iCrime

| Brooklyn, NY, USA | Right | July 16, 2017

(I’m at a local deli run by a man and his son. The owner’s wife is an accomplished painter.)

Owner: “Hey, someone left an iPhone here.”

Customer 1: “Oh, that’s mine.”

Customer 2: “You found my iPhone!”

Son: “Uh… Dad, that’s mine, I just put it down.”

(He unlocks it and shows the photos. It’s clearly his family. Customers #1 and #2 scurry out of the store.)

Owner: “I wonder… [Regular], you still have that broken iPad?”

Regular: “Uh, yeah? You want it?”

Owner: “Yeah!”

(I’m back in next day, and the regular is already there. The owner’s wife is sitting at the back table and carefully painting the back of an iPad.)

Me: “Hey, [Owner’s Wife]. Uh, what are you painting?”

Wife: “John Kerry and a donkey flying a biplane.”

Me: “…what?”

Wife: “Talk to [Owner].”

Owner: “Just you wait.”

(The next day, I come in again, and there’s a sign posted: “IPAD FOUND” with the wife’s art carefully displayed.)

Me: “Hey, [Owner], how’s the iPad scam going?”

Owner: “Five people banned from the store already!”

1 Thumbs
1,137
VOTES
  • Leah

    I… don’t get it. What does the wife’s artwork have to do with it?

    • Joana Hill

      I’m guessing to make it look unique. If someone comes in claiming that the iPad is theirs even with such unique art, they definitely know the people are just trying to scam a free iPad.

      • Leah

        I wondered if that was it, it’s just that normally that kind of identifying feature wouldn’t be advertised. I get that they were trying to trick people, but it just didn’t make a lot of sense in my head. I guess maybe I thought it was too obvious.

        • Joana Hill

          It’s because it’s a uniquely-done picture. I’m guessing the owner probably Googled some ideas to see and that one was either uncommon or non-existent (the possibility of it being uncommon simply because the internet is a weird place). Therefore it doesn’t matter if you advertise it, because it’s very unlikely someone’s going to have an iPad painted with that picture.

          • Siirenias

            My favorite part is that it’s broken to begin with.

        • Chelsea Woods

          The unique feature is advertised because they’re not trying to find the real owner, they’re trying to find thieves.
          If anyone came in and said, “I see you have a lost iPad sign. I’m missing one (describe generic design),” you’d never be able to tell if they’re honest or a thief. But if it’s right there and they say that it’s their iPad…

          And I really doubt any thief would twig that they’re getting lured into outing themselves because the store owner displays the iPad. I worked with plenty of people that did that because they honestly didn’t care if the right person picked it up.

      • Darth Pseudonym

        Right. The unique art is on display to make sure nobody who’s authentically looking for their specific iPad gets caught up in the mess. If an innocent, honest person looking for their pad saw that, they’d immediately say ‘Oh, that’s not mine, I don’t have any art on mine’. So if somebody sees it and says “OH yes, this is mine, with the special artwork!” then you know they’re a thief.

        • Ophelia

          I’ll bet all five of those people they’ve already banned from the store actually claimed the artwork was on their iPad the whole time. I’m sure that’s the identifying statement to prompt the owner to ban them.

    • Nicole Ray

      “Oh, it’s yours? That means you can tell me what the background picture is.”
      “Sorry, you’re wrong.”

      • Michael Chandra

        They’re actually showing the art. So anyone claiming it’s theirs is obviously a fraud.

      • Nightshade1972

        This is exactly why I have a unique folio for my tablet. Most lost-and-found places will make you describe the object before they’ll let you have it. It’s too easy to claim, “Oh, my tablet had a blue/black/brown/some other nondescript color cover on it.” If I lose mine, I can honestly say, “My folio cover looks like an Old World map, and it has a swivel on the back so that I can prop up my tablet with the long side facing vertically instead of horizontally.”

        • Torbjörn Axelsson

          Now I just need to find out where you live, make you lose your tablet and claim it. 🙂

          Well, I suppose charging the one I have is cheaper and easier,.

          • Nightshade1972

            😀

          • MikeM_inMD

            Faster, too.

        • Alexvanzanten

          Mine just has my contact information inside the case do that they can just reach me/identify me. Might be even simpler.

    • Lany Chabot-Laroche

      It’s to avoid the easy way out of “Oh, I lost an iPad, that one looked like it and I thought it might be this one.”

  • Stephen

    So… if I’ve got this right, the owner is trying to get rid of customers through entrapment?

    • Gordon JC Pearce

      Would you want those kind of people in your shop?

      • Matt Westwood

        Money is money.

        • Lany Chabot-Laroche

          But having thieves in your shop can cause you to lose money also.

          • Asiyd

            There is no evidence that they shoplifted or were shoplifters. Two completely different kinds of theft you’re talking about, which have different classifications under the law. Usually someone that will claim lost stuff isn’t the same kind of person that will shoplift from the shop… In fact, a lot of people have the mindset that if you claim a lost item, it wasn’t theft in the first place because the item was abandoned. I’ve known some extremely moral people that have this mindset… rule followers and law abiders to the max, but if the item in question was lost… it’s viewed as free game to them.

          • Gordon JC Pearce

            Google “theft by finding”.

          • Asiyd

            I’m aware it’s a thing. I was just explaining that a LOT of people don’t view it as theft, therefore likening it to a shoplifter is inaccurate. A lot of good, law abiding citizens have done this without ever stealing from a store or an individual directly.

            Also the main thing that comes up when you google that is a book.

          • ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ Dee

            Just because someone doesn’t view it as theft doesn’t mean it’s not theft. Take something that’s not yours is stealing, whether you call it that or not.

          • Asiyd

            The law would disagree in that regard. There are many places that will not prosecute for this, and many others that view it as a civil problem and not a criminal one. Other areas are trying to get cases like this moved into strictly civil courts, because they do not feel police resources are well used in this area.

            Why is it contested? Because that penny you found on the ground and picked up? The thing we have all been told is good luck when we were kids? Some people consider -that- to be theft, and have tried to use the police to “get justice.” … so no, it’s not always theft, and it very much indeed does depend on people viewing it as theft.

          • Stinke Hund

            An electronic device worth hundreds of dollars is not a lost and found penny..

          • Asiyd

            No, but you have to completely define something for the law to be able to come into effect…. I was saying one of the reasons it’s so contested as to whether or not this should be a criminal offense or not is because you have a lot of picky people that would try to press charges over a stolen penny… and have tried to. Tried to sue too. People are not all completely honest, this website showcases that every day with it’s stories.

          • Stinke Hund

            Someone sueing over a penny gets laughed out of court. Someone sueing over a decive worth hundres will be taken seriously . It’s a question of objective value, not ethics.

          • Worldwalker

            Picking up a penny off the ground, which very probably is abandoned (possibly by me, because having my back hate me for bending over isn’t worth 1 cent) and lying about something being yours when it clearly is not are two totally different things. Even if someone somehow convinces themselves that an iPhone on the counter in a deli is abandoned, they still don’t think it was theirs all along; anyone who says so is consciously a liar and a thief.

          • Austin Blessing

            you are not law abiding if you do this you’re a thief

          • Asiyd

            The law disagrees with you in MANY areas. In some, it is flat not a crime… in others, the area wants to get it reduced to a civil issue in order to not waste police resources… in others, it is illegal but the police do not enforce… aaaand in others still, it is illegal and enforced.

            Law abiding means you obey the law of the moment, not what people want the law to be.

          • Worldwalker

            What area do you live in that it’s not a crime to steal anything someone isn’t actually holding on to???

          • Torbjörn Axelsson

            If you pick up a lost penny, your are not a thief by the definition of the law, and the moral definition might vary. Some people would say that you should put that penny in a collection box for the poor to save your soul (immortal or metaphorical, many atheists have very strict personal morals).

            Generally (depending on jurisdiction) you should make “reasonable attempts” to return found goods to the rightful owner. For expensive items, this means turning it in to lost and found or the police. For some items, in some countries, the item will be legally yours if unclaimed for several months. For hard to track items (like small denomination bills without a wallet and coins) you would basically have to see the person dropping it.

            Willfully abandonded items however are yours to do with as you please, the problem is proving that:
            1. They threw that expensive painting away.
            2. They did not throw the painting on the city dump, because trash thrown away in waste baskets etc are city (or whatever institution collects the trash) property.

          • Austin Blessing

            Different jurisdictions take different approaches to lost money, but they all agree that if it is property that can easily be traced back to the owner, like a phone, then it must be returned

            Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

          • Austin Blessing

            Different jurisdictions take different approaches to lost money, but they all agree that if it is property that can easily be traced back to the owner, like a phone, then it must be returned

          • Austin Blessing

            Larceny is defined as the unlawful taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of its use. Shoplifting and claiming a lost item are the same thing. The law actually imposes an obligation on you to turn in a lost item to the police and/or attempt to find the rightful owner yourself

          • Asiyd

            That is not completely true, it depends on your area and Larceny only comes in to play for actual stolen property, not lost property that someone else claimed. They must prove that you intended to deprive the owner of it’s use… which, if you claim a lost item, it is a grey area in proving that. From my research, it shows lawyers have a hard time with these kinds of cases.

            Again… many places are pushing for this to be nothing more than a civil issue, not a criminal one… others have already done so, and others still just plain don’t care.

          • Austin Blessing

            just because hard to prosecute (which you’re right, it is: there is a whole body of case law devoted to what constitutes an appropriate time frame to turn property over to the police) doesn’t mean its legal

            And its not a civil matter

          • Asiyd

            In your area or state, it may not be a civil matter…. in some areas, it is a civil matter. In other areas, it isn’t even illegal.

          • Austin Blessing

            This is a matter settled in common law years ago, any larceny sytatute applies to it

          • Asiyd

            No it wasn’t. Go look it up, the law changes from state to state.

          • Torbjörn Axelsson

            “Common law” is specifically “the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.” (Just google it)

            So it is limited to a single country. Everywhere else in the world there are other laws.

          • Asiyd

            Yes, however this law in particular is not part of it, or rather it is superseded by state’s rights. The states are allowed to enforce or not enforce the laws they decide, and they are allowed to have their own laws within their state boarders. This is one of those laws that the states do not agree upon, just like they don’t agree on legal age of consent, legal drinking practices, marijuana, punishment for certain crimes, etc. etc. Marijuana is a great example… it is illegal federally but legal depending on which state you go to. (I dunno if you’re based in America or not so I figured I would explain.)

            Example: Texas is pretty strict about this and will prosecute. You must try to find the owner or return it to a police station… after 30 days, it’s free to take. However, in California, if you find something and there are no identifying markers or no ID’s, it is free to keep (according to my research), and you are not required to take the extra step to find the owner. New York is just as strict as Texas it seems. Virginia did not even mention theft by finding, yet Kansas has very clearly laid out description of what you must do and what qualifies as theft.

