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

[KimAnnFran]

So buzzy was taken, so were his clothes. wow.
I think it's wrong, regardless how long it was sitting there. Not his property.
Has anyone found Buzzy so he can be returned?

 

[flynnibus]

If I were to wager based solely on the one criminal complaint that is filed right now with only the three charges. I would guess that he would not receive any prison time but a period of house arrest followed by probation or straight probation. BUT We all know that more charges should be coming eventually. Depending on what he is charged with, prison time followed by probation would not be unreasonable.

If I were the prosecutor of the case I would keep my thumb on the buyer using the threat of an unfiled information for theft to keep him cooperative. If I charge him it would be a pre-arranged sentence with the option to dismiss after all of Patrick's cases are resolved. Actually charging him blind, creates too many problems with the main focus, Patrick. Do I think he knew or should have known those items were stolen, absolutely. But that is just my personal opinion without the benefit of knowing all of the evidence against him

Yeah, as I mentioned before... I figure since its not a violent crime etc it could be likely get some sentence that is ugly, but not forced into prison per say because I imagine the pressure on crowding is an issue in FL as well?

On the buyer, what charge are you referring to? I'm struggling to find specific infractions the buyer is exposed to... I mainly only see angles of charging him with theft 812.014 (4)(c) because he has procession of the known stolen goods.. ? I see requirements about reporting of lost or disposed of stuff.. but not specifically reporting of suspected stolen stuff. He shouldn't be at risk of 'trafficking'/'dealing' because he used it for himself. Any other input you have?

Thx

 

[gustaftp]

So people who claim to have inside knowledge of Disney parks, provide no source to back their claim, and don't correct anything when they're wrong are more trustworthy? Is that what you're arguing?

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority.
Your logical fallacy is strawman.

I don't trust anyone at this point. Too much misinformation floating around. I will leave this matter to the courts to sort out -- as should you and everyone else opining and pointing fingers. We are all low-information posters on this matter.

 

[glawio]

Does anyone currently have tabs on this dress?!

It's in the archives. Saw it when they did a little livestream of the archives a while back.

 

[Demarke]

Not to re-stir this pot, but if there was any lingering doubt as to whether this "kid" would be viewed sympathetically against the Evil Empire, I'd say that the links referenced in the last few pages (front page of Yahoo! and stories on viral media) and the top links to searching his name have provided a good indication and it isn't kind to the perpetrator!

The comments on the Yahoo! article have been wholly unsympathetic to him as well

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

Yep they are not being kind to him. The daily beast is even stating he decapitated Buzzy!

Doesn't matter if it's true. In the court of public opinion he now will have to constantly deny this. Even if he genuinely doesn't know Buzzys whereabouts

But again it was Spikes own action that brought this all about.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Not to re-stir this pot, but if there was any lingering doubt as to whether this "kid" would be viewed sympathetically against the Evil Empire, I'd say that the links referenced in the last few pages (front page of Yahoo! and stories on viral media) and the top links to searching his name have provided a good indication and it isn't kind to the perpetrator!

View attachment 374737

The comments on the Yahoo! article have been wholly unsympathetic to him as well

View attachment 374748

I agree that there's very little possibility of this being spun into evil corporation Disney going after some innocent/naive child. As you have demonstrated, we have an early glimpse of how it is far more likely to be spun!

The guy is not that young, he's not very sympathetic, and he far more clearly fits other clickbait tropes about privilege, arrogance, and the need for popularity on social media. The main thing that will get clicks, though, is the idea of someone sneaking into Disney World and stealing things from attractions to sell on the internet. While I'm sure many people will find it all kind of amusing, I doubt too many will also feel sorry for someone caught making thousands of dollars selling stuff they stole from Disney World.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

Spike's alleged girlfriend. Wonder if that profile is up to date and she's still gainfully employed by Disney?

She doesn't work there anymore, but I found a picture of her online.

 

[BaronLaCroix]

Yeah, as I mentioned before... I figure since its not a violent crime etc it could be likely get some sentence that is ugly, but not forced into prison per say because I imagine the pressure on crowding is an issue in FL as well?

On the buyer, what charge are you referring to? I'm struggling to find specific infractions the buyer is exposed to... I mainly only see angles of charging him with theft 812.014 (4)(c) because he has procession of the known stolen goods.. ? I see requirements about reporting of lost or disposed of stuff.. but not specifically reporting of suspected stolen stuff. He shouldn't be at risk of 'trafficking'/'dealing' because he used it for himself. Any other input you have?

Thx

I think theft under 812.014 is the only thing he could realistically be charged with. The statute itself is long and not particularly helpful. I tend to use the jury instructions as they give only the elements that must be proven as well as the presumptions and defenses. Here is a selected portion of the jury instruction for theft. I removed parts that were not applicable. I apologize for the length.

14.1 THEFT
§ 812.014, Fla. Stat.​

To prove the crime of Theft, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) knowingly and unlawfully [obtained or used] [endeavored to obtain or to use] the (property alleged) of (victim).
2. [He] [She] did so with intent to, either temporarily or permanently,
a. deprive (victim) of [his] [her] right to the property or any benefit from it.
b. appropriate the property of (victim) to [his] [her] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it.

Degrees. Give as applicable.
If you find the defendant guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether:
a. the value of the property taken was $100,000 or more.
b. the value of the property taken was $20,000 or more but less than $100,000.
c. the value of the property taken was $10,000 or more but less than $20,000.
d. the value of the property taken was $5,000 or more but less than $10,000.
e. the value of the property taken was $300 or more but less than $5,000.
f. the value of the property taken was $100 or more but less than $300.
g. the value of the property taken was less than $100.
h. the property taken was a semitrailer that was deployed by a law enforcement officer.
i. the property taken was cargo valued at $50,000 or more that has entered the stream of commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock.
j. the property taken was cargo valued at less than $50,000 that has entered the stream of commerce from the shipper’s loading platform to the consignee’s receiving dock.
k. the property taken was emergency medical equipment valued at $300 or more that was taken from [a licensed facility] [an emergency medical aircraft or vehicle].
l. the property taken was law enforcement equipment valued at $300 or more that was taken from an authorized emergency vehicle.
m. (defendant), individually or in concert with one or more persons, coordinated the activities of another in committing the theft and the value of the property taken was more than $3,000.
n. the stolen property was [a will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument] [a firearm] [a motor vehicle] [a commercially farmed animal] [an aquaculture species raised at a certified aquaculture facility] [a fire extinguisher] [2,000 or more pieces of citrus fruit] [taken from a legally posted construction site] [a stop sign] [anhydrous ammonia] [a controlled substance. Under Florida law, (name of controlled substance) is a controlled substance.]
o. the value of the property taken was $100 or more but less than $300, and was taken from [a dwelling] [the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling].

Give if applicable but only in cases of grand theft. § 812.014(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat.
If you find the defendant guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether:
p. in the course of committing the theft, (defendant) used a motor vehicle as an instrumentality, other than merely as a getaway vehicle, to assist in committing the theft and thereby damaged the real property of another.
q. in the course of committing the theft, (defendant) caused more than $1,000 in damage to the [real] [personal] property of another.

State of emergency. Applies only to elements b, c, d, j, k and l above.
If you find (defendant) guilty of theft, you must also determine if the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether:
r. the theft was committed within a county that was subject to a state of emergency that had been declared by the governor under Chapter 252, the “State Emergency Management Act”
and
the perpetration of the theft was facilitated by conditions arising from the emergency.

Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat.
Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspect 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 the property was obtained or is now used with unlawful intent to commit theft.
§ 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.
Proof of possession of recently stolen property, 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.
§ 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. Do not give unless there is evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property. Barfield v. State, 613 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
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.

§ 812.022(4), Fla. Stat.
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.

§ 812.022(5), Fla. Stat.
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.

§ 812.022(6), Fla. Stat.
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.

