Firewood theft. This an ethical way to deal with it?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
I like this. I'm thinking a few good 24x36 full-color posters of the thieves posted around the neighborhood would be good. Maybe even put up a sign on your property that just says, "Smile for the cameras". I hate thieves as much as the next guy, but I think the violence should be skipped for this one; a good, thorough public humiliation would suffice.
Humiliation changes behavior quite effectively. A neighbor this past summer decided to start letting her dog use my lawn as a toilet. I put up a sign on the grass--without calling anybody's attention to who's dog it was (I knew, because I saw it on my camera)--that my lawn is not a toilet. Never happened again, and the neighbor can tell themselves I have no idea who it was, so we can still say hi to each other while checking the mail Only left the sign up for a couple of days.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Go tell that to Texas, where it's still illegal to shoot somebody walking on your yard, but if they steal a radio from your car at night and they are running away from you it's perfectly legal to shoot them in the back.

Got a citation for that? Oh, wait, no, you don't. Because it's bullshit.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

...

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

...

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

Notice how "theft of a radio at night" is not listed anywhere. There is a reason why it's best to get one's legal information from actual lawyers and not from random articles written by hack "journalists."

ZV
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,561
5,964
136
Go tell that to Texas, where it's still illegal to shoot somebody walking on your yard, but if they steal a radio from your car at night and they are running away from you it's perfectly legal to shoot them in the back.

In the civilized world of course you're absolutely correct, and that is in other countries as well.
That good shoot will save 10s if not 100s of honest citizens from theft, loss of their items, rape by insurance companies, stress, anger, depression, unexpected acts of impotent rage....

Just sayin'.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
That good shoot will save 10s if not 100s of honest citizens from theft, loss of their items, rape by insurance companies, stress, anger, depression, unexpected acts of impotent rage....

Just sayin'.

My cup of coffee is cold. Mind freshening it up for me?
 

wabbitslayer

Senior member
Dec 2, 2012
533
1
76
Time for an OLD "true"story that can be adapted to fit these facts....

so the woodpile owner, hoping to deter future stealing, booby-traps one the of the logs and then places a big warning sign on the woodpile that read "DO NOT STEAL OR USE---One of these logs has explosives hidden in it"


Owner goes to bed, thinking the problem to be solved. The next morning he gets up and goes out to the woodpile where he sees that someone has affixed another sign that reads "Now TWO of them do"


 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Time for an OLD "true"story that can be adapted to fit these facts....

so the woodpile owner, hoping to deter future stealing, booby-traps one the of the logs and then places a big warning sign on the woodpile that read "DO NOT STEAL OR USE---One of these logs has explosives hidden in it"


Owner goes to bed, thinking the problem to be solved. The next morning he gets up and goes out to the woodpile where he sees that someone has affixed another sign that reads "Now TWO of them do"



I remember a similar story from college. Except instead of firewood it was donuts. And instead of explosives, it was dick. :\
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Got a citation for that? Oh, wait, no, you don't. Because it's bullshit.



Notice how "theft of a radio at night" is not listed anywhere. There is a reason why it's best to get one's legal information from actual lawyers and not from random articles written by hack "journalists."

ZV

Well, there IS this little story. And this section of the Texas penal code. It's not in the "protection of persons" subchapter of the penal code because, well, you're not protecting a person.
 
Last edited:

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Time for an OLD "true"story that can be adapted to fit these facts....

so the woodpile owner, hoping to deter future stealing, booby-traps one the of the logs and then places a big warning sign on the woodpile that read "DO NOT STEAL OR USE---One of these logs has explosives hidden in it"


Owner goes to bed, thinking the problem to be solved. The next morning he gets up and goes out to the woodpile where he sees that someone has affixed another sign that reads "Now TWO of them do"


 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Well, there IS this little story. And this section of the Texas penal code. It's not in the "protection of persons" subchapter of the penal code because, well, you're not protecting a person.

God damnit, you're right. That's what I get for dealing with law outside of my normal state.

Although 9.42(3) does make it a very difficult bar to clear.

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

ZV
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
God damnit, you're right. That's what I get for dealing with law outside of my normal state.

I don't want to be right about this.

As for clearing the bar, well, if it comes to a jury trial, all bets are off, n'est-ce pas?
 

TonyG

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2000
2,021
2
81
Hmm, what if a pet, err wild, skunk was to move into said word pile, better yet, badger...
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,305
10,804
136
No, the boobytrap is unethical.

As has been mentioned the chances of hurting someone other then the thief are too great.
 

angminas

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2006
3,331
26
91
Take a picture of yourself wearing a battered old clown suit and pouring maple syrup over your head while laughing maniacally and brandishing a meat cleaver. Blow it up to poster size and caption it "You know what happened to the last person to steal from me? NOBODY KNOWS". Nail it up near the logs.
 

steve wilson

Senior member
Sep 18, 2004
839
0
76
ROFL at Americans resorting to violence way too often to solve their problems.

Just lock the wood up. It's not rocket science. Or if you really want to catch the person, install one of them motion sensor night vision cameras and do the coloured smoke idea.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
I don't know why everyone is discussing legality. It would be ethical to fashion a few logs into splintered dildos and fuck the thief to death imo.
 

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
145
106
As someone who chops, hauls, splits, and stacks for my dear momma I'd get my revenge. Deer camera will tell me who the perp is. They gonna wake up one morning with the whole side of their trailer spray painted THIEF.
 

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
I can't imagine blowing up someone's house and killing people because they stole a few hundred dollars of wood. To me there are three possible solutions.

1. Live in an area that is not so destitute that people are having to steal basic fuel for heating their home.

2. Put a fence around the wood. Hang a sign that wood thieves will be shot on sight. Hang a dead animal on the fence.

3. Do what rational people do and have a wood shed.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
ROFL at Americans resorting to violence way too often to solve their problems.

Just lock the wood up. It's not rocket science. Or if you really want to catch the person, install one of them motion sensor night vision cameras and do the coloured smoke idea.

Out of curiosity, I'm at a bit of a loss. I understand rocket science. But I don't understand how most people would be able to lock up their firewood. You do have a clue how much wood you're talking about, right? This isn't enough firewood for a little campfire in the back yard - this is enough firewood to heat a house for a few months.
 

angminas

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2006
3,331
26
91
These people aren't stealing firewood because they're "destitute" or because they "have to". If they were really in a bad situation and knocked on a door instead of sneaking into a back yard, their neighbors would help them. And if they're physically fit enough to haul stolen firewood, they're fit enough to cut some for themselves.

Destitute...lol. Morally destitute, maybe
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |