A serendipitous turn of events

[williamcohon]

First of all, the police were called, and a report filed immediately. They didn't offer much hope, but they were in the loop from the start.

I don't know the law, but here's how I see it. My friend wanted his cards back, and essentially authorized the purchase by the owner. Had he been reluctant to do so, I imagine the scene would have played out quite differently. Namely, the shop owner would have required positive id (after all, he knew there was a freshly stolen collection out there), and likely not made a purchase at all.

Also, there is a limit to what should be expected of the shop owner, in terms of apprehending the thief. The way it has played out, there is a chance that the thief's image will have been captured on security video. So this may have been the best shot at getting the collection back AND catching the scoundrel.

There's no doubt that my friend should not have to pay to retrieve what is his. But, for his trouble, and perhaps even risk, I don't think the shop owner should be stiffed. When the thief is caught, he will owe my friend the money.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by williamcohon

First of all, the police were called, and a report filed immediately. They didn't offer much hope, but they were in the loop from the start.

I don't know the law, but here's how I see it. My friend wanted his cards back, and essentially authorized the purchase by the owner. Had he been reluctant to do so, I imagine the scene would have played out quite differently. Namely, the shop owner would have required positive id (after all, he knew there was a freshly stolen collection out there), and likely not made a purchase at all.

Also, there is a limit to what should be expected of the shop owner, in terms of apprehending the thief. The way it has played out, there is a chance that the thief's image will have been captured on security video. So this may have been the best shot at getting the collection back AND catching the scoundrel.

There's no doubt that my friend should not have to pay to retrieve what is his. But, for his trouble, and perhaps even risk, I don't think the shop owner should be stiffed. When the thief is caught, he will owe my friend the money.

To me, notwithstanding law, those facts probably do change my view. If your friend made a "contract" with the store owner, while knowing all pertinent facts, then it should be honored and sounds like it either was or will be, which is good. I do hope the thief gets busted and is brought to justice. If we are real fortunate, even conversation on the internet (such as this) could have an impact on the situation.

[carrigansghost]

Risk, Trouble? Guess things work differently in my circle. A neighbor that is 5'6" chased down a thief that was 6', tackled him and held him til the police arrived last month, when asked if he was aware the suspect might have a gun, he said, "It didn't matter, we are a family in this neighborhood".

I hope you will post the resulting arrests in this case.

Rawn

[nolemmings]

At a minimum, the store owner should have paid by check--tell the buyer you need to do this for inventory, accounting and tax purposes. Then you have a name for the payee and the money can be traced. This should not arouse suspicion. Hopefully the video will help.

BTW, I still receive periodic restitution checks--$40 or so--from the burglar (through the Clerk of Court) who stole from me many years ago. The system can work, and I found that the law enforcement here in AZ did take an active role in helping me (most of my cards were recovered) and catching the bad guy, and for that I am very grateful.

[FrankWakefield]

Store owner should have paid by check... and / or gotten a license plate number.

Fingerprint proof is seldom used. Smudged prints and inconclusive partials are the norm, and that is for the few times they're lifted. It works well on TV, almost never in real life.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Store owner should have paid by check... and / or gotten a license plate number.

Fingerprint proof is seldom used. Smudged prints and inconclusive partials are the norm, and that is for the few times they're lifted. It works well on TV, almost never in real life.

+1 (on entire post)

Doesn't sound random. Flat-screens, laptops, guns, etc are the norm. Burglars, which are on heavy drugs 150% of the time, typically don't know cards, especially the one box among many. They want what they know, which is why homeowners wonder why he or she didn't get this or that because it's valuable...they don't know that just because you do. Pro burglars are on TV only. This is what I've heard anyway.