Oregon Man has home ransacked after someone placed a fake craigslist ad

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim


Get back to me when the catch the guy who posted this ad.

They caught the last one.

What sentence did he recieve

lol, now he has to have actually received a sentence...just give it up

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: MisterJackson

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Well lets not think he is innocent here.....quite possible this is an act of revenge.

Oh well then that makes everything ok. :roll:

Well everyone is taking his side right of the bat. It is entirely possible he has created enemies and has had this coming.

Precisely, we should all commit illegal acts of fraud and theft whenever someone does something that we don't take a liking to.

You are assuming it was something petty.

And you are ASSUMING that the guy did anything to someone as you suggest, so what's your point?

The simple fact is you don't know what happened to spur this if anything. It might have been random. Or hell, it could have been theives casing his place, seeing something they really wanted and coming up with this scheme as a cover to get in and steal his stuff without consequence.

I hope craigslist can track the ad poster down by IP address and this guy can get some sort of restitution.

It's one thing to feel you've been violated by having your place broken into/robbed, but this takes that helpless feeling to a whole new level.

I think you're way off base on this one Slim.....quit trying to argue your point. It's invalid.

My point that everyone is assuming he is innocent is invalid? Actually its true. you included.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim


Get back to me when the catch the guy who posted this ad.

They caught the last one.

What sentence did he recieve

lol, now he has to have actually received a sentence...just give it up

Well saying someone was caught but not saying if they were convicted means absolutely nothing. They arrest suspects all the time big deal.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: [Born2bwire]


I guess your right. I mean, nobody who would go to such lengths as this has the time or motivation to research the law themselves for their own defense if money is a concern. And of course no lawyer would represent them for a small retainer, primarily being paid by a cut of the winnings. Even if they did represent themselves, it would be unheard of if they won. So of course they should revert to felonious activities.

good luck you can try it. You are assuming again though the person getting revenge didn't exhaust his legal options.

And what exactly have you been assuming?

1. The local justice system is corrupt.
2. The "victim" here was wronged in a manner that warranted the illegal distribution of a person's entire possessions.
3.a. The "victim" doesn't have enough money for legal recourse despite the fact that many lawyers will work on a civil case for the potential rewards rather than an upfront fee.
3.b. The "victim" is unable to familiarize themselves with the justice system to effectively prosecute the "offender."
3.c. The "victim" was able to provide for an effective prosecution but the matter fell through.
4. Despite the above hurdles, the "victim" persevered but in the end was failed by the justice system.
5. The "victim" will not get caught despite the fact that they must have gone through a lengthy drama in the judicial system with the "offender" that would be a matter of public record.

 

[skace]

Jesus christ guys quote trees down the entire post.

And look, Iceberg isn't completely wrong and his point is valid. You can't jump to one side automatically, he may have had it coming. That does not mean that police should not look into this and investigate it, but it means that us as outsiders looking in should maybe try and use our brains and think about the whole situation. The point being that the person who originally created the ad probably had some sort of malicious intent and a reason to do it (in their own mind). That doesn't excuse the people who actually showed up to rob a house wholesale, did they honestly think it was OK to just rummage through an entire house? And the article doesn't say, but how the hell did they get in? Break the locks? If you don't lock your house while you aren't home then you lose some of my sympathy.

And Anubis, if someone did that to my sister and made me watch, this wouldn't be unacceptable, it would be insufficient and the least of their worries.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Iceberg, give us some example offenses which meet these criteria:
1) Can't be settled in civil court
2) Isn't a jailable offense
3) Warrants criminal levels of retribution

 

[PlatinumGold]

Where this Iceberg fella really lacks, is something the rest of us see intuitively.

we aren't outraged for the guy whos stuff was stolen per se. we are outraged because this could happen to any one of us for no reason at all.

