I have just emailed Rob

[easilyled]

It's very simple really. If someone KNOWINGLY buys something that was stolen from someone else, they are no better than the criminal who stole it.

And clearly, what he is selling now belongs to others....that is the definition of selling stolen goods.

There is no moral way to rationalize buying stolen goods. No matter how you try, you are yourself a criminal in doing so.

At what point does someone become a criminal for knowingly entering into a completely separate contract with someone who has a reputation for not delivering goods?

Was person no. 2 a criminal after the first non-arrival comment? Or was it person no. 6 after the first 5 non-arrival comments? Where do you draw the line?

I really don't agree with your logic. Whilst Lummi's business practices are clearly causing a lot of suffering to those who he has let down, and for who I am very sympathetic towards, each customer enters a separate contract with Lummi at their own risk.

They are not criminals by law or in any other way for doing so, if they choose to.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

C'mon, easilyled and others! ...don't take from the simple and logical statement that I made something that I didn't actually say...I have a wife for that!

It's black and white what I said. If someone sells me a car that I know for a fact beforehand was actually bought and paid for by someone else then what I'm doing is aiding the theif...I'm making their crime pay off for them.

Read the law. *Knowingly* buying stolen goods is a crime (well, at least in the US.)

At what point is it a crime? Simple, at the point that a person knows that the goods they are to receive are stolen. And clearly, that is now the case here at this point.

That said, I've learned to never underestimate the power the human mind has to rationalize that which it wishes to believe. We are very good at that. That's how we start down these slippery slopes to loss of morality. If we think hard enough, we can always come up with a way to skirt morality and rationalize it in our hearts so that we can still sleep at night...or that's the plan anyway.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

FWIW, a little story. A fellow I know once bought many thousands of $$$ worth of appliances for a house he was building from another fellow who had a pristine reputation in the appliance business for decades. These goods were to be delivered much later when the house was to be nearing completion.

Well, the house got built and fellow #2 (who was given the money when the goods were ordered) could not come up with the goods. Later it was learned that for quite some time he had been supplying customers with goods from money gotten from those who were most recently ordering (and paying) for goods. Fellow #1 did not know this until after he could not get his goods. Fellow #2 is now in jail and will soon be in prison for the rest of his life (he had done this to many folks and it added up to millions of $$$.) Fellow #2 had been living in a big fancy house, driving a big fancy Mercedes, and had lots of toys prior to this....all paid for by folks like fellow #1.

Now, what if there was a fellow #3 who DID receive his appliances (at an EXCELLENT price, btw!) and let's say that he KNEW for a fact beforehand that fellow #1's money would be what actually bought his stuff and that his money would be shoved into fellow #2's new boat? Fellow #3 has now knowingly partaken in the ponzi scheme. Is that moral? Is that even legal? Perhaps fellow #3 should have turned fellow #2 in to the authorities and walked away. Now, he finds himself in court. Had he turned #2 in then the ponzi scheme would have fallen apart earlier and many of #2's victims would not have been.

True story, btw. Fellow #1 was me. I lost $64,000 so perhaps I'm a little sensitive to this subject.

When someone takes the money, spends the money, and therefore doesn't deliver the goods or service...that's illegal in a big way and often results in their imprisonment. Ask Bernie Madoff.

 

[Nyctophiliac]

A sorry tale Colonel, I hope you were able to overcome the loss eventually.

I feel that what would have stopped either of these situations from happening - in fact it would have stopped me losing thousands as above in post 4 - is a policy of cash on delivery, the old C.O.D. - or even half up front the rest on delivery. But in these days of internet purchasing and never seeing the vendor eye to eye, that seems an unlikely goal.

What a mess!

 

[easilyled]

C'mon, easilyled and others! ...don't take from the simple and logical statement that I made something that I didn't actually say...I have a wife for that!

It's black and white what I said. If someone sells me a car that I know for a fact beforehand was actually bought and paid for by someone else then what I'm doing is aiding the theif...I'm making their crime pay off for them.

Read the law. *Knowingly* buying stolen goods is a crime (well, at least in the US.)

At what point is it a crime? Simple, at the point that a person knows that the goods they are to receive are stolen. And clearly, that is now the case here at this point.

That said, I've learned to never underestimate the power the human mind has to rationalize that which it wishes to believe. We are very good at that. That's how we start down these slippery slopes to loss of morality. If we think hard enough, we can always come up with a way to skirt morality and rationalize it in our hearts so that we can still sleep at night...or that's the plan anyway.

By your definition, as soon as the first person that didn't receive a light when they were supposed to, made that public, then anyone who ordered after that was a "criminal". So there are probably about a 100 criminals now, according to you. I'm not sure that they'd appreciate being labelled like that.

Your definition of "Stolen goods" is emotive, but not accurate.

The fact is that if Rob has not sent a light that he is supposed to have sent, it doesn't make another one that he sends out stolen. If the seller (Rob) deems that this is a new light, then that is what it is.

Every transaction is a single transaction between buyer and seller in law. The new buyer cannot be responsible for what happened in transactions between the seller and another purchaser.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

"By your definition, as soon as the first person that didn't receive a light when they were supposed to, made that public, then anyone who ordered after that was a "criminal".

Nope, that's not what I said but if by what I did say someone feels that I've criminalized them, then so be it...that's just their conscious talking. They know what they knew or didn't and what their motives were....and their heart will convict them if need be. They don't need me for that.

Their is really no need for me to rehash it. Either you're open to logic or you rationalize against it.

The OP asked for opinions and that's all I offer. Regards to those who've been stolen from. I hope it works out for you somehow.

"What goes around comes around"....:thumbsup:

 

[easilyled]

"By your definition, as soon as the first person that didn't receive a light when they were supposed to, made that public, then anyone who ordered after that was a "criminal".

Nope, that's not what I said but if by what I did say someone feels that I've criminalized them, then so be it...that's just their conscious talking. They know what they knew or didn't and what their motives were....and their heart will convict them if need be. They don't need me for that.

Their is really no need for me to rehash it. Either you're open to logic or you rationalize against it.

The OP asked for opinions and that's all I offer. Regards to those who've been stolen from. I hope it works out for you somehow.

"What goes around comes around"....:thumbsup:

You are arguing from an emotional point of view, not a logical one.
I understand that you may feel annoyed if people continue to buy from Rob when others have not received their goods but calling them criminals is simply not accurate and way over the top.
For the record, I have not bought any lights from Rob for years and I don't intend to.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

No emotions here. I have no dog in this fight and it's no skin off my back one way or another. These are just names on a computer screen to me.

The OP asked for opinions and since I was bored at the moment I gave one. Again, I could care less if the OP buys a light from Rob. That's on his conscious, not mine.

And again, I called no individual a criminal. I said "If someone KNOWINGLY buys something that was stolen from someone else, they are no better than the criminal who stole it." If that infers to someone that they are a criminal in my view then that sits perfectly well with me.

My above quote is in no way inaccurate or over the top, IMO. It seems that would be inaccurate and over the top to say otherwise, IMO.

I have never bought a light from Rob....not in years or in my life.

Eeeeeneyway...Ya'll have fun buying lights from con-men...or defending them being such, if that's what suits you, and may the force be with you.

 

[easilyled]

Eeeeeneyway...Ya'll have fun buying lights from con-men...or defending them being such, if that's what suits you, and may the force be with you.

2 separate issues entirely.
Lummi's actions can not be defended.
If people wish to continue to purchase from him, in my opinion they are pretty unwise under the circumstances.
Perhaps you could justifiably say that it also leaves a bad taste, considering all the heartache that others have suffered from him. However they would not be criminals. Plain and simple. To infer so is inaccurate.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

"For the record, I have not bought any lights from Rob for years and I don't intend to."

