Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 94612 2008-11-05 07:37:00 Very sick Judge! royaloaks (8205) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
717921 2008-11-12 09:51:00 but when I see a parent unable to buy his kid a pack of 69c chewing gum, I put the gum in the bag anyway without scanning it.
That is theft. Would that kid have really suffered if it hadn't got that chewing gum? Revolting habit anyway.
mikebartnz (21)
717922 2008-11-12 09:56:00 You are not a Robin Hood. Your employer tenders goods for trade. This is an honest way to make a living. He does not steal from the poor. That he is rich does not make it okay for you (or anybody) to steal from him. Forty cents (or 69 cents) buys the same amount in the same shops for your employer as it does for you or the customer to whom you gave the stolen gum. That is the point.



There are no shades of meaning here. No fine distinctions to draw between what is lawful or moral. There would be no cunning legal arguments for the finest legal minds to dwell over. Your theft was wrong and can be reprehended by the plainest understanding.

Your horse intestine soup, lock 'em up and throw away the key idea that you have promoted for criminals carries all of the features of the "You, Deane, speak only of the law" attitude of which you accuse me.



I judge your case on the basis of trust, not law. Your employer placed you in a position of trust. You failed to honour that trust.



First we talked about the repercussion of my action, now we're talking about my employer's trust....make up your mind. And on that note, do you really think supermarket employers live up to this 'trust' quality to anything more than what's on paper? If anything, they hire shady characters and hope that it won't escalate to anything higher than prejudice.

The thing about Robin Hood is that he steals from the rich and shares it with the poor. In the gum case, that is exactly what I've done.

If you want to insinuate the repercussions of my action on the basis of the same law that saw a dairy owner charged for defending himself, then I'm only taking it as a fact and nothing else. But don't you dare mix my morality and ethics with this law of yours.

And no, you're not a robot with a death-ray gun. You are an NZ-judge robot made in China. In a robot world, you do qualify for the title.

Your horse intestine soup, lock 'em up and throw away the key idea that you have promoted for criminals carries all of the features of the "You, Deane, speak only of the law" attitude of which you accuse me.
Do you really think I would give horse intestine soup and life sentences to people who steals gums, then goes back to his car and does 56kph in a 50kph zone? No, Deane, those are reserved only for the serious criminals. I thought I made my posts clear enough that only callous criminals should get that. But then again, I'm not surprised that you probably intentionally missed the bit out to have a go at me.

And the 'speak only of the law' I'm accusing you of? It's the same law that, as above, saw a dairy owner charged for defending himself. And you speak this law.

That is theft. Would that kid have really suffered if it hadn't got that chewing gum? Revolting habit anyway.
Indeed it is. The theft part, not the the gum being a revolting habit, because I chew gum regularly and actually have fresh breath. When I'm chewing them at least.

But I can give you many examples that even my store managers have shown acts of generosity and understanding that in Deane's and the NZ law's eyes would have constituted a crime which, I quote Deane:

The charge carries a much higher maximum penalty (7 years imprisonment) regardless of the amount stolen because you are in a special relationship of trust with the person from whom you are stealing. If you popped into the shop as a customer and theived the chewing gum then the maximum penalty would be 1 years imprisonment (from memory)
Oh, and Deane: next time you're in a supermarket, just make sure you have a good amount of spare change. Preferably in silver coins.
qazwsxokmijn (102)
717923 2008-11-12 16:50:00 First we talked about the repercussion of my action, now we're talking about my employer's trust....make up your mind.

Oh, my mind is made up. If you are dishonest in small things then you are dishonest.


And on that note, do you really think supermarket employers live up to this 'trust' quality to anything more than what's on paper?

Another persons supposed lack of honesty does not justify your own lack of honesty.


The thing about Robin Hood is that he steals from the rich and shares it with the poor. In the gum case, that is exactly what I've done.

I'm not sure you've thought through this comparison you draw with yourself and Robin Hood... "known for....fighting against injustice and tyranny"...

Is that what you think you're doing?

Anyway, you're wrong in what you did. The great pity is that you feel proud of your actions - not remorseful. Perhaps you're just young... I wish you all the best, though.
Deane F (8204)
717924 2008-11-12 19:02:00 Calm down qazwsxokmijn... jesus.

Just let it go. He's beating you, seemingly without really trying very hard.

I know it's just chewing gum, but when you think about it, rapists and murderers would probably justify their actions in the same way.

"He had it coming"
"She was asking for it"

Or similar. Anyway, as part of your employment you were expected to work honestly, which you didn't.
Regardless of whether it was gum or his porsche, you were dishonest.

But you've shown you don't care, so lets stop this silliness.
Thebananamonkey (7741)
717925 2008-11-12 19:02:00 Epic fail. Metla (12)
717926 2008-11-12 21:22:00 LOL.....qazwsxokmijn, do you want a spade?, you are digging yourself deeper dude......

At a guess, I would say you are probably around 20 yrs old and full of your own importance, views and ideals.......

Like most 20 yrs old, you fail to take on other peoples feeling and view but your own. You need to take a step back, think twice about what you want to say......and don't say it.
SolMiester (139)
717927 2008-11-12 21:23:00 So no scream queen? rob_on_guitar (4196)
717928 2008-11-12 21:52:00 LOL.....qazwsxokmijn, do you want a spade?, you are digging yourself deeper dude......

At a guess, I would say you are probably around 20 yrs old and full of your own importance, views and ideals.......

Like most 20 yrs old, you fail to take on other peoples feeling and view but your own. You need to take a step back, think twice about what you want to say......and don't say it.

Now where the hell is the fun in that?

By all means say it, But realise when you have reached the point of Epic fail, and enjoy the moment.
Metla (12)
717929 2008-11-12 22:59:00 Damn, looks like a missed a now deleted post... Deane F (8204)
717930 2008-11-12 23:10:00 Christ you liberal lefties can still stick the boot into someone.
How about you lay off your viscious attack on Q
prefect (6291)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22