2 more stolen cues recovered! Tank you God for stipid criminals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cueaddicts
There are obviously some pretty stupid people here that had trouble with 4th grade reading comprehension......shame.

brandoncook26 said:
Some of these responses are making me ashamed to say I'm involved with pool at all. I swear I have no idea how these people have made it this far in life.
Click to expand...

You should be wondering why "some people" here are so willing to make such huge assumptions.
 
gutshot said:
Mike Brown probably fired an air barrel at Robert and Robert got the stolen cues instead of the $2000. Now Robert thinks he is "due" $2000, when in fact he is not due anything in the eyes of the law. It's gambling! Try and sue Mike or call the cops and see how far that would get you.

If Robert was smart, which it seems he is not, the money should have been posted. Instead he took stolen cues as "payment" and tried to extort Bill out of money he thought he deserved. If he was dumb enough to take stolen cues, he should have been at least smart enough to unload the cues to someone other than the original owner! Oh wait, he's a stand up guy trying to do the right thing! :D

Well played Robert, well played! :thumbup:

Kelly
Click to expand...

It sounds like you were there and witnessed it. Why didn't you report it to the police?
 
risky biz said:
After seeing how this has evolved from your original post I think it is likely you are characterizing Robert Frost and Eric Denston in a very unethical manner. You are portraying them as an active participants in the original theft. However, it appears that Robert Frost won these cues in a money game in which he had $2,000 at risk which he would have had to pay if he had lost. After discovering that they were your cues he simply wanted to be compensated for what was due him. If he was a "stipid criminal", as you characterize him, he could easily have sold them to someone else for much more.

His thanks for offering to let you recover your cues, which you "stipidly" left randomly lying around where they could be stolen, is that you apparently obstinately refused to compensate him and instead convinced the local police to charge him with the original crime.

I think he would be found completely innocent in a jury trial so you'd better get your self-righteous crowing in before that is scheduled.

In the meantime the object lesson you're giving everyone is that if they discover that they have inadvertently acquired a stolen cue, just sell it, don't offer to return it to what could turn out to be an utterly ungrateful victim of his own "stipidity".

If Robert Frost and Eric Denton were actively involved in the original theft please correct me by showing how. And for the record, I know neither of them from Adam.
Click to expand...

risky biz said:
Yes, you missed the part where Robert Frost is supposed to give up $2,000 of his own money to compensate the "stipidity" of someone who leaves expensive cues lying around begging to be stolen.
Click to expand...

risky biz said:
"Breaking and entering" into what? Were your cues at home and they robbed your house or what are you saying?

And now you are stating that this Robert Frost entered into a money game putting up $2,000 of his money against cues that he knew were stolen? I must say that sounds very unlikely to me.

It also sounds unlikely to me that he would then approach the original owner with the simplistic idea of extorting him. If he simply wanted to be compensated for his $2,000 AFTER discovering the cues were stolen- that would be believable.

I think what we need here is the other side of the story because this side looks pretty lopsided.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly this dense? Bill never said these two were responsible for the original theft. How is it any issue to the original owner of property how someone came into possession of it? It doesn't matter that Robert had his money in a game.

It is unlikely he would put his money against known stolen property. It is, on the other hand, very likely that he was gambling and the guy he was playing didn't have the money to pay so he payed off with the cues. I'm sure you've never seen that happen, because I've seen it about 1000 times. And, answer me this: How did Robert know to get in contact with Bill Grassley if he didn't know the cues were stolen from him???? The fact that he wouldn't know and randomly called someone who happened to have been the victim of theft seems, as you say, very unlikely.

So if I stole your car, sold it to someone who sold it to someone else. Eventually someone gets the car and finds out I stole it from you, but they are owed, let's say hypothetically $2,000 for the car. They bring the car to you and say, "Hey Risky Biz, I know this was originally your car but the guy I got it from owes me $2k so I will give it back to you for that. I know I could have taken it to a chop shop and got paid, but I am giving you the opportunity to get you car back and it won't even cost you as much as the car is worth. I'm just trying to get my money back."

That guy is completely in the right, and apparently you are a dumbass for being stupid enough to leave your car in the driveway where I could just walk up and take it from you.

Why don't people think before they open their mouth and prove that they have no damn sense???
 
John Parker of Auerbach Custom Cues, Tulsa, OK lost a bag full of cues, about $6500.00 One was returned a few weeks ago, because the fools decided to sell them back to him... no one is in jail... YET !
 
What's wrong with pool?

There is nothing wrong with pool! It's the people that are associated with it.

I can't believe that some of these posters think it is ok to hold stolen property as ransom because they made a bad game.