            Each state is handling it differently, and according to wikipedia (yes, I know, this isn’t the best source… however I’m not writing a paper for college) many of them are pushing to have these kinds of cases moved to civil court.

          • LawGeek

            In what state did you attend law school? I did not learn any of the state variations you’re discussing in law school, ( I learned a national curriculum). The common law is as Tor said: it is generally illegal to take mislaid or lost property on the street and not attempt to return it. If it is in a store, the store owner’s rights superceed the finder, but not the owner.

            California law absolutely matches NY and TX law here (See penal Code section 485). States will regularly incorporate common law into statute via the restatements, but that does not mean they are making their own law or vary widely. Unless you can point to a state that actually deviates from common law here, I think I will assume common law generally applies; it is theft to take mislaid or lost property and not attempt to find the owner/ turn it in to the police.

            Police may not enforce it, but that doesn’t mean that it is legal.

          • Worldwalker

            Law School of Wikipedia–the only one you can attend without graduating from a real college yet.

          • LawGeek

            My husband calls it “getting a GED in law”.

          • Worldwalker

            What areas? Please name some.

          • Worldwalker

            Moral people don’t take things they know aren’t theirs because they’re lost; they try to get them back to their owners.

          • Donnell Hanog

            Moral people don’t take things they know aren’t theirs full stop. If you didn’t pay for it, you didn’t make it, and it isn’t being offered to you by the owner as a gift or payment, don’t touch it except to get it to its owner or Lost and Found. The only exception I was brought up to recognise is money in the case of found money that you didn’t see the owner drop and have no reasonable way of finding the owner.

        • Gordon JC Pearce

          I’d rather have my money from honest people.

          • Asiyd

            Have fun finding enough said honest people to keep your business running… in my experience, honest people are few and far between these days.

          • The Chilean Blob

            Funny, in my experience honest people are the vast majority. Sometimes you see what you want to see.

          • Asiyd

            Trust me, I don’t -want- to see the dishonest people. I’d be beyond overjoyed to see people being decent… but I just don’t see it. I’ve even been told off by someone for the horrible crime of…. actually being honest.

          • Kalu-chan

            My mom always told me, you get what you expect. You order food and already believe it’s gonna taste awful? Yeah, it could be the most delicious food that’s even been in your mouth, but to you, it’ll still taste horrible. You expect people to be dishonest, so you notice many dishonest people.

            That, and you only notice things out of the ordinary, mostly because they inconvenience you. That’s why the line at the other register is “always” faster and traffic lights are “always” red. They’re not (duh), but you only notice and remember those cases, not the times your register was quicker or when you had a bunch of green lights in succession.

          • Asiyd

            I guess I just don’t have this particular problem, because I’ve many times had food I expected to be horrible come out and it tasted wonderful. I expect people to be dishonest because they’ve not given me a reason not to, and I’m going to keep myself protected. If they prove otherwise, awesome.

            Your mom’s words are indeed wise, but they are not the word of law, and everyone’s lives are different and everyone has different expectations out of people. You willing to prove me wrong that you aren’t dishonest? Be my guest, completely, and I will rejoice in it. But I’m not going to continue to let myself get hurt by dishonest people by not being aware and ready for it simply because you have not had the same experience.

          • Worldwalker

            Actually, the odds are 2 chances out of 3 that the other line IS faster.

            Given roughly equal line speeds, you have one chance in three of getting the fastest one.

          • Gordon JC Pearce

            So I should just accept that dishonest people that I don’t want in my shop will come in?

            That sort of thinking is part of the problem, and my business is running very well indeed.

          • Asiyd

            Actually… yea you should. Because it’s already happening every single day that you keep your doors open. Sure, kick the people out who make it blatantly obvious… but you’re gonna have to accept the fact that dishonest people frequent your shop… probably every day.

            You can’t tell if the person walking through your door is a murderer, a liar, a cheater, a thief, or whatever. You’ve probably already served several hundred thieves that didn’t take a thing from you. It’s life.

          • Samantha Meza

            But with this idea, you can at least know who the entitled people are. If it’s lost, it’s lost, and not yours. Lost and found works the same way, you don’t get to claim something lost until a certain date.

          • Asiyd

            Sorry but I don’t believe in purposefully setting people up. Just as you don’t get to claim something that isn’t yours, you also don’t get to set people up and claim to still have the higher moral ground. Especially considering a lot of people don’t even consider claiming lost stuff as stealing… not even the law completely agrees on that topic.

          • Samantha Meza

            After a certain period, no? And should I go into any lost and found and start claiming stuff as mine? Decent people don’t claim stuff that’s theirs when they know its not.

          • Asiyd

            I never said it was a decent thing to do. However, yes… decent people -do- indeed do this. There is not a single solitary person on this planet that has not done at least one indecent thing in their lives. I’ve known some of the most law abiding, loving, kind people in the world that see nothing wrong with claiming a lost item.

          • Samantha Meza

            And they are the one’s who’ll be kicked out, law abiding or not. Especially if there’s no rule against said kicking out for trying to claim that which isn’t theirs. The business has the right to refuse service after all.

          • Asiyd

            They indeed do… but we’re back again to the whole concept of them not being able to claim moral superiority for the setup. No one says people can’t set up a trap like this, nor in some areas does the law say it is stealing to take a lost item… but that doesn’t mean I can give either of them a pat on the pack or accolade for it… and as a customer, I may just walk away from a business participating in shady practices such as this, regardless of whether or not I was the one trying to take advantage of the lost and found bin.

            If we look at it from a legal sense… there are a lot of areas where police are not allowed to use entrapment in order to prosecute, as it is deemed a bad thing. Entrapment in the civilian world is just as shady… at least in my opinion.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            As stated above, this isn’t entrapment. Entrapment requires coercion.

            If the police placed a giant diamond on a carseat, in plain sight, then hit and arrested anyone who tried to break into the car. Breaking into the car is illegal, and the police didn’t force you to try and get the diamond.

            If the police threatened to beat you up unless you stole the diamond, then tried to arrest you, THAT is entrapment.

            Seriously, if entrapment worked the way you think it does, police couldn’t go undercover, hold stings, or do half their jobs.

          • Asiyd

            In many areas, entrapment by police is illegal and not admissible in court.

            The definition of the word says you are wrong. I’m sorry everyone keeps trying to argue with the definition. It says, quite literally: the state of being caught in or as in a trap. … that is the #1 definition. If you open your dictionary, you will find that definition. ANYONE. FALLING. INTO. A. TRAP… has fallen for entrapment.

            The legal definition within the dictionary itself says “the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution.” …

            Please stop arguing with me and argue with Mirriam Webster if it’s this big of a deal. I did not create the definitions. I’ve also looked up the legality of entrapment, the LEGAL definition of the word… and the legality of doing something like claiming a lost iPad that isn’t yours. All of them are saying the same things. Not legal in all states (both entrapment and taking lost ipads), some states it is legal, some states dont give a crud, and some are moving to change the laws because it’s seen as too petty. The LAW isn’t even solid on this one, why is everyone so intent on arguing the legality of it with me when the freaking legal system doesn’t even have a clue? XD

          • Worldwalker

            First, please name some of the states where it is legal to claim something that you know isn’t yours.

            Second, this is not entrapment, not by your dictionary definition. I’ll quote it:

            “the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution.”

            Nobody is being tricked. Nobody owns an iPad with that painting of John Kerry and a donkey flying a biplane on the back of it. (or, probably, any such painting!) They know as soon as they see the sign that it is absolutely, positively, not theirs. They know that the store is asking customers if they are the owner of a very specific iPad, and they know that they are not the owner of that iPad. They nonetheless lie and say that they are the owner of that iPad — which they already know they are not. They were not tricked. They knew the situation. Knowing it, they chose to lie, chose to try to steal.

            The last place I lived, when there was a problem with thieves breaking into cars, the cops set up a “bait car” with a purse on the seat, left it unlocked, and staked it out. Then they arrested anyone who went in and grabbed the purse. It wasn’t entrapment. Hundreds of honest people walked past the bait car; only the thieves stole from it.

            Something you read about in the paper all the time: fake prostitutes arresting would-be johns. Police officers pose as streetwalkers and when someone offers them money, he’s arrested. Again, that’s not entrapment. (that’s been gone over in court many times) Like with the bait cars, the person arrested knew everything about the situation that would have any bearing on whether or not he committed the crime, except for the fact that he’d be arrested for doing so.

            It’s not entrapment. Not in any way, shape, or form.

          • naj00

            Great response, Worldwalker.

            A very specific set of parameters must be met for anything to be defined as entrapment. The key word, being “tricked.” You can’t be tricked if to begin with, you already know that what you are doing is wrong.

          • LawGeek

            Miriam Webster doesn’t make the law, the courts do. Entrapment has very specific parameters laid out by case law, and i suggest you review them. I also suggest you review the basics of law – how to use precedent and common law to understand it, for example. As an attorney, it is painful to watch you scold and lecture people who got it completely right.

            This is not entrapment. There is no evidence they would not have committed the crime but for police prompting. There isn’t even police involvement. And yes I said evidence – burden of proof shifts for affirmative defenses.

          • Asiyd

            ….. Your name is LawGeek, you randomly pop up out of nowhere, you have a meme as your icon, and I’ve never really seen you before. I think I’m gonna go ahead and call malarkey that you’re an attorney. I’m sorry, but that is just too suspicious. I don’t claim to be one myself either, mind you…. but I’m a little hard pressed to believe some random online when the tell me they are.

            I’m not going to explain, again, why the definition I used is still correct outside of a legal context. You could drop literally 100% of all illegality from the equation and I would still be correct in using the term entrapment, because it has other definitions besides the legal one. If you cannot understand how the english language itself works, cant understand what I’ve been saying this entire time, and want to get so hung up on that…. well be my guest.

            Several things I researched were on .gov websites themselves. I dunno what to tell you. I’m done arguing this with people, though, it’s utterly pointless. You may reply if you wish, but I’m very very VERY bored with this conversation and really do not wish to get into it again.

          • Asiyd

            Edited and re-replied. Sorry for the premature enter hit.

          • Worldwalker

            This is not entrapment. Look it up.

          • Samantha Meza

            Well, if you owned one, would you let people behave like that in your store? Grabbing every lost item that’s unclaimed for a certain amount of time?

          • Asiyd

            No, I would not let them grab every lost item… but I also would not kick them out of my store. Their money is just as good as anyone else’s. My father was a business owner and had several stores… I grew up learning how to manage a business… and routinely trying to weed out questionable morals like this will eventually ruin your business. Sure, ban the people that steal or break things or are causing you financial arm… but why go out of my way to set traps like this? I wouldn’t learn anything new about people… if you work in retail or have been on this site long enough, you know how horrible people can be. I don’t need to learn it more.

          • Star

            They’re not decent people if they do this. Are you one of those law abiding, loving, kind people? Because it sure seems like it.

          • Asiyd

            Yes. Because speaking about something or defending someone means I’m completely guilty of said thing. You got me, throw the cuffs on officer.

          • Star

            You’re defending bad people, over and over and over, while still calling them good, decent people. So yes, that’s a bit suspicious.

          • Asiyd

            I am defending people because other people are so quick to crucify anyone that doesn’t go with what they believe these days. It’s like no one even cares to look at the other side of the coin and try to understand. Have you never heard of a devil’s advocate?

          • Worldwalker

            I don’t crucify people who don’t believe what I do about politics, religion, etc. Just wrongdoing. And no, I don’t care to look at the other side of the coin and try to understand why someone is a thief, except as much as is necessary to keep them from stealing from ME.

          • Worldwalker

            Saying that thieves are decent people makes me really question your own ethics.

          • Worldwalker

            No. Decent people do NOT steal things. The people who you think are decent people steal things, but that only says something about the kind of people you consider decent. I would never even consider falsely claiming something is mine. Neither would my family, my in-laws, my friends…it’s just not a thing decent people do. We’re no saints, just, y’know, decent people.

            Addendum: decent people follow the rule that it doesn’t matter whose something IS; only whose it ISN’T, if the person whose it isn’t is you.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            The alternate charge to larceny is fraud.
            Okay, you claim you didn’t intend to deprive anyone, as the item was already lost, and so if isnt larceny.

            However, you claimed to the owner you lost the iPad. That’s deception. You deceived in order to receive the iPad. The iPad has value, so you would have obtained a monetary benefit.
            And you obviously didn’t do this by accident, so that’s intent.

            So it fully meets the elements of a charge of fraud, and your defense isn’t valid for that charge.

          • Asiyd

            So go ahead and prove that they did not lose an iPad of their own. Again, that charge wont stick without proof… someone can very easily say “Hey, I did lose an iPad, I was simply looking for it.” … this is why many places are moving to have these kinds of cases moved to civil court. It’s completely a he-said/she-said situation… criminal charges need proof.

          • Carolyn Foot

            But this one has a very unique painting behind it, which is fully displayed. Not possible that someone lost an iPad with the same specific painting.

          • Asiyd

            Yes, however this situation also isn’t something they could call the police about, as they did not hand over the iPad in question… the stolen item kinda has to be in the possession of the thief in order for it to be stolen. So… that is a little moot. We were more talking in general at this point.

          • Worldwalker

            Exactly. That’s the point.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            That’s why they painted the iPad. It is now unique.
            So the person has to prove they lost THAT iPad, not ‘an’ iPad.

            And if they ever owned an iPad, they would have proof of purchase, like a receipt.

            I worked as a fraud analyst, and have presented evidence in court before. I know how it works. That’s why they use ‘reasonable doubt’, not ‘any form of doubt’, because frankly, your defensive arguments just aren’t reasonable or likely.

          • Asiyd

            Yes, I’m understanding that in this particular instance, the painted iPad negates that. Most of the conversation has been about an ipad, not this particular ipad… which, normally I would agree makes no sense… but that’s just where the discussion drifted.

            What do you do as a fraud analyst when the iPad was bought many years ago and there is no receipt, or bought used from a third party?

          • TheWonderRabbit

            You can get a statement from the third party, and then obtain original proof of purchase from the same party.

            If there is no evidence at all though, then you lose. And it’s your own fault for not keeping a receipt for a $800-$1400 piece of technology, really.

            However, with the multiple levels of security, storage, Apple IDs and stock reports, if you cannot get ANY proof you owned the iPad, you probably never did.

          • Asiyd

            … I’m pretty sure people on craigslist are not keeping the receipts for everything they buy over a certain price range, and neither am I.

            So… what you’re telling me is it’s perfectly legal to use the system to actually steal from someone else, as long as the someone else doesn’t have the proof that they bought the item and didn’t actually steal it? That is crazy if so, and that loophole should really be closed. If I’m misunderstanding, please let me know, because… that is kinda disturbing to find out, to be honest XD

            Just because I don’t have the receipt from the $1000 computer that my grandfather bought before he died doesn’t mean I should forfeit all rights to the computer. He didn’t will it to me, it sat collecting dust until a family member told me I could have it. He bought the computer at that price in 2002-2003… He died in 2014. The computer obviously isn’t worth that much anymore, but he did pay that much… that receipt is LONG GONE.

          • Torbjörn Axelsson

            If I lost my tablet, I would just ask them to charge it (if it is out of charge), take out my phone and use “locate”.

            If that is not proof enough that I am the current owner, not much would.

          • Worldwalker

            I’d put my finger on the home button and it would unlock. Or use the security code. Or go home and look up the serial number.

          • Asiyd

            Oooo good idea!

          • TheWonderRabbit

            Okay, first up…
            I am not a lawyer, and am definitely not saying “it is legal to” steak iPads.
            However, in that example. Someone steals your iPad. You report it to the police. The police go to the guy who stole it and he says, “No, I bought this iPad, it is mine.”

            Now he doesn’t have a receipt, but neither do you. So how do the police determine who really owns the iPad?
            It all boils down to evidence. And if you have no evidence you ever owned the iPad, then you can’t prove the person broke the law.

            Remember, justice works on ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If you can’t prove you owned the iPad, you can’t prove anyone else is guilty of stealing it.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            Okay, first up…
            I am not a lawyer, and am definitely not saying “it is legal to” steak iPads.
            However, in that example. Someone steals your iPad. You report it to the police. The police go to the guy who stole it and he says, “No, I bought this iPad, it is mine.”

            Now he doesn’t have a receipt, but neither do you. So how do the police determine who really owns the iPad?
            It all boils down to evidence. And if you have no evidence you ever owned the iPad, then you can’t prove the person broke the law.

            Remember, justice works on ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If you can’t prove you owned the iPad, you can’t prove anyone else is guilty of stealing it.

          • Worldwalker

            Actually, the conversation has been about this iPad — and about you claiming that it’s entrapment to allow people the opportunity to falsely claim ownership of this specific iPad with that painting on it. You might be talking about something else, but we’re not.

          • Worldwalker

            I’m not sure I have the receipt for my iPad. But my fingerprint unlocks it, so it’s obvious whose it is.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            Unless the battery is dead, or someone specifically damages the fingerprint reader.

            Or someone claims you stole their iPad and added your own fingerprints afterward.

            Surely you’d have other proof of purchase though. Did you buy it on card, for example?

          • Worldwalker

            It doesn’t matter whether or not they lost an iPad. It’s obvious that they didn’t lose that iPad, because it had a painting of John Kerry and a donkey flying a biplane on the back of it. That picture was displayed as part of the “found an iPad” thing. There’s no he-said, she-said about it. That was a completely unique, distinctive iPad, one that could not have been mistaken for any other. That was the point.

          • Worldwalker

            It’s not setting people up. Nobody is fooled into doing something they wouldn’t have done if they knew the truth (that the iPad isn’t theirs). They know that from the beginning. Even if they have lost an iPad, it couldn’t possibly be THAT iPad, and they know it.

          • Worldwalker

            The wallet drop experiment proves you wrong.

        • Stinke Hund

          And a thief is a thief. Better to not have those kinds of people around other customers.

          • Matt Westwood

            And a fa$cist is a fa$cist. Better not to have your kind of person in the universe.

        • Worldwalker

          Which is one good reason to not want liars and thieves around yours!

      • ShadeTail

        Do I want those folks to offer me their money so that I can take it from them? Yes. Yes I do.

    • Scott O

      He’s getting rid of the people he doesn’t want there, and you don’t know what entrapment means.

    • John Smith

      It isn’t really entrapment though. Entrapment requires more than simply creating an opportunity for crime. I’m sure there were plenty of people in that deli who didn’t try to falsely claim the iPad.

      • Abigail Hermione Irwin

        EXACTLY. Most self-appointed “lawyers” like to spew out terms they don’t actually understand. I suspect the iPad is just sitting quietly there, doing nothing … the owner is not offering it to people to see who grabs for it. Honest people will say “Hey, somebody left their iPad here!” and give it to the owner, or at worst just walk past it and ignore it.

        And yeah, I work in retail in the overwhelming majority of customers who come into my store have given me no reason to think they’re anything but honest. Asiyd apparently needs to find some better people to hang out with, and at some better places, if his perception is that the vast majority of humanity can’t be trusted.

        • Asiyd

          I would appreciate it if you addressed me directly, rather than taking the coward’s way out and commenting to someone else thinking I wont see it.

          However, thank you for proving exactly what I was talking about regarding dishonesty.

          • Cally

            They used your name, how much more direct can they get? It was part of the comment to John Smith, they didn’t use arch phrases like “some people” or “certain commenters” they used your name.

          • Asiyd

            So what if they used my name? They didn’t comment to be directly, so there was no way for me to receive said message without going through and reading every comment. There is indeed a much more direct method… it’s called hitting reply under -my- name.

          • Cally

            I’m going to agree with the other comment, you need to calm down.

            The person to whom you refer didn’t need to reply to you, mainly because you are obsessively scanning and replying. You have the option to get offended or just respond to the comment instead. We have seen which you prefer.

          • Asiyd

            That’s fine, you can agree with it all you like… just as I can agree with my own comment. Does it really look like I care? If you don’t see a problem with it, that’s just fine. I -do- see a problem with it, and would kindly ask you to get your nose out of business that doesn’t even involve you.

            “You have the option to get offended or just respond to the comment instead” … considering you’re not even a party to the conversation, I’m gonna say you took the option of getting offended. I’m happy for you.

            That concerns me how, exactly, though?

          • Cally

            You are determined to be offended aren’t you?

            As for not being part of the conversation? Really? On a PUBLIC message board? Keep going, sugarlump, you’re making yourself look so good.

          • Asiyd

            So because it’s public, does that mean you also have the right to walk up to two people in public and butt in with your opinion of their disagreement? While I do completely understand the concept of public message boards vs private messages, I don’t agree with your concept that I can’t call you out for taking offense to something that really doesn’t involve you. 😛

          • Cally

            PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD. Put that in capitals because you might just get the clue. Doubt it though. You do know you are having the mick taking out of you?

            It’s hilarious, keep on, sweetiepie, it’s entertaining. And yes, if I thought someone was being an idiot like you are, in public, I’d step up.

          • Asiyd

            That shows where your morals lie… sorry honey pot, but you don’t have the entitlement to run up to random people in public and butt in on their conversations, regardless of it being a public space.

            The mick taking out of me? Sorry, I don’t speak… whatever the heck that is. I’m simply over here shaking my head because you seem very intent on making me see things your way. It’s kinda sad, really.

          • Cally

            See, I’ve stopped reading your words and am just poking you with a stick now, it’s funny.

          • Asiyd

            In that case, I see no further point in continuing to see you around. I wish you the best, but I’m gonna go ahead and block you now, because you’ve shown you have the maturity level of a 3 year old. Bye now.

          • Cally

            I am sad now, you won’t play anymore.

            Boo!

