Burglary

On May 9, 11:30 am, "Jim Carter" wrote:

Sounds like kids since they didn't pull any avionics out of the panel.


I agree with Jim. The lack of avionics theft, other than what was
loose and easy to pick up, would lead me to believe that you're
dealing with kids that were looking for easy pickings. They
obviously didn't know the payoff for a few seconds extra work involved
in sliding radios out of the panel.

I think a thorough preflight will suffice.

When I had my portable GPS, headset and Narco nav/com stolen years
ago, I quit leaving portable stuff in the plane. Insurance paid for
the panel mounted nav/com, but I was on my own for the rest.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

In article . com,
John Galban wrote:

On May 9, 11:30 am, "Jim Carter" wrote:

Sounds like kids since they didn't pull any avionics out of the panel.


I agree with Jim. The lack of avionics theft, other than what was
loose and easy to pick up, would lead me to believe that you're
dealing with kids that were looking for easy pickings. They
obviously didn't know the payoff for a few seconds extra work involved
in sliding radios out of the panel.

unless they stole a radio, and replaced it with one from a different aircraft...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

I should have mentioned the panel is all ARC and TKM. Also my wifes DC
was untouched atop the panel while mine was removed. And another in a
bag in the back. Just trying to piece together whatever logic can be
pieced.
It probably sounds crazy, but I'm almost appreciative. That is, that
they didn't carve their initials in the windshield or something. Slash
the seats. Take a ball peen to every steam guage. Just for something
to do.
Thanx for the replies.

Were the presets in the avionics as you left them?
I heard of some folk stealing avionics to order.
They steal them, remove identical ones from another aircraft and replace
them with the stolen ones, then sell the ones they removed.
So while everyone is looking for the serial number of the stolen ones,
they are in another aircraft and the ones being sold are not being
searched for. Sneaky eh?

Good luck in getting your stuff back

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article .com,
NVArt wrote:

Had the dastardly happen a couple nights ago. Garmin 196, two David
Clarks, eyeglasses. In my hangar, too.
Looks like a pro job. No vandalism apparent. Plane was unlocked with
key in ignition. And left that way by perp(s).
The question: Would any of you have an A&P do a thorough check of the
bird or would do as I think I might and just do a more than usual
preflight?

On 2007-05-09 08:15:59 -0700, NVArt said:

Had the dastardly happen a couple nights ago. Garmin 196, two David
Clarks, eyeglasses. In my hangar, too.
Looks like a pro job. No vandalism apparent. Plane was unlocked with
key in ignition. And left that way by perp(s).
The question: Would any of you have an A&P do a thorough check of the
bird or would do as I think I might and just do a more than usual
preflight?

I was just released from a jury yesterday where we tried a burglar. He
had stolen some clothing, belt buckles, and knives, total value less
than $250.

Despite the fact that an eyewitness who knew him personally (it's a
small town) clearly identified him coming out of the house, he was seen
giving belt buckles to his buddies at the soup kitchen, and he still
had one of the knives and one of the belt buckles on his person when
apprehended by the police -- it took two solid days of deliberation to
convince the whole jury that this guy was guilty. In fact, the original
vote was 10-2 to acquit. The last holdout never was convinced that the
case was proved, but finally voted with the rest.

I checked out his record after I got home. The guy has a long criminal
record of several burglaries, break-ins, petty thefts, etc. The thing
that threw the jury off was the guy had dyed his hair during the
burglary, but by the time he went back to trial his hair was its normal
color. But the neighbor who had seen him come out of the house had
known this guy for more than three years, regularly spoke with him, saw
him frequently around town, and was able to identify him no matter what
his hair color was. Even so, when the witness said he had white tips on
his hair at the time of the burglary, the fact that his hair was now
all black (4 months later) was enough to confuse a majority of the
jury. It just did not seem to occur to these bozos that people can
change their hair color. His booking photo, by the way, did show white
tips on his hair.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Fri, 11 May 2007 07:07:51 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-05-09 08:15:59 -0700, NVArt said:

Had the dastardly happen a couple nights ago. Garmin 196, two David
Clarks, eyeglasses. In my hangar, too.
Looks like a pro job. No vandalism apparent. Plane was unlocked with
key in ignition. And left that way by perp(s).
The question: Would any of you have an A&P do a thorough check of the
bird or would do as I think I might and just do a more than usual
preflight?

I was just released from a jury yesterday where we tried a burglar. He
had stolen some clothing, belt buckles, and knives, total value less
than $250.

Despite the fact that an eyewitness who knew him personally (it's a
small town) clearly identified him coming out of the house, he was seen
giving belt buckles to his buddies at the soup kitchen, and he still
had one of the knives and one of the belt buckles on his person when
apprehended by the police -- it took two solid days of deliberation to
convince the whole jury that this guy was guilty. In fact, the original
vote was 10-2 to acquit. The last holdout never was convinced that the
case was proved, but finally voted with the rest.

I checked out his record after I got home. The guy has a long criminal
record of several burglaries, break-ins, petty thefts, etc. The thing
that threw the jury off was the guy had dyed his hair during the
burglary, but by the time he went back to trial his hair was its normal
color. But the neighbor who had seen him come out of the house had
known this guy for more than three years, regularly spoke with him, saw
him frequently around town, and was able to identify him no matter what
his hair color was. Even so, when the witness said he had white tips on
his hair at the time of the burglary, the fact that his hair was now
all black (4 months later) was enough to confuse a majority of the
jury. It just did not seem to occur to these bozos that people can
change their hair color. His booking photo, by the way, did show white
tips on his hair.

