Complaint Thread

[dcdfan]

6 minutes ago, raindog said:

I'm going to do my best not to turn political here.  But I listen to everyone say how Trump lies, and, he does use over-the-top superlatives.  But I've seen or heard damn little actual examples of those lies.  And I've heard plenty of lies from the Biden camp, including the whole losers claim last night.  Both men are liars because they are politicians.  So calling either a liar is a waste of breath.  I just ask myself, was I better off in 2000 or today.  That pretty much tells me how to vote.  But I'm not advocating either candidate here.  Just hoping that you will vote using your common sense and not the media hype of either party. 

Common sense is not so common anymore.

[raindog]

4 minutes ago, dcdfan said:

Common sense is not so common anymore.

It's easy and trendy to say that but the real problem lies within the stimuli that a person is assaulted with every single day.  TV commercials that teach a "woke agenda" in the background while also trying to sell you their stupid product.  News services that leans left or right.  I'm old enough that I can remember when Walter Cronkite just told you the news, not how you should feel about it.  Hell, I can't even watch a baseball game anymore without seeing advertisements on the uniform, on the pitcher's mound, on the fences and, oh yeah, a quick word from Delta Airlines between batters.  Politics is no different.  Both parties are selling their agendas through whatever means possible.  I received 7 political texts prior to the debate yesterday.  I am not active at all on any political boards but yet, I seem to be a target every time that a politician is trying to raise fund or gather support.  Joe Biden (right) himself texted me yesterday and called me by my first name.  He had a fantastic deal.  For every dollar that I donated to him and his campaign, he would donate $5.  Basically, he was saying "For every dollar that you give me, I'm going to give me $5." 

I've been threatening to move to the Philippines or Thailand for years.  I think that the time is growing nigh.

[Brystheguy]

29 minutes ago, raindog said:

I'm going to do my best not to turn political here.  But I listen to everyone say how Trump lies, and, he does use over-the-top superlatives.  But I've seen or heard damn little actual examples of those lies. 

Then you haven't even bothered to Google that.

[raindog]

41 minutes ago, Brystheguy said:

Then you haven't even bothered to Google that.

::: Sigh :::  I don't have to Google it, I watched and listened to it unfold.  The Atlantic could cite no one but "anonymous officials" when they made their claim.  I trust actions over "anonymous officials."  Even Snopes, a left-leaning cite, tends to agree.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/04/donald-trump-call-troops-suckers-losers/

As a Disabled Vet, I observed that Trump really helped to improve the VA medical situation.  Biden takes credit for helping burn pit victims when the changes were actually mandated by the courts.  I am also still in contact with many military folks,  Everyone of them will tell you, in private (costs are too high in public) that the entire military hates Biden and what his party is doing, concentrating more on DEI and little on actual fighting skills.

I took your bait here but this is the last time that I'll speak on this matter as aligned politics really has no business in this thread.

[KvHulk]

Yikes. You can really tell who the bonkers people are when they can't let a flippant remark in a complaint thread go.

Nothing was even political. Things can be true and not political at the same time.

Edited June 29 by KvHulk

[raindog]

1 hour ago, KvHulk said:

Things can be true and not political at the same time

You are correct and I apologize for my response (but not the "spank that ass" reply.)  However, you weren't exactly being apolitical yourself.  "One guy can't tell the truth, the other guy can't tell where he is."  But it was harmless enough that it should have been ignored.

[LegoWalker4]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:23 AM, raindog said:

Just be aware that your terms do not supercede legal realities.  I see dump trucks with signs that state that vehicles must not follow closer than 200 feet and that they are not responsible for broken windshields.  However, you have to get closer than 200 feet to read the sign.  I asked my father (the retired DA Investigator) about this many years ago and he just laughed.  That's when he told me that, just because someone makes a statement does not make that statement true and it certainly doesn't make it legal.  To be fair, what I quoted you above wasn't so much about legality or regulations.  It was based more on Paypal demands and practices.  I assume that they paid you using either PayPal or Stripe.  Stripe is even stricter than PayPal when it comes to pleasing the customer first.

I don't say the above to be argumentative.  But I have been selling items at least part-time for 15+ years and I am now in my 11th year as a BrickLink seller, 9 of those years as a full-time seller.  I have a perfect record.  I have never lost a PayPal or Stripe case as a buyer or seller, not that there have been that many.  Not to be an ass but, once your buyer offered to pay outside of BrickLink, he became a thief in my eyes, not to be trusted.  I would have immediately cancelled his order, listing the exact reason(s) in the comments.  And then added him to my Stop List.  Doing so would have saved you from this type of crap.

