Slashdot Log In
Identity Thief Apprehended By Victim
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 15, 2007 09:02 AM
from the power-to-the-people-marty dept.
from the power-to-the-people-marty dept.
ewhac writes "Karen Lodrick was entering her sixth month of hell dealing with the repercussions of having her identity stolen and used to loot her accounts. But while she was waiting for a beverage, there standing in line was the woman who appeared on Wells Fargo security video emptying her accounts. What followed was a 45 minute chase through San Francisco streets that ended with the thief being taken into custody by police."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lucky it was the police (Score:4, Interesting)
Lucky for the identity thief they ended up in the police station and not the morgue. If you were on the jury and the victim had beaten the thief to death... would you convict? I'm not sure I would.
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
If they didn't believe you... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If they didn't believe you... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:4, Interesting)
No shit. It reminds me of this case where a little girl (like 12 or 14) got raped in a remote area where most people have rifles, and her grandmother went and shot the guy. I'm not sure she even got arrested. I definitely think that grannies are the only people who get to be vigilantes.
Plus, if someone fucks up your life. Although, this was not really vigilanteism, since she didn't kill anybody. But god, that must feel good in this society of ever-abstracting forms of validation. Very straightforward: Fuck with Og, Og crush.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus Christ, get some fucking perspective.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:4, Insightful)
For the simple reason that, as terrible as Identity Theft is, it's not as final as murder.
s/Idenitity Theft/rape/ and then say that women being raped should submit rather than kill the attacker if possible.
Ultimately your problem is saying that killing a person is always "murder" when its not. It is not murder to kill someone in self defense. Whether they are stealing property or inflicting violence on you, i believe that as humans we have the right to defend ourselves with whatever means we deem necessary.
Maybe you don't like that, maybe you think that victims have to sacrifice their rights to protect those who violate them. One thing is certain the more I hear this kind of nonsense the more annoyed I get at exactly how "politically correct" we've become.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly don't want to sit on my hands while some asshole carries my stereo out the front door, but if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property.
Whats at stake is more than my stereo or my TV or my kid's bike. What's at stake is my right to peacably own property. What's at stake is the rule of law in our free society. While on the outside its easy to say that a persons life is worth more than a TV, is a person's life worth more that the rights a criminal had to violate in order to take the TV? It is most definitely not.
A criminal is not just taking a TV from me, they are taking away my rights of property ownership. As long as we accept that a criminal is the victim when a burglary goes bad then we have no property rights, and essentially no rights at all since most rights descend from the concept of ownership.
But go ahead condone a criminals actions, tell him its ok by saying if a victim hurts you sue him, send him to jail. The world you want to live in is the one where criminals rob you all day because they know you are too weak and afraid to defend yourself. The rule of law is not just what the government does, but what free citizens do to uphold the law and that includes defending themselves from crime, and in turn making crime more difficult and unattractive to people who would normally become criminals.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some asshole" who has the balls to walk in your front door and carry out your stereo in front of you is just as likely to tie you up and put a bullet in your head to prevent you from talking about it. You aren't shooting someone to prevent your property from being stolen: you're shooting someone to prevent them from doing something other than just stealing your property. If they have violated the sanctity of your home, the step to violating your right to life is not too far off.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying we should go around killing people for petty crimes, or even murder, but there are a lot of sociopaths and absolute shitbags that only leech off society. You can, maybe, rehabilitate the shitbags, but the sociopaths I'm not so sure about.
Parent
Objectivity and Relativism (Score:4, Informative)
It's a far cry from admitting your fallibility (refraining from ever thinking you are absolutely right) to denying objectivity (asserting that there is no absolute truth or absolute good to strive to understand or attain). The latter is relativism; the former is simply not absolutism. And those two -isms are not even on the same spectrum; relativism isn't just non-absolutism or vice versa. Relativism is a metaphysical doctrine (talking about what actually is, or in this case, is not) denying objectivity, i.e. denying that there is something which really is true independent of anyone's opinions; absolutism is an epistemological doctrine (talking about knowledge, understanding of belief) denying subjectivity, i.e. denying that one's access to that independent truth is incomplete and colored by one's perspective. Thus, one can be both objective and subjective, as scientists strive to be. The conflation of objectivity with absolutism is the error at the root of all the relativist bull going around these days, which itself is really just a conflation of "truth" with "belief". A purely descriptive relativism is obviously true: duh, people believe different things. But it doesn't follow from that that they're all equally right. Likewise, it doesn't follow from the denial of that *that* any of them are absolutely right.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never understood why the opinion of the victim is considered to be more important than that of an objective observer. The victim is emotionally attatched to the crime and clearly not in the best position to properly consider the extremely complex moral and ethical problems.
