Perhaps it was locked because the advice given to the OP to remedy the issue was to threaten and lie to the unconfirmed thief. Other people also suggested tacking more violent actions such as slashing tires and being able to "help" the OP out because people in small towns "run their mouths".
I don't think bladeforums wants to get into the business of being a platform where people suggest immoral, illegal, and violent behavior as a resolution to a problem. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Plus, the supposed victim went home drunk with strangers and left them alone with his expensive weapons. He has no idea what happened. He was drunk and with strangers. And the advice given was more bad decision making like lying, threatening, and physical violence to property and person. That kind of garbage has no place here. Good on the Melvin for shutting it down.
If I believe that someone has stolen from me, or suspect someone of criminal activity, I have no problem "threatening" to call the cops on them. I don't consider such a threat to be "immoral". And it certainly isn't illegal.
I recently parked my car out on the street in front of my house. I saw some guy I don't know jiggling the door handle. So I yelled out to him "Take a walk or I'm calling the cops". He quickly left. Now the guy had every right to be on a public street, and he was not committing any obvious crime. For all I know he might have thought it was his friends car. But I was less concerned with his possible innocence, and more concerned with his possible guilt.
Threatening to call the cops is often a very effective way to stop criminal behavior, as well as an effective way to convince people to correct their criminal behavior (like returning what they stole).
As far as "lying" to suspected criminals, perhaps you are unfamiliar with modern police work. It is standard practice for members of law enforcement to use deception to trick suspects into making incriminating statements, as well as confess, when they have no evidence of guilt. Detectives will flat-out lie to a suspect, telling the suspect that they have evidence, witnesses, and even video implicating the suspect in the crime. And this use of deception on the part of law enforcement was ruled constitutional by no less than the US Supreme Court, so it's completely legal.
Lying to a suspected criminal might offend your sense of morality, but I have no doubt that countless crime victims have received justice as a result of such deception, and I have no doubt that countless dangerous criminals have been taken off the street. So I for one see no problem with lying to a suspected thief in order to achieve justice. I don't consider lying to a suspected criminal in order to achieve justice to be "immoral"
The OP of that other thread clearly stated in his opening post, and I quote- "SO, the guy took the knife. I know it to be true, though I can't prove it.". Although he has no proof, absolute proof of guilt is a very rare thing in this world. In fact, not even the US criminal justice system requires absolute proof of guilt. In this country, it is not at all uncommon for people to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, and the belief that they are guilty.
The Op said the guy stole the knife, and for the sake of discussion I take him at his word. After all, that's what this is, a discussion forum. This isn't a Grand Jury voting on whether or not to indict, nor is it a criminal jury deciding whether or not to convict.
As far as anyone in that thread suggesting any form of violence or property damage, those individual members could have been sanctioned rather than locking the entire thread.
One things for sure, your opposition to that thread didn't stop you from contributing your opinions in that thread. I never saw you say in that thread "This thread should be locked". I think some people only want a thread to be locked AFTER they have had their say.
I contacted Melvin Purvis back on 5-8 and asked him why he locked the thread, but I still haven't received an answer. I don't know if he has authorized you to speak for him, but I'm sure he's capable of speaking for himself. I continue to wait patiently for an answer.