            Oh well, at least you won’t get offended if I use your name elsewhere.

          • ShadeTail

            Yeah, you deserved being blocked. You’re such a childish brat, you can’t resist talking to empty air.

          • Cally

            Yes, here I am doing it again.

            Enjoy it.

            You think my enjoying myself and being silly is such a terrible thing you had to comment, so umm yeah.

          • Flami

            I blocked her a while ago, too.

          • Michael Hughes

            Just as an FYI mick-taking is polite british way to “take the pee” out of someone (pee being substituted for a curse here)

          • Asiyd

            Thank you!

          • Donnell Hanog

            English. “Taking the mick/mickey/[expletive form of urine] out” is basically teasing/joking at another’s expense (I suspect Cally meant ‘having the mick taken out’).

          • Cally

            Sorry, not being nasty, genuinely curious, but what part of my sentence was wrong?

          • Donnell Hanog

            You wrote ‘having the mick taking out’. I’m guessing you meant ‘having the mick *taken* out.

          • Cally

            Aha! Thank you, for the life of me I couldn’t see it. Cheers!

          • Worldwalker

            This isn’t two people talking in public, this is a public discussion — it’s a whole lot of people talking in public. There are no two people here having a conversation with just themselves — if there were, they’d be doing it in private messages. That’s how public forums work: anyone is allowed, and expected, to participate in anything and everything.

            Interestingly, since you seem to think that nobody is allowed to mention you except when replying to your comments, and nobody but the person you replied to is allowed to reply, you apparently think that nobody on this public forum is, in fact, allowed to say your name. Nope. Not how it works.

          • Matilda

            Does it really look like I care?

            Yes it does actually. It looks like you care deeply. If you don’t then maybe don’t obsessively write coment after coment after coment replying to anyone who so much as mentions you, and people won’t get that impression.

          • Asiyd

            Soooo, don’t respond to people that reply to me. Must work great for you 😀

            I care about someone being too cowardly to respond to me to my face. I don’t care if someone takes offense to it, and I won’t be bullied into staying silent because OH NO SOMEONE ONLINE MIGHT DISAPPROVE GASP… I’m absolutely quaking in my boots right now.

          • Matilda

            Please get of the cross, we need the wood for more important things.

          • Carolyn Foot

            It’s not cowardly if it’s literally said in a public forum where you are frequenting and commenting obsessively. It’s pretty clear they’re not afraid of you reading it, as there was no sugar coating or attempt to disguise who they were talking about.

            You actually proved Kalu chan’s point earlier. You see what you want to see. I see someone who is frank, who saw that half a dozen other people already arguing with you and echoing their sentiments, who is on the side having a conversation with someone else and in that conversation, mentioned an observation about you but had no qualms that you were, figuratively speaking, still in earshot.

            I have a moral principle I follow: I don’t say anything behind someone’s back that I wouldn’t be willing to say to their face. That doesn’t mean that every time I say something behind someone’s back I *have* to say it to their face. It just means I’d be fine with them hearing it. I certainly wouldn’t feel the need to lecture them if five other people already are. That’s not dishonesty. But you need to stop viewing the world with $hit-tinted lens.

          • Asiyd

            “People see what they want to see” … Yes, because you are totally not doing that right now with your assumptions of me. You may see whatever you like.

            I will view the world how I am currently viewing it. If you seem to want to believe that it is through a “$hit-tinted lens”, go for it? Not like I can do anything about it.

            I have a moral principle I follow, too: I don’t say anything behind someone’s back, period. I say it to their face. If I don’t care if they hear it, then it’s better they hear it from me instead of someone else.

            What I find most confusing though is the fact that me and said person are having great conversation in other discussions… they don’t seem to have a problem with what I’ve said, so why should you people be white knighting for them?

          • Carolyn Foot

            When I *want* to be purely analytical, I’m pretty good at shutting everything down and just looking. And thinking. It’s like, the only thing I’m good at. Let me have my one ability lmao.

            And it’s fine for you to decide that you wouldn’t say anything behind anyone’s back, but it’s not “dishonesty” or “cowardice”. Dishonesty is not even close – they were not lying, they did not show any suggestion that they were being mean behind your back but nice to your face. It is not cowardice, as that would suggest they were afraid of what might happen if you heard them say it. But they did not obscure their words or their meaning, And they did not send a private message about it.

            And I’m sure you don’t follow your rules 100% either. Do you never speak ill of famous people behind their backs?

            Someone who owes you no loyalty and no friendship is under no obligation to take you aside and kindly suggest to you when you’re being a [email protected] I mean sure that would make them a very nice person, but it doesnt make them “dishonest” or “cowardly” if they voice on a public forum their observations of another user who is already being bombarded with other people sharing the same sentiment. That kind of trust and respect is more commonly expected as the foundation of established friendships, not between strangers acting all bitter on the internet. It’s only “better” to tell something to someone’s face if some good can come out of it. If five other people are already telling it to your face and it’s not doing any good, there’s not really much point in her chiming in as well. What “better” thing could come out of it?

            Lastly, I came to her defense because I would have done the same thing and i stand by that. So you labelling that behaviour as “dishonest” struck me a little bit personally – because I value honesty and frankness, and I immediately saw an example where you were making an incorrect assumption because I know an example – myself – where that behaviour is not dishonest, or cowardly. I have no issues calling you out you out to your face, and if someone else did it before me, I have no issues agreeing with them whether you can hear me or not. I would be inclined to make an effort to tell you if I cared about you and wanted you to be a better person – but if you were just some weirdo – I’d say to people around me “man, what a weirdo…”

          • Asiyd

            What if I don’t want you to have your one ability, huh?! Huuuuh?! XD

            I never asked for loyalty and friendship. Maybe where you’re from, what was done is not seen as dishonesty or cowardice, but where I am, it is. It is seen as dishonesty for the same reason it is seen as cowardice… you did not have the gumption to say it to their face… cowardice comes because you could not say it to their face, and dishonesty because you’re not giving them the full picture to work with. Don’t care if it’s on the internet, we obviously talk to each other past this discussion (as has already happened.)

            If you would have done the same thing? That’s great, I’m really happy for you… you do what you feel you must. You can understand why I will do what I feel I must then, can’t you? I value honesty and frankness as well, which is why I was struck a little personally when I find someone using my name, yet they didn’t even take the two seconds it took to hit reply under my name. I jumped on her because I wouldn’t have done the same thing and I stand by -that-. It’s not frankness or honesty to speak behind someone’s back.

            As for famous people? No, actually I don’t talk about them behind their back. I empathize and usually get more angry with the tabloids making their lives h-e double hockey sticks (REALLY FILTER?!)… because who’s business is it that celebrities decide to dress a certain way, talk a certain way, act a certain way, etc…? More power to them. I only “talk” (using the term loosely) when they have done something truly horrendous and it is merely to say that “I don’t think very highly of that person, and I don’t think I will buy their merchandise”… like when Justin Beiber spit on his fan’s heads or Charlie Sheen knowingly passed on HIV to all those women.

            The closest I have ever come to talking about someone behind their back was either warning someone of a blocked troll on a site (such as Negative Nancy here, simply explaining that they are known for saying very inflammatory comments and to not take it personally), or to my father when I am trying to work out how to accurately word something I need to say to someone else. I have already shut down a conversation regarding this very issue once before.

            Either way: I’m not this terrible horrible awful person that a lot of people are trying so very hard to paint me as. I’m simply sticking up for myself regarding something I found to be unacceptable. I’m sure you have plenty of things that you are unwilling to tolerate in others, even strangers.

            EDIT: THE DISQUE FILTER IS A #@[email protected]#%%$&^*!! … Yea I said it!

          • Carolyn Foot

            Ah I thought about it a little more, and have identified the word you are looking for. It is not dishonest, nor is it cowardly. The word you’re looking for is respect.

            It is disrespectful to speak ill behind someone’s back. It is not necessarily dishonest or cowardly, but it is generally speaking, disrespectful. It might depend a bit on the circumstances and your reasons for speaking about someone behind their back (e.g. trying to gain understanding or assistance about an issue, like trying to discuss somebody’s behaviour with someone else who knows them, in order learn more about them to be in a better position to offer help), but generally speaking if you are speaking ill of someone, not caring if they can hear, but not really.. caring about them anyway at all or how they take it… Generally, it’s considered disrespectful.

            That’s why people generally consider it totally fine to do it to strangers, or to famous people who they know, but not personally. If you see someone acting like an idiot in public, and you whisper to your friends ‘did you see that guy being an @sshole to the cashier? What a horrible person.’ it’s generally acceptable, because a stranger, especially someone displaying some negative characteristics (just for example, rudeness) is someone who you are under no obligation to respect.

            So – Abigail did not respect you in this convo, and you got insulted by that. That’s fine, you can call her disrespectful towards you. I wouldn’t mind that criticism either if I were her – It’d probably be true. Call a spade a spade.

          • Asiyd

            Yanno what, I can accept that. I do still find there to be cowardice and dishonesty there, but I do believe that disrespect is a more appropriate and universally understood concept. I think the cowardice and dishonesty (edited from disrespect, my bad) comes and goes between different regions.

          • Carolyn Foot

            It’s because those other labels are only true if they rest on the assumption that they “didn’t have the gumption”, when it could well be that they did, they just chose not to because they didn’t *care*. And that caring is where respect comes in. Anyway, I’m glad we came to an agreement.

            See, I am good at my one thing. XD

          • Asiyd

            Well to be fair, intent doesn’t matter when it comes to some forms of perceived cowardice. I know where I grew up… you “didn’t have the gumption” from the get go, regardless of your actual intention. It was and is perceived as a bad character flaw rather than a choice made. I have never completely agreed with that particular faucet of the lessons, but yea.

            It makes stepping back and viewing cultural differences simply here in the United States very interesting.

            You’re also good at having a rationed, reasoned discussion, and for that I thank you.

          • Carolyn Foot

            Ah, I think my mum thinks the same way and cultural differences probably do play a part, now that I think about it. But yeah, I’ve always questioned that sort of thing. And idk why but I really enjoy searching for truth … if someone makes a statement or claim, I’m pretty good at analysing it to see if it’s actually true – see if there are any circumstances where it does not hold.. and I like doing it too. Btw, when I was talking about “famous people”, I was not just talking about celebrities – I generally don’t like discussing celebrities either… but I was talking about people like politicians, or even famous criminals. Not everyone likes or cares to speak ill of celebrities, but almost everyone agrees that politicians and convicted pedophiles are fair game. Nomsayin?

          • Asiyd

            …..Yea I can understand that one. Granted, I’m an insanely sympathetic/empathetic person so I tend to try to see the good or try to take defense for criminals or politicians when I can. Sometimes they make the job easy, but sometimes they make it impossible…

            I’ll take back my statement though in lieu of that though… I did talk smack about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when they were both running. I didn’t think either of them were worthy of the position…. I didn’t think anyone running was worthy of the position to be honest…. and my talking was pathetic at best. I think the most hateful thing I said about either of them was “f them”. … I should probably try and right that action of mine in some way… donate to a national park or something.