All the victim knows that an observer with the facts to hand does not is how the crime made them feel - the emotional damage may of course be immense - but I do not see why this should have any impact on the punishment of the criminal. Afterall, the punishment of the criminal will have knock-on effects - they may have a family and children for example. I think it would be no more nor less just for the family of the criminal to go and shoot the person who shot the criminal. Both actions are understandable. As, in fact, is the original crime; whatever it is, it was committed for a reason - not necessarily a good reason, but what a good reason is is subjective. For this reason we have a system in place to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and private retribution is not necessary.
The Baton Rouge story is interesting, though I cannot help but notice the main point in its favour appears to be "that's justice at minimal cost to the public." I remain extremely skeptical of the notion that the financial cost of justice should ever be a consideration when deciding what system to adopt.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not justice, that's revenge, plain and simple. Justice includes following our own laws... if we can't even do that, I don't think we can claim to be very civilized.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:4, Insightful)
If I feel the criminal is a threat to my family, I can fire away as long as they remain a threat. If I happen to wake in the middle of a home robbery and the criminals attempt to immediately flee without presenting a threat to my family, but they don't drop the loot - firing is a bad option. You have to accept you lost your shit.
The way I look at it is this. if it doesn't breathe - I don't kill over it.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
Revenge is a sickness that hurts the perpetrator. Failure to forgive creates a cancer of the mind. The mind becomes obsessed with the perception of wrong, and replays the painful event over and over again, causing the victim additional unnecessary suffering. The lack of perceived justice causes pain. Only through forgiveness is the pain alleviated. People who murder people who have done them wrong do not generally get any long term relief from the act.
Now, killing in self defense is another matter. Failing to kill someone who is going to kill you can make a powerful moral statement, but only if people know about it and know it was on purpose. Otherwise, it's your life or theirs, and they forced the question, so why not theirs? But killing for revenge is wrong on many levels. It hurts the original victim and does not provide real justice. It weakens the rule of law and undermines the trust we all need to place in society. It is bad for the victim, the perpetrator, and society and provides no benefit to anyone.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
People who murder people who have done them wrong do not generally get any long term relief from the act.
Maybe not, but: (a) at least they remove some rubbish from the gene pool, and (b) at least they have prevented the perpetrator from (in most cases) inevitably carrying out more attacks, thereby saving some other innocent people from having to become victims. I'd rather not have the person who took your eye still walking the same streets as I (and my family) do. It's perhaps not so much about "relief" or "revenge" as it is about *safety* from barbarians; forgiving the perpetrator isn't going to make them stop their behaviour (which is virtually never justified to begin with). I guess courts + jail is the better, 'civilized' option when it is possible, but in many cases this system unfortunately isn't effective enough. Drawn-out 'civilized' court cases also inflict further trauma on the victims of criminals.
Parent
Re:Lucky it was the police (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, TFA alluded to the idea of a "legal system" to punish the girl with something called "probation", which apparently involves being scolded and then set free. According to TFA, it was at least the second time this "legal system" had to impose this severe penalty.
Parent
Re:But, but, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But really, think out the consequences of that. Killing this person means harsh consequences for yourself, which are probably worse than having to deal with identify theft (jail time, prison rape, etc.) And it's not like you won't be picked up as a suspect, you know? it's pretty obvious you would be someone they might look at for the crime.
Yes, the thief is human trash, and it might be better off for society as a whole to have her gone. On the other hand, a trial and locking her up costs us all a bunch of money- I don't really know what the best solution is, but it's not just killing her nor is it giving her another round of probation. I don't think locking her up at the taxpayer's expense forever is a good thing either.
Somehow, a punishment/rehabilitation that forces this person to be broken and rebuild themselves from scratch is probably best- fixing them as a person, rather than keeping around a broken shell of a person that drags on us all. You could argue that eliminating them saves this problem too, but then we're no better than savage animals, and what's the point of doing anything then?
My car was broken in to the other day and it pissed me off something fierce- but the worst part was the expense of having windows replaced, not anything that was actually stolen. That's a lesson: the actual incident itself is much smaller than the collateral damage and cost that surrounds it. I would have just given them the contents of the car if they really needed it that badly. I was angry, then sad for who these people must be, then frustrated I couldn't do anything to fix the situation. I can get windows replaced, but these people have empty holes in their lives, and that's just not easy to fix no matter what you do.
Sorry for the rambling rant.
Parent
Re:But, but, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is absolutely wrong. A savage animal thinks about the moment. it does not think about the future, and the surrounding facts. When faced with an invader that is taking their resources, a savage animal is just as happy to have the invader run away as it is to kill the invader. The problem is that savage animals are stupid, and they don't understand that if they don't permanently take care of the problem, they will be faced with the same problem again later. So, in reality, the path that you suggest is the one of a savage animal. Only thinking of the moment.