iceberg, you are trying to make the case that this guy deserved what he got, so what, that doesn't change the fact that with information society being what it is today, any one of us could be a victim even tho we haven't done anything. people do participate in random acts of idiocy just to prove they did it. it's like saying, oh the guy that got his car jacked had it coming. not really, i'm willing to bet most of the cases of car jacking the car thief and the car owner don't know each other at all and it was just a random act.

in each of those cases, we sympathize with the car owner because MOST of us realize it could happen to anyone of us. only few twisted persons like yourself wouldn't understand that basic principle of life.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: [Born2bwire]


I guess your right. I mean, nobody who would go to such lengths as this has the time or motivation to research the law themselves for their own defense if money is a concern. And of course no lawyer would represent them for a small retainer, primarily being paid by a cut of the winnings. Even if they did represent themselves, it would be unheard of if they won. So of course they should revert to felonious activities.

good luck you can try it. You are assuming again though the person getting revenge didn't exhaust his legal options.

And what exactly have you been assuming?

1. The local justice system is corrupt.
2. The "victim" here was wronged in a manner that warranted the illegal distribution of a person's entire possessions.
3.a. The "victim" doesn't have enough money for legal recourse despite the fact that many lawyers will work on a civil case for the potential rewards rather than an upfront fee.
3.b. The "victim" is unable to familiarize themselves with the justice system to effectively prosecute the "offender."
3.c. The "victim" was able to provide for an effective prosecution but the matter fell through.
4. Despite the above hurdles, the "victim" persevered but in the end was failed by the justice system.
5. The "victim" will not get caught despite the fact that they must have gone through a lengthy drama in the judicial system with the "offender" that would be a matter of public record.

All I said is that this guy may not be an innocent victim. That is all I am saying. He may be totally innocent. I don't know the all the facts to draw a conclusion where as everyone else chose to draw a conclusion that he was innocent.

 

[Ninjja]

Wow, this is so ridiculously awful!! Why would you hurt someone like that??

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Iceberg, give us some example offenses which meet these criteria:
1) Can't be settled in civil court -
2) Isn't a jailable offense
3) Warrants criminal levels of retribution

1) everything brought to a court is settled in court whether or not the results are favorable is another thing.

2) Any offense for which there is not enough physical evidence to bring a conviction isn't a jailable offense.

3) Subjective.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Where this Iceberg fella really lacks, is something the rest of us see intuitively.

we aren't outraged for the guy whos stuff was stolen per se. we are outraged because this could happen to any one of us for no reason at all.

iceberg, you are trying to make the case that this guy deserved what he got, so what, that doesn't change the fact that with information society being what it is today, any one of us could be a victim even tho we haven't done anything. people do participate in random acts of idiocy just to prove they did it. it's like saying, oh the guy that got his car jacked had it coming. not really, i'm willing to bet most of the cases of car jacking the car thief and the car owner don't know each other at all and it was just a random act.

in each of those cases, we sympathize with the car owner because MOST of us realize it could happen to anyone of us. only few twisted persons like yourself wouldn't understand that basic principle of life.

I already said it is possible he was totally innocent but it is also possible he was not. Everyone else had the tunnel vision to only see it one way.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: [Born2bwire]


I guess your right. I mean, nobody who would go to such lengths as this has the time or motivation to research the law themselves for their own defense if money is a concern. And of course no lawyer would represent them for a small retainer, primarily being paid by a cut of the winnings. Even if they did represent themselves, it would be unheard of if they won. So of course they should revert to felonious activities.

good luck you can try it. You are assuming again though the person getting revenge didn't exhaust his legal options.

And what exactly have you been assuming?

1. The local justice system is corrupt.
2. The "victim" here was wronged in a manner that warranted the illegal distribution of a person's entire possessions.
3.a. The "victim" doesn't have enough money for legal recourse despite the fact that many lawyers will work on a civil case for the potential rewards rather than an upfront fee.
3.b. The "victim" is unable to familiarize themselves with the justice system to effectively prosecute the "offender."
3.c. The "victim" was able to provide for an effective prosecution but the matter fell through.
4. Despite the above hurdles, the "victim" persevered but in the end was failed by the justice system.
5. The "victim" will not get caught despite the fact that they must have gone through a lengthy drama in the judicial system with the "offender" that would be a matter of public record.

