NationStates Jolt Archive

$10 or $1000000 in a plain white envelope with no name address or ID is a visit from the money fairy.

Ahh I understand our problem here. You apparently believe in fairies, which is the only way your...nonsensical position I hesitate to call an argument could possibly make sense. I live here in the real world, where I recognize that money probably belongs to someone

In other words there IS no set standard by which I can judge if my actions are "reasonable" until after I'm tried for taking said actions.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehention before trying to engage me on the subject.

The standard is "a reasonable person". if the law requires you to behave like a "reasonable person", failure to adhere to that standard means you broke the law. The jury decides whether or not you violated the standard of "reasonable person". In other words, the jury decides whether or not you violated the law.

What exactly do you think juries do exactly? Hang out with magical money faeries?

Hahaha I'd like to see someone be told and insisted they have $5mill in their bank and walk away without taking anything.

Ah, I see. Redwulf is one of those idiots who gets the wrong change, knows it's the wrong change and instead of returning it, steals it. Yes, just because you call it something else doesn't make you not a thief. You stole it just as surely as you picked someone's pocket. Taking something that does not belong to you and tell yourself it became yours as soon as they handed it to you by mistake is not only unethical, but illegal. You can squirm all you like.

The jury decides whether or not you violated the standard of "reasonable person".

But that is not the same thing as deciding what that standard is.

laws can be, and often are, flat out wrong. they offer no independent guidance of what is or is not stolen, or even what the definition of 'theft' really is. the fact that you do wind up in jail has nothing directly to do with the question of whether you should be there.

The definition of theft is taking something that does not belong to you. This money wasn't earned by you. It wasn't given to you. By definition, taking something that isn't yours is stealing.

And you'd be "of that position" while you sat behind bars thinking about it. Under the law, it's stolen. By definition, it's stolen.

laws can be, and often are, flat out wrong. they offer no independent guidance of what is or is not stolen, or even what the definition of 'theft' really is. the fact that you do wind up in jail has nothing directly to do with the question of whether you should be there.

Hahaha I'd like to see someone be told and insisted they have $5mill in their bank and walk away without taking anything.

I did it with about 175,000 at the credit union at the bank in 29 Palms in 1993. They realized the mistake a few days later and corrected it. I just laughed and, like any reasonable person, realized a mistake had been made and chose not to use that mistake to justify theft.

A friend had a smaller amount happen to him and he got all excited and withdrew as much as could, and realized he was stealing a moment later and went into the credit union and gave it back. They thanked him and corrected the error.

firstly, the actual mistaken transfer is not a crime (or rather, shouldn't be treated as a crime). there was no intent to steal. there might be other crimes involved though, but those would be sort of esoteric business law things that guy off the street cannot be expected to have any clue about or responsibility for.
For one there was no transfer. Money wasn't mistakenly put into this man's account. He was mistaken for someone else and informed of the correct balance of an account which was not his. Which explains, possibly, why the teller didn't see any error in the balance.

secondly, i should amend my statement slightly anyways. i didn't notice it, because of how i think about diamonds, but important to my position is the idea of interchangeability. one dollar is as good as any other dollar, one new car of a certain type is the same as any other new car of that type, one box of a kind of cereal is the same as another, etc. this gets at the valet problem; the reason it would be wrong to drive off in the not-the-car-you-came-in brought to you by the valet is because the valet company (which still would bear lots and lots of responsibility) cannot provide the same thing to the person they wronged while you get to keep what they gave you.
That it was diamonds from a safe isn't important. The point is that the hypothetical you took something knowing that it was not yours. The bank fucked up too, of course, but that doesn't excuse what you did.

not so with directly interchangeable items - with them, the full amount of the loss can be recovered from the institution that fucked up without doing anything to the person who benefited from the fuckup.
Assuming the institution has the money to do so.
thus the full cost of institutional stupidity falls on the stupid institution. in you guys' system,
You mean the real world?
the majority of the cost of institutional stupidity falls on the incidental opportunistic beneficiary of that stupidity and not so much on the institution at all.
Eh, no. The majority of the cost will fall on the bank. They're going to lose shit loads of business, especially from big clients who have a lot to lose from one of their potential fuck ups. Their loss is going to be a lot more than $2 million, I dare say.

And the incidental opportunistic beneficiary still stole $2 million. He was fully aware that the money probably wasn't his. But he took it anyway. The fact that the ineptitude of a bank gave him the opportunity to do this is irrelevant.
The Bank.

Their error.

After all, He did tell them.
Him telling them didn't make it his money. He took something that wasn't his. He knew that it probably wasn't his. How can this be anything other than theft?
If the bank hands me a key and leads me to a safety deposit box and insists that the box is MY box, yes it's the banks fault.
It is the bank's fault, but do you get to keep the diamonds?

laws can be, and often are, flat out wrong. they offer no independent guidance of what is or is not stolen, or even what the definition of 'theft' really is. the fact that you do wind up in jail has nothing directly to do with the question of whether you should be there.

Laws do define what theft is. Whether you, or anyone else, agrees with that definition doesn't change it. If you do disagree with it then start petitioning your government representatives to change it. Don't just ignore it and expect the judge to let you off.

If it fell off a money truck it will be in a bag identifying it as such. $10 or $1000000 in a plain white envelope with no name address or ID is a visit from the money fairy.
Or you've gotten some money that was on its way to a big time drug dealer, and you've profited from their crimes. Or maybe it wasn't a drug dealer, maybe it was a hired killer. Or someone paying for child porn.
How could he know that it didn't belong to the bank?
Because it was in somebody's bank account. The bank doesn't keep their money in their own bank accounts. Anyway, point is he knew it wasn't his money. Or at least he knew it very probably wasn't his. Stealing is stealing is stealing, regardless of who the victim is.

i don't believe that i ever claimed that a lone individual breaking a law that is wrong is enough to change the law. it also isn't likely to allow you to get off free, unless there is a particularly compelling case to be made for the wrongness of the law, though that is a very outside shot as seen in the completely unjustifiable war on drugs.

So what does this tangent have to do with this man stealing 2 million dollars?

So what does this tangent have to do with this man stealing 2 million dollars?

he didn't steal, and he shouldn't go to jail. i disagree with soheran on whether he should get to keep the cash though.

Laws do define what theft is. Whether you, or anyone else, agrees with that definition doesn't change it. If you do disagree with it then start petitioning your government representatives to change it. Don't just ignore it and expect the judge to let you off.

i don't believe that i ever claimed that a lone individual breaking a law that is wrong is enough to change the law. it also isn't likely to allow you to get off free, unless there is a particularly compelling case to be made for the wrongness of the law, though that is a very outside shot as seen in the completely unjustifiable war on drugs.

and while laws offer definitions of things, they do not define them. the law can be wrong about their definitions, as well you know.

he didn't steal, and he shouldn't go to jail. i disagree with soheran on whether he should get to keep the cash though.

So the money he took and used belonged to him?

So the money he took and used belonged to him?

should be treated as his, with the understanding that the bank also owes the original owner of it all that was taken and more, yes.

should be treated as his, with the understanding that the bank also owes the original owner of it all that was taken and more, yes.

"Should be treated as his" would be a no. It it were his money, no one would have to "treat" it as his. Meanwhile, you said "all that was taken". Who was it "taken" by? Clearly not the man, right? I mean he's an angel.

Though since it's not stealing, if the valet gives your brand new car to me and my junker to you, I can drive off whistling, cuz I own it now. The valet an illegal immigrant from Sweden is sent home, adequately shamed. But, hey, justice was served. I mean, why should I have to give your car back? What happens when I profit from someone else's mistake and you lose out since the person who made the mistake can't rectify it? I mean, the law could obviously work in a way that

he didn't steal, and he shouldn't go to jail. i disagree with soheran on whether he should get to keep the cash though.
Yes, he did. Your opinion on the matter doesn't change that.
i don't believe that i ever claimed that a lone individual breaking a law that is wrong is enough to change the law. it also isn't likely to allow you to get off free, unless there is a particularly compelling case to be made for the wrongness of the law, though that is a very outside shot as seen in the completely unjustifiable war on drugs.
No you didn't. What you did do is miss my point completely. Whether you like the law or agree with it or not is totally irrelevant to the consequences of breaking it.

and while laws offer definitions of things, they do not define them. the law can be wrong about their definitions, as well you know.
Eh, no. How can the law ever be wrong about what is and isn't illegal? That's exactly what the law is. It defines what is and isn't illegal. You may not like their definition, but that's your problem and has no bearing on what the definition is. You might as well call up the IUPAC and tell them that they've been spelling hydrogen wrong all these years.
should be treated as his, with the understanding that the bank also owes the original owner of it all that was taken and more, yes.
So the bank stole $2 million and gave it away and the lucky bastard that they gave it to gets to keep it? Wow. I think I'll get some friends together and rob some store, then give the money to another friend. Once we get out he'll be able to give us our shares back. Free room and board for a few years and we get to keep the money. Crime really does pay. :)

No you didn't. What you did do is miss my point completely. Whether you like the law or agree with it or not is totally irrelevant to the consequences of breaking it.

the consequences of breaking the law are irrelevant to the justice of the law, which is what matters.

Eh, no. How can the law ever be wrong about what is and isn't
illegal? That's exactly what the law is. It defines what is and isn't illegal.

the law can only tell you what the state can lawfully punish you for, not what they should punish you for. legal vs illegal can only matter in questions of whether it is tactically smart to do something. in the words of david hume, "is/fucking ought, bitches!"

If i had a million dollars. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nCImrmR63JE)"but not a real green dress that's cruel".
:)
oh er carry on.

the consequences of breaking the law are irrelevant to the justice of the law, which is what matters.

The "justice". For you, justice is being permitted to keep money that you admit does not belong to you. Money you knew didn't belong to you. Money that never belonged to you, wasn't owed you, and wasn't either earned or given freely?

What happens when it's not a rich bank but your average Joe. They just have to take it in the pants?

"Should be treated as his" would be a no. It it were his money, no one would have to "treat" it as his. Meanwhile, you said "all that was taken". Who was it "taken" by? Clearly not the man, right? I mean he's an angel.

i said 'treated as' because the person who really owned it doesn't lose their claim on the cash either. both now get the cash, while the bank loses.

Though since it's not stealing, if the valet gives your brand new car to me and my junker to you, I can drive off whistling, cuz I own it now. The valet an illegal immigrant from Sweden is sent home, adequately shamed. But, hey, justice was served. I mean, why should I have to give your car back? What happens when I profit from someone else's mistake and you lose out since the person who made the mistake can't rectify it?

i already made a distinction about interchangeability. cash is cash is cash, while two completely different cars are different.

as for what happens when the person who made the error cannot rectify it, well, what happens if i steal from you and burn all your stuff?

What happens when it's not a rich bank but your average Joe. They just have to take it in the pants?

the average joe isn't a big financial institution, which is a key part in what makes it ok to walk off with the proceeds of the bank's error. they have obligations to us which we do not have to them, while we do have much stronger obligations to individuals.

i said 'treated as' because the person who really owned it doesn't lose their claim on the cash either. both now get the cash, while the bank loses.

