looting

[Az]

You'll have a hard time with that last one

So it's the last thing left, yes?


On topic: KH & Kuci

If i leave a movable item inside my locked store, how is that abandoning it?

Who gives a ****, if you've left it, and your locked store is minutes away from being swept away by a tidal wave, for example.

[Kuciwalker]

Plus, when I told my friends, look at this sweet TV I got, they'd say "how'd you get it" and I'd have to say "uh, yeah, I stole it in that flood" and it'd be kinda weird.

xpost*2

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



If i leave a movable item inside my locked store, how is that abandoning it?

If it will be wrecked by flood waters then it is.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Kuci has already explained adequately why this is an idiotic argument.

No, he's just put forth another idiotic argument. The waters have stopped rising a while ago. If it's not dumped in the water and thus useless already, then where do you get the idea that it's going to get dumped in the water if you don't help yourself to it now?

[lord of the mark]

"Assume that Reuven is carrying his jug of wine and Shimon is carrying his jug of honey. Honey is worth much more than wine. Shimon's jug of honey developed a crack in it and the honey will pour out. Reuven, seeing this, spills out his wine and places his now empty jug beneath the honey and all of the honey is now caught into Reuven's jug. Reuven will be compensated for his efforts in saving Shimon's honey but will not be paid for his lost wine. Since Shimon is there, if Reuven wants to be compensated for his efforts and also for the wine he is to spill out, he should so stipulate to Shimon. If Reuven states he will save Shimon's honey by pouring out his own wine, and Shimon says nothing, then Shimon must pay for the wine as well as for Reuven's efforts.

Conversely, Shimon could have suggested that Reuven pour out his wine to save Shimon's honey and that Shimon pay Reuven for his efforts and for his wine. Reuven runs no risk since the honey is now in his jug and in his possession until he is paid. Reuven can set a reasonable time limit for payment and need not have to sue for payment. If Shimon does not pay within such reasonable time, the honey belongs to Reuven.

Assume that Reuven leaves his jug of wine on the ground and Shimon is there with his jug of honey, which cracks. Shimon may take Reuven's jug of wine, spill it out, and let his honey flow into Reuven's now empty jug. Shimon owes Reuven the value of the wine.

The foregoing laws hold true only if Shimon could somehow have saved his honey in some manner or form. If it is obvious that he could not have saved his honey, then if Reuven puts his jug under that of Shimon's jug as the honey pours out, the honey belongs to Reuven as abandoned property.

The law is the same in similar situations. For example, there is a fire in the town and all of the residents are evacuating the town, which will surely burn down. Reuven runs into someone's home and takes something; it belongs to Reuven. The property is deemed to be abandoned property. However, if the owner of the property could have rescued his own objects with great effort, Reuven is to receive wages for the rescue, as determined by Beth Din, but the object belongs to the owner, and not to Reuven.

In all events, there are laws of the land and rules of Beth Din that control many of these situations.

In all those situations in this lesson where Reuven stipulates with Shimon that Shimon will pay to Reuven more than the going rate for such efforts, the stipulation will be enforced only if Reuven will suffer some damages by his rescue effort. But if Reuven does not suffer any damages by his effort to save the objects of Shimon, Shimon need pay only the amount that a person receives for such efforts. Thus in the above example, if Reuven's jars were empty and Reuven, before rescuing Shimon's honey, insists that Shimon pay him an exorbitant sum. Shimon need pay only such sum as Beth Din will fix for the amount of labor Reuven expended. Shimon's promise to pay the exorbitant amount is deemed to be a promise made without any intent, more in the nature of a jest.

Another example given in the codes is where Shimon is escaping from captors who have wrongly imprisoned him. He comes to a ferry and pleads for Reuven, the ferry operator, to take him across the river. Reuven demands an exorbitant fee, or Shimon himself offers an exorbitant fee. Once Shimon is taken across the river, he need pay only the normal fee. However, if the person with the boat is a fisherman who is fishing and Shimon offers to pay the fisherman an exorbitant fee for leaving his nets and for getting him across the river, and the fisherman leaves the nets and takes Shimon across the river, Shimon must pay to the fisherman that which he promised.

