backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by killerb255.. on Apr 23 at 3:59 PM

Someone posted an ad saying all his possessions were free for the taking

What started as a Craigslist hoax ended with a Jacksonville, Oregon man losing almost all of his worldly possessions.

The ad appeared Saturday afternoon, stating that Robert Salisbury found himself suddenly forced to leave the area due to undisclosed circumstances, and that all his belongings were free for the taking.

Salisbury, an independent contractor, was unaware of the ad until he received the call from a concerned citizen. While driving home, Salisbury says he noticed several cars filled with his belongings, including a truck filled with his contracting equipment, which included work ladders, a lawn mower, and a weed eater. “I informed them I was the owner, but they refused to give the stuff back,” said Salisbury. “They showed me the Craigslist printout and told me they had the right to do what they did.”

After arriving at home, Salisbury found approximately 30 people rummaging through his home, including his front porch and his barn.

Salisbury says the trespassers, who showed him a copy of the ad and ignored his requests to stop, brushed him off. “They honestly thought that because it appeared on the Internet it was true," he said. “It boggles the mind.”

Michelle Easley, the woman that originally warned Salisbury of the ad, says she came to his house to claim his horse, which the ad described as abandoned by the sheriff’s department and free for the taking. “I can't stand to see a horse suffer so I drove out there and got her,” said Easley, “[but] the horse didn't look abandoned. She is in good shape for being 32 years old.”

Easley said the situation seemed odd, so she left a note on Salisbury’s door. However, after noticing a second ad appear on Craigslist, she said she decided to call him to confirm the ad’s legitimacy – and that’s when she learned it was a hoax.

“I feel bad because I was a part of it,” said Easley. “It felt right to call the police.”

The hoax has once again called into question Craigslist’s policy of anonymity towards its posters, which many feel is overly permissive. Craigscrimelist, which monitors the classified service for crime and fraud, said that hoaxes such as the one Salisbury fell victim to are likely to continue “as long as craigslist keeps their (sic) anonymity policy the way it is.”

Salisbury says he’s given a handful of license plate numbers to the police, and that he will accept items returned to him without any questions. Meanwhile, detectives are working with Craigslist’s legal team to determine who exactly was behind the prank.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

WOW
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/26/2008 8:28:42 AM , Rating: 5
That is just gut-wrenching. I can't even imagine the rage that would be going though me if I were to return home and see regular citizens carting off my stuff from MY HOUSE. I'd probably start going postal on them.

However, how did these people get in? Did he not lock his doors? Did they just break in and take the stuff?




RE: WOW
By Marvlarv on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By Ryanman on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By m1ldslide1 on 3/26/2008 3:06:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
by Ryanman on March 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM

this whole article is a prime example of why everyone should have a gun. Kthx.


So that it could be stolen as part of the looting and then used in a violent crime? If you actually read the article you'd have seen that he wasn't at home, which is precisely why this was able to happen.


RE: WOW
By Ryanman on 4/10/2008 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was joking : /


RE: WOW
By Ammohunt on 3/26/2008 6:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, but you are talking about Oregon i doubt they have a make my day law there. Hell the State doesn't even trust you to pump your own gas(who the hell would live in place like that)


RE: WOW
By kenji4life on 3/27/2008 3:08:51 AM , Rating: 5
The law isn't that you can't pump your own gas, imbecile.

We don't have to pump our own gas because Oregon still has attendants to do it.

FYI, at my card lock station I pump my own gas. Most Oregonians are happy that they can relax in the car while someone else sucks down the fumes. It creates jobs which the oil companies can certainly afford, and frankly I think all states should bring attendants back. Service in this country has gone by the wayside, and it's especially noticeable if you've ever filled up in Japan, or bought tires from a place like Les Schwab (yeah that's Oregon too).

As for the guns, the smarter of us keep ours in a safe, preferably bolted to the floor from the inside. None of my guns will be used in crimes. If I were to come home to a bunch of people cleaning my stuff out, you better believe my first stop is the gun safe, where I will find extra motivation for uninvited guests to leave. Though nobody would be shot, a 12 gauge in the face is a good reason to put down the stolen goods and leave.

P.S.

Oregon doesn't want any of you anyways, so stay out.


RE: WOW
By kenji4life on 3/27/2008 3:16:01 AM , Rating: 4
p.p.s. For clarification, there is a law that owners of gas stations cannot permit untrained people to pump gas, which basically requires them to employ attendants.

