Cache maggot arrested.

[+bittsen]

Apathy seems to come all too easily to someone who did not own one of the stolen caches.

I don't know that it's apathy... and I do understand the frustrations the victims feel. I too have had caches stolen and have for years sought a clear legal position on cache ownership, related criminal law and possible punishment of cache maggots... the very things that this case and thread are about.

 

It has been a constant frustration that the attorneys employed by Groundspeak and those attorneys who are Volunteer Cache Reviewers have not been able to give us a solid position on these issues. I totally understand why they don't (can't) but still it's frustrating not to have facts to work with.

 

I hope then that however this case is resolved it results in a precedent that can be used in similar future cases to educate cachers and to protect our caches.

 

Still, all this talk about the alleged perpetrator should be focused on the incident(s), status of the case and legal recourse... not on the individual.

 

The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear about someone who has embarked upon what I consider to be a rather silly long-term pattern of misbehavior is that the person has psychological issues... such aberrant behavior is often rooted in emotional or mental defect.

 

That does not in any way excuse their behavior, but what it should do is raise a warning flag that we are dealing with a person whose thinking is outside the norm.

 

So, if we believe that we're dealing with someone who has such issues I think it is incumbent to tread carefully.

 

Had the matter been a citation or even arrest, handled by the law and that was it, then the repercussions on his life would not have been, to my thinking, disastrous for him. Lots of folks get in trouble and are penalized. Our system of laws assumes that the punishment is a life lesson and that the perpetrator will go forth and sin no more. Sometimes they dangle a suspended sentence over his head if the judge feels that the perp needs added inducement to retire from his life of crime.

 

That's the way the law works. The prosecution doesn't call the perp's employer, notify his family, post his foolishness and identification on the internet in an attempt to discredit or destroy him... and there are good reasons for that.

 

So, by personally addressing and identifying him in this forum, local forums, among ourselves and his community we have gone beyond what the law considers to be proper and adequate. We have taken steps directly or indirectly to assure that word of this case will reach his employer, family and community.

 

Now, when the 'normal' individual becomes the focus of such internet attention it is no big deal. Been there, done that, and lived to move on.

 

But, when you have reason to believe that the focus of your attention is already suffering from serious emotional issues that allowed or led to his antisocial behavior in the first place then the chances are much higher that this piling-on may have disastrous consequences.

 

Some here have talked about him losing his job. Losing his security clearance and therefore his future career. Seeking the maximum penalty under the law. Marking him forever as a "cache maggot".

 

Those things can have a far more profound effect on someone who may not have 'normal' psychology and coping skills.

 

Its easy to see where all of this personal identification and attention may well lead... and while I totally understand the concept of "If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime", it's more likely to be exacerbated here, an unnecessarily slippery slope ... prosecuted in a court of law, punished by the law, then publicly embarrassed and shamed in his local community, he then loses his job, loses his security clearance and therefore any future prospects in his career field, loses his house because he can't find adequate work, loses his wife when she can't deal with all this, puts a gun in his mouth. Unstable people are far more likely to ride that slide.

 

I do not advocate letting this go. I do however advocate letting the law deal with adjudicating this and selecting an appropriate punishment. Let us here discuss those issues.

 

Revealing the man's job, address, automobile, what he wore to court and personal interpretations of his behavior and expression is beyond the pale. I believe that the chance that this public exposure has been brought to the attention of his employer or family has already happened, or if not that it will. And that's wrong.

 

Let's keep this discussion focused on the crime and punishment, and not on the alleged perpetrator's personal life.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. Keep that in mind.

 

What we have here is a difference in socio-economic class. Let me explain.

 

When someone has a job working at McDonalds, nobody would really be concerned if he loses his job. Most McDonalds workers are of a class of people who can only get minimum wage jobs. (no offense to McDonalds workers).

When you look at the range of minimum wage earners, there are a few common denominators (with exception). One is a lack of education. Not that they are dumb but most have a high school diploma at the very best. There may be many reasons why this is the case but it is.

Pick someone who is 30 and still working at McDonalds (other than a manager) and you will usually fond someone who has little realistic ambition. Some people refer to them a "losers". That's not a term I use but adequately represents a position that society would class them.

Mr Repak is NOT a McDonalds employee. In fact, his position appears to be far from a typical minimum wage earner. He probably has a very nice income, a pension, health plan, retirement, paid vacation... you get the point. Mr Repak would be one of the farthest you could get from that "loser" who is still a burger flipper at McDonalds (again, not my phrase). He's got a nice house, wife, family, maybe even a dog. Yeah, he's got a LOT to lose.

 

Now let's get both the mythical McDonalds employee on the same page as Mr Repak.

 

They both have jobs.

For the sake of argument, lets assume the rest about the Mcdonalds worker

They both have a spouse

They both have a place to sleep

They both have a dog

They both have a family.

 

Now, what separates them? Just the amount of money they get from the job.

 

If the McDonalds person was the cache maggot:

Would you be upset if the McDonalds worker had to go get a new job?

How about if his roommate kicked him out?

What if his wife got mad and divorced him?

How about if his dog bit him?

What if his family disowned him?

 

In fact, chances are that the McDonalds worker wouldn't lose his job.

His roommate would probably laugh

His spouse would forgive him

His dog would still love him

And his family already knew what kind of person he is.

 

What does that say?

 

It says that the McDonalds employee already has a life that people understand. He's been honest with himself and others. Everyone knows what he's all about and nobody is shocked to find out he's a cache maggot. He might have even bragged about it to his friends. And he had little to lose.

 

Mr Repak, on the other hand, probably has everyone fooled. He's lied to them. He's pretended to be of a higher plane of existance. He's got a lot to lose. He's betrayed people who have trusted him and that's the biggest part of the crime. He was trusted and has betrayed that trust.

 

So, McDonalds worker or Engineer for the military...

Let's hold them both to the same standard? Loo above at the blue text. Would you be as bothered if the McDonalds worker lost everything that Paul Repak takes for granted?

 

 

I, personally don't think that Paul Repak's life and everything he has (and might lose) is any more significant than the McDonalds worker. One just had more to lose (but only if you are counting dollars).

[+fishgeek]

The circumstantial evidence below more than meets the burden of proof for a conviction in this Kangaroo Court here on the forums. Unfortunately, the burden is much higher in an actual court. It seems hard to tell to which court some posters are referring. Personally, I am reasonably sure that Mr. Repak is guilty of the theft of hundreds of caches, but I am not in the jury pool, nor will I have any influence whatsoever on the case.

 

As for the evidence, wouldn't it be nice if C.S.I. NY could go through his computer and his house. I'm sure that they could find links to many if not most of the missing caches. That's just not gonna happen.

 

 

and while yes, it would be unfair for us to assign blame for every cache that goes missing to mr. repak, there has been a great body of circumstantial evidence that he is responsible for a great deal of the cache thefts in that area over a period of years.

 

What's the great body of circumstantial evidence? ...

 

Let's see what I've heard so far.

 

1. Caches tended to go missing around Rome midweek, when Mr Repak would have been working in the area and they tended to go missing in the Adirondacks on weekends, when he would have had free time to make the 1 1/2 to 2 hour drive there.

 

2. He was caught on a game camera stealing another cache.

 

3. Many of the stolen caches were back country caches that involved longish hikes over difficult terrain. Mr. Repak had some expertise in back country travel.

 

4. Difficult puzzle caches were also stolen. He is an electrical engineer, so obviously has some brains.

 

5. He ran when caught.

 

6. There were logbooks and key holders from other caches in his car, as well as a list of other caches and their coordinates.

 

7. When a local geocacher contacted him after his arrest, he didn't deny that he was THE thief, but he did offer to make some type of restitution.

 

I'm sure there is more that I missed

[+chachi44089]

edited as not to offend.

Edited March 4, 2010 by chachi44089

[knowschad]

TAR, that was a very thoughtful summation of the situation. Thanks for taking the considerable time that it must have taken to write that.

[knowschad]

What?

I am not a moderator, but nevertheless, I would like to politely ask that you (and anyone else who fits this shoe) please stop making flippant posts like this, and your last one, to what many of us consider to be a very important thread. We've already had one warning. Thank you. You may wish to start a funny thread about this over in the Off-Topics forum instead.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I just joined the NYCRG forum and the thread on this topic is much smaller over there. It was much easier to sift through the information. I would highly recommend those that only want updates to subscribe to the thread over there (and they probably post there first anyways)

 

Thanks for the link BS - And you were correct. The photograph taken by the game camera was matched up with a photo of Mr. Repak that was in the paper copy of the story, so there was a photo to compare with.

