Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

EB Demands Payment From Victim of Theft 518

blincoln writes "ABC Action News is reporting that a Florida Electronics Boutique bought stolen games and gaming hardware, and made a profit on selling them back to their rightful owner, refusing to return the merchandise unless she paid them. From the article: 'EB Games still insists it will not refund Michelle's money. If she wants her money back, the company said, she can go through the legal system and get restitution from the thief.' In addition, EB appears to be violating the law by re-selling used merchandise without holding it for the required number of days. I was under the impression that purchasers of stolen merchandise could expect it to be seized by the police (who would return it to the owner) and not recover any of the money they spent buying it unless they took action against the thief. Is that not the case in Florida?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EB Demands Payment From Victim of Theft

Comments Filter:
  • issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cft ( 715198 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @01:58PM (#8491498) Journal
    how is this even an issue? the law clearly states that they must hold the goods for a certain amount of time (10 days
    if I'm not mistaken before they're given away. The article says she went to the store after two days and they had already
    sold her playstation. They clearly violated law and should be reported to the authorities, not the manager as she did.
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday March 07, 2004 @01:59PM (#8491507)
    It seems like EB's operations in Florida are illegal because under state law they have to hold any used good they buy for 15 days specifically to allow for any such claim of theft to be made. EB clearly sold some of the goods before that time, so they're in trouble.

    So, now, the only question is why it's a local TV station pointing this out instead of the local police? EB's used goods operation isn't complying with state law. That's the bigger problem...
  • Call the police! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @01:59PM (#8491508)
    The article mentions her writing letters and going to the store, but never mentions police. If you believe a merchant has stolen goods, call the cops!
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:02PM (#8491533)
    The police already should have known where to go to find here stolen goods, they just have to read the thief's own confession...
  • The hell..? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lewis Daggart ( 539805 ) <jonboze@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:03PM (#8491540) Journal
    So they buy stolen goods without checking. They dont hold it forthe required 15 days. They then refuse to reimburse the person for the goods they illegally sold. They refuse to return the goods (without pay) that they unknowingly receaved through illegal channels. I was under the impression that in a case like this, EB should be returning the goods and seeking restitution from the thief, while the person who's property was stolen gets their goods back from EB. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but that's only common sense.
  • by Raleel ( 30913 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:03PM (#8491542)
    as stated in the article, they didn't hold them for 15 days, specifically designed for preventing this sort of thing.

    But isn't there a law on the books about buying stolen goods? I always thought that that was a crime as well.

    EB is obviously not looking at the big picture here. They want to recoup the cost of the stuff that they bought. However, a good response here (like giving her her stuff and sucking the loss), is going to win a good customer (this store did the right thing, that's why I purchase from them).
  • Re:issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodrose ( 87474 ) * <bryan@@@darketernity...com> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:03PM (#8491545) Homepage Journal
    Sometimes calling the police isn't feasible. On many things, such as small claims like this, the police will require some level of proof before they move on it. In some cases, gathering a minor amount of proof and taking EB to small claims court would be a better route. At least, it seems that way to me.
  • Re:issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by midol ( 752608 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:04PM (#8491548)
    Has she gone to the police and charged the store with possession of stolen goods? That should light a little fire under them. Especially if they have already been flagrantly flouting the law.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:04PM (#8491552)
    EB has only be stealing from customers figuratively with selling games they pay $20 (in credit, mind you) for back to $47.99. $2 off used instead of new for a $50. Wow, how thoughtful.

    Of course, that's provided that you buy new and your "new" game isn't simply a re-shrinked used game being sold as new.

    Next up on the list of EB crimes against consumers will be punching you in the face after each purchase, followed by stealing back what you just bought.
  • by dartmouth05 ( 540493 ) * on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:07PM (#8491568)
    EB should be criminally charged for dealing in stolen goods. By violating that 15 day law and by refusing to turn over the stolen goods, EB is no longer acting as a retail store--they are acting as a fence.

    Regardless of whether or not EB knew the goods were stolen when they purchased them from the thief, they did not not take reasonable precautions to ensure that they weren't stolen, such as follow the 15 day law.

    EB's actions were simply reprehensible, and I, for one, will no longer deal with them.

  • Re:The hell..? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:10PM (#8491591) Journal
    The sad fact is that common sense and the law have not recognized each other in 50 years. If common sense is not dead in this country, it is barely sustained by life support. This is related to the legal system and justice wich have very little in common anymore. I don't think they are on speaking terms.