That means that it is technically illegal for you to pump your own gas at some stations, but it does not mean that it's 'outright illegal to pump your own gas'

Oh, and I'm starting to rethink use of my gun, because if someone was walking out with something precious like my beer, I just might have to shoot them and use them for fertilizer... Keep Oregon Green!


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 3:25:13 PM , Rating: 1
So you've backtracked, admitted to being too lazy to fuel a vehicle you have no trouble burning the fuel away in, and can't figure out how to simply pump gas without sucking fumes. Pat yourself on the back for calling someone else an imbecile!


RE: WOW
By dluther on 4/1/2008 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
p.p.s. For clarification, there is a law that owners of gas stations cannot permit untrained people to pump gas, which basically requires them to employ attendants.


I think you must have a very myopic world view if you can equate "cannot permit untrained people to pump gas" with "must employ attendants". The legal resolution to this argument is that the required training is clearly printed on the pumps themselves.


RE: WOW
By MrBlastman on 4/1/2008 3:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to New Jersey?

Try pumping your own gas there - you'll get ticketed. It is against the law.

You must have an attendant do it for you.


RE: WOW
By S3anister on 3/29/2008 11:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Living in Washington (Not D.C.) I've come to realize, that Oregon is the Canada of America. Honestly, it's hard to tell the difference when you're in either place.


RE: WOW
By Oregonian2 on 3/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 3
Having every tank at every station attended does nothing to lower cost, you still have to pay employees to do it. Do you really think insurance rates are lower? Bet they're same or higher due to possible health consequences of constantly pumping gas. Tiny traces of fumes are no problem but continually being in them is a bit worse.

I think it's dumb that you think states should require something that can be optional. There are a heck of a lot of gas stations within 10 miles of here and there are no significant problems from people pumping their own. Maybe it makes you feel pampered, if you are willing to pay for that go right ahead but please spare us the nonsense trying to paint it as something else.


RE: WOW
By Oregonian2 on 4/1/2008 9:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
My comment about other states not requiring it was just a counter attack equally devoid of strength and thought as those thrown at Oregon. Just felt good throwing the mud back. Sorry if you took it seriously.

Whenever the issue has come to a voter's vote, which it has a number of times with each time self-serve being voted down, issues of cost come up. Have you read or seen all of the writeups on it when we have those votes? I have -- being one of those voters.

The impact on cost was minimal to non-existent even when gas was cheap (where now even if there is a difference, it'd be infinitesimal).

There usually is one guy handling 6~8 pumps. Guy probably makes something not much more than minimum wage I bet and is pumping maybe $40~50 for each of those 6~8 pumps. Imagine the percentage of dollar volume that his salary represents. A lot less than the money banks charge for using a charge card at the gas station. Should charge cards be outlawed from gas stations because they cost even more than the guy pumping your car? I think not for that too. As to insurance rates, that was an argument made during the last vote. I don't know personally how true that was.


RE: WOW
By icydesign on 3/30/2008 2:49:13 PM , Rating: 3
Living in Oregon has confused you. Gas pumps automatically shut off when you've filled your tank.


RE: WOW
By Oregonian2 on 4/1/2008 9:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right. Washington state is maybe ten miles from me (I'm in metro Portland) and I visit relatives in California and Nevada. I've seen gas dribbling down cars and pools on the cement smelling the place up.

Wonder how that happened if the pump turns off and doesn't allow people to pull it out as much as possible and top it off with just the tip (as a guess on my part). I've seen/smelled it. You explain it to me.


RE: WOW
By killerb255 on 4/23/2008 3:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
In theory, yes, it's supposed to auto-shutoff. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I think the hose or nozzle acts as a pressure sensor. Usually, when I fill up, I'll lock the trigger in place, go in the gas station, use the can, buy some stuff, come back out, and the pump automatically stops.

Granted some people do top off their tanks, but that's just asking for a spill.


RE: WOW
By 7Enigma on 3/26/2008 8:56:15 AM , Rating: 4
If this was me I would pick the lock of the guys house, open all the doors, THEN post the listing, wait until several people came, and THEN go to town taking stuff. Basically a safety in numbers theory.

To those "innocent" takers to the hoax before the owner came home I would hope they return the items. To those that refused when the owner arrived home, they are darn lucky it wasn't me.

