Print 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

By Brandon Hill 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?

By Marvlarv on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
By Ryanman on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
By m1ldslide1 on 3/26/2008 3:06:30 PM , Rating: 5
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.

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

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)

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.


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

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!

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!

By dluther on 4/1/2008 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 1
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.

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.

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.

By Oregonian2 on 3/27/08, Rating: 0
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

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

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.

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.

By Chris Peredun on 3/26/2008 8:57:39 AM , Rating: 5
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.

By 16nm on 3/26/2008 9:21:48 AM , Rating: 5
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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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..

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.

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.

These laws are good laws btw.

I'm having a hard time seeing how.

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...

By 16nm on 3/26/2008 7:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
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.
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.
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.

By Shoal07 on 3/27/2008 3:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

specially at the dog bit


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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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


Wonder why? (/faux chin stroking)

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...

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

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

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

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.

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.

By walk2k on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
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.

By rcc on 3/26/2008 4:27:16 PM , Rating: 3
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.

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.

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.

By jRaskell on 4/1/2008 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

By 91TTZ on 3/27/2008 6:54:40 AM , Rating: 1
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.

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".

By walk2k on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
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
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
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
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:

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.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By dever on 3/27/2008 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you've been following the thread... this incident is about America, not Canada.

In America...

1) There is no constitutional right to vote
2) There is a constitutional right to arm yourself (second amendment immediately after the right to free speech)
3) America is a republic, governed by laws, not by individuals or emperors

We in America have the privilege of enjoying the outcome of a revolution started by our brave founders, many of whom died to create a country that regarded the natural law of equality and freedom above tyranny of individual rulers or the mob rule of democracy.

By wordsworm on 3/29/2008 9:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe this is news to you... but, the Internet is a global affair, not just an American. Craigslist is on the Internet. Therefore, it reaches all over the world and is used all over the world. It's about an American who had a Craigslist hoax or con pulled on him. Here is a list of non-American places it services that I found on their website.

alberta brit columbia manitoba n brunswick newf & lab nova scotia ontario pei quebec saskatchwn ca cities calgary edmonton halifax ottawa quebec toronto vancouver victoria winnipeg more ..

au/nz australia micronesia new zealand
bangladesh china india indonesia israel japan korea lebanon malaysia pakistan philippines singapore taiwan thailand UAE vietnam

americas argentina brazil caribbean chile colombia costa rica mexico panama peru venezuela
austria belgium czech repub denmark finland france germany great britain greece hungary ireland italy netherlands norway poland portugal russia spain sweden switzerland turkey UK africa egypt south africa amsterdam athens bangalore bangkok beijing barcelona berlin buenos aires delhi dublin hong kong london madrid manila mexico moscow paris rio de janeiro rome seoul shanghai singapore sydney tel aviv tokyo zurich

If America was governed by laws, the US wouldn't be in Iraq now, would it? Guantanamo Bay wouldn't be illegally torturing and holding POWs. Oh, I know what you're thinking: Whatever means are necessary to prevent a second attack against America are justified. Anyways, that's a red herring. At the moment, many parts of the world are ruled by someone who was not elected: George Bush II (Panama and Iraq, for instance). He may have been elected in America, but not one Panamanian or Iraqi had the chance to vote for or against his involvement in their country. So, what does that make him? That makes him a dictator. Another word for a dictator who rules over a great portion of the world is called an emperor. Next year, the world will have another emperor.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2008 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and while you're totally against guns, criminals aren't. So while you'll be able to do nothing but call the police if an armed person breaks into your home, those of us who are smart will shoot them.

The police take at least 10 minutes to get to your house. Pulling out a gun and loading it takes 10 seconds. And guess which one is more effective at stopping crimes. Even merely threatening to shoot is more effective than calling the police.

By dever on 3/26/2008 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you.

As if freedom can be won and retained using flowers and care bears.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 11:15:02 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and while you're totally against guns, criminals aren't. So while you'll be able to do nothing but call the police if an armed person breaks into your home, those of us who are smart will shoot them.

Whomsoever breaks into my house at night had better have good night vision. I'm a light sleeper, and I'm not mortified by guns. Gun or not, I have the advantage in my own home since I sleep in near pitch black and I can make my way through it blindfolded. I suppose with your night light on it might change things.

Having guns made illegal would make it harder for criminals to get guns. It would also make guns harder to use for hot headed murders. Anyways, the gun registry in Canada was a good step in the right direction.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By Noya on 3/27/2008 12:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
Having guns made illegal would make it harder for criminals to get guns.

How hard is to obtain meth, crack or a variety of other illegal drugs?

People will get what their heart desires whether it is deemed illegal by government laws or not.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:22:17 AM , Rating: 1
Total anonymity is synonymous with absolute power.

Total anonymity is what would give a political dissenter the absolute power to say whatever he/she wants. Granting a lawsuit against Craigslist would have the greater consequence of attacking people's freedom of speech.