[+chachi44089]

I opoligize..just tried to lighten the mood a little..

Edited March 4, 2010 by chachi44089

[+ReadyOrNot]

I, personally don't think that Paul Repak's life and everything he has (and might lose) is any more significant than the McDonalds worker. One just had more to lose (but only if you are counting dollars).

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this has anything to do with his job or his family. I do agree with you that ones worth is not based upon how much money you make. He's made some poor decisions, yes, but that doesn't make him an evil person.

[+bittsen]

I, personally don't think that Paul Repak's life and everything he has (and might lose) is any more significant than the McDonalds worker. One just had more to lose (but only if you are counting dollars).

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this has anything to do with his job or his family. I do agree with you that ones worth is not based upon how much money you make. He's made some poor decisions, yes, but that doesn't make him an evil person.

 

What does define someone as an evil person.

 

I define evil as "deliberately causing another harm for oness own pleasure"

I fefine "another" as another living life which includes animals."

I define pleasure as "an enjoyable sensation in the mind that is seperate from a biological need for survival"

I define deliberately as "Intentional"

I define "intentionall causing harm" to indicate that the sole purpose of the activity IS to cause harm.

I define "For one's own pleasure" as the sole reason for the cause of the harm.

 

In that context, evil is not causing harm to a masochist who gives permission to be harmed.

 

I hope that explanation keeps the trolls away.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I, personally don't think that Paul Repak's life and everything he has (and might lose) is any more significant than the McDonalds worker. One just had more to lose (but only if you are counting dollars).

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this has anything to do with his job or his family. I do agree with you that ones worth is not based upon how much money you make. He's made some poor decisions, yes, but that doesn't make him an evil person.

 

What does define someone as an evil person.

 

I define evil as "deliberately causing another harm for oness own pleasure"

I fefine "another" as another living life which includes animals."

I define pleasure as "an enjoyable sensation in the mind that is seperate from a biological need for survival"

I define deliberately as "Intentional"

I define "intentionall causing harm" to indicate that the sole purpose of the activity IS to cause harm.

I define "For one's own pleasure" as the sole reason for the cause of the harm.

 

In that context, evil is not causing harm to a masochist who gives permission to be harmed.

 

I hope that explanation keeps the trolls away.

 

Uhhh.. yeah, right... By definition, we are all evil, which I agree with. We are all evil by nature, so we all deserve to be punished, lose our jobs, have our spouses divorce us and children laugh at us...

 

Thanks for the clarification

[+ArtieD]

I, personally don't think that Paul Repak's life and everything he has (and might lose) is any more significant than the McDonalds worker. One just had more to lose (but only if you are counting dollars).

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this has anything to do with his job or his family. I do agree with you that ones worth is not based upon how much money you make. He's made some poor decisions, yes, but that doesn't make him an evil person.

 

Agreed. This should have no bearing on his family or job. Sure, he made at least one poor decision...but that hardly warrants wrecking his life, especially for something so trivial.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I, personally don't think that Paul Repak's life and everything he has (and might lose) is any more significant than the McDonalds worker. One just had more to lose (but only if you are counting dollars).

 

I honestly don't understand how any of this has anything to do with his job or his family. I do agree with you that ones worth is not based upon how much money you make. He's made some poor decisions, yes, but that doesn't make him an evil person.

 

Agreed. This should have no bearing on his family or job. Sure, he made at least one poor decision...but that hardly warrants wrecking his life, especially for something so trivial.

 

Some feel this is not trivial and is one of the signs of the apocolypse. I honestly believe that if he were to get the crap kicked out of him while out in the wilderness (in front of his kids even), that some of the folks here would feel it was justified. I have a big problem with that.

[+dnnsgps]

... Last I checked, this is a discussion thread, not a don't talk and wait to be enlightened by the self-appointed information disseminator who apparently has the time to sit in court on a work-day...

This kind of personal attack is why these threads get shut down.

 

As far as I can tell this is a victim of a crime seeking justice, attending to her interests, and reporting the facts to those of us who want to know how this case is adjudicated.

 

In that light this attack on her character is totally inappropriate.

 

Let's discuss the case and not the individuals.

