Unethical Crime Victim of the Month: Kamofie & Co.

Next time, Lindsay, pick a classier store to rob.

Lindsay Lohan, in addition to having stunningly bad judgment, multiple addictions, lousy parents, sycophantic friends, and an army of paid enablers, also has rotten luck. When she walked out of a jewelry store wearing a $2,500 necklace, she picked an ethically dubious enterprise, Kamofie & Co., that may have  grossly over-priced the necklace, turning the shoplifting into grand theft. But that’s just the beginning.

Lohan, who is on probation and facing jail time for the incident, was caught on a surveillance tape in January as she strolled out of the store, with the unpurchased jewelry around her neck. Some establishments, recognizing the alleged thief as someone who is famous, troubled, and in need of some kindness, would have privately contacted the actress, accepted her (probably) false excuse that the act was inadvertent, and allowed her to return the item with involving the police.

Not Kamofie, however, which apparently saw the incident as an opportunity to make itself a household word. It pressed charges. Then, seeking a publicity bonanza (how many stores view a robbery as a PR opening?), it sold the surveillance tape to celebrity gossip interests, despite pleas from prosecutors that the store’s greed could compromise the case against Lohan, whose defense would be that she was tricked and framed by a publicity-seeking shop. Next, Kamofie announced plans to auction the necklace for charity to the predictable fool is ready to pay a large sum for an over-priced necklace shop-lifted by a sick has-been starlet. After the trial, of course—once that necklace actually sends said sick has-been starlet to the Big House, the buzz will really be out there.

Now, TMZ reports, the jewelry store is peddling a book about the incident. This is a new high in squeezing every last drop of revenue opportunity out of a random encounter with a celebrity, and a new low for exploiting crime-victim status. It will also have to be either the shortest book on record, or the most boring—unless they paid Stephen King to write it: that man can stretch a traffic ticket to 400 pages.

Meanwhile, Lohan appears to be headed for about six months in prison, continuing her accelerating personal and professional deterioration from vibrant burgeoning star at 19 to  desperate washed-up pariah by 25. The judge has told her that any plea deal with the prosecutor will guarantee jail time, and Lindsay’s gambling on a trial, even with Komofie’s crass stunts as background, will risk even longer incarceration.

Lohan is responsible for her own demise, but she has become defenseless chum in a culture of sharks. She may be better off in jail.

17 thoughts on “Unethical Crime Victim of the Month: Kamofie & Co.

  1. As a public defender, I can say that practically any one of my clients who has done the stuff that Lindsay Lohan has done, would be looking at a lot more than 6 months in jail. There remains with her, as well as a lot of other celebreties, a whole different set of rules and procedures as to how to deal with her transgressions.

    • I’ve often commented about the Hollywood Safehaven, John. For the sake of “art”, these people have- both on and off camera- committed crimes that would literally have gotten anyone outside their community years in prison. And rightfully so! I, for one, am committed to seeing the rule of law extended to Tinseltown once more.

      But Jack makes a good case, too. Every bit as bad as these “movie maggots” are those who dredge a living off of them; profitting from their infamies- real and alleged- every bit as much as the corrupt agents and filmmakers do. We can talk about utter cretins like Perez Hilton, of course. But those equally corrupt businesses who sponsor Hollywood’s criminal enterprises or (such as this Kamofie organization) exploit their criminality however they can, are right down there in the sewers with them.

      In other words, they are all equal opportunity stinkers! AND criminally inclined. If the law WAS ever to again be applied to them all in all its rightful vigor, the biggest problem would be to find enough courts to try them and prison compounds to hold them. That’s a challenge I’d gladly face!

      Jack: Sorry I’ve been away for a while. Hugely busy… and a lot to catch up on.

    • Oh, no doubt—I’ve been astounded at Lohan’s ability to avoid real punishment despite outright contempt for the system. Hard time might well be good for her, in the long run—or it might just do her in. It’s just a horrible story, and keeps getting worse.

  2. Kamofie does sound despicable … but had they been a “regular” store that “would have privately contacted the actress, accepted her (probably) false excuse that the act was inadvertent, and allowed her to return the item with involving the police”, then Lindsay Lohan would have gotten off yet again, when clearly what she really, really, really needs is to face actual punishment. It’s a shame it has to be done in such a humiliating manner, but has Winona Ryder ever been publicly accused of shoplifting again?

  3. If you haven’t seen Winona Ryder, then you need to see Black Swan — not a great movie, but good movie worth a couple of hours of your time.

  4. Hey! I loved Capucine in “North To Alaska”. As for Miss Portman, if it hadn’t been for her marrying Darth Vader, she’d only be remembered as an early version of Chloe Moretz in her 1990’s child acting days.

  5. You should definitely accuses these shop owners based on what TMZ reports instead of doing your own research to find out what happened. The only unethical entity here is this horrific website. Cutting and pasting stories based upon digital tabloids is pathetic way to make money.

    • 1) The story checked out 2) the blog is a public service 3) the next dollar I make from a post here will be the first. 4) Unsupported accusations don’t work here. 5) Do better next time.

            • Regular Army and Texas Air National Guard, Y.H. Right now, you’re proving an embarrassment for those of us veterans who post here. I’m still not sure exactly what your beef is with Jack. But you could extend your disagreements with his essays in other than gutter language. For example; he and I disagree strongly on the subject of sexual perversion and the deviant political agenda. Never, though, have I descended to berating him like a drill sergeant in basic. BTW: We connected through a mutual friend over an issue of extreme child sexual exploitation in a movie that occurred back in 2006. That was a worthy cause for the sake of all American children. If you have a logical or procedural disagreement with Jack, try expressing it with both respect and logic. You’ll achieve more than if you make with trash talk like come Columbia U. sophomore.

  6. I see now that you are with Grace and Grant and have a Jack Russell Terrier. How is this? A husband, a father, a pet owner, a director,and yet you still pass judgement on people without thinking of the consequences of your actions. I do not understand your thought process. I now do not hate you but just feel sorry for you. I apologize for my previous posts.

    • That comment makes even less sense than your previous ones.
      If you don’t approve of the concept of an ethics commentary website, don’t read ethics commentary websites. The mission is clearly stated here: society improves, and people improve in their dealings with each other, if more of us actively consider what actions are right and wrong, which is what ethics is–that ongoing inquiry. That only happens if everyone is paying attention and is critical about their own conduct and the conduct of others. The consequences of what I do here is 1) that more people think about what is right and wrong on a regular basis, speak out and argue about it, and cement healthy society standards, and 2) a few people fall back on the convenient, lazy “who are we to judge?” complaint that has been used to excuse bad conduct for eons.

      The consequences of everyone NOT doing what I do, publically or privately, is a less ethical world.
      And “I feel sorry for you” is unadulterated arrogance and condescension without any content whatsoever—a useless and insulting remark. If you were capable of better, I would assume you would prove it. I think if you act this like an ass to this extent, you are obligated to do it under your own name.

      • Update: I just banned Yelp Hater after reviewing his activities here, and honestly don’t know why I didn’t do so long before. I don’t think I read most of his junk, and that term is a gift. He had about 10 comments, and not one made a substantive point, contributed any new information, attempted a rebuttal or did anything but attack me or another commenter with invective and gratuitous insults. I just got rid of all but the first and this last. No one has previously misbehaved here that long without getting banned, and I apologize to every other jerk that I have had to eject here. I swear it was inadvertent, not some bias in favor of the troll called “Yelp Hater.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.