Anyone believe they would feel that way if the property was theirs?

All you have to do is read this thread to see what's wrong and it has nothing to do with pool.
 
Good lord this is easy. You know the property you are holding in your hands is stolen property. Call the owner and arrange to GIVE it back to him.

That is the only ethical and honest and legal thing to do if you are knowingly in possession of stolen goods that you did not steal.

Case closed, no grey area on this one.

P.S. When you get air barreled with stolen cues take the flipping $500 offered and call it a day. I got aired once for $1300 and sold the worthless crap cues I took for $300 cash the next day.

P.P.S. I have had cherished cues stolen from me. It isn't any fun. Screw thieves and extortionists. Anyone who does that is not a "good guy" at all.
 
"Are you honestly this dense? Bill never said these two were responsible for the original theft."

Except for the part where he titled the post ""Tank you God for stipid criminals"?

"How is it any issue to the original owner of property how someone came into possession of it? It doesn't matter that Robert had his money in a game."

There is a huge difference between someone knowingly accepting stolen property and extorting the owner and someone who becomes aware of the theft after the fact and requests compensation. Maybe that's too subtle for you. If the latter is the case then Robert Frost made a mistake but my issue is with the original poster portraying him as a lowlife criminal. Again, maybe that's too subtle for you when there's fun to be had piling on someone who can't defend himself right now.

"It is unlikely he would put his money against known stolen property."

That's the way the original poster has portrayed it. Given the way he's spinning this you should be questioning other aspects of what he's saying.

"It is, on the other hand, very likely that he was gambling and the guy he was playing didn't have the money to pay so he payed off with the cues. I'm sure you've never seen that happen, because I've seen it about 1000 times."

Would you be willing to admit that this is purely hypothetical on your part and you have no idea what really happened?

"And, answer me this: How did Robert know to get in contact with Bill Grassley if he didn't know the cues were stolen from him???? The fact that he wouldn't know and randomly called someone who happened to have been the victim of theft seems, as you say, very unlikely."

What makes it so unlikely that he determined the source of the cues after the fact? Why are you jumping to another assumption? You already admitted that it's unlikely he would put his money against stolen property. Why, at the end of the game, does he suddenly know it's stolen property? The most likely explanation is that he learned of it after the fact. Why do you refuse to consider that and instead fabricate illogical hypotheticals?

"So if I stole your car, sold it to someone who sold it to someone else. Eventually someone gets the car and finds out I stole it from you, but they are owed, let's say hypothetically $2,000 for the car. They bring the car to you and say, "Hey Risky Biz, I know this was originally your car but the guy I got it from owes me $2k so I will give it back to you for that. I know I could have taken it to a chop shop and got paid, but I am giving you the opportunity to get you car back and it won't even cost you as much as the car is worth. I'm just trying to get my money back."

If someone inadvertently ended up with a cue stolen from me and requested to be compensated for what it cost them I wouldn't try to get them charged with a crime because I could get my cue back cheaper that way.

"That guy is completely in the right, and apparently you are a dumbass for being stupid enough to leave your car in the driveway where I could just walk up and take it from you."

No, I would not be a dumbass for leaving my car in my driveway and someone who unknowingly bought the car wouldn't be completely in the wrong and guilty of theft. Again, maybe too subtle for you.

"Why don't people think before they open their mouth and prove that they have no damn sense???"

Ask yourself.
 
risky biz said:
Yes, you missed the part where Robert Frost is supposed to give up $2,000 of his own money to compensate the "stipidity" of someone who leaves expensive cues lying around begging to be stolen.
Click to expand...


If something was stolen from you and at a later time you were aproached and told you could buy it back what would you do?

hint- this isn't rocket science
 
risky biz said:
How did you know they weren't stolen?
Click to expand...

I didn't. If I had I known that they were then I would have returned them to the owner for no money and told him who I got them from. I would have considered the gambling debt still open.

Like I said, no grey area. None.
 
A similar situation happened recently with Pat Diveney. Gus Briseno in Arizona was seen on a stream playing with a cue that had been stolen from Pat. Upon the knowledge of possessing the stolen cue, he returned it to Pat.

He didn't say, "I payed $1200 for this cue so I need that much to return it." He simply returned the cue because it was the only right thing to do.

I don't understand how anyone can construe this any other way. Upon knowledge that you have stolen property, you give it back. Sometimes you get a reward, sometimes you don't. Do you think when pawn shops are found with stolen property they require money to give it back? Sometimes, taking a loss is the price of doing business. If you are going to associate with people who will harbor stolen property, sometimes you are going to get burned.