 

For ReadyOrNot - Yes - it's a work day for those who have jobs to go to. I'm unemployed and had time to go to the court house but it was only 1/2 hour. I was in my car on my way home at 9:30AM!

 

For The AlabamaRambler - Thank You for your kind words.

 

There are a few people on this thread who are decent and want to learn more about happenings and some of you also know of the situation here as well. Then there are the others who need to go back to manner school and learn their manners.

[+ReadyOrNot]

... Last I checked, this is a discussion thread, not a don't talk and wait to be enlightened by the self-appointed information disseminator who apparently has the time to sit in court on a work-day...

This kind of personal attack is why these threads get shut down.

 

As far as I can tell this is a victim of a crime seeking justice, attending to her interests, and reporting the facts to those of us who want to know how this case is adjudicated.

 

In that light this attack on her character is totally inappropriate.

 

Let's discuss the case and not the individuals.

 

For ReadyOrNot - Yes - it's a work day for those who have jobs to go to. I'm unemployed and had time to go to the court house but it was only 1/2 hour. I was in my car on my way home at 9:30AM!

 

For The AlabamaRambler - Thank You for your kind words.

 

There are a few people on this thread who are decent and want to learn more about happenings and some of you also know of the situation here as well. Then there are the others who need to go back to manner school and learn their manners.

 

MY manners? There's a real potential for Mr. Repak to at the very least be subject harrassment following the disposition of this case. And you stating that he stole your caches when that hasn't been established is providing more ammunition to those that may want to take the law into their own hands. Don't lecture me on manners. If you want to report on the case, then fine... But it's not your job to judge and execute this individual.

 

There is a real distinct possibility that he will have the charges dropped. Were you in this thread when threats were being made? A real person being harrassed or even injured (and possibly worse but its not worth even thinking about) is so far beyond some stupid geocaches getting stolen and you are aiding in the furor.

 

So don't talk to me about my manners.

Edited March 4, 2010 by ReadyOrNot

[+bittsen]

 

Uhhh.. yeah, right... By definition, we are all evil, which I agree with. We are all evil by nature, so we all deserve to be punished, lose our jobs, have our spouses divorce us and children laugh at us...

 

Thanks for the clarification

 

I fail to see how you got that from what I said.

 

I have noticed that you seem to just want to argue so, have fun. I will probably just ignore you.

[NeecesandNephews]

 

Uhhh.. yeah, right... By definition, we are all evil, which I agree with. We are all evil by nature, so we all deserve to be punished, lose our jobs, have our spouses divorce us and children laugh at us...

 

Thanks for the clarification

 

I fail to see how you got that from what I said.

 

I have noticed that you seem to just want to argue so, have fun. I will probably just ignore you.

 

 

 

Good plan bittsen!!! They seem to be determined to get the thread closed for some reason. Go figure!

[+dnnsgps]

... Last I checked, this is a discussion thread, not a don't talk and wait to be enlightened by the self-appointed information disseminator who apparently has the time to sit in court on a work-day...

This kind of personal attack is why these threads get shut down.

 

As far as I can tell this is a victim of a crime seeking justice, attending to her interests, and reporting the facts to those of us who want to know how this case is adjudicated.

 

In that light this attack on her character is totally inappropriate.

 

Let's discuss the case and not the individuals.

 

For ReadyOrNot - Yes - it's a work day for those who have jobs to go to. I'm unemployed and had time to go to the court house but it was only 1/2 hour. I was in my car on my way home at 9:30AM!

 

For The AlabamaRambler - Thank You for your kind words.

 

There are a few people on this thread who are decent and want to learn more about happenings and some of you also know of the situation here as well. Then there are the others who need to go back to manner school and learn their manners.

 

MY manners? There's a real potential for Mr. Repak to at the very least be subject harrassment following the disposition of this case. And you stating that he stole your caches when that hasn't been established is providing more ammunition to those that may want to take the law into their own hands. Don't lecture me on manners. If you want to report on the case, then fine... But it's not your job to judge and execute this individual.

 

There is a real distinct possibility that he will have the charges dropped. Were you in this thread when threats were being made? A real person being harrassed or even injured (and possibly worse but its not worth even thinking about) is so far beyond some stupid geocaches getting stolen and you are aiding in the furor.

 

So don't talk to me about my manners.