    EB is wrong in this case twice and will suffer a customer backlash, if it gets the publicity it deserves. The only thing that gets a corporations attention anymore is a big hit in the wallet.
  • by screwballicus ( 313964 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:13PM (#8491619)
    And so they maintain that their profiting from the illegal sale of stolen goods should be upheld.

    I assume there is some applicable hefty fine for their infringing on state law. Their not offering the customer the small amount of money she is owed as a result of their infraction is just mind-boggling.

    I have to think this is not an "evil corporation" issue. Evil corporations are perfectly happy to pay small amounts of money to uphold an image of benevolence. I think this is more likely an "incredibly stupid store manager" issue.
  • Re:issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:14PM (#8491627)
    Actually, a court is only supposed to resolve disuptes into who owns an item. Once a court certifies that this woman owns what she says she owns, it then falls back onto the police to do the strongarming.
  • by Dolphinzilla ( 199489 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:15PM (#8491635) Journal
    The theif admitted that he went to EB because they don't do any check on the goods and don't ask questions, In my estimation this amounts to a fencing operation posing as a reputable business. I hope the local law enforcement stings them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:23PM (#8491683)
    I don't believe it is EB's policy to hold games for a certain amount of days before they can resell them.

    I see, they've chosen to opt out of that law. Do they have a policy on whether they're allowed to keep slaves too?
  • by CrazyLion ( 424 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:27PM (#8491705)
    EB used products business deserves serious scrutiny. In my area all EB stores stock comprehensive selection of bootleg DVDs. Moreover, employees are very much aware of the fact that DVDs they sell are bootlegs.
  • by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:32PM (#8491734)
    Isn't this what small claims court is for? Seems open and shut enough to me. Not much sense for a business to pursue it further than that, given that a few hunderd bucks in lawyers' fees are easily spent.

    Of course, after getting your money back in small claims court, set the cops loose on em for fencing.
  • by njcoder ( 657816 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:32PM (#8491735)
    Ther'es probably a reason why EB doesn't return the goods. Doing so acknowledges that what they did was wrong. They also set a precedent for how they react to this sort of thing, so that if this sort of thing happens (has happened) to another person they would be obliged to retun the money to the other people as well. Not a legal precedent but it does have bearing.

    So, lets consider this. The thief knew he could take it to EB and not worry about it. What Florida should be concerned about is not only getting back this woman's property/compensating for illegaly sold property, but also looking into other similar cases. My bet is that either EB is concerned there might be many more, or already knows there are more based on their reaction in this case... why they're not doing the right thing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:32PM (#8491738)
    In America, big business always wins in the court

    What kind of crack are you smoking?

    Tobacco lawsuits is the first one that comes to my mind. What about the idiot who won a lawsuit against McDonalds when she poured her own coffee on her crotch?
  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:33PM (#8491742)
    From the article:

    "He said that he went in there and took it. He was hard up for money for his rent," Wayne Welsh said. "He took them to EB Games in Gulfview Square Mall and sold them...he said that's where they don't do a check and he can sell them without worrying about the police finding out he stole them."

    This isn't a random occurrence. He already knew where to go to sell them without any checks.

    That indicates that this store has a history of such deals. It seems that the cops should be doing a lot of digging into that store's previous dealings.

  • Re:issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sharper56 ( 142142 ) <antisharper@NospaM.hotmail.com> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:49PM (#8491834) Journal
    You just figure this out? Since 9/11 crime in general and organized crime in particular has taken off now that we have the FEDs looking for the next Johnny Muhammed. Crips! They're spending our money on wanding dangerous 60 year old grandmothers flying from NY to Miami, they've got no resources for property crime.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @02:54PM (#8491859)
    In America, big business always wins in the court.

    Which is why class action lawsuits are so rare.
  • Re:issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sigma 7 ( 266129 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:00PM (#8491918)
    Do what I just did, write an e-mail to EB Games and inform them that you find their business practices unsavory
    Does the practices of a single franchise represent the entire chain? If so, then you can send the mail with a clear conscience. Otherwise, you are just punishing random companies that have no relation to the incident.