Because like you I would slap them silly with the print out of the listing.

If they still refused, well it wouldn't be me calling the police on them....


RE: WOW
By omnicronx on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By rdeegvainl on 3/26/2008 10:08:33 AM , Rating: 5
Umm that guy over there just drove off with them.


RE: WOW
By wushuktl on 3/26/2008 8:56:42 AM , Rating: 5
i wondered this too. they saw the ad, saw a locked house, and thought to themselves "yeah it's probably still legit"

it's amazing that they still faught him over his crap after he arrived. i can't imagine being okay with doing something like that


RE: WOW
By Oregonian2 on 3/26/2008 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 4
I don't mean to be a sour puss, but your comment makes me wonder if it wasn't a homeowner's insurance scam.


RE: WOW
By rsmech on 3/26/2008 9:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
I use to live out that way & have read some of your posts. You have my sympathies for what I used to & you continue to deal with, but it sure is a beautiful state.


RE: WOW
By Chris Peredun on 3/26/2008 8:57:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
However, how did these people get in? Did he not lock his doors? Did they just break in and take the stuff?


The source article makes it seem as if they were rummaging through the outside of his house - I'd imagine if there was any breaking and entering, that would be a pretty clearly defined issue.

I do wonder if this story would have had a different ending were it occurring in Texas though.


RE: WOW
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 9:21:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I do wonder if this story would have had a different ending were it occurring in Texas though.


Yeah, they probably would have stolen some rifles, a cowboy hat and a dog.


RE: WOW
By kondor999 on 3/26/2008 9:33:41 AM , Rating: 4
It doesn't happen in TX, because a Texan would have shot these looters.

Everybody in TX knows this.

Hence, no looting.

BTW, I hate TX (lived here for the past 10 years), but this is one good thing about the place.


RE: WOW
By afkrotch on 3/26/2008 10:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
No way to shoot looters, if you just got home and the looters took your guns.


RE: WOW
By xsilver on 3/26/2008 10:25:12 AM , Rating: 5
didnt you know - a texan always carries a magnum 44 tucked away in his underpants!


RE: WOW
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 10:35:17 AM , Rating: 3
lol. You seem to have very intimate knowledge of Texans!


RE: WOW
By Micronite on 3/26/2008 10:42:51 AM , Rating: 5
Just texan women.


RE: WOW
By superkdogg on 3/26/2008 10:49:32 AM , Rating: 5
They only carry .357's.


RE: WOW
By fifolo on 3/29/2008 12:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not my type, I like them with 38's...


RE: WOW
By TheDoc9 on 3/26/2008 10:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
Guys, not everyone here in Texas dresses and acts like Walker. In fact if you live next to a big city you might as well be in L.A. because of how liberal everyone has become.


RE: WOW
By xti on 3/26/2008 11:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
stop talking crazy you damn yankees. yeehaw.

im in the atx, he is totally right.


RE: WOW
By npoe1 on 3/26/2008 12:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
And trespassers wouldn't carry a gun for themselves and fire back?


RE: WOW
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly, you need a permit from most states to carry a gun. If you didn't have one and brought a gun anyway, you'd be in some trouble. And the States do not pass them out like lollipops.

Secondly, you would be trespassing, as you know, and to kill someone while trespassing on their property will be pretty hard to defend. That craigslist excuse may only allow you to dodge the death penalty, but probably not even that.


RE: WOW
By walk2k on 3/26/2008 3:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
this was in texas. in texas they give out free guns with every purchase at the coffee shop, liquor store, etc..


RE: WOW
By jmunjr on 3/26/2008 3:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
A permit to carry a handgun. In Texas you can legally carry a rifle/shotgun in hand in public, and most definitely in your car. Texas law allows handguns to be carried when you are traveling as well, and even last year clear up the definition of traveling to mean going from the house to the store, though the city of Houston promised to prosecute violators anyway.

These laws are good laws btw.


RE: WOW
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
You mean to tell me that is it legal for a drug dealer to keep a handgun in his car? I hope you are wrong about this. I thought the law was that a rifle could be kept in the car as long as it was plainly visible such as mounted in the rear window of your pickup. But handguns? That's totally insane.

quote:
These laws are good laws btw.


I'm having a hard time seeing how.


RE: WOW
By Wightout on 3/26/2008 5:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
I think I see the problem you are not getting around.

You have for some reason come to the conclusion that a drug dealer without a handgun is not illegal.

