Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
GOF and Bacall

Cache maggot arrested.

Recommended Posts

Personally, I was raised to believe theft was wrong, without any qualifying dollar amount.

 

To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable.

 

Just saying.

 

You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :wub:

 

Can I answer that?

 

Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job.

You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples.

It's justified.

 

You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two.

It's justified.

 

You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft.

Share this post


Link to post
So your argument is that Repak needed that hide-a-key? :wub:

 

As a cop, I don't have the luxury of inventing a certain dollar amount at which I would refuse to take action.

I'm still hoping you will do that part for me, since you seem adamant that such a cut off exists.

So, is it $20? You were tossing that figure about a while ago...

There's the disconnect. You are thinking like a cop.

 

Since this guy's already been arrested, it's time to start thinking like an attorney. Just because people are imagining the situation as both a prosecuting attorney and a defense attorney doesn't mean that they are doing anything wrong. Hopefully, the very fact that people can imagine that possible defenses to this charge exist isn't enough for you to get all indignant.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

I can't make my position any more clear to you. Yet you keep on mischaracterizing my position.

 

Here is what I've learned from this thread.

 

Some people believe that putting a key holder on a newspaper box is abandoning the keyholder but leaning a bike against the same newspaper box is not abandonment.

Wasn't it determined that abandonment is determined by the knowledge of the person that finds the item. It's not black and white. Refer back a page or two

 

Some people believe that a ten dollar bill left at a table and then taken is theft but an ammo can being taken from a hiding spot on public property is A-OK.

Taking a $10 bill that does not belong to you is theft. Taking 25 cents that doesn't belong to you is theft. What part do you not understand ?

 

Some people think Paul Repak didn't break any laws because he's only charged with one cache theft even though there were several "previously placed" caches in his car and a list of others.

If the court finds him guilty, then he's guilty of stealing one cache. Again, how hard is this to understand? I didn't say he didn't break any laws, just that it's a waste of time to prosecute him for only stealing 1 cache, especially if he's guilty of stealing many more. Maybe, just maybe, the DA knows more about the available evidence than someone 3000 miles away?

 

Some people belive that beng found "not guilty" in court is the same as being innocent or of actually being not guilty. Those same people seem to believe the court of public opinion needs hard legal facts and can't rely on overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Hello?! Remember OJ? He killed his wife and her lover, and was found not guilty. He certainly wasn't innocent. If the DA prosecuting this case for only 1 count of petty theft is a waste of time and money, then prosecuting him in the court of Groundspeak Forums is an even bigger waste of time. What's the point of arguing circumstance and opinion? I would prefer to argue and debate facts.

 

And, oh, so much more.

Yes, you've added so much more to what people have said than they actually did.

Share this post


Link to post

As a cop, I don't have the luxury of inventing a certain dollar amount at which I would refuse to take action.

 

Tell me with a straight face that you've arrested everyone for every crime they have committed. Tell me that every time you've pulled over a speeder, you've given them a ticket. If so, I shall refer to you from now on as "Clan Riffster - Enforcer of justice"

 

Heck, I'm going to start calling him this just because it sounds so completely boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I was raised to believe theft was wrong, without any qualifying dollar amount.

 

To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable.

 

Just saying.

 

You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :wub:

 

Can I answer that?

 

Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job.

You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples.

It's justified.

Argumentum ad misericordiam

 

You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two.

It's justified.

Red herring/argumentum ad logicam

 

You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft.

Red herring/argumentum ad logicam

Share this post


Link to post

 

Until they charge this guy with more than 1 count of theft, your argument is moot and doesn't hold a drip of water. Until then, how about debating on fact and not conjecture?

 

There's a serial killer in custody in my area. There have been six or seven murders, all with exactly the same MO. All with exactly the same victim profile. All the bodies were dumped within a couple miles of each other.

 

The police made an arrest. He has been charged with ONE count of murder -- probably because that's the one case where the DA has the strongest evidence.

 

Mr. Reepak has been charged with one count, because he was caught red-handed in that one case. It will be a slam-dunk for the prosecution. That doesn't mean that the one case is the only one he's guilty of. You know it, I know it, and the DA knows it. If it was just the one case, the DA probably wouldn't have wasted his time. But he knows there are more, and even though he may not have enough evidence to prove them "beyond a reasonable doubt," he does have enough evidence to convince him that he should prosecute the one case that he can prove to that standard.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Until they charge this guy with more than 1 count of theft, your argument is moot and doesn't hold a drip of water. Until then, how about debating on fact and not conjecture?

