104
105

I'm an honest person. The wind put those boxes in my car. (np.reddit.com)

DeltaBlack が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ButtsexEurope 6ポイント7ポイント  (35子コメント)

Question: what happens if you put the expired stuff in a dumpster, left, and then came back and got it? Technically, you threw it away, and you can dumpster dive as long as the dumpster isn't locked.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (34子コメント)

That's not universally correct: In some jurisdictions as it has been pointed out in the original post it remains property of the store if it is on their property.

Also it is different if the property (e.g. candy) needs to be destroyed, because by taking it you're causing damage to the store. It's not like you can just take confidential company files that have been discarded to be destroyed as a similar example.

slated to be destroyed =/= abandoned

[–]razzer1987 3ポイント4ポイント  (33子コメント)

If an unrelated third party stole the goods and Pepsi or whoever found out what would they do to the store? Like, what's the damage that Pepsi will do to the store due to hobos taking soda that "needs" to be destroyed?

[–]Chris_knyfe 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

There isn't any damage. OP is using incorrect phrasing. The property belongs to the store until it is collected by waste disposal, at which point it becomes property of the city. However it is actually of negative value, if anything, since processing and further storage puts a cost that the thief frees the "victim" from.

Dumpster diving is one of those things that are illegal despite being completely victimless. Generally people turn a blind eye unless they are pedantic fucks with a boner for litigation.

[–]razzer1987 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

Cool cool, that's exactly what I assumed before OP started claiming that the act somehow damaged a business. I know that businesses are prevented from formally donating the products to charity if they are unfit for sale, so my first assumption was that the damage he referred to was an extension of that.

[–]Chris_knyfe 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

I feel like he is more confused about why laws intended to prevent stealing confidential documents and unlicensed waste disposal impact dumpster diving. He thinks it's on purpose, but in reality these laws are written and voted on by rich people who have no idea that some people are willing to consume waste products.

If there was political will it'd be changed in a heartbeat.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Lol - this is an issue about the deprivation of possession and use and you guys act as if it's about the value of the property.

If you take something from me you're depriving me of it and that's the damage regardless of the nominal value of the object.

As I stated at the start:

slated to be destroyed =/= abandoned

You can take the latter, but not the other.

But go ahead bring more of your fellows from /r/ireland/ to brigade here and say how stealing from a store is actually a good thing.

For some strange reason neither of you can explain how preventing me from using my property as I wish is not causing a damage to me.

[–]Chris_knyfe 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

You're just getting paranoid now. I post on here and on legal advice all the time and I doubt I have the sway on /r/ireland to organise a brigade over something as pointless as your hurt feelings.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

I post on here and on legal advice all the time

Probably with bad advice too ...

Prove it: Show me a post on either /r/bestoflegaladvice or /r/legaladvice in the past 30 days from you.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

ROFL, yeah you just like to jump into conversations without reading the context and blindly support some strangers position without actually refuting the other position. Sure that's as believable as OP's story about the wind blowing the cases of sodas into his car despite video evidence.

[–]Chris_knyfe 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I answered a question that I knew the answer to. One that you ignored the context of and were being a tit about it.

The problem is that you assume that abandoned and slated for destruction aren't the same on purpose. In reality, scenarios like dumpster diving were not considered and now no one with power cares enough to rectify it. There's not always an impact on the victim, but it's always illegal. Hence, there is no damage but there is still prosecution.

Also, OP was obviously joking when he said that stuff about the wind. Come on now, you're being ridiculous.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

However it is actually of negative value, if anything, since processing and further storage puts a cost that the thief frees the "victim" from.

ROFL.

Dumpster diving is one of those things that are illegal despite being completely victimless. Generally people turn a blind eye unless they are pedantic fucks with a boner for litigation.

Dumpster diving is different that taking stuff that is meant to be destroyed. You should read more than just the comment you need to jerk each other off.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (15子コメント)

If the is slated to be destroyed then they're automatically stealing it. It doesn't matter if it has any value or not. It doesn't matter that all the store wants to do is destroy it. It remains property of the store. So nothing, because it was a criminal act outside the store's influence. The store will file a report with the police and they (or their insurance) will eat the cost, which may be more than nothing since they may be selling on commission or have some other agreement in place where the store gets money back for unsold merchandise.

[–]razzer1987 2ポイント3ポイント  (14子コメント)

I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm asking what Pepsi et al do to damage stores when they fail to destroy items due to third party theft.

You're the one claiming that stores are damaged due to having failed to destroy items, I am curious about where those damages come from.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (13子コメント)

Because the thieves are taking something that is not theirs?

The whole point of: It's worthless, doesn't negate the crime of theft.

I cannot take something from you you do not want to give me even if it's worthless. That's the damage.

[–]razzer1987 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

Taking something that isn't there's is a crime, yes. For the third time, I'm not claiming no crime has occurred. Please pay attention.

We're talking about the damage suffered by the store as the result of the crime. Where I come from that'd be nothing, since the stolen object was unfit for sale. In this case, the thief would get charged with theft and given appropriate punishment from the legal system, but the store would get nothing from him since they weren't measurably damaged. The only time the thief would be liable for additional damages would be if the store lost an opportunity to make money from the stolen items.

For example, we have recycling centres that pay for glass bottles so stealing glass bottles of out dated soda causes damages equal to the cost per bottle they could get. While, if they were in date, the damages are the full sale price. If no system to incentise recycling exists there is no damage. In all three cases the thief is still charged with theft and given the appropriate punishment; the difference lies in what the thief needs to pay back to the store.

You seem to be working off a tautology, where the damage exists because the act is defined as damaging. Is this how the American legal system really handles the theft of goods that have no value? A store can literally profit from theft as long as the thief is dumpster diving?

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

We're talking about the damage suffered by the store as the result of the crime.

Please pay attention.

where I come from that'd be nothing, since the stolen object was unfit for sale. In this case, the thief would get charged with theft and given appropriate punishment from the legal system, but the store would get no restitution since they weren't measurably damaged.

So where do I say that the store get's money when there are no damages? Please pay attention.

The only time the thief would be liable for additional damages would be if the store lost an opportunity to make money from the stolen items.

Please pay attention.

The store will file a report with the police and they (or their insurance) will eat the cost, which may be more than nothing since they may be selling on commission or have some other agreement in place where the store gets money back for unsold merchandise.

After that you started arguing about how there's no damage when something of no value is stolen. A damage with a value of 0$ is still damage. You just can sue for it, if you do not understand something ask instead of making things up.

You seem to be working off a tautology

I'm not. Please pay attention. Before you use big words learn what civil liability is.

A store can literally profit from theft as long as the thief is dumpster diving?

No. Learn what civil liability is. Please pay attention.

At this point you should go back and pay attention to what I wrote. Ask about the words you do not understand and not make up things you do not understand, because at this point you apparently have not understood what I wrote from the first comment on.

[–]razzer1987 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

by taking it your causing damage to the store

In the very first post I replied to. You've proceeded to double down on crime = damage tautology and build a "no damage = no crime" strawman rather than admit that there is no damage caused to the store.

[–]DeltaBlack[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

crime = damage tautology

Because it is. It's the basic premise of every crime in a civilized society. You agree that it is a crime, so even you are agreeing with me. What's your problem here?

build a "no damage = no crime" strawman rather than admit that there is no damage caused to the store.

So you are saying that taking something of no value against the owner's wishes is not a crime? If a take something from you do not have it you are deprived of it, that is the damage done, even if there is no $ value to the item.

Sorry, but at this point I have to assume that you are just a troll. If not pay attention and read what I wrote, read what you wrote and STFU, because at this point you're building a a "no value = no damage" strawman rather than admit that there is damage caused to the store. Learn to read instead of just picking words from a thesaurus.