It blows my mind that criminals whose IDs are known and photos are out there can galavant around the country posting to social media without getting caught. If theft is so easy to get away with,...
It blows my mind that criminals whose IDs are known and photos are out there can galavant around the country posting to social media without getting caught. If theft is so easy to get away with, I’m surprised the incidence rates are as low as they are.
One thing that pretty much everyone in the article seems to agree on is that the person's actions weren't criminal, because the camera was initially handed over voluntarily. That's the bit that...
One thing that pretty much everyone in the article seems to agree on is that the person's actions weren't criminal, because the camera was initially handed over voluntarily. That's the bit that blows my mind. Taken at face value, this means that anyone who rents a car can then drive off into the sunset without a care in the world.
The only thing I can think of is that it would be an open-and-shut civil suit, at which point the full apparatus of the legal system would kick in to recover the money from the judgement. Still weird that it apparently isn't theft, but at least the outcome would be largely sane in that situation.
Note that in the article the person making this claim is the company, KitSplit, who has a financial incentive to misrepresent the law. It's fairly easy, at least in my mind, to argue that this is...
One thing that pretty much everyone in the article seems to agree on is that the person's actions weren't criminal, because the camera was initially handed over voluntarily. That's the bit that blows my mind. Taken at face value, this means that anyone who rents a car can then drive off into the sunset without a care in the world.
Note that in the article the person making this claim is the company, KitSplit, who has a financial incentive to misrepresent the law.
It's fairly easy, at least in my mind, to argue that this is theft by conversion.
Theft by conversion is when one party legally receives ownership of an object and then converts it to their own use in violation of the lawful agreement. Typically this applies when people convert rented or other received property and "convert" it into cash.
There are multiple documented agreements for the terms of use of this lawful agreement. The person who rented the camera is violating these agreements, and therefore has committed theft by conversion.
Now, I don't have the exact wording of the insurance policy, however, and there may be a specific exclusion for theft by conversion (there often is), so it's possible that this doesn't matter as it's not covered.
However, in respect to the analogy of
anyone who rents a car can then drive off into the sunset without a care in the world.
This is just wrong. You can still be charged with theft by conversion and if the value exceeds a certain amount, the charges might be federal. At the very least, it's fraud, which can also be prosecuted.
In fact, there are many instances of exactly this happening, which you can find online, and in many cases the insurance company was forced to pay for the full value of the car to the suing party because they did not include a clause about theft by conversion.
I very much hope you're right - it's always good to find out that the world is slightly less absurd that I'd feared. That said, the police did apparently take KitSplit's side here: It's very...
I very much hope you're right - it's always good to find out that the world is slightly less absurd that I'd feared.
That said, the police did apparently take KitSplit's side here:
I had this guy’s info and pictures, so I tried filing a police report for the stolen equipment, but they told me the same thing: it’s not a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter, and my property was technically not stolen.
It's very possible that they made a mistake, but I know that I'd be disheartened if I were hearing that not only from the company, but from law enforcement as well.
Cops aren't required to understand the law, just be familiar enough with it to enforce the parts that need enforcing. Absolutely. It's a fucked up situation to be in, in all honesty. People often...
Cops aren't required to understand the law, just be familiar enough with it to enforce the parts that need enforcing.
I know that I'd be disheartened if I were hearing that not only from the company, but from law enforcement as well.
Absolutely. It's a fucked up situation to be in, in all honesty. People often think too much about the letter of the law and not enough about the spirit of it. Well, at least in America.
The guy stole equipment from his school, also. Just because the author’s camera wasn’t technically stolen due to some farcical technicality doesn’t mean the person who took the camera and never...
The guy stole equipment from his school, also. Just because the author’s camera wasn’t technically stolen due to some farcical technicality doesn’t mean the person who took the camera and never returned it isn’t a criminal.
Kitsplit didn't come out of this looking so bad in my opinion. They even put up 2,000 without a legal obligation. I may look into their service for renting.
Kitsplit didn't come out of this looking so bad in my opinion. They even put up 2,000 without a legal obligation. I may look into their service for renting.
An interesting way of looking at it. I've taken the opposite view though - since they're effectively "doing him a favour" by covering the costs and it's not actually an obligation there is...
An interesting way of looking at it. I've taken the opposite view though - since they're effectively "doing him a favour" by covering the costs and it's not actually an obligation there is absolutely no way I would consider a service like this. What if my blog post about my experience with it doesn't get as much traction and I end up down £4k?
My understanding was they paid him before he made the blog post. If that's true then I think what they did is laudable. If I misread that then I agree with you.
My understanding was they paid him before he made the blog post. If that's true then I think what they did is laudable. If I misread that then I agree with you.
This seems like it’s becoming more and more common, the media picks up on a story and raises an outrage, the company apologizes (or not), then everyone forgets about it, and this is my main...
This seems like it’s becoming more and more common, the media picks up on a story and raises an outrage, the company apologizes (or not), then everyone forgets about it, and this is my main problem with this case.
Like you said, even worse when the victim has no platform/audience to speak on.
It seems insane to me that the service isn't covering the full cost of replacement. If they're not offering that, then what, they're just a matchmaker and you'd better hope whoever you get doesn't...
It seems insane to me that the service isn't covering the full cost of replacement. If they're not offering that, then what, they're just a matchmaker and you'd better hope whoever you get doesn't just jack you? If their vetting system fails, it should 100% be on the company to fully reimburse.
