Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Is stealing the stolen considered stealing?

Omaribrahim
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:49:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

By definition, yes it is stealing, unless Z returns it to X.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:00:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Be careful how you word things.

"Is stealing the stolen considered stealing?"
Considered by who? Society and law? Yes, individuals? Yes and/or No. As a matter of objectivity? Not possible to say.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:19:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.

This would only apply if it could be proven that Y did in fact steal from X.
How did Z know this?

Outside of a RFID chip or the like, it is impossible for Z to know for an absolute fact that the item stolen from Y was stolen from X, therefore, it is still theft.
Further, if Y was tried and acquitted for said theft, then as a matter of legal fact, Y did not steal from X (even if he did), therefore Z's actions are wholly illegal, and his motivations are irrelevant.

Frankly, even if it was in fact stolen, it would still be theft, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:34:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.

This would only apply if it could be proven that Y did in fact steal from X.
How did Z know this?

Outside of a RFID chip or the like, it is impossible for Z to know for an absolute fact that the item stolen from Y was stolen from X, therefore, it is still theft.
Further, if Y was tried and acquitted for said theft, then as a matter of legal fact, Y did not steal from X (even if he did), therefore Z's actions are wholly illegal, and his motivations are irrelevant.

Frankly, even if it was in fact stolen, it would still be theft, IMO.

Well. First, of course X would have to have some sort of proof showing the item was his. After that, all they need is for Y to admit it being stolen which means that he had it. After that, X can drop charges on Z by saying that his possession was lawful. If X doesn't press charges against Z, as long as Z didn't break and enter or anything, Z can be let off the hook. If X says Z had permission (even if he didn't X is pretty much the only way they know) than Z can't be charged (he can but it would never go through) if X said it was permissible. Of course, if X had no proof of possession, than Y wouldn't either most likely and Z wouldn't either but he would be the one with it and no one could prove him wrong. You are bringing up random situations. I think he started out assuming some sort of proof was to be had that X did in fact have said object.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:43:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:34:52 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.

This would only apply if it could be proven that Y did in fact steal from X.
How did Z know this?

Outside of a RFID chip or the like, it is impossible for Z to know for an absolute fact that the item stolen from Y was stolen from X, therefore, it is still theft.
Further, if Y was tried and acquitted for said theft, then as a matter of legal fact, Y did not steal from X (even if he did), therefore Z's actions are wholly illegal, and his motivations are irrelevant.

Frankly, even if it was in fact stolen, it would still be theft, IMO.

Well. First, of course X would have to have some sort of proof showing the item was his. After that, all they need is for Y to admit it being stolen which means that he had it. After that, X can drop charges on Z by saying that his possession was lawful. If X doesn't press charges against Z, as long as Z didn't break and enter or anything, Z can be let off the hook. If X says Z had permission (even if he didn't X is pretty much the only way they know) than Z can't be charged (he can but it would never go through) if X said it was permissible. Of course, if X had no proof of possession, than Y wouldn't either most likely and Z wouldn't either but he would be the one with it and no one could prove him wrong. You are bringing up random situations. I think he started out assuming some sort of proof was to be had that X did in fact have said object.

X can say whatever he wants about the item and Z's possession of it. However, it must be proven that Y stole X's item, otherwise, I could steal from you because my wife said you took something.

Z cannot claim that he stole from Y to reclaim X's item, unless he knew with absolute certainty that Y stole the item, and said item was X's. How can Z meet this burden of proof?
In 99% of situations, Y can claim Z stole the property that was rightfully his.
X has nothing to do with it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:43:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:34:52 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.

This would only apply if it could be proven that Y did in fact steal from X.
How did Z know this?

Outside of a RFID chip or the like, it is impossible for Z to know for an absolute fact that the item stolen from Y was stolen from X, therefore, it is still theft.
Further, if Y was tried and acquitted for said theft, then as a matter of legal fact, Y did not steal from X (even if he did), therefore Z's actions are wholly illegal, and his motivations are irrelevant.

Frankly, even if it was in fact stolen, it would still be theft, IMO.

Well. First, of course X would have to have some sort of proof showing the item was his. After that, all they need is for Y to admit it being stolen which means that he had it. After that, X can drop charges on Z by saying that his possession was lawful. If X doesn't press charges against Z, as long as Z didn't break and enter or anything, Z can be let off the hook. If X says Z had permission (even if he didn't X is pretty much the only way they know) than Z can't be charged (he can but it would never go through) if X said it was permissible. Of course, if X had no proof of possession, than Y wouldn't either most likely and Z wouldn't either but he would be the one with it and no one could prove him wrong. You are bringing up random situations. I think he started out assuming some sort of proof was to be had that X did in fact have said object.

X can say whatever he wants about the item and Z's possession of it. However, it must be proven that Y stole X's item, otherwise, I could steal from you because my wife said you took something.

Z cannot claim that he stole from Y to reclaim X's item, unless he knew with absolute certainty that Y stole the item, and said item was X's. How can Z meet this burden of proof?
In 99% of situations, Y can claim Z stole the property that was rightfully his.
X has nothing to do with it.

You are wrong. X has everything to do with this. Y can't claim that Z stole property that was rightfully Y's if X has proof that Y did not in fact have proof. With your wife sentence thing, yes but if you did than I would take you to court and I would win unless your wife had proof that I stole from her. Like I said, I believe that the original post was assuming that X did have proof. I don't know. He can answer that for me.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:53:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:45:55 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:43:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:34:52 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.

This would only apply if it could be proven that Y did in fact steal from X.
How did Z know this?

Outside of a RFID chip or the like, it is impossible for Z to know for an absolute fact that the item stolen from Y was stolen from X, therefore, it is still theft.
Further, if Y was tried and acquitted for said theft, then as a matter of legal fact, Y did not steal from X (even if he did), therefore Z's actions are wholly illegal, and his motivations are irrelevant.

Frankly, even if it was in fact stolen, it would still be theft, IMO.

Well. First, of course X would have to have some sort of proof showing the item was his. After that, all they need is for Y to admit it being stolen which means that he had it. After that, X can drop charges on Z by saying that his possession was lawful. If X doesn't press charges against Z, as long as Z didn't break and enter or anything, Z can be let off the hook. If X says Z had permission (even if he didn't X is pretty much the only way they know) than Z can't be charged (he can but it would never go through) if X said it was permissible. Of course, if X had no proof of possession, than Y wouldn't either most likely and Z wouldn't either but he would be the one with it and no one could prove him wrong. You are bringing up random situations. I think he started out assuming some sort of proof was to be had that X did in fact have said object.

X can say whatever he wants about the item and Z's possession of it. However, it must be proven that Y stole X's item, otherwise, I could steal from you because my wife said you took something.

Z cannot claim that he stole from Y to reclaim X's item, unless he knew with absolute certainty that Y stole the item, and said item was X's. How can Z meet this burden of proof?
In 99% of situations, Y can claim Z stole the property that was rightfully his.
X has nothing to do with it.

You are wrong. X has everything to do with this. Y can't claim that Z stole property that was rightfully Y's if X has proof that Y did not in fact have proof. With your wife sentence thing, yes but if you did than I would take you to court and I would win unless your wife had proof that I stole from her. Like I said, I believe that the original post was assuming that X did have proof. I don't know. He can answer that for me.

If X had proof, then why does Y still have it?
The only reason this issue arises is that legally, there is no proof. Ergo, legally, Y has legal rights to said property. Ergo, Z is stealing from Y.
Y can prosecute Z for theft....if he can prove it.

The proof that X has is not good enough. If it were, then Z wouldn't need to steal it back, would he?

For example:
My TV was stolen.
My friend just happens to have a TV that is the same as mine.
Did he steal it?

Or are you saying that X has proof and should have won in court, but didn't for some reason? Well, then as a matter of law, the item in question legally belongs to Y. So, again, if Z stole it from Y, it is theft, regardless of X's proof.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 7:38:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:53:53 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:45:55 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:43:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:34:52 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:45:16 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
It would only be considered stealing if Z did not return it to X. The Class D Felony of Theft/Possession of Stolen good still applies. If Z did return it to X, then it would not be considered stealing. If Y tried to file a complaint and X had recieved the object, X would be able to have Y arrested as by admitting that it was stolen he admitted that it had been in his possession and 2. X could withdraw charges from Z by saying his possession was not unlawful.

This would only apply if it could be proven that Y did in fact steal from X.
How did Z know this?

Outside of a RFID chip or the like, it is impossible for Z to know for an absolute fact that the item stolen from Y was stolen from X, therefore, it is still theft.
Further, if Y was tried and acquitted for said theft, then as a matter of legal fact, Y did not steal from X (even if he did), therefore Z's actions are wholly illegal, and his motivations are irrelevant.

Frankly, even if it was in fact stolen, it would still be theft, IMO.

Well. First, of course X would have to have some sort of proof showing the item was his. After that, all they need is for Y to admit it being stolen which means that he had it. After that, X can drop charges on Z by saying that his possession was lawful. If X doesn't press charges against Z, as long as Z didn't break and enter or anything, Z can be let off the hook. If X says Z had permission (even if he didn't X is pretty much the only way they know) than Z can't be charged (he can but it would never go through) if X said it was permissible. Of course, if X had no proof of possession, than Y wouldn't either most likely and Z wouldn't either but he would be the one with it and no one could prove him wrong. You are bringing up random situations. I think he started out assuming some sort of proof was to be had that X did in fact have said object.

X can say whatever he wants about the item and Z's possession of it. However, it must be proven that Y stole X's item, otherwise, I could steal from you because my wife said you took something.

Z cannot claim that he stole from Y to reclaim X's item, unless he knew with absolute certainty that Y stole the item, and said item was X's. How can Z meet this burden of proof?
In 99% of situations, Y can claim Z stole the property that was rightfully his.
X has nothing to do with it.

You are wrong. X has everything to do with this. Y can't claim that Z stole property that was rightfully Y's if X has proof that Y did not in fact have proof. With your wife sentence thing, yes but if you did than I would take you to court and I would win unless your wife had proof that I stole from her. Like I said, I believe that the original post was assuming that X did have proof. I don't know. He can answer that for me.

If X had proof, then why does Y still have it?
The only reason this issue arises is that legally, there is no proof. Ergo, legally, Y has legal rights to said property. Ergo, Z is stealing from Y.
Y can prosecute Z for theft....if he can prove it.

The proof that X has is not good enough. If it were, then Z wouldn't need to steal it back, would he?

For example:
My TV was stolen.
My friend just happens to have a TV that is the same as mine.
Did he steal it?

Or are you saying that X has proof and should have won in court, but didn't for some reason? Well, then as a matter of law, the item in question legally belongs to Y. So, again, if Z stole it from Y, it is theft, regardless of X's proof.

I guess what I'm getting at is that X didn't do anything in court because X didn't want to go through the hassle. Court takes time, especially since he'd have to be present if Y pleaded not guilty. Instead of that, he did the much easier thing of asking Z to get it for him. So X did have proof if Y wanted to charge but if Y charged, he would most likely be charged himself.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 2:26:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

Stealing from a thief is still theft, although doing so might be less morally unjustified if the intent behind stealing from a thief was to return that which was stolen to its rightful owner so long as the property stolen was not sold to someone else who bought it in good faith.
Tsar of DDO
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 2:42:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

In the case where Person Z stole the object from Person X with the intention of keeping it, he did steal, and in fact, from Person Y, as it as Person Y's property that was stolen, although it was in the possession of Person Y. The same would be the case if Person X actually borrowed the object from Person Y. If Person Z stole that object while it was in Person X's possession, he still stole from Person Y.

In the case where Person Z took the object with the intention of returning it to Person Y, then he didn't steal anything. He, instead, did Person Y a favor.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 2:44:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:42:46 PM, Such wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

In the case where Person Z stole the object from Person X with the intention of keeping it, he did steal, and in fact, from Person Y, as it as Person Y's property that was stolen, although it was in the possession of Person X. The same would be the case if Person X actually borrowed the object from Person Y. If Person Z stole that object while it was in Person X's possession, he still stole from Person Y.

In the case where Person Z took the object with the intention of returning it to Person Y, then he didn't steal anything. He, instead, did Person Y a favor.

Fixed.
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:05:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:42:46 PM, Such wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

In the case where Person Z stole the object from Person X with the intention of keeping it, he did steal, and in fact, from Person Y, as it as Person Y's property that was stolen, although it was in the possession of Person Y. The same would be the case if Person X actually borrowed the object from Person Y. If Person Z stole that object while it was in Person X's possession, he still stole from Person Y.

In the case where Person Z took the object with the intention of returning it to Person Y, then he didn't steal anything. He, instead, did Person Y a favor.

That's not right at all. To start, you screwed the letter's up, making it significantly more confusing so I'm going to go back to the original letter's and set up used. If person X had an object and lended it to person Y, than if Z took it from Y with the intention of keeping it, it would be considered theft. The same would occur if Z had the intention of keeping it even if Y had stolen it. However, if Z did return it to X (assuming X had some way to show it was his) than Z would not be charged as X could just claim that Z's possession was lawful and that he had it with permission. Once that happens, the law can do nothing as X said it was lawful and it was his items. Of course, burden of proof is on X to show that he did in fact have rightful ownership to the item.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 12:22:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:05:10 AM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/17/2014 2:42:46 PM, Such wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

In the case where Person Z stole the object from Person X with the intention of keeping it, he did steal, and in fact, from Person Y, as it as Person Y's property that was stolen, although it was in the possession of Person Y. The same would be the case if Person X actually borrowed the object from Person Y. If Person Z stole that object while it was in Person X's possession, he still stole from Person Y.

In the case where Person Z took the object with the intention of returning it to Person Y, then he didn't steal anything. He, instead, did Person Y a favor.

That's not right at all. To start, you screwed the letter's up, making it significantly more confusing so I'm going to go back to the original letter's and set up used. If person X had an object and lended it to person Y, than if Z took it from Y with the intention of keeping it, it would be considered theft. The same would occur if Z had the intention of keeping it even if Y had stolen it. However, if Z did return it to X (assuming X had some way to show it was his) than Z would not be charged as X could just claim that Z's possession was lawful and that he had it with permission. Once that happens, the law can do nothing as X said it was lawful and it was his items. Of course, burden of proof is on X to show that he did in fact have rightful ownership to the item.

I didn't screw up the letters but once (and corrected that in my next post). However, the letters were screwed up to begin with, and I just sort of reassigned them (which is why I restated the question). Observe:

"I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X? "

If X stole from Y, then Z found out what Y had stolen? It was supposed to be what X had stolen.

Moreover, the initial question had nothing whatsoever to do with loans.

So, no.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 2:50:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:57:08 PM, Omaribrahim wrote:
I think its pretty straight forward but here's an example. If person X stole from person Y. Person Z found out and stole what person Y had stolen. Is Person Z a thief? What if Z is going to return it to X?

let me hear your opinions.

Yes, two wrongs don't make a right.

There is also this little concept called jurisprudence. Rule of Law. There are ways to retrieve stolen goods without yourself becoming a thief.