Should Craigslist be notified of an issue and they fail to respond to it in a timely manner, this I could see as problematic.

By tmouse on 3/26/2008 11:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Total anonymity is synonymous with absolute power

And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Unfortunately political dissenters are the vast minority that would benefit. There are many studies showing that we turn into quite different creatures when there is absolutely no chance of any ramifications for our actions. Greed seems to be a biological default and most morality simply goes out the window once people are convinced there will be no chance of any negative consequences to their actions. Either way this is craigslist I have not seen many political dissenters advertising on there. There is absolutely no reason to have totally anonymous postings for sales, it screams fraud.

By Rugar on 3/26/2008 12:27:22 PM , Rating: 3
The US constitution is what gives a political dissenter the right to say whatever they want, not anonymity. You are guaranteed freedom of speech not freedom from repercussions . It's amazing to me how many people think that their right to free speech means "I can say what I want and you can't do anything about it." If you are one of those people, let me clarify it for you:

You can say whatever you want and outside of a few circumstances, I can't stop you from saying it. I can however seek redress if what you say causes me injury.

By tim851 on 3/26/2008 10:35:19 AM , Rating: 1
Total anonymity is synonymous with absolute power.

I'll let that hang in mid-air for a bit so that you can watch as it's logical corollaries crystalize in your melon.

Wow, Zen Master, then I'd like you to consider this:

Absolute power equals power without limits. Now, if two people work against each other in anonymity, hence with absolute power, would the universe implode?

By PrezWeezy on 3/26/2008 12:56:51 PM , Rating: 1
I'll let that hang in mid-air for a bit so that you can watch as it's logical corollaries crystalize in your melon.

At least you're not being condescending. I'm so glad we all have you as our absolute moral compass to guide our incessantly small minds. What would we do without your ultimate wisdom oh 1078feba?

Just because you have a disagreement over a total and complete theoretical matter, being impossible to ever actually test, you don't need to make stupid remarks like that.

By Vinnybcfc on 3/26/2008 1:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah for some reason if it is on a sign or posted on the Internet people think they can just do it no matter what and laws and morals dont matter.

In the UK there have been cases of 'Skins' (named after a tv program) parties where excessive amounts of damage and crap go on, normally because the silly 16 year old posted it to everyone.

But there have been cases of people posting about homes that are empty from people on holiday which then get broken into.

Police need to crack some skulls at these things to get some sense into people

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By tastyratz on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
By pomaikai on 3/26/2008 9:20:58 AM , Rating: 3
If a flier was put on a telephone it would be the telephones companies fault obviously. They hosted the sign on there equipment.

If this were me I would file a lawsuit against craigslist for the sole intent of finding out who posted it. Hopefully the guy had homeowners insurance and can atleast file a claim and not lose everything.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By MrBlastman on 3/26/2008 9:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
You are right, Craigslist should not be sued... BUT... They should go out of their way to provide any records (if at all) of who might be the poster. IP addresses, time of entry etc.

By Souka on 3/26/2008 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 1
local library PC.

Sue the Library! :)

By eye smite on 3/26/2008 9:45:18 AM , Rating: 3
Wait a minute, home owners insurance? Ok, I can see that, but when craiglist is notified of a situation like this where the law is clearly being broken because of an ad placed on their site, I see it as their responsibility to divulge all information on the person or persons that listed the ad. Otherwise they retain a large amount of liability on this and I don't think a lawsuit pressed would take long to get a settlement.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By Aloonatic on 3/26/2008 10:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
if the telephone company had a way of telling the victim who posted the fliers but refused to, then they probably would be sued too.

the insurance form will be amusing and cheer up the guys in the office at least :)

Craig's list must accept that they could help to stop this sort of thing from happening at least.

By tastyratz on 3/27/2008 12:39:18 PM , Rating: 1
Show me where in that article it states that Craigslist refused to comply?
It simply says that the Craigslist anonymity policy is being questioned. I see mention that they were contacted but I see no mention of any type of response from Craigslist.

Craigslist actually has a surprising number of ads that are illegal in nature. Tons of stolen goods sold, prostitution and scam rings, and stuff like this. To actively filter all ads going in would be massive. Craigslist has the flagging system which is nearly self regulating. To employ a staff to comb ads would most likely yield Craigslist as non profitable. Buyer beware.

By superkdogg on 3/26/2008 10:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment doesn't make any sense. Craigslist provides the vehicle that allowed the theft, but that is not the major issue without the corroborating fact that they actively protect the person responsible. If craigslist says this is a crime and we'll gladly waive our policy for this extenuating circumstance then there's no problem at all. However, if they're aware of a crime being committed using their resources and actively trying to conceal the identity of the person responsible or otherwise hinder a law enforcement investigation, that's a problem.

Nobody's right to free speech trumps another person's right to safety and security.

The litmus test here is imagine that it happened to you and when you get home today all your stuff is loaded into other people's trucks. What would you expect to happen?