The fact that they were offered a $500 reward makes them look even worse.

Like Barton said, no gray area. Either you return it and take the loss or you strong arm somebody and learn a lesson about the chain of custody in regards to stolen property.
 
BankPoolChicka said:
His warrant that was in March was nothing, it was a stupid ticket that was not paid when he moved from Cambellsville to Cincy, it was taken care of. He's not a thief nor a criminal for that matter, neither is Eric. And yeh, they are nice guys. Im sure most of you fella's on here saying the stuff like "finding a boyfriend in jail" are just mad that you can't hold your own on a pool table with him! He may have "extorted" you, as you say, but I don't think that he done it with criminal intent. I am sure that he beat someone out of $2000 and took the cues in trade for the cash, which is why he asked for $2000, when the cues themselves are worth more than that. Are you getting off ruining these guys' reputations???

Obviously he was trying to do a somewhat good thing, because had them cues ended up in anyone else's hands, I'm sure they could have sold them to someone else for at least $2000. So be thankful that you even got them back.. i know several ppl in the n.c area that would have gladly paid for those and wouldnt have gave a damn that they were stolen from you. And I don't need your prosecuting attorney to tell me what kinds of guys they are, their reputation exceeds them.

Freud, your slip is showing.
Click to expand...
 
brandoncook26 said:
A similar situation happened recently with Pat Diveney. Gus Briseno in Arizona was seen on a stream playing with a cue that had been stolen from Pat. Upon the knowledge of possessing the stolen cue, he returned it to Pat.

He didn't say, "I payed $1200 for this cue so I need that much to return it." He simply returned the cue because it was the only right thing to do.

I don't understand how anyone can construe this any other way. Upon knowledge that you have stolen property, you give it back. Sometimes you get a reward, sometimes you don't. Do you think when pawn shops are found with stolen property they require money to give it back? Sometimes, taking a loss is the price of doing business. If you are going to associate with people who will harbor stolen property, sometimes you are going to get burned.

The fact that they were offered a $500 reward makes them look even worse.

Like Barton said, no gray area. Either you return it and take the loss or you strong arm somebody and learn a lesson about the chain of custody in regards to stolen property.
Click to expand...

Yes. Others can try to paint the situation any way they'd like, but at the end of the day, this is really all that you're left with.

That was generous for Bill to offer the $500 reward......he didn't have to do that.
 
You take the cues. Return them to the rightful owner and refuse the reward.
Then, if you have any balls, you visit the person who barreled you with stolen goods and let him know that he still owes you $2000.

How the cues were lost in the first place has no consequence what so ever. B and E, got them lifted from the pool room. I can't beleive that someone would ask the question, "why did you have that many expensive cues lying around". Lots of people take their expensive cues to the hall. Its their right and no one should put their hands on someone elses property.

I have been the victim of 2 B and E's. Its a sick feeling. I still have both of the parties names that were involved.
Surprise, surprise. I can wait, can they?
 
Last edited:
Whats a Chicka anyway?

In the carnival business, we used to call them possum belly queens or lot lizards.
 
This thread has been really eye-opening as far as the true character of some of the posters on here.
For all those who think that leaving one's cues in their car or lying around means they "are begging to be stolen", let me know where you play and I will be sure to keep my cues at home if I ever stop by there.
 
not exactly...

risky biz said:
Yes, you missed the part where Robert Frost is supposed to give up $2,000 of his own money to compensate the "stipidity" of someone who leaves expensive cues lying around begging to be stolen.
Click to expand...

It would be more that he is supposed to give up 2000 that he never really gave up because he never had it, because of his own stipidity for accepting stolen property for payment of a gambling debt and then trying to extort the true owner instead of selling it to someone else... That is the stipid part...

Now he's also possibly giving up some of his free time because of his stipidity, right or wrong...

If you are going to talk to the original owner and hope for a reward don't admit that you knowingly received stolen property and you better be willing to accept whatever he offers you or be willing to go to jail.

The ethical thing to do would be to return the cue and accept any reward offered no matter how small.

The smart thing to do if you want to get at least $2000 is to sell them on ebay or in some pool hall for a little less than they're worth so the thought of them being stolen doesn't cross someones mind but the deal is good enough not to pass up.

The stipid thing to do is to try and sell it to the original owner, admit that you knew it was stolen property and refuse to accept the generous 10% of their value reward offered.

Jaden
 
The right thing to do is ---Give the cues to the police and tell them the story.

If you approach the original victim, you are putting yourself in a position of possible liability. Such as the victim could: tell the police you tried to sell them back to him.


This whole situation is Stuck On Stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top