            It definitely wasn’t a comfortable experience for me, that’s for sure. I usually default to saying something nice if I don’t like them. Like, “….well I mean at least he got some before he went out? I dunno.”
            …. or…. “Well…. yanno… policies aside, I really just wanna hug him.” or “Man, if he wasn’t president, I bet it would be so fun to party with him!”

            I guess you could call talking about the merits/demerits of any politician as talking behind their back, though, if you really want to get down to the brass tacks of it.

            As for criminals? Bweehee I’m a huge fan of Rob D y k e on youtube, I love watching true crime stories… so when I’m talking it’s usually from a purely analytical standpoint rather than the morals of it or whether or not they are a bad person or what my opinion of them is. … I guess that could also be considered talking behind someone’s back, maybe? It’s certainly never positive but it’s also never really negative either… more neutral. I think the furthest I go is when I’m playing devil’s advocate for someone or something.

            (The filter didn’t like the youtuber’s name… WHAT.)

          • Asiyd

            OK I am so sorry about that, my comment is now completed. The filters are horribly annoying.

          • Carolyn Foot

            wait what? did you post another reply? because I don’t see it lol

          • Asiyd

            Yes I did, allow me to grab it for you… stupid disque filters…

          • Asiyd

            …..Yea I can understand that one. Granted, I’m an insanely sympathetic/empathetic person so I tend to try to see the good or try to take defense for criminals or politicians when I can. Sometimes they make the job easy, but sometimes they make it impossible…

            I’ll take back my statement though in lieu of that though… I did talk smack about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when they were both running. I didn’t think either of them were worthy of the position…. I didn’t think anyone running was worthy of the position to be honest…. and my talking was pathetic at best. I think the most hateful thing I said about either of them was “f them”. … I should probably try and right that action of mine in some way… donate to a national park or something.

            It definitely wasn’t a comfortable experience for me, that’s for sure. I usually default to saying something nice if I don’t like them. Like, “….well I mean at least he got some before he went out? I dunno.”
            …. or…. “Well…. yanno… policies aside, I really just wanna hug him.” or “Man, if he wasn’t president, I bet it would be so fun to party with him!”

            I guess you could call talking about the merits/demerits of any politician as talking behind their back, though, if you really want to get down to the brass tacks of it.

            As for criminals? Bweehee I’m a huge fan of Rob D y k e on youtube, I love watching true crime stories… so when I’m talking it’s usually from a purely analytical standpoint rather than the morals of it or whether or not they are a bad person or what my opinion of them is. … I guess that could also be considered talking behind someone’s back, maybe? It’s certainly never positive but it’s also never really negative either… more neutral. I think the furthest I go is when I’m playing devil’s advocate for someone or something.

            (The filter didn’t like the youtuber’s name… WHAT.)

          • Carolyn Foot

            see, the way I view it is: if we’re talking about ‘manners’ or ‘decency’ in terms of how we treat people, there are generally two main principles that cause harm or offense when broken, although the degree of harm and the application of these principles depends on the nature of the relationship. The two principles are: trust and respect.

            Trust is generally reserved for a relationship that is somewhat close in nature. You generally wouldn’t establish or expect trust from acquaintances and certainly not strangers. Trust is something that is expected from friendships, professional relationships, family and romantic relationships, and causes pain when it is broken in those circumstances.

            Respect is a bit trickier, because there’s a lot of different kinds of respect, and for many different personal and cultural reasons people often disagree on who you do and do not need to respect, and why/why not. Many different values come into this, and people also have different opinions on what exactly constitutes respect or how much respect, and of what nature, do you owe people.

            I am of the opinion that generally speaking, respect is earned. Who you are to me does not matter, although losing respect for someone I care deeply about is a lot more .. painful? And the amount of respect I generally afford to those I care about, is a lot higher than the amount of respect a stranger gets (often they get almost zero initially, and it goes up or down depending on how the stranger behaves).

            But the point is, if someone does something truly horrendous, like if they are a criminal and have done a horrific crime, I have no respect for them and so I don’t care about reserving nasty opinions – they have not earned and do not deserve my respect. Same goes with politicans – who we elect so that they fulfil a duty to safeguard and take care of us – they also must earn our respect by their actions, and if they fail, it is valid to no longer respect them, and any forthcoming criticism is fair game.

            It’s a bit trickier with people we are close to, but I still abide by the same principle – I will only badmouth you and not bother to tell you upfront about my concerns if I have lost all respect for you. It doesn’t mean that I’m a coward – I don’t care if you heard I said it. It just means that for whatever reason (although if I don’t respect someone, you can rest assured that I took my time coming to that conclusion and I believe that there are good reasons), I don’t respect you anymore (or perhaps I never have), and so I don’t care enough about helping you do better. I probably have discerned that such efforts of mine would be pointless, or, given the nature of our relationship whatever it may be, or given how much you hurt me through your behaviour, it is not my responsibility to tell you how to behave.

            That’s my take on the whole thing. There are many people who I lack respect for, or even completely abhor – and I believe I am valid in my judgements of those people, and I have no qualms in speaking ill of them. Essentially, they deserve it.

          • Worldwalker

            People reply to your comments. In those replies, they may mention other posters.

            People also reply to other people’s comments. In those replies, they may mention you.

            Neither is cowardly; that’s just how forums work. Not every post mentioning your nick has to be written directly to you. And yeah, most of us do read all the posts, not just the ones replying to us.

          • Matt Westwood

            You’re quite welcome to f*** off if you don’t like our manners.

          • Asiyd

            Oh no, Matt is angry again. Whatever shall I do?

          • Matt Westwood

            Like I said. F*** off.

          • Asiyd

            Lol ok Matt.

          • Zack Wagoner

            Quite simply, Abigail wasn’t replying to you, she was replying directly to John Smith. Nothing dishonest or cowardly about that.

          • Asiyd

            Then proceeded to drop my name and speak ill of me. I find that to be very dishonest and cowardly.

          • Zack Wagoner

            In a public discussion that you have full access to.

          • Asiyd

            That matters why?

          • Zack Wagoner

            Nobody’s hiding anything from you.

          • Asiyd

            That is completely beyond the point.

            Look, I get it, you don’t view it the same way I do. That’s awesome. You’re free to think however you want on the issue. The same goes for me, though.

          • Zack Wagoner

            How is it beyond the point? They posted on an open discussion that you have full access to and are actively participating in. You have various ways of finding said post, from scrolling through the comments to subscribing to the discussion. How is this even remotely cowardly or dishonest?

          • Asiyd

            They didn’t have the courage to send it to me directly. They did not have it in them to hit reply to my name. For all they knew, I may have never run across the comment (and most doing this wish for this to happen)… however, I did. You don’t have to view it as cowardly or dishonest if you don’t want to. I’m not trying to force you.

          • Worldwalker

            You’ve also said that only the people who you have replied to are permitted to talk to you.

          • Worldwalker

            Or, y’know, hitting “search” for his/her/its own name.

          • Worldwalker

            BECAUSE THAT’S HOW FORUMS WORK. That’s how forums are supposed to work. That’s how forums have always worked. (“comment thread” being equivalent to “forum” in this usage) This is a group discussion, not just a place where multiple two-person discussions are taking place.

          • Zack Wagoner

            Check the various notification options of your Disqus account; if you’re not getting notifications/emails, that’s on you.

          • Asiyd

            There is a way to change the settings so you can see when someone mentions your username in someone else’s comment?

          • Zack Wagoner

            Yep, and to get an email whoever someone comments on a discussion youve subscribed to.

          • Asiyd

            Please tell me how to change this setting, as I was not aware this was even a thing.

          • Asiyd

            Ok I actually went and looked at my settings. Everything is check boxed and I am supposed to be receiving notifications if someone mentions my name in a comment… however, I have not. I am assuming this requires a special way of tagging like using the @ symbol on facebook. So… I’m going to have to respectfully debunk this as being my fault at all. My ducks are all in a row, and were before any of this started.

          • Zack Wagoner

            Did you subscribe to the discussion?

          • Asiyd

            You mean I have to subscribe to every single discussion that happens on all the NAR websites in order to see this? Sorry, no, that is very convoluted and not at all reasonable.

          • Zack Wagoner

            By default you can choose to subscribe to individual discussions, or you can choose to automatically subscribe to any discussion you participate in. That’s quite reasonable if you are actively participating in a particular post and don’t want to scroll for new comments.

          • Asiyd

            That doesn’t solve the issue at hand at all though, so…

            However, I will remember that for the future, as it will make keeping up with discussions easier. Thank you 😀

          • Flami

            Hey, you can @ someone in Disqus comments, but only if they’re already participating in the discussion.

            @asiyd:disqus

          • Worldwalker

            Control-F.

          • Alyssa Higgins

            You. Need. To calm. Yourself.

          • Asiyd

            Actually no, I don’t. I’m quite calm until someone starts talking about me behind my back instead of addressing me directly.

            Bite me. 😀

          • Alyssa Higgins

            Honey I can talk to you if you’re that lonely

          • Asiyd

            Sweetcheeks, I don’t need your friendship, I have plenty of people I can go to. So sorry if it bothers you that I stick up for myself, though. I’m not a doormat ;P

          • Alyssa Higgins

            I can see, Buttercup! And it looks good on you! Looks terrible on Cally though.

          • Asiyd

            Considering you’re doing exactly what I had a problem with to begin with, I’m going to end this conversation with you….. besides, what business was this of yours anyways? Take care.

          • Cally

            Oh no someone used my name and I’m not in a tizzy or all upset about it. What shall I do?

          • Asiyd

            That is your choice. If you have a problem with my morals, well…. that’s really a personal issue, isn’t it? Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to continue living my life by what I think is right. I’m terribly sorry if that bothers you, but I’m not going to change 😛

          • Cally

            You know the long screes, the whining and self pity, you are just making yourself look ridiculous and you know what?

            It’s hilariously, great fun.

          • Asiyd

            What… the statements that I’m not going to change anything just because some fusspot on the internet has their panties in a wad that I won’t bow to their way of thinking? …. Yeeeea sure.

          • Cally

            Poke, poke.

          • Matilda

            I’m actually shocked they (Hey Asiyd look over here! I’m talking about you. Just so you know) let you have the last word.

          • Cally

            He can’t see it he blocked me, this makes me giggle more. I don’t ever need to have the last word, unless it’s funny to see them get all worked about it.

          • Matilda

            Yeah it’s not. It just seems incredibly important to him thought.

          • Xodiac

            I find it amusing that he’s so terribly offended that people are talking about him “behind his back” when he himself used the analogy of walking up to a conversation and butting in. That’s talking about someone when they’re standing right there listening, not behind his back at all.

