×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Photo of Stolen Ring Puts Couple In Jail

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the a-picture-is-worth-1,000-days dept.

Facebook 143

An anonymous reader writes "A Facebook photo of a stolen 3 carat diamond ring recently helped police solve a jewelry theft. After rings and other items valued at more than $16,000 were taken from a home on Saturday, a friend of the victim's roommate saw one of the items on the social network. 20-year-old Crystal Yamnitzky captioned the photo with the following message: 'Look what Robby gave me I love him so much,' in reference to her 21-year-old boyfriend Robert Driscoll. Yamnitzky's cousin saw the post and told some friends, who alerted police. Both Yamnitzky and Driscoll have been charged in the case."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

143 comments

Fitting name... (5, Informative)

mekkab (133181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474880)

"Robby", it's more than just his hobby! /I love how they charged the girlfriend (even though she's not just innocent but also oblivious) just so she'll roll on her fiance. //For the record, I'd totally spill my guts, too.

Re:Fitting name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474914)

I sort of felt bad for the girl - and then realized how hilarious it all is

Re:Fitting name... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475212)

Yeah, between dating a thief and getting married at *TWENTY*, her life had so much promise ahead of it full of wise choices and decisions.

Re:Fitting name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475496)

Yeah, she'd have ended up with her 2.5 hellions, found out he'd been banging half the broads in the trailer park, and then found herself a nice nerd to raise her hell-spawn for her.

Re:Fitting name... (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477062)

Yeah, she'd have ended up with her 2.5 hellions, found out he'd been banging half the broads in the trailer park, and then found herself a nice nerd to raise her hell-spawn for her.

Have you never seen Idiocracy?

No, the ones in the trailer parks, have litters of kids. Way more than
the 2.5 average.

The ones that should be breeding, have the 2.5 and under.

-@|

Re:Fitting name... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475114)

They're both junkies. He "gave" her the ring then immediately pawned it (you'll note the references to the pawn shop where the ring was found).

The receiving stolen goods charge is bogus though, why isn't the pawn shop being charged if it's a valid charge.

Re:Fitting name... (2)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475198)

The receiving stolen goods charge is bogus though, why isn't the pawn shop being charged if it's a valid charge.

It is not a bogus charge. At least in California, the prosecutor must establish that the defendant knew it was stolen. It's often used in theft cases when they can't prove who stole an item, but they have a pretty good idea.

Re:Fitting name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475532)

On top of that, pawn shops typically force people to sign that they are the owner of the item. They also have to hold all items sold to them in a back room for a period of time to ensure that when police look for a specific item, they can just walk in and look for it.

Re:Fitting name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476332)

Pawn shops are largely exempted from this charge. Otherwise they would have undue burden to prove original ownership of the goods, and thus could not operate at all.

Re:Fitting name... (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475606)

I love how they charged the girlfriend (even though she's not just innocent but also oblivious)

Why do you think that the girlfriend knew nothing about this. According to the guy's grandmother she was hounding her boyfriend for a ring knowing that he couldn't pay for one. The grandmother said of her, "All the time, 'I want a ring. I want a ring. I want a ring'". She had been at the house where the robbery took place. I could just imagine that she saw the ring, liked it and pointed it out to the boyfriend and said that she wanted THAT ring.

Dare I say that she might have been the ringleader of the gang? No, I dare not!

Re:Fitting name... (1)

rta (559125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476186)

Don't forget though that this is what HIS grandmother is saying about HER. It may be true, but on the other hand in-law conflicts, especially mother-in-law daughter-in-law conflicts can be quite strained. (yes, it's a stereotype... but it's also often true)

Re:Fitting name... (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476356)

It is true that we only have a small amount of information about this, and that we can't trust all of it. However, the police have more information than we do, so my point is that we cannot second guess whether charges should have been laid against the girlfriend. The assumptions by the original poster that the girlfriend was innocent and only charged as leverage against the boyfrield is unsustainable.

Re:Fitting name... (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476694)

we cannot second guess whether charges should have been laid against the girlfriend.

But, this is the Internet...

