[séamuis]

I don't think I alluded to a pawn shops mode of business is to buy stolen goods, and I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. a pawn shops business is simple. they don't want to simply hold your items, they want to sell your items. they offer the option of 'pawning' as a method of procuring items to sell. thus, selling of goods is how a pawnshop earns its money, not through the act of pawning itself. however, a transaction of pawning isn't a completed transaction between the person pawning the goods and the pawnshop, until the goods are either paid in full to be returned, or the ownership of goods is forfeited by non-payment. this is different from a direct purchase in many fundamental ways including the pawn shop owner being able to chose in such transactions wether he/she wants to record any personal information of the seller, or make any attempts to find out if the goods are stolen or not, as a requirement of purchase. this is required in the act of pawning to be able to actually make a contract between the pawnshop and the person pawning goods. this however, isn't necessary in a direct sale to the pawnshop. once the transaction is made the sale is over and there is no ongoing contract between the pawnshop and the seller. since we don't know what kind of information, if any the pawnshop owner recorded or required in order to directly sell the items, we cant say to what measures the pawn shop owner took to protect himself. but what I am getting at, is since there is no ongoing contract between the pawnshop and the seller, the pawnshop owner has no reason to make sure the seller is legitimate and the goods aren't stolen, and the seller has no reason to provide these details because the seller has no obligation to the pawnshop and has no direct ownership of the goods once the purchase has been made. since a pawnshop owner opens his doors to direct purchasing alongside pawning, they should enact measures to make sure they aren't purchasing stolen goods, by at the very least, making sure you get a proper ID and personal information on the seller before buying. ebay does this and it is a big help in curbing the sale of stolen goods. if this were a pawn and not a direct sale, you can bet the pawnshop would not agree to a pawn contract without these as its essential to the finical safety of the pawnshop.

it may be an assumption, but what would you bet the pawnshop didn't ask for any form of ID or make any attempt to verify the identity of the seller or the goods being sold before purchasing. since the pawnshop clearly couldn't provide any information on who the person was by name, address, etc. Im willing to bet they didn't even ask for these things to be provided. and if this is the case, its likely precisely because it was a direct sale and not a pawn. therefore, I feel that the pawnshop owner can't be considered a victim.

I will retract my view only if I can see further details that shows the pawnshop made an effort to record and verify the identity of the seller and the legitimacy of the goods being sold. this means that the pawnshop owner even if given a fake ID and phone number should have verified the legitimacy of the personal information given before purchasing.

I feel these measure are essential in protecting yourself and pawnshop owners are capable of protecting themselves in this manner. if they chose not to, it is not rigt to consider them a victim because they refused to protect themselves from scrupulous transactions. (and that seems to be the case here). what would you be willing to bet, if the pawnshop owner asked to have the sellers ID and personal information verified before purchasing, the thief would have taken his business elsewhere? and when he did, the pawnshop would have in one move protected themselves and their business from being a victim. knowing the possibility of being victim comes with the type of business you chose to operate in, and not protecting yourself properly from this means you cannot make a claim to be victim, because you had prior knowledge and understanding of the very real risk of that happenng. its this understanding of the nature of your business practice that denies you the possibility of being a victim, especially if you make little or no attempt to protect yourself.

---

Last edited by séamuis; 01-11-2012 at 09:01 AM.

[Wheatfield]

I understand what you are saying here Gene, but I still think the original owner should get their property back without having to reimburse the pawn shop (or an unwitting private buyer). Even though they don't generally buy known stolen goods, pawn shops are in a business that is vulnerable to this kind of thing. They (or anyone who buys stuff off of the street) willingly take the risk and sometimes they are going to lose out. In this way, they can be considered a "victim" but the solution is not to victimize the real property owner all over again by making him pay for his own property a second time... it is to enable the pawn shop to recover their money from the thief (seizure of his property, garnishment of prison wages, whatever). I realize this may be difficult, but again, that is a risk the pawn shop (or Joe Blow on the street) takes when they buy easily disposable, high value property.

Mike

It seems to me that as soon as you make the owner of a stolen item buy it back from a pawn shop (or anyone else other than their insurance company if it's paid out), you have set a legal precedent that the act of theft is a de facto change of ownership.

[MRRiley]

...
it may be an assumption, but what would you bet the pawnshop didn't ask for any form of ID or make any attempt to verify the identity of the seller or the goods being sold before purchasing. since the pawnshop clearly couldn't provide any information on who the person was by name, address, etc. Im willing to bet they didn't even ask for these things to be provided. and if this is the case, its likely precisely because it was a direct sale and not a pawn. therefore, I feel that the pawnshop owner can't be considered a victim.

I will retract my view only if I can see further details that shows the pawnshop made an effort to record and verify the identity of the seller and the legitimacy of the goods being sold. this means that the pawnshop owner even if given a fake ID and phone number should have verified the legitimacy of the personal information given before purchasing.