Update: I reported the buyer to BrickLink for violating their terms of service and his buying privileges have been revoked.

[Pseudoty]

https://kval.com/news/local/police-bust-massive-lego-theft-ring-at-brick-builders-in-eugene

[Tonka858]

2 hours ago, Pseudoty said:

https://kval.com/news/local/police-bust-massive-lego-theft-ring-at-brick-builders-in-eugene

did they have a amazon account?

[raindog]

What bothers me is that the public, especially the LEGO public, is already dicking these guys away without a trial.  It bothers me because I have sets in which I don't have receipts.  I have sets that I purchased on BrickLink more than 6 months ago.  I have sets from trades with other sellers.  I purchased over $4000 worth of sets from a fellow LEGO seller when she was having financial trouble.  I didn't ask for a receipt.  Hell, I even sourced some of the sets that she sold me.  The point is, before we jump on the "Kill The Thieves" bandwagon, let's wait for them to be found guilty.  The main thing that I'm going to take away from it is being careful displaying a lot of my inventory to potential clients.  Even though I can probably produce proof that I bought at least 75% of the sets, what a PITA!  And no, I can't prove that I cashed in VIP points to get my 10225 and walked out of the LEGO store with it in 2013 (Yes, I still have it sealed.  Wanna buy it?  I'll give you a receipt.)

 

Edited July 10 by raindog

[gmpirate]

2 hours ago, raindog said:

I purchased over $4000 worth of sets from a fellow LEGO seller when she was having financial trouble.  I didn't ask for a receipt

yeah, anything up to $200,000 should just be a hard pass

[iahawks550]

4 hours ago, raindog said:

What bothers me is that the public, especially the LEGO public, is already dicking these guys away without a trial.  It bothers me because I have sets in which I don't have receipts.  I have sets that I purchased on BrickLink more than 6 months ago.  I have sets from trades with other sellers.  I purchased over $4000 worth of sets from a fellow LEGO seller when she was having financial trouble.  I didn't ask for a receipt.  Hell, I even sourced some of the sets that she sold me.  The point is, before we jump on the "Kill The Thieves" bandwagon, let's wait for them to be found guilty.  The main thing that I'm going to take away from it is being careful displaying a lot of my inventory to potential clients.  Even though I can probably produce proof that I bought at least 75% of the sets, what a PITA!  And no, I can't prove that I cashed in VIP points to get my 10225 and walked out of the LEGO store with it in 2013 (Yes, I still have it sealed.  Wanna buy it?  I'll give you a receipt.)

 

I'm sure you already know this, but looking a the Oregon law, there are some key takeaways:

Theft 1 by receiving

"A person commits theft by receiving if the person receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft."

For prosecution needing to prove this case, there are going to be details that will make it obvious they knew. I can go to FB marketplace and pick out the listings where sets are obviously stolen. In this case, there was probably an arrest, which turned into the arrestee giving information about this store's propensity to buy stolen goods, which turned into this arrest.

This isn't about not having receipts. This store was basically a pawn store operating as a legit business, but without having to operate under the same guidelines a pawn store is required to in regards to stolen merchandise.

[Phil B]

I'm sure you already know this, but looking a the Oregon law, there are some key takeaways:
Theft 1 by receiving
"A person commits theft by receiving if the person receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft."
For prosecution needing to prove this case, there are going to be details that will make it obvious they knew. I can go to FB marketplace and pick out the listings where sets are obviously stolen. In this case, there was probably an arrest, which turned into the arrestee giving information about this store's propensity to buy stolen goods, which turned into this arrest.
This isn't about not having receipts. This store was basically a pawn store operating as a legit business, but without having to operate under the same guidelines a pawn store is required to in regards to stolen merchandise.

This. In our legal system you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused indeed was guilty of the crime. The accused does not need to prove that they obtained their merchandise legally, though being able to do so will certainly help their case.

Sent from my SM-A326U1 using Tapatalk

[brickvoyeur]

41 minutes ago, Phil B said:

This. In our legal system you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused indeed was guilty of the crime. The accused does not need to prove that they obtained their merchandise legally, though being able to do so will certainly help their case.

In most cases the district attorney will plead out cases, or drop them, unless they have a clear path to winning the case. If the officers did not get wind of this and send someone undercover to sell them "stolen" bricks, and get video of him admitting his role in the whole thing, they failed this case. It's not hard to get someone who is brazenly buying stolen goods to give tips on where to obtain more, and which stores have the most lax security or best products. Hell, even just telling them you stole them on camera and him purchasing them is enough to prove the case. This is either a slam dunk, or it gets thrown out. No way it goes to court with the word of thieves as their only source of information. 

Edited July 10 by brickvoyeur

[raindog]

7 hours ago, gmpirate said:

yeah, anything up to $200,000 should just be a hard pass

Not even sure what you are trying to say there.  My point of my post was that the people arrested are already being convicted by public opinion, almost all of whom are informed only by a media that stresses sensationalism.  We need to be careful of those attitudes as they filter down to local levels at much smaller amounts.  How many times have you heard someone state that a BrickLink seller must either be a thief or counterfeiter just because he/she has 150+ of a certain minifigure?  I'm all for guilty people getting the sentence that they earned.  But let's make sure that they are guilty first.

 

6 hours ago, iahawks550 said:

I'm sure you already know this, but looking a the Oregon law, there are some key takeaways:

And my point was, as stated above, is that no one has been convicted of anything yet but public opinion.  Yeah, they might very well be guilty.  And once they are proven so, have at it.  But let's remember that this is being reported by a media that is paid for sensationalism.  Just as they reported that there were many LEGO sets worth over $1000 that were confiscated.  Since one of the robberies were from a 3rd party store, it is conceivable that they had a set or two priced over that amount, but I doubt seriously if there were "many" $1k+ sets stolen.

 

 

6 hours ago, brickvoyeur said:

In most cases the district attorney will plead out cases, or drop them, unless they have a clear path to winning the case. If the officers did not get wind of this and send someone undercover to sell them "stolen" bricks, and get video of him admitting his role in the whole thing, they failed this case. It's not hard to get someone who is brazenly buying stolen goods to give tips on where to obtain more, and which stores have the most lax security or best products.

My father is a retired DA Investigator and, from what he has said, I think that you have just about captured the truth here.  More criminals get caught by talking than TV shows would have you to believe.

[gmpirate]

12 minutes ago, raindog said:

Not even sure what you are trying to say there.  My point of my post was that the people arrested are already being convicted by public opinion, almost all of whom are informed only by a media that stresses sensationalism.  We need to be careful of those attitudes as they filter down to local levels at much smaller amounts.  How many times have you heard someone state that a BrickLink seller must either be a thief or counterfeiter just because he/she has 150+ of a certain minifigure?  I'm all for guilty people getting the sentence that they earned.  But let's make sure that they are guilty first.

Just poking you.  $4k vs $200k of no receipts.

I understand your point of sensationalism in general but seems at least in this case the police have a case.  Considering how hard it is to get any kind of police enforcement nowadays the fact they have gone as far as they have says something.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

7 hours ago, iahawks550 said:

I'm sure you already know this, but looking a the Oregon law, there are some key takeaways:

Theft 1 by receiving

"A person commits theft by receiving if the person receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft."

For prosecution needing to prove this case, there are going to be details that will make it obvious they knew. I can go to FB marketplace and pick out the listings where sets are obviously stolen. In this case, there was probably an arrest, which turned into the arrestee giving information about this store's propensity to buy stolen goods, which turned into this arrest.

This isn't about not having receipts. This store was basically a pawn store operating as a legit business, but without having to operate under the same guidelines a pawn store is required to in regards to stolen merchandise.

my take-away is that you shouldn't screw over crooks...they will sell you to the cops in a heartbeat

seriously tho. the article key implicit point is the AUDACITY of it all.

Fence tells crook what to steal AT his fence location.

Crook directly goes to Walmart and walks out with big sets

Crook directly goes to the fence.

Fence pays a "penny on the dollar" and screws over crook

Crook goes directly to his drug dealer to help medicate his/her poor choices in life

[iahawks550]

12 hours ago, brickvoyeur said:

In most cases the district attorney will plead out cases, or drop them, unless they have a clear path to winning the case. If the officers did not get wind of this and send someone undercover to sell them "stolen" bricks, and get video of him admitting his role in the whole thing, they failed this case. It's not hard to get someone who is brazenly buying stolen goods to give tips on where to obtain more, and which stores have the most lax security or best products. Hell, even just telling them you stole them on camera and him purchasing them is enough to prove the case. This is either a slam dunk, or it gets thrown out. No way it goes to court with the word of thieves as their only source of information. 

It won't go to court on the "word of thieves". It will go to court by having those thieves cooperate and sell more "stolen goods" to the store. Most likely not once, or twice, but multiple times, to show a pattern. If the investigators really want to make a good case (most do), they would even have undercover agents do the same thing.

It's not public opinion finding him guilty, it's more fact that sleezy people are doing this all over the place. From meth junkie stealing sets from Wal-Mart and placing them on his lap while taking a pic to sell on marketplace for 50% retail, to online shops doubling as theft rings (like this one) to make easy profit.