JSA wrote:
monty wrote:
But, think about what most likely went down. Homeless guy. No shelter. No money. No access to a computer. Etc. Couple comes up to him and says, look, we can set up a GoFundMe page for you. We will tell your story about being homeless, use your picture, and ask for money. We will give you half and we will keep the other half, you know, for our efforts. Cool? //
Ok, so you just made up a bunch of shit to fit your narrative, is there any proof this is how it went down? So now I get to make some shit up to support mine I guess. The couple goes to him and says, if you keep your mouth shut and go along with this scam, we can open a fund in your name and we can bilk a lot of suckers out of a bunch of money, and we can split it with you, cool??Why did you cut off the most important part about what I said? Were you trying to be intellectually dishonest or does it just come naturally from hanging out with Dan so much? Or did you just want make an asshole comment? I also stated in an earlier response that the information available at this point supports the sequence of events I stated, which is why I questioned the charge.
What I said was:
"Again, we don't know all the facts. But, think about what most likely went down. Homeless guy. No shelter. No money. No access to a computer. Etc. Couple comes up to him and says, look, we can set up a GoFundMe page for you. We will tell your story about being homeless, use your picture, and ask for money. We will give you half and we will keep the other half, you know, for our efforts. Cool? "
Your version of "the facts" does not legally alter anything. What part of his conduct is a "scam?" Is he not homeless? Is he not getting some of the funds?
There's no honor among thieves.
From what I've read, the scheme -- which appears to have been a scam in its entirety -- went like this:
The three conspired with one another to create a false story in order to raise, at least initially, $10,000. They did it with the expectation they'd garner that money
from unsuspecting dupes.
The $10,000 figure grew greatly, however, after the story went viral and everyone rushed in to give money to help the "homeless man with a heart of gold" (Johnny Bobbitt).
The problem? Well, the couple and Bobbitt suddenly had this huge sum of money and national attention to go with it. Bobbitt eventually went to the Philly Inquirer and said he was back on the street while the couple was spending his money on vacations. In return, the couple went on TV and said Bobbitt had a drug problem and was using the cash to get high. (This is the part in any story about thievery where the thieves eventually fall out and in on each other.)
It appears there were no victims in this story, just a collection of con men (and women) looking to take advantage of everyone else and, eventually, each other.
And like I've always said: Thank G-d most criminals are stupid.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."