I feel these measure are essential in protecting yourself and pawnshop owners are capable of protecting themselves in this manner. if they chose not to, it is not rigt to consider them a victim because they refused to protect themselves from scrupulous transactions. (and that seems to be the case here). what would you be willing to bet, if the pawnshop owner asked to have the sellers ID and personal information verified before purchasing, the thief would have taken his business elsewhere?

Actually the story says the pawn shop got the seller's info... which really means besides being a thief the seller was an idiot. LOL

[séamuis]

Actually the story says the pawn shop got the seller's info... which really means besides being a thief the seller was an idiot. LOL

but the article states that the police believe they know who the thief is, not that they actually know. that means that either the thief wasn't the one who sold the items (he sold them to someone else, who then sold them?) or the pawnshop owner didn't make an attempt to verify the identity of the seller. if the seller is indeed the same person that stole the goods and the personal information they have on file at the pawnshop directly matches the identity of the seller (and the thief) then you could claim the pawnshop as being inside the scope of victim only if you can prove that the pawnshop made an attempt to verify that the personal information provided matched that of the provider. (not just that they got lucky enough to deal with someone stupid enough to actually provide proper information) if this is the case, then you can claim the pawnshop did take necessary measurements to protect themselves. but that would require the thief being really stupid. (not, of course out of the realm of possibility). but thats really hard to believe, and I'm inclined at present to believe that the pawnshop merely recorded information given and made no attempt to verify, and thats not good enough to protect themselves from being a victim. having delt with pawnshops before though, I'm inclined to believe the pawnshop made no attempt to verify information given and took it at face value to make a quick sale. because asking for information and telling the seller you need to verify this information are two different things.

if it were a case of the pawnshop actually did, then I would in the end at least say the owner is a pretty foul person by not returning stolen property, because the thief should by law be held responsible for repaying the pawnshop (as mike stated) not the actual owner of the stolen property.

---

Last edited by séamuis; 01-11-2012 at 09:33 AM.

[Parallax]

If the private person buys the goods and did not know they were stolen, they would be considered a victim of the acts of the thief. If they know they are buying stolen goods, then they are part of the crime. Let's take the word "pawn shop" out of the equation, because people here seem to assume pawn shops buy stolen goods. What if you saved for two years to buy a used car, then bought it and found out it was stolen and the registration was obtained with a bad VIN? (this happens more often than you think) Would there be any question that the person who paid hard earned money to a thief was a "victim?"

There's a difference here, Gene. Pawn shops know (or should know) the risks. Though they don't generally intentionally buy stolen merchandise, they know that they are prime targets for those attempting to sell it. They may still be technically victims, but in the second or third cousin sense.

[GeneV]

I understand what you are saying here Gene, but I still think the original owner should get their property back without having to reimburse the pawn shop (or an unwitting private buyer). Even though they don't generally buy known stolen goods, pawn shops are in a business that is vulnerable to this kind of thing. They (or anyone who buys stuff off of the street) willingly take the risk and sometimes they are going to lose out. In this way, they can be considered a "victim" but the solution is not to victimize the real property owner all over again by making him pay for his own property a second time... it is to enable the pawn shop to recover their money from the thief (seizure of his property, garnishment of prison wages, whatever). I realize this may be difficult, but again, that is a risk the pawn shop (or Joe Blow on the street) takes when they buy easily disposable, high value property.

Mike

They do not have to pay the pawn shop if they prove it is their property and it was stolen. Under Utah's statute, they don't have to pay for it if they cooperate in prosecuting the thief. If they had to pay for it, then either they couldn't be bothered proving the facts or there is something else going on.

[séamuis]

They do not have to pay the pawn shop if they prove it is their property and it was stolen. Under Utah's statute, they don't have to pay for it if they cooperate in prosecuting the thief. If they had to pay for it, then either they couldn't be bothered proving the facts or there is something else going on.

wasn't it mentioned though that the option of paying, was to get the items back as soon as possible?, not as only option of getting the items, just an immediate one. since they haven't yet actually caught or prosecuted anyone for the crime, the pawnshop owner is thus still the lawful owner of the goods. maybe the person who's photography equipment was stolen needs that equipment to run a business? that could possibly make the theft victim lose otherwise earned revenue, on top of the loss of stolen equipment. the next question you'd have to ask then, did the owner have insurance on the stolen items?

[vonBaloney]

It seems to me that this is the function of insurance, and that the property owner shouldn't have to do diddly-squat except file a claim. Since this person didn't just want "camera gear" back, but they wanted their particular camera gear back they had to buy it back per the laws of the state. But if they were insured, then their insurance company should pay that cost.

[GeneV]

wasn't it mentioned though that the option of paying, was to get the items back as soon as possible?, not as only option of getting the items, just an immediate one. since they haven't yet actually caught or prosecuted anyone for the crime, the pawnshop owner is thus still the lawful owner of the goods. maybe the person who's photography equipment was stolen needs that equipment to run a business? that could possibly make the theft victim lose otherwise earned revenue, on top of the loss of stolen equipment. the next question you'd have to ask then, did the owner have insurance on the stolen items?

