Craigslist hoax

Message

kayrharris · #1 Post by **kayrharris** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:34 am

Apparently this is a new tactic if you want to get back at someone. A similar incident happened last year in the Tacoma, Washington area.

It's pretty troubling that something like this can be pulled off so easily.

http://tinyurl.com/2d4nlg

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #2 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:38 am

That's horrible!

peacock2121 · #3 Post by **peacock2121** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:45 am

I don't know.

Stealing is stealing.

Not sure what the police can do.

I wonder if the police can track to post back like they do on TV.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #4 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:47 am

If the guy has a homeowner's insurance policy, wouldn't the thefts be covered?

gsabc · #5 Post by **gsabc** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:47 am

I'm curious what the charge will be if they can find the jerk who placed the ad. Fraud of some sort, I suppose.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #6 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:53 am

gsabc wrote:I'm curious what the charge will be if they can find the jerk who placed the ad. Fraud of some sort, I suppose.

The person who placed the ad probably won't have the means to make financial restitution.

peacock2121 · #7 Post by **peacock2121** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:58 am

The people who stole the stuff are not blameless.

really....... believing craigslist, come on.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #8 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:00 am

peacock2121 wrote:The people who stole the stuff are not blameless.

really....... believing craigslist, come on.

I totally agree.

But the person who placed the ad set the events in motion and should have to make some sort of restitution.

peacock2121 · #9 Post by **peacock2121** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:03 am

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:The people who stole the stuff are not blameless.

really....... believing craigslist, come on.
I totally agree.

But the person who placed the ad set the events in motion and should have to make some sort of restitution.

or jail

I like jail better.

Rexer25 · #10 Post by **Rexer25** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:04 am

peacock2121 wrote:
PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:The people who stole the stuff are not blameless.

really....... believing craigslist, come on.
I totally agree.

But the person who placed the ad set the events in motion and should have to make some sort of restitution.
or jail

I like jail better.

I'm sure the property owner would prefer restitution. Jail would be the cherry on top.

thguy65 · #11 Post by **thguy65** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:27 am

peacock2121 wrote: really....... believing craigslist, come on.

I've been foolish enough to believe it when the ad says "Trivia buffs wanted for new game show!" One of these days it might turn out to be true.

peacock2121 · #12 Post by **peacock2121** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:28 am

thguy65 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: really....... believing craigslist, come on.
I've been foolish enough to believe it when the ad says "Trivia buffs wanted for new game show!" One of these days it might turn out to be true.

HA!

Made me laugh!

themanintheseersuckersuit · #13 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:13 am

Cruel Craigslist Hoaxers Busted

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... orse1.html

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #14 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:21 am

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Cruel Craigslist Hoaxers Busted

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... orse1.html

Hopefully the other people who took things from the Contractor will be honest and return the stuff that they stole.

TheCalvinator24 · #15 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:48 am

I'm not sure that we can say that the people who took the stuff "stole" it. If they reasonably believed that they had permission, then they lack the required criminal intent for this to be a crime.

The standard for that reasonableness is both objective and subjective, and I can say that I'm not sure I can conclude that they were unreasonable in their belief.

peacock2121 · #16 Post by **peacock2121** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:55 am

They used the computer stuff like they do on TV!

I don't agree with Cal (and I am not a lawyer, so what do I know?) - those people had no permission to take the stuff they took. They read something somehwere - that is all - no permission from the owner.

That is what I was taught and that is what I taught Pealette.

TheCalvinator24 · #17 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:49 am

Let me clarify. I don't believe a Theft case can be made against them for the initial taking. However, once they are put on notice that the taking was not permitted, and have been given a reasonable period to return the items, if they still refuse to return them, then they can be prosecuted for the continuing possession.

peacock2121 · #18 Post by **peacock2121** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:51 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Let me clarify. I don't believe a Theft case can be made against them for the initial taking. However, once they are put on notice that the taking was not permitted, and have been given a reasonable period to return the items, if they still refuse to return them, then they can be prosecuted for the continuing possession.

I'll take that as a good law thingie.

TheCalvinator24 · #19 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:56 am

peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:Let me clarify. I don't believe a Theft case can be made against them for the initial taking. However, once they are put on notice that the taking was not permitted, and have been given a reasonable period to return the items, if they still refuse to return them, then they can be prosecuted for the continuing possession.
I'll take that as a good law thingie.

Make sure you never confuse law and morality. Often one has very little to do with the other. In this case, the initial taking may or may not have been immoral, but I'm fairly confident that it was not illegal.

silvercamaro · #20 Post by **silvercamaro** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:17 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:Let me clarify. I don't believe a Theft case can be made against them for the initial taking. However, once they are put on notice that the taking was not permitted, and have been given a reasonable period to return the items, if they still refuse to return them, then they can be prosecuted for the continuing possession.
I'll take that as a good law thingie.
Make sure you never confuse law and morality. Often one has very little to do with the other. In this case, the initial taking may or may not have been immoral, but I'm fairly confident that it was not illegal.

Similar raids on people's belongs via "Craig's list permission" have happened at least twice before, and more will happen in the future. If the law doesn't yet make such acts illegal, then new laws need to be enacted as soon as possible.

peacock2121 · #21 Post by **peacock2121** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

silvercamaro wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: I'll take that as a good law thingie.
Make sure you never confuse law and morality. Often one has very little to do with the other. In this case, the initial taking may or may not have been immoral, but I'm fairly confident that it was not illegal.
Similar raids on people's belongs via "Craig's list permission" have happened at least twice before, and more will happen in the future. If the law doesn't yet make such acts illegal, then new laws need to be enacted as soon as possible.

I vote to make Uday the person who makes laws.