Check out some similar questions!

spitvenom · Sep 2, 2009, 01:57 PM

Or is it finders keepers losers weepers. Click the link below I am interested in what you think.

Janitor held in theft of World Series ring | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/02/2009

redhed35 · Sep 2, 2009, 02:31 PM

Finders keepers.
I for one would not leave an expensive piece of jewellery in a public toilet for safe keeping.

I don't understand what the janitor will be charged with,he did not take it from the mans pocket,unless ,because he worked there he was obliged to hand in anything he found.

Justwantfair · Sep 2, 2009, 02:37 PM

I think he did the smartest thing.
Not necessarily finders keepers, he was waiting for a claim... if no one claimed it, then it would be his.
Should no one have claimed it, I would not fault him for selling it.
Who is that careless with a piece of jewelry of that price.

Ren6 · Sep 2, 2009, 03:28 PM

I disagree. If I found somebody's wallet while cleaning the bath room, I wouldn't stash it someplace and wait for a claim... I'd immediately turn it in. A piece of jewelry that expensive is bound to be missed shortly, and the janitor removed it and hid it in another location. His carrying away of the property has made him a thief.

Alty · Sep 2, 2009, 03:49 PM

Theft.

He should have turned it in immediately.

He only gave it up because the police saw the video of him removing it.

s_cianci · Sep 2, 2009, 05:54 PM

I wouldn't call it stealing. After all, the janitor cooperated with investigators and led them right to the ring, which was then returned to its rightful owner.

Ren6 · Sep 2, 2009, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I wouldn't call it stealing. After all, the janitor cooperated with investigators and led them right to the ring, which was then returned to its rightful owner.

Only after the police detected the janitor on video, removing the ring and stashing it elsewhere.

spitvenom · Sep 3, 2009, 06:42 AM

Apparently the finders keepers rule does not apply. Here is a part of the new story. Link provided below in case you want to read it.

The "finder's-keepers" rule didn't apply, because not only was the ring traceable and one of a limited few, but it had its owner's name engraved inside, Nodiff said.

Cops: Janitor strikes out in alleged Series-ring theft | Philadelphia Daily News | 09/03/2009

JudyKayTee · Sep 3, 2009, 09:50 AM

By legal definition, I believe it's stealing - I would not have a problem if the janitor had reported that he found the ring and then waited to see if it was claimed.

He only "cooperated" because the authorities had him dead to rights.

Has anyone who does not consider this to be stealing ever left anything, had it disappear, had anything stolen? I've posted this before - when my husband was in the hospital, dying, someone "found" his credit card (which was in his wallet in the ER) and proceeded to order thousands of dollars in merchandise over the Internet. I'm now a lot less open minded about theft.

artlady · Sep 3, 2009, 10:20 AM

I would imagine the janitorial service has a policy regarding found merchandise and the steps to follow to return it to its rightful owner.
I doubt one of the steps would be "hold on to it unless someone reports it as missing".
Finding it was innocent,keeping it was not.
Yes,in essence it is stealing,in my book.

ScottGem · Sep 3, 2009, 10:28 AM

The key is this paragraph from the second article:

"The "finder's-keepers" rule didn't apply, because not only was the ring traceable and one of a limited few, but it had its owner's name engraved inside, Nodiff said."

I've highlighted the key portions of this. What should have been done is return the ring to the stadium's lost and found. By not doing so, the worker was stealing. Had their been no identification of the item, he still should have turned it in and if it went unclaimed after some prescribed time, then he would get it.

Had he turned it in, he might have gotten a reward, now he will get punishment and deservedly so. This is stealing, no question. However, since he did cooperate with police, I would expect a fairly light sentence, maybe probation if he doesn't have a record. I would however, expect him to lose his job.

excon · Sep 3, 2009, 10:33 AM

Hello spit:

There IS a difference between finding something that traceable, and something that's not. If I were to find a RING such as the one under discussion, I would try to get it back to it's rightful owner...

But, if I found CASH in a restroom, while I'd like to see it get back to its rightful owner too, I'd have no way of knowing exactly WHO that is. If there's a video, I'd make every attempt to see it.

What I wouldn't do is turn it "in". Do you know where "in" is?? Do you know what they do with cash turned "in", and not claimed?? I do. It's the cops, and they keep it... So, if I couldn't determine who it belongs to, then it belongs to ME.

excon

Alty · Sep 3, 2009, 10:41 AM

The fact is that this was not cash, it was a ring, a ring traceable to it's owner and the janitor took it and hid it.

He only gave it back because he was caught on video.

I've had this happen to me. I left my camera in the bathroom once. I put it on the back of the toilet and forgot it.

I realized it was missing around 10 minutes after I left the bathroom. Too late, it was gone.

It had my name and phone number on the case. It would have been very easy to return it to me. I never got it back.

spitvenom · Sep 3, 2009, 10:57 AM

When I read the original article I looked at it as finders keepers. But since the new article stated it had the person name on it then I consider it stealing. They didn't have him on camera actually taking it they had on camera him going into the bathroom and that is it.

In case you were wondering what the ring looked like it is my picture

Alty · Sep 3, 2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

When I read the original article I looked at it as finders keepers. But since the new article stated it had the person name on it then I consider it stealing. They didn't have him on camera actually taking it they had on camera him going into the bathroom and that is it.

But when asked where it was he led them to where he had hidden it.

The legal thing to do would have been to turn it in.

spitvenom · Sep 3, 2009, 11:02 AM

I agree Alty. A world series ring worth $10,500 isn't a oh by the way I found this moment.

ScottGem · Sep 3, 2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

When I read the original article I looked at it as finders keepers. But since the new article stated it had the person name on it then I consider it stealing. They didn't have him on camera actually taking it they had on camera him going into the bathroom and that is it.

In case you were wondering what the ring looked like it is my picture

When I read the original article, I knew it wasn't finders keepers. This was not some anonymous piece of jewelry, even were the owner's name not engraved. A World Series ring (especially a Phillies one <eg>) is a rarity. Now if it was a Yankees WS ring... <ducking> :D

But given what the piece of jewelry was and the location at which it was found, not turning it over to stadium lost and found was a BIG mistake that the janitor will be paying for.

spitvenom · Sep 3, 2009, 01:20 PM

Very true Scott Phillies world series rings only come around once every 28 years. Hopefully another one comes this year!

Ren6 · Sep 3, 2009, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Has anyone who does not consider this to be stealing ever left anything, had it disappear, had anything stolen? I've posted this before - when my husband was in the hospital, dying, someone "found" his credit card (which was in his wallet in the ER) and proceeded to order thousands of dollars in merchandise over the Internet. I'm now a lot less open minded about theft.

Ugh. That's disgraceful. Same thing happened with my uncle... he was in a fatal automobile accident, and either somebody came upon him shortly after the crash and liberated him of his wallet, or an EMT did. It really does something to your faith in humanity when something like that happens. :(