I saw a young guy steal a book from an independent book seller. Isn't he awesome?

[Orrex]

Honestly, I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't celebrate this lad's rebellious spirit. Who cares if it wasn't his book? He saw the chance to take something that didn't belong to him, and he acted upon it.

Good for him, I say!

And I hope that he has a throng of eager defenders when someone suggests that maybe, just maybe, he should have to face the legal implications of his theft.


Again, good for him!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[tabatha]

61. Are you enjoying the show?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

63. Indeed, yes.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. I'm sure this is analogous to something though I know not what.

Care to explain? :shrug:

[wtmusic]

3. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9123262

[Skittles]

4. apparently the rogue Koran-stealing Amarillo skateboard dude

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9123262&mesg_id=9123262

[bluestateguy]

5. You can always find people willing and eager to make excuses for crime

Left and Right.

[Make7]

6. It wasn't an Abbie Hoffman book by any chance, was it? ( n/t )

[Dystopian]

8. If so, perfectly legal theft!

peace~

[Art_from_Ark]

115. That reminds me of an episode from the '60s

My mother had answered some advertisement for a book (not named in the ad) that promised its readers they would be able to use it to make tons of money. When the mailman brought her book, she became very excited. Imagine her reaction when she opened up the package and saw that the book was "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman.

She was really pissed.

[xultar]

7. Two completely different things.

[Orrex]

9. Right--one act of theft is being praised, while another would be condemned

Entirely different.

[Ken Burch]

56. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Besides, obsessing on theft of "property" is a right-wing thing.

[Skip Intro]

10. I hope you know expressions such as yours here are prohibited. Your permanent record has been noted.

[JVS]

11. You can't, like, own a book, man!

:smoke:

[EFerrari]

12. If we're beginning The Night of The Tortured Analogies, I'm out of here.

lol

[Orrex]

14. I don't advocate torture

And the analogy is pretty straightforward.

[tabatha]

16. nope, not at all

[Orrex]

18. So, you don't actually have a point to make. Got it.

[Ken Burch]

57. Neither do you.

We are not obligated to condemn the kid who saved this Koran from desecration.

[Orrex]

98. Neither do you feel obligated to defend the right of political expression, it seems.

Disappointing, but unsurprising.

[Ken Burch]

121. This WASN'T political expression. It was just hate speech.

And there's no absolute on something as ugly as this.

[Orrex]

128. Your statement is self contradictory

You declare absolutely that Grisham's statement was not a political expression, and then you declare that "there's no absolute on something as ugly as this."


Look, when I need help defending someone's right to make pleasant statements that are favorable to everyone, then I'll give you a call. But when the issue of freedom of expression, then I'll seek the assistance of someone who actually values that freedom.

[johnaries]

27. You can't be serious.

[Orrex]

31. Thanks for playing.

Here's what we've got:

Person 1 was attempting to make a political statement using a book as the medium of that statement.

Person 2 stole the book in an effort to curtail Person 1's right to make a political statement.


Pretty straightforward.

[MrModerate]

112. Phooey. One person was making a political statement . . .

And his statement was so provocative (incitement to riot, anyone?) that it induced another person to make his *own* political statement.

It wasn't theft, it wasn't censorship, it was a legitimate expression of public opprobrium.

Full disclosure: I also approve of spitting on Fred Phelps.

[tabatha]

13. Stealing something that another person treasures

is different than taking something that is about to be tossed in the garbage/fire.

In the latter case, it cannot be theft because the item to be trashed has no value to the person holding said item.

[Orrex]

17. Really? I'd like to a citation in support of that claim. (Plus an edit)

At what point is the book no longer the property of its owner? When he announces his intent to burn it? When he pours the kerosene on it? When he lights the match?

If he was making a political statement, then I would say that the medium of that statement--the book--should be considered his property until his statement is concluded or until he explicitly forfeits ownership of it.

[tabatha]

19. So people who scrounge in garbage bins are thieves?

Never seen any of them arrested or charged for stealing garbage.

[Orrex]

21. I added something on edit--please take another look.

[tabatha]

28. I am sure that a lawyer could make the case

that since the book had been soaked in kerosene, and the fire had been lit, that it was about to be trashed.

If it was about to be trashed, then it has no value.

[Orrex]

35. The lawyer would fail in attempting to make that case.

Since many are eager to look at "the bigger picture," then let's look at it:

Skateboard Dude made a conscious decision to prevent someone else from making a political statement, and to do so he stole that person's property.

Even if we assume that no theft occurred, then Skateboard Dude still interfered with the protester's civil rights.

[tabatha]

49. I guess then David Petraeus "stole"

Jones' right to free speech?

[Orrex]

54. If Petraeus stole Jones' copy of the Quran, then yes

Silly me--I thought that Petraeus had simply expressed his strong objection to the statement that Jones had intended to make. I had no idea that he had engaged in theft to prevent that expression, as you assert him to have done.

[tabatha]

59. He stopped Jones from expressing his opinion

by burning many Korans.

That is, he in effect stole his right to freedom of expression, which you are saying is what the kid did.

[Orrex]

64. How did he do that, exactly?

Did he physically prevent him from doing it? Did he forcibly take the book from Jones' possession?


Or did he simply declare his strong opinion that Jones should not burn the book?

That is, he in effect stole his right to freedom of expression, which you are saying is what the kid did.

Absolutely incorrect, and it amazes me that you can't see it. "The kid" stole the medium of the protester's political statement. Petraeus expressed his view that Jones' protest should not take place.

The two situations are nothing at all alike.

[tabatha]

66. No, they both include pressure.

Verbal pressure, and physical pressure.

[TexasObserver]

82. No, one is the exercise of free speech, and one is a theft.

It's not complicated if a person isn't being purposely obtuse.

[TexasObserver]

40. You are badly misinformed and your speculation has no basis.

If you can't stand to see or hear someone exercise their first amendment rights, turn away.

[tabatha]

50. Well, then neither could David Petraeus.

[TexasObserver]

80. That's a non sequitur. And if he does, so what? He's no one special.

He's certainly not an authority on American law or the first amendment.

He's a hack for the empire builders.

[Statistical]

100. Hardly. The book still had value as a form of expression.

FL statute:

(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

Despicable or not the very act of burning the book benefited the islamaphobe. It would create media attention, national spotlight, and possibly drive money & members to the church.

So "about to be trashed" has no relevance. At the moment it was taken it had value (however short lived) and it meets the definition of theft under FL law.

[JVS]

20. Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Varying conceptions of property rights are at work.

[TexasObserver]

38. Yours is the rationale rightwingers use to stop flag burnings.

If a person owns an asset - such as a flag or a book - and he wishes to burn that object to make a political statement, that's a protected action in our system. Stealing his book or flag is a crime, and more, it's an attempt to steal his right of free speech. You don't have to like or approve of his message. You do have to respect his right to speak freely, even when you don't like the message.

Please learn more about the first amendment.

It's theft if you steal something someone intends to burn as political speech. Don't pretend it isn't.

[Orrex]

41. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Brickbat]

124. I saw it happen at a war protest back in '03 or '04. We were walking along the street and saw a

struggle on the sidewalk. A man was trying to tear an American flag out of a marcher's hands. He succeeded and ran off. It all happened so fast people did little more than yell. I would have chased him, but had a baby and a toddler I couldn't leave.

[Statistical]

44. That is not true.

at least it has no legal relevance.

However "badly" I keep my property it is still my property until I end ownership. Just because you would be a better steward of my book, tools, lawn, auto, etc doesn't mean you have any legal authority to simply seize it.

[JVS]

110. Unless your property is an animal.

There is not a lot of precedence for repossession of property based on poor stewardship of the property, but there is some.

Similarly, there was a guy who tried to claim property rights to justify his murder of a slave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_William_Hodge but the judge wasn't having that.

So it seems that there could be limitations of your property rights imposed by the law.

Still, that's quite a bit different from some guy nabbing your book.

[Brickbat]

122. LMAO.

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

15. Yeah, well there's always that jumping off point

where a law ends and common sense begins.

That often, but not always, coincides with when the law is enforced.

This infraction will never be enforced.

[Orrex]

22. But why not? Because you agree with the theft? That's a pretty tenuous rule of law.

[wtmusic]

25. The only value in any law is in its enforcement

and this one will never be enforced.

You're right, this is theft. A big concept flying around in the air somewhere. Next...

[Tunkamerica]

23. And I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin...

we're posting metaphors right?

[mmonk]

Imagine if anyone tried such a theft in 1930's Berlin.

[Skip Intro]

24. K&R! nt

[joshcryer]

26. He should've downloaded it.

If not available, he should've scanned it and made it available.

[uppityperson]

29. I see a difference between stealing a book from an indie bookstore and the quran protest stealing

Both have legal implications, but I am capable of seeing shades of grey

[Orrex]

33. So am I

In the case of the thieving skateboarder, he was actively attempting to prevent someone else from making a political statement.


In the hypothetical case I discussed in the OP, I was merely talking about theft.

[peacetalksforall]

30. With your subject line, I just can't follow what you are TRYING to say.

There isn't a comparison. And I'm not saying wrong or right for the skateboarder, but your subject line disturbs me.

[Tunkamerica]

32. Look, try the guy in a court of law and the jury can decide.

He's actually still presumed innocent even if he confesses. If your imaginary guy was stopping a bigger injustice with his imaginary shoplifting and was willing to pay the price then good on him.

I'm wondering why you made the bookstore and independent one. Does it change your point? Or is it just a subtle manipulation?

Truthfully sometimes laws get broken for the better good and your argument is tenuous at best. If every law was perfect and only bad people broke laws and all law abiders were good then you'd have a great point.

[woo me with science]

34. Of course you are right.

And of course those who cannot tolerate that laws protect the rights of their enemies as well as their friends will twist and moan to argue that it is not so.

[denem]

36. He stole my cross too

just when I was getting the gasoline out.

[Pithlet]

81. Yep.

:thumbs up:

[blogslut]

37. If Mr. Grisham wishes to press charges, I'm sure he will do so

He loves the attention.

Personally, I kind of hope he does. Maybe then his employer will finally see there is no benefit to keeping him on as a person entrusted to guard a DoD facility. Apparently his harassment of private citizens during his off hours wasn't enough. His attempts to foment religious/cultural enmity wasn't enough. Maybe if Mr. Grisham pursues his little hate party in court, that will be enough.

While, on paper, the act of a young man snatching a Qur'an doused in lighter fluid from off a city-owned grill is considered theft, I'm glad Isom did it. Compared to film of David Grisham setting it aflame, broadcast over the world, I believe it to be a much lesser offense.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

43. So, in your view, a "dumbass cracker" has no right to make a political statement?

Or is it more a matter of "he has the right, but he shouldn't exercise that right"?

[Webster Green]

58. I suppose he does.

Just as Faux has the right to trash the president with lies and smears, all day, every day.

I'm over it. I would have liked to see someone beat the fuck out of him, but snatching the book is pretty cool.

I don't give a shit about the legality. A lot of my favorite stuff is illegal.

[Orrex]

69. Then you have no basis to object when Bush or Cheney engage in war crimes

Since you've declared that legality is simply a matter of preference and convenience, you have no credibility to object when others observe that same standard.

[Webster Green]

91. Checkmate.

I cannot make a legal argument to defend my position.

It's time to fight the mutherfuckers, and nothing I have in mind would be considered legal.

[wtmusic]

94. You just turned the chessboard over and spilled the pieces everywhere.

You can't do that...you...you...

[Hekate]

119. Specious argument. False equivalency again.

[Orrex]

131. How so?

You can't just make statements like that and declare them true by fiat. If it's a specious argument or a false equivalency, please demonstrate why this is so.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. Don't come crying to me when you're robbed and murdered, then. N.T.

[Webster Green]

92. My ghost will have bigger fish to fry.

Seriously.

[Forkboy]

42. Did you say anything to the bookstore owners?

[Orrex]

45. I called back and asked if they had Prince Albert in a can.

And they said "If you got your Prince Albert in the can, then you really got it in the wrong place."

[Ken Burch]

46. The scenario in your OP isn't like the Kid to stopped the Koran being burned at all

That kid GAVE the book to a Muslim cleric for safekeeping. He didn't keep it for himself, and he didn't personally gain anything from it.

All that kid is guilty of is stopping some evangelical whackjob from being as much of an asshole as the whackjob wanted to be.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that STOPPING a book from being burned isn't technically a crime.

[Orrex]

48. He stole the book from its owner.

All that kid is guilty of is stopping some evangelical whackjob from being as much of an asshole as the whackjob wanted to be.

No, the kid is guilty of violating another person's right to political expression.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that STOPPING a book from being burned isn't technically a crime.

Of course, that's not the issue here. The issue is that "the kid" stole the book from its owner with the specific intent of preempting a political statement.

[Ken Burch]

52. You want this kid rotting in prison for stopping an act of hate?

Burning a Koran is pretty damn close to shouting fire in a theatre, dude. Especially when we have troops in combat zones in at least two Muslim countries and we have psychos here demanding war against a THIRD(Iran).

At most, saving a Koran from desecration should be treated as a misdemeanor with a fine. It's nothing to be outraged about.

It's like stealing the addresses of people in a Jewish neighborhood from a neo-Nazi group. The list was THEIR property. Would you prosecute the person who committed that "crime"?

[Orrex]

60. Show me where I expressed that wish.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Skateboard Dude thought he was engaging in an act of civil disobedience. If he is unwilling to accept the consequences of his disobedience, then he is a coward and a hypocrite.


Everything you're saying in support of his theft is simply a veiled way of declaring that the protester has no right to make a political statement.

At most, saving a Koran from desecration should be treated as a misdemeanor with a fine. It's nothing to be outraged about.

Really? Then why is everyone getting so outraged by the suggestion that he should have to face the consequences of his theft?

It's like stealing a human skin lampshade from a Nazi and turning it over to a synagogue for respectful interment. Would you prosecute the person who committed THAT crime.

Of course, it's nothing at all like that. The protester was attempting to burn his property which (until proven otherwise) I will presume was legally obtained. How, in your view, is that analogous to the retrieval of a lampshade of human skin?

[tabatha]

53. You can argue that the kid made a political statement as well,

I think it is stale mate.

[joshcryer]

62. Ding ding.

[Orrex]

65. If that's true, then the kid has committed the greater wrong.

The kid made a statement by engaging in theft of property that was not his.

The would-be protester attempted to burn property that was his to dispose of as he sees fit.

[tabatha]

70. I would say that

a kerosene-soaked book is about to become non-property, and as such is of no value.

[Orrex]

73. Yes, you mentioned that above. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

You need to come up with a new non sequitur.

[tabatha]

77. disagree

Intent is a very strong argument in legal cases.

[COLGATE4]

134. In the law there are crimes which are deemed to show

specific intent. Larceny is one of them.

[Common Sense Party]

154. I have two cords of firewood outside my back porch. Eventually,

they'll all be burned and will, in due process, become "non-property."

Are you legally justified in stealing them from me? (We'll forget about trespassing on my property for the moment.)

[joshcryer]

76. In the eyes of the protestors the kid did right.

In my eyes, the kid did right.

Just like unions do right when they take over property.

[tabatha]

79. Did not the US take over huge amounts of property

in Iraq and Afghanistan - I never saw Orrex having a fit over that.

[joshcryer]

83. Theft is only appropriate by some standards only if the state does it.

[Orrex]

90. I'm not "having a fit" over this, either.

If it'll help you sleep tonight, you can rest assured that I have indeed condemned such brutal imperial acquisitions.

Are there any other topics which, in your view, I am not authorized to discuss?

[Dr. Strange]

136. Part of the reason for that might be that no one here was actually PRAISING it.

I suspect if some DUers were going on about how great it was that Bush and Cheney were sticking it to that hate-filled, murdering Saddam, a lot of people here would have had a fit over it.

[joshcryer]

55. Did the owner press charges?

Will the owner press charges?

[Orrex]

67. He should. Whether or not he will do so remains to be seen.

[joshcryer]

74. He won't because he recognizes the political statement that was made.

[Bluenorthwest]

145. You keep touting your own version of the young man's intent

I say his intent was to make his own political statement, and to preserve a holy book. The intent was not to quash the speech, but to make speech of his own. May political statements have elements of 'civil disobedience' and those who engage in them know this. All the stink you are making, you need to take the young man to a trial with a jury of his peers, that is how we do it in the US.
One thing we sure do not do is take an uninformed 3d party's word as to the inward intentions of another. Your arguments in this thread hang on the repetition of your opinion of the young man's intent. A thing you can not know. A thing which you claim to know, and continue to characterize according to your views.
The analogy is strained. Your assumptions are nothing more than assumptions in terms of the intent.

[tabatha]

51. Well said.

[Swamp Rat]

47. Was it a Qur'an?

And was the book seller trying to start a holy war to cause the end of humankind?

[meowomon]

68. The guy was going to burn it and start an illegal fire

The young man was preventing arson.

[tabatha]

71. Or public endangerment

both at home (in the immediate vicinity) and abroad.

[Orrex]

72. Clever, but I'm not sure that it's accurate

Barring a threat of damage to other people's property (or public property), then I believe that the right of political expression must trump the local fire ordinance.

[Skittles]

78. burning stuff on your own property, maybe

burning stuff in public? fuck that

[Orrex]

84. What if he'd brought along a hibachi?

[tabatha]

87. see post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x439935

[Orrex]

93. What? Your call-out?

I see that you have no respect for the freedom of expression or DU's terms of service.

[joshcryer]

88. Not even then, paper burns very hazardly.

Any kind of embers going into the sky can be very very bad, and a fire fighter or police officer would stop it immediately.

[meowomon]

86. You're spending way too much of your energy on this

The guy is 23, give him a break. Personally, I would have ignored the ignorant Quran burner, but I'm not an energetic 23 year old.

[Orrex]

95. So the defense of freedom of expression is a waste of energy? Got it.

:puke:

[joshcryer]

97. You are clearly overlooking and dismissing the expression that the kid did by acting the way he did.

You indeed consider his expression a "lesser good."

[Orrex]

99. Yes, I consider theft and the curtailing of political speech to be a "lesser good"

I know that this puts me in the minority, but I'm willing to live with that.

[meowomon]

101. I'm just saying you seem to be way too aggitated and bothered by

this for your own good. It happened. Yes, the kid was wrong. But it was still funny and I applaud his youthful vigor and desire to prevent the burning of the Quran because of the hate that action represents. Which is much like burning a cross. (which is illegal on public property)

[Orrex]

103. You applaud his youthful vigor in curtailing someone's freedom of expression, but...

you think that I'm wasting energy in defending the freedom of expression? Why?

Why are you willing to support the curtailing of political expression but not the defense of it?


Additionally, the burning of a cross on public property has been specifically dealt with via due process and has been formally recognized as hate speech due to the ugly history of that act. The burning of a Quran has not been so dealt with, nor does it carry a similar national precedence. Your analogy fails for this reason.

If at some point the Quran is declared to be a protected object, then the situation may be different.

[meowomon]

105. It was for hate

Not a political expression. Same as burning a cross on public land. But still, this is the last I am going to state anything because there are way more important things than a sk8erboi stealing a book.

[Orrex]

107. No, not the same. No matter how many times you assert it.

[Statistical]

85. Have you looked at the definition of arson?

If you had then you would realize how silly that claim is.

Theft is theft.
The man stole something that wasn't his.

Stealing something just because you disagree with how it will be used doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a thief.

Reverse the situation. Say a RWer had:
a) stolen a flag that was going to be burned in protest
b) stolen some signs for a marriage equality rally
c) stolen bullhorn used for a march against the wars

would you applaud/defend that theft? Of course not. Theft it theft. The man is a criminal.

[tabatha]

89. see post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x439935

[Orrex]

96. Why are you drawing attention to your call-out?

[meowomon]

102. OK, so maybe not arson.

But the guy was burning the Quran on public propery for the cause of hate. Not a political statement. Burning crosses on public land is illegal for the same reason.

[Orrex]

104. You can't simply declare something to be a forbidden act of hate speech

I replied elsewhere about the unsuitability of that analogy.

I will reiterate by saying that a burning cross has been formally recognized as a specific mode of hate speech subsequent to due process.

The burning of a Quran has not yet been subjected to due process nor has it been formally recognized as hate speech.


You are free to call it that if you wish, but don't mistake your preference for actual precedent.

[blogslut]

108. The Skater did not steal the book

Grisham abandoned the book, after he decided not to burn it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9124061

[Orrex]

109. Thank you for clarifying a point of which I was not previously aware

Interestingly, the article itself states that Grisham's Quran was stolen.

[blogslut]

111. Well, it ended up classified as "lost property"

Mr. Grisham skittered off pretty quickly after he realized there would be no fire that day. Apparently someone turned the book over to the local police.

[Bluenorthwest]

149. Setting fires in public is usually illegal, be it arson or not

In general, setting things on fire in public places is frowned upon, and controlled by law. Arson has nothing to do with it. Could a person build a fire to keep warm where he was building a fire to lash out at others? I doubt it.

[meowomon]

106. Your sarcasm is noted.

Peace out.

[NBachers]

113. Big Loud Bronx Cheer noise

Repeat

[jobycom]

114. I saw a guy steal a kitten when the owner was about to burn it! Isn't he horrible?

Honestly, I can't think of a single reason that the kitten burner didn't have the right to burn his own kitten? Who cares if burning the kitten could have caused it pain, it was just a piece of property belonging to the burner, and did not have any greater significance in terms of suffering and life.

[Hekate]

118. A neighbor once "stole" an abused cat from the people behind her house and gave it to me...

I received the stolen property at her request because I understood her reasoning that since I lived on the other side of the cul-de-sac from her, the former owners would never know where it went, and besides (she reminded me) I didn't at the time have a pet.

I think I now understand the error of my ways. I should have refused to be part of this crime and have let the cat remain to be tortured by the children and dogs it lived with.

Hekate

[Common Sense Party]

155. You honestly can't see the difference between a living creature and

an inanimate object?

How sad.

[Hekate]

161. Don't be silly. My response mirrored the post above, the post above mocked the OP.

Therefore my post mocks the OP. The OP is beating this dead horse into hamburger for buzzards.

I have issues with calling someone who rescues a book from burning a common thief, most especially since the contemplated act of burning was one of hate and superstition, and intended to provoke violence toward an entire category of people -- i.e. Muslims.

Book-burning harks back to some of the ugliest chapters in human history. Whenever it appears its entire intent is to stifle free thought and/or religious expression. Regarding religious expression, whether the idiot chose a Torah, a Bible, or a Koran makes no difference to me. None of them represent my religious path, all of them are holy books to millions upon millions of my fellow human beings.

The Earth is already soaked with the blood of martyrs of all three Abrahamic religions, and this Grisham person wants there to be more. Read what HE says about HIS mission in life if you doubt me.

For myself I will say this: given the circumstances, if this were to happen in my town I fully intend to join whatever counter-protest evolves. If only I were fleet enough to rescue the book chosen for incineration, but given that age has slowed me considerably, that sound you'll hear will be me cheering Skateboard Dude, and then me passing the hat for his fine if it turns out the cops are stupid enough to call him a thief.

And I am entirely serious about that.

Hekate

[Orrex]

127. So your claim is that burning an inanimate book is the same as burning a living creature?

[wookie72]

141. No, but it obviously shows a lack of respect for his own property

LAw or not, the kid's a mensch, Grisham a schmuck.

[jobycom]

142. My claim is that you are drawing absolutes about private property that do not apply.

The kitten is private property. Go to the vet and try to stop them from putting someone else's pet to sleep if you don't believe me. Yet most people would say that stopping someone from killing an innocent pet in a horrible way would justify the step of ignoring their property rights.

You are trying to argue that the Qur'an rescue is equivalent to stealing a book from a seller, equating all issues of private property. I'm pointing out that even you would not hold such a hardline stance if you agreed that the reason for taking the private property was strong enough. You don't seem to in this case. Others do. I can respect disagreement, but I'm having trouble with the false absolute comparisons being hurled around. The skateboarder wasn't stealing a book from a seller. The skateboarder was making a statement of expression by halting a violent demonstration of hatred that could help cause more violence and even death. You may not see that as the equivalent of rescuing a kitten, but you should at least acknowledge that others do, and stop pretending you are so simplistic that you can't see a difference. Honestly, with most people around here these days I wouldn't bother saying anything, but I know you are capable of seeing the difference.

[Hekate]

116. False equivalency. Flame bait. Having fun yet?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

150. AND, lest we forget, continuation of argument from another thread.

[Orrex]

160. And I heard that he sometimes drinks milk straight from the bottle.

What an asshole!

[Hekate]

117. On the other hand, if he had burgled & ransacked the bookstore he would have abundant support here

... for having been disparaged by his victim. :shrug:

Weird place these days.

Hekate

[mitchum]

120. Genet says yes!!!

According to the Ouija board

[sendero]

123. Here's..

... your sign.

[Fumesucker]

125. Totally OT but...

Per your sig line, I'm no longer sending you naked pictures of myself..

I'm sending naked pictures of Rush, Newt and Phyllis Schlafly in a menage a gross..

Bon Appetit..

:evilgrin:

[LanternWaste]

126. I watched a guy beating a dead horse...

I watched a guy beating a dead horse... isn't he getting rather tiresome and somewhat ineffectual?

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. I rescued a glue container from a 2nd grader once.

Does that give me my animal protection merit badge?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

143. .

:spray:

[Hekate]

162. He's beating it into hamburger for buzzards

Apparently one can get a lot of exercise that way. :eyes:

[dionysus]

129. jesus, if this upsets you so much, go burn a Koran on the front lawn, it will make you feel better.

[HEyHEY]

130. Good thing, I hear that store was gonna burn all them books anyway

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

151. +1

[ZombieHorde]

132. Fun thread. nt

[Orrex]

133. I'm amazed that it's at zero recs after all of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. I typed a response to your ravings and even that was a waste of

time. I just went and looked at the actual reporting on this story, and it turns out that more than a hundred people were there to protest this action, and that others had already put their hands on the grill the man had already placed the fuel soaked holy Koran upon. These facts change everything. Especially the question of intent, which you have been script writing here as if you had a divine insight into the souls of others. The fact that in order to discuss this story as you want to frame it, many of the actual facts have to be left out should tell you something. You left out more than a hundred people present and taking action themselves. You left out the fact that human hands were on a grill the Burner Man was threatening to set ablaze. You left out the very important fact that the holy Koran is at the Police Station as abandoned property. Burner Man could easily go claim it as his own. The cops do not call it stolen. You do. And legally speaking, the cops count, and you don't.
Over a hundred involved. Skate Board Man did the right thing. If that town wishes to prosecute him for it, let them. Before a jury. See how that goes. Sadly for you, you can not simply declare the intention, and the facts as you improvise them.
What happened in that park is what free speech is all about. The first was being employed, as it turns out, by over a hundred people countering the Burner Man and his People of the Burning Cross. The right to speak does not include the right to be listened to, or to have your speech go without response. We all have that right. Not just Burner Man and his fellows of the Burning Cross. All of us.
Lots of disingenuous elements to such a brief OP.

[Orrex]

159. I appreciate that you continue to waste your time by posting snark

It's interesting that you're criticizing me for attempting to "declare the intention" of the skateboarder, while you seem not to have anything at all to say about those who are declaring what the protester "intended."

You left out the fact that human hands were on a grill the Burner Man was threatening to set ablaze.

That's a disingenuous objection. Grisham clearly did not threaten to set the grill ablaze while the other protesters' hands were on it, so they were in no danger.

In deference to your wish not to waste any time on a subject about which you've already posted a number of messages, I'll leave it at that.

[old mark]

135. See, now, if only the seller had been armed, he could have killed the thief

and you could have been outraged at that as well.

As long as we are talking nonsense, let's talk a lot of it!

mark

[flvegan]

138. These pretzels are making me thirsty.

[Dr. Strange]

144. I'm gonna steal your pretzels.

Nay, liberate them!

[wookie72]

139. Yeah, breaking the law to make a political point is bad...

Yes, I know the analogy is flawed because they were protesting an unjust law. But technically, MLK *was* breaking the law.

Unless it's a rare Koran (in which case Grisham was a double asshole for trying to burn it), it's petty theft, and the kid could claim mitigating circumstances.
And your "independent book seller" line is an obvious attempt to appeal to DUers who would not be as upset if you had said "stole it from a Wal-Mart".

To my mind, the kid did the right thing. Oh, and he's an atheist, btw.

[whistler162]

140. Please post your address and someone will be over to do

something just as awesome!

[Tx4obama]

146. If Mr. Grisham in Amarillo didn't have a permit to burn that Quran in that park... then...

the skateboarder was preventing a crime being made by taking the kerosene soaked book away ;)

[spanone]

147. sarcasm?

[Bluenorthwest]

148. I assume the OP will be able to tell me if the Koran burner

had a permit, or if setting books on fire in the location he did was accepted, common and legal behavior in that time and place. This was not exactly speech, and to keep calling it speech is not specific. It was a form of expression, protected as speech, but it is not speech. It is an action. I am I allowed, in that place, to simply burn things for fun? Would the fire marshal allow that? Is it considered safe to start fires in that place? No one has a right to political expression that is dangerous to others. Starting fires here and there is often a dangerous thing to do.
So if they both went to court, perhaps they could both be fined, and you could be very happy. Of course, many of the great protests of history were illegal, including King's sit ins and people eating a Wollworth's. Illegal. Also illegal, same sex marriage. In most states it is legal to discriminate against gay people. Forgive me for not seeing the law as equal to morality. Breaking the law is many times the only right thing to do. I used to bring medicine that was illegal to people with AIDS, medicine that now would be legal for them. Then it was a crime. Not much of one in CA, but still. People ate, smiled, and enjoyed a bit, lived a few months longer. I was right, the law was wrong, and had they arrested me, I'd still have been right, and they'd still be wrong.
So what are the laws about starting fires in that place? Is it legal to do so?

[Orrex]

152. If exotic dancing is considered "free expression," the the burning of a book can equally be so

Please tell me that you don't believe that all political statements must be verbal.


Additionally, he didn't plan to throw the burning Quran in a pile of leaves or on the bare grass--there was clearly a grill in place on the scene.

As such, any concerns about the safety of fire in this context have little basis in reality.

So what are the laws about starting fires in that place? Is it legal to do so?

I'd have to say "probably" so. Next question?

[Bluenorthwest]

157. Yeah, I typed that before I read the full story, with over a hundred

protesters, people with hands on the grill, the works. But you know, I fully addressed the nature of political expression, and did not even come close to implying that it must be verbal, what I said was that calling a non verbal political expression 'speech' is not specific enough for a discussion about legal aspects of the event. Stopping a person's speech usually involves physical violence, and it seems to me that is why you are insistent upon using that phraseology. And it is not as accurate and specific as possible. If you can not comprehend that, no wonder you are having trouble here.
You failed to address many points I made, but let's skip that and make my next questions about your lexicon and framing. Why did you leave out the majority protest that was also involved in preventing the Koran burning? You claim the Sk8ter took the koran to prevent speech, but others had already prevented that political expression by putting their own flesh in peril.
You are making a huge deal about the horrors of the young man's taking of that bit of property. So, tell me about the grilling rules. Where I live, food preparation surfaces are for food only, by law. A person can not go to a public grill and use it to make soap, or to dry their shoes. If hair splitting is what we are doing, and that is what you are doing, then we have to split them all. My guess is that both of them were technically in breach of rules and laws. Subject to fines. You can not burn papers for the sake of burning papers on a public grill. Not here you can not. I assume you know if that it is the case there.
Would you feel better if they both paid the fines associated with the actual actions of their individual political expressions? Would that make it all better? I mean, the 'victim' is not pressing charges thus far, and the police do not see it as a crime. And even if they did, what kind of a crime? A petty temporary theft that might have been committed to prevent protesters from being burned? There were hands on that grill, and Burner Man held a lighter. Why do you think none of this matters? Why did you leave out all of the detail? Why did your OP use 'independent bookseller'?
To claim that this event was a simple theft is not truthful. It is manipulative. It was not a simple theft and no judge or jury in the nation would treat it as such.
You should encourage Burner Man to press charges. You should represent him. You have a point you feel strongly about. You should see justice served, and make that skater pay his $100.
The skater was also making a political statement. Both men's actions are only understandable in that context. The removal of the Koran from the grill might be a crime, find out, and see how much time you can get the kid to serve. But I suggest you stow all your arguments about the skater's intentions, because you do not know them, and that will get you laughed at. The Kreskin method, you discern through talents the rest do not have what was in the mind of others when they did what they did.
Re-read what I wrote about modes of political expression and why calling them all 'speech' is not accurate enough to describe this case, and also that it is used to imply a physical attack, which did not occur. All forms of political expression are covered in the free speech laws, but that does not mean that all expressions are speech. They are 'like speech' in that they are protected. But the fact is that a statue is not a word, a march is not verbal, and the specific terms are very important in a thing like this. After all, you wish to convict the guy on a split hair, a story half told and a lexicon made of steaming terms of art.
This is a waste of time after seeing the reports from the scene and what law enforcement intends to do about it. These events are nothing like what you presented, at all.

[Carolina]

156. I can't believe you're cheering for theft

but if so, you should recommend that the lad steal from a chain bookstore rather than the struggling independent bookseller! Where I live all the independents have gone under while the CORPORATE chains survive and thrive.

[taterguy]

158. Serves the independent store right for stocking Abbie Hoffman books

What did they expect?