var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
post_break
July 21, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Well if he didn't mean it on the phone he sure as hell does now.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
July 22, 2009 12:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@post_break: I'll bet the company records all their calls - many telemarketing places do whether calls are coming in or going out. If so, they have him on tape threatening to kill the employees and their families, and set fire to the building. That makes his case more difficult to drop. I know the telemarketers shouldn't have taken it literally, but it was not very smart of him to use that language.

A guy in my city was arrested recently for making \"terrorist threats\" after calling the local bank. A broker at the bank made bad investments on his behalf and lost almost a hundred thousand dollars of his money, and threatening to burn it down and/or bomb it. I can see where the police might take that a little more seriously than a spurned telemarketer. But some people are just crazy enough to pipe bomb a business or set fire. You never know when someone seriously mentally ill will go berserk.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
July 22, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Julia789:

It's an overreaction on everyone's part, and if they can't see that people are inappropriately using the threat of \"terrorism\" as an excuse to lock up anyone that gets beyond pissed at someone else for being a complete douchebag, then they are the real terrorists. As far as I'm concerned, the people that did 9/11 won. Not only have we diluted our rights, we're locking innocent people up on some vague notion that they're truly evil people just because someone harassed them or fucked them over. What a fucked up world.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Stephmo
July 22, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@trujunglist: See, here's the deal - there were vague threats about those guys in September. Only everyone up the line decided it was nothing - and then a boatload of Monday-morning quarterbacks started pointing out how easy it was to \"connect the dots\" after-the-fact.

So now, where does one draw the line?

In the end, I'm guessing he'll walk away with a HUGE scare, a fine and a major lesson learned with a side of probation. And the publicity here is, \"your rights have NEVER guaranteed you the ability to call up companies and threaten them with bodily harm.\" Back in the day, this was just one of those crimes people used to blow-off because \"most of the time, it never amounts to anything.\"

No one wants one of these threats to become anything again. Do you really want to be the sheriff that shows up at a smoldering building going, \"well, all sorts of people get angry at telemarketers and we figured the customer had the right to get angry. So we never followed up on the threat?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
July 21, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@post_break:
That's horrible that they called the police on him. Crime or not, nobody should take that crap seriously. They're harrassing him on the phone, and he mouthed off. Ridiculous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Stephmo
July 21, 2009 10:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tbax929: You should read the article - he got a mailer and then...well -

He called the firm after receiving the mailer, then he called the company back to complain some more, said Douglas Forsyth, a local attorney representing Papenfus. The call during which Papenfus allegedly made a terrorist threat was initiated by the firm, in a response to a voice-mail message left by Papenfus, Forsyth said.

It was an escalating issue. The full lesson is \"Do not overeact to a direct mailer that you know is junkmail, call repeatidly with some vague goal in mind that amounts to 'make them feel bad' that will likely end in having your anger management issues lead to bad decisions you can't take back.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
July 21, 2009 10:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lots of overreaction on all sides here. However, this really bothers me:


On June 27th, he was \"was lured to a Fostoria, Ohio, police station with a false story about being suspected in a tavern fight there,\"


What? Saying \"you threatened a person over the phone\" doesn't cut it, so they made up some crazy lie?

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Black Bird
July 21, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: Unless I missed something the story doesn't say if he was lured there by the police who made up the phony story.

I know police run sting operations where they'll send mail to people who have open warrants telling them they've won something then lure them to an address where they are arrested. It's possible they did the same thing here so they wouldn't have to drive 900 miles to pick him up and then bring him back to their jurisdiction.

None-the-less, what was done to him is overkill (no pun intended).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Black Bird
July 21, 2009 11:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AliyaBabasaur: I did, as you so kindly and eloquently put it RTFA. What it stated, in part is:

\"Papenfus' wife, Tracie, said she hasn't seen her husband since his arrest on June 27, when he was lured to a Fostoria, Ohio, police station with a false story about being suspected in a tavern fight there.

It does not say if the police made up the story to get him there or if they were give a phony story from someone possibly the the piece of crap at the location the OP called. After he was there, or while he was on his way, the real reason could have surfaced.

An assumption could be made, by how the paragraph was worded, that the police made up the story. However, we don't know that for sure.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bairdwallace
July 22, 2009 4:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bogart's Falcon aka Philly Falcon: Yes, we don't know that as an ABSOLUTE. We just know it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Black Bird
July 22, 2009 10:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bairdwallace: I don't know if it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I only know how it was worded by the newspaper reporter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
July 21, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law:


Sounds like the old police detective false story to gain the persons trust and prove their alibi (or lack there-of) for a non related incident.


The guy could prove he wasn't at the tavern by claiming he was home alone... which proves he was at home at the time the call was placed and could be the only person responsible.