 

First off you accousted me of having nothing better to do on a work day but sit in a court room all day! It's a free country and if I feel like sitting in a court room listening to all I have that right. No one kicked me out! This is not harrassment!!

 

Are you a Lawyer? Doesn't sound like it! YOU DON"T LIVE IN THIS AREA TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE NOT TO BE ABLE TO FIND ANY CACHES BEFORE THE THIEF GOT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have Proof!! You Don't!!!

 

I got word from Johfra that my cache logs/containers were found in his car, the police has this on video!!!

 

I hope that this thread does get locked down and those of us with info will be posting it elsewhere

[+ArtieD]

I have Proof!! You Don't!!!

 

I got word from Johfra that my cache logs/containers were found in his car, the police has this on video!!!

 

I hope that this thread does get locked down and those of us with info will be posting it elsewhere

 

Grab the pitchforks, y'all...there's gonna be a lynching!

 

Better yet, let's see the proof. So far, there's only proof that the guy took one cache.

[+Kayleo]

I will no longer be posting anything on this thread as it has gotten way too long, and way too off topic. I have started another thread about the facts and only the facts if anyone wishes to follow the story without all the clutter. Please keep that thread clutter free for those who wish to get the information easily.

[knowschad]

I will no longer be posting anything on this thread as it has gotten way too long, and way too off topic. I have started another thread about the facts and only the facts if anyone wishes to follow the story without all the clutter. Please keep that thread clutter free for those who wish to get the information easily.

Please don't take that stance, Kayleo. Yeah, this thread has certainly had its bad moments, and is now experiencing another, but this is the thread that should have the entire... well, thread. That is why I've been hoping that it won't be shut down by the moderators.

[+chachi44089]

edited

Edited March 4, 2010 by chachi44089

[+briansnat]

The circumstantial evidence below more than meets the burden of proof for a conviction in this Kangaroo Court here on the forums. Unfortunately, the burden is much higher in an actual court. It seems hard to tell to which court some posters are referring. Personally, I am reasonably sure that Mr. Repak is guilty of the theft of hundreds of caches, but I am not in the jury pool, nor will I have any influence whatsoever on the case.

 

As for the evidence, wouldn't it be nice if C.S.I. NY could go through his computer and his house. I'm sure that they could find links to many if not most of the missing caches. That's just not gonna happen.

 

 

and while yes, it would be unfair for us to assign blame for every cache that goes missing to mr. repak, there has been a great body of circumstantial evidence that he is responsible for a great deal of the cache thefts in that area over a period of years.

 

What's the great body of circumstantial evidence? ...

 

Let's see what I've heard so far.

 

1. Caches tended to go missing around Rome midweek, when Mr Repak would have been working in the area and they tended to go missing in the Adirondacks on weekends, when he would have had free time to make the 1 1/2 to 2 hour drive there.

 

2. He was caught on a game camera stealing another cache.

 

3. Many of the stolen caches were back country caches that involved longish hikes over difficult terrain. Mr. Repak had some expertise in back country travel.

 

4. Difficult puzzle caches were also stolen. He is an electrical engineer, so obviously has some brains.

 

5. He ran when caught.

 

6. There were logbooks and key holders from other caches in his car, as well as a list of other caches and their coordinates.

 

7. When a local geocacher contacted him after his arrest, he didn't deny that he was THE thief, but he did offer to make some type of restitution.

 

I'm sure there is more that I missed

 

In a criminal court much of this evidence would probably be inadmissible. In the court of common sense Mr Repak is the likely culprit. Whether he is convicted as charged, plea bargains, gets the charges dropped or is found not guilty, as a cache owner please allow me to take delight in any uncomfortability that his actions caused him.

[+briansnat]

MY manners? There's a real potential for Mr. Repak to at the very least be subject harrassment following the disposition of this case. And you stating that he stole your caches when that hasn't been established is providing more ammunition to those that may want to take the law into their own hands. Don't lecture me on manners. If you want to report on the case, then fine... But it's not your job to judge and execute this individual.

 

Ahh, but you certainly see fit to judge people here. Hmmm

[+briansnat]

I have Proof!! You Don't!!!

 

I got word from Johfra that my cache logs/containers were found in his car, the police has this on video!!!

 

I hope that this thread does get locked down and those of us with info will be posting it elsewhere

 

Grab the pitchforks, y'all...there's gonna be a lynching!

 

Better yet, let's see the proof. So far, there's only proof that the guy took one cache.

 

What about the other cache logs found in his car? What about his photo on a game camera at another stolen cache? What about when he was confronted by another geocacher after he was caught he didn't deny it, but instead offered restitution?

Edited March 4, 2010 by briansnat

[+WRASTRO]

The new hread will be better as long as this doesnt happen to that one.There are very little usefull facts in this thread,18 pages and only a couple "facts".Will be nice to be able to scroll a little and read the "actual"story as it unfolds.This tread is tiring.

This thread is tiring because many posters can't bring themselves to stay on topic.

 

I do hope the accused goes to trial and, if convicted, pays for the crimes in an appropriate manner. Community service comes to mind.

 

The McDonalds discussion really points out why so few white collar crimes are prosecuted.

 

Thanks to those in the know who have been posting updates.

[+chachi44089]

edited

Edited March 4, 2010 by chachi44089

[knowschad]

this needs locked..pointless arguing

Disagree... this needs maturity and restraint.

[+chachi44089]

true

Edited March 4, 2010 by chachi44089

[+WRASTRO]

and when is that supposed to happen..lol

When each poster sticks to the discussion, stops the pointless debates, doesn't post off topic pictures?

[+bittsen]

this needs locked..pointless arguing

With all due respect, unless your account is a sock puppet, you don't have enough experience with geocaching, or the geocaching forums to have an educated opinion.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be mean. I just don't think you are experienced enough to determine when a thread should be closed.

 

There has been much good discussion in this thread aside from comments like yours, comments questioning the meaning of words, and general sympathy for that poor soul who just happens to be a cache maggot.

[+ArtieD]

There has been much good discussion in this thread aside from comments like yours, comments questioning the meaning of words, and general sympathy for that poor soul who just happens to be a cache maggot.

 

Yeah...silly me for believing in that time-honored tenet that we are all innocent until proven guilty...

[knowschad]

and when is that supposed to happen..lol

Right now, if you don't mind.

[+chachi44089]

You are right.I dont want to be part of the problem.Hard not to get sucked in to the arguements sometimes.

Edited March 4, 2010 by chachi44089

[knowschad]

and when is that supposed to happen..lol

Right now, if you don't mind.

[+briansnat]

There has been much good discussion in this thread aside from comments like yours, comments questioning the meaning of words, and general sympathy for that poor soul who just happens to be a cache maggot.

 

Yeah...silly me for believing in that time-honored tenet that we are all innocent until proven guilty...

 

I think you are confusing criminal courts with the court of public opinion. It's never been a tenet in the latter.

[+flask]

there are also a large number of indicators that many of the cache thefts are by the same person.

 

in courts of law, while prosecutors often have an idea who is behind a series of crimes, they may only have hard evidence to warrant charges on some of those crimes.

 

there are a large number of cache thefts that appear to have been committed by the same person.

 

mr. repak has allegedly stolen some caches belonging to that set.

 

we might therefore reasonably conclude that mr. repak has stolen many of the caches that appear to have been stolen by the same person.

 

while it is reasonable to draw this conclusion based on evidence, it would not be reasonable for a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. since we are not the jury, we are free to draw conclusions based on evidence we have.

 

even jurors (generally speaking) may draw such a conclusion and yet adhere to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and acquit.

[+sbell111]

There has been much good discussion in this thread aside from comments like yours, comments questioning the meaning of words, and general sympathy for that poor soul who just happens to be a cache maggot.

So basically, anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all should not bother posting. I see. Edited March 4, 2010 by sbell111

[+zgrav]

The standard that a person is PRESUMED to be innocent until proven guilty was created for a criminal prosecution where a guilty verdict is based upon a conclusion that it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she has been charged. So if the proof fails, the defendant is "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." It does not mean the person is "really" innocent, although that is certainly one possibility. Or maybe the person was just "less guilty" than had been charged. That is one reason that a lot of criminal indictments will have a main charge and "lesser included offenses". Those lesser offenses often form the basis for plea agreements and compromises.

 

A civil conviction is based upon a much lower standard using a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).