 

There's a serial killer in custody in my area. There have been six or seven murders, all with exactly the same MO. All with exactly the same victim profile. All the bodies were dumped within a couple miles of each other.

 

The police made an arrest. He has been charged with ONE count of murder -- probably because that's the one case where the DA has the strongest evidence.

 

Mr. Reepak has been charged with one count, because he was caught red-handed in that one case. It will be a slam-dunk for the prosecution. That doesn't mean that the one case is the only one he's guilty of. You know it, I know it, and the DA knows it. If it was just the one case, the DA probably wouldn't have wasted his time. But he knows there are more, and even though he may not have enough evidence to prove them "beyond a reasonable doubt," he does have enough evidence to convince him that he should prosecute the one case that he can prove to that standard.

 

Setting aside all the arguments to the contrary, there simply is nothing here to prosecute.

 

I suspect there is something else involved in the case that we have not been told about. Possibly this was an excuse (lame as it is) to search for other things. If not, there are some officers as well as attorneys who are going to have to deal with, at the very least, a serious verbal reprimand from the judge if the charges are simply what have been reported here.

 

On an unrelated note; Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?

Share this post


Link to post

 

I suspect there is something else involved in the case that we have not been told about. Possibly this was an excuse (lame as it is) to search for other things. If not, there are some officers as well as attorneys who are going to have to deal with, at the very least, a serious verbal reprimand from the judge if the charges are simply what have been reported here.

 

On an unrelated note; Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?

 

The answers to your baseless speculation already exist in the thread. There have been postings here by the owner of the stolen cache.

 

When a property owner calls the police, and says "that guy right there has something in his pocket that belongs to me," and then follows up with the DA, it's pretty hard for the DA to not prosecute the case. He has a perp who was caught red-handed, he has a victim, he has physical evidence. It's an easy conviction.

 

If the guy had pocketed a candy bar at the 7-11 and was being prosecuted, would you still speculate that there must be more to the story?

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I was raised to believe theft was wrong, without any qualifying dollar amount.
To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable.

 

Just saying.

You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :)
Can I answer that?

 

Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job.

You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples.

It's justified.

Argumentum ad misericordiam
You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two.

It's justified.

Red herring/argumentum ad logicam
You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft.
Red herring/argumentum ad logicam
You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples.

 

Careful, he's speaking Latin. Latin.

Share this post


Link to post
I suspect there is something else involved in the case that we have not been told about. Possibly this was an excuse (lame as it is) to search for other things. If not, there are some officers as well as attorneys who are going to have to deal with, at the very least, a serious verbal reprimand from the judge if the charges are simply what have been reported here.

 

On an unrelated note; Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?

The answers to your baseless speculation already exist in the thread. There have been postings here by the owner of the stolen cache.
Would you care to share them with the rest of the class? A quick search turned up nothing.
When a property owner calls the police, and says "that guy right there has something in his pocket that belongs to me," and then follows up with the DA, it's pretty hard for the DA to not prosecute the case. He has a perp who was caught red-handed, he has a victim, he has physical evidence. It's an easy conviction.

 

If the guy had pocketed a candy bar at the 7-11 and was being prosecuted, would you still speculate that there must be more to the story?

If your hypothetical case were to make it front of a judge, the DA is likely to get a reprimand for not resolving the case and, therefore, wasting the court's time for a 79 cent theft. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I was raised to believe theft was wrong, without any qualifying dollar amount.
To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable.

 

Just saying.

You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :)
Can I answer that?

 

Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job.

You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples.

It's justified.

Argumentum ad misericordiam
You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two.

It's justified.

Red herring/argumentum ad logicam
You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft.
Red herring/argumentum ad logicam
You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples.

 

The opinion was given that theft is wrong regardless of the dollar amount. The original topic was regarding someone stealing $10 that was left behind. The motives of the thief of not applicable, because regardless of the motives, there is still a victim, whether it be someone having $10 stolen, apples stolen, or water stolen. Using the argument of a starving child is clearly trying to appeal to emotions instead of focusing on the facts of this debate.

Share this post


Link to post

You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples.

 

Careful, he's speaking Latin. Latin.

Perhaps if he really understood what the Latin meant then he wouldn't misuse the terms.

Share this post


Link to post

You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples.

 

Careful, he's speaking Latin. Latin.

Perhaps if he really understood what the Latin meant then he wouldn't misuse the terms.

 

So instead of calling out other people's stupid arguments, I should just sit back and be accused of advocating theft.. Great idea :D By the way, your resorting to attacking me, versus my argument tells me that I am probably right.. Thanks!

 

*edit to add latin - ad hominem :)

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I was raised to believe theft was wrong, without any qualifying dollar amount.
To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable.

 

Just saying.

You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :)
Can I answer that?

 

Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job.

You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples.

It's justified.

Argumentum ad misericordiam
You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two.

It's justified.

Red herring/argumentum ad logicam
You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft.
Red herring/argumentum ad logicam
You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples.
The opinion was given that theft is wrong regardless of the dollar amount. The original topic was regarding someone stealing $10 that was left behind. The motives of the thief of not applicable, because regardless of the motives, there is still a victim, whether it be someone having $10 stolen, apples stolen, or water stolen. Using the argument of a starving child is clearly trying to appeal to emotions instead of focusing on the facts of this debate.
  1. A&T opinined that there are instances where theft is acceptable.
  2. You countered that theft is always morally wrong and requested examples of when theft would be acceptable.
  3. You were given very clear examples of when theft would not be morally wrong.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
  1. You countered that theft is always morally wrong and requested examples of when theft would be acceptable.

 

If you go back and read the comment, it was suppose to be funny. Did you not read it?

 

Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :)

notice the smiley and obvious silly comment? Your missing the point anyways. He was obviously trying to appeal to emotions to make the point that lying is ok in some situations. Just because a father stealing an apple to feed his son is justifiable (not necessarily morally acceptable) doesn't mean that it's ok to steal something else under different circumstances.

Edited by ReadyOrNot

Share this post


Link to post

You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples.

 

Careful, he's speaking Latin. Latin.

Perhaps if he really understood what the Latin meant then he wouldn't misuse the terms.

 

So instead of calling out other people's stupid arguments, I should just sit back and be accused of advocating theft.. Great idea :D By the way, your resorting to attacking me, versus my argument tells me that I am probably right.. Thanks!

 

*edit to add latin - ad hominem :)

You asked for examples and were given examples. Your argument that these examples consisted of logical fallacies is therefore incorrect (and the specific fallacies misstated). The statement of these facts is not an ad hominem attack because your incorrect use of the language is being 'attacked', not you as a person.

 

I suggest that you stop using these terms until you can use them correctly. (This is also not an argumentum ad hominem since it is your use of these terms, not you as a person that is at issue.)

Share this post


Link to post
  1. You countered that theft is always morally wrong and requested examples of when theft would be acceptable.

 

If you go back and read the comment, it was suppose to be funny. Did you not read it?

 

Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :) <-- notice the smiley and obvious silly comment?

I read it. It wasn't funny.

 

If you didn't mean to argue that there are no situations where theft would not be morally wrong, why did you request examples of same and then dismiss the examples given?

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps if he really understood what the Latin meant then he wouldn't misuse the terms.

 

I fully understand what it means to appeal to someone's emotions in an attempt to win an argument. Perhaps you don't understand what it means?

Share this post


Link to post
...He was obviously trying to appeal to emotions to make the point that lying is ok in some situations.
Who's discussing lying?
Just because a father stealing an apple to feed his son is justifiable (not necessarily morally acceptable) doesn't mean that it's ok to steal something else under different circumstances.
No one is making this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps if he really understood what the Latin meant then he wouldn't misuse the terms.
I fully understand what it means to appeal to someone's emotions in an attempt to win an argument. Perhaps you don't understand what it means?
The example answered the question that you raised. Whether or not you emotionally connected with the hypothetical theif is moot.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that you are using logical arguments to counter an example of a moral issue. Even if you were using these arguments correctly, you would still be in error since logic is not a set of rules that can be used to govern behavior.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that you are using logical arguments to counter an example of a moral issue. Even if you were using these arguments correctly, you would still be in error since logic is not a set of rules that can be used to govern behavior.

 

CR claimed that I believe theft is ok under a certain dollar amount.

CR then made the claim that he believes theft is wrong, regardless of the dollar amount.

A&T then chimed in, stating that in some circumstances, theft is acceptable.

 

There was a topic quite a while ago and it turned into morality and lying. I believe someone made the comment that lying is ok sometimes and then used an example of the Nazi's knocking on doors and asking if there were any Jews at the location. Of course, telling the truth would lead to innocent people dying.

 

Just because lying (or theft) can be justified in one situation does not make it relevent to the discussion at hand. You are acting like the question was not relevent. He quoted CR's comment and it was clearly related to the topic at hand. It was not a new topic started about morality, so bringing up starving children eating other people's apples may be a justification, but is has nothing to do with the topic, except to stir up an emotional response.

Share this post


Link to post

Your Honor. My client was not stealing the hide a key cache. He was merely retrieving the cache until he was approached by the alleged 'owner' who he mistook her for a muggle and removed himself from the area. My client had misplaced his pen and was returning to his vehicle to so he could sign the log and replace the cache as he found it, when he was arrested for nothing more then a misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>When a property owner calls the police, and says "that guy right there has something in his pocket that belongs to me," and then follows up with the DA, it's pretty hard for the DA to not prosecute the case. He has a perp who was caught red-handed, he has a victim, he has physical evidence. It's an easy conviction.

I wonder if we should start marking our caches "property of (insert name)" to make sure people do not use the argument of abandonment?

 

It should be noted that you are using logical arguments to counter an example of a moral issue. Even if you were using these arguments correctly, you would still be in error since logic is not a set of rules that can be used to govern behavior.

You are arguing with a sock. Remember, socks are the most stubborn of all of the clothing items. I think it comes from an inferiority complex/identity crisis. Socks are upset because people don't see them as unique. They can be left, they can be right and if socks look the same then they are mixed and matched indiscriminately. It's hard to be a sock.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be noted that you are using logical arguments to counter an example of a moral issue. Even if you were using these arguments correctly, you would still be in error since logic is not a set of rules that can be used to govern behavior.

 

CR claimed that I believe theft is ok under a certain dollar amount.

CR then made the claim that he believes theft is wrong, regardless of the dollar amount.

A&T then chimed in, stating that in some circumstances, theft is acceptable.

 

There was a topic quite a while ago and it turned into morality and lying. I believe someone made the comment that lying is ok sometimes and then used an example of the Nazi's knocking on doors and asking if there were any Jews at the location. Of course, telling the truth would lead to innocent people dying.

 

Just because lying (or theft) can be justified in one situation does not make it relevent to the discussion at hand. You are acting like the question was not relevent. He quoted CR's comment and it was clearly related to the topic at hand. It was not a new topic started about morality, so bringing up starving children eating other people's apples may be a justification, but is has nothing to do with the topic, except to stir up an emotional response.

In that case, you shouldn't have requested examples of moral reasons to steal.

Your Honor. My client was not stealing the hide a key cache. He was merely retrieving the cache until he was approached by the alleged 'owner' who he mistook her for a muggle and removed himself from the area. My client had misplaced his pen and was returning to his vehicle to so he could sign the log and replace the cache as he found it, when he was arrested for nothing more then a misunderstanding.

That would have been an argument that would be difficult to beat, in my opinion. Plenty of threads could be submitted where geocachers have stated that they would take similar actions if confronted.

Share this post


Link to post
I suspect there is something else involved in the case that we have not been told about. Possibly this was an excuse (lame as it is) to search for other things. If not, there are some officers as well as attorneys who are going to have to deal with, at the very least, a serious verbal reprimand from the judge if the charges are simply what have been reported here.

 

On an unrelated note; Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?

The answers to your baseless speculation already exist in the thread. There have been postings here by the owner of the stolen cache.
Would you care to share them with the rest of the class? A quick search turned up nothing.
When a property owner calls the police, and says "that guy right there has something in his pocket that belongs to me," and then follows up with the DA, it's pretty hard for the DA to not prosecute the case. He has a perp who was caught red-handed, he has a victim, he has physical evidence. It's an easy conviction.

 

If the guy had pocketed a candy bar at the 7-11 and was being prosecuted, would you still speculate that there must be more to the story?

If your hypothetical case were to make it front of a judge, the DA is likely to get a reprimand for not resolving the case and, therefore, wasting the court's time for a 79 cent theft.

 

As to your first question, the answers are in this very thread. I took a few minutes and found them for you. Read postings #93, #153, #217, and #557.

 

And your second point, about DA's getting reprimanded for wasting the court's time for a 79 cent theft... you haven't spent much time in a municipal court, have you? People get prosecuted for 79 cent shoplifting charges all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

You are arguing with a sock. Remember, socks are the most stubborn of all of the clothing items. I think it comes from an inferiority complex/identity crisis. Socks are upset because people don't see them as unique. They can be left, they can be right and if socks look the same then they are mixed and matched indiscriminately. It's hard to be a sock.

 

Isn't Flask's neighbor's cat named "Socks"?

Share this post


Link to post
And your second point, about DA's getting reprimanded for wasting the court's time for a 79 cent theft... you haven't spent much time in a municipal court, have you? People get prosecuted for 79 cent shoplifting charges all the time.

True. I don't spend any time in criminal court. Ever.

 

Some lawyers that have weighed in on this thread, however, have given their opinion based on their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?
The answers to your baseless speculation already exist in the thread. There have been postings here by the owner of the stolen cache.
Would you care to share them with the rest of the class? A quick search turned up nothing.
As to your first question, the answers are in this very thread. I took a few minutes and found them for you. Read postings #93, #153, #217, and #557.
It sure would have been easier for you to post "The cache owner has not stated whether or not he had permission to hide the cache in question."

Share this post


Link to post

If the judge had a nice sense of humor and maggot is found quilty, he would sentence him to wear a gps ankle bracelet to trace his movements for 3 months to ensure he isn't stealing caches again.

Share this post


Link to post

If the judge had a nice sense of humor and maggot is found quilty, he would sentence him to wear a gps ankle bracelet to trace his movements for 3 months to ensure he isn't stealing caches again.

 

heck yeah... i like that one. trackable ankle lock....drop him at an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?
The answers to your baseless speculation already exist in the thread. There have been postings here by the owner of the stolen cache.
Would you care to share them with the rest of the class? A quick search turned up nothing.
As to your first question, the answers are in this very thread. I took a few minutes and found them for you. Read postings #93, #153, #217, and #557.
It sure would have been easier for you to post "The cache owner has not stated whether or not he had permission to hide the cache in question."

 

I'm still trying to figure out the "baseless" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I was raised to believe theft was wrong, without any qualifying dollar amount.

 

To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable.

 

Just saying.

 

You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views :)

 

Can I answer that?

 

Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job.

You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples.

It's justified.

 

You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two.

It's justified.

 

You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft.

So, when stealing the caches, which of these moral "get out of jail free cards" was this thief using?

Share this post


Link to post

I think this forum exchange is providing a lot of entertainment for at least some of the participants. So that is another external benefit of this event that is, for the most part, irrelevant to those in Rome.

 

For those in Rome, the old saying may hold sway, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. But which Romans. The Repekians or the Cachus Proponents?

Share this post


Link to post
CR claimed that I believe theft is ok under a certain dollar amount.

Really? I did? If so, I offer my most humble apologies. You see, what I thought I posted was a question, not a statement.

The tone of your responses led me to believe that you might feel that theft, under a certain dollar amount, (say, $20 for instance), should not be prosecuted. Based upon my interpretation of your tone, I thought I asked you if you felt theft was OK. Did I actually utter such a statement, or are you just exagerating again? :)

 

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I don't wanna say who is doing what but some people are backpedaling and some are outright lying about things they have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Has anyone asked if there was explicit permission for PLACING the cache where it was? If so, what evidence can be produced if asked?
The answers to your baseless speculation already exist in the thread. There have been postings here by the owner of the stolen cache.
Would you care to share them with the rest of the class? A quick search turned up nothing.
As to your first question, the answers are in this very thread. I took a few minutes and found them for you. Read postings #93, #153, #217, and #557.
It sure would have been easier for you to post "The cache owner has not stated whether or not he had permission to hide the cache in question."
I'm still trying to figure out the "baseless" part.
You see, in the game of baseball, there are four bases. A player can 'steal' a base by running to the next one while the pitcher is pitching the ball.

 

Here's the problem: If you are playing 'sandlot' baseball, you and your friends likely won't have real bases. Instead, you will designate objects or locations to stand in for the bases. Therefore, how could you steal a base in sandlot play? Any claim to do so would be baseless.

Share this post


Link to post

Only one word comes to my mind about this thread:

 

wow

 

The correct term is two words:

 

wowie kazowie

Share this post


Link to post

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. <_<

 

As one of the sons of Homer once said: Vescere bracis meis...

Share this post


Link to post
Why would he possibly think that it means what he did was ok?

He already believes that what he did was perfectly justified, (AKA: OK), or he would not have done it.

 

Morality is not based on the law... The law is based on morality.

That's an odd statement from someone who believes that theft of something with a value of less than $20 should not be criminal. <_< Doesn't the 8th Commandment say something about not stealing?

I would certainly see that as a moral issue.

Should the law be based upon those morals?

Or should the Commandment be altered to fit the times?

Thou Shalt Not Steal Anything That RoN Says Is Valuable? :)

 

I'm assuming that "someone" would be referring to me, no? Just wanted to make sure the record was clear on this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Only one word comes to my mind about this thread:

 

wow

 

The correct term is two words:

 

wowie kazowie

 

First Latin and now this!? Show offs!! <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Only one word comes to my mind about this thread:

 

wow

 

The correct term is two words:

 

wowie kazowie

 

First Latin and now this!? Show offs!! <_<

 

Loller skates!

Share this post


Link to post
Just wanted to make sure the record was clear on this one.

Clear as mud. Are you still dodging the question? It was a pretty simple one.

"At what monetary point should theft be decriminalized?"

Share this post


Link to post
Just wanted to make sure the record was clear on this one.

Clear as mud. Are you still dodging the question? It was a pretty simple one.

"At what monetary point should theft be decriminalized?"

 

I already answered it!!! Theft is theft regardless of the amount. It should not be decriminalized. Egads Chuck!

 

How about you answer my question to you: Have you ever let a speeder off without a ticket?

Share this post


Link to post
Theft is theft regardless of the amount. It should not be decriminalized.

Excellent. We're making progress.

So, in the RoN world, someone stealing a $0.25 piece of peppermint candy has committed a crime.

In your world, is there a particular dollar amount where law enforcement should refuse to take action when answering a citizen's complaint of theft?

Share this post


Link to post
Theft is theft regardless of the amount. It should not be decriminalized.

Excellent. We're making progress.

So, in the RoN world, someone stealing a $0.25 piece of peppermint candy has committed a crime.

In your world, is there a particular dollar amount where law enforcement should refuse to take action when answering a citizen's complaint of theft?

 

*YOUR* job as a law enforcement officer is to address a complaint. But noone has said that the officer should not have issued a citation/arrested this individual (nowhere that I can find at least).

 

You still haven't answered my question... You know it's not always black and white, because you know that you have a bit of flexibility in how you do your job.

 

Teenage girl (crying): Please officer, my parents will kill me!

Offier Riffster: I'll give you a warning this time maam. Slow down and have a nice evening.

Teenage girl [CR's logic]: Sucker! I got away with it! I'm going to speed more now!

Teenage girl [in reality]: Thank you so much officer Riffster. I will slow down.

Share this post


Link to post

Any chance of you guys taking this to PM and simply posting here afterward to let us know which one of you changed their mind?

Share this post


Link to post
But noone has said that the officer should not have issued a citation/arrested this individual

You said "this is a waste of time".

Perhaps my confusion is over your use of "this"? <_<

 

Which aspect of this situation did you consider to be a waste of time?

 

The victim making the theft complaint?

The officer taking a report?

The officer making an arrest based upon probable cause?

The prosecuter going forward, protecting the rights of the victim?

 

The reason I'm asking, is earlier in this same thread, you had this to say:

 

If he did steal those caches, he deserves justice... Delivered by our justice system.

That seems to contradict strongly with your current stance.

 

Should he be prosecuted or not?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

×
×
  • Create New...