Remember, the police are allowed to lie, and you are not. Unless you ask the police to investigate an incident you better damn well know why you are answering their questions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
July 22, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: And I missed your response before I replied. Seems plausible, at the least.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
midwestkel
July 21, 2009 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: No, I think that is how they got him to come in. Cops do that to people all the time but usually when they can't find the person to arrest so they will tell them they won a contest or something and when they get there they are arrested.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
July 22, 2009 1:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@midwestkel: I didn't realize cops actually did that. Still, this isn't \"You won a contest!\", it's \"We're investigating you for physical assault\" when they were investigating him for verbal assault. At least with the contest thing there's a lure to draw people-if they thought he would dodge verbal assault, why would he come in for a tavern fight?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megladon
July 22, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@midwestkel:


Thats the thing i dont get, cops call me asking if i was in a bar fight wanting me to drive 450 miles to clear my name? They better be providing me with a roundtrip ticket and some spending cash plus hotel. Plus given the fact its in ohio... i'da been \"just issue an warrant for my arrest if you think i did it, i'm not going to ohio\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
perruptor
July 22, 2009 1:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megladon: The correct response is \"Talk to my lawyer.\" If you don't have a lawyer, the correct response is \"Click.\" Then get a lawyer. Talking to the police is not a sensible thing for a suspect to do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
July 22, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@perruptor: Exactly. If I got a call from some cops up north saying they wanted to question me about being in a bar fight, and wanted me to travel to Ohio to do so, I'd first tell them I haven't been in Ohio since June, '08, and if they have anything more to discuss, it can go through my attorney and they can issue a warrant and start the extradition process. I doubt they'd be willing or able to go that far, what with needing probable cause and all.

Now, if they were that committed to the lie and swore out a warrant under false pretenses, what sort of consequences would there be for them, I wonder?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Black Bird
July 22, 2009 10:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megladon: That's the same thing I would have done.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SnoopyFish
July 22, 2009 6:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megladon: Yah, If I had gotten that call or letter I would have just blown it off. I know that wasn't in no damn bar fight in another state. If they want me they come get me. Go through Extradition procedures. The real question here, do you think the cops would have pursued this if he never would have drove to Ohio?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SnoopyFish: He was already in Ohio. He just drove to the local police station, where he sometimes worked on the cruisers. Then somehow he got transferred to Missouri, which his wife doesn't understand and neither do I.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EinhornIsAMan!
July 21, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@midwestkel: Yes, and it is perfectly legal. There's a reason people call cops \"pigs.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Darrone
July 21, 2009 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Using illegal practices to drive a man to terrorist threats, sure sounds like they are an accomplice... Why don't we just tell them they won the lottery and need to pick up there free boat at the police station.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Galactica
July 21, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: Or \"their\" free boat...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XianZomby
July 21, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"How exactly you \"don't patronize\" a borderline-scam warranty company that cold-calls you and tries to trick you ...\"


From the article: \"Tracie Papenfus said her husband called a St. Louis telemarketing firm - she didn't know the name - after getting a mailer ...\"


So, they didn't cold-call him. He called them. They sent him junk mail and he called the number on the flyer and said he's going to \"burn down the building and kill the employees and their families.\"


So to paraphrase the cop: \"don't dial the number on junk mail and threaten to kill whoever answers.\"


I'm still sorry he's in jail. And I agree with him. They piss me off too and I have the same fantasy he does. But I don't say it out loud. The folks that run the scam should be in federal PMITA prison. And we should have a live Web feed so we can watch. And be able to pipe our laughter and heckling into their jail cells via the net to disturb their peace forever.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Woden501
July 21, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@XianZomby: Actually they call all the time here in Ohio. I get at least one call from them every other day, and it has been going on for months now. In fact I just received one of their postcards yesterday saying pretty much word for word what they said here. Of course when I'm in a bad mood, and want to annoy them I don't threaten to kill them all I just pick up the phone and leave it off the hook until they hang up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
July 21, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@XianZomby: Yeah, I used \"cold call\" very loosely to describe the act of sending spam via snail mail to his address. I shouldn't have--lazy writing. I'll change it to \"spam.\"

My main point, however, is that they made the first move.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 21, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: No, they didn't \"make the first move\". Real life is not a game where you get to threaten people with death if the company they work for pisses you off somehow.

I suspect if Consumerist posted a snarky story including a consumer complaint that turned out to be false, and the wronged business owner threatened to kill you and your families, you wouldn't be sitting around mumbling \"well, gee, can't blame the guy, we made the first move.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Black Bird
July 21, 2009 11:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: @Woden501: I agree it was a bad move on the part of the OP to make the threats. Hopefully the judge will have received a large number of letters and telephone calls from these asshats selling the warranties. That might make him more sympathetic to the OP.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
July 21, 2009 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I think you missed my point--the officer suggests you don't patronize companies like this. Papenfus didn't patronize them. He wasn't even shopping for a warranty. They contacted him first.

So yes they did in fact make the first move. There's no splitting hairs or arguing semantics about that. They reached out to him with a transparently false \"warning\" in an attempt to get his business.

What happened after that was unfortunate all around, and we obviously don't condone it. (See title of post.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lauchlin MacDonald
July 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:
Actually, I think you missed the point. The cop isn't saying he's at fault because he initiated contact with the company. He's saying that the mature (not illegal) response to an unwanted and unsolicited business offer is to not do business with that company, rather than calling them in a childish rage to threaten some telephone-answering peon.

