What is the obsession with creating crime?

It would be true justice if the guy on the bike sued the prankster for his injuries. That stunt could seriously hurt someone, thief or no.

This guy's priorities are so out of whack, it literally makes him a criminal. To create and stop would-be property crime, he creates a situation that potentially endangers the life and limb of people?

Soooooo... you aren't going to upvote my video then?

>> ^longde:
What is the obsession with creating crime?
It would be true justice if the guy on the bike sued the prankster for his injuries. That stunt could seriously hurt someone, thief or no.
This guy's priorities are so out of whack, it literally makes him a criminal. To create and stop some would be property crime, he create a situation that potentially endangers the life and limb of people?

I disagree with the first post. GO Go GO, I am all for this guy doing this; one of those people might clue in to something, chances are they wont but its fun to watch thief's get fucked, and they 100 percent wholeheartedly deserve to get a broken face from the bike collapsing.

Your vagina reeks from here.>> ^longde:
What is the obsession with creating crime?
It would be true justice if the guy on the bike sued the prankster for his injuries. That stunt could seriously hurt someone, thief or no.
This guy's priorities are so out of whack, it literally makes him a criminal. To create and stop would-be property crime, he creates a situation that potentially endangers the life and limb of people?

That was a whole lot of buildup for a very small payoff.

Hope the "filmmaker" ends up bankrupt...now -that's- a video I'd upvote.

how come everybody here has the bike thief's back. Because he's black or because you're all bike thieves? Stop with the white guilt already, it's retarded.

Quite possibly the oldest video on the internet!

>> ^rottenseed:
how come everybody here has the bike thief's back. Because he's black or because you're all bike thieves? Stop with the white guilt already, it's retarded.


I didn't even watch long enough to see the race of the thief. I saw a guy setting a trap, and gloating about how he was going to injure (or worse) someone who fell for his bait. His 15 seconds of fame does not justify such sociopathic behavior. It would only be justice if he winds up paying someone's medical bills for life.

Fuck him. And if you support him, you too.

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^rottenseed:
how come everybody here has the bike thief's back. Because he's black or because you're all bike thieves? Stop with the white guilt already, it's retarded.

I didn't even watch long enough to see the race of the thief. I saw a guy setting a trap, and gloating about how he was going to injure (or worse) someone who fell for his bait. His 15 seconds of fame does not justify such sociopathic behavior. It would only be justice if he winds up paying someone's medical bills for life.
Fuck him. And if you support him, you too.



I will admit, I was very curious. But I do thank you for reaffirming why I "ignore" you.

Nothing to do with race in my case, and everything to do with reckless pseudo-vigilantism. If the filmmaker put a tracer on the bike and then confronted the thief with some cops, I wouldn't have a problem with the concept. But this way, he can hurt not only the would-be thief, but innocent people who don't expect to have to dodge an out of control bicycle.

Plus the whole Compton angle is so contrived. If you abandon a bike in a busy intersection for hours, what do you expect but someone will pick it up. Those kids are not the 'career' bike thieves the cameraman is supposed to be targeting.

Should have put a grenade under the saddle.. that's a proper booby trap.

Let's just cut to the chase, and get a rope. That's what some of you folks seem to want...

Right they're not career bike thieves. It's just their hobby along with building ships in bottles. This was quite simply a prank...and a prank that you can be sure the victim deserved more than most other pranks. The bike wasn't set up to disassemble and the brakes weren't cut so there's really nothing the prankster did to put their lives at risk. He even made it so they can't ride fast.

All of that though, doesn't even matter. So what if you bring cops into it? You think the bike thief would rather meet up with a cop that'll make him do community service, pay fines, or worse yet, do time? Hell no, he'd prefer to fall on his ass and be laughed at compared to your alternate solution to sting bike thieves.

Also, I hate how you make stealing bikes seem like it's a mistake anybody could make now and again.>> ^longde:
Nothing to do with race in my case, and everything to do with reckless pseudo-vigilantism. If the filmmaker put a tracer on the bike and then confronted the thief with some cops, I wouldn't have a problem with the concept. But this way, he can hurt not only the would-be thief, but innocent people who don't expect to have to dodge an out of control bicycle.
Plus the whole Compton angle is so contrived. If you abandon a bike in a busy intersection for hours, what do you expect but someone will pick it up. Those kids are not the 'career' bike thieves the cameraman is supposed to be targeting.

I'd much rather the thief learn not to steal with a few bumps on his bottom than having a criminal record that follows him ensuring he'll always be a criminal.

>> ^blankfist:
I'd much rather the thief learn not to steal with a few bumps on his bottom than having a criminal record that follows him ensuring he'll always be a criminal.


Well said, almost noone hires ex-cons which leads to the only other outcome: do more crimes to survive.

