Did I steal?

[BillP]

Please post any definition of theft that includes what you have said.
No, what you were taught as a child does not count.

This goes for everyone.

Can anyone definitively say who owns the material?
What is it’s value?

Here you go.

1steal

verb \ˈstēl\ : to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
: to wrongly take and use (another person’s idea, words, etc.)

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

The value of the item stolen doesn’t enter into the fact of theft, only the ownership. The value only enter into it for ajudicating the severity of the punishment.

In this case each of those pamphlets has a tiny value. Multiply it by the 12 that he took and we’re still under a $. But it doesn’t matter. The value is unimportant. Its the fact of the theft.

 

[MacQ]

What is mindblowing to me is everyone yesterday was talking about how “truth” is relative and all religions are equal and who are we to say something.

But now, they KNOW that it was stealing.

So truth is just what one “feels”

classic realativism.

Don’t you see it?

You guys labeled as “true” Theft.
I pointed out that theft has not been legally or morally met.
But your personal “belief” trumps written law.

Something has been offended and someone must pay. That is a sense of justice. I agree with the sentiment. But we cannot call the offense something it is not.
There are a few of you on these boards that are ready to label it a “hate crime” or discrimination.
The fact of the matter is that it was throwing away something that belonged to no one. To the general public. Did the OP “trespass” to do it. Sure. But everyone needs to put the pitchforks away.

If only people got this upset at real moral issues. IF only we defended the faith the way we defend the freedom to read a leaflet.

No wonder we live in a culture of death and sin.

That’s pretty much overboard. No one is crying out for justice or punishment.
Simply that someone should not engage in this nefarious practice.

 

[BillP]

Iv’e been told? By what authority? Because you think so? ok.

Its not that you have to accept my authority in the argument its that you’re so intransigent that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that an argument has been made but go on blithely asserting that no one has addressed your ownership point.

Again, theft is not the issue here. censorship is what has everyone all riled up. You even talked of taking someone to court over it. It offends your sense of freedom. I can understand that. But it is not theft.

And yet the warrant would have been sworn out for theft. I would go before a magistrate and swear that the JW literature was my property and that the OP unlawfully took it. I actually asked my neighbor (who’s an Assistant DA) about this and he said that he had specifically seen a case where a man swore out a warrant for theft of a coupon insert against his neighbor when the man saw the neighbor pick them up from his driveway. I was curious about the outcome of the case. When the DA’s office refused to dismiss the case, the accused apologized to the “victim” and they came to some equitable arrangement.

Of course this was Fulton County, GA. so YMMV.

What the offense is is censorship. Is gall, is taking away your “right” But it is not theft. That is what I have said all along. Welcome aboard! It is not theft. We would agree all day long if we were talking about if it is censorship of your personal bathroom material. But that is not the question is it?

So you actually do agree that the OP was wrong, but this long and involved discussion
was just you being intentionally disputatious and argumentative for the sake of being disputatious and argumentative? Okay then.

Frustrating isn’t it?
Something about medicine that is your own and the taste of it…

Well except that no one in this thread ever actually asserted that the JW literature was “right” or that “all religions are the same” or anything that would indicate a position of moral relativism, but hey other than that, yeah its exactly the same.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

:knight2:

Crusade away!

 

[Rmac81]

Saints come in all sizes and color and shapes, so to speak. Maybe God’s will is that you’re oozing of kindness and love and inclusiveness, called to lovingly converse with those of other faiths. Whereas, I’m more like St. Nicholas–punching heretics in the face when need be.

We’re all needed in the battle!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I tell that story every Christmas to my kids!

Hey kids, did you know Santa punches heretics in the face!

So be good tonight!

I love Santa Nicholas!

Even my four year old knows the story!

Works better than a piece of coal, that is for sure!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Because we were talking about Mormons earlier…
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/evangelizing-mormons

 

[Listener]

So let’s say you are in a bookstore, and you wander over to the section labeled “Religion.” While looking through the books, you see a book with the title, “How to Become a Jehovah Witness.”

You say, "Oh my! People shouldn’t be reading that! So you grab the book, go outside, and toss it in a garbage can.

All I can say is that I hope you know someone with enough money to bail you out of jail!

If you find something like that on your neighbor’s property, you need to remember that you are trespassing on your neighbor’s property. It doesn’t matter who owns the book. Maybe the neighbor’s brother left it there by accident. Maybe the Post Office owns it because someone left it on their mail box. Maybe the Jehovah Witnesses still own it because they are the ones who left it there.

I don’t really care who owns it. The bottom line is that YOU don’t own it. You have a lot of nerve trespassing on your neighbor’s property to remove something that you don’t approve of!

Most of the people here understand “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” but apparently they don’t understand the one that says, “Thou Shalt Not Steal!”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So let’s say you are in a bookstore, and you wander over to the section labeled “Religion.” While looking through the books, you see a book with the title, “How to Become a Jehovah Witness.”

You say, "Oh my! People shouldn’t be reading that! So you grab the book, go outside, and toss it in a garbage can.

All I can say is that I hope you know someone with enough money to bail you out of jail!

If you find something like that on your neighbor’s property, you need to remember that you are trespassing on your neighbor’s property. It doesn’t matter who owns the book. Maybe the neighbor’s brother left it there by accident. Maybe the Post Office owns it because someone left it on their mail box. Maybe the Jehovah Witnesses still own it because they are the ones who left it there.

I don’t really care who owns it. The bottom line is that YOU don’t own it. You have a lot of nerve trespassing on your neighbor’s property to remove something that you don’t approve of!

Most of the people here understand “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” but apparently they don’t understand the one that says, “Thou Shalt Not Steal!”

]So let’s say you are in a bookstore, and you wander over to the section labeled “Religion.” While looking through the books, you see a book with the title, “How to Become a Jehovah Witness.”

You say, "Oh my! People shouldn’t be reading that! So you grab the book, go outside, and toss it in a garbage can.

All I can say is that I hope you know someone with enough money to bail you out of jail!

Not a single person on the forums would disagree. That is the very definition of theft. You took something of monetary value from someone who owned it.

You think

Most of the people here understand “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,”

Then you have not seen the numerous threads about masturbation, porn, and premarital sex on these boards. Few people seem to understand ANY of the commandments it would seem to me.

Do you understand Thou Shalt Not Commit adultery?

"Thou Shalt Not Steal!

Against whom was this sin committed. Who was stolen from?

" I sinned, but I don’t know against whom" is not valid.

 

[SyroMalankara]

A) Giver = JW tract placer
B) Recipient(s) = Owner(s) of mailbox/house/address/box/garbage/whatever

The item whether a Bible, pamphlet, balloon or cookie was intended from person A to go to person(s) B. If person C intentionally misplaced that item, through malice or intention to intercept/destroy/vandalize/deface that item then it could be theft or vandalization/defacement.

But in this particular case, if in fact, A did attach to or open the mailboxes of B and place flyers, A is in violation of federal law and can be fined up to $5,000 and his organization up to $10,000 per incident.

So, going back to the scenario, did person C (the OP) steal? Potentially person C stole money from B, should B choose to sue or file against A for the mailbox violation. Person C may have also stole from persons B for removing the tract. Person C more likely vandalized/defaced property not belonging to person C.

In addition, the law about violating a person’s primary mailbox may have also been violated by person C because it specifically states “A person who does not receive any mail at said box does not have any right to remove or place anything in the mailbox.” So while person C is correct about person A’s violation, unless person C is an agent of the USPS or persons B, person C is also in violation.

 

[MacQ]

A) Giver = JW tract placer
B) Recipient(s) = Owner(s) of mailbox/house/address/box/garbage/whatever

The item whether a Bible, pamphlet, balloon or cookie was intended from person A to go to person(s) B. If person C intentionally misplaced that item, through malice or intention to intercept/destroy/vandalize/deface that item then it could be theft or vandalization/defacement.

But in this particular case, if in fact, A did attach to or open the mailboxes of B and place flyers, A is in violation of federal law and can be fined up to $5,000 and his organization up to $10,000 per incident.

So, going back to the scenario, did person C (the OP) steal? Potentially person C stole money from B, should B choose to sue or file against A for the mailbox violation. Person C may have also stole from persons B for removing the tract. Person C more likely vandalized/defaced property not belonging to person C.

In addition, the law about violating a person’s primary mailbox may have also been violated by person C because it specifically states “A person who does not receive any mail at said box does not have any right to remove or place anything in the mailbox.” So while person C is correct about person A’s violation, unless person C is an agent of the USPS or persons B, person C is also in violation.

Oh please.

 

[DAML72]

I would confess it if I were you.

 

[robwar]

With all this angst on this thread, I am more than curious as to why Op, since this was their first post has not responded or commented and has not posted since the first question. All this around and around is most likely all for not and the original scenario most likely not real.
Actually some of the over the top emotions expressed by some on this thread is embarrassing. Mailboxes are not private property but belong to the federal government. Someone putting anything on federal property because they realize that it is illegal to stick anything in it without using the mail system is most likely questionable at best. Someone putting anything on a mailbox is taking the chance that anyone coming by can take whatever they are putting on it. These pamphlets are not specifically addressed to a particular person or household and are place at the curb on public (federal) domain. The pamphlets were not place inside someone front door or on their porch which is private property but on federal property at the curb for anyone to take. Therefore it is not stealing. If this is real and Op is concerned about sin, then they can go to confession or even just talk about it with someone trained in this such as a priest not strangers on the internet that think they know it all and get mad because others disagree with their over the top opinions.

 

[Rmac81]

I think I see where some confusion may be coming from.

I live in a neighborhood where my mailbox isn’t by itself on my front lawn by the curb. Rather, it is down the street and amongst about 40 other mailboxes. That area of concrete with the mailboxes isn’t owned by anyone. The entire thing is a large, metal, rectangular box which allows for a flat top.

I was imagining tracts being placed atop that kind of mailbox system.

 

[Holly3278]

Whenever I find non-Catholic tracts in the front area of the apartment buildings, I take them and throw them away. There is nothing wrong with preventing others from reading false material which is in effect propaganda for a false religion.

 

[MacQ]

Whenever I find non-Catholic tracts in the front area of the apartment buildings, I take them and throw them away. There is nothing wrong with preventing others from reading false material which is in effect propaganda for a false religion.

There certainly is something wrong with being that meddlesome and arrogant.

 

[zippy2006]

And if a JW came here asking about disposing of Catholic literature in this way, would your answers be the same?

Of course, it’s simply not stealing. Besides, I hope Catholics aren’t littering in this way.

You had every right to throw away the book left on YOUR mailbox unread. You had NO RIGHT to set yourself up as moral arbiter and censor of your neighbors and decide which materials and literature THEY were allowed access to.

He picked up litter. He didn’t set himself up as a moral arbiter any more than the person who left the litter did.

If you were my neighbor and I found out that you took something off of my mailbox you’d “have some explaining to do”.

That’s only because you’re confused. He wouldn’t have to explain anything to the government or to God, because he didn’t steal.

It was VERY disrespectful.

You’ve given no good arguments for why.

Technically, you took something from your neighbors’ property, so I reckon it was stealing.

He stole no more than someone who picks up litter or dog poop from their neighbor’s property steals. Stealing is simply not “taking something that was within the confines of your neighbor’s property.” Furthermore, as was already noted, the mailbox is not their property.

Whether or not it qualifies as stealing technically, however, it was WRONG.

Like the fellow above, you don’t seem to have reasons so much as emotion.

It’s not different than taking your neighbor’s garden gnome because you think it’s ugly.
It’s on his property, it’s his. Period. Regardless of what some lawyer says.

It’s completely different. Your neighbors gnome is his property, it isn’t merely on his property. It is stealing to take something that belongs to your neighbor, it is not stealing to pick up litter.

But there’s really more to this:
Unless it’s your child, you have no right to censor what other people read.
That’s what is being disappointingly advocated here, in the name of religion.
Leave that to radical fundamentalists. It’s not the Catholic way.

Do you understand what censorship is?

Even picking a flower IS theft if it isn’t YOUR flower.

In my view the JWs owned the literature until they placed it on the mailbox of a specific person. At that point ownership transferred to the individual who recieved mail in that particular box. By placing each pamphlet on a particular box, they clearly communicated their intention to transfer ownership to that particular person.

Where do you live? I’m going to start dumping trash and old car tires in your yard. According to you, it isn’t littering, it’s “transfer of ownership.” This is so silly. Single parties have no power to “transfer ownership” without the consent of the receiving party. I assume your consistency prevents you from placing a spam filter on your email?

 

[MacQ]

Of course, it’s simply not stealing. Besides, I hope Catholics aren’t littering in this way.

He picked up litter. He didn’t set himself up as a moral arbiter any more than the person who left the litter did.

That’s only because you’re confused. He wouldn’t have to explain anything to the government or to God, because he didn’t steal.

You’ve given no good arguments for why.

He stole no more than someone who picks up litter or dog poop from their neighbor’s property steals. Stealing is simply not “taking something that was within the confines of your neighbor’s property.” Furthermore, as was already noted, the mailbox is not their property.

Like the fellow above, you don’t seem to have reasons so much as emotion.

It’s completely different. Your neighbors gnome is his property, it isn’t merely on his property. It is stealing to take something that belongs to your neighbor, it is not stealing to pick up litter.

Do you understand what censorship is?



Where do you live? I’m going to start dumping trash and old car tires in your yard. According to you, it isn’t littering, it’s “transfer of ownership.” This is so silly. Single parties have no power to “transfer ownership” without the consent of the receiving party. I assume your consistency prevents you from placing a spam filter on your email?

Everything you posted here is a lame attempt to justify taking something from someone else’s property.
YOU say it’s litter. YOU say it’s dog poop. Not everyone thinks so.

What if you put out Gospel messages and some atheist removed them because to HIM they are litter.

Your stance is arrogant. Meddlesome. Disrespectful of others (deciding what someone else should read…really?) And frankly, CREEPY.

You can place a spam filter on your own email, but hacking in and putting one on someone else’s is nefarious.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Everything you posted here is a lame attempt to justify taking something from someone else’s property.
YOU say it’s litter. YOU say it’s dog poop. Not everyone thinks so.

What if you put out Gospel messages and some atheist removed them because to HIM they are litter.

Your stance is arrogant. Meddlesome. Disrespectful of others (deciding what someone else should read…really?) And frankly, CREEPY.

You can place a spam filter on your own email, but hacking in and putting one on someone else’s is nefarious.

You have used creepy and nefarious to describe picking up a pamphlet.

Perhaps that is a tad bit dramatic don’t you think?

 

[MacQ]

You have used creepy and nefarious to describe picking up a pamphlet.

Perhaps that is a tad bit dramatic don’t you think?

Not when the INTENT is to censor what others read, and said “picking up” is from a place that isn’t yours. You forgot arrogant and meddlesome.