Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone

cmaier said:
First, there was no "raid." Second, there are reports contradicting the "on pause" report. Third, again, the law does not require that the DA go ask everyone's opinion prior to going to a judge. The judge is the arbiter, and it's his job to take the factors into account and to decide whether or not the warrant comports with the Fourth Amendment and any other relevant Constitutional requirements.
Click to expand...

Breaking into someone's house, taking all computers and making mess is what exactly?

Show me contradicting reports please - would love to read them!

Regarding third point - it sounds to me that judge could have easily be bought by Apple to allow the raid...

Perhaps Police should raid judge house and take his computers to examine possibility of fraud / corruption!?
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Breaking into someone's house, taking all computers and making mess is what exactly?

Show me contradicting reports please - would love to read them!

Regarding third point - it sounds to me that judge could have easily be bought by Apple to allow the raid...

Perhaps Police should raid judge house and take his computers to examine possibility of fraud!?
Click to expand...

Are you a teenager?
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Breaking into someone's house, taking all computers and making mess is what exactly?

Show me contradicting reports please - would love to read them!

Regarding third point - it sounds to me that judge could have easily be bought by Apple to allow the raid...

Perhaps Police should raid judge house and take his computers to examine possibility of fraud!?
Click to expand...

If the judge started blogging about how he was paid to do just that yes, it would happen. Oh, but according to you and your defence of Giz he should be then protected under the shield law...
 
Full of Win said:
The 'real' golden rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules; and Apple has the gold and therefore is calling the shots. This is an Apple ordered takedown, simple as that. They may claim it was part of an investigation or that it is out of their hands; but this is simply not how life works. Money buys access and clout, it has for millennium, and Apple has a lot of it. Apple is sending a message to anyone who dares cross them, they will use their power and influence to make your life a living hell.

It would be nice if we were the same under the eyes of the law, but we are not.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite, lets say Apple did ask them to get involved and investigate. What did Apple do wrong? Should Apple not protect its property and its interest?
 
Full of Win said:
The 'real' golden rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules; and Apple has the gold and therefore is calling the shots. This is an Apple ordered takedown, simple as that. They may claim it was part of an investigation or that it is out of their hands; but this is simply not how life works. Money buys access and clout, it has for millennium, and Apple has a lot of it. Apple is sending a message to anyone who dares cross them, they will use their power and influence to make your life a living hell.

It would be nice if we were the same under the eyes of the law, but we are not.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I guarantee if I had a $5,000 device taken (lost) from me and sold to someone else, and I could identify the buyer, and the buyer could identify the seller, that the local police would get involved. Guaranteed.

Your conspiracy theories, while entertaining, are irrelevant in this case.
 
Revelation78 said:
If the judge started blogging about how he was paid to do just that yes, it would happen. Oh, but according to you and your defence of Giz he should be then protected under the shield law...
Click to expand...

No :)

He is not professional journalist but frekn judge...

Perhaps even corrupted frekn judge!?!?!

I say lets raid his house and find out!

:D


EDIT:

And where are the references I asked for regarding your 2nd point?

Please post the links...
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Breaking into someone's house, taking all computers and making mess is what exactly?
Click to expand...

What mess? By Jason Chen's own statement, the police made no mess. Yes, the broke open the door but the police also politely explained that Jason could get reimbursed for the cost to repair the door.

Have you even bothered to read Jason's account of what happened? Or, do you just prefer to continue to post out of ignorance?

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

Jason's comments are at the bottom of the article.

Mark
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
No :)

He is not professional journalist but frekn judge...

Perhaps even corrupted frekn judge!?!?!

I say lets raid his house and find out!

:D
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite...

According to Giz's own website they are not journalist.

Back to the judge, where is there proof that the judge did anything wrong? Giz posted on the web for all to see how they broke the law, Giz established Probable Cause for the DA to obtain a search warrant.
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Breaking into someone's house, taking all computers and making mess is what exactly?

Show me contradicting reports please - would love to read them!

Regarding third point - it sounds to me that judge could have easily be bought by Apple to allow the raid...

Perhaps Police should raid judge house and take his computers to examine possibility of fraud / corruption!?
Click to expand...

It's called "executing a search warrant." Not a "raid." And you calling the judge corrupt is slander per se.
 
cmaier said:
It's called "executing a search warrant." Not a "raid." And you calling the judge corrupt is slander per se.
Click to expand...

From APPLE own dictionary on OS X 10.5.8

raid |rād|
noun
a sudden attack on an enemy by troops, aircraft, or other armed forces in warfare : a bombing raid.
• a surprise attack to commit a crime, esp. to steal from business premises : an early morning raid on a bank.
• a surprise visit by police to arrest suspected people or seize illicit goods.
• Stock Market a hostile attempt to buy a major or controlling interest in the shares of a company.
verb [ trans. ]
conduct a raid on : officers raided thirty homes yesterday.
• quickly and illicitly take something from (a place) : she crept down the stairs to raid the larder.


I mean just LOL :D

You Americans are frekn ridiculous - hahahahaha
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Search Warrant is legal paper - broken doors, stolen computers and the rest is action called "raid"...
Click to expand...