But sorry, go ahead and interpret entirely clear sentences whichever way entertains you the most.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
July 22, 2009 2:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lauchlin MacDonald: He already WAS not patronizing the company. There is no further level to which he could possibly take that. If a debt collection agency had you confused for someone who owed them money, would you appreciate being told, \"Well, don't owe them money\" is the appropriate solution?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: Well, there kind of was, since he called them twice. Whether he was patronizing the company or not, he was certainly initiating some of the conversations with them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lauchlin MacDonald
July 22, 2009 2:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania:
That's an entirely different situation. Ignoring mailings for a product you don't want to purchase, like a rational adult would, is not going to hurt you. Even if they're calling you, you can always just hang up. Ignoring a company that says you owe them money could damage your credit rating.

Again, that police officer was just trying to explain common sense to people. I guess The Consumerist's comments section is not the best place to find people who understand that.

Way to make totally false comparisons to justify your hatred for telemarketers, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
July 22, 2009 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jamiesue:

How is breaking the law by calling people are sending out scam letters appropriate behavior? It's not at all. Additionally, it's not \"civilized\" behavior to constantly attempt to scam people into buying a fake product that you don't even need.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 21, 2009 11:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: Did they contact him first? Absolutely. But \"make the first move\" really implies that hey, it was their fault, they started it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
July 21, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I agree with your premise, but your analogy is off.

The analog would be Consumerist knowingly posting false stories about the business.

Unless you're just alleging that the auto-warranty company is guilty on simply not fact-checking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
July 21, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: Snark is irrelevant in either situation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XianZomby
July 21, 2009 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: But can we agree on PMITA prision for the telemarketers?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
July 21, 2009 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@XianZomby: As long as there's that piping-in-our-laughter part, yes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
July 21, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Darn.


Just this afternoon I asked the telewhore what it would cost for a profanity. The telewhore was ticked off. Does this mean I could be arrested for solicitating prostitution?

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
July 21, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds to me suspiciously like someone at the company in question has a friend or relative at the police dept. I have seen this in the past on more than one occasion. Once my bro-in-law's son was playing his drums, indoors, in the basement. Police show up and arrest him, not the adult son, for disturbing the peace. No warning, no citation. Turns out the 23-year-old neighbor, who had a habit of having late night fights, was the daughter of the sargent. Almost had a riot as the rest of the neighbors began protesting. Most police look for some verification before anything as bold as an arrest, due to the possibility of the locality being sued.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
July 21, 2009 10:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm glad that obviously over the top threats made in anger in response to mail fraud can get this much attention from the police. I have no doubts that the mechanic isn't a particularly nice guy, but this is outrageous. The police not only tricked him into traveling half a thousand miles for their bullshit shenanigans, but they did it preying on his desire to help in an investigation. I sincerely hope there is some way that mail fraud statutes can be applied to that.

On the bright side, I'm sure this will be the start of a great career for some defense attorney willing to do some pro bono work.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
July 22, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: to be fair, there's a lot of nutjobs out there, and no chief of poliece wants to tell the family of a murder victim \"Sorry, we thought the killer was just making over the top threats.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frodolives35
July 22, 2009 2:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: That is a great point. I watched a friend and coworker become enraged and make threats for years. Some how we were all surprised when he snapped and then shot and killed another friend. Sometimes a police intervention for someone becoming enraged over a small thing could be in order. I only wish something would have broken the chain of events that left one friend in prison for life and another dead. Who knows as you can never tell what might have been.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.
July 21, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On the plus side, we now know where these fuckers are operating from.

Any St. Louis-area Consumeristas willing to do some scouting?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
July 21, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.: The reporter of this article shoulda took themselves down the road. STLToday.com is the Web site for the St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper - which is located at 900 N. Tucker - right down the street from the telemarketing place.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
AnxiousDemographic
July 21, 2009 10:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please, really, read the OP link article.

When I read it I felt that Mr. Papenfus is a knucklehead and/or was affected by legit persciption medication, but nevertheless has a wholly legitmate and approprate complaint to make. And, as mentioned by earlier posters, over-reaction by all parties involved.

So, icky as it seems, I admire the guy a bit. If I hear of a legal fund, I will certianly donate. Which brings up another problem: Will my donation put on a list of donors to terrorists, and put me in a worse spot in the TSA no fly list?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
bairdwallace
July 22, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AnxiousDemographic: A worse spot? I didn't realize they had rankings, I thought you were either on it or off it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AnxiousDemographic
July 22, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bairdwallace: My real-life name is fairly common, and is on the no-fly list even with middle initial. Luckily my birthdate is different.

So it would be a worse spot if my name with correct DOB was added if I donated a few bucks to the Papenfus legal defense fund: He's being charged with making terrorist threats.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
July 21, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, but wouldn't the charges have to be filed with St. Louis City Police Department because the call ORIGINATED there? I'm from St. Louis and went thru a prank call/stalking issue and they told me that they couldn't let me file a complaint in the municipality I was in (where the call was picked up) but it had to be filed with wherever the person was who was PLACING the call. And since 300 N. Tucker is in STL city limits (downtown, actually), I would think that that's where you file charges or a complaint.

