Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
It should have been a just straight up theft or receiving stolen goods, which includes receiving property, cash, merchandise, you are not entitled to. They would have gotten a conviction, gotten what money was left back, straddled Kane and Nestor with a shitload of legal expenses and they would have served some time....probably relatively short. Whoever made the call on the prosecution blew the case.
You're suddenly an expert? The reason why they brought up the other charges was because they know that other stuff wouldn't stick and that's why they tried to get creative with the computer hacking and all that.

Do you know anybody or have any cases where someone's been convicted of theft by deception when it comes to gambling related activities(at least here in Nevada) that wasn't a clear-cut case of cheating such as marking cards or rigging/ using a device on a machine? For example, overpayers, skippers, faulty bill validators, taking advantage of glitches, Miss programming, or anything in those categories. I think anytime you make a wager or risk money that entire argument about it being illegal taking money from and ATM machine that starts spitting out money doesn't apply when it comes to gambling. I don't know if this is true, but someone mentioned they have never been able find any cases here in the US where someone was convicted of cheating at poker. There may be a case where the dealer was involved.
No, I am not an expert. I think I am a reasonable person who understands right from wrong.

I can tell you this much: If I had been on the jury and it was explained to me what these guys did. Hit a jackpot of say $400, but manipulated the machine to pay $4000 over and over, I would have convicted them of theft.

But if the prosecutors started talking about conspiracy of the computer fraud act and hacking, I would have voted innocent. The computer fraud act has to do with hacking into systems from a remote location. They did none of that. They didn't even hack anything. They manipulated the machine to pay them money that they were not entitled to. That is theft in my book. THAT I would have convicted them of. That's just me.

And lets go to another example. If you are buying new flat screen TV's off of the back of a truck at $40 a pop, you can and will be convicted of theft and receiving stolen property even though you stole nothing. That has been proven many times. I don't know the exact terminology but it has to do with reasonable expectation that you are receiving something you are not legally entitled to. These guys received and accepted payments they were not entitled to.

Want another example: What about the idiot in Philadelphia, decades ago, probably before I was born. Found bags of money that had fallen out of brinks truck. He didn't steal that money, but it was money he was not entitled to.