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2008 9:32:53 AM , Rating: 3
i think he does have a case against them. it's called COMPLICITY. by not checking their postings, or reviewing them before they "air", they are guilty of complicity.

ebay has had numerous instances of being called out for something similar (remeber the guy trying to auction off his soul on ebay????!!!??)

the original poster of the ad is at the most fault...but more than that, craigslist is responsible for reviewing their own ads.

newspapers have proof-readers. classified online ads/auctions should be no different.

By MrBlastman on 3/26/2008 9:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
Weather he might get them through some legal loophole or not (you sound like a lawyer), I think the real question simply is:

Should you be so quick to immediately sue or should you give Craiglist a chance to co-operate in the investigation towards the poster?

I'd think if everyone in society sat down for a minute, took a breath, and tried to work things out amicably first... rather than grabbing a guy in a fancy suit and taking someone in front of the judge to try and turn them upside down and empty their pockets onto the courtroom floor... Our world would be a MUCH BETTER PLACE.

Lets give Craigslist a chance and see what they do to help the guy.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By Choppedliver on 3/26/2008 10:20:18 AM , Rating: 1
How stupid.

I guess they could have posted it on a laudromat bulletin board, then they could sue the owner of the laundromat.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By superkdogg on 3/26/2008 11:06:16 AM , Rating: 3
As was said above, if the signs were in the laundromat and the owner of the the laundromat saw them get posted and then won't tell the police who is responsible, he is aiding the criminal act and is a party to the crime.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are lots of limitations on it already. Obscenity/pornography, disorderly conduct laws, 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre', etc. People go overboard, but really it means you're free to express your ideas until the point where your freedom of speech collides with another freedom that somebody else has, such as the freedome to not be robbed.

RE: He's got a case against Craigslist
By Choppedliver on 3/26/2008 9:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
If the owner knows, then of course he should say. But to sue the owner just because it was put on his bulletin board unbeknownst to him, is asinine

By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 5:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
The owner is responsible for what's on his premises. If a person or two saw it before he or his agent (employee) did, that would be understandable. For it to remain until many people saw it would not be. This is with manual labor involved - with a website it can be done much faster and more effectively so there is a higher standard. That doesn't necessarily mean craigslist had to act, the readers should have been aware of the nature of the messages that nothing read is a guarantee per se.

What's the (sic) for?
By quickk on 3/26/2008 11:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
as long as craigslist keeps their (sic) anonymity policy the way it is

There's nothing wrong in that sentence that I can think of. Their is indeed the correct term here (as opposed to there or they're).

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By superkdogg on 3/26/2008 12:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed that too. I think the writer was under the impression that their was spelled incorrectly, but it's not.

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By Aaron M on 3/26/2008 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Some people consider companies singular entities, while some consider companies as consisting of it's employees, thus making it plural. So the sentence could also be read as:
quote: long as craigslist keeps "its" anonymity...

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 1:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's right. Either:
Craiglist keep their anonymity...

Craiglist keeps its anonymity...

Just be consistent. Something I often am not. :(

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By TomCorelis on 3/26/2008 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 3
The second version is correct.

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By quickk on 3/26/2008 3:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
That makes sense :)

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By 16nm on 3/26/2008 4:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely it is.

RE: What's the (sic) for?
By psychobriggsy on 3/26/2008 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's an American English / British English thing.

Entities: In American, you use singular (its) and in British you use plural (their).

Dunno if it is applicable to that sentence though, which is surely talking about Craiglist users:

Craiglist [users] keep their anonymity.

If this were in Texas...
By MrBlastman on 3/26/2008 9:17:56 AM , Rating: 2
He could have kindly reminded them when he arrived home that it was a hoax and if they ignored his requests he could then open fire with his shotgun and put some flak in their behinds.

I'd be pissed off if this happened to me. They're all thieves weather they know it is true or not. Doesn't Craigslist keep ip's of the posters? Any form of record at all?

Sick - extremely sick.

RE: If this were in Texas...
By Moohbear on 3/26/2008 10:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
I've posted stuff on Craigslist a couple of times and all you need is a working e-mail address. So, if the prankster used a free e-mail account created from a public computer and posted from a public computer as well, there's little chance it can be traced back.

RE: If this were in Texas...
By HrilL on 3/30/2008 1:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thats assuming they were that smart. But I doubt the person that post this thought of that and it will probably be traced back to the person that did it. Or his neighbor since he uses their internet. But probably still his email.

RE: If this were in Texas...
By Regs on 3/26/2008 10:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
You summed up Craigslist in a nutt shell - sick. I haven't seen so many perverse, corrupted, and sickening people centralized so closely together since Paulie Shores 40th birthday party celebration.

RE: If this were in Texas...
By darkpaw on 3/26/2008 10:34:32 AM , Rating: 3
Theres a lot of good stuff on Craigslist too. My wife and I got much of our baby stuff on there and as my son has outgrown it have been able to pass it on to someone else that can use it.