Also - STLToday.com is the Web site for the newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch. AAAAAND...the STL Post Dispatch is located at 900 N. Tucker, right down the block from the telemarketing place. They'll have a bird's eye view if somebody in the St. Louis area gets fed up with the telemarketing and decides to pay them a visit.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
July 21, 2009 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vanilla5: Are you talking about a complaint, pressing charges, or a law suit?

Pretty sure you can file suit/press charges complaint wherever the plantiff or defendant live. Generally, as the plantiff, you should file in whichever jurisdiction has the laws most favorable to you, so you're more likely to win.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston19283
July 21, 2009 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq:

You generally have to file in a jurisdiction that is convenient for the defendant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
July 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: I really just wanted to file a complaint just to get something on record just in case he decided he really wanted to let the crazy out one day - mostly at my dad's behest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
July 21, 2009 10:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vanilla5: Ahhh, I see. He called THEM. I thought they cold-called HIM.

Nevermind.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
July 22, 2009 3:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vanilla5: He called them, twice. Left voicemail. They called him back. Called him \"a jackass or (an expletive) or both.\" I want to know what the expletive his personally. And one other thing, during an argument, if you're in the wrong (yes, their business is a scam), and you decide to insult me, the gloves are off. You've crossed the line and from there on out, we're gonna settle this like men.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ChuckECheese
July 21, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Mr Papenfus should consider a temporary insanity plea. That's how his behavior appears.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
July 21, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese: Well, the risk there is you end up locked in the loony bin for longer than you would have been in jail.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aphex242
July 21, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese: That's an extremely hard case to win, despite what TV will have you believe.

Ultimately the guy screwed up. It sucks they called the police, but death threats are kinda over the top, regardless of the receiver.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
July 21, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It would be interesting to know exactly what Papenfus said. The fact that law enforcement has taken it this far makes me wonder if he was very specific with the threats, which would actually fit the charge.


One would hope that if they extradited this guy to a different state and held him on such a high bond they had a pretty good reason. Then again, maybe it's a total abuse of discretion on the prosecutor's part.


Meanwhile, take this as an example of what happens to all defendants who don't have the money to post bail. This guy has been in jail for three weeks and hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston19283
July 21, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JiminyChristmas:

I wonder if it is recorded - could be a catch 22 on the telemarketer's part - they may have said things they shouldn't have to try to scam him, but then he flips out and tells him he's going to hunt them like deer. Do they turn it over to the cops?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
July 21, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any individual who would even think to \"threaten to burn down their place of business and then kill them and their families\" when a telemarketer calls needs serious help AND the police called on them.


Enough said about this post.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamiesue
July 22, 2009 2:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PLATTWORX: I agree with you. I'm sick of people thinking that kind of behavior is appropriate. I don't care if it is a telemarketer. It's not civilized behavior that benefits society. It's a symptom of a radically unhinged mind and an indication of our society's ever growing acceptance of violence as a method of communication.


He should have been arrested and in my opinion a month in the clink and some anger management couseling might do him some good.


BUT... let's save the \"terrorist\" language for where it belongs, like in reference to 9/11 or abortion clinic bombings and not for guys like this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
July 22, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PLATTWORX: I blame the internets. People get WAY to used to flaming each other in all kinds of dumb ways, then it bleeds into their other interactions and you end up in jail. That's why the internet should *only* be used for legitimate purposes like stealing music and porn.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
July 21, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's their phone number? I'll call them up and threaten to burn down their building too. seriously (pay phone of course, with a hoodie on so Skynet can't see me) This case is just another example of why America is in shambles: stupid money wasting lawsuit by a fraud-spewing company against a fed up regular dude charged with TERRORISM. HA St. Louis police. If that's terrorism then what is a road side bomb? What are suicide bombers? What is hijacking planes of innocent civilians and flying them into office buildings full of innocent civilians? How dare someone put a phone call in the same category...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
July 22, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil: Then you could tell the police to go pound sand when they ask you about being in a barfight in a state 500 miles away.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Cliff_Donner
July 21, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

After reading the linked article, I'm still wondering what kind of evidence there was that Papenfus had threatened the telescammer company, other than the telescammer's say-so? It doesn't seem to indicate that Papenfus had been recorded making the threat to burn the building down. The only verifications of the threat mentioned in the article seem to come from his wife and his own attorney, statements presumably made after he was arrested. So it does seem clear that he did actually threaten to burn down the building.

I would hope that the police had more evidence to go on than just the tele-scammer's statement before they arrested the guy.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Stephmo
July 22, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cliff_Donner: Telemarketing companies record everything. They do it to prove you bought something, they do it to constantly monitor their employees, they do it to pay out commissions.

Actually, any company involving phones pretty much records everything. So even when you call your bank, you're being recorded. Just assume you're always being recorded when you talk to a phone rep - it's rarely a \"maybe\" anymore.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
LastAndLeast
July 21, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't the word \"terrorism\" generally restricted to ideologically based acts? Since when is yelling at somebody on the phone a \"terrorist threat?\"

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
bibliophibian
July 22, 2009 10:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LastAndLeast: It's also called a \"terroristic\" threat, which (to my ear at least) has a slightly different connotation.

