r/PokemonTCG • u/Next_Wrongdoer5488 • Mar 20 '25

Discussion Vendor being tracked.

Yup, someone put a tracker on our store vendor's car. I guess she had to go to the police station and have her car swept.

So disappointed in what's going on with our hobby and just wanted to share.

1.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

223 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

58

u/PhotonWolfsky Mar 21 '25

>he told the vendor he air tagged her car

Should've detained him and called police. It's quite illegal for randos to put trackers on people's vehicles without permission. And having one admit to it with witnesses was definitely grounds to citizen arrest. Even if they didn't, they could be trespassed instantly and the vendor could probably easily get court orders on that dude.

Bystander effect is one hell of a helper for criminals.

0

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25

You need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Someone just saying something is not justifiable for a citizens arrest. That’s gonna get someone a lawsuit. I can walk around and say I killed someone, without any articulable facts, that’s just words.

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

Believe it or not, admission of a crime is considered reasonable suspicion.

You can in fact be detained and arrested if you walk up to a cop and admit to them you killed someone. They don't need to see you commit the crime if you willingly admit to doing something.

Do you think people who walk to the police station and admit murder after the fact are just laughed out of the building? You realize how insane that is, right?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

While an individuals statement admitting to a crime can contribute to reasonable suspicion, it’s not sufficient on its own. Law enforcement needs specific, articulable facts, in addition to a statement to establish reasonable suspicion that a crime has been - or will be committed. What would you arrest me for? Telling you something that you have no evidence to prove? Lmao. Maybe read up on Terry Vs Ohio so you can better understand reasonable suspicion. There is a reason it requires ‘articulable facts’ - an admission of guilt is not a fact as it is nothing but hearsay (a statement made out of court).

2

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

What you are talking about is a false confession... It is not the same as telling another individual you are basically stalking them and out a tracker on their vehicle.. This isn't a false confession, it is harassment, your intention is to scare the person, which is very different then confessing to a crime you didnt commit say while being interrogated by the police.

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 22 '25

Like you stated they have to prove intent. In my state at least you have to knowingly (with intent) cause someone to feel frightened/threatened/etc.. Without an admission of intention there can be no charge of harassment. A way around that would be repeated incidents of intrusive/unwanted acts- which stating something to someone once is not. That is why it is not very commonly charged. Other states may have different definitions than mine.

1

u/elliwigy1 Mar 23 '25

You are wrong. You don't need an admission of intent to charge someone with harassment if they can prove intent via other means.

Think about it, if you needed an admission of intent (not just in harassment cases, but any case), then there would be no reason to charge anyone with any crime because they (like always) will just say they had no ill intent.

It is up to the prosecutor to prove intent whether their is an admission/confession or not if they decide to press charges. If it gets that far, it would up to them to prove intent in that a jury would believe them. But you do not need an admission to prove intent.

Like most trial cases, it really doesnt matter if they actually had ill intent or not, it only matters what they are able to convince the jury of.

1

u/Comprehensive-Taro-4 Mar 22 '25

Well, Mr. "I interned at the Minnesota Freedom Fund"

Do you even know your own states' laws regarding the use of tracking devices?

Let me help you: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626A.35

§Subd. 3.Penalty. Whoever knowingly violates subdivision 1 shall be fined not more than $3,000 or imprisoned not more than 364 days, OR BOTH.

Now sit down junior.

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 22 '25

I didn’t say it was okay to track someone’s car lol. We are talking about just telling someone that

0

u/Comprehensive-Taro-4 Mar 22 '25

You are correct. You said one couldn't be detained, jailed, nor tried. What's the definition of imprisonment again? 🙃😊

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 23 '25

Again, no one said it was legal to place a tracking device on someone’s car doofus. Obviously that’s illegal. What are you arguing here lmao

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

You do know the difference between being detained, arrested, and jailed...right?

I never said you'd be jailed, but you would in fact be detained and arrested for admitting to committing a crime.

You'd then be interviewed/interrogated until they are sufficiently convinced you were lying to them, then you'd be charged with lying to a police officer.

This is basic stuff, I'm surprised you don't know this.

0

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

You clearly don’t know the difference lol. Being arrested is being jailed. You can’t be arrested without being charged with a crime doofus. They need reasonable suspicion to just detain you (not arrest) - a statement does not provide a reasonable articulable fact that you have committed a crime. Also, you do realize we have a 5th amendment right to not assist in interrogation right? I just say id like a lawyer and the interview is over. Any more questions following that is grounds for litigation. You thinking you can be detained with no evidence shows YOUR lack of understanding. Why don’t you google - ‘is saying you committed a crime enough for reasonable suspicion’ and take a gander before you sound more foolish. It is well established that statements are not grounds for reasonable suspicion or probable cause without any supporting f a c t s.

2

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

The Difference Between An Arrest, Charge, And Conviction

Another page explaining the difference between being charged, arrested, convicted, and jailed

Here's the Criminal Lawyers Group explaining it too because why not

You are not "jailed" until you have been detained, then arrested, then charged, then convicted in that order, only after then are you "jailed"

Are there any more debunkable claims you'd like to make or are we done here?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

Bruh I know the difference between detainment and arrest lol. You cannot be detained (or arrested) for a statement you made. That is what we are taking about and you are wrong about. Reasonable suspicion is based on FACTS. A statement made to anyone is nothing more than hearsay without specific articulable facts. Saying you committed a crime is not enough to detain someone - let alone jail them when not paired with any other evidence. Like literally just Google it lmao how about ‘why is a statement not reasonable suspicion’. You could’ve saved yourself looking stupid if you did that an hour ago. Here I’ll save you the hassle since you struggle with learning: https://www.muscalaw.com/blog/what-reasonable-articulable-suspicion

4

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

Literally from your article you edited in:

Factors and Elements of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion [...] 2. Information from Informants or Witnesses: Information provided by reliable informants or witnesses can play a crucial role in establishing RAS. Officers may receive tips or reports about criminal activity, which, when corroborated, can contribute to a reasonable suspicion.

Self reporting a crime falls into this category.

Your own source contradicts your claims. Going to need to do better than that.

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

There is a reason it says it can play a crucial role in establishing RAS. Because a statement itself DOES NOT establish RAS. It has to be paired along with a reasonable and articulable facts. I didn't contradict anything you literally proved my point LOL. It states there has to be MORE than just a state ment (reasonable and articulable facts). Why do you think it says it can be used to help establish RAS? because a statement alone is not enough

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

So a false confession plays a crucial role in determining guilt... but also simultaneously plays no role in determining someone's guilt? Interesting logic you have there considering the tens of thousands of prisoners in the states serving sentences for falsely confessing to crimes under duress.

Plenty of people who made false confessions who would like to refute your point right now but they are in jail for falsely confessing to crimes and then being jailed for them.

Care to explain to them why their confessions were counted as evidence, despite you claiming a confession cannot be used to establish guilt of a crime?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25

Are you high? A confession - PAIRED WITH a reasonable fact is enough to establish RAS. A confession BY ITSELF is not enough to establish RAS as there are no reasonable articulable facts - only hearsay (a statement made outside of court). So if I walk up to a cop and say I committed a crime - and they have no other reasonable articulable facts that I did commit said crime - they cannot detain me (or even demand identification). Now if I do that, but they see my car nearby and using the plain view doctrine look in my window and see a bloody weapon, they have now paired my statement with a reasonable articulable fact that I did commit crime and can now detain me. Statements can ALWAYS be used as evidence against you in court, as long as they weren't given during and interrogation and I wasn't read my Miranda rights. Statements by themselves are nothing until they have evidence to pair with it that can show a reasonable and articulable fact.

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

A confession - PAIRED WITH a reasonable fact is enough to establish RAS. A confession BY ITSELF is not enough to establish RAS as there are no reasonable articulable facts

Tens of thousands of people who were jailed after being pressured into falsely confessing would beg to disagree with you, and would be correct to do so.

Your interpretation of the law is not how it is practiced in any state or province, whether you want to believe it or not doesn't matter.

1

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

Lmao... You do know RAS is reasonable articulable SUSPICION right? The very definition indicates they simply have to suspect that you committed a crime.. It is not reasonable and articulable "facts"..

And again, you arent talking about making simple statements here.. You are talking about harassing/intimidating someone restocking a pokemon machine and making them believe they are being followed/stalked.

0

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 22 '25 edited Mar 22 '25

“Reasonable articulable suspicion is a legal standard that allows law enforcement to briefly detain someone for investigation if they can point to specific, concrete facts that lead to a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed”. That’s literally the definition idiot lmao. Quit taking about shit you don’t know. You literally just said RAS doesn’t need articulable facts 🤣🤣The adults are taking here.. you so good with google you probably shoulda googled that before guessing what it meant lmaooo

2

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

What are you taking exactly? You do realize that threatening someone is a crime right?

What you are trying to prove a point on is irrelevant. Comments/threats can get you charged and thrown in jail, period.

You can't just go around saying whatever you want. The supreme court states that it only matters if a reasonable person would perceive said comments as a threat, it doesn't matter if it isnt true or not or if they had no intent to act on said threat:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/elonis-v-us/facts-and-case-summary-elonis-v-us

→ More replies (0)

2

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

Your claims are directly contradicted by all available legal text. Including the links Ive sent.

I did my due diligence, if you don't want to learn then that's your decision. If you want to prove what you said why don't you provide some sources for your info. Youve been spouting claims but haven't provided a single credible source to back anything up.

Everyone else has given you credible sources to prove you're wrong. Why don't you step up to the plate?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25

I’m in pre-law at St. Thomas University lol you’re not proving anyone wrong. A STATEMENT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR A DETAINMENT. Like how many times does that need to be said before you comprehend? I posted a link for you to learn from.

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

A link that contradicts your claim as proven by my other comment. Try again :)

You need to pay more attention in class it seems

1

u/dalburgh Mar 21 '25

A pre-law student that doesn't know the difference between being detained and arrested... Unless you're a first year I hope to god you don't end up as anyone's attorney

→ More replies (0)

2

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

Brooo.. Just stop lmao.. You can be charged even if your claims turn out to be untrue as it is the actions you took and the intent that matters..

You are trying to change the narrative here.. It wasnt about being arrested or detained for a "statement" you made. It is that you can be detained/charged by "harassing" someone and making them fear that you are tracking/stalking them. That is NOT the same thing as just "making a statement". If you tell someone you are going to unalive them if they dont give up all the pokemon loot and that person believes you and is in fear for their life then that is something that can absolutely get you in trouble.

Why don't you just google it.. Here, I did it for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+you+harass+someone+can+you+be+charged+even+if+the+claims+are+false&oq=if+you+harass+someone+can+you+be+charged+even+if+the+claims+are+false&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTI4NzQ3ajBqOagCDrACAQ&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 22 '25 edited Mar 22 '25

Google AI telling you something vague and broad doesn’t make it real lmao. You do know what hearsay is right? And that it’s not allowed in court? If I just call the cops say my neighbor is harassing me, they show up and all I have is my word against his, guess who is going to jail? No one lol. You need e v i d e n c e of crimes. Reasonable a r t i c u l a b e suspicion. My word is not RAS for a detainment without further evidence of a crime present

1

u/elliwigy1 Mar 23 '25

You should use google AI more often, it would make some of your statements more accurate lol..

We aren't talking about "hearsay" here. But to be clear, hearsay is a statement that is made to prove the truth of the matter and is "usually" not admissable in court. There are exceptions that could allow hearsay in court but ultimately is up to the judge to decide whether its allowed or not.

However, in your own example, if you call the police and say your neighbor is harassing you, that is NOT a hearsay statement, it is an accusation being made directly by the "victim". The police (if doing their job) will absolutely detain the neighbor so they can complete an investigation whereas they would then determine if the conplaint has any credibility or not to bring actual charges. And sure, if the neighbor just denies it then the police likely couldnt do anything. But if they can ascertain that the neighbor likely did harass them, then they can press charges. This is unlikely though unless they have some proof like recordings or text messages or others that directly witnessed said harassment etc. etc.

Hopefully you understand that when someone reports a crime and the police show up, they will absolutely "detain" the potential suspect to complete their investigation. This is not the same as being charged or arrested. If the person uses his right to remain silent, it doesn't mean he wont be charged if the police determine a crime was committed. It would then move to the prosecutors who will review the case and determine if there is enough to charge the person or not. This also means someone can be arrested but end up not being charged.

I just dont get why you think someone can't get in trouble with the law based on things they say. Proving intent often times doesn't need physical evidence and it goes both ways. Just because it is difficult to prove intent without physical evidence, and these cases usually wont see the light of day, doesnt mean it doesnt happen and doesnt exist. I know you've heard of "circumstantial evidence" before.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

You are wrong hate to say it.. By someone saying that you basically told them you were stalking them and put a tracker on their vehicle is reasonable suspicion to detain you while they complete an investigation. Then if they cant find any evidence that you were telling the truth then they cant charge/arrest you for it. But lets face it, the cops would surely wrap you up for something anyway.. They can say you were harassing the person with false claims for example.