Comment by avalaunch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by avalaunch | Hacker News Reader

I wish the author would have tried negotiating with the pawn shop. The pawn shop would have been out the entire 225 had she not bought the laptop back. Realizing this she could have offered a lot less and it would have still been in their best interest to sell it to her. She just needed to bluff a bit that she would be willing to let the police confiscate it if the cost was going to be over X. I bet she could have gotten it back for $50.

Also as others mentioned it's a pretty broken system that she would need to do this at all - that her laptop would be locked up in evidence for so long. But lemonade from lemons, ect...

EDIT: Also do we even have any proof that the pawn shop actually paid 225 for the laptop? It's in their best interest (financially, not morally) to lie and state a higher price. Ie. They may have profited off of selling the laptop back to her.

yea, I didn't understand how the pawn shop can hold her laptop for $225. Isn't the pawn shop in trouble for receiving stolen merchandise? If not in trouble, obligated to release it for free knowing it was stolen, etc...

I get she could have waited and then got it back at no cost, but why pay a fee to get it sooner if the dam thing is sitting in a drawer not being investigated.

Are you trying to tell me the police are waiting on her decision to investigate or not? Seems the laptop should be evidence regardless.

I think they would only be in trouble if they knowingly received stolen merchandise. It doesn't sound as if that was the case. They are obligated to release it to free to the police, as evidence. It does indeed sound like the police were waiting on her decision to investigate or not. They probably understand that it's a massive headache to be without your laptop for months, and also that there's a very low probability of catching the criminal, and thus gave the victim a reasonable alternative to having to wait so long.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com