Bad Samaritan family won't return found expensive camera A woman lost her camera on holidays; the family who found it decided not to return it because their child liked it so much. Now, that's parenting. "Well," she said, "we have a bit of a situation. You see, my nine year old son found your camera, and we wanted to show him to do the right thing, so we called, but now he's been using it for a week and he really loves it and we can't bear to take it from him." I listened, not sure where she was going with this. "And he was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and he's now convinced he has bad luck, and finding the camera was good luck, and so we can't tell him that he has to give it up. Also we had to spend a lot of money to get a charger and a memory card..." I was incredulous. "This is an expensive camera, you know." "Oh, we know, we looked it up." More: » www.boingboing.net/2006/02/18/ba···ly.html» lostcamera.blogspot.com/2006/02/···und.html
 home
|
  WaxPhotoI AM SAMPremium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Best line: "Oh, we know, we looked it up."
Bloody bastards. Heh. | |
|  |  SplitpairPremium
join:2000-07-29
Cow Towne
kudos:3
2 edits | Re: Best line: Two lessons to be learned from this! First is rule “one” is don’t be careless with your equipment. Rule “two” because someone with considerably lower ethics than yourself might pick up your equipment if you do not. As such always remember rule one.
Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician. | |
|
 Andrew JPremium
join:2001-11-09
Lancaster, PA | Finally, I get a package in the mail........."Enclosed are some CDs with your images on them. We need the memory cards to operate the camera properly."
--
Best Team. | |
|  richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | A couple questions 1. Was the device registered with the manufacturer [Model, S/N, ect.]?
2. Was it insured with the same identifying information?
For case #1, if they send the camera in for repair, you should get it back & a police action will be taken against the people who sent the camera in for repair, for theft.
For case #2, contact your insurance agent and see what can be done. | |
| | | | Re: A couple questions don't understand why the ranger did not take it from them when reported? | |
| | | richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | Re: A couple questions Not in the article, but this is what *may* have happened:
Person A goes to park & looses track of her camera, doesn't think she lost it, just misplaced it.
Family A goes to park, child finds camera, doesn't tell parents, takes it home. When they get home, parents find out & call park rangers to report that they found a lost article.
Person A gets home to find that they indeed lost camera & calls park rangers to reports the loss. They are told that the camera has been found by family A [jubilation] and to contact them to retrieve it.
They contact family A and are told that their child likes it to much & are not returning it  :(:(
Now, if person A can prove that it's their camera [model#, serial#] and verifies this information with family A, I would say that this is theft, and should be taken to the police. Or if person A had it insured, the insurance company should take it to the police.
Either way, person A should get their camera back. It doesn't matter whether family A's child has diabetes, thinks they have bad luck or what | |
|
|  djdanskaRudie32Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
kudos:4
 ·Clear Wireless
 ·Time Warner Cable
·T-Mobile US
| **Update** Mysterious "lawer" threatens to sue..... Mysterious "lawer" threatens to sue over Bad Samaritan story
A person claiming to be a Canadian barrister has threatened to sue Boing Boing over a post about a Canadian family that refuses to return an expensive digital camera they found while on holiday in Hawaii.
This weekend, I blogged the story of Judith, who lost her camera while on holiday on Hawaii, and of the unnamed Canadian family that found it, but refuses to return it because doing so would upset their son, who has grown attached to it.
Shortly after that post, I got an email from someone who claimed his name was "Don Deveny," purportedly a Canadian Barrister of a sort called "Queen's Counsel." "Deveny" implied that the post was illegal and that I was liable for making it.
However, I don't believe that "Deveny" is a lawyer. For one thing, he can't spell "lawyer." For another, he doesn't know the difference between "libel" and "slander." He can't even spell "counsel."
I have contacted all of the law societies in Canada that license barristers to practice. None of them have any record of "Deveny," nor does the Canadian Law List. No one under that name is listed in any Canadian phone directory as a practicing attorney.
This is illegal. Falsely presenting oneself as a lawyer is a violation of provincial laws like Ontario's Law Society Act. As Lisa Hall, Acting Manager, Communications and Public Affairs for the Law Society of Upper Canada explained to me, "We could prosecute him on the basis of the Act. If he's trying to practice law, that's quite something. On conviction he'd be liable to a fine of not more than $10,000."
What's more, "Deveny" has even offered to represent other people that Boing Boing has written about, adding a new offense. Click the "More..." link below for a complete record of our correspondence, including the headers on his emails.
More here:
»www.boingboing.net/2006/02/20/my···thr.html
--
"I'm a lonely, insignificant speck on a has-been planet orbited by acold, indifferent sun." | |
|
| |
|
|