/I laid against the girlfriend

Re:Fitting name... (1)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476734)

'I want a ring. I want a ring. I want a ring' Gawd, that guy is lucky he's going to jail. Any woman who hounds like that isn't worth it. For what it's worth, I will /never/ buy someone a ring. It's simply not needed.

Re:Fitting name... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477086)

'I want a ring. I want a ring. I want a ring'

Gawd, that guy is lucky he's going to jail. Any woman who hounds like that isn't worth it.

For what it's worth, I will /never/ buy someone a ring. It's simply not needed.

Never's a long time man.

I let a good girl get away once, and I'm certain you'd
feel like an ass standing up for your "I'll never buy someone
a ring" BS, which is just as asinine as having to buy a ring
in the first place.

I can guarantee if you ever let what you think could have
been "the one" get away, you will NEVER forget it.

And you're going to let her get away cause you can't get
your ass down to a pawn shop to spring $250 as a token
of your love?

Probably don't deserve her anyway.

But you are correct, a woman that HOUNDS for a ring
and then wants a PARTICULAR ring. Best to let her go
on by.

-@|

Link to page on facebook (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476028)

Could it be this one [facebook.com] ?

Lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania It's complicated From Monroeville, Pennsylvania

Crystal Yamnitzky
Today haa been a fucked up day period
March 6 at 4:44pm via Android

Robert Driscoll is among the Friends.

Also, she probably created this account [facebook.com] - the 3 friends currently in it are common with the above account. My guess is the police have gotten her barred from accessing the first account.

Re:Link to page on facebook (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477072)

Here's something from that page that's a bit of an understatement:

Relationship Status: It's complicated.

When you care enough to send the very best (5, Funny)

bgfay (5362) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474896)

Nothing in the world says "I love you" quite so much as stolen merchandise. I'm so head over heels for my wife that I'm about to go out and knock over a convenience store.

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (5, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475066)

Ha! Your love is feeble, my friend. For my wife I just stole roughly $1.2 million worth of intellectual property. (downloaded her a Beatle's album via torrent)

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475300)

That's just wrong. It's because of people like you that John Lennon has point blank refused to write any new songs for the last 30 years. I hope you're proud of your achievement!

Clever monkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475328)

Ohhh.. I see what you did there, shame on you

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475932)

Yeah, and not a moment too soon. Someone should have put him out of his misery years before.

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476484)

Paul died in 1966, fags.

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475352)

Oh, I am sure that your wife appreciated it. It must have made him proud.

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475520)

Ha! Your love is feeble, my friend. For my wife I just stole roughly $1.2 million worth of intellectual property. (downloaded her a Beatle's album via torrent)

That's just so wrong! Your wife doesn't need it. Just think. If you set up your unlimited Internet connection just right you could download enough merchandise to end World poverty by Wednesday!!!

Re:When you care enough to send the very best (1)

Narcogen (666692) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476700)

Nothing in the world says "I love you" quite so much as stolen merchandise. I'm so head over heels for my wife that I'm about to go out and knock over a convenience store.

Okay, just don't check into FourSquare when you get there.

Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (3, Insightful)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474934)

for solving crimes. Ask any cop.

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475100)

for solving crimes. Ask any cop.

Conversely, nothing beats an endless supply of "crimes" to solve like the laws against acts between consenting adults.

At least this crime had a victim and makes sense to enforce.

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475270)

It's quite possible, and even likely that he wasn't the thief. Say someone traded the rings for drugs or a car stereo? The police don't have an unbroken chain from the victims house to the thieves hands, so unless he confesses they are going to have a pretty hard time convicting him.

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475340)

It's quite possible, and even likely that he wasn't the thief. Say someone traded the rings for drugs or a car stereo? The police don't have an unbroken chain from the victims house to the thieves hands, so unless he confesses they are going to have a pretty hard time convicting him.

If he isn't the thief, he'll certainly have to explain where he got the ring. The police could follow the trail back to find the thief in that case. Otherwise, if he is the thief he'll have a hard time explaining where he got it.