All I said is that this guy may not be an innocent victim. That is all I am saying. He may be totally innocent. I don't know the all the facts to draw a conclusion where as everyone else chose to draw a conclusion that he was innocent.

I don't think anyone made any assumptions on innocence...it never entered the mind. What did enter my mind is that the action is appalling and unwarranted. Unwarranted because it's illegal, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Where this Iceberg fella really lacks, is something the rest of us see intuitively.

we aren't outraged for the guy whos stuff was stolen per se. we are outraged because this could happen to any one of us for no reason at all.

iceberg, you are trying to make the case that this guy deserved what he got, so what, that doesn't change the fact that with information society being what it is today, any one of us could be a victim even tho we haven't done anything. people do participate in random acts of idiocy just to prove they did it. it's like saying, oh the guy that got his car jacked had it coming. not really, i'm willing to bet most of the cases of car jacking the car thief and the car owner don't know each other at all and it was just a random act.

in each of those cases, we sympathize with the car owner because MOST of us realize it could happen to anyone of us. only few twisted persons like yourself wouldn't understand that basic principle of life.

I already said it is possible he was totally innocent but it is also possible he was not. Everyone else had the tunnel vision to only see it one way.

It doesn't matter whether or not he was innocent. Society does not approve of vigilante justice, particularly in the form of felonies. At what point is it ok to do something like this? To some people, they think someone parking in front of their house is being an ass and deserves to get glue on their windshield. Maybe someone insulted you so it's ok to throw a brick at their truck.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Well lets not think he is innocent here.....quite possible this is an act of revenge.

you are a fucking idiot. really.

to sit and make up reasosn to justify this is insane. NOTHING justifies this. to say its ok because the courts didnt do something is insane.

way to sit and make shit up to justify thieft.


really fucking idiotic.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Where this Iceberg fella really lacks, is something the rest of us see intuitively.

we aren't outraged for the guy whos stuff was stolen per se. we are outraged because this could happen to any one of us for no reason at all.

iceberg, you are trying to make the case that this guy deserved what he got, so what, that doesn't change the fact that with information society being what it is today, any one of us could be a victim even tho we haven't done anything. people do participate in random acts of idiocy just to prove they did it. it's like saying, oh the guy that got his car jacked had it coming. not really, i'm willing to bet most of the cases of car jacking the car thief and the car owner don't know each other at all and it was just a random act.

in each of those cases, we sympathize with the car owner because MOST of us realize it could happen to anyone of us. only few twisted persons like yourself wouldn't understand that basic principle of life.

I agree completely with this statement.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Well lets not think he is innocent here.....quite possible this is an act of revenge.

you are a fucking idiot. really.

to sit and make up reasosn to justify this is insane. NOTHING justifies this. to say its ok because the courts didnt do something is insane.

way to sit and make shit up to justify thieft.


really fucking idiotic.

More importantly IcebergSlim has no idea if this guy did anything to "deserve" this, it's completely unfounded and unwarranted speculation.

 

[Vic]

I can't figure out who is worse here... the people who would post such an ad (probably out of spite or revenge), or the idiots who not only would believe it, but would actually argue with the owner when he arrived on the scene to protect his property. Unbelievable.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Well lets not think he is innocent here.....quite possible this is an act of revenge.

you are a fucking idiot. really.

to sit and make up reasosn to justify this is insane. NOTHING justifies this. to say its ok because the courts didnt do something is insane.

way to sit and make shit up to justify thieft.


really fucking idiotic.

More importantly IcebergSlim has no idea if this guy did anything to "deserve" this, it's completely unfounded and unwarranted speculation.

I said like a dozen times now......he could be totally innocent or he could be guilty we don't know.

So two way of looking at this:

1) random attack on someone

2) provoked attack on someone

neither one is far fetched.

 

[gorcorps]

In all honesty if I saw something on craigslist without reading this story I'd believe it and get some free stuff. BUT if the GUY SHOWED UP I would stop immediately and give his stuff back.

But the thing is, these people came to the house thinking it wasn't owned. So when some random guy shows up claiming its his house and all of the stuff is his... I may second guess that he IS the owner. He could very well have been just another "looter" finding a way to score the rest himself in everybody else's minds.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Engraver

Originally posted by: Aharami
what ticks me off the most is that people rummaging thru his stuff refused to stop when he came home and told them to do so

Because the interwebs=law.

i know, idiots are lucky he wasnt NRA and forced them to stop. i wonder what the law would say about that?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Well lets not think he is innocent here.....quite possible this is an act of revenge.

you are a fucking idiot. really.

to sit and make up reasosn to justify this is insane. NOTHING justifies this. to say its ok because the courts didnt do something is insane.

way to sit and make shit up to justify thieft.


really fucking idiotic.

More importantly IcebergSlim has no idea if this guy did anything to "deserve" this, it's completely unfounded and unwarranted speculation.

I said like a dozen times now......he could be totally innocent or he could be guilty we don't know.

So two way of looking at this:

1) random attack on someone

2) provoked attack on someone

neither one is far fetched.

Except they're both completely irrelevant.

NOTHING justifies this. NOTHING. Nor does it matter.

People are flaming you here because incidents like this will be the death of Craigslist as we know it.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Engraver

Originally posted by: Aharami
what ticks me off the most is that people rummaging thru his stuff refused to stop when he came home and told them to do so

Because the interwebs=law.

i know, idiots are lucky he wasnt NRA and forced them to stop. i wonder what the law would say about that?

Seriously.

 

[Baked]

And this is why we have guns... to shoot free loading retards.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
In all honesty if I saw something on craigslist without reading this story I'd believe it and get some free stuff. BUT if the GUY SHOWED UP I would stop immediately and give his stuff back.

But the thing is, these people came to the house thinking it wasn't owned. So when some random guy shows up claiming its his house and all of the stuff is his... I may second guess that he IS the owner. He could very well have been just another "looter" finding a way to score the rest himself in everybody else's minds.

There is no such thing as a house that isn't owned. The Sheriff's office NEVER has a "come get free sh!t" free-for-all. They have auctions.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Where this Iceberg fella really lacks, is something the rest of us see intuitively.

we aren't outraged for the guy whos stuff was stolen per se. we are outraged because this could happen to any one of us for no reason at all.

iceberg, you are trying to make the case that this guy deserved what he got, so what, that doesn't change the fact that with information society being what it is today, any one of us could be a victim even tho we haven't done anything. people do participate in random acts of idiocy just to prove they did it. it's like saying, oh the guy that got his car jacked had it coming. not really, i'm willing to bet most of the cases of car jacking the car thief and the car owner don't know each other at all and it was just a random act.

in each of those cases, we sympathize with the car owner because MOST of us realize it could happen to anyone of us. only few twisted persons like yourself wouldn't understand that basic principle of life.

I already said it is possible he was totally innocent but it is also possible he was not. Everyone else had the tunnel vision to only see it one way.

again, you completely miss the point. we aren't siding with him, at least i'm not. i know absolutely nothing of his innocence or guilt. frankly i don't care. my concern is, REGARDLESS of his innocence or guilt this could have happened to him. the fact that you don't see this basic fact is scary.

how can you not see, my concern here isn't whethor or not he was guilty but that regardless of whether he was guilty or not, someone could have played this prank on him "JUST BECAUSE" and that a random person could do it to anyone here on AT Forums not for any justified reason but "JUST BECAUSE".

how do you not understand that?