Personal story about \"terroristic threats:\"
Several years ago, my brother, who's paranoid schizophrenic, was attending a local Community College and was having a bad day. His personal hygiene and social skills were already a bit sketchy thanks to his (unmedicated at that time) illness, so he wasn't a very popular person on campus. One of his few friends there encountered him in a break room and said, \"Hey man, you look bummed, what's up?\"

My brother replied, \"Yeah, just having what I guess you could call a Columbine kind of day,\" and continued to sit at the table, drinking coffee and quietly discussing with his friend the various things that were bothering him.

Someone passing by in the breakroom overheard this, and - presumably because it was the scruffy weird guy who said it - called security and the city police. Campus police quietly evacuated the building (leaving my brother and his friend in the break room) while the city police arrived... not a SWAT team, precisely, but some sort of special response unit.

Guns were drawn, tear gas threatened, dogs brought in, and eventually three officers sort of dogpiled my brother -- who by the way was still sitting quietly at the table when the cops arrived -- in their zeal to \"restrain\" him. He has a very visible deformity which makes his right arm utterly useless, so even if he had been raving and raging, he would not have posed a significant threat to even *one* officer, being obviously unable to use his right arm. Still, they felt the need to use three heavily armed men to \"subdue\" one unarmed disabled man who was sitting quietly.

The security film footage which showed all of this contributed, I'm sure, to the fact that the charges were eventually dropped (in exchange for him agreeing to drop out and forfeit all he had paid for that semester's books and tuition, and not return).

Anyway.
Bottom line: It takes almost NOTHING to have a charge of \"making terrorist(ic) threats\" leveled against you. In my brother's case, he was neither angry, nor profane, nor agitated, nor armed, nor particularly capable of defending himself, nor actually even MAKING ANY THREATS... he was guilty merely of (1) being \"different\" and (2) uttering the word \"Columbine\" on a campus. Which I'll be the first to admit was a dumb choice of words and certainly would be worth having security pull him aside and chat for a few minutes, but they really pulled out all the stops.

I don't condone this guy's threats whatsoever (if nothing else, it's a big waste of time), but it bears pointing out that the charge of \"terrorist(ic) threats\" can really be just about anything, up to and including comments, in a private conversation, that are neither threatening nor about terrorism.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Keith Mullins
July 22, 2009 6:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LastAndLeast: I don't think it has to be tied to ideologically based acts. I believe the definition of terrorism is \"an act designed to incite terror and bring about a change in a population\", so this loosely fits the definition. Though, I'd hardly put some words flung about in a rage on the same level as, say, what the IRA did back in the '80s.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zentex
July 21, 2009 11:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LastAndLeast: fart in a high-class joint and they will say you are trying to \"incite terror\".

not to get all political (because I do NOT reside on the left), but the previous administration kinda opened the door for calling someone a terrorist to bypass lots of rights/laws and to prosecute faster and for longer.

go figure :P

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 21, 2009 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I'm confused. It took them over a month to bring him in after the offense? They brought him in in Ohio and then transferred him without extradition to Missouri? The St. Louis City Workhouse, oddly named as it is, is apparently a city jail--how'd he get in there?

I totally agree that you do not, not, not get to threaten violence to people, over the phone or anywhere else. But there's a whole lot of WTF? about this case.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
July 21, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let this be a lesson to you all. Never answer cops' questions unless required by law. If he didn't go to the station (and likely confess), he probably would never have been arrested.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DovS
July 21, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I have no love for shady borderline-scam companies that prey on consumers already suffering from a global recession, Postawko was right when he said that \"Two wrongs don't make a right.\"


Cold-calling and sending fraudulent mail is a crime in itself which should be prosecuted but it does not make it okay to commit the additional crime of threatening to kill someone.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
July 22, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DovS: Agreed. I'm having a hard time feeling bad for the guy.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Nathanael Dale Ries
July 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For them to call and lie to his face about warranty expiration and then have the police arrest him when he lies about burning down their store (and killing their families, although he went to far with that statement)

What happened to free speech in this case and proof of intent? It wasn't like the man got arrested after having been pulled over while barreling down the interstate making threats on a cell phone on his way to Missouri along with a few canisters full of gasoline, a couple of chainsaws some .45s and a ski mask!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
July 22, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nathanael Dale Ries: The company probably records all calls, in which case they have his specific threats on tape. He said he wanted to burn down the company, kill the employee, and their family. If they have that proof on tape and want to press charges, because they feel unsafe, they can do so. I think they should relax and realize it's just an angry customer, but it appears he contacted them more than once and the issue escalated? Maybe due to this, they believe he's mentally unstable and are really worried. Or maybe they're just jerks and want to get back at the guy for harassing them... We only have pieces of the story so it's hard to tell.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lauchlin MacDonald
July 21, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nathanael Dale Ries:
Since when does free speech extend to death threats?

Call the White House and threaten to kill the President and let us know how your free speech defense works at your trial.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bigmac12
July 21, 2009 11:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say \"hang em high\"..........the scammer's, that is!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
almightytora
July 22, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And this is how we are using the Patriot Act to arrest people who use \"terrorist threats\"? Quite sad.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
frank64
July 22, 2009 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@almightytora: I think it was well intentioned (the terrorist act)but it got way overused. Another example of government overreaching.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Julius Seizure
July 22, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know it won't help this guy but I believe the most elegant approach is using the postage paid envelope supplied by one firm to mail back spam from another - minus the pages with your name and address, which you shred of course.