[snip]

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in Volume VIII Chapter 261 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores.
Questions to quint@inter.net.il"

Note though - the words WILL SURELY burn down. Is there certainty in this situation, that the item will go to zero value? If not, it seems to me that the "salvager" should turn over the property to the owner, and be compensated with a wage. Alternatively, and perhaps more feasibly in modern conditions, the salvager should keep the property, and send partial payment for it to the owner. The payment should be less than the full value, reflecting the effort that the "salvager" went to in rescuing the object.

Note also that this refers to civil law - what recourse, if any, does the owner have against the salvager. In the course of maintaining order, the authorities may well decide that it is preferable to stop all looting, even looting that could be justified under civil law. I think that better matches the case in NO, today.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If it will be wrecked by flood waters then it is.

thats a good argument, but its NOT the same as the abandoned property argument, I think. As any good student of either the talmud or the common law will tell you, you need to keep categories distinct.

[Az]

Slowly deteriorating structures?

How about food in refrigerators that were cut off power?

All of these are slightly less relevant now, but they weren't two days ago.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

So why bother to steal something that is useless to you? That has no value?

The idea is, if you don't steal it, it will BECOME useless (because it'll be dumped in the water).

Who gives a ****, if you've left it, and your locked store is minutes away from being swept away by a tidal wave, for example.

Who or what definitely *will* dump ALL these items in the water? What tidal wave? It wasn't a tsunami. Whatever the rising tide got wet is already wet. And last I heard, including tides, the waters have gone down some.

An assumption is being made that everything not destroyed now *will* be destroyed when that is not the case. Or do rescue looters sense an earthquake coming or perhaps have premonitions?

[Az]

How about teethering buildings, and goods on their upper floors - when you see a building crumbling before your eyes?

How about refrigerated food, with refrigerators left without power?

There are plenty of examples of stuff that will be destroyed if left.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Clearly the government can't quite do that during a flood...

the point is not that the govt can do it - the question is whether allowing individuals to do it is conducive to the betterment of society.

I would suggest that given the complexities of determining when something is certain to be destroyed, a blanket law that looting is illegal in evacuated areas is a good idea. Its especially important, as protecting AGAINST looters is one of the reasons some folks DONT evacuate. So if we're judging the utility of govt actions, an action against looters is probably justified. If youre arguing not social policy, but the abstract morality of the individual looters action - well, thats just an academic point.

[Az]

How the **** is a blanket law a good idea? I am not seeing the great benefit in this protection - I do see the great benefit in saving stuff.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am not seeing the great benefit in this protection - I do see the great benefit in saving stuff.

What if it's your stuff getting saved, by an opportunistic thief? That's the benefit of this protection.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
How the **** is a blanket law a good idea? I am not seeing the great benefit in this protection - I do see the great benefit in saving stuff.

the benefits - 1. encourages property owners to evacuate when asked, rather than staying around to protect their NOT total loss items .
2. Encourages would be salvagers to depart, rather than stay behind to collect salvage, in circumstances of danger
3. Simplifies the job law enforcement faces, in distinguishing between "bad salvers" (those seizing guns, seizing relief supplies, or seizing items in no danger) from "good salvers"

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Az
How about teethering buildings, and goods on their upper floors - when you see a building crumbling before your eyes?

Now what percentage of these looters are entering buildings that are teethering? Surely you have a link to such a fascinating story.

How about refrigerated food, with refrigerators left without power?

There's a big difference between someone taking water and food for nurishment and that starving baby mentioned pages ago compared to someone taking a television and jewelry "that might be destroyed".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What if it's your stuff getting saved, by an opportunistic thief? That's the benefit of this protection.

Eh, what's wrong then? You're no worse off. So what that the person who benefitted wasn't Jesus?