The kids are not dedicated bike thieves. The situation that is set up is completely contrived and morally gray in my book. The protagonist just put an unattended bike haphazardly on a random street corner for a few hours. Nobody does that. It's a completely unrealistic situation. I could lace a 50 dollar bill with the flu virus, and then find a sidewalk in a poor trailer park or ghetto and have the same effect. I hate it when police try to entrap people, and I like it even less when regular citizens try to get into that act.

From the title, the hostility of the viewer is supposed to be towards dedicated bike thieves; the kind that from my memory prey in parks and college campuses (or beaches) and cut bike chains. The loser of a filmmaker probably spent hours combing the places where bike thieves usually prey, with no luck. So, he found a poor neighborhood, and abandoned his bike there. Even then, it still takes a while before the kids actually take the bait.

How do you know what the sabotage of the bike would do? Neither you nor the filmmaker are certified sabotage engineers. The injury it would cause is unpredictable. In my book, injuring a human being weighs more on the scale of justice than stealing a bicycle.

>> ^rottenseed:
Right they're not career bike thieves. It's just their hobby along with building ships in bottles. This was quite simply a prank...and a prank that you can be sure the victim deserved more than most other pranks. The bike wasn't set up to disassemble and the brakes weren't cut so there's really nothing the prankster did to put their lives at risk. He even made it so they can't ride fast.
All of that though, doesn't even matter. So what if you bring cops into it? You think the bike thief would rather meet up with a cop that'll make him do community service, pay fines, or worse yet, do time? Hell no, he'd prefer to fall on his ass and be laughed at compared to your alternate solution to sting bike thieves.
Also, I hate how you make stealing bikes seem like it's a mistake anybody could make now and again.>> ^longde:
Nothing to do with race in my case, and everything to do with reckless pseudo-vigilantism. If the filmmaker put a tracer on the bike and then confronted the thief with some cops, I wouldn't have a problem with the concept. But this way, he can hurt not only the would-be thief, but innocent people who don't expect to have to dodge an out of control bicycle.
Plus the whole Compton angle is so contrived. If you abandon a bike in a busy intersection for hours, what do you expect but someone will pick it up. Those kids are not the 'career' bike thieves the cameraman is supposed to be targeting.

I don't think tempting young people to steal is helpful at all. Instead of setting up opportunities to commit crime, we should be investing in ways to get young people to better themselves.

The film guy did not set this up to help those youth though, he did it to exploit them for entertainment.>> ^blankfist:
I'd much rather the thief learn not to steal with a few bumps on his bottom than having a criminal record that follows him ensuring he'll always be a criminal.

Ya, pranks get played on normal, non-criminal types all the time. I don't see why setting up a bike thief for some hilarity is any less funny. I take it when you watched candid camera or someone creeps up behind you and says BOO you wouldn't have the same type of righteous indignation. I mean sociopathic behavior? Really? I would wager that theft is more against society then some humor at their expense.

Your comments are just like the objection of the receptionist from liar liar. Where the thief falls in from a sky light, lands on a knife and sues the homeowner and wins. I don't want to live in your world.

Pseudo-vigilantism? Pseudo-vigilantism technically refers to controversial cases of self-defense, of which this has nothing to do with. Nor is this Neo-vigilantism which refers to bounty hunting and lynchings. No, this isn't any type of illegal law enforcement at all. I don't think this word means what you want it to mean. You are trying to make a stronger sounding case by using flowery words.

"and get a rope". This is text book straw man argumentation. No one is suggesting hanging as a form of punishment for bike theft, though in my neck of the woods you are liable to get shot if you mosey up onto someones property and take something.

"Compton angle is so contrived" Going somewhere with high crime rates isn't contrived. It is right next to New beach, so it was a pretty close spot if you know the area.

Personally, I wanted to see some type of spring mounted groin eradication device. That would be schweet!

Leaving your bike to go into a store isn't entrapment. Is it entrapment if I don't lock my car now? Was it entrapment that made the first scum bag knock the bike over and leave it there?

The bike was there for at least an hour (by the movement of the shadow of the street light pole); so he didn't just walk in for a quick trip.

Knocking over a bike is not a crime. >> ^burdturgler:
Leaving your bike to go into a store isn't entrapment. Is it entrapment if I don't lock my car now? Was it entrapment that made the first scum bag knock the bike over and leave it there?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
"and get a rope". This is text book straw man argumentation. No one is suggesting hanging as a form of punishment for bike theft...


Right, he just removed the steering capability, crippled the brakes (that's what direct-drive does, you know), and put this bike next to a busy intersection. You still think it'd be funny if the thief had fallen in the street and gotten run over? What about the poor driver of the car that did it...no problem for him either, I suppose. This is flat out criminal behavior.

And what neck of the woods do you live in? I want to be sure to give it a wide berth. Texas, I'm betting...that testosterone poisoning has a familiar sound.

And neither is tipping someone's car over, amirite?
>> ^longde:
Knocking over a bike is not a crime. >> ^burdturgler:
Leaving your bike to go into a store isn't entrapment. Is it entrapment if I don't lock my car now? Was it entrapment that made the first scum bag knock the bike over and leave it there?

You hoping its a crime (so you can brand the guy a criminal) doesn't make it so. Please explain how knocking over a bike is a crime.>> ^That1Swede:
And neither is tipping someone's car over, amirite?
>> ^longde:
Knocking over a bike is not a crime. >> ^burdturgler:
Leaving your bike to go into a store isn't entrapment. Is it entrapment if I don't lock my car now? Was it entrapment that made the first scum bag knock the bike over and leave it there?

Is vandalism is no longer a crime?
>> ^longde:
You hoping its a crime doesn't make it so. >> ^That1Swede:
And neither is tipping someone's car over, amirite?
>> ^longde:
Knocking over a bike is not a crime. >> ^burdturgler:
Leaving your bike to go into a store isn't entrapment. Is it entrapment if I don't lock my car now? Was it entrapment that made the first scum bag knock the bike over and leave it there?

He didn't destroy or deface the bike, he just knocked it over.>> ^That1Swede:
Is vandalism is no longer a crime?
>> ^longde:
You hoping its a crime doesn't make it so. >> ^That1Swede:
And neither is tipping someone's car over, amirite?
>> ^longde:
Knocking over a bike is not a crime. >> ^burdturgler:
Leaving your bike to go into a store isn't entrapment. Is it entrapment if I don't lock my car now? Was it entrapment that made the first scum bag knock the bike over and leave it there?

Seriously? Are we down to dissecting this in such a granular fashion that we're honestly arguing whether someone was wrong for knocking over the bike? This is lame.

The bike was someone's property. It doesn't matter that the bike owner was baiting someone; in the end the bike was stolen by a kid who knew what he was doing was wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have walked around the bike so many times scoping the area before taking it.

Sure, the guy who baited the trap is a tool. Fine. I probably wouldn't hang out with the guy personally, but that's incidental to the fact that the kid stole the bike.

If you are upset about this setup then you should:

-Keep your house's windows unlocked... if someone has to break the glass to steal your stuff then they might get hurt.
-Make sure your alarm is turned off... loud noises could damage their hearing.
-Keep your house orderly... an intruder could twist an ankle in the darkness.
-Ignore missing property... pressing charges could result in jail time and hurt feelings.

That is the opposite of what peeves me about the video. Film guy went out of his way to tempt someone to steal and thereby create a crime. >> ^Psychologic:
If you are upset about this setup then you should:
-Keep your house's windows unlocked... if someone has to break the glass to steal your stuff then they might get hurt.
-Make sure your alarm is turned off... loud noises could damage their hearing.
-Keep your house orderly... and intruder could twist an ankle in the darkness.
-Ignore missing property... pressing charges could result in jail time and hurt feelings.

You're leaving out 'damaged', though I suppose he could've intentionally knocked the bike over for some other reason. I guess I'm not understanding your view here. If I intentionally knocked you over you wouldn't consider it a crime?
>> ^longde:
He didn't destroy or deface the bike, he just knocked it over.

As far as I can tell he didn't damage the already sabotaged bike.

Battery (knocking over a person) is equivalent to knocking over a bike?>> ^That1Swede:
You're leaving out 'damaged', though I suppose he could've intentionally knocked the bike over for some other reason. I guess I'm not understanding your view here. If I intentionally knocked you over you wouldn't consider it a crime?
>> ^longde:
He didn't destroy or deface the bike, he just knocked it over.

>> ^longde:
That is the opposite of what peeves me about the video. Film guy went out of his way to tempt someone to steal and thereby create a crime. >> ^Psychologic:
If you are upset about this setup then you should:
-Keep your house's windows unlocked... if someone has to break the glass to steal your stuff then they might get hurt.
-Make sure your alarm is turned off... loud noises could damage their hearing.
-Keep your house orderly... and intruder could twist an ankle in the darkness.
-Ignore missing property... pressing charges could result in jail time and hurt feelings.



I'm tempting people to break into my house because I insist on having one. Hell, I even put it in plain sight near a road!

If it had been a different, non-sabotaged, bike would you consider it a crime?

I was curious as to to what you would consider a crime since this guy knocking someone's property over apparently did not. So, sure, for the sake of argument, intentionally knocking a person over (who, lets say, as far as we can tell takes no damage from that fall) is equivalent to intentionally knocking someone's bike over. Unless of course the person was 'tempting' you to knock them over by say.. leaning against a wall somewhere.
>> ^longde:
As far as I can tell he didn't damage the already sabotaged bike.
Battery (knocking over a person) is equivalent to knocking over a bike?>> ^That1Swede:
You're leaving out 'damaged', though I suppose he could've intentionally knocked the bike over for some other reason. I guess I'm not understanding your view here. If I intentionally knocked you over you wouldn't consider it a crime?
>> ^longde:
He didn't destroy or deface the bike, he just knocked it over.