If, like me, you're not getting as many offers as you used to, why not use those \"blow in\" subscription cards from magazines. Or religious tracts? Who knows, a Jack Chick tract sent to a telemarketer may just change their lives. If those are in short supply, surely last week's Walmart flyer could go to good use.

Don't get angry, get creative.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
keeblerelf
July 22, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess for most people, this is their first exposure to mostly-law-abiding people getting arrested. This happens every day, and every one of these stories is sad.

But this guy did wrong. He threatened someone who happens to be employed at a shitty company. The fact of who their employer is doesn't make it ok.

And what's with the \"cold-calling\" remark? Nothing in the article suggests that the company called him. It states clearly that he called them after receiving a letter.

Receiving junk mail makes you violent??? Weird, I just throw it in the trash.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Wes Chevalier
July 22, 2009 12:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@keeblerelf: I hear this alot why are the employees not culpable for the actions of their employer?

I am sorry but if you work for a company that lies steals and/or cheats people out of their money or property and you know bout it, you are responsible in my mind. I don't care if you are lowly CSR or the CEO you are equally responsible for what happens in the company you work for, especially within your sphere. This 'its not my fault I only work here' BS has gotten a tad ridiculous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
keeblerelf
July 22, 2009 12:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wes Chevalier: This isn't about the csr. It's about the guy who threatened to kill his family and burn his house down.

When you commit a crime, it's not a defense that your victim was a despicable human being.

I question your logic... but it's not relevant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Allison Granados
July 22, 2009 4:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wes Chevalier: I think it's likely they don't tell their employees what kind of scams they're into. Some people just do their jobs without asking too many questions. Or maybe if they ask questions, they're lied to.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
oldgraygeek
July 22, 2009 12:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I donate to nothing... but I'd chip in fifty bucks to this guy's defense fund, if there was one.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
oldgraygeek
July 22, 2009 12:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek: Never mind:
Tracie Papenfus said her husband called a St. Louis telemarketing firm - she didn't know the name - after getting a mailer...

They didn't call him (at first): he called them.
Bad move.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek: Right. He got the mail; he called them. They called back; he called back again. This took a few escalation steps before he got this crazy.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LostTurntable
July 22, 2009 12:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That is such bull.

Some days I get three or four calls from the same telemarketer about health insurance. That's against the law. I've filed complaints with the FCC about them. They don't stop. So now when they call I say things to them so vile and disgusting that I can't even elude to them here. Screw them. I don't care who it is on the other end of the phone, they harassing me, waking me up early in the morning and interrupting my work. They deserve to feel threatened by a large insane man in Pittsburgh.

And Fostoria...that's a nothing town with cops that probably have too much free time.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
menty666
July 22, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What I'd like to know is whether or not he *was* in a fight 400+ miles from his house that would give him a reason to talk to the police. If it were me, I'd tell the police if it's so important, they can schlep out and pick me up.

It's wrong to make death threats against anyone (out loud at least). If it were me the threats were against, I'd like to hope the police took it seriously, and since, according to the article, he threatened to burn the entire building and it's occupants, it was worth checking out.

But he still gets the way to go for giving them hell.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@menty666: One article said he used to do repairs on the department's vehicles sometimes, so he may have been comfortable enough with the place just to drop by and say \"What the hell?\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Swearengen
July 22, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What I don't understand is how the telemarketer thinks its a good idea on their part to report this to the police. The company is scamming people out of money, so let's bring that to the attention of the police by saying someone we cold called threatened us. Great idea.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
chocolate1234
July 22, 2009 12:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once when my dad picked up to a telemarketer asking for him, he claimed to be the police, investigating the murder of the very person they had asked for. He interrogated this person as an accessory, \"How do you KNOW Mr. SO-and SO? If you really don't know him as you claim, how did you get this number?\" The best part is the person really believed my dad was a cop. Ahh, classic. I could never pull that off (I'd just start laughing), but totally wish I could.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
July 22, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocolate1234: That was Tom Mabe and the telemarketer. Tom also went to a telemarketer convention and called their hotel rooms at 3:00am asking if they wanted to buy his products...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RedSonSuperDave
July 22, 2009 4:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocolate1234: Your DAD did that, or you read about it on the Internet and decided to claim that it happened to somebody you know?

Because that's a pretty famous story. Also, the guy in the original story didn't outright break the law (as \"your dad\" did by claiming to be a police officer), but skirted as close as possible to the edge without going over by allowing the telemarketer to assume that he was a policeman without actually claiming to be one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bibliophibian
July 22, 2009 10:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RedSonSuperDave: Yep. I love that one. \"Were you his gay lover? Ain't nothing wrong with it if you are, Lord knows I've seen some cute li'l Mexican midgets...\" Hilarious!

