News Buzzy’s been stolen?

[MisterPenguin]

Speaking of the phone since that appears to be the cause for resisting. I find it interesting that the report contradicts itself.

The report claims that he stated he was leaving and took his phone. This seems perfectly reasonable to me for someone who’s there voluntarily and decided they no longer wanted to participate. Then the officer states he told him they were keeping his phone. At this point it says he picked up his phone. If he had already taken his phone how did he take it again. Maybe the video would clarify what’s going on here or maybe the officer made a mistake when writing the report.

People can come in voluntarily of their own volition for a questioning that, if they didn't come in voluntarily for, would be arrested so that they can be questioned. He was a suspect in a crime and was being questioned. He didn't have a right to leave. He did have a right to ask for a lawyer to be present and to not self-incriminate. But walking out whenever he wanted, or refusing to have his phone searched (assuming they had a warrant for it since they reportedly searched his residence) was not on the table for him to decide.

 

[s8film40]

People can come in voluntarily of their own volition for a questioning that, if they didn't come in voluntarily for, would be arrested so that they can be questioned. He was a suspect in a crime and was being questioned. He didn't have a right to leave. He did have a right to ask for a lawyer to be present and to not self-incriminate. But walking out whenever he wanted, or refusing to have his phone searched (assuming they had a warrant for it since they reportedly searched his residence) was not on the table for him to decide.

It appears to me the report seems to imply that he was free to leave the questioning. The officer stated after he said he was leaving he told him they were keeping his phone. Seems to me the response if he wasn’t free to go would’ve been something more along the lines of “you’re not free to go, you’re being detained”. Instead the officer simply said were keeping your phone, and this was apparently in response to him taking it. Again this is all speculation based on a short paragraph description so who knows.

I’m wondering if the bigger issue here was that he used the opportunity while the phone was in his possession to lock it. I recall reading stories on court rulings that defendants can’t be forced to unlock phones, which if that’s still the case in the right circumstances could render the warrant useless. Either way it would be interesting to have a better understanding of what happened here. Personally to me it’s sounds a little petty at face value and appears they’re either using the situation to create a charge against him or there’s something else to it.

The other factor of course being how stupid can you be to walk into a sheriff office for questioning like this with your phone.

 

[flynnibus]

Speaking of the phone since that appears to be the cause for resisting. I find it interesting that the report contradicts itself.

The report claims that he stated he was leaving and took his phone. This seems perfectly reasonable to me for someone who’s there voluntarily and decided they no longer wanted to participate. Then the officer states he told him they were keeping his phone. At this point it says he picked up his phone. If he had already taken his phone how did he take it again. Maybe the video would clarify what’s going on here or maybe the officer made a mistake when writing the report.

He put the phone on the table... then stated he was to leave... and then taking the phone... and the police aimed to keep the phone (presumably as evidence). He went to leave and the officer told him he couldn’t leave with the phone. It’s not contradictory.

I think there is distinction in the specific that he put the phone on the table... verse the police just asking him to surrender it. Of course maybe they already had a warrant for it... but I’d imagine that would have been mentioned in the filing if that were the case as it would have made the disobedience more clear.

He was free to leave, they had not detained him... but by putting the phone out there, requiring no search, I believe the police took that line to take the phone as evidence. Maybe based on the discussion and where the phone now was. Then when he refused that action, that is when they moved to detain him and charge him with obstructing them.

You don’t bring evidence with you... even on your body. Items discovered in a terry stop pat down are not illegal searches.

 

[flynnibus]

People can come in voluntarily of their own volition for a questioning that, if they didn't come in voluntarily for, would be arrested so that they can be questioned.

They don’t arrest people to force questioning. Arrests require a threshold that the person has actually committed a crime. He can be interviewed voluntarily, or he can be detained for questioning while the police are discerning his involvement or not in a suspected crime.

Being taken to the station for questioning is not an arrest. Nor is preventing him from leaving during questioning. That’s detainment

In this case thus arrest stemmed from the actions in the interview. If he didn’t come in voluntarily, the police could have gone to pick him up.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I don't get people who are against the claim that buzzy's been stolen. There's now three insiders who have some know how that there's a lot more to this story than what's on the surface. Not to mention the million reasons why disney has been silent besides a PR stunt.

He could have screamed citizens arrest!!!

 

[s8film40]

He put the phone on the table... then stated he was to leave... and then taking the phone... and the police aimed to keep the phone (presumably as evidence). He went to leave and the officer told him he couldn’t leave with the phone. It’s not contradictory.

The report states that he took the phone simultaneously with saying he intended to leave prior to the officer telling him they were keeping the phone. It doesn’t state that the officer asked him to turn over the phone. Again I’m no lawyer, but given just what’s written here I think he would have a pretty good case. It seems to me that if the officer says to a person who has the phone in their possession “we’re keeping it” that could easily be interpreted as something like don’t leave with it, rather than hand it over now. The video probably tells a better story, but as written it seems very weak to me.

 

[AndyS2992]

If he went voluntarily, then why did he take his phone knowing it had incriminating things on it? Or he just forgot to clear his web history and was embarrassed..

 

[s8film40]

If he went voluntarily, then why did he take his phone knowing it had incriminating things on it? Or he just forgot to clear his web history and was embarrassed..

I’m guessing that he had admitted to sneaking back to take photos/video and possibly had intended to show this as some sort of proof that he didn’t steal anything. Purely a guess, but it’s the only thing I could see as to why he would bring his phone and certainly why he would pull it out and put it on the table. Whatever the reason this was incredibly dumb on his part even if there’s nothing incriminating on the phone.

 

[Oddysey]

That's one of the best rumors I've ever heard. The logistics of stealing a retired animatronic from an abandoned attraction. Classic Florida stuff.

The tweet said, "He was to be saved as part of Disney parks history."

Come on. The attraction's been closed for, what, 15 or 20 years? Did they need another few years before shipping him to the archives?

12 years to be more exact. I last saw the show on December 28th 2006 when Disney opened all of WOL to aid with park capacity. I was so glad to have been able to experience the attractions one last time, but it was like walking into a time capsule even then.

Agreed on your main point. The archive process must be extremely elaborate.

 

[iHeartDisneylandCats]

I never read anything from any of these accounts so I’m kind of in the dark on the content. I’m just highly skeptical that a second account is real. Why would you shut down an account only to start another. I’m also thinking someone intimidated to the point of vomiting on the floor wouldn’t run out and start up another twitter account to talk about a criminal investigation involving yourself. There are plenty of people out there who would eat up the attention that this story is garnering.

He may not have actually vomited. He could have been faking it to try to get out of the situation.

I really wish Disney would crack down on everyone going backstage to the full extent of whatever law they can. If they made public examples of these trespassers, maybe they’d stop.

But where's the fun in that?

 

[Oddysey]

So far this is my favorite theory. And the BDD dude set himself up to be the fall guy inadvertently.

In any case, I don't think Disney would have used the animatronic as the tech was decades old. But I could see them using it to rebuild a modern version.

I think CC could still work as a stand alone attraction at another park.

In my opinion, if Disney were to ever develop a CC like attraction it would be rethemed after the Inside Out movie.

Ya know, synergy and stuff.

 

[DznyGrlSD]

Welp, Orlando Sentinel released the name of the person questioned and detained on 12/19/2018. Now that it's public record, the person's name is Patrick Allen Spikes. Mugshots are easy to find

= BDD?

 

[Unbanshee]

= BDD?

Almost certainly

 

[DznyGrlSD]

Almost certainly

I kinda liked that kid...he was arrogant but his content was great. Most certainly the mouse has issued a C&D and has/will tresspass him for his BDD shenanigans though.

 

[zooey]

I don’t know anything about reporting crimes, but if Disney didn’t want to admit in the public record that the animatronic was stolen, could they report Buzzy’s clothes as stolen, which is technically true, while actually meaning that all of Buzzy is gone (while wearing the clothes that were officially stolen)?

 

[GlacierGlacier]

My only regret is that he never sent me the classic Discovery Island stickers he promised

 

[BCNHF]

My only regret is that he never sent me the classic Discovery Island stickers he promised

Because he got cocky and didn't want his name released...funny I think that's what got him reported originally to Disney though. Plus like I said, the several videos showing him touching stuff and leaving fingerprints. He really was dumb.

 

[draybook]

Reading the second report... I'm pretty suprised they charged him with resisting arrest.. at least from what's covered in the incident report. Besides the drama - an arrest from that sequence outlined sure seems petty.

View attachment 336403

Gotta think this is more about intimidation. Tho its still gonna cost this kid a pretty penny to have to lawyer up.

What an absolute WIMP. At 17, I was charged with felony theft for a stolen car I had nothing to do with. They grabbed me and 2 other friends. My bond was 15k. I sat in county for 30 days waiting on my prelim, with alleged murderers and big time dope boys. Not a single "wretch or vomit" nor did I sweat one bead. Sure, we proved our innocence, but this dude is a punk. That's a weak charge and he bonded out. What's he playing the sissy card for?

* Flynn, I just used your post because it had the report in it. Thanks, bud!

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

That's a weak charge and he bonded out. What's he playing the sissy card for?

I'd guess - considering his age - that the helicopter that's been hovering above him all his life is probably grounded now. And once confronted with the repercussions of his actions.........he freaked.

 

[iHeartDisneylandCats]

What an absolute WIMP. At 17, I was charged with felony theft for a stolen car I had nothing to do with. They grabbed me and 2 other friends. My bond was 15k. I sat in county for 30 days waiting on my prelim, with alleged murderers and big time dope boys. Not a single "wretch or vomit" nor did I sweat one bead. Sure, we proved our innocence, but this dude is a punk. That's a weak charge and he bonded out. What's he playing the sissy card for?

* Flynn, I just used your post because it had the report in it. Thanks, bud!

Dang, how did you manage to not be nervous? If I was in your shoes I wouldn't have handled it as well as you did.