorrect

Ask Ron Goldman?s family if a civil matter means no crime was committed.

 

[Agentbolt]

Well at least you're making a viable argument instead of whining senselessly. I was not making condescending replies because the other posters were incorrect, I was making condescending replies because the other posters were simply parroting whatever "belief" they have and claiming I was wrong based simply on the fact that they didn't like what happened, not based on any kind of facts or knowledge.

the statement made by Tacoma Detective Gretchen Ellis seems to indicate they don't really know if the ad placer committed a crime or not

That's a straw man argument, considering this entire debate is whether the people who took stuff committed a crime, NOT the ad-placer itself. I never said that the person who placed the ad did not commit a crime, so don't try to win your argument by casting doubt on his innocence.

The fact that the police department elected not to pursue any charges is not my entire argument, either. Most of my posts have been regarding whether the elements of a crime exist in this case, which I have proven over and over they do not. If you want to disagree with me, you'd do well to disprove both my points instead of cherry picking the one you are more knowledgeable about.

 

[rbV5]

Most of my posts have been regarding whether the elements of a crime exist in this case, which I have proven over and over they do not. If you want to disagree with me, you'd do well to disprove both my points instead of cherry picking the one you are more knowledgeable about.

.

Cherry Picked? The basis of your entire argument is narrowly targeted toward the simple folks who "unknowingly" took things they believed the had permission to remove. You haven't proven elements of a crime don't exist, Elements of a crime exist with both the ad-placer, and with the folks damaging the property under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

There was alot of property damaged and not simply removed, damage you've acknowledged yourself. Since a reasonable person would not assume that permission to remove items = permission to destroy property, folks causing property damage are guilty of a criminal offense.

How about the fact that the folks who "thought" they were removing items they had permission to remove, now are fully aware that they did not have permission. Why are these "innocent" folks who obtained their goods by fraudulent means not returning the items again?

Tacoma law enforcement could most definately file charges in this case, it's just not worth their effort apparently.

 

[nutxo]

Meh. I could relate a few stories about TPD............

 

[DrPizza]

At first, I thought that any reasonable person with average intelligence would realize "something isn't right about this." Thus, they'd be guilty of theft.

However, after reading this thread, I realize that my opinion of what consists of average intelligence may have been too high. It seems like a lot of people would believe they actually had permission to rip things out of a house based on an anonymous posting on a website. My final decision: "Not Guilty by reason of stupidity!"

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Penth
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.

I'm not so sure about that. One could certainly accuse the looters of failing to use due diligence(i.e. "This dude is offering me a house full of stuff, but is it even his to do so?").

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

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?

That's the one!

Help yourself to anything, you have my permission. If I'm not home and the door won't easily open, just give it a kick or two or three because it unfortunately tends to stick like a ah heck sometimes.

 

[Agentbolt]

Since a reasonable person would not assume that permission to remove items = permission to destroy property, folks causing property damage are guilty of a criminal offense.

*sigh* Well, I'd THOUGHT you were paying attention anyways. If you'd bother to read the entire thread, you'd see:

Anyone who smashed/wrecked/vandalized the place, that's a different story.

I am SOLELY limiting my argument to the people who simply walked in and took something, and left. This entire argument began because of the original completely idiotic comment of "everyone who took something should be prosecuted", which is utterly dead wrong. Under the Criminal Damage act, YES, anyone who caused damage to the property committed a crime. No one's going to argue that point because that's not what this discussion is regarding. Re-read the thread.

How about the fact that the folks who "thought" they were removing items they had permission to remove, now are fully aware that they did not have permission. Why are these "innocent" folks who obtained their goods by fraudulent means not returning the items again?

How do you know they haven't? Have you brought a single shred of evidence that no one has returned anything, or are you simply being contrary? Since I'm not seeing a link to new info anywhere, and there's been no mention of whether or not anything has been returned since then in the original article, I'm forced to assume the latter.

Even if they haven't, how do you know they're aware the entire thing was a hoax? What if they simply don't read the paper or watch the news? If you could somehow prove they became aware this was a hoax, and prove they never returned the stuff, then you'd have some ground to stand on. Since you can't, you don't.

Don't make the same mistake cubby did, you're smarter than that. This isn't a moral issue. Of course there's lots of stuff these people "should" have done. But, LEGALLY speaking, they didn't do anything wrong.

 

[rbV5]

This isn't a moral issue. Of course there's lots of stuff these people "should" have done. But, LEGALLY speaking, they didn't do anything wrong.

They are if they don't return property that does not belong to them. The owner does not lose ownership rights when his property is stolen.

I am SOLELY limiting my argument to the people who simply walked in and took something, and left

No you're not, you're insulting posters and claiming NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED

Perhaps I should simply call that police department and ask, considering they already said there was no criminal activity in this case. If it's a civil matter, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

 

[Mrfrog840]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
R-R-R-R-R REPOST

 

[Agentbolt]

They are if they don't return property that does not belong to them. The owner does not lose ownership rights when his property is stolen.

IF they become aware that the property doesn't belong to them, then yes. Right now if the cops found where they lived, and showed up at their house and demanded the stuff back, they'd be perfectly justified in doing so, but the person who had the property wouldn't be in any legal trouble for not having returned it unless you could somehow prove they became aware it was stolen.

No you're not, you're insulting posters and claiming NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED

You're right, that statement was vague. Of course, you could have read my previous comments and at least tried to figure out what specifically I was referring to, but let me make it easy for you.

The people who came into the house, took stuff, and left, without wrecking anything, committed no crime. As far as THEY are concerned, no crime was committed. Happy?

Cubby's original argument was that those people specifically should've been prosecuted is still completely misguided, and he is still an idiot. If insults hurt your precious little feelings, tell him to stop posting things that are completely inane and wrong. You've clearly taken him under your wing, save him from himself.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
...It's like swatting a fly with a Buick.

LOL, that got a laugh out of me