If everyone is armed people think twice about crime. A lot of the courage comes from thinking that you have something over the person you are attacking, robbing, vandalizing...


RE: WOW
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 7:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have for some reason come to the conclusion that a drug dealer without a handgun is not illegal.

I am of the conclusion that a man could legally carry a handgun in his car if jmunjr's comment is to be believed. That man may be a criminal never convicted of a crime.
quote:
If everyone is armed people think twice about crime.

That's impossible to know, but I do know that crime still carries on. I'm guessing that it absolutely is no deterent whatsoever.
quote:
A lot of the courage comes from thinking that you have something over the person you are attacking, robbing, vandalizing...

So a shotgun over a handgun could be enough?

The bottom line here is that this man could have killed a lot of people over a hoax were he able to carry a handgun. In my opinion, that's unreasonable.


RE: WOW
By Shoal07 on 3/27/2008 3:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If everyone is armed people think twice about crime.


quote:
That's impossible to know, but I do know that crime still carries on. I'm guessing that it absolutely is no deterent whatsoever.


Again, your wild assumptions about things you know absolutely nothing about shows your intelligence. Florida is a prime example of how the adoption of concealed carry laws can lead to a reduction in crime. Don't be an idiot, do some research.


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be ridiculous, it's quite reasonable to conclude that if everyone were armed that such crimes would be deterred. If the threat of deadly bodily harm isn't a "deterrent" you must have an other-worldly definition for it.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what the underlying reason was why someone committed a crime, at least to the victim this is true when they inform the person they don't care for the reason as was the case here. Shooting everyone does seem more than a little excessive, but pointing a gun at someone and telling them to let go of your lawnmover would definitely be more likely to work than only saying the words.

You have some stigma about guns, we get that. It doesn't justify your ideas, it doesn't matter if you ponder whether a man "might" be a criminal but never convicted of a crime, because in the good ole US of A we have certain ideas about being innocent until proven guilty. Deprive someone of a right because they might have done something nobody has caught/convicted them of doing? It must give you a headache to delve into this craziness.


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 3:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, a lot of people think they can just demand possesions through threat, implied violence. A gun is an equalizer, or at least a wildcard. Even your 80 yo grandmother isn't a safe mark if carrying a gun.


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 3:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I'm sure a drug dealer wouldn't keep a gun in his car because - of all things - that'd be illegal!


RE: WOW
By Shoal07 on 3/27/2008 3:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
Each State law on firearms is different. Since you don't know that and you still post about it, you're an idiot, stop posting. Thank you.


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 3:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
YOur argument is logically flawed.

We do know there are burglars and trespassers who carry guns.
We do know there are a lot of people in TX with guns.
We can assume a percentage of people in TX with guns are burglars and trespassers.

Further we can assume someone who is trespassing or robbing, wouldn't just stand around instead of trying to avoid capture.


RE: WOW
By Staples on 3/26/2008 2:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
I love the stereo type. Born and raised here and I among probably 75% of the citizens do not carry guns. Sure they are legal but not many people are so paraniod that they have let alone carry one.

I love the comment above about stealing a dog.


RE: WOW
By Etsp on 3/26/2008 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
In Ohio, probably less than 95% of the citizens don't carry concealed weapons, even though they can earn a permit to do it. That's probably where the stereotypes come from, to someone from Ohio, it's unthinkable that 25% of the population is armed.


RE: WOW
By AlphaVirus on 3/27/2008 10:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
Trust me, I live in Houston and 25% of the people do NOT carry a weapon everywhere they go. Perhaps it should be at least 25% own a weapon and store it in their vehicle and/or housing. Maybe 5% of people actually carry it around with them.

Several people I know own a firearm, including family, friends, and coworkers, but none of them carry it outside of their house.


RE: WOW
By otispunkmeyer on 3/26/2008 2:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
i LOL'd

specially at the dog bit

LMAO!


RE: WOW
By fifolo on 3/29/2008 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
But no books.


RE: WOW
By Strunf on 3/26/2008 9:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
lol yeah this is one of those cases were a firearm could come handy.


RE: WOW
By dsx724 on 3/26/2008 11:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
or a rocket propelled grenade.


RE: WOW
By eye smite on 3/26/2008 9:28:32 AM , Rating: 5
Being a native Texan and current resident, yes I think it would have. The solution on that here would have been hot spinning lead........after one warning of course.


