ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
HAHAHAHA...nope. Funny thing is that now anything extra in my vehicle makes me crazy.
ETA: I was just glad they didn't bust me for the open container.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Man Accused of Stealing Buzzy's Clothing from Disney World Arrested
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
ETA: I was just glad they didn't bust me for the open container.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
If BDD's lawyer isn't able to weed out the very specific subset of jurors who are angry about the price of Disney memorabilia on Ebay, then he is truely screwed.
That means no Disney fans except for those who sell.
GhostlyGoofy
Well-Known Member
Orlando jurors let Casey Anthony go. Anything is possible.
spacemountaincarlo
Well-Known Member
Where is Buzzy
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Remember the jury only has access to the information, facts and evidence presented to the them during the trial. There are large amounts of information available to you via public records, online and media sources that the jury does not have. Unless you were actually one of the jurors on the case it’s impossible to properly judge whether or not they made the correct decision based on the information they had access to.
wdwtopten
Well-Known Member
100% this.
unmitigated disaster
Well-Known Member
Yes, but some people refuse to believe a parent could kill their kid.
Not to be obnoxious and point out the obvious again but it's really going to come down, in my inexpert opinion, to how good the prosecutor is and how impartial the jury will really be. Sadly for laughing boy, I imagine no one's going to take "the cops are prejudiced against rich white boys and made this up!" seriously because I bet that's what he feels.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I think people here might be overestimating how big a deal the average person will think it is that a young guy who (likely) has no criminal record stole stuff from Disney World to sell on the Internet. I find it hard to see how a jury would find him not guilty, but I also don't think they'll be baying for blood in the same way people are on here.
It would be logical for the defence to spin this as the story of a naive young man from a nice family who possibly made some mistakes, but who was then treated in an overly heavy-handed fashion by law enforcement doing the bidding of a massive corporation. Who knows if they'll buy that and let him off, but it will be easier to convey that storyline than the arrogant and entitled attitude of Spikes we all saw play out online.
It would be logical for the defence to spin this as the story of a naive young man from a nice family who possibly made some mistakes, but who was then treated in an overly heavy-handed fashion by law enforcement doing the bidding of a massive corporation. Who knows if they'll buy that and let him off, but it will be easier to convey that storyline than the arrogant and entitled attitude of Spikes we all saw play out online.
GhostlyGoofy
Well-Known Member
Good points. It's certainly going to hurt him that in the podcast interview that was handed over to cops he claimed that a person attempted to sell him Buzzy's clothes and that Buzzy was moved as an excuse to arrest him. On top of all pics he took of himself with the props
GhostlyGoofy
Well-Known Member
Not that Naive. Dont forget He put a lot of thought and investment in this theft. He went through great lengths to print fake employee IDs to get people like his cousin backstage.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
The evidence will tell the "arrogant and entitled attitude" story. The prosecution need only show that interrogation video and the pics showing him hamming it up in some of the stolen goods.
tribbleorlfl
Well-Known Member
Technically, they were selected from Pinellas County and then sequestered here. There's no way she would have gotten a fair trial with a jury pool from the Orlando area.
Personally, I think Spikes' lawyers are simply going through the motions with a trial in an attempt to get additional charges dropped or thrown out (a strategy that's proven to be effective so far with the initial resisting arrest charge as well as the related tampering with evidence count). If they're unsuccessful, expect them to seek a plea deal or plea no contest on the eve of the trial. I think the evidence that's been released so far is damning enough to convince most reasonable people of his guilt, and I think his layers know that as well.
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
I think they are waiting for a good plea deal
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE BUZZY!!!
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
They can simply subpoena the carrier for all relevant records.
My95cobras
Well-Known Member
But not the media contained on the device or content of messages.
My question was more about the specifics where the Police demand he release the phone from his person. That's like the police demanding you empty your pockets before you are being detained or arrested. They can't do that (except in very limited cases). But I think the difference here is Spikes stupidly has the phone out in the open... and gives the police reason enough to believe that phone, is the phone connected to the evidence they have (It's the phone associated with the number they know from the msgs). And of course, Spikes gives them more info in confirming the phone is his and no other ones
I can tell you as a retired LEO that if you ask and the person complies then no privacy concerns come into play. If I ask a person if I can check their pockets and they say yes, then they have given consent. Besides the fact the phone was in plain sight, all they needed to do is ask if he had the phone with him to be able seize it. They already had probable cause to hold the phone for a warrant. If he had said no, and not had it in plain sight, it would have been a much different situation.
You would be amazed how many guilty people give you permission to search somewhere that may incriminate them. Mind if I look in your garage, so I can write in my report that you weren't involved? Do you care if I check your car real quick, so I can get you back on your way? You would be surprised what people agree to if you ask the right way.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Thx for your input. Yeah, as you say at the end, it was in plain sight so I think it moot. But my question comes from the point where they ordered him (not asked him) to put the phone on the table and how that could play out otherwise. To me that was the point I was curious about.. If it's an instruction/order.. not a request.. and how the person understands that instruction.
For instance.. lets assume Spikes walks into the interview room (w/o phone in hand) and they say "Can you put your phone on the table?". Is that a request, or is that an order for him to comply with? If it's seen as an order... is that a search of his person? Or is that him voluntarily putting phone out there?
As we've all said in this particular case.. he's sitting there texting on his phone so its in plain view.. so then it's just about securing it. But I'm trying to distinquish how much of a mistake he made in having it out.. vs if he kept it on his person and out of sight would he have been able to keep it from being seized?
But he would have had to deny having it on them.. because given the progression we saw, I'd expect the police to simply ask him questions about his phone that would try to lure him into revealing it.
Based on your experience and what you saw... Do you think this meeting was all about securing that phone from the start?