          • Asiyd

            Lol is that what it is to you? Every argument online comes down to who has the last word? Wow, that has got to be incredibly frustrating, and must waste ungodly amounts of time. Having to respond to every idiot that decides to cast a shadow over your notifications no matter what they say… could be LOL, you dont care, gotta respond…. You must live a very tired life… and a very immature one.

          • Matilda

            Hello pot, my name is kettle.

          • Asiyd

            Hello blocked user, my name is Asiyd, and I’ve no tolerance for childish behavior. Goodbye.

          • Cody Ranney

            “…I’ve no tolerance for childish behaviour.” I’m starting to think you forgot to put mirrors in your house. Also I’d love to block you because you ruin every thread I lay my eyes upon but watching you squirm for no reason is more fun honestly. Btw blocking or replying negatively to this commment will just further prove how hypocritical that statement of yours was.

          • Asiyd

            ….Go ahead and block me? I don’t really care? That’s kinda what the function is for… so you don’t have to see people that bother you anymore. It’s really sad that people tend to think it’s some evil thing these days.

            EDIT: … Actually I find it incredibly childish that you actively keep me unblocked simply because you get some weird enjoyment out of… what… tormenting yourself? I don’t really understand your logic, considering you say I ruin every thread you lay your eyes upon. If I’m that terrible, then please do yourself a favor and block me. I’d hate to think you’re coming online every day just to make yourself frustrated or irritated. For your own health, do it.

            Just a word of advice about the block button: You’re not going to agree with what everyone says. All you do is create more misery, frustration, and stress… you’re never going to change opinions, your opinions don’t matter to the other party involved, and they are never going to change who they are… me included. This isn’t sarcasm, it’s being brutally, bluntly honest and trying to impart some empathetic wisdom. The block button is there so you can enjoy a stress free time online… which is what everyone is looking for when they come online: a way to de-stress. You deserve that just like anyone else, and if I’m causing stress? Please do block me. It’s what the button is for.

          • Cody Ranney

            *looks at watch* so do you even have a job? You have an awful lot of time to write these lengthy posts

          • Flami

            It IS Sunday…

          • Cody Ranney

            Ah, excuse me, I lose track of the days sometimes, I work a minimum wage pretty much every day.

          • Flami

            Ah, understandable.

          • Asiyd

            You do realize it’s Sunday, right? …A Sunday during the summer. Most college students are at home, and we have days off from work too, I promise.

            Besides, it takes all of, what… 10 minutes? Yea, I’m pretty sure I have the time to spare.

          • Cody Ranney

            I lose track of the days sometimes, but regardless, I’m sure you having something better to do than rant at people for about 7 hours a day, unless you don’t which is sad.

          • Asiyd

            I have plenty of things -better- to do… Which I have done throughout the day already. However, I enjoy using this website to de-stress. I enjoy reading the stories. As I’m browsing this website, I’m going to respond to people that reply to me. Not a foreign concept. I can’t help it if it takes you all day to write out a handful of paragraphs to other people, but it really doesn’t take me that long, especially if I’m checking back for more stories or checking the comments for other discussions that weren’t quite so hostile. Can’t help that you guys have been peppered throughout.

          • Cody Ranney

            You’re going to respond to people that reply to you, so if I just randomly stopped, you’d stop? Also would you reply to something even if it was as meaningless as “ajdiwhdudajc ponies js bc jaijanska” I’m genuinely curious now.

          • Asiyd

            …. Honestly? I’d probably just respond with “……..uhh what?” or just “…?????” and leave it at that. But yea, knowing me I’d probably reply. Heck, I might even ask if they got hacked or if a toddler got hold of their computer, because the latter happens to me sometimes 😛

            Also… yes, I’d stop if you stopped. I’m not here to argue with people, despite what you want to think… granted I would probably stop before then, but you said you were genuinely curious. I’m not in the game of getting the last word in, I have nothing to prove to you. As a matter of fact, if you decided right here and now that you wanted to have a reasoned discussion (like now), I’d gladly engage with you in a very friendly manner. I have many times admitted that I misjudged someone and apologized for harsh spoken words.

            It’s very simple to understand: if you’re rude to me, I’m probably going to return it to you. If you are nice, I’ll be nice. If you’re nice and I’m rude, call me out on it and I’ll apologize, as I’m not perfect at reading things online. If I’m wrong about something regarding facts, educate me respectfully and I’ll GLADLY change my beliefs, and I’ll thank you for it.

          • Worldwalker

            Ah, you’re a college student. That explains a great deal.

          • Asiyd

            Yeeeaaa I’m gonna go ahead and block you. The way you’re routinely seeking out every single comment all in a row like this is very creepy.

          • Worldwalker

            I’m reading through a thread started days ago and replying to posts as I come to them. For people who don’t have the time to watch the thread and read every post when it’s posted (e.g., not college students) that’s how it works.

          • Worldwalker

            Not tormenting himself. Making fun of you.

          • Star

            You’re absolutely hysterical. Calls people childish for getting the last word, proceeds to block someone so THEY can have the last word. Priceless.

          • Asiyd

            That’s not at all why I blocked them. I blocked them because all they could come up with is “Hello Pot, meet kettle.” … and I’m not in the mood to deal with people being smartass children.

            As you can see from other people, they can indeed still comment while blocked. I just simply won’t see it, which is my right. I’m sorry if blocking someone offends you. Feel free to not block people. I will continue to block people.

          • Rachel Schmachel

            If you’re enjoying the conversation, then feel free to ignore this comment. If not, can I give you a piece of advice? Just block, don’t reply. There’s a lot of people on here just looking to fight. They’re not worth your time.

          • Asiyd

            I’ve noticed that, and have been utilizing the block button more than I ever have in the past. Thank you for your kind words though, I’ll try to keep it more to the forefront of my mind… I’m glad someone else can see the hostility in the comment section of this website. It’s comforting. I admit I don’t help things but… jeez man. Thankfully I got most of the real trolls like Negative Nancy.

          • Rachel Schmachel

            Best thing about disqus is the ability to block Nancy 🙂

          • Asiyd

            RIGHT?! Holy crud I was so happy when I realized I could.

          • Star

            If that’s what it had been about, you would have just blocked them and been on your way. But no, you had to say something first.

            Seeing as I don’t keep track of who blocks who, I’d have no someone could still comment. Block functions are supposed to, yanno, block people. I don’t care who you block, I just pointed out the hilarity.

          • Asiyd

            Nah, I’m just taking the time to respond like a decent human being. It’s rather rude to just completely ignore someone right off the bat. I’m not going to just blanket block every single person I have a disagreement with, that’s beyond childish.

            The reason I tell them I’m blocking them? They can still reply and see my posts, so… I figure I’d give them the common courtesy of letting them know so they don’t have to waste their time sitting there waiting for a response… which I know some of these people have been doing due to rapid response time. Yanno how I can tell they commented? Because it tells you with a message that says “this user is blocked” in the place of every comment they make or made in the past.

            Again, if you have a problem with the way I conduct my own personal affairs… I can’t help you.

          • Worldwalker

            Oddly, you are the one who has their panties in a wad because someone else didn’t do things the way you (and, apparently, only you) think they should have.

          • Alyssa Higgins

            I usually grab a coffee and pin cute cupcakes on pinterest and move on w my life

          • Cally

            I usually just reply like a grown up when someone uses my name and I notice, it wasn’t even that bad of a comment in the first place. This idiot is hilarious but my gods he loves the sight of his own words.

          • Alyssa Higgins

            Yay I win

          • Asiyd

            Congrats? Have a great day.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            “Behind my back, in a public internet foruk that everyone, including and especially me, can see.”

            That isn’t behind your back then, is it mate?

          • Asiyd

            It is when I’m not receiving the notifications. I’m baffled by how many people think it’s such a hard concept to actually press reply on my name and address me directly when speaking of me. I’m also wondering why you guys give so many craps about it.

          • Worldwalker

            Because sometimes we’re replying to something ELSE and it happens to include something about your (or me, or Matt Westwood, or the King of Siam). That’s also part of how forums work.

          • Worldwalker

            Everything in a public discussion, like this one, can be considered IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE. Okay now? Because that’s how it works.

          • AsaeAmpan

            I get that you are exceedingly stupid and ignorant little one but if someone wishes to comment to someone else and it happens to include you, it’s stupid to make 2 comments or comment to you when it doesn’t matter.

          • Worldwalker

            People are allowed to reply to other people’s comments here, not just yours. And they’re even allowed to talk about you.

    • Serabeth

      I mean, he owns the store. It’s his right to choose who he does and does not want as customers. If people don’t agree with his methods, they can boycott the store. But it should be his decision.

      • Shouldernubs

        I guess? I mean it’s his store he could smear honey all over the walls if he wants.
        If he’s trying to choose his customers, he’s likely a control freak with control issues in other areas of his life as well.

        • Worldwalker

          I’m a website designer. There is a would-be customer who I won’t do business with.There is every evidence (such as him bragging that he’s done it to other people) that this customer will stiff me. Smart businesses do choose their customers — maybe not as overtly as this, but they do

          • Shouldernubs

            yea, as a massage therapist, I have choosen not to continue working on a couple different people before.
            I see your point.
            I’m not sure it makes since for a cafe tho – but now that I’m rereading this, I think it’s likely that the whole thing was more light hearted and gag like then we’re all taking it the comments. Maybe he was only doing it one day and getting some laughs.

          • Dsru Bin

            Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to detect customers like this before they owe you money? These are the same type of people that would claim that a found iPad is theirs, even if it isn’t.

            https:// notalwaysright. com/ refilled-with-lies/

          • Shouldernubs

            Well, I’m not sure what you mean by customers ‘like this’. I never said why I stopped seeing them. They did not owe me money.
            Anyways if the point of your comment was to make me see that it makes since for a cafe to choose customers in this way, no, I still disagree.

          • Dsru Bin

            What do you think about this story: https://notalwaysright.com/the-gift-of-friendship/79289/

    • Calan Gardiner

      By that logic, having your tv stolen after leaving the doors unlocked is entrapment.

      • Asiyd

        Nah, but in some areas you can be prosecuted for leaving your doors unlocked and “asking for it” …. No crud, I was furious the first time I saw it.

        • Worldwalker

          Name one of those areas.

      • Lord Circe

        Or if you called a name for someone you knew by face, and then banned some rando who walked up to try and claim it was theirs.

    • ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ Dee

      Just the dishonest ones. I wouldn’t want them in my shop either.

    • xXNamirXx

      they have every right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY (non discriminatory) reason. Not like they’re filing police reports every time, they’re just saying ‘stay tf out my effing shop’.

    • TheWonderRabbit

      Entrapment is when you coerce someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not.

      There is no coercion here. These people are just liars and theives. The owner is not forcing them to try and steal the iPad.

    • richhart

      Providing opportunity is not entrapment.