    You should be able to easily find EB Games stores that have a better respect of the law than this small incident, whom are willing to put an item on reserve if the legal ownership of the product is in dispute. (Other methods are also available, such as giving store credit instead of cash - when the products are determined to be stolen, the credit gets revoked. )
  • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:07PM (#8491968)
    And what makes me chuckle is that if you gain proceeds through a crime and you do not declare them to the IRS or Inland Revenue (in the UK), not only can you be charged with the crime itself, butyou can be charged with tax evasion. Thats right, for a hooker it is illegal for her or her pimp to live off immoral earnings, but its perfectly ok for the IRS to tax you on those immoral earnings.
  • by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:07PM (#8491974)
    From the EBgames.com website: If you would like to speak to a Customer Service representative for any reason , please call us at 1-877-432-9675. Hours of operation: Open 7 days a week, 8:00 am to midnight EST.

    If enough of us call to let them know about what we think of their policies, they might understand the magnitude of their problem. The call's free folks, and so is 5 minutes of your time on a Sunday.
  • Re:issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by protogoogoo69 ( 579336 ) <m1.slashdotNO@SPAMjeromix.net> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:11PM (#8492001) Homepage Journal
    Its an issue because of the absurdity. Absurdity is news in case you havent heard. ;)

    But are they *that* hard up for money that they cannot refund her for purchasing stolen goods from them? (NO [corporate-ir.net]) I would say stolen goods count as a fair 30-day return policy, but I'm not familiar with their return policies. Then, after refund, they could return the stolen goods, or whats left of them, to (her) the rightful owner or at least the police. Aside from them breaking state law, why is this so hard? Even if their return policy does not include a clause for stolen goods, its good for PR and karma just to take them back since she's obviously not satisfied with her purchase.

    By insisting that her purchase was legit, they have not only broken the 15-day hold law, but have also ripped her off. And now they KNOW they did and yet they still maintain this. Although, considering the issues [fsu.edu] surrounding Florida's 1996 Pawnbroking Act, it would seem this kind of thing happens often in Florida and/or the "pawn shops" strike a fine line near anarchy. If there is a strong correlation between the increase in pawn shops disobeying proper protocol (or "communication breakdown", as one EB spokesman puts it) and theft, then this should be issue, indeed [ftlaud.fl.us]. The burglar, who was just trying to pay the rent, even said he chose EB because of their lazy procedures.....hmm.
  • Re:issue? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:12PM (#8492009)
    It is the duty of a franchise to uphold the good name of the franchise for the franchisees, as the practices of one franchise do represent the entire chain.
  • by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:12PM (#8492010) Homepage
    Some friends of mine recently had a whole shelf of DVD's stolen from their apartment (some of which were expensive imports from Japan). They contacted the police, filed the report, and were told that they should first call around to all the local used disc stores, starting with whichever ones were physically closest to their apartment. If the used disc store is on the up-and-up and wants to avoid legal troubles, they should be able to give them the goods back for free, and then it's *their* job to push things through the legal system to try to get reimbursed by the thief. Thus the legal hassles are offloaded from the original victim of theft to the store that bought the stolen goods, and the original victim walks away from the whole affair and doesn't need to be involved (except perhaps to give testimony as a witness in the event).

    The preferred method was to have the victim of the theft do all the 'legwork' and only involve the police if there is some difficulty in getting cooperation.

    Well, it worked. They found someone had just sold an alottment of DVD's that exactly matched the list of stolen goods (minus one that the thief apparently kept or lost). The store was cooperative and returned the goods. They had the name of the thief on record (and he'd stupidly used his real ID and real name when selling the goods), and were going to deal with the court case themselves.

    That was the last we'd heard of the incident.

    It would be a happy ending if it wasn't for the fact that the thief (remember he used his real name) turned out to be a friend we all knew. He knew about the DVD's because he'd been invited over on occasion to watch them. Obviously, this incident was the end of friendly relations with the guy. When my friend called him on the phone, he claimed "Oh, yeah, those DVD's, uhm yeah, some homeless black guy said he just found them and he gave a bunch of them to me. I didn't realize they were yours or I would have given them to you, dude." (Yeah, right - some of those DVD's were really obscure rare items, so there's no way he could fail to notice that that exact combination of DVD's was the same as the ones at his friend's house.)

    Some people can be real scum.

    But anyway, the point of the story is that this incident is an example of how pawn shops are supposed to work when everything is being done legally and with good intentions, unlike what EB games did.

  • by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:15PM (#8492025) Journal
    I've seen so many people say crap about them just wanting to recoup their losses. First, they have to do that via the *thief*, not the victim. Second - RTFA:

    But when Michelle went back to EB Games to pick up her lost property, she got another shock. EB Games insisted on selling her back her own property for roughly twice as much as they had paid the thief.