RE: If this were in Texas...
By Regs on 3/26/2008 11:06:53 AM , Rating: 4
It is what it is. Like anything good and unbounded, it will be abused. You can't give a 5 year old a king sized candy bar, and think they won't eat the whole thing.

RE: If this were in Texas...
By LatinMessiah on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: If this were in Texas...
By superkdogg on 3/26/2008 11:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
You were at Pauly Shore's birthday party!!! WOW!!!

Bet I can explain it
By mattclary on 3/26/2008 8:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
The guy is a contractor. Odds are, someone felt he screwed them over, so they did this in attempt at payback.

RE: Bet I can explain it
By wushuktl on 3/26/2008 8:54:00 AM , Rating: 1
i agree. it was one of the first things that i thought. he must have done something shady to make somebody want to do this to him. however, whether or not he deserved to lose so much is another question.

RE: Bet I can explain it
By thornburg on 3/26/2008 9:18:44 AM , Rating: 5
he must have done something shady to make somebody want to do this to him.


Don't you people have any kind of grasp on presumption of innocence or the possibility that the craigslist poster was a vengeful idiot?

Here's what you can most likely assume from the situation:

Someone is either pissed off at him, or just wanted to steal his stuff.

That's about it. Does he deserve it? Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't anything about this situation but what was posted here on DT, but let me suggest some situations in which someone was pissed at him but he didn't deserve it:

A) Perhaps he is dating someone's ex. If the person is a very jealous individual and feels like the breakup was unreasonable or caused by someone else, they may take actions like this, even if the ex left of his/her own free will, without even knowing the victim beforehand.

B) Perhaps he set up a trade deal with someone, but the other person wasn't exactly honest, and he had to back out. It goes something like this--suppose it was a swap where he was going to give up some land or something else fairly valuable for a car. The owner of the car (say it's a 2001 BMW) says that it is in great shape, no problems, passes inspection, and doesn't need any work. Upon test driving the car, the victim find that the tires are nearly bald, it pops out of 2nd gear, and makes odd creaking/grinding noises when rounding corners. He backs out of the deal. The car owner may be (unreasonably) pissed at him. I have personally experienced things like this on a much smaller scale.

C) He gets rear-ended at a stop-light by someone without insurance who can't afford the consequences. They offer to pay him off what they can, maybe offer to make payments or do work for him if he doesn't report them. He refuses, as that would be breaking the law, and they drive off. They might be rather pissed off at him, even though all he did was uphold the law.

There are countless other examples where someone could be ticked off at him without him having done anything shady.

He might have done something shady, but assuming that he did is wrong .

RE: Bet I can explain it
By JustTom on 3/26/2008 9:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you people have any kind of grasp on presumption of innocence or the possibility that the craigslist poster was a vengeful idiot?

Even if he screwed someone over in a contractor deal the perp would be a vengeful idiot.

People certainly have the right to form opinions about situations. What they do not have the right to is sit on juries if such opinions would interfere with the ability to fairly judge a trail. OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial and I still think he is muderous scum.

RE: Bet I can explain it
By SavagePotato on 3/26/2008 10:54:37 AM , Rating: 1
That's quite an assumption. Contractors get screwed over too, in fact regularly. I've been involved in the renovations business and people will try to shaft any and every little extra out of you they can and in the end still refuse to pay.

I know someone that had a woman refuse to pay for a solid oak desk and other renovations to the tune of about $10000 based on the grounds the desk made her think of her recently deceased mothers coffin. She got taken to court, it was laughed at when the judge saw the before and after photos and she lost, badly, was ordered to pay, of course a dime was never gotten out of her.

This kind of thing is an inevitability for any contractor at some point, you're gonna get royally screwed.

The safest safe.
By charliee on 3/26/2008 1:29:14 PM , Rating: 1
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 6:19-21

RE: The safest safe.
By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 1:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of truth to this, but from a practical perspective this is still quite a loss... For instance the loss to his lively hood due to stolen work tools.

RE: The safest safe.
By charliee on 3/26/2008 11:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
True that.

RE: The safest safe.
By Rugar on 3/26/2008 2:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting but I'm curious how you equate him valuing the possessions of his home with being ungodly...

He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich.

He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: but he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame.

Excerpted from Proverbs 10

RE: The safest safe.
By charliee on 3/26/2008 11:13:11 PM , Rating: 1
In this instance I quoted Matthew 6:19-21 because it beared some resemblance to what happened in the article and not to equate the person robbed as being ungodly by valuing his possessions.

On the contrary given the limited amount of information. When comparing his actions or lack thereof to those who would use a weapon I would say that he valued his possessions less than those people who would use a weapon and therefore be more godly because he would be less covetousness.

Ephesians 5:3
…covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints…

RE: The safest safe.
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
Non-applicable, these were his contractor work tools. I'm sure he'd rather not have them at all, except for the issue of one making a living doing something of value to society - lest we all live like animals in fields, woods, and caves instead of cleared land.

RE: The safest safe.
By charlieee on 4/1/2008 9:30:52 PM , Rating: 1
Revised to correct grammer.

In this instance I quoted Matthew 6:19-21 because it beared some resemblance to what happened in the article and not to equate the person robbed as being ungodly by valuing his possessions.

On the contrary [that I equate the person robbed as being ungodly by valuing his possessions] given the limited amount of information. When comparing his actions or lack thereof to those who would use a weapon [to protect their property] I would say that he valued his possessions less than those people who would use a weapon [to protect their property] and therefore be more godly because he would be less covetous.

Ephesians 5:3
…covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints…

By Darkskypoet on 3/26/2008 11:21:18 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously. Since when does a classified ad or its likeness with any of the above entitle anyone to go onto private property and take anything? Especially, considering NO ONE was on the premises to authorize it.

This a bunch of people being malicious or stupid... Probably some of both. Is it a shame for the guy that we probably don't have enough info to find out who posted it? Yes.

Does it absolve any of those ignorant or thieving persons from stealing? NO.

Damn. I hope they round up some of these people and tazer 'em 50 or so times, like that kid that simply forgot his ID in the library. Or, as others have commented some spinning hot lead. Normally, I'm not for shooting people like that, but I gotta agree that in this case it seems about fair. Ignorant bloody savages.

Long story short; A classified ad on Craigslist is a damn lame defense for theft, and I really think its not Cl's fault, but those stupid or malicious people who committed the crime.

"Classified Ads don't steal peoples stuff, People steal people's stuff."

By Schrag4 on 3/26/2008 1:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more. However, given the fact that sadly, so many people have no qualms about outright theft, especially if it's "victimless", it doesn't surprise me that so many people showed up to take his stuff.

I remember a story a while back about how a woman had discovered a way to order things from QVC (I think) and if she cancelled the order at a particular time of the day, the order would still ship and she wouldn't get charged. She did this over and over, eBaying easily $100K worth of merchandise. She only got caught because the people who bought the items from her got such a huge discount and they were still in the QVC boxes, so they got suspiscious and reported it.

People were posting comments that QVC should take the loss and she shouldn't be held accountable. And they were saying how the people who reported her were such bad people for 'ruining a good thing'. I tried to argue that QVC's mistake is not unlike leaving your keys in the ignition. It's still theft, even if the person you're stealing from makes it easy somehow. If you didn't earn it, you shouldn't take it! Unless it's a gift. And if you receive an 'unintentional gift', like the QVC case, then you're stealing if you don't at least point it out and make sure they really wanted to give it to you.

By rcc on 3/26/2008 4:59:49 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately most of the younger generations have commuted "buyer beware" into "owner beware". They seem to think it's ok if it's easy, or the chances of getting caught are low.

Forget the current politics, it's that attitude that makes me worry about the county, and world's, future.

Let me get this straight:
By Squeedle on 3/26/2008 4:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
Some of you are saying, that it's all right to murder, or attempt to murder, someone for stealing.

That's what you're saying, right, that stealing justifies homicide?

So basically, your stuff is equivalent to human life and ought to be defended with deadly force?

Let's look at the actual text of the Texas deadly force law:

Please see also section 9.42 of Texas Penal Code, which can be downloaded in PDF format from here:

I'm not going to analyze this in depth here (read the PDF text of the law yourself), but basically, if you take out a gun and shoot someone just for stealing stuff from your yard (which is what looks like happened here), sounds to me like you could get sent up for murder.

If they were breaking into your "occupied habitation, vehicle or workplace," or if you had a "reasonable" belief that the person intended you or someone else harm and you were not provoking them or committing a crime yourself, then you are justified in using deadly force. This is pretty common in state law, as the law (in my opinion rightly) assumes that if someone is breaking into your home while you or someone is in it, then they intend to harm anyone there, because otherwise, they'd have made sure the place was unoccupied. According to my reading, deadly force is justifiable here, and Texas law says you are NOT required to retreat.

Furthermore the laws on trespassing allow force, but not deadly force, unless there is basically no other way to get rid of them and/or they are posing a threat. In this story nobody is threatening him, and they all got in their cars and left, so by my reading of the law, shooting at them would still be illegal, and rightfully so.

Basically even in Texas, the law says that mere property does not equal human life, which is as it should be.

RE: Let me get this straight:
By psychobriggsy on 3/26/2008 5:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's only the morality that we've been raised to believe in.

Lots of philosophers have wasted years on morality - is there morality? Absolute morality - are there things that are bad by their very action?

Killing competitors is actually a very natural thing to do, and in our society killing thieves (competitors for our shiny things) would be a fair thing to do. Except that we've raised murdering humans over theft (after creating the concept of owning things, and so on...). Sadly if philosophers have taken years thinking these things over to no agreement, a mere post here won't either.

RE: Let me get this straight:
By rcc on 3/26/2008 6:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Some of you are saying, that it's all right to murder, or attempt to murder, someone for stealing.

Depending on the circumstances, absolutely.

basically, if you take out a gun and shoot someone just for stealing stuff from your yard (which is what looks like happened here), sounds to me like you could get sent up for murder.

Per the article....paraphrased, they were in his home, barn, and front porch.

In any event, he arrived home, found looters and asked them to cease and depart, they refused. Step 2, get in their way and make them put it down, if they refuse or threaten you, you issue a warning, once. Then, depending on the State you are in, you either shoot to wound or kill.

At this point you are talking about persons willfully engaged in criminal acts, if you can't defend yourself and/or your goods in such a case, when can you?

I have little sympathy, obviously, for people willfully violating the law. My solution for the looting during the LA riots was Apaches. And no, I don't think that is the solution to everything.

If you are not willing to defend your goods, your family, your country, your world, etc. Then who/what are you, really?

RE: Let me get this straight:
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm saying that when the thief has the gun pointed at (him), he has ample opportunity to choose life (leaving w/o property) or death, he was the instigator. Perhaps I'd end up in prison for killing, perhaps I'd deliberately wound instead of trying to kill. One thing I wouldn't do is just say "hi" and let him walk off.

Do I just call the police and sit there? Do I follow the theif so I can update the police on his location? Do I assault him? Hand-to-hand? Do I say "pretty please"?

Guns don't have to kill. They can also be a tool to cause a trail of blood to follow. If you have a problem with that, don't steal from someone who might have a gun. All choices have consequences even if you or I don't like them, but there has to be checks and balances in an immediate sense. There has to be a clear way to prevent someone on your property from doing whatever they want to until the police manage to apprehend them, which is often too late.

I think it is morally wrong to try to kill someone for stealing, but you are entitled to try to prevent them from getting away with your property which in itself is highly likely to cause bodily harm. Let me know when you hear of a theif who was just told "don't take my stuff" and that worked. We can assume such a concept is always implied and that the theif will need to be forcibly stopped one way or the other. Note that this is also what the police end up doing as necessary.

By martinrichards23 on 3/26/2008 11:32:19 AM , Rating: 3
The people who took his stuff stole it, plain and simple, imagine standing up in court and saying you thought it was ok because you saw it on the internet!

Therefore his insurance will cover his loses. That's assuming US insurance is generally the same as in the UK, and that he had insurance.

RE: Insurance?
By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 1:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
If he has a mortgage (one would assume so) then insurance is a requirement as part of his mortage. Same goes for auto financing in the USA

RE: Insurance?
By mindless1 on 3/29/2008 4:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
Many homeowner policies greatly limit the payout for stolen property, he'd likely have to have a separate plan for these items.

How did they get in his house?
By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 12:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you guys but I lock my appartment when I leave, same policy will apply when I buy my home. So with out breaking in how did they get in his house?

Additionally, all of these people really do deserve to be arrested. Seriously folks, if this was legit the person posting the ad would be on hand more than likely to observe their stuff being carted off. These people probably knew what they were doing was wrong and didn't care. They felt like the craigslist ad gave them a right to the stuff, which of course it doesn't. I would love to see some prosecutions result from this.

RE: How did they get in his house?
By jimbojimbo on 3/26/2008 1:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they get punished big time as well including returning all items plus monetary compensation and jail time.

Even if you lock your doors all it takes is one person to get it open then all the people that arrive afterwards will think it was left open.

By Locutus465 on 3/26/2008 1:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming he locked his doors someone is guilty of breaking an entry... Unfortunetly I'm sure that it's nearly impossible to determain who this person is.

how dumb
By otispunkmeyer on 3/26/2008 2:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
how dumb have people become that they'll actually believe something like this is even remotely legit?

no one just gives out their stuff for free. did it not occur to any one that ... "uuhhh this sounds a little too good to be be true"?

when things are too good to be true 10 times out 10 they are too good to be true.

i dont think i'd ever believe such an ad posted anywhere.

RE: how dumb
By walk2k on 3/26/2008 3:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
this is a bit extreme sure but people post "free" stuff on craigslist a thousand times a day.

RE: how dumb
By psychobriggsy on 3/26/2008 5:11:09 PM , Rating: 2

Not as in: "Come to this address and take whatever you want, oh, there's a horse there too".

That horse thing shows the perpetrator had previously cased the property, and might be local or known to the victim.

There's a difference between "I have a black ash sideboard to give away - call me on ########" and this situation that even a person that is hard of learning could grasp.

By seekerofknowledge on 4/1/2008 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 5
I can see a lawsuit stemming from this.

Planned robbery.
By greylica on 3/26/2008 8:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
For me it´s a planned robbery, instead of any kind of malefic hoax. The person who made this kind of hoax probably was helping the robbery.
Interesting enough is the education of the persons, that simple ignore the owner of the house and took his possessions without questions...