    • Zania Sovijarvi-Spape

      No, they’re trying to get rid of *thieves* through entrapment. Even if, as some commenters seem to think, trying to take something that has been found is not theft (which it damn straight is and calling such people “moral” is ridiculous) -I’d simply not want such people near me, even if they were paying customers. Whatever happened to “do unto others?” How badly would it mess up your day if *you* lost your phone, with all the data? If you find an orphaned phone lying on the ground, you call the last number dialled to ask whose it is and return it, if its locked take it to police. Anything else makes you a disgusting human being. (And I can stand behind that, as I’ve taken some trouble to reunite a lost phone with its owner).

    • Stephen

      ….that’s a lot of reaction for the word “entrapment”.

    • Worldwalker

      It’s not entrapment. Not tricking them into committing a crime they normally wouldn’t; just giving them the opportunity to commit a crime if they wanted to.

    • Dsru Bin

      Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to detect customers like this before they owe you money? These are the same type of people that would claim that a found iPad is theirs, even if it isn’t.

      https:// notalwaysright. com/ refilled-with-lies/82468

  • NessaTameamea

    I.. don’t get it. What if someone really lost their iPad and is asking about it in this store? Will they also be banned?

    • Lany Chabot-Laroche

      Only if they claim it has John Kerry and a donkey flying a biplane on the cover.

      • NessaTameamea

        Ah okay, that makes sense.

    • Cerys Robinson

      Only if they then claim that the uniquely painted iPad is theirs.

    • Jennifer Smeltzer

      I think it’s more, people trying to claim THAT iPad as theirs when it’s not.

    • Worldwalker

      Only if they say they lost an iPad with a painting of John Kerry and a donkey flying a biplane on the back. That’s the whole point.

  • NessaTameamea

    Weird way to treat customers though. If you have a questionable morale you don’t get service? With this tactic you will only get the ones actually showing their bad behaviour. What about the people who don’t openly show their character? You could serve child molesters and neo Nazis without knowing.

    • Lany Chabot-Laroche

      You can’t remove every bad apple, but removing some is still better than none, no?
      I can see a few advantages to having fewer liars and thieves in your customer base.

      • Lesleanne

        isn’t this kind of like entrapment though?

        • Deadpool

          Whoa. It’s like looking in a mirror.

          • Moon

            Chat Noir:wow.
            Chat Blanc:MEOW! *Crawls into a 📦*

          • Xodiac

            Scary, isn’t it?

        • Lany Chabot-Laroche

          That was a terrible movie.

          Also, it sorta is, but entrapment is for law enforcement and criminal charges. None of which applies here.

          • Asiyd

            Not really, it’s also defined as simply being caught in a trap. The definition has two meanings, one for criminal prosecution and law enforcement, and one for regular civilians.

        • Scott O

          It’s as unlike it as you can get, being that it isn’t, so no.

          • Asiyd

            en·trap·ment
            inˈtrapmənt,enˈtrapmənt/Submit
            noun
            1. the state of being caught in or as in a trap.

            2. the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution.

            According to the definition of the word… yes, it is entrapment. The owner -set a trap- to catch would be thieves. Thieves got caught in said trap and were banned from the store, which is the “prosecution” in this case.

          • schwarherz

            Nope.

            prosecution
            [pros-i-kyoo-shuh n]
            noun
            1)Law.
            a) the institution and carrying on of legal proceedings against a person.

            b)the body of officials by whom such proceedings are instituted and carried on.

            2) the following up of something undertaken or begun, usually to its completion.

            The law one is what applies here

          • Asiyd

            This is why I put the word “prosecution” in quotation marks. I was likening it to the punishment that was dealt out… hence I was not using it in it’s full definition form… which means it did not need the definition added. Putting a word in quotation marks when you are not using it as a direct quote means you are taking the definition loosely, or using it as a explaining factor.

            Considering they did not call the police (or have any legal precedent to call the police), this issue is NOT a law based decision, and was instead based on civilian interaction… the definition still applies to both situations.

          • Mechwarrior

            I think you should look up “entrapment” as defined by the US legal system rather than the dictionary.

          • Asiyd

            I have. I understand it has a legal definition. Perhaps you should look up how the english language functions. We ROUTINELY pull words from the true origin and use them in various every day situations. As long as the root definition is followed (which I have done), it is correct useage.

            A good example of this in action is the b word (edited for stupid filters)… … The definition of the word is:

            1.a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.

            2.
            informal
            a difficult or unpleasant situation or thing.
            “the stove is a b-word to fix”
            synonyms: nightmare; More
            verbinformal

            1.
            express displeasure; grumble.

            Now, we all know the definition as a female dog… but we routinely apply it to a female human who is being “difficult or unpleasant” or use it to “express displeasure; grumble”, even though a human is not a thing, but a person…… By your logic, we are using the word incorrectly… however if we break apart the definition, we aren’t.

            As you can see from MY posting of the very definition… entrapment has two definitions… the legal definition is actually the second definition of the word. If you set a trap, and someone falls for said trap, you have engaged in entrapment. The legal definition of the word was formed BECAUSE of the civilian definition of the word… not the other way around.

          • Mechwarrior

            Except that we were talking about the crime of entrapment, in which case the legal definition would actually be the only relevant one.

          • Asiyd

            1. Entrapment is not a crime, even if it’s dishonest

            2. The original discussion was from one guy saying that this is not entrapment. According to the definition, it is indeed entrapment, just not the law enforcement variety.

            …I’m very confused as to why both definitions wouldn’t be relevant though, as both definitions are covered if you’re using the legal sense… as for when you aren’t? The basic premise can still apply. IE: setting a trap in order to trick someone into committing a questionable act for the sole reason of being able to ban them from the store.

          • Mechwarrior

            Since the original question was obviously about the law enforcement variety, other definitions aren’t relevant.

          • Asiyd

            No it wasn’t. The original question was talking about how this is a weird way to treat customers. Then someone asked “Isnt that kind of like entrapment though” to someone saying that they can see how this would be beneficial. Someone THEN responded saying “No, entrapment must be done by law enforcement” …. then it snowballed from there.

          • TheWonderRabbit

            If you’re not talking the legal definition, then it’s not relevant at all.

            To use the dictionary definition, the owner ‘entrapped’ the theives in a trap of his own design…

            Using the word ‘entrapped’ doesn’t change anything, it just elaborates on what he did. It is purely factual.

            And therefore not relevant to the discussion, which seems more related to whether he was ‘right’ or not.

          • Donnell Hanog

            Entrapment, in the legal sense, is *very much* illegal, which is why the fruits of it are not admissible in court and can even get charges thrown out depending on the severity.

          • Worldwalker

            Meaning 1 generally refers to non-legal-oriented uses, such as getting stuck in something physical: mud, quicksand, a collapsed building … even that guy who made the news for locking himself in with an ATM he was servicing. That kind of stuff.

            Meaning 2 is the legal-oriented one: 2. the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution.

            Nobody was tricked. They knew the iPad wasn’t theirs. Therefore, it was not entrapment.

            Seriously, how were they tricked? By deciding for themselves that if they lied, they’d get a free iPad instead of a ban?

          • Donnell Hanog

            Except that tricking someone into committing a crime involves more than merely providing an opportunity. I’ve had reason to ask in the past. This is what the lawyer I asked said. Stings and traps like this are not legally entrapment.

            For example, an undercover providing the opportunity to commit the crime of soliciting a prostitute’s services would not be committing entrapment by standing there looking pretty and asking lonely-looking passers-by if they are looking for something if they start getting curious. If the would-be john takes the bait, it is because he wanted to commit the crime in the first place, not because she tricked him into it. She did nothing more than provide an opportunity.

            Now, if she were to say, “Hey, why don’t you gimme some money to [term for intercourse]? We can be real quick and no one will ever know!”, that would be entrapment.

            The difference is subtle, but, in the former, it was up to the wannabe john to get the idea to solicit her for ‘services’ and act on that. This is not entrapment, as, while the point was to catch someone in the act, the onus is on the criminal to take the bait. It is not being offered or suggested that the criminal commit a crime. The opportunity is there, but it is not being pointed out or presented as such.

            In the latter case, the undercover planted the idea in the victim’s head to commit the crime, and even went so far as to claim they’d get away with it. This is entrapment, as the bait is basically being shoved in the victim’s face as an opportunity, and they are being encouraged to take it. To use OP’s post, it would be as if the owner went up to the would-be thieves as said, “Hey, you should claim that iPhone as your own.”.

            Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

        • LordOfMantas

          No, it is not. As stated below, entrapment must be done by a member of law enforcement, and it is not enough to simply give someone opportunity to commit a crime, as done here – there must also be an element of coercion. Remember, entrapment is defined as someone committing a crime they would not otherwise have done, so there needs to be proof they were ‘pushed’ into it. Claiming an iPad that was ‘stolen’ is yours is not being pushed into it; it is mere opportunism.

        • Lord Circe

          Nah. They’d have to be going up to try and tell customers to claim the iPad for that to qualify.

        • Worldwalker

          Not at all.

          The thief has all the necessary facts to decide on whether or not he or she will commit the crime, with the exception of whether or not they will face consequences (being arrested, banned from the store, laughed at on the Internet, whatever) as a result.

          They know the store is asking for the owner of a specific iPad, with a specific unique painting on it.

          They know they are not the owner of that iPad.

          Knowing these two things, they choose to lie and claim that they are the owner.

          The fact that they think the results will be getting a free iPad, instead of getting banned from the store, doesn’t change anything. They knew what the facts were, they chose a course of action based on those facts, but the outcome wasn’t what they thought it would be.

          • Lesleanne

            thank you, that makes perfect sense 🙂

    • deadringer

      Kiddy fiddlers and neo Nazis have to buy their tortellini somewhere. As long as they are not dressed like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and brandishing a kitchen knife I suspect they are most welcome in most establishments.

      • Asiyd

        I’ve never really understood the mindset behind barring certain people from regular establishments… As much as I hate child molesters, if we’re going to release them from prison then we need to allow them to live their lives in (reasonable) peace. If you aren’t willing to allow them to buy the food they need to survive at a bare minimum, then you shouldn’t have allowed them out of prison… because obviously the threat is still there. If they are so dangerous that you can’t even fathom letting them into a normal store, then they are too dangerous to be in society.

        As for neo nazis… while they are butt holes, they are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. It seems a little dumb that we as a country believe in freedom yet police people’s beliefs to the point of wanting them to not be able to enter a store because of said beliefs…

        Don’t even get me started on how we treat all other types of crime, even the minor things. God forbid someone isn’t completely perfect in this country, you wont be allowed to get a job… even if it was a mistake as a kid. I’m losing faith that this country gives a dang about it’s people… seems more like they care about looking moral and feeling moral.

        (Reposted because apparently “[email protected]” and “a55h0le” are horrible enough to be caught by the filters)

      • NessaTameamea

        That was kinda my point but I guess I worded it badly ^^
        It shouldn’t matter to the owners who you are or what you do in your spare time as long as you don’t harm the business.
        What they do here is sending out a message of “no matter what you want here or if you are a nice person overall, if we don’t like your nose you’re not welcome”
        I don’t like to have to pass a test to be deemed worthy of service in a store.