RE: WOW
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/26/2008 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
looter - Who brought a gun to the tea party?


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
or someone moderately clever planned to rob him and posted this ad then waited for others to show up before forcing entry to the house. Being the first inside they were reasonably assured of getting most if not all of what they were after.


RE: WOW
By 1078feba on 3/26/2008 8:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
Ya know, you never hear about crap like this happening in Texas.

Never.

Wonder why? (/faux chin stroking)


RE: WOW
By VashHT on 3/26/2008 10:01:56 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, or in 48 other states, as a matter of fact this is the first and only time I've heard about something this. BTW I don't know why everyone is singling out Texas, what about Kentucky or Indiana? My brother goes to school in Indiana and goes to some shooting ranges and gun shows there. He has met people with barret sniper rifles and AK-47s and other high powered weaponry, I'd hate to be caught rummaging through their stuff...


RE: WOW
By napalmjack on 3/26/2008 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 5
As a lifelong resident of Indiana, I resemble that comment.


RE: WOW
By nerdboy on 3/26/2008 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Indiana Gun laws are like Texas guns laws. There is also a law called my home is my castle. Which is if you see a looter he is fair game. If anybody wants to know the gun laws for any state it can be found at

www.packing.org

To get a Carry conceal license all you need is your drivers license and 50 Bucks.


RE: WOW
By jimbojimbo on 3/26/2008 1:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it legal in Texas to shoot tresspassers though? I don't know if it's true but it's what I've heard before. Not sure if it's like that in other states either.


RE: WOW
By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 1:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well then... If you're ok with the idea of just shooting people I guess (of course he wasn't home to shoot anyone anyway). I think he took the best course of action you can, attempt to stop the tresspassers, take license plates and call the police. I'm not sure what course of action he's going to take, but I would prosecute all of those who's license plate numbers were taken if they did not return the stolen goods with in a reasnoble amount of time. "Reasnoble amount of time" being determained by many factors including the amount of time you have to still be able to file charges reasnobly.


RE: WOW
By walk2k on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: WOW
By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 3:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
After receiving the call he went back home and informed people that he didn't in fact post that message and that the stuff wasn't free. At that point in time taking the stuff was a criminal act.

Assuming his door was locked some one had to break into his house to get at his stuff inside his house, this is a criminal act regardless of circomstances (someone owns the land even if you assume he doesn't, you need the owners permission to enter).

These people knew what they were doing was wrong, it wasn't that hard for that lady who was interested in the horse to put it together and do the right thing. It shouldn't be that hard for anyone else. I would have them jailed.


RE: WOW
By rcc on 3/26/2008 4:27:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
At that point in time taking the stuff was a criminal act.


It was already a criminal act. If I tell you it's ok to rob a bank, and you do, the fact that someone said it's ok doesn't absolve you.

The people that stole his stuff are thieves. It'll be interesting to see what the civil liability is to the person that made the post, if they find them.


RE: WOW
By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 4:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be more worried about the criminal liability if I were him... IMHO this is worth a whole mess of jail time.


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 1
I think those who first arrived on the scene, when nobody was around taking anything yet, having no direct authorization to go ahead and grab stuff, they would be thieves.

I would pity those who came thereafter, because if i had been randomly walking down the street and asked what's up and they told me all this stuff was being given away (and lots of people not just one group of teenagers or would-be burglers were there) and I saw all these seemingly normal citizens taking things, I would then possibly assume it was true and authorized, possibly then taking something myself. I write possibly, because I would still be quite hesitant without anyone being in charge and no sign of the property owner. I think I would grab what I wanted, secure it and find the owner before leaving with it.


RE: WOW
By jRaskell on 4/1/2008 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and I saw all these seemingly normal citizens taking things, I would then possibly assume it was true and authorized, possibly then taking something myself.


That's always dangerous thinking. It's the same reason people try to use to excuse their actions in riots. While the rest of your post was reasonable, an intelligent, independantly thinking individual would never go down that road to begin with, no matter how many other people are going down it. Don't make yourself just another part of the herd, even if it's a slightly more cautious member of said herd.


RE: WOW
By walk2k on 3/26/2008 3:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
in texas it's legal to shoot a man just for snoring too loud


RE: WOW
By rudy on 3/26/2008 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have heard of this before I cannot remember where it was but this is not the first time.


