Oh really?

[RonK]

This story sounds familiar to the one in this thread - could it happen twice in a week?

[Summernight]

That was the first story (also mentioned quickly on here too at: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=65537" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

That's why I was surprised when the second one popped up here with the same sort of back story (and also located in Melbourne)...

[im_no_pro]

And the junkies are rejoicing.... not only can we steal bikes and onsell them to other shady characters or unsuspecting victims, we now have a new target market of good samaritans!

[junkie logic]
Time to steal more bikes! I can steal a bike, sell it too good samaritan who will do the hard yards, track down the owner and get it back to them and I can go buy a hit! Everybody wins!
[/junkie logic]

It's a nice warm fuzzy, but short term gain for long term pain IMO.

[AUbicycles]

Exactly - we can't send a message to thieves that people will buy a bike back - try and find the owner, get the reward and assume that everyone is happy.

I can understand the motivation "otherwise the bike will be lost forever' - but it is a criminal act to knowingly purchase stolen goods and this approach supports criminal activity. The correct approach has to be reporting to the police and while may not be as satisfying, the more people who report theft, the better.

[g-boaf]

This should have been reported to the Police and the thieves should have got nothing.

This encourages them.

[simonn]

And the junkies are rejoicing.... not only can we steal bikes and onsell them to other shady characters or unsuspecting victims, we now have a new target market of good samaritans!

[junkie logic]
Time to steal more bikes! I can steal a bike, sell it too good samaritan who will do the hard yards, track down the owner and get it back to them and I can go buy a hit! Everybody wins!
[/junkie logic]

It's a nice warm fuzzy, but short term gain for long term pain IMO.

Cut out the middleman! Just pretend to be the good Samaritan!

[jasonc]

Cut out the middleman! Just pretend to be the good Samaritan!

that was the concern in the thread posted here....

[Summernight]

Cut out the middleman! Just pretend to be the good Samaritan!

that was the concern in the thread posted here....

I also thought the same thing for the Gumtree posting and when they found the owner of the Gumtree bike that the thief is going "Wow, that worked great and I'm a hero, got my fix and let's do that again for more cash for fixes!". So said thief possibly decided to go from the $70 'reward' payment for the Gumtree bicycle to the $150 we saw in the other thread on here.

I was pessimistically thinking that in a couple of months time the 'good samaritan' will be charged with theft of the bicycle (not that it'll rate much in the media).

I'm fine with someone saying "found this - turned it into [ABC] Police Station if it is yours - go get it from there. No payment required" but as soon as both said "I paid $[x] for it. Pay me back." it got my back up.

Frankly I believe that you shouldn't ever pay for goods that you believe may be stolen or, if you do, be prepared to wear the loss and possibly be charged. That money is wasted if the police find the real owner and as an owner I don't think I should be expected to pay for the return of my stolen goods. If I decide to reward the returner it'll be by my choice.

[jasonc]

say the situation is legit. everyone has phones. take a photo of the alleged thief, and then if you have a chance before they do a runner, of the bike and
take it to the cops.

[biker jk]

Of course there's always the risk for the "Good Samaritan" of the owner bringing the police along to the exchange or perhaps some muscle.

[TTar]

I seriously doubt the guy who posted on this forum is legit, but that newspaper article is pretty odd, too.

In the dark of night, a man buys a bike on the street he knows to be stolen from people he describes as "two really seedy dudes" then places an ad in Gumtree reading; "I bought this bike from a junkie...", and the writer describes this as a "heartwarming story"!? Quick, gather the children and we'll read them this life affirming fable.

What is it about bicycles that makes media people such blithering idiots?

[AUbicycles]

I can confirm that it was legit and that the bike was handed to the Police and the owner located.

[TTar]

I can confirm that it was legit and that the bike was handed to the Police and the owner located.

If this a response to my post; I'm not questioning that the cops got the bike and the owner was located, it's just that I find the guy's story really hard to believe.

There's probably all sorts of really boring legal constraints on what I can say about that, but I can talk about what he does say in his three posts and is pretty distasteful at the least, but also very strange -- the first thing he says is the thieves told him "they stole it from Sandringham". Really? Why would thieves volunteer that info? Did they approach our good Samaritan and say "good evening, sir, may we interest you in a bicycle stolen by us from Sandringham?" And why would you believe that to be true? These are criminals, after all. They're inherently dishonest. Knowing it was pinched from Sandringham though, does make it a lot easier to locate the owner. How convenient.

He says simply "I bought it for $150." How was that price decided on? Did our guy haggle? Or is it just accepted practice that you pay thieves $150 for a stolen bike of that quality? I wouldn't know, does our guy?

He then finishes off his first ever post on BNA with this; "The owner will need to know the make, colour and model and reimburse the $150." Gee, that's pretty bossy, especially for someone "doing the right thing".

In his second post he says "I also had a suspicion that it was stolen." I wonder, did he have that suspicion before or after the thieves told him they had in fact stolen it? From Sandringham, no less. He then goes on to say how tragic it would be if "a beautiful bike" was dismantled for parts, as if that's the only other option if he hadn't bravely stepped in.

He then includes a lot of gratuitous details about working all day, cooking for the family, the reason for being at the supermarket before informing us a "detective from the area has contacted" him and he'll be co-operating. It doesn't sound as though he's handed the bike over yet or that he initiated the contact with the police.

He finishes off his second post with this; "Shame on you for making me feel I have done the wrong thing." You got that? You're the ones who have acted shamefully.

Three hours later his third and (so far) final post appears where he informs us "the bike has been handed into police, after a detailed statement was provided."

"Detailed statement", eh? I've heard the devil's in the details.