3 ms·

Well I did serve Footlocker notice under Florida Civil Statute to preserve the video and confirmed with the store manager the video exists and the events occurr

Well I did serve Footlocker notice under Florida Civil Statute to preserve the video and confirmed with the store manager the video exists and the events occurred at that store location. Before I spend a few hundred dollars more on filing a civil suit just to serve discovery on footlocker, I’d go straight to the store and pay the manager to make me a copy (save myself time and money). Either way filing a civil suit or paying of a store manager is not efficient and it’s costly. At the end of the day you are telling a criminal victim the answer is in the civil courts...which is wrong. I understand police resources, but I did the investigation for them, someone from their department just needs to send an informal email requesting the video, but they won’t. That is a problem. Say I get the video and even identify the individuals, I can give that to the police too but they don’t have to do anything with it. What then, amend the civil complaint from John Doe to said persons and get a default judgment I’ll never collect on? Rather each have a record for felony grand theft and credit card fraud and get my restitution judgment right from the criminal court.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Before I spend a few hundred dollars more on filing a civil suit just to serve discovery on footlocker, I’d go straight to the store and pay the manager to make me a copy (save myself time and money). The manager may be prohibited by policy from taking money for that purpose, and it's not exactly going to remain a secret, so the cost may not be a savings if the manager sets the bribe at a level sufficient to adequste cover his risk. But, sure, you can do that. > Say I get the video and even identify the individuals, I can give that to the police too but they don’t have to do anything with it. Correct. > What then, amend the civil complaint from John Doe to said persons Yes, that's rather the point of a John Doe suit. > and get a default judgment I’ll never collect on? Well, if you assume the defendants both won't show up and are completely judgement proof, sure, those are both potential outcomes. > Rather each have a record for felony grand theft and credit card fraud and get my restitution judgment right from the criminal court. Sure, we'd all prefer a public subsidy of litigation costs, but public law enforcement doesn't have infinite resources, so not every loss, even where a crime is involved, is going to have public resources expended on it. And you still have the same issues collecting on a restitution judgment as any other judgement, and a criminal conviction and potential incarceration of the defendant isn't going to make it more likely you'll ever be able to collect anything from them.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >Sure, we'd all prefer a public subsidy of litigation costs, but public law enforcement doesn't have infinite resources, so not every loss, even where a crime is involved, is going to have public resources expended on it. What in the hell are you talking about? Your big takeaway from this conversation is what I would like and other who were victims of crimes where in this thread is that what we want is Subsidize our litigation costs? Im the victim of a crime, the majority of criminal courts have power to order restitution for a reason...it’s not to subsidize litigation, it’s efficiency of the courts and it actually is a savings for tax payer money. Why pay for a civil and criminal case instead of 1 where things may be resolved globally? Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved. That’s a great political response, it kindly ignores the specific facts of this case, where there is video evidence of grand theft and credit card fraud, but the police won’t muster the energy to write an email to request it. If we don’t have have the resources to email a request for a video (which I believe they do), then a public platform to conduct crowdsourced investigations by the public is more warranted than even I originally believed. As one lawyer o another, I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, stop trying to subsidize your civil litigation costs, that’s what suing John Doe is for.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved Arrest, pretrial detention or supervision, prosecution, and execution of sentence also cost resources. The resource limitation that leads to choices about which crimes to pursue with public resources isn't just (or even mainly) about solving crimes, which is often a miniscule portion of the cost. > I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. I agree it sucks when it happens. That doesn't mean I can't understsnd why it has to happen with the combination of the array of criminal conduct defined and the resources devoted to law enforcement, and the actual structure of the legal system.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Before I spend a few hundred dollars more on filing a civil suit just to serve discovery on footlocker, I’d go straight to the store and pay the manager to make me a copy (save myself time and money). The manager may be prohibited by policy from taking money for that purpose, and it's not exactly going to remain a secret, so the cost may not be a savings if the manager sets the bribe at a level sufficient to adequste cover his risk. But, sure, you can do that. > Say I get the video and even identify the individuals, I can give that to the police too but they don’t have to do anything with it. Correct. > What then, amend the civil complaint from John Doe to said persons Yes, that's rather the point of a John Doe suit. > and get a default judgment I’ll never collect on? Well, if you assume the defendants both won't show up and are completely judgement proof, sure, those are both potential outcomes. > Rather each have a record for felony grand theft and credit card fraud and get my restitution judgment right from the criminal court. Sure, we'd all prefer a public subsidy of litigation costs, but public law enforcement doesn't have infinite resources, so not every loss, even where a crime is involved, is going to have public resources expended on it. And you still have the same issues collecting on a restitution judgment as any other judgement, and a criminal conviction and potential incarceration of the defendant isn't going to make it more likely you'll ever be able to collect anything from them.

will_brown 8y ago
>Sure, we'd all prefer a public subsidy of litigation costs, but public law enforcement doesn't have infinite resources, so not every loss, even where a crime is involved, is going to have public resources expended on it. What in the hell are you talking about? Your big takeaway from this conversation is what I would like and other who were victims of crimes where in this thread is that what we want is Subsidize our litigation costs? Im the victim of a crime, the majority of criminal courts have power to order restitution for a reason...it’s not to subsidize litigation, it’s efficiency of the courts and it actually is a savings for tax payer money. Why pay for a civil and criminal case instead of 1 where things may be resolved globally? Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved. That’s a great political response, it kindly ignores the specific facts of this case, where there is video evidence of grand theft and credit card fraud, but the police won’t muster the energy to write an email to request it. If we don’t have have the resources to email a request for a video (which I believe they do), then a public platform to conduct crowdsourced investigations by the public is more warranted than even I originally believed. As one lawyer o another, I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, stop trying to subsidize your civil litigation costs, that’s what suing John Doe is for.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved Arrest, pretrial detention or supervision, prosecution, and execution of sentence also cost resources. The resource limitation that leads to choices about which crimes to pursue with public resources isn't just (or even mainly) about solving crimes, which is often a miniscule portion of the cost. > I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. I agree it sucks when it happens. That doesn't mean I can't understsnd why it has to happen with the combination of the array of criminal conduct defined and the resources devoted to law enforcement, and the actual structure of the legal system.