 

And in both of those instances there can be technical reasons that some of the evidence that is "really" available cannot be considered by the court, even though that means the outcome of the proceeding will be based on less than all of the relevant information that may have been available. For instance, if the charge against someone is relatively minor and there are other crimes that need to be solved and prosecuted, the state is not going to spend a lot or resources tracking down other witnesses and gathering evidence for similar offenses that the defendant may have committed.

 

Conversely, even in cases where the proof of one crime is weak, the government may go to great lengths to gather evidence against the defendant for other crimes. So Al Capone went to prison for tax crimes when the larger ring of criminal actions he "allegedly" committed could not be proven against him.

 

Free ranging discussions of the issues by an interested community are not so limited, and a range of thoughts about the gravity of the offense and what information each person accepts as relevant or useful will vary widely. People that focus on the items that would be accepted in a criminal proceeding will have a different view than others who are considering a much larger pool of information.

 

This ties into my thoughts in an earlier thread about how different groups may form their own conclusions about the defendant and respond to him differently (including shunning, to tie in another comment I made).

 

There have been some very thoughtful exchanges in this thread along with some comments that put out a lot more heat than light. And even a lot of the heated comments have been entertaining or thought provoking. For those reasons, plus the information from the events that have been provided, I am glad the thread has been left open.

[+chachi44089]

This may be a basic question,but.How much will the value of the things he stole weigh in to his possible punishment?Seems there wasnt alot of monitary value in the items found.Could he simply be made to make the victim or victims whole?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This may be a basic question,but.How much will the value of the things he stole weigh in to his possible punishment?Seems there wasnt alot of monitary value in the items found.Could he simply be made to make the victim or victims whole?

In the other thread this post says that he pled not guilty:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4247495

 

"Paul L. Repak, 58, of Lewis Road, Boonville, pleaded not guilty to fifth-degree possession of stolen property and petty larceny. Police said at 7:30 p.m. Feb. 16, Rapak stole a black magnetic key holder that had been hidden beneath a sculpture on the Griffiss Business and tecnology Park as part of a game known as geocaching. The object of the game is to hide a small trinket somewhere in your neighborhood, and then other players will search for it using the Global Positioning System."

 

I would guess that there is some sort of fee schedule published detailing the upper and lower limits of fines and penalties for "fifth-degree possession of stolen property and petty larceny" in that court system.

 

At least that, if correct, clarifies what charges the Prosecution is pursuing.

 

I think those would be two charges:

Possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

Petit Larceny

and each would have a penalty.

Edited March 4, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+chachi44089]

Does anyone know if he has any prior convictions?

[knowschad]

Does anyone know if he has any prior convictions?

Not likely, I'm guessing. If he did, he probably would not have had the security clearance that he has.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Does anyone know if he has any prior convictions?

Not likely, I'm guessing. If he did, he probably would not have had the security clearance that he has.

The question is interesting.

 

I would guess that his job calls for Secret clearance if it calls for one at all.

 

Frankly my opinion is that clearances are not well maintained. I've known some pretty gnarly folks who held clearances.

 

Once issued they are supposed to be re-investigated every ten years, but in the meantime I think something would have to be brought to the agency's attention before they would know about it.

 

I had to maintain a clearance first in the Navy and then for 28 years as a civilian contractor because of the government and particularly DoD computer contracts I worked on, and I think it was reviewed in 2002, the year before I retired, when I was doing an Air Farce contract. My guess is that it's still in effect and no one is paying any attention... there have to be hundreds of thousands who have been cleared, they can't keep up with all of them.

 

If he is convicted it might trip a trigger when his ten-year review comes around, though I doubt it, and as far as immediate consequences unless someone brings it to the attention of the agency I doubt they'll notice.

 

If he has a higher level of clearance that might be different.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think the idea that he would lose his security clearance is inaccurate. All of my searching has confirmed that a minor conviction would not be sufficient. Here's are the websites I found for reference if you care:

 

http://www.shawbransford.com/articles/18.pdf

 

http://www.defendyoursecurityclearance.com/id10.html

[Mushtang]

Thank goodness we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty (unless you have money, but that's a different story altogether)

Yeah...silly me for believing in that time-honored tenet that we are all innocent until proven guilty...

Nope, this is not true. If you steal something then you're a thief, and you're guilty the moment it happens.

 

The thing that you two are confused about, is that only in the eyes of a court are you believed to be innocent before being proved guilty. This only means that you can't be punished until you're convicted.