Really? Why not? :ironic: J/K! I don't blame you. Might end up .

Think we've beatin' this one to death enough yet?
You get the last word Easy. Later. :buddies:

 

[easilyled]

"For the record, I have not bought any lights from Rob for years and I don't intend to."

Really? Why not? :ironic: J/K! I don't blame you. Might end up .

Think we've beatin' this one to death enough yet?
You get the last word Easy. Later. :buddies:

Sorry, if I'm a pedantic so-and-so Colonel. I know where you're coming from though. :buddies:
PS! If you're a real Colonel, I certainly wouldn't want to p*ss you off! :eeksign:

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Just a little extra reading for entertainment and enlightenment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pena...roperty-fines-to-1-year-in-county-jail-2010-4

I guess it's really only an issue of "was it stolen" and "did they know it". If the answers to both are "yes" then the buyer is, in fact, a criminal.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Sorry, if I'm a pedantic so-and-so Colonel. I know where you're coming from though. :buddies:

Yeah, I have been known to argue just for the fun of it. It's a good discussion I think though.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

They grey area, and where you and I differ, is the "was it stolen" part. And from a legal standpoint I'm sure you are right that in this case, it isn't so far as the buyers are concerned. That I can agree with.

However, and this is just my opinion, from an moral standpoint the property being sold now is stolen. JMO!!!

 

[Colonel Sanders]

"PS! If you're a real Colonel, I certainly wouldn't want to p*ss you off!"

Nope, just a "Colonel Sanders"...just a nickname I picked up back in my racing days since my last name is Sanders.

 

[easilyled]

They grey area, and where you and I differ, is the "was it stolen" part. And from a legal standpoint I'm sure you are right that in this case, it isn't so far as the buyers are concerned. That I can agree with.

However, and this is just my opinion, from an moral standpoint the property being sold now is stolen. JMO!!!

Ok, well in that case we're pretty much agreed then.

 

[morimotom]

well, it would be difficult to argue theft, which is generally defined as the taking of the property of another.

i willingly sent him money. he has not deprived me of anything. he has perhaps committed fraud, but even that would be problematic since lights seem to be shipping randomly to customers.

 

[kaichu dento]

You are arguing from an emotional point of view, not a logical one.
I understand that you may feel annoyed if people continue to buy from Rob when others have not received their goods but calling them criminals is simply not accurate and way over the top.
For the record, I have not bought any lights from Rob for years and I don't intend to.

I agree with some of his perspective, but you are exactly right here and it's evident that although he doesn't believe your view, his choice of words and inclusive denigration of those who differ gives him away. You're both right really in many ways, just that you're a little more right, and a lot more congenial. :thumbsup:

 

[nbp]

I think Ill watch this space, the more and more I think about it I just dont feel right as you say jumping the queue, stealing from someone else.

I think I would be far better off looking for an exotic flashlight elsewhere, aeon springs to mind.

Just wanted to touch on your point about looking for another exotic light instead- if you are in the mood for a tiny, well crafted beautiful light, Muyshondt would be an excellent choice. The Aeon is still in production, in cool and warm tints, HA and BK-HA. Aeons, Ions, and Nautili pop up in the Custom BST from time to time. And if you are inclined toward Ti, they all were offered in Ti. I believe there is a Nautilus and an Ion both in Ti up for sale now. I wish my wallet would allow me to jump on that Ion, but one of those might be perfect for you.

 

[abarth_1200]

Hi, thanks for the tips, I was looking at even buying one new but since I had started this thread and sold a few lights to build up enough money to purchase one I have blown it on an A2 an L1 and a few E1 parts and tailcaps not to mention a few bulbs aswell, im on a bit of a Surefire high...

I have not been in contact with Rob since and will probably not until I start hearing good things about thim, there are far better lights than his to worry about.