That would be better for the renter, but it would also expose the company to potential scams where they are on the hook to pay for "stolen" equipment. The advice in the article is to get your...
That would be better for the renter, but it would also expose the company to potential scams where they are on the hook to pay for "stolen" equipment. The advice in the article is to get your equipment properly insured to cover for the voluntary lending case. That seems like the right idea to me. The author also still rents his cameras, just more selectively and with insurance.
As I mentioned, I'd be interested in the service as a renter. I don't think I'd personally rent my expensive equipment though.
It would seem that if they had faith in their vetting system, they'd accept this risk as part of their business. AirBNB makes a point that they'll cover it if someone screws up your rental unit. I...
That would be better for the renter, but it would also expose the company to potential scams where they are on the hook to pay for "stolen" equipment.
It would seem that if they had faith in their vetting system, they'd accept this risk as part of their business. AirBNB makes a point that they'll cover it if someone screws up your rental unit. I can't fathom people volunteering to sign up when they're not protected from "What if the guy just bones out with my stuff" which seems like the most obvious potential problem.
As a customer - of course it'd be worth using. Heck looks like you can just straight walk off with gear and get nothing but a ban from the service. I just can't see why anyone would want to risk their gear.
It blows my mind that criminals whose IDs are known and photos are out there can galavant around the country posting to social media without getting caught. If theft is so easy to get away with, I’m surprised the incidence rates are as low as they are.
One thing that pretty much everyone in the article seems to agree on is that the person's actions weren't criminal, because the camera was initially handed over voluntarily. That's the bit that blows my mind. Taken at face value, this means that anyone who rents a car can then drive off into the sunset without a care in the world.
The only thing I can think of is that it would be an open-and-shut civil suit, at which point the full apparatus of the legal system would kick in to recover the money from the judgement. Still weird that it apparently isn't theft, but at least the outcome would be largely sane in that situation.
Note that in the article the person making this claim is the company, KitSplit, who has a financial incentive to misrepresent the law.
It's fairly easy, at least in my mind, to argue that this is theft by conversion.
Theft by conversion is when one party legally receives ownership of an object and then converts it to their own use in violation of the lawful agreement. Typically this applies when people convert rented or other received property and "convert" it into cash.
There are multiple documented agreements for the terms of use of this lawful agreement. The person who rented the camera is violating these agreements, and therefore has committed theft by conversion.
Now, I don't have the exact wording of the insurance policy, however, and there may be a specific exclusion for theft by conversion (there often is), so it's possible that this doesn't matter as it's not covered.
However, in respect to the analogy of
This is just wrong. You can still be charged with theft by conversion and if the value exceeds a certain amount, the charges might be federal. At the very least, it's fraud, which can also be prosecuted.
In fact, there are many instances of exactly this happening, which you can find online, and in many cases the insurance company was forced to pay for the full value of the car to the suing party because they did not include a clause about theft by conversion.
I very much hope you're right - it's always good to find out that the world is slightly less absurd that I'd feared.
That said, the police did apparently take KitSplit's side here:
It's very possible that they made a mistake, but I know that I'd be disheartened if I were hearing that not only from the company, but from law enforcement as well.
Cops aren't required to understand the law, just be familiar enough with it to enforce the parts that need enforcing.
Absolutely. It's a fucked up situation to be in, in all honesty. People often think too much about the letter of the law and not enough about the spirit of it. Well, at least in America.
The guy stole equipment from his school, also. Just because the author’s camera wasn’t technically stolen due to some farcical technicality doesn’t mean the person who took the camera and never returned it isn’t a criminal.
Kitsplit didn't come out of this looking so bad in my opinion. They even put up 2,000 without a legal obligation. I may look into their service for renting.
An interesting way of looking at it. I've taken the opposite view though - since they're effectively "doing him a favour" by covering the costs and it's not actually an obligation there is absolutely no way I would consider a service like this. What if my blog post about my experience with it doesn't get as much traction and I end up down £4k?
My understanding was they paid him before he made the blog post. If that's true then I think what they did is laudable. If I misread that then I agree with you.
This seems like it’s becoming more and more common, the media picks up on a story and raises an outrage, the company apologizes (or not), then everyone forgets about it, and this is my main problem with this case.
Like you said, even worse when the victim has no platform/audience to speak on.
It seems insane to me that the service isn't covering the full cost of replacement. If they're not offering that, then what, they're just a matchmaker and you'd better hope whoever you get doesn't just jack you? If their vetting system fails, it should 100% be on the company to fully reimburse.
That would be better for the renter, but it would also expose the company to potential scams where they are on the hook to pay for "stolen" equipment. The advice in the article is to get your equipment properly insured to cover for the voluntary lending case. That seems like the right idea to me. The author also still rents his cameras, just more selectively and with insurance.
As I mentioned, I'd be interested in the service as a renter. I don't think I'd personally rent my expensive equipment though.
It would seem that if they had faith in their vetting system, they'd accept this risk as part of their business. AirBNB makes a point that they'll cover it if someone screws up your rental unit. I can't fathom people volunteering to sign up when they're not protected from "What if the guy just bones out with my stuff" which seems like the most obvious potential problem.
As a customer - of course it'd be worth using. Heck looks like you can just straight walk off with gear and get nothing but a ban from the service. I just can't see why anyone would want to risk their gear.