Woman charged in ring theft at Walmart Options

[Lancaster Online]

[KandJ]

I am glad this man got his ring back, but I thought the previous article said the ring was worth $5,000 or am I misunderstood.

[Aldomas]

I am glad this man got his ring back, but I thought the previous article said the ring was worth $5,000 or am I misunderstood.

I think it was $5,000 for insurance purposes. (IMG:http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I may be mistaken, as well.

[Scalewoodman]

How would you put this delicately... ummmm... thinking... political correctness... not want to offend... umm...

Oh what the heck: WORSE THAN SCUM.

Once again, thank goodness for security cameras and honest pawn shops.

[dean]

I thought the previous article said the ring was worth $5,000 or am I misunderstood.

Wasn't that someone that claimed his $5,000 watch was stolen in a home burglary???

I'd like to know if pawn shops take pictures of people selling merchandise and verify their addresses? If not, do these pawn shops risk being charged with receiving stolen goods?

I'm glad the guy got his ring back too and I hope the bimbo does 30 days in the klink for stealing the ring in the first place.

I hope is was all worth the $50.

[Nicknack]

I'm glad he got his ring back. At the very least, she could have turned it in to lost & found. What a sorry piece of trash.

[newSpotter]

I believe that it said $2000 in the original article last week. I am glad the guy got his ring back and even happier the woman was charged.

P.S. I never knew it could be so much fun ignoring the posts of the uneducated!
Quick lesson to everyone,
A.) Click on the bold-type word "Nicknack" that is sure to accompany almost every idiotic post.
B.) Click Options on the user profile page
C.) Click "Ignore User"
D.) Live Happily ever after!

This post has been edited by newSpotter: Nov 17 2009, 11:58 AM

[KandJ]

I believe that it said $2000 in the original article last week. I am glad the guy got his ring back and even happier the woman was charged.

P.S. I never knew it could be so much fun ignoring the posts of the uneducated!
Quick lesson to everyone,
A.) Click on the bold-type word "Nicknack" that is sure to accompany almost every idiotic post.
B.) Click Options on the user profile page
C.) Click "Ignore User"
D.) Live Happily ever after!

Thanks for clarifying, I thought I may have been wrong.

[Innocent]

I'm glad he got his ring back. At the very least, she could have turned it in to lost & found. What a sorry piece of trash.

I think newSpotter is upset he (or she) is thinking like you on this thread. (IMG:http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I'm glad the man got his ring back as well. That was lucky she pawned it and it was found.

...Once again, thank goodness for security cameras and honest pawn shops.

That's the truth!

[dean]

Curious about a couple things.

There is a Stephan Michael Evanko on Rock House Road in Pequea, but not a Stephanie (but that could be due to the letters getting cut off in the tax records.

Also, the Pequea address is not owner occupied. The owner of the property on Rock House Road is listed as a Stephan Michael Evanko on Overlook Avenue, which probably isn't even a mile from the Fruitville Pike Wal-Mart.

I have to wonder why the discrepancy, unless this Stephanie is related to Stephan.

[runutz]

I have to wonder why the discrepancy, unless this Stephanie is related to Stephan.

Maybe Stephan is transitioning.

[Shenanigans]

First off let me say I'm glad the guy got his ring back.
Second, I think that charging the lady with theft if excessive. It wasn't store merchandise, she didn't break into his home, she didn't hold him up at gun point....he simply lost it. Now granted the "right" thing for her to do would be turn it into lost and found but she didn't. That alone shows her moral character but to charge her with theft is simply wrong. Remember that childhood saying, "finders keepers, losers weepers"? $hit happens and I hope this gets thrown out of court because it's a waste of tax payer money. Next time I find a 20 laying on the street I guess I better track down the owner in fear of being charged with a crime.

[Bober40]

Another one who needs a seat on that bus to the desert..NO COMMON SENSE!!!!!

[Mystry]

Curious about a couple things.

There is a Stephan Michael Evanko on Rock House Road in Pequea, but not a Stephanie (but that could be due to the letters getting cut off in the tax records.

Also, the Pequea address is not owner occupied. The owner of the property on Rock House Road is listed as a Stephan Michael Evanko on Overlook Avenue, which probably isn't even a mile from the Fruitville Pike Wal-Mart.

I have to wonder why the discrepancy, unless this Stephanie is related to Stephan.

Not sure why this is of importance, but I'll bite - maybe Stephanie is the daughter of Stephan and rents the house from her father??? Just a guess.

[barb17602]

First off let me say I'm glad the guy got his ring back.
Second, I think that charging the lady with theft if excessive. It wasn't store merchandise, she didn't break into his home, she didn't hold him up at gun point....he simply lost it. Now granted the "right" thing for her to do would be turn it into lost and found but she didn't. That alone shows her moral character but to charge her with theft is simply wrong. Remember that childhood saying, "finders keepers, losers weepers"? $hit happens and I hope this gets thrown out of court because it's a waste of tax payer money. Next time I find a 20 laying on the street I guess I better track down the owner in fear of being charged with a crime.

LMAO!!!! I have to agree................