Slashdot Mirror
Woman's House Robbed After Fake Craigslist Post
flanksteak writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that a woman in nearby Tacoma had her rental property stripped of almost everything after someone posted a fake Craigslist announcement that everything in the house could be hauled away no questions asked. When contacted, Craigslist said they would release data about the poster if they were issued a subpoena."
RTFA. This was a piece of rental property that the woman owned. It was empty. None of her personal things were taken.
There was a similar incident reported in San Antonio several years ago (early 80s, if I remember correctly).
Someone called up a demolition company and arranged for the house at such and such an address to be demolished. When the homeowner came home from work, his house was a pile of rubble.
I think the demolition company's insurance had to cough up some serious money on that one.
What really is lame is that since the former tenant was family the police are calling it a family feud. Thus, they won't issue the subpoena to Craigslist so that the lady can try and press criminal charges. Which basically means since the cops won't help her, she probably wouldn't even win in a civil courtroom. She'll never be able to prove who made the post without the police - and thus the crime will go unpunished. That's smart - police just are going to leave this door wide open.
Regardless if she is a hated landlord - stealing from another person is pretty low.
I hope some of those people who took things just bring them back.
The article says it was her home that was vandalized. It also says she had recently evicted a rental tenant but it does not state that the vacated apartment was the one that was struck. It may be that the tenant posted the landlord's home address rather than the property he was evicted from. Or perhaps both the landlord and the ex-tenant lived in the same building and both apartments were hit. The article is not very clear on this point, but calling it her "home" strongly implies it's where she personally resided.
Any newspaper would collect enough billing information to send the person a bill. And, by the way, have enough real identification to be able to track down the person that did it.
Craigslist, because it is on the Internet and anonymous, has no identity verification at all. Many people, most in fact, will do things they would never consider doing if they know it can never be traced back to them and there cannot possibly be any consequences.
I assure you, there would be consequences with a newspaper classified.
RTFA. It's a rental unit, as this person pointed out already. And it was devoid of personal belongings. And the victim is the landlady; she doesn't live there.
Methinks it would be very difficult for a Ted Bundy type to attack her in that apartment when she doesn't live there.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Indeed. (And your point #3 especially galls me, being a landlord is not the same as being rich. In fact, it's a pretty easy way to lose your shirt if you aren't careful and a little lucky. I know - I've been a landlord.)
A huge population (Tacoma,) would have to be uncommonly decent, some might even say unnaturally decent, in order for there not to be a few vultures present.
It's not about the vultures themselves, it's about the lack of sufficiently negative consequences for being a vulture. The cops aren't going to bother going after either the looters or the ad poster.
The offence of theft can require intent. For example, in English law, "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". If a similar case happened in England, the people who took stuff would probably be able to argue that they honestly believed that they had permission from the owner, and that they are therefore not guilty of theft.
While "Cletus told me to do it" probably doesn't get you off, "Cletus told me it was his and that I could have it, and I had no reason to no believe him" may well do.
It might be a song too but it is most likely a reference to a radio DJ. He hit on some model over the air and his wife sold his ~$45,000 car for $5 on ebay.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Demolition crews are often unskilled at everything except demolition. Sure, there might be nice vinyl windows, appliances, etc. in the house, but they have a job to do in a certain amount of time. If they stop to salvage materials then the job takes longer and the boss gets angry. Bulldozers are designed for broad strokes...so it's not surprising that they would just plow through the building without checking the contents first.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Clearly, you do not understand what an eviction is, so let me help you. First of all, a landlord may not evict a tenant. In some jurisdictions, a landlord who evicts a tenant could go to jail. At any rate, he would certainly owe the tenant damages. Look up "constructive eviction" to see what I'm talking about.
Here's how a real eviction works:
- Tenant violates his lease, generally by not paying his rent
- Landlord posts notice on the property to "Pay or Quit" (experienced landlords do this the minute rent is late.. beginning landlords let the tenant be late for a few months before acting). This means the tenant is given X number of days (number varies by jurisdiction) to pay rent or leave.
- Assuming tenant doesn't pay by day X, landlord sues tenant for possession of his property. A court date is set.
- Landlord goes in front of a judge and says why he's suing (tenant hasn't paid rent in 3 months, or whatever), and the tenant can present a defense ("I did pay, here are the canceled checks", or "No, I did not pay, but there was a legal reason for me not to pay and that reason is Y") and the judge decides what to do.
- Assuming the tenant had no legal defense, the judge will order the sheriff to evict the tenant.
- You set up a date with the sheriff for him to do the actual eviction.
- You show up with movers and a locksmith to meet the sheriff at the scheduled time.
- Locksmith opens the door (in case the tenant changed the locks) and then locksmith changes the locks.
- Sheriff removes the tenant from the building
- Movers move all the tenants prized possessions to the curb
- Scavengers take anything of value
- Garbage man takes the rest
At this point, the landlord is out a minimum of one month of rent (it takes time for the wheels of justice to turn) and usually more, plus court costs, eviction costs, locksmith, movers, etc.In other words, if someone's getting evicted, it's for a darn good reason. It must be approved by a judge, and it costs money to do.
As you can see, this lady got kicked while she was down.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Good thing the cops are on the case! ... never mind. Silly me, of course the cops are going to be concentrating on important stuff, like figuring out how to seize and auction off entire families' properties because their little Timmy took a toke. Unimportant stuff like fraud, robbery and murder should be left to civil courts.
Note to metamods: this was a brilliant on-topic post by Tablizer, allegorically enforcing the point of the article. But, the mods are too thick to get that. In these matters, Dumb Moderation == Unfair Moderation.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Actually it is very common in insurance policies to have a clause that there must be evidence of "a break in" to cover theft. A broken window, busted door, jimmied window, whatever. Some car insurance will not cover your car if you leave the keys in it - after all it is theft insurance not stupidity insurance.
Anarchists never rule
My insurance policy, and the policies of all the companies I looked at when I took it out say they will only pay up where there is evidence of forced entry.