RE: Planned robbery.
By rudy on 3/27/2008 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
I won't make excuses for them but I have seen their mentality. When I went to the compusa sales I saw it. The people who ignored him may have thought he was just another looter who wanted to stop everyone so he could take everything or the good stuff for himself. There are people out there who will make up outrageous lies to stop you from buying something they are interested in it. Often they don't even buy it after that but they would rather do that to buy time. They may have heard that same line before from another person. However if he had shown his drivers license with his address on it and they still didn't believe him then they were just dead set on stealing his stuff.

People are scum
By psychobriggsy on 3/26/2008 9:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
This is awful, and I hope that Craiglist has furnished law enforcement with full records of who posted the advert so that the real perpetrator can be found - although most likely someone posted via some open wireless access point somewhere. If not, then Craiglist should be held accountable as an accomplice to the crime. I fail to see why an anonymous function is required for this type of ad.

I hope this guy's insurance covers everything, but he'll still lose loads of time and effort to get everything back, and possibly won't be able to work either until he has replacements if they took that stuff too. Never mind paying excess and having higher future insurance premiums as well.

I hope the scum that took his stuff get punished as well. I think he's being very generous by letting them return it no questions asked up front. I'd be livid. Glad he took note of the number plates. I somehow doubt he'll be getting much else back.

RE: People are scum
By Regs on 3/26/2008 9:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think the people who took his things, (broke an entering or didn't comply to his requests), should face the full penalty of the law as well.

Error in article
By MrBungle123 on 3/26/2008 11:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
What started as a Craigslist hoax ended with a Jacksonfield, Oregon man losing almost all of his worldly possessions.

"Jacksonfield" should be "Jacksonville"

RE: Error in article
By TomCorelis on 3/26/2008 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2

By Visual on 3/26/2008 12:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
it was theft, plain and simple.
i wouldn't insist that the poster of the ad has done any actual crime though - only the actual looters... but it's just my opinion, i won't argue about this point.

the worst thing in this case is, why did the police not stop the looting? yeah sure, the police cant be everywhere and notice everything in time, but even then.. this is not that different from a gand of robbers just breaking in a random house in the middle of the day in front the eyes of all the neighbours and passers-by. how come none of them alerted the police? how come the victim of this robbery himself did not call the police first thing after he discovered the looters?

and even after some of the looters have left with the stolen items, the police should be investigating this mess, searching the place for fingerprints and any other traces and questioning witnesses and all the usual stuff... is that being done?

RE: heh
By Belard on 3/26/2008 1:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
The lady that gave him a heads up about the horse - kind of should have called the Police as well.

"Come take my health horse" - without proper paperwork?

Now, in the past - there has been some legit "just take my stuff" - but I think the owner was home. And people do post quite a bit "Just take it away" - but its usually for a few itms... not a whole home.

Gotta wonder about the people who took the guys underwear thou...

The owner, neibhors, whoever should have called police when things didn't look right.

But yeah, only a retard crimminal would say "well it says her on this here internet thingy that your stuff is free, so its free" - shows the typical person is just that, a moron.

Thanks for the mention
By TrenchReynolds on 3/26/2008 2:03:39 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for mentioning craigscrimelist. I hate to be a nit picker but the link to my site is wrong. But still an honest heartfelt thanks. :)

By Mithan on 3/28/2008 5:08:12 PM , Rating: 3
They should all be charged with theft and the idiot who did the hoax should get a major prison sentance.

Too harsh? Grow a brain people.

I was Just thinking
By HrilL on 3/30/2008 12:39:11 PM , Rating: 3
So these people broke into his house and came on to his land without his permission. The first thing I would have done is open my gun safe which is way too big for anyone to take without emptying it and loading up a pistole and rife/shotgun and locked it again and went out to the front so people couldn't drive off and get my stuff back. Plus I believe you have the right to protect your belongings and if they refused to leave you would be able to use that right.

That sucks for him
By Marvlarv on 3/26/2008 8:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
I so do hope he gets the stuff back....
well he will probaly not get it back

By Aaron M on 3/26/2008 12:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think that once a few people started ransacking the poor guy's place, the others just started piling on. With so many people participating in the act, no single person felt responsible for his actions. It's like a riot. While many individuals wouldn't, independently, start breaking into stores and smashing cars, these same people may be likely to do so in a riot.

Also, when the guy claimed the stuff was his, the thieves probably just thought he was lying to hoard stuff for himself. Even if he was telling the truth, they still wouldn't stop, due to the riot/herd-mentality mentioned above.

It's scary what people will do, when stripped of individual responsibility.

Glad I live in TX
By catalysts17az on 3/26/2008 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
i would ask nicely once, then i would break out my guns which are locked up and secure (or borrow my neighbors)and fire a warning shot then the second would be for real. Texas laws protect the home owner! i have a copy here somewhere, will post later. also there was the Houston incident that happened about half a year ago where the man shot to burglars who had stolen some things and were running away with the stuff both were gunned down. Texas law protects the home owner to the point were we can chase them down and shoot "if that is the only way we are going to get our stuff back" HOWEVER, if we fire our weapons and they hit an innocent bystander, Texas laws do not protect us. All in all, Glad i live in Texas!