RE: WOW
By Souka on 3/26/2008 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
IT's happened before with Craigs list...

Nothing new... just f'tards....


RE: WOW
By dr4gon on 3/26/2008 9:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
wow yeah that's just awful.... I can't imagine either ..... I was wondering about not locking your door either, maybe someone broke a window? but I guess he doesn't have security? poor guy, hope he gets his stuff back.


RE: WOW
By Polynikes on 3/26/2008 11:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
I was wondering the same thing. If it was legit, you'd think he'd 1. BE THERE , and 2. Have the stuff out and ready on the lawn for them to take. Those people should've known something was fishy, and are just as responsible for what happened as the poster.

I'm glad I keep a couple guns in the house.


RE: WOW
By superkdogg on 3/26/2008 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 4
So that way the looters will be armed when I show up.....


RE: WOW
By Polynikes on 3/26/2008 11:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about you, but one of the last places I'd be looking for stuff to loot is in someone's underwear drawer.

Besides, I always carry a knife and I have a handy hatchet with a knife built into its handle that I keep in my car.


RE: WOW
By 91TTZ on 3/27/2008 6:54:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I dunno about you, but one of the last places I'd be looking for stuff to loot is in someone's underwear drawer.


Have you seen the freaks on Craigslist? That's probably the first place they'd look. Not for weapons, but for your underwear.


RE: WOW
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
WTF? You have a hatchet and you're going to pull some little knife out of it's handle instead of just using the hatchet?

Little knife says "I bite back".
Hatchet says "I will eat your liver".


RE: WOW
By walk2k on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: WOW
By PhoenixKnight on 3/26/2008 3:56:26 PM , Rating: 5
Did you actually read the article? It states pretty clearly that someone else (not the homeowner) posted the ad, as do the comments that you replied to. Who's the Darwin Award nominee now?


He's got a case against Craigslist
By KernD on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By mattclary on 3/26/2008 8:47:42 AM , Rating: 5
Why shouldn't they? Like you, they just have to say, "It's Craigslist's fault. See where I printed this out off the internet?"

"Normal" people wouldn't have bought into this. The people who went to take his stuff have dubious morals, IMO.


By Polynikes on 3/26/2008 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 4
Dubious is too kind - those people have none.


By thundercade64 on 3/26/2008 7:41:27 PM , Rating: 1
The ad writer, the looters AND Craiglist have responsibility. They all have a part in this.

How much responsibility (do they pay all, some, hardly any?)is up to a court.

Arguing that Craigslist isn't completely responsible for all damages doesn't mean they're not responsible for anything.


RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 8:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quite honestly he should sue Craigslist for all he lost, it's in part there fault for allowing this and covering for the guy that posted this thing.


I don't agree at all. I liken it to getting upset at Canon for being the printer and paper that made the ad that got sent around to homes. It would be nice to keep some things completely anonymous to the point where military personnel, for example, can freely express their disapproval of a president without losing their jobs and going to jail.


RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By 1078feba on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By eye smite on 3/26/2008 9:40:46 AM , Rating: 3
I'm guessing that for you, and I know for me that one warning would have been given before the lead started flying eh?


By Smiting Eye on 4/10/2008 7:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Same here.


RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:16:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So I take it then that you're totally against gun control then, right?


I'm totally against guns, period. Anyways, service members can't say whatever they want without consequences. Voting isn't what I'd call freedom of speech. It's just exercising a democratic right.


RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By dever on 3/26/2008 2:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that Craigslist probably doesn't have much culpability, and I also agree that voting isn't freedom of speech, but it is a privilege.

That being said, can you answer this...

1) Where in the constitution is a "right to vote?" (hard question)
2) Where in the constitution is a "right to bear arms?" (easier)
3) Do you live in a "democracy" or a "republic?" (give away)


RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By wordsworm on 3/27/2008 9:23:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1) Where in the constitution is a "right to vote?" (hard question)2) Where in the constitution is a "right to bear arms?" (easier)
3) Do you live in a "democracy" or a "republic?" (give away)


1) It was pretty easy to find this one: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/...

2) I couldn't find the right to bear arms in the constitution.

3) I believe that Canada is a representative democracy. Although Queen Elizabeth technically still retains legal rights to govern Canada, in practice it's a republic. However, since I don't live in Canada, I'd have to say the country I live in, S. Korea, is not a republic since it must follow the Emperor Bush II.