I think you have hit the nail on the head, there. They just don't want to wait and go to the effort to prove what happened.

[GeneV]

There's a difference here, Gene. Pawn shops know (or should know) the risks. Though they don't generally intentionally buy stolen merchandise, they know that they are prime targets for those attempting to sell it. They may still be technically victims, but in the second or third cousin sense.

All victims may not be created equal.

Still, even if they know they are targets, how does that make them not a victim? If I walk down La Rambla in Barcelona with a an expensive camera around my neck, I have read (and been told by locals) that I will be a target. I still did it because it is one of the most interesting places in the city to photograph. If my camera had been snatched, would I no longer be a victim?

By the way, this is a case I worked on this morning (for a party other than the alleged thieves). One wonders who the victim was. Suspect wondered if bait car a trap

[Wheatfield]

It seems to me that this is the function of insurance, and that the property owner shouldn't have to do diddly-squat except file a claim. Since this person didn't just want "camera gear" back, but they wanted their particular camera gear back they had to buy it back per the laws of the state. But if they were insured, then their insurance company should pay that cost.

There wasn't any mention in the news article that the photographer was carrying insurance on the equipment.
If she was burgled, and can prove original ownership of the gear via bills of sale with the serial numbers on, or some other means, if the equipment isn't returned immediately, then there is something wrong with the law.
If she decides to buy the equipment from the pawn shop, what does she have to do to get her money back? Sue the pawn shop, take the pawn shop to court?
This law would appear to protect pawn shops from having to do due diligence regarding proving the legitimacy of the people selling to them at best, at worst it is actually enticing pawn shops to employ people to do B&Es to get expensive goods into their stores.

[séamuis]

I still did it because it is one of the most interesting places in the city to photograph. If my camera had been snatched, would I no longer be a victim?

completely depends on if you took that information and used your own common sense and awareness of your surroundings to make any attempt at thwarting theft of your camera in a place that you knew it could likely happen. things like not carelessly leaving it hanging over your shoulder, being aware of the people around you, keeping your hands on it at al times, knowing it was showing but not always in use, etc. wether you are a victim (at least as I see it so take that with a grain of salt) solely depends on your (if any) efforts to thwart that, knowing you could be. its just not as cut and dry as you seem to try and make it out to be.

[séamuis]

There wasn't any mention in the news article that the photographer was carrying insurance on the equipment.
If she was burgled, and can prove original ownership of the gear via bills of sale with the serial numbers on, or some other means, if the equipment isn't returned immediately, then there is something wrong with the law.
If she decides to buy the equipment from the pawn shop, what does she have to do to get her money back? Sue the pawn shop, take the pawn shop to court?
This law would appear to protect pawn shops from having to do due diligence regarding proving the legitimacy of the people selling to them at best, at worst it is actually enticing pawn shops to employ people to do B&Es to get expensive goods into their stores.

I completely agree here, and thats why I have a hard time seeing the pawn shop owner as a victim, when as you say, they don't have to do due diligence. thats precisely the point I have been trying to make, so thanks for saying it much better than I have been capable of doing!

[vonBaloney]

There wasn't any mention in the news article that the photographer was carrying insurance on the equipment.
If she was burgled, and can prove original ownership of the gear via bills of sale with the serial numbers on, or some other means, if the equipment isn't returned immediately, then there is something wrong with the law.
If she decides to buy the equipment from the pawn shop, what does she have to do to get her money back? Sue the pawn shop, take the pawn shop to court?
This law would appear to protect pawn shops from having to do due diligence regarding proving the legitimacy of the people selling to them at best, at worst it is actually enticing pawn shops to employ people to do B&Es to get expensive goods into their stores.

The law does seem screwy, but it is what it is. Bottom-line is she was stolen from and if she is not insured then she is going to be buying back equipment with her own money either way. To have to buy back her own stuff is a slap in the face, but doesn't really change the basic scenario. (If not for the pawn shop, it is very unlikely her stuff would have ever been found at all -- at least all in one place.) Hopefully the pawn shop sold it back to her at the price they paid for it and not at a mark-up!

[GeneV]

completely depends on if you took that information and used your own common sense and awareness of your surroundings to make any attempt at thwarting theft of your camera in a place that you knew it could likely happen. things like not carelessly leaving it hanging over your shoulder, being aware of the people around you, keeping your hands on it at al times, knowing it was showing but not always in use, etc. wether you are a victim (at least as I see it so take that with a grain of salt) solely depends on your (if any) efforts to thwart that, knowing you could be. its just not as cut and dry as you seem to try and make it out to be.

I suppose you may have your own personal definition of "victim," but I don't think Webster includes the requirement that the person took adequate precautions against an unfortunate circumstance. Victim - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Nor do legal definitions that I've seen. OVA: Definition of Victim In the legal world, I think it is pretty cut and dry that you are a victim of a crime even if you aren't careful.