This isn't the first time
By jimbojimbo on 3/26/2008 1:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
I remember seeing on TV years ago about a family who went away on vacation only to come back to an empty house. Because of all the time available and nobody to stop them they took all their windows, doors, carpet, everything. This is such an obvious hoax you'd think Craigslist would have put in filters for key words to notify them of posts like this.

This is a weird one
By thundercade64 on 3/26/2008 6:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
1. The people who looted the man's house are guilty of trespassing and theft. Most likely, they all knew that what they were doing wasn't right, but were hoping to get away with it. If they took something, they are thieves and should be prosecuted as such, craigslist ad or not.

2. I admit I'm not clear on the law here, but I would imagine that - no matter what Craigslist says - it does, in fact, own its website. I don't really know the details of how this case is being handled, or the history of any rulings on cases against CL, but I don't think that simply stating in the TOU that you do not claim ownership of the information gets you out of it - If it actually does, then, I'm very surprised, and the rest what I'm saying is meaningless.

The website belongs to craigslist. Posts appear on the website through mechanisms deployed and controlled by craigslist. The posts are there because craigslist allows them to be there. Craigslist is responsible for that information. The poster writes the ad - the Craiglist website is what actually posts it and makes it available to all.

The fact that Craigslist is a very popular and enormous site (which is how they make money - not by web ads, but by being popular enough to be able to charge people to list certain ads in certain areas, i believe), and monitoring those adds is extremely difficult, does not change anything. That is something Craigslist should be forced to deal with.

In some posts above, there was an example of "If a laundromat had a bulletin board, and that ad was there... ...should they be held responsible??" - Well, yes, yes they should. If your place of business allows ads to be placed anonymously, you need to check them. Your business is directly benefiting by providing that service (it attracts people), it belongs to you, and you are responsible for it.

The same was asked if it was a library. This is tricky because it's not a private business, but are truly public services paid for with tax dollars. However, I still think they need to be checked.

The example about posting signs on a telephone pole is different - in that case, no one is providing a medium. People choose to put signs up on a surface not meant for signs. I don't feel there is an analogous party to Craigslist there. Just because there is a situation where the owner of the 'medium' wouldn't necessarily be responsible, doesn't mean Craigslist isn't in their type of case (i.e. a private business benefiting from their service).

3. The person who wrote the ad is also (obviously) at fault. However, if Craigslist chooses to allow ads to be posted anonymously then they are now part of it.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/26/2008 7:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Craigslist is nothing more than the internet's version of a pawn shop, flea market, garage sale and swap meet all rolled into one. Is it any surprise something like this happened given the average social standing and education of most people who patronize such venues of questionable taste ?

I can tell you the idea of rolling up to someones home who I don't know, have never met, and that isn't even there in order to be one of the first to take his stuff because hes giving it away simply does not appeal to me.

I'm not shocked at all this happened. The fact that they were on Craigslist in the first place to find this ad is proof enough that mindlessly looting and knowingly robing someones household fits with the average psyche of the " bargain shopper ". First off, a more well off person wouldn't have to search for bargains or steal from others to furnish a home.

I can just imagine the excitement of the average Craigslist browser seeing this ad after coming home from picking up their Welfare check. I guess if I was riff raff I would be excited too ! But even AFTER he confronted them they held up their printed out ads as if it was a legal All-You-Can-Loot document. The fact that they even bothered printing them out tells me they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they expected they could be questioned about it and would use it as their excuse.

I don't blame Craigslist. I'm just sad to see this countries shiftless immoral masses continue to infect the Internet with their brand or low class thuggery. Its bad enough to see my fair city transform into a cesspool with a pawn shop on every corner, complete with liquor store of course. But now we have these people roaming questionable " bargain " sites like Craigslist which apparently openly invites houses to be robed and pillaged.

I'm confident he will get most of his possessions back however. One need only to check the local pawn shops.

To sum it up, if they had money they wouldn't need to rob homes. But if they had money, they wouldn't need to be on Craigslist in the first place.

By VooDooAddict on 3/31/2008 6:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if this is true ... or just becoming more common.

I think I saw this same story on TV over a year ago now. Only it was a woman the prank was pulled on, and it was done while she was on a long vacation.

Someone above brought up an interesting point. This could have been an insurance scam.

Did he not own a gun?
By SovietRobot on 4/1/2008 12:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, if I come home and anyone is in my house, on my property, or has any of my belongings and I did not approve of that, they would end up with a gun in their face.

I bet I'd get my stuff back pretty quickly.

By radzer0 on 3/26/2008 7:15:44 PM , Rating: 1
If somebody was stealing my shit i would be running up and down the street playin GTA with anybody taking shit. All u need is one picture of 30 people running out your house with your stuff and i doubt they could do u anything. :)

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki