But like the iphone’s, the battery charge won’t last.
[I will see myself out.]
15 Likes
My mistake, I checked U.S. law to see that it matched British law, but forgot that you have variant laws for different states (or rather, I assumed that something as fundamental as “stealing” wouldn’t be one of the things which varied).
That said, I’m pretty sure that the majority of people reading the article are going to read “stole” and think “took and kept” not “took and held for ten seconds”, so I think my point about misrepresenting the event to readers remains sound.
Oh, and on further reading:
To be found guilty of theft by taking, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had no intention to return the borrowed item and that you instead planned on keeping it.
Which would be rather difficult given the aforementioned thing where he handed it back about ten seconds after taking it.
2 Likes
I appreciate his clarification. Because IF he actually “stole” the phone, he should be arrested for it. That would be great. But, alas, it is not to be…
He stole it. No one alleged misdemeanor theft by taking.
8 Likes
No, he didn’t. Theft in law requires the intent to deprive the owner of the stolen object permanently (or at least for a prolonged period). He held onto the guy’s phone for like ten seconds then gave it back.
“The intent to withhold property of another even temporarily satisfies the mens rea requirement of the theft by taking statute. Thus it is irrelevant whether deprivation was permanent or temporary.” Ferrell v. State, 322 S.E.2d 751, 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984) (emphasis added) (interpreting O.C.G.A. § 16-8-2).
(IAAL, but not this kind of lawyer and not your lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice–just arguing on the internet.)
22 Likes
Yes, Humbabella already pointed that out above.
However as I discovered when I looked into Georgia law more specifically:
To be found guilty of theft by taking, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had no intention to return the borrowed item and that you instead planned on keeping it.
And again, my point is that using language like “mugged” and “stole” creates a false impression in the mind of the average reader, regardless of the legal specifics. Like I said above people reading the article are going to see “stole” and think “took and kept” not “took and held for ten seconds”.
That’s certainly what I thought when I saw it, and I kind of begrudge the writer for making me think the situation was worse than it was. It was pretty bad! It didn’t need more sensationalising! The guy is an asshole who’s not fit to hold public office, but I think that calling him a “mugger” or a “thief” is misleading and inappropriate.
2 Likes
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 4 - CRIMINAL ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY, AND SOLICITATION
§ 16-4-1 - Criminal attempt
O.C.G.A. 16-4-1 (2010)
16-4-1. Criminal attempt
A person commits the offense of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.
edit to add: to those who quibble about how to describe taking something away from someone without their permission, I submit that the labeling is less important than the crime being committed. Further, though it may cause you some sort of legality crisis or semantic hand wringing, how the public labels criminal activity is not at all germane to the story at hand. Taking things from people is not allowed in society. How the law labels such actions is secondary to the action itself.
15 Likes
Would running for office as a Republican be considered proof of intent to commit theft, and a substantial step towards it?
6 Likes
My whole point is that because of the way the article was written, I didn’t accurately apprehend what the action itself was (until I went and watched the footage), and I think that’s problematic.
What was the action?
In broad daylight, a person took the property of another. That person was confronted and only then did they return it.
Such an action is antisocial and may be criminal under GA law. Now, we can continue to argue definitions here like a bunch of school kids. If we go that route we would have to look at the word mug which is commonly held as taking something from a person in public. Clearly that is what happened. However you may choose some other definition and then we would have to go down that road.
But arguments of definition are fruitless exercises and instead we should address you concern directly. Your assertion is that “mugging” does not accurately reflect what happened. You seem to feel that the term “mugging” paints the act of taking someone property without their permission as being worse that it actually was. That seems to imply you do not feel that taking the property of another person as being a potentially criminal and anti-social act.
If we grant you that conceit, we should have your explanation as to why what this politician did should not be painted as a criminal or antisocial act and therefore makes the use of the word mugging as being a step too far. So, I’ll wait for your defense of this taking of personal property in the hope that you might have a cogent point of view beyond hand wringing and semantic quibbling.
14 Likes
For God’s sake, I’m not trying to defend his actions!
My argument is that given that the asshole did a shitty thing he shouldn’t have done then the thing that he did should be accurately represented to the public. Now, without falling once again into the pitfall of how Georgia law differs from British law, when I hear “mugging” I think “doing violence to a person and taking something from them”, and when I hear “steals” I think “took and kept”.