AI hate to personally attack you, but you seem to willingly ignore all evidence presented to you that this is a fully legal search, and Chen's personal account that it was done properly.
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
Search Warrant is legal paper - broken doors, stolen computers and the rest is action called "raid"...
Click to expand...

The door was broken as no one was home to open the door, according to the search warrant it gives them the right to enter the location under such conditions.

The computers were not stolen, they were seized as part of the search warrant. The search warrant stated that all computers, cell phones, etc... should be seized.
 
Who was arrested? What illicit goods were seized? Oh, that's right. No one was arrested and no illicit goods were seized. Only evidence was seized. Your own definition fails you.

-=XX=-Nephilim said:
From APPLE own dictionary on OS X 10.5.8

raid |rād|
noun
a sudden attack on an enemy by troops, aircraft, or other armed forces in warfare : a bombing raid.
• a surprise attack to commit a crime, esp. to steal from business premises : an early morning raid on a bank.
• a surprise visit by police to arrest suspected people or seize illicit goods.
• Stock Market a hostile attempt to buy a major or controlling interest in the shares of a company.
verb [ trans. ]
conduct a raid on : officers raided thirty homes yesterday.
• quickly and illicitly take something from (a place) : she crept down the stairs to raid the larder.


I mean just LOL :D

You Americans are frekn ridiculous - hahahahaha
Click to expand...
 
Revelation78 said:
OK, I'll bite...
Back to the judge, where is there proof that the judge did anything wrong? Giz posted on the web for all to see how they broke the law, Giz established Probable Cause for the DA to obtain a search warrant.
Click to expand...

There is NO proof that Giz or indeed Judge broke the law - if there is - Giz guy would be in prison by now and investigation wouldn't be on pause!

However...

To balance the things out, I say Judge's house need to be raided too since there is equally good chance that he took some money for his action as for Giz committing the "crime" :)
 
LagunaSol said:
:rolleyes:

I guarantee if I had a $5,000 device taken (lost) from me and sold to someone else, and I could identify the buyer, and the buyer could identify the seller, that the local police would get involved. Guaranteed.

Your conspiracy theories, while entertaining, are irrelevant in this case.
Click to expand...

The person who found it called Apple soon after finding it; hardly the actions of someone who took a device. Apple claimed they did not know anything about it at the time of inquiry. The police would get involved if it was taken by force, but I don't think they would do raids if you lost your item and then shunned the person who tried to return said device to you. They might take a report, but nothing more other than getting the device back to you.
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
To balance the things out, I say Judge's house need to be raided too since there is equally good chance that he took some money for his action as for Giz committing the "crime" :)
Click to expand...

You do realize that you could get in serious trouble for falsely accusing a judge of taking money, right?
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
There is NO proof that Giz or indeed Judge broke the law - if there is - Giz guy would be in prison by now and investigation wouldn't be on pause!

However...

To balance the things out, I say Judge's house need to be raided too since there is equally good chance that he took some money for his action as for Giz committing the "crime" :)
Click to expand...

OK - Neph, read this and re-read what I typed here:

Giz posted proof on their blog that they KNEW "finder" of the device DID NOT do his due diligence to find the owner. They also knew how long the "finder" of the device had the device in their possession. They also knew that the "finder" of the device DID NOT turn it over to law enforcement authorities as REQUIRED BY LAW. When Giz bought the device it became a CRIME. The PROOF is on Giz's own site and in their own words.

Do you understand now?

Full of Win said:
The person who found it called Apple soon after finding it; hardly the actions of someone who took a device. Apple claimed they did not know anything about it at the time of inquiry. The police would get involved if it was taken by force, but I don't think they would do raids if you lost your item and then shunned the person who tried to return said device to you. They might take a report, but nothing more other than getting the device back to you.
Click to expand...

Full of Fail, we have given you the facts several times over, read, re-read and re-read again my post above. The facts are clear that theft occurred when the device was sold to Giz and the "finder" of the device DID NOT fully comply with the LAW on trying to locate the owner and did not turn the device over to authorities.

Do you understand now?
 
-=XX=-Nephilim said:
There is NO proof that Giz or indeed Judge broke the law - if there is - Giz guy would be in prison by now and investigation wouldn't be on pause!

However...

To balance the things out, I say Judge's house need to be raided too since there is equally good chance that he took some money for his action as for Giz committing the "crime" :)
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin.

Gizmodo's entire description of the events incriminated themselves as having committed a crime by KNOWINGLY purchased stolen goods. It is then the DA's responsibility to prosecute as a crime has been committed. In order to prosecute, they need evidence. They have written up a search warrant, which was examined by the judge (the neutral party in the case), signed, and the search was executed. They seized anything that might have had any connection with the crime. He probably contacted the phone's finder using his laptop, called him on his phone. Evidence of this will be examined on the seized items, and when the case is complete, they will be returned to the owner.

The only reason the search has been called into question, is because there exist certain protections for "journalists." It is being examined in further detail whether or not Chen falls under this protection, as he had committed a crime by buying the stolen phone.

What here is illegal, immoral, or wrong from law enforcement perspective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back