Updates on saw my stolen equipment on ebay

jeromego wrote in post #12196641
at least not here in FL. the last time they had that policy was almost 3 yrs ago.

Sorry I haven't keep up with this.

I just got a P.A.P this month Apr 2011. I am also in VA so that must make a difference. State Farm will from time to time discontinue polices and then bring them back. I would look into it or another company.

kcbrown wrote in post #12211933
No, laws forbidding the actions deter nobody but the people that wouldn't be committing crimes anyway. The people who commit the crimes are not afraid of being punished by the state.

What deters people who tend to commit crimes is a risk to them so great that they have to be desperate or stupid to take that risk, such as the risk of incurring great bodily injury from the persons they seek to do harm to.

If you and me are both on the same page about "People who tend to commit crimes" then you are forgetting the reasons why people commit crimes in the first place, which, as you guessed it, is important in lowering crime rates.

Believing that career criminals and recidivists make risk assessments is being overly optimistic. You and I(aka rational people and the people I originally addressed as those wouldn't be committing crime anyway) might commit crimes because our risk is low, but the criminals we as a society are worried about DONT commit crimes because they consider their risk low.

kcbrown wrote in post #12211933
Areas where it's known that the law-abiding population is well armed tend not to have the same level of home invasions and other such crimes because the criminals know they take a huge risk by engaging in that activity in those areas. There are, of course, other factors, but when you compare areas that initially allowed firearms but later banned them (e.g., Morton Grove, IL), you often find the crime rate rising shortly after the ban was passed, while areas that go the other direction often see a drop in the crime rate (e.g., Kennesaw, GA).


I didn't want to go on a tangent about firearms, because that's not really the point. The point is that when you make the real risk to criminals high, they generally tend to modify their ways, and the overall crime rate drops (or at least tends to shift towards crimes which are less risky). Of course, there will always be a small group of criminals who are essentially unafraid of anything. Laws which enable law-abiding citizens to deal with them effectively will tend to subject those criminals to the hard laws of evolution.

Please show me an across the board noteworthy decrease/increase in Part I crimes(or Res. Burg rates for extra points) in particular due to gun ban/lift. Keynote cases from DC v. Heller fail to realize that if you ban guns, owning a gun is now a (PART II)crime to be considered in the crime rate and same with the inverse. Dont get me wrong, I'm very well pro-2nd amendment and like you, dont want to get into it about firearms, the biggest can of worms in the history of internet in America.

The flaw in your argument is that your "small group of criminals who are essentially unafraid of anything" is not only larger than you guessed, but also responsible for a disproportionate percentage of total crimes. (Rand Corp: 6% of criminals do 50% of total crime [not to say that only 6% of criminals are "unafraid of anything"])

Edit: Typo

CJSD wrote in post #12232520
If you and me are both on the same page about "People who tend to commit crimes" then you are forgetting the reasons why people commit crimes in the first place, which, as you guessed it, is important in lowering crime rates.

Believing that career criminals and recidivists make risk assessments is being overly optimistic. You and I(aka rational people and the people I originally addressed as those wouldn't be committing crime anyway) might commit crimes because our risk is low, but the criminals we as a society are worried about DONT commit crimes because they consider their risk low.

Well, let me put it this way: give the citizenry the legal means and those career criminals that don't make risk assessments will be Darwined out of the gene pool, because while they may not be basing their actions on the risk, the real risk to them will be substantially higher, and real risk translates to greater rates of injury or death on the part of the risk taker.


I'll have to look, but I thought the sources I'd seen were talking about violent crime rates, and not just total crime rates.

Newbie here would love to know how this turns out in the end.

What's wrong with people nowadays wanting something something for nothing or just thinking if someone else has something they're entitled to it?

Hope the thief gets some jail time.

As for the police not responding to $4500 Mtn Bike Thefts or other items:

This is happening around the Country as Police Deps budget's nationwide are being cut:

List of Crimes Police Will Not Respond To (oakland, ca) but also some cities in NJ, NY, PA

Here's a partial list:

burglary
theft
embezzlement
grand theft
grand theft:dog
identity theft
false information to peace officer
required to register as sex or arson offender
dump waste or offensive matter
discard appliance with lock
loud music
possess forged notes
pass fictitious check
obtain money by false voucher
fraudulent use of access cards
stolen license plate
embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
extortion
attempted extortion
false personification of other
injure telephone/ power line
interfere with power line
unauthorized cable tv connection
vandalism
administer/expose poison to another's

kcbrown wrote in post #12236671
Well, let me put it this way: give the citizenry the legal means and those career criminals that don't make risk assessments will be Darwined out of the gene pool, because while they may not be basing their actions on the risk, the real risk to them will be substantially higher, and real risk translates to greater rates of injury or death on the part of the risk taker.

Funny thing is that in CA, we DO, as citizens, have legal means to lawfully kill an intruder. I strongly urge you to read up on the statute as well as the required subject and objective tests regarding lawful homicides(if you want to read more on my risk assessment bit, Righteous Dopefiend by Bourgois and Schonberg, it's a must read). Keep in mind, just because the law says that just because you cant take a man's life "just cause" DOESN'T mean you cant protect yourself and family in your own home.

The only reason I dont agree with your idea is because I assume you want more lax legislation regarding weapon use v. burglars than what's already in place. If you want to grant everyone the ability to play God and take a man's life just for jacking material things, go ahead and keep pushing that idea and pray legislation like that will pass; you're better off hoping that DA's, Judges and Juries all collectively seek the death penalty for every burglary/grand theft conviction though.

That's all I got, lol. No more bringing work home to the interwebz for me.

kcbrown wrote in post #12236671
Well, let me put it this way: give the citizenry the legal means and those career criminals that don't make risk assessments will be Darwined out of the gene pool, because while they may not be basing their actions on the risk, the real risk to them will be substantially higher, and real risk translates to greater rates of injury or death on the part of the risk taker.


I'll have to look, but I thought the sources I'd seen were talking about violent crime rates, and not just total crime rates.

More Guns Equals Less Crime <----Must read Interview

"For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent."

You have to love Texas. One of a handful of states that allows you to go after someone that you know has stolen from you. Interesting that the Police decided to assist only after the victim of the $4500 bike theft informed the Police he was taking action; shame on them.

I'm late to the OT here, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway.

As for TX allowing one to go after a thief, here in AZ that makes you a vigilante. The person going after the thief to confront them is escallating the confrontation, possibly causing the thief to have cause to defend themselves. I would not choose to use deadly physical force to recover property.

Here in AZ we have the Castle Doctrine law which roughly states that you can assume a criminal entering your home has the intent to cause you and your family harm, and allows justified use of up to deadly physical force to stop the attacker. Unlike CA there is no duty to retreat. Property crimes in Maricopa County are generally done during business hours because most criminals want to avoid being shot by homeowners.

As for using justified deadly physical force, too many people think you can go around shooting criminals like Dirty Harry and still go back to your apartment with the hot neighbor at the end of the day. Even in a justified shooting you will get processed and spend the night in jail while the cops are sorting things out. If it is a questionable shoot you may spend 2-3 years of your life in the court system and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees if they decide to prosecute. I know people who were involved in justified self defense shootings who had their lives ruined by an ambitious DA. They were vindicated later, but they had lost everything (wife/family/job/money​). If found guilty one could spend decades or life in prison.

Get insurance on those things that can be replaced, be prepared to protect those things that can not be replaced.

CJSD wrote in post #12244792
Funny thing is that in CA, we DO, as citizens, have legal means to lawfully kill an intruder.

But that is very limited and you're still subject to the civil suit afterwards (many states disallow civil suits if the person is exonerated of criminal charges or successfully defends against them). There are also immense restrictions on carry, to the point that it basically can't be done in urban areas (even in one's own front yard).

Furthermore, and this is most relevant to what's being discussed here, firearms cannot legally be used for defense of property in CA. I'm actually on the fence about that. There are risks and tradeoffs in either direction, and it can be taken to extremes in either direction. Neither extreme is desirable.

That is true, and it helps.

Yeah, like I said, I'm on the fence about it. The viewpoint you're arguing for here is quite a valid one. I think the question that needs to be answered, and it's a tough one, is: what should the citizenry be doing in the absence of law enforcement? Oakland, to name but one municipality, has stated that they will no longer respond to burglary calls (among a host of other crimes). What would you expect the citizenry to do if law enforcement were absent entirely (e.g., the police force were simply shut down due to lack of funds or something)? It's a hypothetical question, of course, but it has real application here, particularly given the fiscal situation many state and local governments face today.

Bottom line is: should the citizenry simply lie down and take it, and just let criminals have their way except when they place someone else's life at risk?


That's not going to be an easy question to answer, I expect, but it bears directly on the issue we're talking about here.

LOL!

Fair enough. By the way, under the assumption that you're a peace officer, I gotta thank you for putting yourself in harm's way for the rest of us...

this is what the poeple in my village are doing with thieves
the Mexican SWAT had to come over to avoid lynching
look untill the end
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=wt2x3FUlyWg

heyiwantyourhelp wrote in post #12173720
Hi guys, as some of you might remember, I posted a thread about a week ago seeking advice about what to do after I saw a listing on ebay selling my equipements. Some called me a troll because I only posted two or three replies over the few days, but the reason why I didn't talk much was because I did not want to alert the seller in any way. And I also requested the mod to delete the thread, which they did. Anyway, here is the update and the story.

My house was broken into. The thief stole my camera bag with my camera equipments in it and couple of my roommate's properties. I was at my friend's house at that time and it was my roommate who discover the broken in. Police already left when I got home. The thief didnt take my computer nor my roommate's computer which is good. The first thing came into my mind was try to search my things on ebay and craigslist in the following day. Honestly I did not expect to see my things on ebay because I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to put things that could be traced on ebay. But I was wrong, I found them on ebay and the seller listed all my things in one auction, a very stupid decision. I was 100% sure those were my things because of the timing and all the items matches what were stolen from me. I called the police and filed an additional report. The listing was a very short listing so at the time I discover the listing, it only had couple days left.

I made a plan which I was gonna ask my friend to buy my equipment back for me because I did not want my address to alert the seller. I contacted the detective who handles my case about my plan. Although the detective told me hes not gonna tell me what to do, hes willing to work with ebay once they verified the items. Two days later, I drove down to my friend's house to pick up the item once it arrived.

The detective and I set up a meeting to verify the package. I also want to point out that I did not open the package until I met with the detective because I think it is a good chance get some finger prints from the items. And I was right, they are indeed my equipment, and we pulled a very nice finger print from the UV filer. Once the item was verified, I went home and did some file recovery process on the memory cards and found couple photos that were taken after my camera got stolen (for windows, I use Recuva, its free and easy to use). I sent the photos to the detective and the next step should be me contact ebay and tell them the item had been verified and hopefully they would issue a refund.


What I have learned:

• buy insurance on your equipment
  
• if you are renting a place, ask the home owner about property insurance.
  
• write down ALL serial numbers (batteries, cf cards, charger, tripod, everything!)
  
• keep all your receipts, both physical and emails.
  
• keep your warranty cards in a safe place! make photo copies too.
  
• take photos of your equipment, possibly with you in it
  

Sorry this is a long read. Ask me anything, but obviously I am not going to reveal any sensitive information since the cops are still working on this case.

Atlixco wrote in post #12316852
this is what the poeple in my village are doing with thieves
the Mexican SWAT had to come over to avoid lynching
look untill the end
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=wt2x3FUlyWg

where they going to lynch him or just string him up and smack him like a pinata?

It's a good day when the criminals are happy to see the cops

JustinRageth wrote in post #12316883
where they going to lynch him or just string him up and smack him like a pinata?

Although I wouldn't want to see them lynched, I did enjoy seeing them kicked around for their crimes (hopefully they really did commit the crime, though).

I'm going to list all of my equipment's serial number and hopefully get insurance just for it soon.. Very good to hear that you got lucky with a stupid criminal!