    • Worldwalker

      If you’re an overt thief, yeah, they don’t want thieves in their store. From a business standpoint, this is a good thing.

      Just because they don’t catch all types of bad people doesn’t mean that it’s not a good idea to ban some of them, the ones they can catch.

      Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you don’t do something because it is only 75% successful, and you don’t want anything that’s less than 100%, then you’re throwing away that 75% right there. People don’t clean up one thing because they don’t have time to clean the whole garage, so nothing ever gets cleaned up at all.

  • Vulpis

    Enh…not going to say anything against the owner’s right to do this. I’m sure his competition appreciates the extra business. This is Brooklyn anyway…small delis like this are all over.

    • AsaeAmpan

      Thieves deserve to be banned from all stores, if you’re taking offense you’re probably as bad as the attempted thieves.

    • heymoe2001

      NO SOUP FOR YOU!

  • ShadeTail

    This is just dumb. Lying so you can trap people into *not* giving you their money?

    • AsaeAmpan

      I’d rather not have people who would steal something if they had the chance in my store IMO. That includes idiotic little fools (that includes you moron) who defends them.

      • ShadeTail

        I’m not defending them, twit, I’m laughing at you for cutting off your nose to spite your face. You run your store so people will give you their money, not so that you can drive people away with your smug self-righteous lying. But hey, if you choose otherwise, then that’s your prerogative. And since you’re happy to lie about an iPad, chances are you’ll lie about the quality of your products as well. So I’ll go to stores run by people more trustworthy than you and give them my money instead, and you can pat yourself on the back and pretend you accomplished something worth being proud of. Win-win.

        • Dsru Bin

          And since you’re happy to lie about an iPad, chances are you’ll lie about the quality of your products as well

          Exactly: Since you’re happy to lie about an iPad, chances are that you’ll lie about the item you purchased and demand a refund.

          • ShadeTail

            Except that I didn’t lie about the iPad. *You* did. I just heard your story, listened to you laugh at your own “cleverness”, and decided that a store run by you can’t be trusted.

            BTW, nice double-standard, blithely dismissing your own dishonesty while looking down your nose at other people’s.

          • Dsru Bin

            And yet…here are five customers who DID lie about the iPad. If they’re going to lie about an iPad, I don’t want them as customers. You won’t buy from me if I lie, and I won’t sell to you if you lie. See how this works?

      • heymoe2001

        There are signs posted all over the place (since I live near the beach) that say “No shoes, no shirts, no service.”
        Are they cutting off their noses to spite their faces?
        There are restaurants that require men to wear ties and jackets.
        Requiring a standard of customers is not a bad thing.

    • Ophelia

      It’s not a lie. The sign says “iPad Found.” It’s not telling anyone to come take it or to claim it as theirs. All it means is that someone found an iPad, and I’m guessing the iPad itself is in plain sight nearby. Everything else is merely suggested or implied.

      The only way that sign could be a lie are if the object is not an iPad (which it is), and if it had never been discovered (which it isn’t). Even though someone just outright handed it to the owner, that can still be an act of finding something by SOMEONE.

      • ShadeTail

        Except that the iPad wasn’t “found”. It was freely given to them by a customer who didn’t want it anymore because it was broken. The story is quite clear on that point. So yes, they are lying by claiming it is a lost-and-found item.

        • Donnell Hanog

          Not really… They didn’t say it was lost, only that it was found. And an incredible find at that, an iPad with an owner willing to donate it to such a use.

          Either way, though, you must be one of those people who cry foul about stings, too, or about To Catch a Predator (is that show still a thing, by the way? Haven’t had cable since 2012.).

        • Ophelia

          Sure it was. It’s just not found by the store owner, but by the original owner. They found it at the store wherever they bought it. The message is “iPad found,” not “I found an iPad.”

          • ShadeTail

            I’m trying (and failing) at not rolling my eyes at you. That is utterly ridiculous reasoning, because they are clearly saying that the iPad is a lost-and-found item. And even if I accepted your reasoning, which I don’t because, again, utterly ridiculous, the sign is still dishonestly misleading and therefore, by any reasonable definition, a lie.

            Seriously, stop trying to deny that the store’s blatant dishonesty is blatantly dishonest. If you think it’s justified, than just own that rather than try to wriggle out of it.

          • Ophelia

            I would still say it’s not dishonest–it is deceptive and it is misleading, but it’s not dishonest, as it technically contains no lies. I think the owner carefully worded the sign this way. Is it actually in the lost-and-found area though? I thought they just put it on a counter or a table somewhere.

            It is like one of my former retail jobs that had signs around the store saying stuff like “Jeans $7.99” within an image of an orange tag, meaning they were $7.99 only if there was an orange tag attached to it (which very few did and usually they sold so fast most shoppers had never seen an orange tag there before). The normal price for the jeans was not indicated anywhere. Is it deceptive and misleading? Definitely. Is it dishonest? No.

          • Dsru Bin

            Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to detect customers like this before they owe you money? These are the same type of people that would claim that a found iPad is theirs, even if it isn’t.

            https:// notalwaysright. com/ refilled-with-lies/82468/

  • Patrick Mccurry

    Good. I despise thieves and liars. It’s best to weed them out before they cause bigger problems and the business money and sanity.

  • Geki Gangar

    So this guy can ban people he doesn’t like from his store but when a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake for a certain event….
    Double standards as usual

    • Gregory Slightly Exiled.

      because he’s banning attempted scammers and thieves meanwhile the baker you’re oh so subtly referring to is discriminatiing because people are gay or bi.

      • Zack Wagoner

        Please don’t feed Geki.

      • Asiyd

        Geki is a known troll that says inflammatory things about gay people for the specific reason of getting a rise out of people. They are the real definition of the word “troll”…. yanno, the non mythical definition XD

      • Michael Bugg

        You make it sound like the store owner refused to sell someone a simple sheet cake–and that there’s no other baker on the planet who could make said cake. What he refused to do is to create original artwork (specifically, a wedding cake) to celebrate something that goes against his cherished beliefs.

        Do you think a gay sign-maker should be forced to create promotional material for the Westboro Baptist Church? If not, then you should respect the rights of Christians to likewise turn down work that goes against their morals.

        • heymoe2001

          The fallacy with that argument is that the same baker probably has never inquired as to whether or not the cake is for a first wedding. Someone who professes to hold those “beliefs” so strongly would, of course, understand that second marriages are an abomination.
          They don’t ask what the bride or groom is wearing, they have no problems selling, making or delivering the cake on a Saturday.
          These people who profess to believe things so strongly, don’t actually. They are just full of hate.

    • Yup, like being gay is the same as being a thief.

      • Asiyd

        Geki is a known troll, don’t worry what they say. They literally do it for the reaction and nothing else.

        • Yikes, I should have known better! Can’t believe I feel for that. Brain was on vacation.

          • Asiyd

            Nah you’re cool. I feell for Geki several times before I finally figured it out. Geki is a clever troll… sometimes they post normal things to throw you off. 😛

    • Worldwalker

      I know, DNFTT, but posting for the lurkers:

      He’s banning people who have demonstrated a willingness to steal. That willingness to steal is a direct threat to his business.

      it’s not about whether they’re Democrats or Republicans, gay or straight or bi or neither, young or old, white or brown or black, or anything else except for one thing: they have tried to steal something in that store.

      No business wants people who have tried to steal something there in their place of business. If that baker had banned someone for reaching into the case and trying to swipe a cupcake, they would have been perfectly right to do so.

    • Ilya

      Scammers are not a protected class. Homosexual people are.

  • Vira Vandom

    That’s Slytherin levels of clever, right there.

  • Marisa Maichel

    Best story ever

  • Adrian Mckeehan

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I really want to see the artwork

    • Siirenias

      Heck yes

    • Star

      Definitely.

  • Vyrmis

    Is the owner’s name Gord? Is he Canadian?

    • Adam BB

      The Gord has been reborn.

      • Michael Bugg

        All hail the Gord!

        • Doom Shepherd

          You all have restored some of my faith in humanity.

          Now at 2%.

    • Xlsfd

      I know who you are referring to, but didn’t Gord own a video game store?

      • Chris B

        Yes, in Canada many years ago. But sometimes he would set up “traps” for wanna-be thieves and related worthless customers. Like putting a Playstation’s empty shell out with a note inside making fun of whoever stole it. Funny guy.

    • Chris B

      Door’s to your left.

  • Denton Young

    That’s actually really clever.

  • Alexvanzanten

    My wife once dropped her iPhone running for the bus, when she realized she run back and at first couldn’t find it.. until an old lady picked up her unique phone case, she saw her phone in her hand. Despite having her picture on the lockscreen she had to wrestle the lady for the phone while the okd lady was treatening to call the police, offcourse my wife called her bluff but people go crazy for this kind of stuff.

  • Fiona Caroline Messenger

    Despite some further posts here, I am really really confused as to the story and the outcome – I don’t know what the heck is going on. Must be thick, sorry.

    • Dsru Bin

      Owner found an iPhone (that was actually his son’s). Two different customers tried to scam the owner by claiming that it was their iPhone. Owner then got a broken iPad and had custom art painted on the back. Then posted a sign that the iPad had been “found” and showed the custom art. Anyone who tried to claim the iPad was clearly a scammer (as it was actually the owner’s iPad) and was banned from the store.

      • Fiona Caroline Messenger

        OK. Why do this?

        • Dsru Bin

          In an attempt to weed out scammers. If they’re willing to lie about an iPad that can easily be proven to to be theirs, they’re probably also willing to lie about the purchase/product/service/etc., and the owner doesn’t want to deal with that type of customer.

  • Caron Trout

    I worked in a bank operations center and Security found my brand new nano. I described it perfectly, right down to the case it was in. The officer said another bank employee had tried to claim it. She was obviously disgusted with the other person. It’s so comforting to know that a thief works in operations at Big Blue.

  • Nicole

    My iPhone was stolen during NYCC two years ago. I had spilled coffee all over myself and changed into a dress in the bathroom in the back of the VIP area – which only photo/press and VIP had access to – and without pockets, left it sitting on the toilet roll dispenser. I ran back less than 5 min later, and it was gone, and we all tried calling it over and over and it was already shut off. I logged into Find My iPhone, locked it down and put my partner’s number as the call number, put a message on it, pinged it a few times and then went back to the con and tried not to cry all day.

    At 8 pm that night my laptop lit up and started pinging like crazy in room, marking a place in the Bronx, and my partner’s phone started ringing. Turns out, a cleaning woman had taken it and shut it off and then panicked when she got home and turned it on and saw it locked and pinging her location. She told me she had turned it off to “save battery” and I asked why the h*ll she hadn’t left it on and answered the ringing, or at least taken it to security?! Thieves are the worst. But she met me at the subway the next morning to give it back, then scurried off. Thank goodness.

  • Menace

    I gotta admit…this was pretty lame.