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476996)

I guess you missed the part that the boyfriend (and girlfriend) recently visited the victims house. So what's more likely, the boyfriend stole the ring, or that after his visit, a junkie broke in, stole the ring, traded it to a drug dealer, who then traded it for a car stereo, who then sold it to the boyfriend (who was recently at the victims house).

A more likely idea: Maybe they both bought identical rings from a TV advertisement. If you call in the next 10 minute, you can purchase this $12,000 ring for a mere $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). But wait, there's more. If you act now, you will also receive this set of Ginzu knifes, a pocket fisherman, and a portable bottle opener. This amazing offer is limited to the first 100,000 callers, so act now.

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477104)

I guess you missed the part that the boyfriend (and girlfriend) recently visited the victims house. So what's more likely, the boyfriend stole the ring, or that after his visit, a junkie broke in, stole the ring, traded it to a drug dealer, who then traded it for a car stereo, who then sold it to the boyfriend (who was recently at the victims house).

A more likely idea: Maybe they both bought identical rings from a TV advertisement. If you call in the next 10 minute, you can purchase this $12,000 ring for a mere $19.95 (plus shipping and handling). But wait, there's more. If you act now, you will also receive this set of Ginzu knifes, a pocket fisherman, and a portable bottle opener. This amazing offer is limited to the first 100,000 callers, so act now.

Occam's Razor says the second paragraph is what happened.

Wait, did I get that backwards?

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475332)

What if you also have a stupid cop? At what millidonut threshold on average does the stupidity of the criminal get outweighed by the stupidity of the cop?

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475540)

Cops have a high tolerance to donuts so millidonuts are too granular. You'll be wanting a megadonut scale.

Re:Nothing Beats Stupid Criminals (1)

mallyn (136041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475698)

Thank you for reminding me;

I need to get that motion activated security camera for my jewelry [allyn.com] so that when people like this steal it, the police can make a solid identification.

"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crime? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474936)

Assuming the article is accurate, the bride-to-be really had no reason to suspect the ring was stolen.

Now she's permanently tainted with a criminal record for being a victim.

Way to go, justice system.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474968)

I bet she knows all about how "Robby" gets his hands on stuff like this, and appreciates the flow of stolen goods.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

$pace6host (865145) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476220)

I'm hoping that our criminal justice system has a little more to go on than your wager, and that they wouldn't charge her otherwise. I'll reserve judgment since I haven't seen any evidence.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474982)

It's a crime so she will testify against the ex-boyfriend. Making the case against him stronger.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475458)

isn't she constitutionally protected against incriminating her partner? or am I thinking of a different country?

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (2)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475490)

isn't she constitutionally protected against incriminating her partner? or am I thinking of a different country?

I'm no lawyer but I think that's only if they are married.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475976)

ah k, that's the confusion, in Australia its "Defacto / married". so if your Defacto in my country you're treated as if you were married... its how the gays here gain a lot of rights by allowing "defacto" relationships without touching the politically destructive "gay's right to marriage" argument.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476732)

I don't know how defacto is defined, but nothing in the article mentioned a length of relationship, so common law marriage is out. Does it just mean someone you're fucking?

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475568)

You're thinking married couples which, in some states, are considered a single legal entity.

These folks aren't married.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476298)

"In some states?" Pretty sure gp is thinking of the fifth amendment.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476960)

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable in just 'some states', and even so, only protects oneself from providing incriminating information about them.

What's being referred to is likely what could be called 'spousal testimonial privilege' [wikipedia.org] , which would bar the prosecution from compelling a spouse to testify against a defendant (however, the defendant cannot invoke this to prevent testimony against him/her, should the spouse voluntarily be testifying). As far as where it holds true, it seems to be so for Federal cases, and I presume largely varies depending on state for offenses tried in the state, in state courts (Tenth Amendment probably comes in to play here). Largely, though, it wouldn't apply here, since the two were not married--a law allowing a significant other to invoke this sort of privilege without being married would surely bring up the loophole of 'the only witness in the double-murder was my girl/boyfriend', where that person may have been a friend, until the lawyer stepped into the picture. It may also not apply being that both of them are defendants of related crimes (she took possession of property he stole).

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474984)

Yeh, her loser boyfriend who couldn't afford a box of crackerjack... suddenly shows up with a $16,000 ring. Yeh, I'm sure she thought it was totally legit.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475130)

If she's dumb enough to be with him, she probably had no idea what it was worth. That, or she thought a $16,000 ring meant he must have mortgaged a kidney, or something.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475342)

Not to suggest she knew anything about diamonds, but the price for a 3 carat ring can vary a lot depending on its quality and source. A $16,000 3 carat ring is going to look pretty shoddy, even to a someone that doesn't know much about what to look for. Maybe she just figured that he got it at a pawn shop or that it was fake.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475190)

Lets face it, none of the people involved sound all that bright. She was either dumb enough to believe it was legit OR she was dumb enough to post an expensive stolen ring on Facebook.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475494)

Lets face it, none of the people involved sound all that bright. She was either dumb enough to believe it was legit OR she was dumb enough to post an expensive stolen ring on Facebook.

Or she never matured and grew out of that "attracted to bad boys" stage, so to her it was both proof of his "desirability" AND something to brag about to her friends.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476942)

That would be the second case I offered, wouldn't it?

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475122)

I think receiving stolen property is a crime just so fences can't hide behind saying they unknowingly purchased stolen goods. It also probably has some relevance to money laundering in organised crime. Usually those who legitimately didn't know are just let off.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475148)

I think being a suspect should be a crime, just so criminals can't get away with their crimes. Yeah I know it would put innocent people in jail, but who cares as long as no criminals go free, right?

I still can't figure out why the USA is called the land of the free.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475278)

"I still can't figure out why the USA is called the land of the free."

It's a classic advertising tactic. Take your vulnerability and state it to be otherwise.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475226)

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in California it is only illegal to possess something if you have reason to believe it was stolen. "those who legitimately didn't know" aren't "just let off". They simply aren't guilty (according to the letter of the law).

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476754)

She definitely had reason to believe it was stolen by her dear Robby McStealerson.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (5, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475166)

Knowingly receiving stolen property is a serious crime. Receiving it in good faith, without knowledge or suspicion it was stolen is not. It's up to the court to determine which is the case. (you still have to give the property back, and if you paid for it while buying it in good faith you may join the suit against the thief to have your money back)

If she had a good reason to suspect the ring was stolen, she's guilty. But if the boyfriend successfully deceived her into believing this was all legit she'll walk away free.
(yes, she can lie her way out of this one even if she's guilty, if she's clever enough. OTOH she doesn't sound very clever.)

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475508)

OTOH she doesn't sound very clever.

That much can be derived from her taste in mates alone.

Generally, water seeks its own level.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475202)

Concern for guilt or innocence is out of fashion in the DA's office these days. They prefer to just railroad anyone they can for anything they can.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476822)

It's more obvious now than it was in the past, but I doubt it's more prevalent. It's the nature of being the prosecutor. If you didn't believe the defendant to be guilty you probably wouldn't have brought charges.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (3, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476890)

Actually, what I mean is that it appears that DAs are increasingly willing to bring charges even when it should be obvious the defendant is not guilty, add charges that are clearly inappropriate and insist on the defendant's guilt even when actually proven innocent through forensics. The latter to the point that they have been known to fight the release of a prisoner AFTER they have been unequivocally exonerated.

I suppose all of that could be genuine belief in guilt, but only if the belief has crossed into mental illness, kinda like those guys who genuinely believe the aliens are talking to them in their heads.

It could be that it has always been like that and it just comes to light more often, but that hardly improves matters.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (0)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475222)

She's getting married at twenty. She's with a thief. And apparently a druggie. I suspect she already had plenty of experience with the justice system.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476216)

Factor in the 7-month year old daughter too...

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475398)

I'm pretty sure she'd have to be found guilty before having a permanent record. However, her name and this article will forever come up in Google searches.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476206)

As if that would have ever been an issue for her.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476648)

Being charged with a crime isn't being permanently tainted. It's being convicted of a crime that does that.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476836)

Depends on the crime. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson were both found not guilty.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476988)

Apples and Moon Rocks. MJ and OJ were celebrities, and with that comes the added spotlight and public discourse. For the common accused criminal, we speak of them in general, and make boogeymen out of stereotypes, but the accused directly sees little ill impact (except from the prospective employer who sees the accusation and goes...ehhhhhh....without caring to know the facts). Celebrities, though, we get snippets of court transcripts that are trimmed and tailored for maximum impact, and whatever the prevailing public opinion largely ends up these guys' view for a while--except for the vocal detractors of that view. Arnie Smith who might have burgled that place last week, though, no one really truly gives a damn.

Re:"Receiving stolen property"? Why is this a crim (1)

MPolo (129811) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477130)

Well, if she ends up not being found innocent, then she doesn't have a criminal record. If the police have to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" before they can arrest somebody, the justice system might as well not exist. And a reasonable suspicion exists here -- the woman just received a hugely expensive ring from a man who wasn't exactly rich. It is reasonable for the police to think that she might have known that the ring was stolen.

Crimebook (1)

nethenson (1093205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35474946)

Michael Rowland: 'Gonna rob the local servo on Mitchel ave. 12am today..'
Constable Steven Briggs likes this

I thought that philmarcracken's comment [slashdot.org] was funny.
I have now realized that reality is even funnier, and far more strange.

Dupe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35474986)

How many times do we have to read this same type of "Facebook leads to robbery arrest" story? It's getting tired editors.

What is this I don't even (5, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475006)

So, at least according to the police and article author:

1. Dumb woman insists on getting an expensive engagement ring from her boyfriend despite both being broke.
2. Dumb boyfriend steals a ring from dumb woman's cousin's friend's roommate while visiting with dumb woman and her cousin.
3. Dumb boyfriend gives stolen ring to the dumb woman.
4. Dumb woman posts a photo of the ring to facebook.
5. Dumb woman's cousin recognizes the ring.
6. Dumb woman's cousin tells his friends and they call the police.

While (1) to (4) are already incredibly stupid, and (2) is beyond my understanding of stupidity (that is, I can not see the logic, faulty or not, behind making such decision), I have to point out that the person who recognized the ring was dumb woman's cousin AND victim's roommate's friend. Even if dumb woman did not post the photo in (4), he would see her wearing the ring, so (5) and (6) would inevitably follow.

So considering how little importance Facebook has in those events, I have to bring a more important (at least for this site) matter -- SOME PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY STUPID. Stupid to the extent that they choose the worst course of actions available to them in a situation when absolutely nothing compels them to do anything at all. And people like that use technology.

Re:What is this I don't even (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475118)

Don't forget that he sold six stolen items for only $250.. I mean, selling stolen goods is risky and can earn you a not-so-nice accommodation for a year or more, so why even bother for such a small amount of money?

Re:What is this I don't even (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475778)

>why even bother for such a small amount of money?

Junkies live in the moment. Often they expect to die very soon and they are bargaining for the moment. This is hard to understand if you haven't walked in their shoes. I'm not trying to justify it.

Re:What is this I don't even (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476034)

Don't forget that he sold six stolen items for only $250.. I mean, selling stolen goods is risky and can earn you a not-so-nice accommodation for a year or more, so why even bother for such a small amount of money?

Because that's all the thief can get - it's not like he has any leverage.

Thief: Hey, I got this great laptop worth $2000.
Fence: Meh. I'll give you $50.
Thief: Hey, it's worth $3000. I want at least $1000
Fence: I'll give you $50, or I'll call the cops and tell them you tried to sell it to me.
Thief: (Grumbles as he hands over laptop and takes his $50)

Re:What is this I don't even (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476778)

This is true, a few weeks ago a man offered me a blu-ray player for $10. We were walking through a neighborhood at night, I told him I bet the owners would like it back. He laughed and ran off, they'll take whatever they can get.

Re:What is this I don't even (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475600)

Stupid to the extent that they choose the worst course of actions available to them in a situation when absolutely nothing compels them to do anything at all. And people like that use technology.

That's because it's now EASIER TO USE THAN EVER! That's one of the major selling points of systems such as Windows, to name the most prominent example (of many). It's simple: when stupid people spend money their cash is just as green as the cash of thinking people who like learning new things, and they have far greater numbers. Thus, the business case for it is easy to understand.

Anyone remember Eternal September? [wikipedia.org] Same concept.

Bitter much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476270)

You insinuated way too much out of that short article. It never states the girlfriend wanted an expensive ring. You called her stupid for no reason, other than not realizing her boyfriend is a thief. She obviously didn't know it was stolen. You had no reason to call her dumb on every line of your post. Bitter angry nerd much?

Re:What is this I don't even (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476594)

And people like that use technology.

Even worse, they breed.

Hey, look at that! (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475030)

Hey, that ring on Slashdot looks familiar...

Re:Hey, look at that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476376)

How the hell do you steal a Token Ring?

Re:Hey, look at that! (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476682)

Hey, that ring on Slashdot looks familiar...

Throw it in the fire just to make sure.

How about the other items? (3, Insightful)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475042)

They later learned that Driscoll had sold six of the stolen items at Gold Buyers of Pittsburgh for $250.

This is what is so maddening about these crimes. I do not know what the six stolen items were, but I'll bet that some of them had sentimental value to the owners far beyond the intrinsic value of the gold itself, and now they are likely gone forever.

Re:How about the other items? (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477116)

I do not know what the six stolen items were, but I'll bet that some of them had sentimental value to the owners far beyond the intrinsic value of the gold itself, and now they are likely gone forever.

For this reason I stopped caring about expensive stuff. It's just bits of metal and stuff. Well fuck that. Thank god the girlfriend doesn't give a rat's ass about gold and diamonds either.

Old Pirate Maxim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475104)

It's easier for two to keep a secret if one of them is dead. He should've told his dopey girlfriend to keep her mouth shut if she knew what was good for her. Also her cousin is a fucking rat.

I am from that area. (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475214)

This took place less than 5 miles from where I live. The neighborhood has really gone down hill recently. I know we can't condemn an entire neighborhood because of the actions of a few individuals, but I would bet money that at least one of the members of this couple has cocaine problem.

This is just a case of "cokehead's girlfriend blabs and they both got busted', the facebook angle isn't particularly novel...

LK

I hope its way more than $16k (1)

atrus (73476) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475450)

I hope its more than $16k - or its a very poor quality diamond (bigger is better right?) - there is no way $16k will net you any diamond at 3 carats.

Re:I hope its way more than $16k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35475620)

Two words: "total weight" (i.e. the life blood of department store and mall shop jewelers for decades).

Re:I hope its way more than $16k (1)

madwheel (1617723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35475666)

As mentioned below, total weight is a big part. If it's a solitaire, it's an I3 clarity with horrible color and cut. You can get 3 carats for under 20 if the quality is that bad. If you have a ring with 1-1.5 total carat weight of smaller melee diamonds, they can be almost worthless depending on quality. Either way, if it's a $200 ring, the sentimental meaning of it is priceless. It hurts the victim just as much, sometimes more if the ring isn't worth much. I think that's the worst part of all this. Loosing your engagement ring to theft is just a horrible feeling, and the suspect needs to be pretty heartless.

Re:I hope its way more than $16k (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476578)

Meh. Arguing over the what quality of diamond is "best" is pointless. They're all overvalued because of misguided sentimentality and the effectively criminal cartel, DeBeers.

They're also pretty. If you must waste your money on shiny carbon allotropes, possibly mined by children, the best one is the one that you like the best: No matter how "flawless" or "high quality" it is, you're not getting your money back. Diamonds are not an investment.

lol...facebook status (2)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476584)

Okay...with a not so common name like that, it was easy to find her page. While I feel for her a bit (7 month old, hence the marriage pressure, and the fact that she fell for something like that), I just had to laugh at the current relationship status: It's complicated.

since when...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476876)

3 carat diamond ring is only 16k?
i wish later the police found out the ring is actually fake and they all get double pwn

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...