Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So stealing a gun from the guy who is about to shoot you in the face is wrong? Summary of all arguments: "Life may not be black or white all the time, but it doesn't mean you're not a moron."

That's kind of a dumb comparison.

Are you literally stealing the gun from his home?
Or are you disarming him when he's aiming it at you?

First one you'd be in the wrong, because y'know...you can report things like that to the police and potentially obtain an order of protection.

Second one is considered self-defense.

But when your defense attorney doesn't even enter a "Not Guilty" plea?

I've not come across this before, Kanluwen,
so am not sure why they do it either.
Apparently it is common practice at this stage in the proceedings. It is something to do with the defence not having the full details at the time, and then the formal plea of guilty/not guilty is made at the trial itself.

Heh.

It doesn't mean that the "defense not having the full details at the time" mate.

It means that the defendant informed his legal consul of something that prohibits filing of a "Not Guilty" plea, and a refusal to enter a "Guilty" plea.
Attorneys would be held for legal repercussions if they allowed a "Not Guilty" plea to be entered when they've been told something that prohibits it.

At least admit there are some times it's ok to steal, even if ridiculously rare. That's the only point I'm driving at. Stealing intelligence from people who intend to use it negatively, stealing an animal from abusive owners, stealing pills from someone who intends to abuse them. Stealing is not a universal wrong :p

Except it IS a universal wrong!

(Insert small text here about the variations of circumstances and the paradox of murder being acceptable to save a million lives)

It doesn't mean that the "defense not having the full details at the time" mate.

It means that the defendant informed his legal consul of something that prohibits filing of a "Not Guilty" plea, and a refusal to enter a "Guilty" plea.
Attorneys would be held for legal repercussions if they allowed a "Not Guilty" plea to be entered when they've been told something that prohibits it.

I refer my learned friend to the following statement:

If you decide not to indicate a plea, or to plead not guilty, then the magistrates will go ahead and decide (with our involvement as above), whether to deal with the case themselves.

It is possible that you are still not yet ready to plead, if for example, some information or other remains outstanding, and we would then ask for an adjournment. Even if you decide to have the matter dealt with by the magistrates, they still have the choice later to send you to the Crown Court, if their sentencing powers prove insufficient.

from here:
http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/crmPleas.shtml

Bleh. You're in the UK. That explains it all.

Your legal system makes NO sense to me.

Kanluwen wrote:No reason is good enough to break the law.

As a general rule, breaking the law is, of course, "wrong", but that statement alone assumes the infallibility of the law and therefore the people who wrote the law. It also assumes total foreknowledge of all possible future circumstances at the time of writing the law. Finally, it suggests one of two things: Either, if you are a religious person, that the law of man supercedes that of whichever religion you ascribe to, or, otherwise, that if you are non-religious, you are unable to make decisions for yourselves in certain situations and are therefore abdicating your own responsibility to be a good and moral person to the decisions made by another.

Of course the laws are there and fully established to make sure we have a framework within which we can all function, and it is not right to break them just because you disagree with them. However, if people all over the world assumed that whatever was on the statute books was true and good, there would not be people like Gandhi, who broke endless laws established by the British Imperial presence to maintain British domination of the region. No people like Nelson Mandela, who broke laws in defiance of the White Minority rule in South Africa. No people like Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, fighting for democracy in the face of an unelected regime. Just because there is a law that says it, it does not make it "right". It would have been a sad thing indeed if any of those people mentioned had said, "Well, I disagree, but hey, what can you do? I'd better keep quite and go home, like they say."

Further, and to avoid accusations of completely going off on a massive tangent, a person may break the law in the fullest knowledge that what they are doing is wrong, but without an alternative. There have been many cases of people who break the law under duress; often partners in abusive relationships. In fact, "to avoid a savage beating" is regarded in law as a good enough reason to break other laws. People who are in fear for their own safety, or that of children, should, if possible, find alternatives to breaking the law, but if your choices are limited by circumstances to "steal for me or watch your child beaten", I would strongly argue that is a "good enough" reason to break the law. It is not a "good" reason, but it is "good enough".

So, to summarise, there are good reasons to break laws, where those laws themselves are unjust. There are no good reasons to break just and reasonable laws, but there are good enough reasons to break just and reasonable laws.

Too long to quote, but putting it simply:

When the laws are unjust it's the responsibility of the citizenry to ensure the laws change.

That doesn't mean, even if said law is unjust, that you can expect to disobey it without consequences.

So, Gandhi was wrong to break British laws in a peaceful way to achieve independence for his country?

Mandela was wrong to oppose Apartheid in a peaceful way?

Aug San Suu Kyi is wrong to oppose the illegitimate regime in Burma?

These are circumstances in which people have been completely disenfranchised by the system. Are you suggesting that they have to work within it? Do you really feel they could possibly be successful in this way?

Just because a law is on the statute books, that does not mean you have to follow it if it is an unjust law. Of course there were consequences for all of those people for breaking the law, but that doesn't mean it was right. Mandela broke the law as it stood many times, and as a result spent a good portion of his adult life incarcerated. Are you saying it was right that he spent that time in prison, just because he broke an unjust law? If Mandela and people like him had not broken those laws, do you think Apartheid would have ended?

Now, I know all of those things are completely different to stealing, but you made a blanket statement and you have tried to defend it, so we can get back to the case in the original post if you prefer, but do you really feel you can argue this case?

Did I say it is WRONG to oppose unjust laws?

No, I didn't. Get over yourself with the examples of social change.

Laws are laws. You DO have to follow laws, while they're on the books. In most cases, following the revocation of the aforementioned unjust laws, the people who were catalysts for change are given pardons.

Mandela wasn't, but wtf do you expect? If he'd been out in public for most of the time while apartheid was ending he'd have been shot by pro-apartheid members of the public. For all you or I know it was done for his own safety.

Kanluwen wrote:Bleh. You're in the UK. That explains it all.

Your legal system makes NO sense to me.

lol
never mind mate- it doesn't always make sense to us either!

You said it is wrong to break laws. Mandela did break laws. He broke laws that existed at the time. No pardon gave him back 27 years. There were laws against him even campaigning against those laws. He could not have opposed them without breaking them. Such is still the case in China even today.

If you now wish to qualify your statement by restricting it to "just laws", then good, I am glad you have seen it my way. If not, well, I can't even understand your point of view, let alone agree with it.

Of course, you are now suggesting Mandela may have been in prison "for his own safety". It is an unusual point of view, and not one that I believe was ever suggested by the minority white rule in South Africa, either at the time, or since, but I can't be sure, of course.

We can get back to arguing about whether it is acceptable to break laws when under duress, for example, threat of physical punishment by someone who has gained a position of unreasonable dominance over another in an abusive relationship. As I said, this is not a "good" reason to break a law, but maybe "good enough".

Keep on on-topic, people. We're WAY off now.

Stealing is wrong and makes the Emperor cry.

You are only as free as you think you, and the only freedoms you are guaranteed are the ones you're willing to fight for. Laws go the same way. In a raw and un-judged world, nothing is illegal unless someone can make you pay for it.

Skinnattittar wrote:You are only as free as you think you, and the only freedoms you are guaranteed are the ones you're willing to fight for. Laws go the same way. In a raw and un-judged world, nothing is illegal unless someone can make you pay for it.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" - Kris Kristofferson (via Janis Joplin)

Kanluwen wrote:
Laws are laws. You DO have to follow laws, while they're on the books.

You only have to follow the laws if you do not wish to break them.

In any case, the fact that mitigating circumstances are often considered during sentencing indicates that there are good reasons to break the law.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Laws are laws. You DO have to follow laws, while they're on the books.

You only have to follow the laws if you do not wish to break them.

In any case, the fact that mitigating circumstances are often considered during sentencing indicates that there are good reasons to break the law.

Very rarely do mitigating circumstances come up in robbery/theft cases. They're pretty damn clear-cut in that regard.

There's "lesser" charges that get put on sometimes, sure. But more often than not it's because of first time offenses, or making deals, etc.

What in nine shades of Hades does Ghandi have to do with stealing from a company you work for???

G

Fifty wrote:So, Gandhi was wrong to break British laws in a peaceful way to achieve independence for his country?

Mandela was wrong to oppose Apartheid in a peaceful way?

Aug San Suu Kyi is wrong to oppose the illegitimate regime in Burma?

These are circumstances in which people have been completely disenfranchised by the system. Are you suggesting that they have to work within it? Do you really feel they could possibly be successful in this way?

Just because a law is on the statute books, that does not mean you have to follow it if it is an unjust law. Of course there were consequences for all of those people for breaking the law, but that doesn't mean it was right. Mandela broke the law as it stood many times, and as a result spent a good portion of his adult life incarcerated. Are you saying it was right that he spent that time in prison, just because he broke an unjust law? If Mandela and people like him had not broken those laws, do you think Apartheid would have ended?

Now, I know all of those things are completely different to stealing, but you made a blanket statement and you have tried to defend it, so we can get back to the case in the original post if you prefer, but do you really feel you can argue this case?

Kanluwen wrote:
Very rarely do mitigating circumstances come up in robbery/theft cases. They're pretty damn clear-cut in that regard.

Rarity doesn't really matter though. If it can come up, then its possible that it will. That's sufficient to warrant concern or interest.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:What in nine shades of Hades does Ghandi have to do with stealing from a company you work for???

G

He answered that question.

Fifty wrote:
Now, I know all of those things are completely different to stealing, but you made a blanket statement and you have tried to defend it, so we can get back to the case in the original post if you prefer, but do you really feel you can argue this case?

Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine your wife is terminally ill. She can be saved by a new medicine invented by a doctor in your town.

The medicine costs $1,000 but you only have $500. You offer the doctor this much but he refuses to sell. You know that the ingredients needed to make the medicine cost $100.

What is the problem? You know enough about the ingredients and that they only cost $100 and you have $500. Buy them, make the medicine and save your wife already!

Unless we just engaging in hyperbole, in which case I would ask what you would do if curing your wife required the sacrifice of a newborn baby? 100? A thousand? A planet?

sleazy wrote:I just heard about this, I worked with the guy years ago at metro. Am shocked. I dont know how he could expect to get away with it. Sunderland store only makes a few hundred a day.

It was always low on stock but still!

It is a 1 man store in Sunderland centre.

oh and he's a geordie not a mackem.

Ahh. This explains a few things. The one man store concept does require too much trust, but it can work so long as you have floating workers to come in and help. Sadly GW doesnt do that, One man completely alone is wrong for so many different reasons.

Anyway what puzzles me is the amount stolen over the timeframe. This just cannot be cash. I doubt the turnover is that big and you would have to be a bigger cretin than Jervis to want to be in a position to claim the entire till contents were stolen two months running, and a bigger cretin yet (Haines level) to be the area manager likely to fall for it.

I smell a resale fraud, delivery fraud or some other scam.

An essential prison skill is the ability to make a pillow out of toilet paper.

40kenthusiast wrote:I'm with the others in this thread on thinking the guy had a sudden and urgent need for money. A guy in EVE stole all his corp's assets, according to him to pay for his wife's surgery. Maybe a similar thing?

How does this work. I doubt most hospitals actually consider ISK acceptable currency.

Mordantos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine your wife is terminally ill. She can be saved by a new medicine invented by a doctor in your town.

The medicine costs $1,000 but you only have $500. You offer the doctor this much but he refuses to sell. You know that the ingredients needed to make the medicine cost $100.

What is the problem? You know enough about the ingredients and that they only cost $100 and you have $500. Buy them, make the medicine and save your wife already!

Unless we just engaging in hyperbole, in which case I would ask what you would do if curing your wife required the sacrifice of a newborn baby? 100? A thousand? A planet?

The question I posed is a very simplified one from the Ethical Development Defining Issues Tests.

It's like one of those personality tests where there are defined answers A or B. For the purpose of the test there is no C.

Your answer is creative, however suppose for the purpose of the test you are a carpenter and don't know how to compound the medicine.

Anyway, the idea of the test isn't to pick a right answer. It is to test the ethical thinking of the test subject.

I posed the question in this thread to show that there are ethical dilemmas in real life.

This same situation has arisen IRL in the case of anti-retroviral drugs which are under patent but are too expensive for third world countries to manufacture for the use of their population. Their solution was to license the manufacturing process at a reduced royalty. The question then arises of whether the cheap version of the drug should be made available to high income countries where patients should be paying the full cost.

Green Blow Fly wrote:What in nine shades of Hades does Ghandi have to do with stealing from a company you work for???

Like I already said in the very post you quoted, and as pointed out by Dogma, nothing!

I was trying to make Kanluwen stop making absolute statements, qualify them with addendums and caveats, but then still claim that the absolute statement is true.

Fifty wrote:...making absolute statements, qualify them with addendums and caveats, but then still claim that the absolute statement is true.

That's the worst spelling of "flailing pointlessly" I've ever seen.

Orlanth wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:I'm with the others in this thread on thinking the guy had a sudden and urgent need for money. A guy in EVE stole all his corp's assets, according to him to pay for his wife's surgery. Maybe a similar thing?

How does this work. I doubt most hospitals actually consider ISK acceptable currency.

I was thinking that you just do what most Americans would do in that situation. You get the surgery done and then file bankrupcy to be clear of the debt,or pay it off in small chunks over time.