Real interesting. To catch a thief on rural property.

[Molalla1]

Even if he is an old man now he still needs to have record as being a thief. A final felony conviction for theft (a crime of moral turpitude) will haunt a person no matter who they are. Their word is shot legally from then on.

Sure . . .

 

[MossRoad]

More than likely, he recognized that some sleazy attorney could take him to court for violating the perp's rights.
He did take videos without notification that he was under surveillance.
He did go to the perp's house and took videos before cops arrived.
He did post the videos on you tube without permission.

1) he got his stuff back.
2) the sheriff knows now who/where the thief is.
3) The sheriff allowed him to confront the perp.
4) the thief will not try to steal from him again.

and he doesn't need the money. I'd have had him arrested.

Well, in Indiana at least, where the video was apparently made, it's legal to video, photograph or record anything within public view in a public place, like on a roadway. Dashcams would be illegal otherwise.

I worked for a Newspaper for 30 years. We had many cases of this with our photographers. All were upheld. You're allowed to take pictures from public places like streets, sidewalks, and your own property in Indiana. Heck, you can take a picture of your naked neighbor through their unshaded window as long as you aren't standing on their property. The point being, don't do things in public view that you don't want recorded.

Given that, the cell cameras that the victim placed to record his own property and the public street in front of his gate were on his own property. He can record images and voice in Indiana.

He didn't need to get permission to post videos of other people taken from public view without their consent.

 

[lman]

Even if he is an old man now he still needs to have record as being a thief. A final felony conviction for theft (a crime of moral turpitude) will haunt a person no matter who they are. Their word is shot legally from then on.

It wouldn't be a felony conviction, it would be pled down to a Misdemeanor unless he has a previous Theft conviction.

 

[Dftodd]

P.O.S. is right. I could never behave as the young man did. I wanted the thief to hurt. Pay restitution. Maybe go through his house and property and take $1400 worth of his prized possessions.

Back when one of my sons was a teenager, he stole a football flag from the neighbors flag pole.

Neighbor told me someone stole his flag. I noticed the flag hanging on my sons wall the next day.

Son got a good ear bashing, and the option of me either calling the police and reporting him. Or him taking the flag back to the neighbor, apologizing, and offering to do any and all yard work they needed done for the summer for free.

He opted to take the flag back. And then I sat on his butt every Saturday that summer making sure he helped the neighbors out with what ever they had going on.

Not sure if he learned his lesson or not. But the neighbor appreciated it.

I can't stand a thief.

 

[4570Man]

I would have taken the $1400 and prosecuted the thief to the fullest existent possible. There’s nothing lower then a thief.

 

[Molalla1]

I would have taken the $1400 and prosecuted the thief to the fullest existent possible. There’s nothing lower then a thief.

But the young man made a pretty penny for how he handled it . . .

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I went to a jobsite 20 years ago to begin a buildout of what was only a shell. In the back corner was a huge Knaack Job Box loaded full of tools. The landlord said the shell builder left it and it was mine now. Well, I rolled that box around the site for 4 weeks and keeping an eye on it that no one touched it. Sure enough, a guy showed up one day looking for it, and figured it was gone; I pointed to a corner and he lit right up. Turned out he had been in the hospital and couldn't get back for it. Not that I'm a saint... cause if it had still been there when I was finished, it would've gone with me...

 

[dodge man]

I agree, I would want to see him prosecuted. My daughter had a bank card stolen and the police caught the lady pretty easily. My daughter was about 15 at the time so police asked if I wanted her prosecuted, I said it seems pointless if we don’t. I got an insight on how the police feel when he said it probably wasn’t the first she stole, just the first time she got caught. It was enough to be a felony and she plead guilty but did no jail time but got probation and had to pay back the amount to the bank.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I grew up in rural Oklahoma back in the 50's and 60's, and I can't remember crime like that. The worst I recall is maybe someone speeding, swiping a few water melons or maybe driving and buying beer when you were underage. I know that things have changed; there was a recent murder there over drugs. The perp and the victim were brothers, and lived in a trailer. They were not locals, but moved in from the city.

I got the impression that city scum was moving into these rural and doing I don't know what else, but some are making and selling drugs.

 

[plowhog]

I'm not sure what to make of this video. With the first question being: "Is it legitimate?"

The theft victim states repeatedly "all I want is my property back." But he never got back his expensive (functioning) cell camera and turned down the offer of compensation. Really? You have a destroyed expensive camera but refuse compensation needed to replace it?

This looks great for his YouTube channel, portraying him well. Was it staged? . Then a "detective" comments: "Thanks for being a stand up guy." Really? More puff for the YouTube star.

LEO patrol procedure varies by jurisdiction, but there were *many* mistakes made by these "officers" no matter what jurisdiction they were in. Probably at least 10. Maybe things are different elsewhere, but I don't think they are that different.

First thing-- the responding deputies (two) should have immediately separated the husband and wife to question them separately. They didn't do that which is a big red flag.

Why were any "detectives" needed? Unless one of them drove out the search warrant ... I didn't see any purpose for that ... and "three" of them showed up? Three?

The search warrant is signed by a judge. Once that threshold is crossed, things change. In this case, the officers would be required to take custody of the "stolen" property and give the perp a receipt for what was taken. It is no longer their choice of what to do-- the judge signing the warrant is now in charge. Then the judge decides which direction to take it. Once a search warrant is involved, the opportunity to "let's make a deal" has been lost.

Another oddity-- I noticed the "detectives" were providing their labor to load the "stolen property" into the victims truck? Is this a new LEO service-- free labor? While the "victim" stands by, moving nothing, and watching the detectives work? Hmmmm.

Maybe some parts of the story are legit, but there are too many red flags I see to believe it as presented. And just too many LEO mistakes involved. What happens is the "detective" drops the expensive compound bow and shatters it? Answer: the judge isn't going to be very happy .. nor the victim.