Much goes on below the surface in Forks. insert smiley

Don

On 2007-05-11 08:10:30 -0700, Don Tuite
said:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 07:07:51 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-05-09 08:15:59 -0700, NVArt said:

Had the dastardly happen a couple nights ago. Garmin 196, two David
Clarks, eyeglasses. In my hangar, too.
Looks like a pro job. No vandalism apparent. Plane was unlocked with
key in ignition. And left that way by perp(s).
The question: Would any of you have an A&P do a thorough check of the
bird or would do as I think I might and just do a more than usual
preflight?

I was just released from a jury yesterday where we tried a burglar. He
had stolen some clothing, belt buckles, and knives, total value less
than $250.

Despite the fact that an eyewitness who knew him personally (it's a
small town) clearly identified him coming out of the house, he was seen
giving belt buckles to his buddies at the soup kitchen, and he still
had one of the knives and one of the belt buckles on his person when
apprehended by the police -- it took two solid days of deliberation to
convince the whole jury that this guy was guilty. In fact, the original
vote was 10-2 to acquit. The last holdout never was convinced that the
case was proved, but finally voted with the rest.

I checked out his record after I got home. The guy has a long criminal
record of several burglaries, break-ins, petty thefts, etc. The thing
that threw the jury off was the guy had dyed his hair during the
burglary, but by the time he went back to trial his hair was its normal
color. But the neighbor who had seen him come out of the house had
known this guy for more than three years, regularly spoke with him, saw
him frequently around town, and was able to identify him no matter what
his hair color was. Even so, when the witness said he had white tips on
his hair at the time of the burglary, the fact that his hair was now
all black (4 months later) was enough to confuse a majority of the
jury. It just did not seem to occur to these bozos that people can
change their hair color. His booking photo, by the way, did show white
tips on his hair.

Much goes on below the surface in Forks. insert smiley

Don

You know, that Forks is a real hotbed. Amazing they haven't made TV
series there yet. Maybe because places that get something like 100" of
rain a year make dismal TV.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote:

Despite the fact that an eyewitness who knew him personally (it's a small
town) clearly identified him coming out of the house, he was seen giving
belt buckles to his buddies at the soup kitchen, and he still had one of the
knives and one of the belt buckles on his person when apprehended by the
police -- it took two solid days of deliberation to convince the whole jury
that this guy was guilty. In fact, the original vote was 10-2 to acquit. The
last holdout never was convinced that the case was proved, but finally voted
with the rest.


Amazin', ain't it?

I was on a panel trying a DUI case in which the accused had driven her car
into a tree. When emergency responders arrived, the car was on fire and she
was asleep on the ground some distance away, uninjured.

When the state trooper interviewed her, she admitted to having been drinking
and she filled the trooper's car with alcohol fumes. She was unable to
complete a field sobriety test, actually falling down at one point. This was
an hour after the accident.

She refused a breathalyzer test, but was charged with DUI based on the other
evidence.

After a full afternoon of deliberation (I guess juries in such cases don't get
as much time as felony juries) the panel was deadlocked 6 to 6 and she walked.
One of my fellow jurors remarked that field sobriety tests are "tricked up to
make people look drunk" and should be disregarded. When I reminded him of the
trooper's other testimony, he said the trooper was probably lying because he
would "get in trouble" if the woman wasn't convicted. Five other jurors found
this argument convincing.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On 2007-05-11 15:15:13 -0700, "Dan Luke" said:


"C J Campbell" wrote:

Despite the fact that an eyewitness who knew him personally (it's a small
town) clearly identified him coming out of the house, he was seen giving
belt buckles to his buddies at the soup kitchen, and he still had one of the
knives and one of the belt buckles on his person when apprehended by the
police -- it took two solid days of deliberation to convince the whole jury
that this guy was guilty. In fact, the original vote was 10-2 to acquit. The
last holdout never was convinced that the case was proved, but finally voted
with the rest.


Amazin', ain't it?

I was on a panel trying a DUI case in which the accused had driven her car
into a tree. When emergency responders arrived, the car was on fire and she
was asleep on the ground some distance away, uninjured.

When the state trooper interviewed her, she admitted to having been drinking
and she filled the trooper's car with alcohol fumes. She was unable to
complete a field sobriety test, actually falling down at one point. This was
an hour after the accident.

She refused a breathalyzer test, but was charged with DUI based on the other
evidence.

After a full afternoon of deliberation (I guess juries in such cases don't get
as much time as felony juries) the panel was deadlocked 6 to 6 and she walked.
One of my fellow jurors remarked that field sobriety tests are "tricked up to
make people look drunk" and should be disregarded. When I reminded him of the
trooper's other testimony, he said the trooper was probably lying because he
would "get in trouble" if the woman wasn't convicted. Five other jurors found
this argument convincing.

Sounds like it was truly a jury of her peers. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

After a full afternoon of deliberation (I guess juries in such cases don't get
as much time as felony juries) the panel was deadlocked 6 to 6 and she walked.
One of my fellow jurors remarked that field sobriety tests are "tricked up to
make people look drunk" and should be disregarded. When I reminded him of the
trooper's other testimony, he said the trooper was probably lying because he
would "get in trouble" if the woman wasn't convicted. Five other jurors found
this argument convincing.


And when she does it again and kills a carload of innocent folks, can we
also try the holdout jurors? I guess driving off the road and running
into a stationary tree was not considered as evidence by these nit wits.

They should video tape these tests and let the jury decide. That way the
officer's prejudice would be removed to a great extent (I suppose you
could place the camera on an unedited video in a way to affect the
outcome - maybe). Then again, if running into a tree does not convince
you, a video of someone falling down drunk may not either.

Be careful out there,
Mike