"I would have just given them the contents of the car if they really needed it that badly."
You are clearly just rationalizing. I don't believe for a second that you truly believe that just because someone steals from you, that they must 'need it badly'. The guy that stole your stereo didn't need it. He just realized that he could take it from you, and there was nothing you could do about it. Assuming that someone who robs you is the victim is pretty sick, and you might want to seek help with that.
Parent
45 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OPUS: Aren't there a lot of THOSE in San Francisco?
MILO: Those what? Hills?
OPUS: No... you know... THOSE...
MILO: Rice-a-roni?
(paraphrasing a little, because Google can't help me text-search my bloom county books)
Feh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a similar experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I had a similar experience (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that prosecuting these cases would cost the credit companies more than letting them drop. The reason for this is that the credit companies don't take the hit for CC fraud, the retailers and the victim do. Essentially when a credit company gets notified that some charges are fraudulent they just cancel the payments to the retailer, and the retailer is stuck with the losses. Now, if credit card fraud was less common, and checking fraud or maybe some other form of fraud was more common in identity theft cases, then you'd see the banks sitting up and taking notice.
Parent
Re:I had a similar experience (Score:4, Insightful)
I could write "mickey Mouse" in cursive and they wouldn't notice. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The only secure thing is a card with a REQUIRED pin, which basically don't exist since debit cards can be run as credit cards these days. I really wish they'd make cards that require the pin for the transaction, that would curb 95% of the cc theft out there.
Parent
Re:I had a similar experience (Score:5, Informative)
UGH! WHY DOES THE SIGNATURE THING MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SAFER!?!?
I could write "mickey Mouse" in cursive and they wouldn't notice. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The only secure thing is a card with a REQUIRED pin, which basically don't exist since debit cards can be run as credit cards these days. I really wish they'd make cards that require the pin for the transaction, that would curb 95% of the cc theft out there.
I write "ASK FOR ID" on the back of all my credit cards. 9 out of 10 shops do not ask for id. Credit cards are the epitome of insecure financial transactions.
Parent
Re:I had a similar experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on. For a darkly humourous exploration of this theme, check out John Hargrave's 'How crazy would I have to make my signature before someone would actually notice?' prank at:
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/ [zug.com]
The answer? Pretty freakin' crazy, and still no-one notices anyway.
Parent
Re:I had a similar experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Only to a point. I'm willing to bet that very few criminals ever go through the hassle of pulling off credit card fraud once
Sure, for a single $250 charge, there's very little benefit. But if that person may be doing it with ten different cards. And that person may be willing to name an accomplice, or reveal the hole they are using to get names and numbers. Chances are, they'd be saving a lot more than just $250.
Hell, can you imagine the PR on the commercials by getting their customer to talk about how the credit card company rode in like an avenging angel and smote the identity thief who made them feel scared, and unsafe? How many hours the customer spent changing credit card numbers, and trying to clean up their credit rating? And how the credit card company was willing to do this over a simple $50 charge?
Parent
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the point of probation was that if you committed a crime during your probation, you went to jail. No? Then what's the point? We hear about jail sentences for people who are too stupid to close up porn popups, but someone who flagrantly breaks the law, and willfully causes real financial and emotional harm to another person while on probation for (probably?) doing the same thing before, gets probation?
It doesn't make sense. I guess the stereotypes of California being an overly liberal state must be true. The Daily Show said it best when they said that the lesson from the high profile murder acquittals was that if you're going to commit murder, make sure you do it in California.
Parent
That's not all! (Score:5, Funny)
...Yes, I know, but after all she's been through I think she deserves a gratuitous plug.
Re:That's not all! (Score:5, Funny)
10+ years experience from a team of people. We offer:
* Consulting
* Content Editing
* Identity
Errmmmm : /
Parent
getting off scott free... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was clear Nelson had targeted her: Lodrick changed bank accounts and identification numbers, only to find that Nelson had again broken into her mail and stolen the new information and was still after her accounts.
Where the hell were the postal service inspectors? The USPS has an entire police force for dealing with this sort of stuff. I can see it now, down at USPS Homedonut Protection Service:
"Hey Billy-Bob, we had a carrier's keys stolen. Think we should do something?"
"Nah, Bo-Billy, we gots terrorists to watch out for."
"But we have a report of identity theft from..."
"T-E-R-R-I-S-T-S. We gots CQB trainin' this afternoon."
She was sentenced by Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn to the 44 days she had already served in county jail and three years' probation.
What about mail fraud? Theft of mail?
