Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > > > > You are comparing a prosecutable crime with a non-crime. They are free
> > > > > to toss her from the store if they find her activity inappropriate,
> > > >
> > > > Or prosecute. Which I think you're conceding. (or if not, please show why
> > > > it's not a crime to convert property to use the owner doesn't intend or
> > > > interfere with the flow of commerce on private property)
>
> Let me see if I understand this. If I go into a store and put a LEGO set in my
> cart, walk around for an hour or so, and then return that LEGO set to a shelf
> very near where I'd first picked it up, then I've committed a crime?
I don't think so.
Hmm. You've come up with a good counterexample, at least on the surface. The
easy counter is to discuss intent, your intent presumably was to buy the items
til you changed your mind, while she (being an HD hater with a message to get
across) had no such intent.
She intended to do something disruptive, and then profit from it (by selling
photos in galleries) without giving HD any benefit (based on her own statements,
but who knows what her real intent is, maybe she's secretly an HD flack trying
to drum up media attention and get the likes of Bruce to patronise HD more
often).
But I don't like using intent, it's impossible to determine. Only outcomes can
be determined. So I dunno. I think the store wants only certain behaviours and
yours is within the envelope but hers is not.
Put this another way, the store wants you to come in, buy your stuff, and leave,
not to loiter or create nuisances. (c.f. the slogan of Ed Debevic's, played for
laughs "Eat and Get OUT!"... all stores want that to a certain degree)
So measure what was done, I guess. Your waltzing around with sets in your cart
for an hour was inconvenient but not quite the same as using up every paver of a
certain sort to construct an aisle blocking hazard and make a statement about
HD's inhumanity which is then sold for profit.
Those are clearly different outcomes.
But yes, technically one could argue, a difference in degree. I don't see it
that way but maybe. That doesn't give her a pass in my book though.
> > OK, fair enough. But I think you have agreed, at least, that people in
> > stores do not have carte blanche to do with store property as they wish,
> > right?
>
> That's a well-spun summary of the issue, I think.
Why thank you. But you agree that spin or not, it's correct?
> Obviously this person isn't
> free to engage in largescale alterations of inventory, but that's not what she's
> doing.
Your small scale may be my large scale.
> Instead, she is rearranging a small portion of the store's inventory, in
> much the same way that I have moved one paving stone to get at another one
> better suited to my purchasing tastes.
You don't deliberately do so in order to create a hazard or make a statement
though, do you? But there's that pesky intent again, so not a good yardstick.
> I expect that, at some point, you've
> done something very similar, and you've therefore committed the same "crime" as
> the "artist" in question. The difference between your crime and hers is in
> degree, not kind.
I want to disagree but right now I can't put my finger on exactly how. More late
if time permits, gotta think about this. Measure the outcomes.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
