[pastor1189]

Stolen birds were sold to a pet shop owner. “He said I didn’t know they were stolen” The flea market vendor was selling stolen goods. Buyer expressed the same reasoning” They unknowingly purchased the stolen goods. Can the buyer be criminally charged in these incidents as receiving stolen goods.

[excon]

Hello p:

Yes.

excon

[pastor1189]

Very good

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes and they often are. Thus the reason to keep and get reciepts for anything you buy, often getting copies of photo ID ( guess why the pawn shop people always get a photo copy of a ID)

I take a cell phone photo of who I am buying used things from and a cell phone photo of their ID and store it on my computer just in case.

Normally unless the buyer has some connection to the seller, and as long as the buyer can show they took care into purchase and will provide evidence of who sold it, they may not be charged and most likely will not be convicted. Of course the buyer is out the item, police take it.

[pastor1189]

Thanks someone in south fl stole 500 canaries from a 87 year old man.
Sold 150 canaries to a pet store. Guess the store owners is out the funds.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yep,

I had someone steal a lot from me some years ago. They went in to a house I owned, took the fridge, window air unit, stove, diswasher, and some other furniture.

Well the next door neighbor say this dealers truck at the house.. I made a police report, had some of the serial numbers of the items. The dealer even laied about buying them, but the neighbors telling the police he bought them, got them a warrant, found all but my riding lawn mower. They not only had to give them back, but the officers suggested that to not get charged they had to deliver them back to my house and install them back for me.

I actually found the lawn mower about 3 months latter, only way I did, I because of my bad back, had a custom one of a kind seat installed on it. The man who had bought it from a used lawn mower dealer was not happy at all.

I had already bought a new one, so I sold it to him fairly cheaply but he had to pay twice for the lawn mower, he was not happy, I think he sued the lawn mower shop for the money he paid them.

[Fr_Chuck]

Thanks someone in south fl stole 500 canaries from a 87 year old man.
Sold 150 canaries to a pet store. Guess the store owners is out the funds.

So you don't have a deal on a used canary for me ?

[pastor1189]

Ha Ha LOL

[joypulv]

In California, the unwitting buyer's liability is at the discretion of the prosecutor, even if the seller is prosecuted. When this question was asked on eBay years ago, the buyer found a law in his state that specifically protected him as the buyer - when it's clear to the court that he had no reason to believe the item was stolen. So eBay might be different from something local.

[pastor1189]

Very Interesting

[excon]

Hello again, p:

In the law, there's a concept called mens rea. It means guilty mind. In MOST receiving stolen goods cases, the prosecutor simply can't believe that the possessor DIDN'T know the goods were stolen.

So, if some Yahoo showed up at a pet store and tried to sell a bunch of birds to the owner, it would seem to me that the owner would know absolutely, that the birds were stolen. I think the prosecutor would think so too.

excon

[pastor1189]

Yes it seems that way

[AK lawyer]

Stolen birds were sold to a pet shop owner. “He said I didn't know they were stolen” The flea market vendor was selling stolen goods. Buyer expressed the same reasoning” They unknowingly purchased the stolen goods. Can the buyer be criminally charged in these incidents as receiving stolen goods.

I'm confused by your use of unattributed quotes.

Who said “He said 'I didn't know they were stolen.' ” ?

...
In the law, there's a concept called mens rea. It means guilty mind. In MOST receiving stolen goods cases, the prosecutor simply can't believe that the possessor DIDN'T know the goods were stolen.
...

Proof of mens rea is required with respect to malum in se crimes but not malum prohibitum crimes. Thus if you are charged with murder, mens rea does not need to be proven. It is assumed you knew murder is bad. On the other hand, if you are charged with jay-walking, you could assert as a defense that you didn't know that the light was green.

[excon]

Hello again, lawyer:

Malum prohibitum, huh? I musta been absent that day.

excon

[pastor1189]

I think Mens rea has something to do with guilty mind or something along that line.
Very good summation of legal conclusion. Very Commendable