Nelson also was ordered to make restitution in an amount to be determined by the court and to stay away from Lodrick.
"Amount to be determined"? How about ALL OF IT?
Those were the terms of a plea bargain negotiated by Assistant District Attorney Reve Bautista with Nelson's public defender, Christopher Hite.
The DA had her on TAPE using someone else's bank account. It was clearly planned and multiple victims were involved. They no doubt could have searched her properties and found the mail, the stolen keys, etc. The goods that were charged either involved her going to stores (where she'd be on camera) or mail order / online, where the goods had to be delivered somewhere (and the cops could have been waiting for her to pick up.)
Why in god's name did they need to plea-bargain? Why does it always seem that to scam artists, identity thieves, and drunk drivers the justice system is a revolving door?
Re:getting off scott free... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it great to live in a society where stealing someones identity and causing all this mayhem is considered worthy of probation (when you're already on probation!), but copying a movie warrants several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties?
Parent
Re:getting off scott free... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
bank liability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not the death penalty? Seriously, what social use is there for anyone who'd commit identity theft? We've filled our jails with potheads - who hurt nobody and subtract nothing from society, indeed include many of our most artistically accomplished people - and yet the penalty for stealing tens of thousands through identity theft, and running the victims through months of hell - is probation? It should be at minimum 20 years in jail.
Please mod up (Score:5, Interesting)
We as a society really have our priorities out of whack. DUI? Home confinement in your mansion (no, I'm not linking to the stories about you-know-who). One teenager has consensual sex with another teenager? Throw him in jail for 10 years [wikipedia.org].
Steal someones identity, multiple times, costing the victims thousands of dollars in cash and lost time? Probation. Hell, I got people in my city getting probation for serious gun crimes. WTF?
Parent
Useless Courts (Score:4, Insightful)
'Lodrick, who made a statement at sentencing, was dissatisfied. "I can't believe it," she said. "I went through six months of hell, and she's going to get probation? She was on probation when she victimized me. Obviously, probation's not helping."'
What the hell? Is she on double secret probation now? Isn't that the point of probation, that you serve your sentence if you break it? I realize it's more important to have violent offenders incarcerated, but recidivist, unapologetic thieves who rack up that kind of bill need to be dealt with.
Problem is jails are expensive, but anything less is no deterrent to people like this. I'm sick of our PC justice system - this person needs something to fear, and I think lashings should play a central role.
A related story (Score:5, Interesting)
This woman was in a department store and was purchasing something. As she approached the counter, she handed the clerk her credit card. The clerk went to use the machine but it apparently wasn't working, so she had to use a phone to call in the card. A short time later, a security guard came over and grabbed the customer. The cashier had actually called in a code to have the guard come by. The clerk said that she realized the woman was committing identity theft.
The astonished customer couldn't believe it, and asked the cashier how on earth she knew. She said, "Because that's my name on the card, and that's my credit card that had been stolen."
-- Paul Robinson - My Blog [paul-robinson.us]Real Harm from Bank Spam. (Score:3, Insightful)
The thief took advantage of bank spam:
I don't even have a lock on my mail box and banks send me this crap all the time. Besides being a massive waste of everyone's money, it only takes a few days of intercepting the mail to rob someone.
Thanks Congress - you suck. (Score:5, Interesting)
We are in the midst of an identity fraud crime wave, made possible by more intrusive technology and fewer regulations that limit the sharing of that information. There is a limit to the solutions that the individual can do - it can only be accomplished on a national level. Unfortunately, there is no leadership of any sort at the national level in the US. The head of the fish has completely rotted away.
Perhaps Paris did get a hard deal (Score:4, Insightful)
And she's destroyed how many people's lives?
And she's put on probation again?
What are they thinking in California?
This is one of the reasons we need to legalize marijuana. So we can put real criminals in jail.
Sounds like they make everyone a criminal so they can't put anyone in jail.
All the gun comments are fun.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The identity theft victim pulls a gun and tells the thief to freeze. The thief screams for help and that the woman holding the gun is trying to kill her. The identity theft victim explains that the woman she has at gunpoint is a thief. The thief says the identity theft victim is crazy and has the wrong person. Another well meaning hero to be pulls their gun and points it at the obviously angry woman with a gun telling her to calm down. Person number three pulls their gun and picks a side or generally points it at the other two people with guns in the coffee shop and tells them all to calm down. Everyone with a gun is convinced they are doing the right thing.
Ask a working police officer, this is a good way to get people shot and or killed.
Seriously, look at how people drive cars, and you want to give them concealed weapons permits to have guns on them all the time?
Re:Dirty Harry (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Are you allowed to sue yourself? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It would have been easier, faster, better in Te (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent