Quake3World

jesus lars, people sometimes get desperate and make mistakes. they don't need to pay with their lives.

If something bad happened every time you did something wrong, you'd do less/no wrong. Though I wish the "bad" would be equivalent to the wrong. I still don't feel sorry for someone when karma deals a greater blow. I think what people seem to be missing/over looking/ignoring is the fact that life isn't fair. The world doesn't owe you anything. It doesn't owe you a safe drunk driving trip home. It doesn't owe you an overdose free heroin experience. Just like it doesn't owe you a pleasant stolen bike ride. YOU are responsible for your own actions. If YOU are willing to take the risk. YOU must accept the consequences. No matter what they are. It's called being responsible. A concept this world is slowly losing sight of. People are always looking for a way to blame someone else instead of being an adult and owning their mistakes.

Grow up...

Ganemi wrote:I would love a vigilante that murdered vigilantes.

Now there's a power that would never be abused

Should be a pretty short career

lars63 wrote:

Κracus wrote:If you stole something from me I would not want to paralyze you for life as punishment.

It's that simple. Yes, the bike thief is wrong and deserves punishment, but this isn't it. The trap constitutes assault and whoever committed that assault should be held accountable.

It all comes down to if the Putz was honest he would have had no worries, the optimum word were looking for in this sentence is "honest". An honest person would have walked right by that bike and left it alone, now if that person turned into a Putz well then there are all sorts of consequences, you know, sort of like that old TV show, "Truth or Consequences" and those Putz chose the latter. Kracus I'm not putting you down but I bet if someone stole something from you, you would want to tear his head off, beat him to a bloody pulp and I bet if that were your bike that the Putz took and that happened to him you would think it justice, just saying.

Edit: OK, I'm done you all fight it out how you like I've said my piece *LOL* Carry on

I actually have been in that situation lars, a few times in fact. The guy that stole my Kona Cinderkone got a little roughed up but it wasn't because he stole my bike, he just wouldn't tell me who he sold it to when I found him. At this point I had him in my car so I jammed the brakes on and smashed his face into the dashboard... Got my bike back though. So you're somewhat correct that yeah, I felt like that but I had the opportunity to do much worse to the guy and I didn't.

losCHUNK wrote:

Κracus wrote:...The trap constitutes assault and whoever committed that assault should be held accountable.

No

Sure, but then don't cry like a bitch when you find our your government has been arming and training the same people that bombed the twin towers, for something like 100 years. If you think it's a conspiracy theory, you're super retarded.

You support people that completely fabricate needlessly dangerous situations, then either cry like bitches when they get hurt, or act like morally superior vigilantes when someone else does.

That kind of thinking is the reason so many states are turning into third world nations, while people engage in completely arbitrary, aimless violence like "Drug Wars" while super rich parasites that openly admit to being rapists are allowed to loot you.

It's not a super complex concept. There's not intellectual abstraction going on, it's the most basic ideas.

/everypoliticalthread

Ganemi wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:
No

Sure, but then don't cry like a bitch when you find our your government has been arming and training the same people that bombed the twin towers, for something like 100 years. If you think it's a conspiracy theory, you're super retarded.

You support people that completely fabricate needlessly dangerous situations, then either cry like bitches when they get hurt, or act like morally superior vigilantes when someone else does.

That kind of thinking is the reason so many states are turning into third world nations, while people engage in completely arbitrary, aimless violence like "Drug Wars" while super rich parasites that openly admit to being rapists are allowed to loot you.

It's not a super complex concept. There's not intellectual abstraction going on, it's the most basic ideas.

/everypoliticalthread

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams ?. We can't be far away from Godwins law.

If what you're drawing objection to is the intent of the prankster then fair enough (I've already said as much). You're allowed to call someone a cunt if you think so, but, if you're chatting bollocks to make your point then don't.

An illegal act is an illegal act, there's no 2 ways about it and that includes drug laws or looting reguardless of who the person is. Our justice systems may not be perfect but progressive societies means we get progressive laws. In the case of the bike, the reason why the law is not being broken is to protect innocent people from liability, your intent doesn't mean fuck all when someone else makes a mistake. The thief took a risk that he would have been fully aware of. He was taking a bike ffs, someone elses property and didn't bother determining if it could be taken safely, how is that anyone elses fault ?, because the bike was asking for it ?.

It's the intent of the person that tied it up there as a trap. It was placed there, with the intent of harming whoever might try and steal it. The intent is why this would be seen as assault in a court.

It is in fact very similar to people who break into houses and get shot only to see the owner get charged with assault/manslaughter. At the end of the day, you just can't assault other people who pose you no threat.

Beyond that, the morality of what they're doing is beyond poor as they're recording this with the intent to profit as well as committing assault on people who may have bad moral judgement themselves but are most certainly down on their luck.

I understand why people see that stuff and think "Ha! that guy deserved it!" but at the end of the day I guarantee you a judge will not.

Κracus wrote:It's the intent of the person that tied it up there as a trap. It was placed there, with the intent of harming whoever might try and steal it. The intent is why this would be seen as assault in a court.

No, it is not considered a trap in the eyes of the law as it isn't concealed, it's a rope tied to a bike, similiar to that of a lock. This is the point I am making, the thief would have been able to determine the repercussions of his actions if he had followed his duty of care.

The owners shooting someone and getting charged is considered excessive force, there's no way for a criminal to avoid this.

If you go into court with the "he got what he deserved" excuse and nothing more then I agree. Assuming that these people are down on their luck is another assumption n all, like I said theyre heroin pushing rapist gangsters.

A better example is a thief electrocuting himself when stealing copper cables or robbing lead off a roof and falling to his death.

It is a trap. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be there filming it. They wouldn't have tied it on a slope. They wouldn't have used a rope long enough to cause the mayhem you saw and I'm pretty sure the rope is as concealed as they could manage to make it. All of that was intentional and saying it isn't is just being ignorant and wouldn't fly in court. This is assault plain and simple.

The requirement for a booby trap is concealment, the rope wasn't concealed as it was tied to the fence and the bike, it then trailed off behind them as it went down the slope. The prankster intended for someone to take his bike, that's it, his duty of care ended when someone took it so no laws have been broken.

Wow... Ok, so answer me this. If it wasn't a trap, why did the owner of the bike place it there tied up the way he did?

As I said, in law a trap is considered something that is concealed, I edited above to show the intent of the prankster ^. He can tie it up anyway he wishes, give it flat tyres, remove the brakes or loosen the handlebars... so long as the risk is apparent then their is no law being broken.

lol... yeah I'm sure the "I didn't conceal my trap so it's not a trap" excuse would work brilliantly in court. You're fucking dense.

It's how the law defines it dumb ass, it's not a trap if it isn't concealed and the risk is apparent. Otherwise my power cable outside my house could be considered a trap.

In the case of the video the thief failed to check wether the bike could be ridden, if he had performed his duty of care there would be no accident.

[lvlshot]https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif[/lvlshot]

Nothing else ?, glad we cleared that up.

"putz"

If you think it's OK to bait people into committing a crime just so you can hurt them and then profit from it, you're fucking sick.

I'm pretty sure that I never gave an opinion on how I felt about it.

My 1st reply is arguable I spose, but is just the 1st iteration of what I've been saying.

You're not arguing dude, you're stating things as black and white facts and laws without considering intent or situations. Talking to you is like talking to a wall, I can make as much sense as I want, you're still not going to reply with a coherent or tangible concept to counter what anyone else is saying.

your logic = tripwires in a retirement homes is a.o.k so long as you can see them.

There's no back and forth, it's like explaining relativity to a 5 year old.

My logic actually discussed the tripwire scenario and how it differs. The thief assumes responsibility as soon as he picked up the bike, you can't intend for someone to steal or take your belongings, that is a decision outside of your control which is why the responsibility shifts from owner to thief / finders keeper, it's why baiting isn't a crime but entrapment is ffs. I've also spoken about the situation and what constitutes as a trap, having a rope blatantly hanging off a seat is not.

So it's not a trap as we established, nor is baiting a crime. So what's the problem ?

losCHUNK wrote:you can't intend for someone to steal or take your belongings.

This right here is why you're completely wrong on this one. They did intend for someone to steal it and to say they didn't is completely ludicrous.


edit: Just in case...

lu·di·crous
ˈlo͞odəkrəs/Submit
adjective
so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.
"it's ludicrous that I have been fined"
synonyms: absurd, ridiculous, farcical, laughable, risible, preposterous, foolish, mad, insane, idiotic, stupid, inane, silly, asinine, nonsensical; informalcrazy

If you intend on someone to steal your bike then you left it there to be taken. No law has been broken hence baiting isn't a crime, you can intend for someone to take it but both those are decisions outside of your control. Then trap bla bla bla

Right bla bla bla intent...

The intent was for the bike to be stolen.

The intent in cutting the brakes.

The intent of putting it on a slope

the intent of tying a rope to it.

But hey, bla bla bla right? Durr hurr lookit da bike teif eat dirt ha! Yeah that's what you sound like to me.