Man Accused of Stealing Buzzy's Clothing from Disney World Arrested

[justintheharris]

You shouldn't let google be your brain. The crime is to deal or traffic in.. you should look further into what it means to 'deal'.

I'll give you a spoiler alert... it has to do with selling, transferring, or disposing. Buying only comes into play if you are buying with the intent of transferring further or disposing of.

So you’re telling me that if someone says “I stole this. Would you like to buy it?” And I choose to buy it, I am not committing an illegal act???? No. I don’t believe you.

 

[BaronLaCroix]

buying stolen property (if you don't intend to transfer it or dispose of it) is not illegal in FL. Only 'trafficking' is.

Buying stolen property (regardless of what you plan to do with it) is absolutely illegal in Florida. It doesn't even matter if the property was stolen or not. Fl.Stat. 812.028(3) - It shall not constitute a defense to a prosecution for any violation of the provisions of ss. 812.012-812.037 that: Property that was not stolen was offered for sale as stolen property.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Spikes has NO integrity as evidenced by the bolded statements.

Exactly. In a court setting, Spikes integrity or lack thereof will come into question.

 

[justintheharris]

You shouldn't let google be your brain. The crime is to deal or traffic in.. you should look further into what it means to 'deal'.

I'll give you a spoiler alert... it has to do with selling, transferring, or disposing. Buying only comes into play if you are buying with the intent of transferring further or disposing of.

And I think the buyer has also sold off some of Spikes’ stolen items at higher prices.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

So you’re telling me that if someone says “I stole this. Would you like to buy it?” And I choose to buy it, I am not committing an illegal act???? No. I don’t believe you.

Now you are arguing the crime of receiving stolen property. The crime of receiving stolen property is defined as knowingly receiving stolen property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property of its possession. They have to meet the criteria of the burden of proof to know that the buyer KNEW that the items was stolen, and the fact that Spikes represented himself as having authorization to have said property in his personal possession doesn’t meet that burden of proof.

 

[glawio]

How much do we think he actually weighed?

And could Buzzy fit in a baby stroller?

Easily several hundred pounds. He had a steel frame and hydraulic lines as well as bunches and bunches of wiring. Something people don't seem to take into mind either is he was taken while in his command seat. Unless they unattached him, (which I don't know if this is even possible, because I'm preeettty sure all his wiring/tubing goes up his butt) he's stuck in it, which seems pretty unwieldy and I'm sure adds some weight.

Also something I'm not sure people know, but Buzzy is huge!

He is a LOT bigger than I thought so originally. Both this and the aforementioned make the theft seem even crazier! No way this whole cutie and his seat could fit in a stroller.

 

[justintheharris]

Exactly. In a court setting, Spikes integrity or lack thereof will come into question.

Exactly! And they’d look at the buyer and say “you trusted this guy? He never bragged to you about stealing the items he sold you?? Doubt it”

 

[justintheharris]

Now you are arguing the crime of receiving stolen property. The crime of receiving stolen property is defined as knowingly receiving stolen property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property of its possession. They have to meet the criteria of the burden of proof to know that the buyer KNEW that the items was stolen, and the fact that Spikes represented himself as having authorization to have said property in his personal possession doesn’t meet that burden of proof.

For the 100th time, from my perspective, THE BUYER KNEW SPIKES HAD STOLEN IT AND TOLD POLICE OTHERWISE. I think an investigation into the buyer would reveal he was well aware of what was going on.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Exactly! And they’d look at the buyer and say “you trusted this guy? He never bragged to you about stealing the items he sold you?? Doubt it”

However and that would be the buyers defense, the sales of the merchandise occurred two months prior to the launch of BackDoorDisney, so at the time there is reasonable doubt that the buyer didn't know the true nature of Spikes, and therefore didn't need to question his integrity.

 

[flynnibus]

So you’re telling me that if someone says “I stole this. Would you like to buy it?” And I choose to buy it, I am not committing an illegal act???? No. I don’t believe you.

Don't believe me then... and ask yourself why the buyer in this case wasn't charged and arrested. You'll come back to the same conclusion... the law is about the sellers... not the buyers.

And then grasp why all these lawyers from FL tell you the same thing...

https://www.thelawplace.com/criminal-attorneys/dealing-stolen-property/

It is important to note that receiving stolen property is not a crime which can be charged under the Statute for Dealing in Stolen Property. By its very definition, “dealing” means to “sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of property.” In other words, assume you purchase four tires from a friend. You know—or should have known—that your friend actually stole the tires from someone else. You put the tires on your car and drive your car. These acts cannot be construed as dealing in stolen property, because the tires were used for your own purposes.

https://www.thelawplace.com/faq/dealing-in-stolen-property-penalty/

"“Trafficking” means you sold or otherwise disposed of the property, or that you bought, sold, received, possessed, obtained control of, or used the property in question with a clear intention of selling, transferring, distributing, dispensing or otherwise disposing of the property"

Stolen Property

Free Consultation - Call (407) 423-1117 - The Law Office of John Guidry aggressively represents the accused against charges in Criminal Defense & Crime cases. Stolen Property - Orlando Criminal Defense Lawyer

www.jgcrimlaw.com

"Receiving stolen property is not a crime which can be charged as a "dealing in stolen property". By definition, "dealing" or "trafficking" in stolen property means to "sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of property", or to receive property "with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute or otherwise dispose of such property". Florida Statute 812.012(7). In the case of Lancaster v. State, 369 So.2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), Lancaster was charged with dealing in stolen property under Section 812.019, Florida Statutes. Lancaster purchased and received an engine that he knew (or should have known) was stolen. He installed the engine in his van, and when this was discovered, he was arrested for dealing in stolen property. The conviction was overturned, with the appeals court finding that there was never any evidence presented that Lancaster intended to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of the property."

Dealing in Stolen Property- Florida | Definition and Penalties

In Florida, Dealing in Stolen Property is the selling or trafficking in property that a person knows or should know is stolen. Felony penalties include prison.

www.husseinandwebber.com

"The terms “Traffic” or “Trafficking” in stolen property means that the defendant sold, transferred, distributed, dispensed, or otherwise disposed of property. It can also mean the buying, selling, receiving, possessing, obtaining control of, or use of property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of that property"


If the case law cite above isn't enough for you... or start to question why all the lawyers have the same exact wording on what it means to traffic on their sites.. then there is no hope.

But hopefully the repeated cites will be enough to get you over your own interpretation of a google search result.

 

[flynnibus]

And I think the buyer has also sold off some of Spikes’ stolen items at higher prices

Based on? Cite please?

 

[Gringrinngghost]

F

For the 100th time, from my perspective, THE BUYER KNEW SPIKES HAD STOLEN IT AND TOLD POLICE OTHERWISE. I think an investigation into the buyer would reveal he was well aware of what was going on.

Then don't try to argue with us, if you are going to staunchly maintain that the buyer knew. You are just running around in circles with everyone else's interpretation of the laws. If you think the buyer is guilty, cool. I believe through my interpretation of said laws that he wasn't aware of the fact that Spikes indeed stole them. So for the sake of continuing this, you don't need to quote and try to explain your position into why you think the buyer is guilty when some of us post that under our interpretation of said laws that the buyer is innocent. It will get us nowhere fast. It's an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION, let the OCSO do that what they need to do, and things will come forth in due time.

 

[flynnibus]

Buying stolen property (regardless of what you plan to do with it) is absolutely illegal in Florida. It doesn't even matter if the property was stolen or not. Fl.Stat. 812.028(3) - It shall not constitute a defense to a prosecution for any violation of the provisions of ss. 812.012-812.037 that: Property that was not stolen was offered for sale as stolen property.

This has nothing to do with the buyer. The cited 'inclusion' is still about SELLING property (even if it wasn't stolen)

From https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ate,+369+So.2d+687&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1

Straight from the judgement
"The offense proscribed by Section 812.019(1) is trafficking in stolen property. In Section 812.012(7)(b) the qualifying words "with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of such property," modify not only the word "use" but also the words "buy, receive, possess, [or] obtain control of". Therefore one does not "traffic" in stolen property merely by receiving it. Nor does one evidence an intent to "dispose" of stolen property merely by putting it in his vehicle"

 

[Gringrinngghost]

In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods or property and knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged with a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the value of the stolen goods. If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted.

Florida law for those to get up to speed:

812.019 Dealing in stolen property.— (1) Any person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, property that he or she knows or should know was stolen shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084. (2) Any person who initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property and traffics in such stolen property shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084. History.—s. 7, ch. 77-342; s. 1237, ch. 97-102.

812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.—
(1) Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current with respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspects, in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within 72 hours of the termination of the leasing agreement, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that such property was obtained or is now used with intent to commit theft.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.
(3) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.
(4) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen.
(5) Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen.
(a) If the name and phone number are for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting such business, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property was not stolen from such business. If the name and phone number are not for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting the local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the dealer is located, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property has not been reported stolen. An accurate written record, which contains the number called, the date and time of such call, and the name and place of employment of the person who verified that the property was not stolen, is sufficient evidence to avoid the inference pursuant to this subsection.
(b) This subsection does not apply to:
1. Persons, entities, or transactions exempt from chapter 538.
2. Used sports equipment that does not contain a serial number, printed or recorded materials, computer software, or videos or video games.
3. A dealer who implements, in a continuous and consistent manner, a program for identification and return of stolen property that meets the following criteria:
a. When a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains conspicuous identifying information that includes a name and phone number, or a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains ownership information that is affixed to the property pursuant to a written agreement with a business entity or group of associated business entities, the dealer will promptly contact the individual or company whose name is affixed to the property by phone to confirm that the property has not been stolen. If the individual or business contacted indicates that the property has been stolen, the dealer shall not accept the property.
b. If the dealer is unable to verify whether the property is stolen from the individual or business, and if the dealer accepts the property that is later determined to have been stolen, the dealer will voluntarily return the property at no cost and without the necessity of a replevin action, if the property owner files the appropriate theft reports with law enforcement and enters into an agreement with the dealer to actively participate in the prosecution of the person or persons who perpetrated the crime.
c. If a dealer is required by law to complete and submit a transaction form to law enforcement, the dealer shall include all conspicuously displayed ownership information on the transaction form.
(6) Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen.

 

[justintheharris]

Based on? Cite please?

My common sense. EIGHTEEN WDW items? For which he paid absurd amounts of money for? You guys can reasonably accept the premise that he had no clue any of them were stolen? Also taking into accounts Spikes character? It’s far more plausible the buyer was coordinating with Spikes and is cooperating with police in hopes to save his skin.

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

Easily several hundred pounds. He had a steel frame and hydraulic lines as well as bunches and bunches of wiring. Something people don't seem to take into mind either is he was taken while in his command seat. Unless they unattached him, (which I don't know if this is even possible, because I'm preeettty sure all his wiring/tubing goes up his butt) he's stuck in it, which seems pretty unwieldy and I'm sure adds some weight.

Also something I'm not sure people know, but Buzzy is huge!

View attachment 374489

He is a LOT bigger than I thought so originally. Both this and the aforementioned make the theft seem even crazier! No way this whole cutie and his seat could fit in a stroller.

So the whole chair's gone? I've seen pics of the slice hose full of wires. It looks like something out of an H.R. Finger painting. By the time I've been to epcot the ride was long shut down. I didnt realize how tall he was. If only I did some urbexing!

 

[justintheharris]

In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods or property and knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged with a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the value of the stolen goods. If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted.

Florida law for those to get up to speed:

I don’t doubt his innocence if he truly did not know the items were stolen. But in a court, you’d have a hard time convincing me that you bought eighteen items from a sketchy urban explorer with no knowledge of the fact they were not legally obtained. I’m certain the proof exists. That’s been my point.

 

[flynnibus]

My common sense. EIGHTEEN WDW items? For which he paid absurd amounts of money for? You guys can reasonably accept the premise that he had no clue any of them were stolen? Also taking into accounts Spikes character? It’s far more plausible the buyer was coordinating with Spikes and is cooperating with police in hopes to save his skin.

So you don't have any cites that he resold the items... just your hunch. Ok. I'll go against that until the police or other evidence is filed that says otherwise.

Eighteen items isn't alot. I have more than that just within my immediate vicinity in my office.

All your bits about knowing if it were stolen or not are immaterial as long as the guy bought them for his own use. If he resold the stuff, it would be a big deal, and the guy would be facing charges of his own. But as of right now he is not.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

My common sense. EIGHTEEN WDW items? For which he paid absurd amounts of money for? You guys can reasonably accept the premise that he had no clue any of them were stolen?

Yes, I can. Then if we follow your logic, we need to question Mouse Surplus, ThemeParkConnection, Private collectors, auctions and everyone else who has multiple items from Walt Disney World.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

I don’t doubt his innocence if he truly did not know the items were stolen. But in a court, you’d have a hard time convincing me that you bought eighteen items from a sketchy urban explorer with no knowledge of the fact they were not legally obtained. I’m certain the proof exists. That’s been my point.

At the time, he was still an employee of the Walt Disney Company as also wasn’t known for another two months in a public setting that he was doing explorations within the company he worked for, to post on the Internet.