Just curiously from the news: A young man purchased stolen property over the internet from a stranger. The police said " He should have known the items were stolen because of the price".
Do you believe his is a valid reason, or just an assumption? How would it play out in a court of law.

There is an adage, if something is too good to be true, it usually is. If a price is so low, then one should be suspicious and check the seller out thoroughly.

As Scott said... and specific details makes all the difference... a brand new or fairly new iPhone for $50, iPad for $100 dead giveaway. Anyone selling something on the street.. If you will get prosecuted for it depends on those details... however even if you aren't. The police can and will seize the property as evidence and to be later returned to the owner... and you will be out everything you spent. Yes I've seen cases of that happening with very spendy items....the person who bought them being out the money, the item and sometimes legal fees just toprove it was unknowing. If the authorities can find evidence they knew about it..or even suspected it, they will usually charge the end buyer as well.

There is an adage, if something is too good to be true, it usually is. If a price is so low, then one should be suspicious and check the seller out thoroughly.

Wow that is bad. Like at flea markets and garage sales you have to watch it

Yes... a little common sense goes a long way.

Several things, first it will depend on where. And how the law is written. In some cases, merely having the property, is all that is needed. Normally the DA will drop charges onc it appears the person had nothing to do with theft. Also they may look at how the person helped find the seller if possible.

If you meet behind Walmart to buy a 2000 dollar stereo for 100 dollars, it should be obvious

Normally if they are looking at the receiver, it is because they believe he is involved often.

As to court, I would go with a trial without jury. In jury, most times, they will look at the idea. You should have known. A judge will be fore fact concerned

Several things, first it will depend on where. And how the law is written. In some cases, merely having the property, is all that is needed. Normally the DA will drop charges onc it appears the person had nothing to do with theft. Also they may look at how the person helped find the seller if possible.

If you meet behind Walmart to buy a 2000 dollar stereo for 100 dollars, it should be obvious

Normally if they are looking at the receiver, it is because they believe he is involved often.

As to court, I would go with a trial without jury. In jury, most times, they will look at the idea. You should have known. A judge will be fore fact concerned


Thank you so much. You have a wonderful life Chuck