Did I steal?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The homeowner.

How was ownership transferred to the homeowner? In an illegal manner?
If someone puts a pound of meth on my mailbox am I the owner of the meth? Even if I don’t know it is there?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When my wife got home, I posed this thread to her. She said almost exactly what you did.

The OP actually helped out the JWs, no harm no foul.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Horsefeathers!

If the OP was a city policeman or other individual authorized to enforce the law you’d be right. But he wasn’t. If you’re not authorized to enforce the legality of the delivery laws then you have no right to attempt to do so.

When a cop directs traffic he’s doing his job, when you get out of your car and try to so you’re committing obstruction.

If you found a bit of litter on the public road near your house, would you then make a call to the City Department of Public Works and ask that the “official litter picker upper” come out and pick it up, or would you just pick it up yourself? And what if that piece of litter was an advertising flyer that blew off of someone’s mailbox? Would that make a difference?

 

[JSSD]

How was ownership transferred to the homeowner? In an illegal manner?
If someone puts a pound of meth on my mailbox am I the owner of the meth? Even if I don’t know it is there?

So you’ve gone from “I’m not sure if it is legal” to “it is totally illegal.” (?)

Here is an analogous situation: Like I am sure many of you, my diocese has a little newspaper. Even before I was Catholic, it showed up on my driveway or in my mailbox. I sincerely couldn’t tell you why one vs. the other and when, but it did and in both cases. It didn’t go to everyone, but many, including my neighbor who is both an officer and HOA member, but not Catholic.

He commented that the Catholic paper was just junk. In other words, he made a determination much like your own. As for me, I never signed up for it, I never asked for it, and it didn’t have an address label on it. As an officer (edit: of the law via local PD) and HOA member, he would be far more in the right to collect and destroy than the OP. Even though he thinks it isn’t worth wrapping fish in, he would never take and destroy. He’d throw his out, but let me throw my own out. (Or keep). Why would someone do this? It isn’t his paper, it is mine. I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp.

In other words - I want it. Even when I wasn’t Catholic. Even when I didn’t read it.
(And truthfully, I’ve since supported them financially and do occasionally read it when I have time. Also truthfully, if you stole mine once, I really wouldn’t be that upset b/c it isn’t my personality. If I knew you made a habit of it, I probably would at that point.)

Poster BillP has also indicated that while these tracks are not for him, he would go to court over someone taking it.

So, you have CLEAR examples of where people want what is given to them. In my case and in his. Are you so sure that no one on OP’s block wants a JW book? I’m not. $0.02 And now, knowing that some people do, in fact, want what is given to them - by whatever mechanism it is (and putting something ON a mailbox is not a felony - sorry), it still doesn’t bug you for someone else to intercept it because they don’t think it is fit for your eyes and your discretion?

If your conscience, knowing that, is truly fine with this behavior, there really is nothing more to debate. All your mental justification gymnastics in the world doesn’t make it OK with the giver or a potential intended receiver. Is that moral? Is that what Jesus would have intended?

Edit x2: And what is up with the peculiar hypotheticals, like what if someone drops something that is illegal for anyone to possess? A JW book is a far cry from a pound of meth. Don’t answer the question - it is a hypothetical and I don’t even want to know the goofball train of logic that connects these. The twists of reasoning to even justify this theft is plenty absurd for me before adding that.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Edit x2: And what is up with the peculiar hypotheticals, like what if someone drops something that is illegal for anyone to possess? A JW book is a far cry from a pound of meth. Don’t answer the question - it is a hypothetical and I don’t even want to know the goofball train of logic that connects these. The twists of reasoning to even justify this theft is plenty absurd for me before adding that.

So civil discourse has ended?

Ok.

 

[JSSD]

So civil discourse has ended?

Ok.

Well before this, though, right?

I’m not trying to be rude, (sincerely), but we’ve ventured into the peculiar. What if a person having an abortion wants to borrow my rosary? What if I steal a book of mormon from a hotel? What if it is a pizza coupon? What if the value is high? What if the value is low? What if it is litter in the road? What if someone catapults an illegal drug into my yard without my knowing? All worthwhile questions, but none particularly applicable here, unless I’m grossly missing something.

Back to the scenario in question:

I went around the neighborhood and gathered 14 books in all, with the intention of recycling them. Once I was back home, however, it occurred to me that this could arguable count as stealing, and that since we are not to do sin that good may come of it, I actually acted wrongly.

Pretty obviously we have a non-zero value, an intent to give, not litter, not illegal, not interfering with USPS, and at least a few people who want their “junk mail” regardless of delivery method. I can’t accurately comment on whether this truly criminal, but it sure seems like theft to me, it seems unbelievably rude and condescending, and [this is truly just my personal opinion here], a really horrible way to evangelize and start a conversation on faith. $0.02 If a JW stole my little diocese newspaper, no matter what he’s offering - I’m out. And you’d have to expect that if I’m JW (or anything else) and a Catholic stole my JW book - yeah, you’ve told me all about “your faith” that I need to know.

 

[esieffe]

I had a very large wasp nest right above the right hand side of my front door. I sprayed the nest and several fell into a spider web. It was an eyesore, but it not only kept the JWs away, but solicitors as well.
I think what you did was prob. harmless, but I myself would confess it as a venial sin. If you or others feel differently, that’s fine. It really is harmful trash, but most likely people would have thrown it out once they realized what it was.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well before this, though, right?

I’m not trying to be rude, (sincerely), but we’ve ventured into the peculiar. What if a person having an abortion wants to borrow my rosary? What if I steal a book of mormon from a hotel? What if it is a pizza coupon? What if the value is high? What if the value is low? What if it is litter in the road? What if someone catapults an illegal drug into my yard without my knowing? All worthwhile questions, but none particularly applicable here, unless I’m grossly missing something.

Back to the scenario in question:

Pretty obviously we have a non-zero value, an intent to give, not litter, not illegal, not interfering with USPS, and at least a few people who want their “junk mail” regardless of delivery method. I can’t accurately comment on whether this truly criminal, but it sure seems like theft to me, it seems unbelievably rude and condescending, and [this is truly just my personal opinion here], a really horrible way to evangelize and start a conversation on faith. $0.02 If a JW stole my little diocese newspaper, no matter what he’s offering - I’m out. And you’d have to expect that if I’m JW (or anything else) and a Catholic stole my JW book - yeah, you’ve told me all about “your faith” that I need to know.

Ok, the OP asked if it was stealing. I ask from whom? Legally?

A lawyer already posted that what the JWs did was illegal.

I think rather than theft what people are upset at here is a form of censorship. That honestly seems to be the main argument. To that I say how is that a theological sin? Or even how is it against the law?

I see no crime here, certainly not theft.

Can anyone answer positively who had property stolen from them?

A crime has to have a victim.

A sin does to.

Who was sinned against?

Not God because the information destroyed was against God in the first place.

 

[BillP]

Ok, the OP asked if it was stealing. I ask from whom? Legally?

A lawyer already posted that what the JWs did was illegal.

I think rather than theft what people are upset at here is a form of censorship. That honestly seems to be the main argument. To that I say how is that a theological sin? Or even how is it against the law?

I see no crime here, certainly not theft.

Can anyone answer positively who had property stolen from them?

A crime has to have a victim.

A sin does to.

Who was sinned against?

Not God because the information destroyed was against God in the first place.

I would strenuously reject your assertion that theft requires a victim. Theft is the taking of property that doesn’t belong to you.

Nor does every crime require a victim. No conspiracy charge for example requires a victim. It is only necessary for the members of the conspiracy to take the first step toward committing a crime before they can be convicted. And that step can take place LONG before there is any impact on anyone other than the criminals.

But that aside, there is a victim here. You’ve been repeatedly told that once the JW placed the material on the mailbox it belonged to the person or persons receiving mail in that box. That person is the victim of the OP’s theft.

The fact that the JWs placed the literature illegally (if true) is irrelevant since the OP had no authority civil or criminal to police that issue. If my car is parked illegally in a red zone the OP has no right to break the window, jimmy the lock and drive the car to the crusher and have it destroyed.

Here is the crux of the matter.

If the OP was my child I would punish him for theft

If the OP was my classmate I turn him in for the Honor Violation of Theft and testify against him at his Honor Trial

If the OP had taken a piece of literature off of my mailbox I would go to the local magistrate and swear out a warrant for theft by taking, no matter what the literature was, because it isn’t his business to censor or police my choice of reading materials.

Even beyond the taking of materials that didn’t belong to him the OP exhibited a breathtaking level of contempt and lack of respect for his neighbors. He took the material because he didn’t feel they should have access to it.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Here is an individual who actually believes that it is his right and duty to censor my reading materials.

One last note, does anyone else enjoy the irony of the folks who were accusing others of “moral relativism” yesterday trying to rationalize theft?

 

[BillP]

If you found a bit of litter on the public road near your house, would you then make a call to the City Department of Public Works and ask that the “official litter picker upper” come out and pick it up, or would you just pick it up yourself? And what if that piece of litter was an advertising flyer that blew off of someone’s mailbox? Would that make a difference?

Are you familiar with term “straw man”? That’s what you’re creating by pretending that the JW tract was “litter”. Which, by the way is the correct definition of “begging the question”: implicitly assuming something unproven to be true then basing your argument of the truth of the implicit assumption.

You should do some reading on logical fallacies before trying to construct any more arguments.

 

[JSSD]

Ok, the OP asked if it was stealing. I ask from whom? Legally?

A lawyer already posted that what the JWs did was illegal.

I’m not a lawyer. There is that caveat. But my FIL is a postmaster and I’ve heard about this topic, at length as it is a pet peeve, far more than I would’ve liked.
I’m just not sure this is illegal. He didn’t actually use the box. Likewise, I think the OP left out too many details for any lawyer (and no disrespect meant) to make some judgment call on it. My mailbox isn’t on an easement. You can reach it from one, but it is certainly on the property. And there is a lot of “frame” to it that is simply not USPS jurisdiction. So, I’m just not convinced of that.

AND….I’m not convinced that is the material part.

I think rather than theft what people are upset at here is a form of censorship. That honestly seems to be the main argument. To that I say how is that a theological sin? Or even how is it against the law?

I see no crime here, certainly not theft.

Can anyone answer positively who had property stolen from them?

A crime has to have a victim.

A sin does to.

Who was sinned against?

Not God because the information destroyed was against God in the first place.

I would agree that there are many folks (myself included) who are upset at the censorship portion of this, but that isn’t the whole of the argument. $0.02 Again, I’d put forth it doesn’t matter the content of the material. What matters is there is an attempted transaction between two parties, even if the second isn’t aware yet, that was interrupted. So, who is the victim? The homeowner.

Who has had stuff stolen from them positively? Well, I haven’t received EVERY edition of my little paper. I’m not exactly going to perf my colon over it, but I’d prefer to receive it (even before I wanted it) than to not.

And for the last part again - this argument completely hinges upon the fact that you and I believe it to be information against God. But if the exchange of information is between two JW (or a JW and a “nothing”), they may feel as though YOU have sinned against God by blasphemy or destroying THEIR literature. $0.02 It doesn’t matter which religion is “right” in this case.

 

[MacQ]

Who owns it? Against whom is the wrong being done?

I reckon if it’s on my property, it’s mine.
I can’t fathom why people are so anxious to say this is right.

I’ll tell you this:
If I came outside and saw someone taking something off my mailbox (or my porch), I’d confront them (ask them what they were doing).

“Oh I’m a Catholic and I’m removing things you shouldn’t read” would not cut it.

I think most people think it’s up to them to decide what to read.
I can assure you I wouldn’t think “Oh, those catholics are such good caring people, saving me. Maybe I’ll become a catholic”

I’d think the guy was a creepy sicko and wondering when catholics decided to be such intrusive meddlers.

 

[MacQ]

One last note, does anyone else enjoy the irony of the folks who were accusing others of “moral relativism” yesterday trying to rationalize theft?

I do (note the irony).
It’s mindblowing

 

[JSSD]

One last note, does anyone else enjoy the irony of the folks who were accusing others of “moral relativism” yesterday trying to rationalize theft?

I almost remarked on the same last night that it felt insane that I was being accused of that.

 

[MacQ]

Yes, so are you implying there is a contract.

“you are welcome to the book as long as you promise to read it and not throw it away?”

No I am not implying any contract.
I was refuting the lame excuse that the mormons would be happy someone took their book away. Realy? You think they’re happy that Miss Arrogant Catholic Meddler takes them to the trash?
You really are reaching for straws here to justify taking something that doesn’t belong to you.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No I am not implying any contract.
I was refuting the lame excuse that the mormons would be happy someone took their book away. Realy? You think they’re happy that Miss Arrogant Catholic Meddler takes them to the trash?
You really are reaching for straws here to justify taking something that doesn’t belong to you.

We have long since established that stealing means taking something that belongs to someone else. The original thread is about if something is stealing. I say no.
Also, I don’t think taking the book of Mormon is stealing either if the Mormons would wan’t you to take it. Once something is yours, unless you have a contract, people cannot tell you what to do with it.

Again. I think people are more upset about “censorship” which is not a sin or against the law in this case.

How is either situation stealing? Who is being stolen from?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I would strenuously reject your assertion that theft requires a victim. Theft is the taking of property that doesn’t belong to you.

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?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

But that aside, there is a victim here. You’ve been repeatedly told that once the JW placed the material on the mailbox it belonged to the person or persons receiving mail in that box. That person is the victim of the OP’s theft.

The fact that the JWs placed the literature illegally (if true) is irrelevant since the OP had no authority civil or criminal to police that issue. If my car is parked illegally in a red zone the OP has no right to break the window, jimmy the lock and drive the car to the crusher and have it destroyed.

Here is the crux of the matter.

If the OP was my child I would punish him for theft

If the OP was my classmate I turn him in for the Honor Violation of Theft and testify against him at his Honor Trial

If the OP had taken a piece of literature off of my mailbox I would go to the local magistrate and swear out a warrant for theft by taking, no matter what the literature was, because it isn’t his business to censor or police my choice of reading materials.

Even beyond the taking of materials that didn’t belong to him the OP exhibited a breathtaking level of contempt and lack of respect for his neighbors. He took the material because he didn’t feel they should have access to it.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Here is an individual who actually believes that it is his right and duty to censor my reading materials.

One last note, does anyone else enjoy the irony of the folks who were accusing others of “moral relativism” yesterday trying to rationalize theft?

But that aside, there is a victim here. You’ve been repeatedly told that once the JW placed the material on the mailbox it belonged to the person or persons receiving mail in that box. That person is the victim of the OP’s theft.

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

Let that sink in for a minute.

Here is an individual who actually believes that it is his right and duty to censor my reading materials.

Oh it has sunk in alright. And it is actually my point. 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?

One last note, does anyone else enjoy the irony of the folks who were accusing others of “moral relativism” yesterday trying to rationalize theft?

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

Why can someone see the realativism about that but not about an entire worldview.

Or as the Great One used to say

“Demonstrating the absurd by being absurd”
R. Limbaugh.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I do (note the irony).
It’s mindblowing

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.

 

[MacQ]

We have long since established that stealing means taking something that belongs to someone else. The original thread is about if something is stealing. I say no.
Also, I don’t think taking the book of Mormon is stealing either if the Mormons would wan’t you to take it. Once something is yours, unless you have a contract, people cannot tell you what to do with it.

Again. I think people are more upset about “censorship” which is not a sin or against the law in this case.

How is either situation stealing? Who is being stolen from?

When you take something that isn’t yours and not intended for you, you are stealing.
.
I think we can wrap this up by agreeing that:

1. You are obviously free to continue this spurious practice.
2. I am obviously free to consider it misguided, arrogant, ( and frankly, kinda creepy and sick).

We can also know for a fact that if I caught you doing that at my house or spotted you doing it in my neighborhood, I would confront you, and possibly call the constable to report a suspicious weirdo. He would likely not arrest you, but he would tell you to cease and move along.

At least the OP had the good grace to question whether he had done the wrong thing.