Definitions. Give if applicable.
§ 812.012(3), Fla. Stat.
“Obtains or uses” means any manner of
a. Taking or exercising control over property.
b. Making any unauthorized use, disposition, or transfer of property.
c. Obtaining property by fraud, willful misrepresentation of a future act, or false promise.
d. Conduct previously known as stealing; larceny; purloining; abstracting; embezzlement; misapplication; misappropriation; conversion; or obtaining money or property by false pretenses, fraud, deception; or other conduct similar in nature.

“Endeavor” means to attempt or try.

§ 812.012(4), Fla. Stat.
“Property” means anything of value, and includes:
[real property, including things growing on, affixed to and found in land.]
[tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims.]
[services.]

§ 812.012(10), Fla. Stat.
“Value” means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense, or if that value cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.
If the exact value of the property cannot be ascertained, you should attempt to determine a minimum value. If you cannot determine the minimum value, you must find the value is less than $100.

Theft Pursuant to One Scheme. Give if applicable.
Amounts of value of separate properties involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the thefts are from the same person or several persons, may be added together to determine the total value of the theft.

Good faith defense. Give if applicable. Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
It is a defense to the charge of Theft if (defendant) had an honest, good faith belief that [he] [she] had the right to possess the (property alleged) of (victim).

If you have a reasonable doubt about whether (defendant) had an honest, good faith belief, even though unreasonable or mistaken, that [he] [she] had the right to possess the (property alleged) of (victim), you should find [him] [her] not guilty of Theft.

If you find the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not have a honest, good faith belief that [he] [she] had the right to possess the (property alleged) of (victim), you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of Theft have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

"Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name"

That can't be good for the cousin who was wearing a false employee ID tag.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

If that was the incentive, man did that backfire. Perhaps they need a new PR person or two.

That's called "gettin' caught with your pants down" LOL

 

[flynnibus]

I think theft under 812.014 is the only thing he could realistically be charged with. The statute itself is long and not particularly helpful. I tend to use the jury instructions as they give only the elements that must be proven as well as the presumptions and defenses. Here is a selected portion of the jury instruction for theft. I removed parts that were not applicable. I apologize for the length.

Yeah, i just expect readers to get thrown by a lot of the stuff that is aimed around pawn broker immunity, etc. I would think compliance and assistance would keep this person on the better side of the DA.

I wonder how much energy they really invest in pursuing these kinds of cases (against spikes).. I guess the victim being the mouse puts some eyeballs on it.

I would be disappointed if they can't make the trafficking one stick. Burglary I would think would be the bait to plead down or not.. but since they went to such extremes to hide their identities, etc.. I am genuinely curious if they want to make that one stick.

 

[flynnibus]

"Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current in respect to name"

That can't be good for the cousin who was wearing a false employee ID tag.

Those lines are really about pawn broker exchanges... the concept of immunity in those transactions is premised on the idea that everyone is open and forth coming about identities, etc. When people start faking that... the exclusions start dropping.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Yeah, i just expect readers to get thrown by a lot of the stuff that is aimed around pawn broker immunity, etc. I would think compliance and assistance would keep this person on the better side of the DA.

I wonder how much energy they really invest in pursuing these kinds of cases (against spikes).. I guess the victim being the mouse puts some eyeballs on it.

I would be disappointed if they can't make the trafficking one stick. Burglary I would think would be the bait to plead down or not.. but since they went to such extremes to hide their identities, etc.. I am genuinely curious if they want to make that one stick.

I think the dollar amount is such that it drew attention as well.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

The amount of misinformation in this article is blowing my mind. Glawio learned a lot about journalism these past few days.

Posting that pic of the face mold sure did kickstart a whole narrative about him decapitating Buzzy. I feel like taking more than 2 seconds to look at the picture makes it pretty obvious what it is but clearly that's expecting too much of people!!

Also poor Buzzy constantly being referred to as a child. Guess it makes the story juicier as well to think of him as a kid and not just a comically short pilot in the military.

That's because the penalties for kidnapping a human are much more severe than stealing an AA...everyone's just wishing for his term to be the same...

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Not to re-stir this pot, but if there was any lingering doubt as to whether this "kid" would be viewed sympathetically against the Evil Empire, I'd say that the links referenced in the last few pages (front page of Yahoo! and stories on viral media) and the top links to searching his name have provided a good indication and it isn't kind to the perpetrator!

View attachment 374737

The comments on the Yahoo! article have been wholly unsympathetic to him as well

View attachment 374748

Huh... I’m SO SURPRISED... ... you, @flynnibus??

 

[flynnibus]

Not to re-stir this pot, but if there was any lingering doubt as to whether this "kid" would be viewed sympathetically against the Evil Empire,

Except... the entire prior discussion was about something that has not yet happened, and hence isn't part of the news. The entire discussion was about Disney pursuing a civil case against Spikes. Something that has not happened... and I suggest is unlikely to happen.

Few people are going to sympathize with someone who gets arrested for breaking in and stealing stuff from Disneyworld. But that's an entirely different story.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Except... the entire prior discussion was about something that has not yet happened, and hence isn't part of the news. The entire discussion was about Disney pursuing a civil case against Spikes. Something that has not happened... and I suggest is unlikely to happen.

Few people are going to sympathize with someone who gets arrested for breaking in and stealing stuff from Disneyworld. But that's an entirely different story.

Goodness. This is silly.

Your argument that Disney wouldn’t pursue civil charges was entirely predicated on the idea that Disney would be portrayed as the bad guy by the media and that would be the lead.

That doesn’t appear to be happening so far.

Easier to just acknowledge that, no? It’s not a big deal.

 

[s8film40]

For the last time: the police said he is stolen. That question is settled. It's not up for debate.

I don’t believe there’s been any definitive confirmation that he was stolen. The report contained a comment that Disney had claimed that the animatronic had been stolen. There have been rumors both ways on this subject and a lot of confusion. There were also many claims that within Disney there was some confusion as to if it was stolen or removed. It’s entirely possible that Disney management not being aware of another department removing it could have hastily relayed this information to the people already investigating this before learning it wasn’t stolen.

It’s interesting that they didn’t seem to file any official reports of the animatronic being stolen and that the investigation didn’t seem to focus on it all other than an off hand comment.

 

[flynnibus]

Goodness. This is silly.

Your argument that Disney wouldn’t pursue civil charges was entirely predicated on the idea that Disney would be portrayed as the bad guy by the media and that would be the lead.

No, what is silly is you quoting things out of context and missing (ignoring?) the conversation started WAY BEFORE those posts you quoted. You're literally missing 3/4 of the discussion by taking things midstream and out of context. For your reference... the conversation started here

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

Its the fear that is more than anything. Disney makes a few examples and pounds the message into workers. The faithful don't want to be fired or blackballed. It just takes people that have no fear to buck it all... Several old DCP coworkers I have still Snapchat me from backstage.

forums.wdwmagic.com

That is correct, however, they still have a quite a bit of time to file a civil lawsuit for the stolen goods that he has taken. Even if they all were returned, they would still have a claim for any damages to the items [...]

To which I countered... https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...rom-disney-world-arrested.954890/post-8699622
"Disney won't even prosecute people who blatantly steal right in front of them in the parks. As long as the kid gets his felonies, I highly doubt Disney will bother with any civil angles. It doesn't fit their MO of avoiding looking like the big evil bully corp at all costs. They'll ban him (as they have), keep his tresspass notice up and remind him of the consequences of repeat felonies in the state of florida.

They only have ground to lose by trying to bankrupt a customer or squeeze them for a trivial settlement on top of the big prize... which is getting felonies to stick and potential jail time.

Disney doesn't get any dirt on them for having someone goto jail.... but goliath chases 24yr old kid for tens of thousands of dollars for stealing a wig... that's the kind of narrative Disney avoids.
"

That is the statement that started the whole tangent into explaining how viral media focuses on attention and emotional hooks rather than presenting objective reporting. And many getting wound up over me using the label 'kid'. The rest was about clarifying the risks Disney were to face if they were to go after the guy on civil matters besides the criminal matters. Which hasn't happened.

So care to try again?