  • by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:22PM (#8492077) Homepage
    ELBO, with its stores in the USA, Europe, Canada, etc, doesn't care where games come from, only that they come in at one price and go out at a higher price. It's how they make the lion's share of their money.

    Gamestop's the same way. Check it out sometime, they're all like it.
  • Re:issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:25PM (#8492096)
    "Does the practices of a single franchise represent the entire chain?"

    Not necessarily, but when the managers who control the chain do nothing to correct the rogue actions of a franchise, the practices then become representative of the entire chain. Better to do business with another chain or small shop that doesn't engage in such shady dealings (or at least those not known to be shady).
  • Pedant Time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StarKruzr ( 74642 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @03:43PM (#8492130) Journal
    In point of fact, it's not the police, exactly, who enforce the court's decision, but the county/city/whatever jurisdiction the court has's Sheriff's Dept.
  • Re:The hell..? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @04:29PM (#8492353)
    The sad fact is that common sense and the law have not recognized each other in 50 years. If common sense is not dead in this country, it is barely sustained by life support. This is related to the legal system and justice wich have very little in common anymore. I don't think they are on speaking terms.

    Since this is such an authortative statement, I'd appreciate it if you would give out your BBO number or badge number. Surely somone so well versed in the intricacies of the law over the past 50 years must either be an experienced lawyer or a police chief by now. Otherwise, shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about (just like evey other armchair lawyer on slashdot).

  • by superultra ( 670002 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @04:29PM (#8492355) Homepage
    First, Dragoon412 is describing every retail store. During peak periods, for example, "this past holiday season", there's not a retail store anywhere that's backroom is not stocked "6 to 8 feet in the employee bathroom for lack of anywhere else to put merchandise." That's because it was Christmas. 20-box deliveries are normal, but only during Christmas.

    Moreover, I can't really think of any retail chain that specifically allows its individual stores to order individual products. Specific ordering on a store level for any chain that buys in bulk is an inventory management nightmare and would come at nothing less than a huge cost, and therefore price, increase.

    Why the low emphasis on gaming knowledge? As a former EB assistant manager, I'll tell you. Typically, people who "know about games" don't work. They sit on their asses during paid hours and talk about games with other people you've hired that "know about games." Nine times out of ten, you hire a guy who is "knowledgeable" and you've hired a poor worker. They don't sell. They don't work. They talk about games. They're elist and will, quite undiplomatically, tell customers that the game that customer has brought to the counter "sucks." Give me a good salesperson over a knowledgable gamer any day. That's not to suggest that a good salesperson will not learn about the product she sells. She will. But the ones who write on their application "I know a lot about video games because I've been playing them 5 hours a day since I was five" are not the people you want working in your store, because, simply, they won't work.

    In reference both to Dragoon412's comment and to the original article, there is little consistency of quality between any retail chain. I think the EB I worked at was run extremely tightly, with an emphasis on professionalism, politeness, and gaming knowledge. I've been to other EBs where that is definitly not the case, which is just like any other retail chain. They're highly dependent on the personality and drive of the manager. Surprise.

    Secondly, as already stated, EB is not the same store as Gamestop. While Babbages/Gamestop - which are all owned by Barnes and Noble - might use DOS still, EB does not use a DOS-based POS. While they are now in the minority, when I worked at EB in the mall I noticed that many other retail stores are still on rudimentory POS. What does that have to do with selling inside the safety period mentioned in the article, or even running a good store? Not a damn thing. A good manager and employees can run a tight, strong, customer-centric store with a pen and a pad (as once nightmaringly demonstrated at my store on a Black Friday).

    Yes, you'll find game stores that are run horribly, as the article so acutely demonstrates. You might have to look hard, but what you will eventually also find, though, are hard working people in EB (and presumably Gamestop) who care about their work and their customers. I know I sound like I'm pitching the company line here. Nevertheless, I have as many anti-corporate Steven Morgan jokes as the next guy. Dragoon421's "EB" store and the one in the article are individual stores not indicative of the entire company.
  • by sallen ( 143567 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @04:40PM (#8492418)
    The chain's corporate HQ could sue the franchise holder for damaging the corporate name through his illegal actions. Reimbursing this lady is necessary, but it is no longer enough by itself.
    I would agree reimbursement is not enough. But I think Corporate should go a step further. Instead of suing, they should very publically revoke the franshise agreement. There are generally some pretty strong conditions on tarnishing the brand. If it was 'common knowledge' as the story indicates that this store didn't do checks (making it a common, recurring practice), etc, and then in this case knowingly sold stolen property (back to the original owner), I don't think they'd have any problem terminating their agreement.
  • Re:issue? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by canadian_right ( 410687 ) <alexander.russell@telus.net> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @04:54PM (#8492474) Homepage
    Sounds like you should vote to raise taxes and hire some more police.