So when I read a story which opens with “Senator mugs constituent for his phone”, I imagine him attacking the constituent, taking his phone and leaving with it. I don’t imagine something which could more accurately be summed up as “Senator throws a childish tantrum and plays ‘keep-away’ with constituent’s phone for half a minute”.
Those are both bad things and both make him a shitty person who shouldn’t hold the position of power he does, but they are different things and one of them is worse than the other.
Now, you can call it “hand wringing” and “semantic quibbling” if you wish, but I personally like – as much as is possible – to know what is actually happening in the world. One of the things I despise most about the right-wing press is their constant attempts to distort the truth and misrepresent the facts. I think that if we want to claim the moral high ground, we have to actually be better than them, and that includes presenting the shitty things they do accurately, rather than falling into exactly the same habit of drumming up extra bonus outrage with deliberately emotive and obfuscatory language.
Like I said, the situation was bad enough! It didn’t need embellishing or dramatising!
1 Like
There are times that it seems if one does not explicitly preface a post with an assertion that water is wet and circles are round, one will invite accusations of believing the contrary.
1 Like
I never suggested that you did. You may have had such argument here but to paint what I wrote as suggesting that you defended him is off the mark by miles. I am saying you have painted the act of theft during daylight (the common word used for that act is mugging) as not being the violent, criminal act commonly called mugging. Therefore I’m asking you to defend the position that this was not mugging and since argument of definitions are pointless, I thought I’d give you the opportunity to explain how taking something from a person in broad daylight isn’t a mugging. I’ve read your explanations and what you imagine when you read mugging. You imagine attacks and violence and those are required for a mugging in your view.
I don’t think that there has been any embellishing or dramatizing but I do feel you have downplayed what happened in your postings. Theft is violence. The degree is what you seem to have an issue with. Since the word used was mugging, you seem to feel that was a bad choice and I would like to know why. I ask because I’d like to know if there is merit to your position or if this is simply a matter of your head movies having more bearing on your opinion than does objective reality.
4 Likes
You wrote:
Note, “your defense of this taking of personal property” is what you wrote, not “your defense of naming this taking of personal property something other than mugging.”
So it’s a pretty common understanding that mugging involves violence. I don’t think this is something peculiar to me. Look at the rest of the results below that if you just type “mugging” into google. They will almost universally specify “attacking” or “violence”.
It seems that there’s always someone only too willing and eager to be the ‘devil’s advocate’ when it’s clear that the devil doesn’t need any.
That such eagerness is looked upon in askance by others is only to be expected.
10 Likes
I’m not advocating for the Devil, I’m advocating for the truth. If your moral principles are something you don’t speak up for when you don’t care about the people involved, then they’re not principles – only excuses.
8 Likes
That’s the pointless argument of definition I was discussing. In fact, the legal definition of mugging includes “Any type of hold up the occurs on the street.” and the legal definition of hold up includes “the taking of money or goods in the possession of another” This is one reason trying to argue your stance based upon definition is pointless. The other reason is that dictionaries and definitions are not now nor have they ever been intended to act as arbiters of language. Language is more about use than rote.
I agree that mugging is often seen as involving violence. So, why do you not think theft is violence?
In any case, I see mugging as the perfect word to describe what happened. I think perhaps others do as well. But you are here telling us we are being over dramatic and sensationalist by framing this as a mugging. I submit you are being blasé about an act of theft by an elected official.
9 Likes
Yes, so blasé I explicitly say it makes him unfit for the office he holds.
I don’t think theft is automatically violence because to my mind, violence involves physically injuring people. But this is getting pointless. It’s clear you don’t give a damn about my principles, and I can’t be bothered trying to explain why I think it’s important not to mislead people when we report on the wrongdoings of evil men.
I had assumed that “maybe we should be as truthful and clear as possible” was a pretty uncontroversial stance, but it seems I was mistaken.
Abrams has called on Kemp to resign as Secretary of State. Really? His actions only serve to endear himself to right wing conservatives. They applaud him for pulling out all the stops to steal the election. Thieves, liars and crooks are only comfortable with their own kind.
3 Likes