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong from your posts, but it seems like you both are suggesting that folks in this forum are not allowed to believe he's guilty and/or shouldn't be posting in this thread that he's guilty. That's not true at all. There's no law against someone posting that the evidence discussed so far is enough to convince them that the man is guilty.

[+sbell111]

I would guess that there is some sort of fee schedule published detailing the upper and lower limits of fines and penalties for "fifth-degree possession of stolen property and petty larceny" in that court system.

 

At least that, if correct, clarifies what charges the Prosecution is pursuing.

 

I think those would be two charges:

Possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

Petit Larceny

and each would have a penalty.

Both crimes are Class A misdemeanors. The range of punishment is nothing at all to a maximum of up to one year in jail, along with the assessments of fines, restitution and court costs.

[+bittsen]

This may be a basic question,but.How much will the value of the things he stole weigh in to his possible punishment?Seems there wasnt alot of monitary value in the items found.Could he simply be made to make the victim or victims whole?

 

Hitting someone doesn't necessarily have any monetary harm but a simple apology is never the punishment for assault.

 

The courts won't just ask him to pay restitution. The courts, if he's found guilty, will assess a fine. They need to make a buck to cover the "court costs".

[+Castle Mischief]

I think the idea that he would lose his security clearance is inaccurate. All of my searching has confirmed that a minor conviction would not be sufficient. Here's are the websites I found for reference if you care:

 

http://www.shawbransford.com/articles/18.pdf

 

http://www.defendyoursecurityclearance.com/id10.html

 

I was wondering about this myself. Many moons ago, a 19-year-old version of me committed a non-violent, non-drug/alcohol-related misdemeanor. When 20-year-old me was in the process of enlisting for the Navy all I had to do was fill out a form that game the details of the crime (in cursive for some strange reason). I was told that it would have no bearing on the security clearance that I would need to work around the really big missiles on the really big subs. Now, it could be that the recruiter was blowing smoke up my exhaust. I ended up not joining due in part to a medical condition and the same recruiter's suggestions that I ask my doctor to down-play the medical condition so that I would be able to join.

 

I should probably read a few pages back, but does he work directly for the military or is he employed by a contractor for the military. We do DAS work around here but there are only a few folks that need clearance for a very few areas. A conviction in a theft wouldn't affect 99% of the folks in this building.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Thank goodness we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty (unless you have money, but that's a different story altogether)

Yeah...silly me for believing in that time-honored tenet that we are all innocent until proven guilty...

Nope, this is not true. If you steal something then you're a thief, and you're guilty the moment it happens.

 

The thing that you two are confused about, is that only in the eyes of a court are you believed to be innocent before being proved guilty. This only means that you can't be punished until you're convicted.

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong from your posts, but it seems like you both are suggesting that folks in this forum are not allowed to believe he's guilty and/or shouldn't be posting in this thread that he's guilty. That's not true at all. There's no law against someone posting that the evidence discussed so far is enough to convince them that the man is guilty.

 

You are absolutely correct. Posting the person's address and personal information in these forums and then finding him guilty in the court of public opinion is absolutely not against the law. So, when the case is dismissed and a few individuals decide to administer their own justice to this individual when he's out taking a walk, every single one of the people in this forum that have stoked the fire will have blood on their hands.

 

Mushtang, if it were a civil discussion of the evidence and the possible outcomes of the case, that would be different. Have you not read the threats in this thread? This is one of the few times I've been on these forums where it's not just simple back and forth and arguing for fun. A real person's life has a real potential to be impacted by the furor being created here.

[+ArtieD]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong from your posts, but it seems like you both are suggesting that folks in this forum are not allowed to believe he's guilty and/or shouldn't be posting in this thread that he's guilty. That's not true at all. There's no law against someone posting that the evidence discussed so far is enough to convince them that the man is guilty.

 

No, that's not the case at all. I wholly believe in freedom of speech. What does scare me, however, is that if the man is found innocent or he does not get the punishment some thinks he deserves, some people will take it upon themselves to punish the guy. I have seen implied threats of bodily harm to wishing he loses his livelihood over a couple caches he may or may not have stolen. It's reached the point of insanity.

 

I seriously wish some people would step back, breathe and take a look at themselves...if they have any sense of right and wrong, they would not like what they'd see.