    We have the same problem with the police not investigating all property crimes, but it isn't quite that bad yet.

  • Oddly enough the most demonized techonology on /. would solve the problem nicely. If these items each had an RFID tag on them and the RFID tag had owner info written on it at the time of sale then you could track it back to the original owner easily.

    Of course RFID tags are manufactured by Satan himself and there is no legitimate use for them, or at least so say the /. editors.

  • Re:issue? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Prof. Pi ( 199260 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @05:08PM (#8492557)
    ... people could devise a scheme like that selling their "stolen" goods and then getting them back for free; even if they confessed to "stealing."

    How would that be different from any of the other scams people try, like torching their own buildings and collecting the insurance? I'm sure it would be covered by existing laws, such as "filing false police reports."

  • Re:issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <.tms. .at. .infamous.net.> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @05:10PM (#8492571) Homepage
    Sounds like you should vote to raise taxes and hire some more police.

    Hmm. There's an old cliche that "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." (And, "A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.")

    But when the one of the "let's cut taxes!" brand of conservative suddenly finds not enough cops to track down the guy who burgled his house (or worse yet, not enough firefighters to come extinguish his house-b-que, or EMTs to come jumpstart his dad's failing heart)...yeah, you just might see a tax (and service) cutter switch to a tax-and-spend liberal.

    (Of course, they might just become one of the new "borrow and spend" conservatives that have become popular lately; "don't tax us, our kids will pay for it." Grand.)

  • Facts facts facts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @05:37PM (#8492765) Journal
    It is natural to look to various issues of injustice and argue what the result should be. In practice, a seasoned lawyer will recognize that the devil is always in the details, and that the general hypothetical might well be settled either way. In the absence of a comprehensive understanding of the facts, we are just guessing.

    I have learned, from extensive experience, that news reporting as to details is terribly weak. The news gets it right as to the big picture with astonishing frequency, but almost every news article I have seen published with which I had intimate familiarity with the details contains several material errors. In short, don't believe everything you read.

    Note, further, that law does not always provide a civil remedy for every bad action of a person or company, even where the conduct of EB may have been a violation or a crime. It is quite possible that EB may be subject to fines or worse, but that the buyer's sole recourse would be against the thief. It may well be that EB may be subject to restitution for various forms of conversion, plus punitive damages. Who knows? The devil is in the details. Without the facts, we'd just be guessing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @06:22PM (#8493038)
    Isn't receiving stolen goods illegal in and of itself? It seems that EB should be in some legal trouble over this alone...

    I agree that this would be something worth boycotting EB over. EB has no competitive edge over GameSpot/Babbages/Best Buy/Circuit City/Walmart for game prices anyway (unless you're buying used).

  • Re:issue? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @06:27PM (#8493078)
    As long as I was going in for the recreational bureaucratic proctology, I might just call up a lawyer and see what a sit down to discuss suing the appropriate government body might cost.

    If that doesn't seem feasible, I might try a letter to the editors. One of those "If it happened to me, it can happen to you" letters that prey on people's fears. I'd be inclined to mention the officers by name too.

    It's all a giant pain in the ass anyway. (I'm just the kinda guy who preferes to take all his lumps at once.)
  • Re:issue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rhombic ( 140326 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @06:59PM (#8493261)
    I live in the People's Republic of California, and I pay considerably more than my parents do in local taxes (property taxes higher, more than 1c higher sales tax, higher state income tax).

    In my parent's town (small town Kansas), stuff like this gets hunted down. In San Diego, you've pretty much got to get shot to get the local cops out of their offices (unless, of course, you're speeding or something). We just pretty much accept that the local cops are worthless, and get on with our lives. Higher taxes aren't the answer-- revising the various levels of civil service so that the competant got raises, and the incompetent got fired, would be. Ah well. Time to privatize the police as well, I guess...

    --
  • Re:Oh, please. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hassman ( 320786 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @07:01PM (#8493274) Journal
    why would I ever buy there? They are overpriced beyond all belief.
  • by jeko ( 179919 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @07:02PM (#8493280)
    Dragoon421's "EB" store and the one in the article are individual stores not indicative of the entire company.

    Actually, they provably are.