Ah, I get it. You don't like them so it's okay for the man to steal from them. Oh, wait, right "it's not stealing" it's just him taking something that isn't his and keeping it. Right.

You sound like those guys on Office Space trying to argue that aren't really stealing. That you feel like the person who is being stolen from deserves it doesn't change that it's stolen.

i already made a distinction about interchangeability. cash is cash is cash, while two completely different cars are different.

as for what happens when the person who made the error cannot rectify it, well, what happens if i steal from you and burn all your stuff?

However, "justice" requires us to get my stuff back if it is possible. Here, it's not burnt. It's just in someone else's possession. Of course, by your claim, I could steal from someone and give it away, and all my friends and family get to keep it even though they know it's not mine and know who it belongs to, right?

Cars are replaceable. There is no specific unique value to your car other than it being worth more than mine. 5 million dollars and 5 dollars are significantly different. There's no question they're different. And when I knowingly walk away with money from someone else's account, it's no different than driving off in their car and no amount of rubbing your slippers together and wishing really hard is gonna change that.

the average joe isn't a big financial institution, which is a key part in what makes it ok to walk off with the proceeds of the bank's error. they have obligations to us which we do not have to them, while we do have much stronger obligations to individuals.

Gosh, I was so hoping that your arguments would be back up by reason and not prejudice against businesses. Not all banks are "big financial institutions". For some banks, five million dollars means they shut down and all those loans to all those people who you've been doing business for their entire lives and yours are not subject to whoever gets a hold of them. All of the bank's clients suffer while you, who took something that didn't belong to you and kept it, whistle away.

What definition of stealing says it's not stealing if it's a "big financial institution"? Oh, right, none. What you meant to say is you don't care if it's stealing.

In essence, FS' argument is it's ok to steal, if who your stealing from can afford it. In fact, at times it seems his argument is not even "it's ok to steal from them if they can afford it" but indeed, it's not stealing from them at all!

Because after all, on the internet, everybody's a rebel.

By the way, I own my own business. I take it if the car belongs to me it's stealing and if the car is registered to my company, you can just ride of in it. I love how somehow it belonging to my company ends your obligation to the people who work and sweat to build that business.

(Now, here's the part where you use some hyperbolous example about sweat shops. like people do when they're trying to paint all Muslims with same brush by showing a beheading. Come on, I know you've got your pocket example for why business is evil.)

No no you see it's OK to take things from a company, there's no moral problem at all, because they're big and evil and mean and MAKE MONEY!

Which of course makes me wonder how FS manages to afford to get on the internet, given how he would obviously do nothing so morally dispicable as make a profit.

Gosh, I was so hoping that your arguments would be back up by reason and not prejudice against businesses. Not all banks are "big financial institutions". For some banks, five million dollars means they shut down and all those loans to all those people who you've been doing business for their entire lives and yours are not subject to whoever gets a hold of them. All of the bank's clients suffer while you, who took something that didn't belong to you and kept it, whistle away.

What definition of stealing says it's not stealing if it's a "big financial institution"? Oh, right, none. What you meant to say is you don't care if it's stealing.

all banks are definitionally big financial institutions. that is what it is to be a bank.

and it isn't stealing because the bank, by virtue of being a bank, holds all of the responsibility for making sure they keep their accounts straight. if the bank short changes me, they have the obligation to fix it. if the bank gives me more money than they should have, i don't take on their responsibilities by virtue of it being a bad bank.

No no you see it's OK to take things from a company, there's no moral problem at all, because they're big and evil and mean and MAKE MONEY!

Which of course makes me wonder how FS manages to afford to get on the internet, given how he would obviously do nothing so morally dispicable as make a profit.

Why, he's Jesse James? He's a folk hero just a-saving us from the man, one bank at a time. I mean, when the checkout girl at the supermarket gives him too much change and he keeps it, he's sticking it to the man, and we should all loft him to our shoulders for the privelege of watching him "steal", uh, I mean liberate the money. Even though 'the man" makes that girl even out her drawer at the end of the night out of her own pocket, doesn't lose a penny, and you quite literally took money out of the pocket of that cashier.

But they're not individuals. They're a part of the corporate hive. It's not like the teller at the bank who mistakes you for the wrong person loses his job and probably can never work in his chosen profession again. Nope. Only the evil corporate mafia suffer.

In essence, FS' argument is it's ok to steal, if who your stealing from can afford it. In fact, at times it seems his argument is not even "it's ok to steal from them if they can afford it" but indeed, it's not stealing from them at all!

Because after all, on the internet, everybody's a rebel.

closer on the second try. it isn't stealing, and their being able to afford it has nothing to do with it. it all revolves around the question of inherently unbalanced obligations and responsibilities between individuals and certain sorts of institutions.

all banks are definitionally big financial institutions. that is what it is to be a bank.

Oh, dear, the Real Scotsman fallacy rears it's ugly head. Many banks are local mom and pop organizations serving their community, just like many grocery stores are, or many plumbers, or many repair shops.

and it isn't stealing because the bank, by virtue of being a bank, holds all of the responsibility for making sure they keep their accounts straight. if the bank short changes me, they have the obligation to fix it. if the bank gives me more money than they should have, i don't take on their responsibilities by virtue of it being a bad bank.

And it's not stealing a car, because the valet, by virtue of being a valet holds all the responsibility for keeping the cars straight. And it's not stealing a workman's toolbox if he doesn't realize he left it in your living room and you walk behind him and lock him out before he recognizes his error. I mean, you did ask him, 'did you forget anything?"

What on Earth would have given him the impression that the bank gave him access to someone elses account? It is almost impossible for him to know such a thing.

He did know. He told them.


I assume he felt there was a balance error... rather than an identity error, which means after he made sure the balance was correct, he had no way to assume that the bank must have just done everything in it's power to screw up... such as not looking at his withdrawal slip, or ID, or account number... which is something all banks should be doing... especially when someone challenges the amount presented.

Back to my point, your post was ridiculous, there is no way that one can assume he new that the bank had accidentally given him access to someone elses account, and to assume that it is the only possibility is to forfeit all claim to intelligence, or reason outright, and you have just done so.
He didn't make sure the balance was correct. He accepted the incorrect balance because it favored him. No reasonable person thinks they find 5 million dollars and it doesn't belong to anyone.

I'll ignore your flaming because it was pretty amusing.

No, it isn't. He still knew it didn't belong to him and that it didn't belong to the bank. It belonged to a third party that was not giving it to him. The bank is holding the third party's money. It is not theirs to give the thief.

What on Earth would have given him the impression that the bank gave him access to someone elses account? It is almost impossible for him to know such a thing.

I assume he felt there was a balance error... rather than an identity error, which means after he made sure the balance was correct, he had no way to assume that the bank must have just done everything in it's power to screw up... such as not looking at his withdrawal slip, or ID, or account number... which is something all banks should be doing... especially when someone challenges the amount presented.

Back to my point, your post was ridiculous, there is no way that one can assume he knew that the bank had accidentally given him access to someone elses account, and to assume that it is the only possibility is to forfeit all claim to intelligence, or reason outright, and you have just done so.

By definition it was mismanaged by the bank... the man did not enter the bank with intent to steal money, nor did he proceed to do so at his earliest convenience... because he tried to tell the teller that some mistake must've happened.

He did leave the bank with the intent of keeping and using money he knew didn't belong, he hadn't earned and had not been freely given to him (a mistake doesn't count as freely).


If I found out I inherited a lot of money (from some undeniably legitimate source) I would probably similarly go on a 'spree' as it is I plan on attaining a few new goodies with tax money... is it so unreasonable then, for him to act in an accordant manner? Or because he spent money he thought was his, must he then be nothing but the dregs of society? A base criminal? Or is it instead that people making that argument are instead suffering some delusion of thinking that they must know the only possible way that things could've happened?

Yep, I know, the "delusional" argument is pretty much the winner here....
He didn't "inherit" it. He was on the receiving end of a bank error. He knew and said he was on the receiving end of a bank error. Despite that knowledge, he took something that belonged to someone else and denied them their right to it.

I "delusionally" noticed that the man said it wasn't his account and drew from that, that he knew it, in fact, wasn't his account.

By definition, it's stolen.

By definition it was mismanaged by the bank... the man did not enter the bank with intent to steal money, nor did he proceed to do so at his earliest convenience... because he tried to tell the teller that some mistake must've happened.

If I found out I inherited a lot of money (from some undeniably legitimate source) I would probably similarly go on a 'spree' as it is I plan on attaining a few new goodies with tax money... is it so unreasonable then, for him to act in an accordant manner? Or because he spent money he thought was his, must he then be nothing but the dregs of society? A base criminal? Or is it instead that people making that argument are instead suffering some delusion of thinking that they must know the only possible way that things could've happened?

Yep, I know, the "delusional" argument is pretty much the winner here....

He did know. He told them.

*sigh* To restate what I jsut said... there is no evidence to support the idea that he knew they made an identity error. He corrected the teller saying he didn't have the much money in his account... she said that he indeed did, I woudl trust a teller to be accurate when I give them my name, account number, and address... like I do every time I walk into the bank. This man would have no cause to believe the teller inaccurate.

He didn't make sure the balance was correct. He accepted the incorrect balance because it favored him. No reasonable person thinks they find 5 million dollars and it doesn't belong to anyone.

I'll ignore your flaming because it was pretty amusing.

Be amused, my statement about your forfeiture stands.

He did indeed make sure the balance was correct by asking the greatest authority present (a teller... who had direct, and live access to his acocunt) if the balance was correct.

He did not himself undergo an intensive investigation into the practices of that particular teller to see if he/she could make such a mistake... but rather trusted that the teller knew what he/she was doing... not an unreasonable trust.

the consequences of breaking the law are irrelevant to the justice of the law, which is what matters.
Then you shouldn't have gone on some silly tangent about what stealing is and should have just said that you don't think that something like this should be stealing.



the law can only tell you what the state can lawfully punish you for, not what they should punish you for. legal vs illegal can only matter in questions of whether it is tactically smart to do something. in the words of david hume, "is/fucking ought, bitches!"
Then stop talking about what the definition of stealing is and start talking about what you think it should be. Express opinions, don't make claims you know to be false.
i said 'treated as' because the person who really owned it doesn't lose their claim on the cash either. both now get the cash, while the bank loses.
So a bank can somehow cause money to magically double itself by accidentally giving someone access to the wrong account? I'm no expert on the economy but that doesn't sound good at all. Doesn't money sort of lose its worth when it can just appear out of nowhere, with no work done to earn it?



i already made a distinction about interchangeability. cash is cash is cash, while two completely different cars are different.
So you're going to ignore the point of the example, because you don't like some of the irrelevant details in it? Beats trying to refute it, I guess.

as for what happens when the person who made the error cannot rectify it, well, what happens if i steal from you and burn all your stuff?
You owe me the value of that stuff. A cheque is preferable, but cash will do.
the average joe isn't a big financial institution, which is a key part in what makes it ok to walk off with the proceeds of the bank's error. they have obligations to us which we do not have to them, while we do have much stronger obligations to individuals.
Rob from the rich and....eh...keep it all for yourself? You make Robin Hood cry.
all banks are definitionally big financial institutions. that is what it is to be a bank.
They're financial institutions, not necessarily big ones.

and it isn't stealing because the bank, by virtue of being a bank, holds all of the responsibility for making sure they keep their accounts straight. if the bank short changes me, they have the obligation to fix it. if the bank gives me more money than they should have, i don't take on their responsibilities by virtue of it being a bad bank.
No, you have to take on the responsibilities of the fact that you abused their ineptitude for their own gain. You don't get to steal someone's money just because the bank they keep it in can't stop you. There is no justice in this. Unless you consider getting a hard on from some kind of 'hurrrr, fuck the banks' fetish justice.
What on Earth would have given him the impression that the bank gave him access to someone elses account? It is almost impossible for him to know such a thing.
Eh, no. He could have asked the teller to show him which transaction caused him to be $5 million richer. It's what I would have done. Well, I would have said something along the lines of 'Who the fuck gave me all that money?'.

I assume he felt there was a balance error... rather than an identity error, which means after he made sure the balance was correct, he had no way to assume that the bank must have just done everything in it's power to screw up... such as not looking at his withdrawal slip, or ID, or account number... which is something all banks should be doing... especially when someone challenges the amount presented.
Most likely, yes. That doesn't excuse the fact that he still took money he had very very good reason to believe was not his.

Back to my point, your post was ridiculous, there is no way that one can assume he knew that the bank had accidentally given him access to someone elses account, and to assume that it is the only possibility is to forfeit all claim to intelligence, or reason outright, and you have just done so.

It doesn't matter if he knew the details of the bank's fuck up. It matters that he knew that the money wasn't his.

Oh, dear, the Real Scotsman fallacy rears it's ugly head. Many banks are local mom and pop organizations serving their community, just like many grocery stores are, or many plumbers, or many repair shops.

you are operating under an incorrect reading of what i am using 'big financial institution' to mean. i am merely talking about the difference between a bank, and asking my brother for money or having a friend hang on to my wallet. they are different in kind, rather than degree.

And it's not stealing a car, because the valet, by virtue of being a valet holds all the responsibility for keeping the cars straight. And it's not stealing a workman's toolbox if he doesn't realize he left it in your living room and you walk behind him and lock him out before he recognizes his error. I mean, you did ask him, 'did you forget anything?"

interchangeability and unbalanced obligations. do try to at least pretend to take distinctions i've already laid out into account.

and valets do not in fact hold all responsibility for keeping cars straight. why would we think they should?

He did leave the bank with the intent of keeping and using money he knew didn't belong, he hadn't earned and had not been freely given to him (a mistake doesn't count as freely).



He didn't "inherit" it. He was on the receiving end of a bank error. He knew and said he was on the receiving end of a bank error. Despite that knowledge, he took something that belonged to someone else and denied them their right to it.

I "delusionally" noticed that the man said it wasn't his account and drew from that, that he knew it, in fact, wasn't his account.

Oh he said he knew the account was not his and intentially took the money anyway? I must have missed that from all the not saying it that he did.

I heard nothing (other than the bandying of empty words from your side of the fence) to suggest that he knew it was someone elses account.

Also, and regardless to any knowledge, he tried to correct the bank, which insisted there was no mistake.

If a trained professional insists that they did not make a mistake, I would be inclined to trust them.

You can go around spending all of your time cleaning up other people problems for them, but it won't get you very far.

*sigh* To restate what I jsut said... there is no evidence to support the idea that he knew they made an identity error.

He said it wasn't his account. Read the article. He kept telling them he didn't have that account.

He corrected the teller saying he didn't have the much money in his account... she said that he indeed did, I woudl trust a teller to be accurate when I give them my name, account number, and address... like I do every time I walk into the bank. This man would have no cause to believe the teller inaccurate.

I love that you'd believe that it's possible to walk into a bank and have your 800 dollar account turn into a 5 million dollar account over night and you're talking about MY departure from reason. Don't worry, kiddo, the irony is not lost one me.


Be amused, my statement about your forfeiture stands.

He did indeed make sure the balance was correct by asking the greatest authority present (a teller... who had direct, and live access to his acocunt) if the balance was correct.

He did not himself undergo an intensive investigation into the practices of that particular teller to see if he/she could make such a mistake... but rather trusted that the teller knew what he/she was doing... not an unreasonable trust.

When you open an account you take on a responsibility to track your account and its activity. The greatest authority present, if you're remotely responsible, on your account should be you.

I want to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $10. I'm a salesman and have extensive real estate experience, and thus the greatest authority available on the ownership and value of the bridge. Of course you'd believe me. Why wouldn't you? It's not unreasonable to trust that something that is completely impossible is happening.

Oh he said he knew the account was not his and intentially took the money anyway? I must have missed that from all the not saying it that he did.

According to you, he told the teller that the teller was wrong. Is that the "not saying" you're talking about.


I heard nothing (other than the bandying of empty words from your side of the fence) to suggest that he knew it was someone elses account.

And the fact, that when he was arrested he said that he tried to tell the teller it wasn't his account.


Also, and regardless to any knowledge, he tried to correct the bank, which insisted there was no mistake.

If a trained professional insists that they did not make a mistake, I would be inclined to trust them.

You can go around spending all of your time cleaning up other people problems for them, but it won't get you very far.

I'm a trained professional. Now about that bridge.

See, he didn't have to clean up their mistake. The money was in the right account. He could have simply kept his deposit and walked away. No clean up. He just wouldn't be looking at 25 years then. Buy, hey, I've completely departed from reason, right? He got to play around for a couple of days with money that wasn't his and now he faces 25 years of prison. Yep, clearly he made a reasonable decision.

you are operating under an incorrect reading of what i am using 'big financial institution' to mean. i am merely talking about the difference between a bank, and asking my brother for money or having a friend hang on to my wallet. they are different in kind, rather than degree.

So what qualifies it as "a big financial instution"? What's the line? I can't wait to hear if it's your line between stealing and sticking it to the man.



interchangeability and unbalanced obligations. do try to at least pretend to take distinctions i've already laid out into account.

The distinctions that defy logic. Cars are interchangeable other than their value. The difference between 5 million dollars and 800 dollars is MUCH more significant than difference between a junker car and a new car. One fairly objective way to tell is the market value of each.

Meanwhile, you can pretend like you've made the "unbalanced obligation" distinction, but it's an unsupportable assumption. It paints all businesses with a HUGE brush. I strange in that I don't allow you assumptions you've not demonstrated to be true.




and valets do not in fact hold all responsibility for keeping cars straight. why would we think they should?

They have as much responsibility as banks do. But, hey, if you say "no, they don't", that's the same as explaining why. Isn't it?

Valets keep our cars for us, and when we need them, they give them back to us. Our car is no different than an account, or more similarly leaving our car at a parking garage for our condo (since it would give you the same type of regular interaction).

closer on the second try. it isn't stealing, and their being able to afford it has nothing to do with it. it all revolves around the question of inherently unbalanced obligations and responsibilities between individuals and certain sorts of institutions.
So it's ok to steal from banks because it's their fault if they can't stop us?
By definition it was mismanaged by the bank... the man did not enter the bank with intent to steal money, nor did he proceed to do so at his earliest convenience... because he tried to tell the teller that some mistake must've happened.
The bank mismanaging it doesn't preclude him stealing it. Him not planning to steal it when he entered the bank doesn't mean he didn't steal it. Him not stealing it right away doesn't mean he didn't steal it.

If I found out I inherited a lot of money (from some undeniably legitimate source) I would probably similarly go on a 'spree' as it is I plan on attaining a few new goodies with tax money... is it so unreasonable then, for him to act in an accordant manner?
Yes, since he was notably lacking in an undeniably legitimate source. Who exactly was he meant to have inherited this money from? If it was a possibility then why didn't he check it out? How hard would it have been to call up Aunt Whatever and ask if rich Uncle Whatever has died yet?
Or because he spent money he thought was his, must he then be nothing but the dregs of society? A base criminal? Or is it instead that people making that argument are instead suffering some delusion of thinking that they must know the only possible way that things could've happened?
He spent money he knew wasn't his. At the very least he spent money he couldn't properly account for as being his.
Yep, I know, the "delusional" argument is pretty much the winner here....
Thing is that you calling it delusional doesn't make it so. Especially since it has basis in reality.
*sigh* To restate what I jsut said... there is no evidence to support the idea that he knew they made an identity error. He corrected the teller saying he didn't have the much money in his account... she said that he indeed did, I woudl trust a teller to be accurate when I give them my name, account number, and address... like I do every time I walk into the bank. This man would have no cause to believe the teller inaccurate.
To restate what I just said(but you may not have read when you were writing this post. Timewarp is evil), it doesn't fucking matter. He couldn't account for his account getting an extra $5 million. Yet he assumed it was his because the teller said so? Bullshit.


He did indeed make sure the balance was correct by asking the greatest authority present (a teller... who had direct, and live access to his acocunt) if the balance was correct.
Why didn't he ask when he got all that money? Or who gave it to him?

He did not himself undergo an intensive investigation into the practices of that particular teller to see if he/she could make such a mistake
It takes an intensive investigation to establish that humans are fallible? Weren't you saying something about delusions earlier?
... but rather trusted that the teller knew what he/she was doing... not an unreasonable trust.
There's trusting that the teller is right and there's not checking to see where you got your fortune from.
and valets do not in fact hold all responsibility for keeping cars straight. why would we think they should?
Why would we think that about banks?

Oh he said he knew the account was not his and intentially took the money anyway? I must have missed that from all the not saying it that he did.
He may not have known the nature of the error, but I shudder to think how he could have the intelligence to open a bank account and put money into it, but simultaneously be stupid enough to think that $5 million dollars just appears in your account sometimes and then it's ok to spend some because it's yours.

I heard nothing (other than the bandying of empty words from your side of the fence) to suggest that he knew it was someone elses account.
Maybe the timewarp has kept you from seeing my two previous posts stating that it doesn't matter. Maybe you just chose to ignore them so you could keep up this little line of reasoning.

Also, and regardless to any knowledge, he tried to correct the bank, which insisted there was no mistake.
Their insistence doesn't make it so, not does it absolve him from any responsibility not to take something he doesn't know to be his.

If a trained professional insists that they did not make a mistake, I would be inclined to trust them.
Please, a bank teller is as much a trained professional as the guy behind the till at a liquor store.

You can go around spending all of your time cleaning up other people problems for them, but it won't get you very far.
What you can't do is go around taking advantage of other people's problems for your own criminal gain. You can go on and on about how the bank shouldn't have given him access to the account in the first place. Doesn't change a thing. He still took money that, at the very least, he didn't know was his.

Now, Ifreann, you're so silly. The law is clearly delusional, since they charged him. And the prosecuter. And the judge who gave him a 3 million dollar bail. And the man was delusional since he right away said it couldn't be his account, repeatedly, and made no effort to find out where the money came from so he could thank the person. I mean, clearly the fact that he behaved like it wasn't his money means he was delusional.

Clearly, everyone is delusional. Who would ever expect anyone to question a misterious jump in one's balance by 5 million dollars? No one, that's who, you silly, silly, Ifreann.

So what qualifies it as "a big financial instution"?

pretty much the sum total of the official requirements that a bank has to fulfill to be a bank, along with their institutional role within the capitalist market and their position of trust and authority.

The distinctions that defy logic. Cars are interchangeable other than their value. The difference between 5 million dollars and 800 dollars is MUCH more significant than difference between a junker car and a new car. One fairly objective way to tell is the market value of each.

the distinction is over what sorts of things an institution retains full responsibility over their fuckups for. the dollar the bank accidentally gives me is not your dollar. it is a dollar. this differs in a fundamental way from your car or your family heirlooms - in this situation i wind up with a dollar and the bank owes you a dollar, as opposed to me winding up with your grandma's dishes.

Meanwhile, you can pretend like you've made the "unbalanced obligation" distinction, but it's an unsupportable assumption. It paints all businesses with a HUGE brush. I strange in that I don't allow you assumptions you've not demonstrated to be true.

from whence comes my responsibility to make sure the bank is keeping its accounts straight? they certainly have such an obligation, of course. but i literally cannot do it for them. it must fall entirely on them. especially since anybody can deposit money into any account they like, and money doesn't just sit there but is moved all over the place by the bank. they are the only ones that even can be tasked with keeping track of such things, and that is their purpose.

at best i can make sure they aren't short-changing my own account, but that is the extent of my power, and is not an actual obligation i must fulfill.

They have as much responsibility as banks do. But, hey, if you say "no, they don't", that's the same as explaining why. Isn't it?

Valets keep our cars for us, and when we need them, they give them back to us. Our car is no different than an account, or more similarly leaving our car at a parking garage for our condo (since it would give you the same type of regular interaction).

but they make no modifications to our cars, they don't loan them out to others while they hold them, and they don't even have to have sophisticated systems for keeping track of them. they have to keep them safe and undamaged, but they cannot be expected to have the same level of knowledge about them. and, of course, given that they cannot be expected to have that knowledge, and that cars are not interchangeable in the way one dollar is for another, we have responsibility to make sure it actually is our car that they have brought us.

so it basically comes down to, since it was a big ebil mysterious faceless corporation it's perfectly okay to steal the money.

I wonder at what level does this sense of 'stealing is okay, as long as it's not a person you steal from' stop?
At banks? Multinationals? Supermarkets? Mom-and-pop stores? Your mate's company?

Say it wasn't a company at all, but a wealthy person. For eg, you see Bill Gates drop his wallet containing several thousand $ and walk off. Is it okay to pick that wallet up and keep the money? It's not like he can't afford it. It's just chickenfeed to him that much cash. And let's face it, he's wealthier than most of the banks out there.
And again, at what level do you draw the line? Upon finding someone's wallet, do you first check to see how wealthy they are before deciding whether or not to return it?

so it basically comes down to, since it was a big ebil mysterious faceless corporation it's perfectly okay to steal the money.

nope

I suggest you work on your reading comprehention before trying to engage me on the subject.

The standard is "a reasonable person". if the law requires you to behave like a "reasonable person", failure to adhere to that standard means you broke the law.

And yet there is no set standard for what constitutes a "reasonable" person other than "can he get twelve randomly selected people to agree with him".

And yet there is no set standard for what constitutes a "reasonable" person other than "can he get twelve randomly selected people to agree with him".
pretty much. It depends on the case and the facts as they are presented. If you look back through, I did write a couple of lengthy posts about how a 'reasonable person' is defined and the reasons why. Do us a favour and trawl back through this thread.
In this particular case if he could convince the jury that a 'reasonable person' would simply take the word of a bank teller that the extra $5.8 million he knew wasn't his was indeed his and would not do any further investigation, then he might well walk free.

However, the likelihood of finding 12 people who honestly, truly, believe that, upon finding a bank fuckup of this magnitude, a 'reasonable person' would just ask the teller a couple of times before withdrawing and blowing $2 million of someone else's money is very very slight.
I guess you, Teut and FS could always offer yourselves up as jurors. Then he'd just have to find 9 others.

Ah, I see. Redwulf is one of those idiots who gets the wrong change, knows it's the wrong change and instead of returning it, steals it.

Did you miss the multiple posts where I stated that EVERY time I've gone back up to the till and said 'Wait, you gave me too much change . . ." I've been told to KEEP it?

Did you miss the multiple posts where I stated that EVERY time I've gone back up to the till and said 'Wait, you gave me too much change . . ." I've been told to KEEP it?

yeah, that's almost everywhere's policy.

Or you've gotten some money that was on its way to a big time drug dealer, and you've profited from their crimes. Or maybe it wasn't a drug dealer, maybe it was a hired killer. Or someone paying for child porn.

In that case the dealer doesn't get his money, the killer doesn't get paid, the perv doesn't get his kiddie porn. What's wrong with any of those scenarios?

Did you miss the multiple posts where I stated that EVERY time I've gone back up to the till and said 'Wait, you gave me too much change . . ." I've been told to KEEP it?
It doesn't matter what happens after you return it. Up until you return that money you are stealing. If you spend that overpayment rather than return it, you have deprived the rightful owner of their money. That is stealing.
comprende?
However, if, upon returning the money back to the rightful owner, the shopkeep says, "keep it" then they've transfered legal ownership of that money to you. Now when you walk out of the store you haven't stolen.
again, comprende?

yeah, that's almost everywhere's policy.
why of course it is. You've checked haven't you?
Fact that the till is balanced at the end of each shift and any short-change is taken out of the cashier's pocket (not the shops) is not your problem. Cause it's not stealing if it's from a company, right?

why of course it is. You've checked haven't you?
Fact that the till is balanced at the end of each shift and any short-change is taken out of the cashier's pocket (not the shops) is not your problem. Cause it's not stealing if it's from a company, right?

its not stealing because it is not stealing. there is no intent to take something that isn't yours, and when you do wind up with something you weren't expecting to have, it is because the other party gave it to you. even if this was always wrong, it wouldn't be stealing. saying it is does damage to the concept of theft by making it way too fucking broad.

The 48-year-old salesman said he tried to tell officials at Commerce Bank in December that he did not have a $5 million account. He says he was told the money was his and he could withdraw the money.

Okay, so, I go to my bank, and I suddenly find that I have five million in my account. So I don't tell them "That can't be my account, I don't have a five million account" But they tell me "Yes you do".

At this point, I would assume that they've checked. Now, here are a myriad of possible reasons for what could have happened:

Unknown benefactor. See Great Expectations and heck, even I once got a deposit into my account once that was a really low amount. I checked where it came from and I checked with the bank to say that I didn't know this person. However, it was transferred. Granted, that wasn't what happened here.

Inheritance from an unknown family member. Had a illegitimate son who had it on his record that you were his father and he just passed away and gave you lots of cash? Well, there you go.

These are just two possibilities.

Now, both sides are in the wrong because:
A) He could have asked for a transcript and easily seen that this wasn't his account. However, as the article doesn't state what he did or not with regards to this, I shall assume that he was innocent of this point. He must've therefore trusted the teller when he was told that it was indeed his account. It would have been wrong of him to not pursue the matter further, but not theft, merely negligence.
B) The teller could have done a better job and actually checked the account number. Sure, the name is the same, but when I go to the bank, it isn't my name they use to bring up the account, it's a unique, personal number.

Hence, he should return the money he has in excess and, given that it was a bank error, some solution could be found that suitably punishes both the bank for not keeping a better record or tracking system and the man who used the money for not doing a better job of insisting.

However, if a bank teller tells me "this is your account, it has five million" and you don't check further, can you really blame him for just wanting to use it as fast as possible? You finally have the means to do a whole bunch of things you wanted to! Of course you're going to splurge out once you're certain that it is in fact your money.

However, once he was told the money was his, he wasn't committing theft. Another crime perhaps, but he wasn't knowingly and intentionally withdrawing money that wasn't his.

its not stealing because it is not stealing. there is no intent to take something that isn't yours, and when you do wind up with something you weren't expecting to have, it is because the other party gave it to you. even if this was always wrong, it wouldn't be stealing. saying it is does damage to the concept of theft by making it way too fucking broad.
and no doubt when the shop shortchanges you, you just smile and walk away don't you?

and no doubt when the shop shortchanges you, you just smile and walk away don't you?

If you go back to the till and they say "Keep the change." Then the equivalent would be for them to say "You gave us too much" and you saying "Keep the change."

If you go back to the till and they say "Keep the change." Then the equivalent would be for them to say "You gave us too much" and you saying "Keep the change."
Point is, up until you tell them to 'keep the change', they are stealing are they not?
Well no, according to FS. It's not stealing if there's no intention to steal.

As for your scenarios, well of course the possibility of an anonymous hither-to unknown multi-millionaire benefactor secretly depositing millions into your account is just sooooooo much more likely than thinking the bank's made a fuck-up.

and no doubt when the shop shortchanges you, you just smile and walk away don't you?

no. why should i?

Point is, up until you tell them to 'keep the change', they are stealing are they not?

of course not, unless they actually intended to do it. does anyone actually think that? do you?

Point is, up until you tell them to 'keep the change', they are stealing are they not?
Well no, according to FS. It's not stealing if there's no intention to steal.

As for your scenarios, well of course the possibility of an anonymous hither-to unknown multi-millionaire benefactor secretly depositing millions into your account is just sooooooo much more likely than thinking the bank's made a fuck-up.

He specifically mentioned the keep the change part. Also of note is that they are not stealing if neither party notices. If I ask for ten dollars and you give me a hundred, you aren't stealing if you only notice ten, because I only noticed ten. Once I gave 100 dollar in tip. The waiter was kind enough to come back to me on that. Unfortunately, in the daze I was in that I could possibly make that sort of error, I forgot to give him a little extra for his honesty. It would not, however, have been stealing on his part if he hadn't noticed it. Merely negligence.

I wonder why people are having such a hard time understanding that, if the bank says "This is your money" After you've asked them about it, then it's indeed reasonable to assume that it is your money, because it's possible, however unlikely, that you might have gotten that.

He ALREADY thought the bank fucked up. The bank then stated "No, we did not" So it was fair to assume that the bank did indeed not fuck up. Hence, the unlikely scenario seemed more plausible.

In the event that the clerk tells you "Keep the change!" And you're not actually allowed to do that as per store policy, then who gets punished, you or the clerk?

He ALREADY thought the bank fucked up. The bank then stated "No, we did not" So it was fair to assume that the bank did indeed not fuck up.

See, it is the "keep the change" scenario. The bank didn't say "keep the change". They disagreed. They didn't say "ah, don't worry about it. It was our error so you can have it." They said, "we really think this is your account." There's a large difference. They were wrong. He wasn't. He knew he wasn't. And when he took money any reasonable person would know didn't belong to them, it's stealing.