Though, to give Chocolate the benefit of the doubt, it's *possible* that his/her dad heard the original skit and re-enacted his own version of it, or retold the story to Chocolate as if he'd been the one to do it...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Froggmann
July 22, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The solution is to don't patronize that business, it's not to break the law. ... Two wrongs don't make a right.\"

Okay... does the car warranty company ever plan to pay out a claim? By the very nature of these \"companies\" they never do. Instead they will deny deny deny.. go BK, and start anew. That my dear officer is called Fraud, and if you ever look in one of those books you are supposed to read you will find that word on the no-no list.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamiesue
July 22, 2009 2:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Froggmann: And so the solution, obviously, must be to threaten to kill a low level CSR? I mean contacting the state attorney general, the BBB, or other consumer advocate company would be ridiculous, right? It's not like you could write your congressman or physcially picket the company to generate local news interest. It's just easier, quicker, and more satisfying to tell a CSR that you're going to kill their family and burn their place of work down.


Just because telemarketers are on everyone's S-list doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to threaten their personal safety.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skater009
July 22, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey , THE local PD should jail Them

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
July 22, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the police want to talk to me, or to arrest me, or to investigate me, they come to my address. I don't drive 450 miles. Sounds like irritability is only one side effect of the medication.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: He didn't drive 450 miles. He drove to his local, which apparently transferred him to Missouri.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
July 22, 2009 2:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: That means the arrest took place in Ohio, and he was then extradited to Missouri. Isn't that the only way it could have happened? I'm surprised he didn't contest extradition but then it sounds like he isn't represented at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Yeah, it's really weird, and not at all clear what's going on from a legal standpoint.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
July 22, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

One other thing I've learned is \"don't threaten to kill yourself while on the phone with the IRS\".

When I was in college, I lived in an off-campus apartment. One of my roomates and I were headed out to grab some dinner when a cop asked us if we'd seen our next-door woman, a middle-aged women with a bunch of cats. We hadn't in a few days.

We come back a few hours later to find her talking to our other roomate asking him if he could help her put the sliding glass patio door back on it's track. Evidently after she threatened to kill herself while on the phone with the IRS, they called the cops, and the cops, finding no answer, took her patio door off it's hinges, didn't find her, and left.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ironchef
July 22, 2009 1:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I put them on hold indefinitely. I hope I waste their time.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
July 22, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate telemarketers. They're like scum, only scummier.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mtimothymounce
July 22, 2009 3:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I HATE the stupid automated \"Your car warranty is about to expire calls\" and have contacted our Attorney General about these scams. Seriously, these people need to be shut down because it's a crock of crap. Do a search on the net about these guys, and there's plenty of people frustrated by fake numbers calling them about how their car warranty is about to expire when they have only owned a 15-year old clunker in their entire lives.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
shanoaravendare
July 22, 2009 8:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mtimothymounce: My fiance and I actually started screening all of our calls through our answering machine because we were getting 2-6 of those calls per day and neither one of us even owns a car!

Some of the calls provided an option to press a button to opt out of the calls, but they kept calling anyway. It was so bad that we almost canceled our land line phone because the telemarketing calls were tying up our line so badly that our family and friends couldn't get through!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MSUHitman
July 22, 2009 3:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

FYI this is actually the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper, the cities only daily newspaper. Their URL is stltoday.com. I think the proper way to refer to them is still the Post-Dispatch, even though that is not the URL.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ronin-Democrat
July 22, 2009 9:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

hate to bust on the op but.......
he went 450 miles to a police station because they called and said he was a suspect in a fight.
come on, that is a full work day drive there and an all night drive back.
assuming he has never been to that town. he should have said so to the calling police and asked them when and where this happened. besides which suppose it were a fake call and when you went to the address you found an empty lot and a robbed home when you got back.

NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER talk to the police especially when they state clearly you are a suspect in a crime.
by law what you say to the police cannot be used IN YOUR DEFENSE.

this youtube video is the most important you will ever watch

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
July 22, 2009 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ronin-Democrat: No, he didn't drive 450 miles to a police station. He drove to his local police station, where he had sometimes worked. He's since ended up 450 miles away, and it's not entirely clear how.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
bibliophibian
July 22, 2009 10:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

People do some crazy crap in response to telemarketers and junk mailers.

A guy in my town, a few years ago, drove to the offices of a local mailer/flyer company and threw most of a gallon of house paint on the receptionist because he was unhappy about getting their junk mail - just, out of the blue, decides that this is a good way to handle the situation. IIRC she had permanent vision damage as a result of the paint getting into her eyes.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kylere
July 22, 2009 12:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I will still verbally abuse them if they call me. I have to wonder if they have a tape of it, because it would also be a tape of them calling him illegally. IANAL but that would be dumb on their part.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
oldgraygeek
July 22, 2009 12:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kylere: I verbally abuse people who call me, too... but that's not what this guy did:
--He got mail from them. Not a call, not E-mail, paper mail.
--He called them, more than once, to complain.
--He left voice mails requesting a return call.
--They returned his call, and during that conversation he threatened them.

These scumbags have tapes of everything, and records of their incoming calls (and caller ID block doesn't work on toll-free numbers). Believe me, they know how to deal with threats.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CarbonFiberFootprint
July 22, 2009 12:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ed Postawko has apparently been a disgrace to his community for quite some time. Google him.

[www.talkleft.com]

'Despite all the evidence, despite knowing that a prosecution witness testified falsely about his criminal record and that the prosecutor did nothing to correct his perjury, a current St. Louis prosecutor, Ed Postawko, thinks the jury got it right. If you choose to comment upon Mr. Postawko's unrepentant attitude concerning his office's misconduct and its impact on Darryl Burton's life, please censor or disguise your profanity to avoid the law firm filters that might keep some of our readers from enjoying TalkLeft at work.'

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
July 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CarbonFiberFootprint: Thank you for the information. I can see why the St. Louis people got \"RIGHT ON THIS\" plus the fact that there is probably a relative employed at the warranty firm.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
July 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This should be a lesson to all of us.There is a Company on N.J. that does the same thing.They lie until you sign up, they get your money and never pay for any repairs. you are on your own.Be carefull when buying extended warranties.Good luck.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Djere Maxon
July 22, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm really expecting Consumerist to stay on top of this story!

If he stays in jail much longer, I think a email carpet bomb is in order.

Is he being jailed in St. Louis or in Fostoria?

mayordavoli@aol.com is the mayor of Fostoria.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
July 23, 2009 3:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Djere Maxon: OMG- \"Carpet BOMB\"!!!
Citizen's Terrorist Arrest!!!
Citizen's Terrorist Arrest!!!
Citizen's Terrorist Arrest!!!

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
July 22, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only advice readers need to take out of the item is this: threats are illegal, and you'll get be arrested for making them.


To put it in terms of an analogy, it doesn't matter how much a dealer of meth-amphetamine or seller of child sex deserves a punch in the throat, you can't hit people unless they hit you first, no matter how repugnant the seller is.


Unfortunately, despite telemarketers being on the same ethical level as drug dealers and peddlers of child sex, they're not treated the same in a court of law.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
July 22, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith:


Additional: I noticed that of all the comments, only a handful were critical of Mr. Papenfus, and all of those \"critics\" were the type who would drop their pants and turn over their rights without any questions.


The majority of commenters agreed that the charges were excessive in response to the initial crimes committed by the company (invasion of privacy, fraud, harassment, etc.).

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
SigmundTheSeaMonster
July 22, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would never threaten them. I would promise that I would post to Consumerist about what transpired though.

For example, how Verizon Telemarketing will slam you with HBO/Showtime... after saying they will give you 60 days of it for free! After you told the marketeer \"no\", \"Nada\", \"Nyet\". After 30 days, $30 shows up on your statement.

(yes, it happened. IF you got one of those annoying calls and they offered you Free Showtime/HBO/Movie/Starz... for 60 Days, better check your statements if you declined, or if you agreed but really don't want it. You can also call up/online chat with their customer service and have your name/number removed from their marketing...)

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
INsano
July 22, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Charles Papenfus??!? That's the best name since Bruce Bogtrotter!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
July 22, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I called a company to complain about the mailers they were sending me, the rude employee hung up, I called back repeatedly to speak to the manager or owner, the employees lied to police and claimed I was \"making threats\" (I was in a room full of people at work when I contacted them) and had to go thru several court cases against these lying scum. I know exactly how that man feels, when is something going to be done about these low lifes?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
July 22, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, is the company going to be allowed to continue to operate after obviously committing an illegal act by mailing him a scam letter?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
WhoAsked You
July 22, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think the solution to this is simple, just pass new federal law saying telemarketing orgs are terrorism organizations and legalizing the killing of any of their agents as a matter of self defense.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
July 23, 2009 3:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WhoAsked You: Perhaps we should not be so hasty to close Gitmo... Madoff, the entire Bush administration, and a good portion of Wall Street can join the telemarketers so they aren't lonely.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
exconsumer9
July 23, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What I find dishonest is that the police knew ahead of time that the threats over the phone weren't made in earnest. Otherwise, why would just calling someone and asking them to clear their name work as a means to get someone to the police station. That's something law abiding citizens do, not hardened killers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tigerman_McCool
July 23, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why does this guy even pay attention to anything about an auto extended warranty, he's a freakin mechanic, he can fix his car himself!


Seriously dude, you can't call a business and threaten to burn the place down and kill people.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rohin Sharma
July 24, 2009 12:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

man FUK the police , some @$$hole telemarket tries to disturb me during dinner I will burn their house down

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hillary
April 1, 2010 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If \"the authorities\" would spend as much energy and resources going after the waste of skin, should be exterminated, excuse for people that harrass hardworking, productive members of society on a daily basis as they did \"protecting\" this cretin, we would NOT have situations like this occuring. I use to get scammer calls on my cell--illegal, but what do those skanks care--2 or 3 times a week. I usually ignored the calls, and for taking the high road, I would get another call from a different number at any time of the day or night. So the last call I got, I answered, listed to their lies, then told them-in detail-what I thought should happen to them (physically) and that I hoped it would be extremely painfully and long drawn out. I never made a direct statement against them, but as far as I'm concerned if they start something (by starting to harass me), I have the right to finish it. Interestingly, I haven't received anymore scam calls.

Reply
");