Bad Guy Derek Corrado AKA DC Reptiles

[frogface]

I can see that, I did not realize that this was someone's home. So y'all invited this guy to the bbq?

Yes, he was one of the 'gang'. One of the friends.

 

[frogface]

I can see that, I did not realize that this was someone's home. So y'all invited this guy to the bbq?

I'm beginning to think y'all aren't reading our posts. Here are some snips pulled from the previous posts:

These guys belong to the Mid Atlantic group and they have been getting together for meets and parties for years. They know each other and what each other's screen names are, even if the actual name is not posted.

The Mid-Atlantic Dendrobatid Society hosted an event at one of our members' house in Frederick, MD. There is a finite guess list of approximately 30 people attending the event that day.

I have to say that I am INCREDIBLY upset by this whole thing and am very angry that this all went down at Scott's house. He has been nothing but the most GRACIOUS host and to betray his trust like this is absolutely horrendous!

What made it particularly heinous, is that the theft took place at a well known and respected members own house, where we have yearly meetings with food and fellowship.

 

[CalRepCo]

Plus, if all the elements of theft were satisfied (and that has not been shown)...

He was accused of stealing $500 in animals. He denied it. Evidence and public opinion mounted against him. He returned the animals. What elements am I missing?

He could only return the animals if he had them. If he had them that means he took them, or was given them. He claims that the real thief gave them to him, but his story is vague, unrealistic and full of holes. He took them.

I would LOVE to see Derek post here and defend himself, but I doubt we will because the BOI would shred him over the inconsistencies in his vague tale of ferreting out the real thief, narrowly convincing him to give the frogs to Derek, so that Derek could return them to the rightful owners without naming the real thief and taking the hit himself. He tells inconsistent stories and doesn't answer any incriminating question.

Maybe I'm wrong...am I, Derek?

 

[Lucille]

He returned the animals. What elements am I missing?

The animals were returned. One of the elements of theft is that the person who takes must do so with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it.
Was he intending to return from the getgo? Who knows?

 

[Philsuma]

The animals were returned. One of the elements of theft is that the person who takes must do so with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it.
Was he intending to return from the getgo? Who knows?

A necessary element of Theft in the State of Maryland:

"Asportation" - Essentially what it means is that there must be an attempt by a would be thief to carry the property away from the area where the property was originally taken in order to complete the crime of theft. In other words it is not sufficient for the State to prove that the alleged thief merely took possession of the property that did not belong to him without the permission of the owner; there is the additional requirement that the State prove that the alleged thief moved the property from its original location or at least made an attempt to do so.

Derek is in possession of the Frogs in the State of New York and / or possibly New Jersey. Either way, I believe we have more than satisfied that element of the crime of theft, since the frogs were stolen in Maryland.

 

[CalRepCo]

The animals were returned. One of the elements of theft is that the person who takes must do so with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it.
Was he intending to return from the getgo? Who knows?

Couldn't that defense be used for most thefts? If I rob a bank, and then when shown the evidence against me, return the cash does that remove the element of theft?

If so, I'm in the wrong racket.

 

[Lucille]

Couldn't that defense be used for most thefts? If I rob a bank, and then when shown the evidence against me, return the cash does that remove the element of theft?

If so, I'm in the wrong racket.

No, the intent to permanently deprive must be in existence at the moment of the theft.
I do not know what his intentions were at that time. It is a question of fact.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Maybe he just wanted to take pictures of them... nahhh...it seems to be a typical case of kleptoranidaemania...

 

[melas]

kleptoranidaemania

That's hilarious!

 

[CalRepCo]

No, the intent to permanently deprive must be in existence at the moment of the theft.
I do not know what his intentions were at that time. It is a question of fact.

I'm sorry for laboring a point, and I know this isn't my house...Just so I'm clear, you are telling me that when a someone commits a theft, and is accused based on evidence, he can return the property a month later and he is exonerated of the crime?

Is this called the "just kidding" defense?

I guarantee you if you are arrested walking out of a department store with $500 in stolen jewelery, you are going to be found guilty of shoplifting, even if you claim you were going to bring it back later.

I mean, that makes sense to you, right?

 

[Philsuma]

No, the intent to permanently deprive must be in existence at the moment of the theft.
I do not know what his intentions were at that time. It is a question of fact.

Regardless of his state of mind, intentions at the time, or the phase of Jupiter in the northern sky.....the fact remains that he is in possession of stolen frogs across state lines. That fact alone is sufficiant for a charge of theft and certainly, possession of stolen property.

If he was "thinking happy thoughts" at the moment of theft , do you think that too will absolve him of any wrong doing?

 

[The BoidSmith]

From Wikipedia

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it.

 

[Lucille]

Regardless of his state of mind, intentions at the time, or the phase of Jupiter in the northern sky.....the fact remains that he is in possession of stolen frogs across state lines. That fact alone is sufficiant for a charge of theft and certainly, possession of stolen property.

If he was "thinking happy thoughts" at the moment of theft , do you think that too will absolve him of any wrong doing?

Philip

You are now just throwing words around to grandstand. When you take the time to know what you are talking about, I will be glad to reply.

 

[Philsuma]

Philip

You are now just throwing words around to grandstand. When you take the time to know what you are talking about, I will be glad to reply.

Yeah...I often like saying big wordz for know reason

I don't need your reply....you've more than disqualified yourself from further commentation.

 

[Philsuma]

Oh Noes...a negative feedback hit !!

 

[CalRepCo]

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it.

That makes sense. Try this on, though. Derek has never claimed to have taken the frogs accidentally or with intent to return. He claimed vociferously that he did not take them at all...until presented with evidence to the contrary.

Then he eventually returned them.

Evidence of intention will always be circumstantial, right? Often, it can be inferred from the actus reus itself. How does this differ from shoplifting?

 

[The BoidSmith]

But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it.

Derek,

That's why this part was in italics, if he kept the frogs then...

 

[Philsuma]

Lucille,

I apologize for the flippant remarks. I am not only upset by this theft in our community, but also for the lack of participation by the victim. He had personally told me that he would have attended to this thread last night or today at the latest.

 

[CalRepCo]

Derek,

That's why this part was in italics, if he kept the frogs then...

...and that's the part where I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. He didn't keep the frogs ultimately, so it sounds like what is being said is that because the frogs were recovered there was no crime. Correct me if I am misunderstanding, please.

But he didn't return them until considerable pressure was applied, in fact lied about having them. Doesn't that imply dishonesty at the very least?

Not debating, just trying to understand.

 

[Philsuma]

...and that's the part where I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. He didn't keep the frogs ultimately, so it sounds like what is being said is that because the frogs were recovered there was no crime. Correct me if I am misunderstanding, please.

But he didn't return them until considerable pressure was applied, in fact lied about having them. Doesn't that imply dishonesty at the very least?

Not debating, just trying to understand.

I'll be his defense attorney for a brief moment...Here are possible defenses:

1. He picked them up by accident with all his other similar type deli cups that were placed right next to the frogs in question.

2. There were inside my canvas tote bag which I did not open until days later - not knowing they were even inside there.

but that still does not explain the IP addys....the deceptive email verbaige and false identities.

He is attempting to bypass those two senarios by creating a ficticious thief that he alone was dealing with and further attempting to look like a hero by being the "only one" who could get the frogs back to the victim - pretty cagey actually.