    If this had been an abberration, then EB heaquarters could have fulfilled their duty by providing the victim with restitution and then some to apologize. A spare gamecube and a handful of games probably would have turned this woman into a fan for life -- at the very least, it would have shown a jury you weren't trying to profit by receiving stolen property. It goes without saying that the punishment against the store manager and franchise owner should have been Draconian to say the least.

    Instead, EB headquarters endorsed the local manager's decision to deal in stolen property. Therefore, the crime attaches to them and they should be sitting at the defendant's table.

    More importantly, as a man with several children, nieces and nephews, the words "EB" and "thief" have forever been linked in my mind.

    Way to go, guys. You took a small local problem and turned it into a national embarrassment. Brilliant.

  • Re:issue? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, 2004 @07:57PM (#8493571)
    There's only one way around this, sad but true.

    Shoot to kill.
    Claim he was attacking you.
    If he was actually attacking you, make it sound worse than it was.

    Might not sit well with you, but it's a guarantee that you won't go to prison.
  • Re:issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rfmobile ( 531603 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @08:13PM (#8493646) Homepage
    Time to privatize the police as well, I guess...

    Time for RoboCob!

    -rick
  • Re:issue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @10:31PM (#8494475) Homepage
    As a wiser man once pointed out, stealing something does not change ownership. Buying something that was stolen does not make you the owner, as the person you bought the item from has no ownership rights to transfer.

    If she could match the serial number on the unit, the woman should rightfully walk out of the store with her playstation. It is her possession every bit as much as if she had bought one from the cashier, and the store being defauded doesn't change that. The only thing that could stop her is if the store needed that as a form of evidence against the perpetrator. However, the store has already expressed a lack of interest in pursuing that avenue.

    While Electronics Boutique is notorious for poor magement (pushing pre-orders at the expense of sales, for example), trafficing in stolen merchandise steps over quite a few lines. Somebody's head should roll for this.

  • Re:issue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silas.dsminc-corp@com> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @11:27PM (#8494792) Homepage
    OK to as much as this is flame bait. Have you ever considered prioitizing cops into real crime aka no more eating doughnuts running a speed trap. That would mean no busiting drug dealers and pimps and concentrating on the harder to catch but more damaging thieves and killers. It's all debatable becuase everybody has different priorities but if your forced to selectivly enforce the law wich I think most cops are made to do on a regular basis then the population should have to decide. Scary concept to line item the budget and it it dosent get vodet in they dont go out of there way to enforce it. Course that wouldbe the people deciding what they need rather then our elected bad or worse government.
  • Re:issue? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Sunday March 07, 2004 @11:34PM (#8494835)
    Unfortunately for these kids, theres also a good chance that they won't even make it to the system -- they'll get shot dead by a homeowner that owns a gun.

    Unfortunately? "Kids?" 17 year old thugs on a B&E and assault? If they end up shot to death in self-defense by some law-abiding legally armed homeowner such as myself that will be a good thing for society as a whole.

    Yeah, I'm getting crabby as I get older. Damned kids. *grump*
  • Re:issue? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @01:51AM (#8495677) Journal

    Our house is in a fairly new addition to the city we live in (pop. 50,000 or so, but we're a suburb of a much larger city) and we've had shit stolen on three occasions. Each time we called the cops and each time they did nothing. Was I pissed? Fuck no.


    Well it's all well and good that YOU don't care about protecting yourself or your property, but you really shouldn't be hurling insults at others because THEY have a problem with some crackheaded punks running off with the possessions they paid good money for. If they have "Better shit to worry about than your guitars" then they need to stop advising people to "refrain from taking the law into thier own hands, leave it to the police." Your logic is the kind of thing that leads to vigilantism.
  • by DrMorpheus ( 642706 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @02:22AM (#8495819) Homepage
    Because I have similar issues like the parent posters, but it wasn't theft or burglery but assault and attempted murder.

    I won't go into the boring details but I've since come to the conclusion that the police are operating on a market economy.

    In any market economy you minimize your risks and maximize your income. The police are doing this when they spend most of their time handing out traffic tickets and avoiding burglers, murderers and others.

    Traffic tickets are low risk and high income. Going after real criminals means no income and a pretty high level of risk.

    The problem is figuring out how to change this without being labeled as "anti-police".
  • Re:issue? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @10:27AM (#8497708)
    As a wiser man once pointed out, stealing something does not change ownership. Buying something that was stolen does not make you the owner, as the person you bought the item from has no ownership rights to transfer.

    And as an even wiser man than your wise man once said, "Possession is nine tenths of the law."

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...