I feel like we're ganging up on longde. I'm going to not do that now and stop participating.

By the way, I just realized your name is essentially "Long D" as in "Long Dick". That's funny.

I wonder why the guy from Compton is a thief and stole the bike and the people from Newport Beach didn't?

Definitely showcases one of the differences in the way people think.

To me, the film maker's reckless endangerment of others for his own amusement/aggrandizement is morally wrong because intentionally creating a situation that is likely to harm someone is the same thing as directly doing something to harm someone. It's only made worse by the fact that it's being done for entertainment purposes, not out of any attempt to defend themselves or their property. It's about the intent to do harm to another person, just for laughs.

To others, the endangerment is no biggie because a) the guy didn't get seriously hurt (as far as we know), and b) the guy only was endangered because he did something criminal. The harm to the thief doesn't matter, because thieves apparently forfeit their right to life and limb when they steal.

The way I see things, both people here did something wrong, to the point where honest, fair minded libertarians should agree that both the thief and the film maker owe each other restitution. They might not be equal, but that has more to do with how badly the thief was harmed, not whether or not the thief was harmed in the course of stealing.

If you think the film maker is free of all blame, then I should let you know that based on your moral logic, you should defend my right to replace all the pens in your workplace with pens that will explode if removed from company property, without warning anyone.

After all, stealing is wrong, so any extra damage you incur from my additional "security" is your own fault, not mine. Oh, and any proceeds I make from the film of you blowing up when you walk into the parking lot are mine fair and square.

I wonder if he had fallen and was run over if the guy who set this up would of turned himself in.

Ohh and whats the old saying? "Locks just keep an honest man honest."

> ^blankfist:
I feel like we're ganging up on longde.


I can only speak for myself, but my arguments for (or against) any idea have nothing to do with the person communicating that idea.

In this particular case the video guy is leaving a bike unattended, which is fairly common where I live because it's unlikely to get stolen. Of course this is the south... people here don't booby-trap bikes, they just shoot the person trying to steal them.

This video is called "Booby-trapped bike teaches thief a lesson!" and for all we know, it did. Can anyone prove that didn't happen? Maybe, just maybe him or one of the people that were with him, or who saw him, will think twice before they decide to steal the next bike. Maybe this was the moment that changed his life and set him on a new path toward fulfilling his potential. So instead of being endangered he becomes empowered. I don't know. What I do know is that exploding pens sound awesome to me.

FYI to anyone who cares. Filmmaker is one word, not two. Carry on.

>> ^NetRunner:
The harm to the thief doesn't matter, because thieves apparently forfeit their right to life and limb when they steal.

I doubt many people wanted to see the guy die, but no one ever promised him that the bike he stole was in good working order. Would it have changed the situation if he were injured by an inadvertently defective bike?


>> If you think the film maker is free of all blame, then I should let you know that based on your moral logic, you should defend my right to replace all the pens in your workplace with pens that will explode if removed from company property, without warning anyone.

Pens? No, it's possible to accidentally steal a pen. It's difficult to accidentally steal a bike, so maybe a better analogy would be exploding desktop computers.

Of course, bikes are dangerous in their normal operation where as computers don't normally explode, so it loses that crucial element of irony. I'd say send him to prison, but that just seems cruel. =)

I don't feel ganged up on. It's interesting to see the various points of view.


'Longde' is chinese. >> ^blankfist:
I feel like we're ganging up on longde. I'm going to not do that now and stop participating.
By the way, I just realized your name is essentially "Long D" as in "Long Dick". That's funny.

He sees long dick everywhere .. don't worry about it.

>> ^blankfist:
FYI to anyone who cares. Filmmaker is one word, not two. Carry on.


I thought so too, but spell check put all kinds of red lines on it, and I figured maybe it knew what it was talking about. Guess not.

>> ^Psychologic:
Would it have changed the situation if he were injured by an inadvertently defective bike?


If the filmmaker just put a bike out and waited for it to be stolen and then the bike fell apart without having been sabotaged by the filmmaker, then yeah, I'd probably hold the filmmaker blameless (though I'd wonder what the original purpose of the setup was).

If the thief got hurt because the bike had a dangerous factory defect that injured him seconds after he stole the bike, I would say that in a just world he should still be able to sue the bike company to get reimbursed for his injuries.

I suspect no court would hear the case, especially because he's a poor black kid from Compton who stole a bike, but I don't really think that his crime or his social status should mean he's got any less of a legal standing than some rich white kid who got the bike as a birthday present and got hurt by the same defect.

^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

I see one difference in how we think: I take crime that harms (or potentially harms) people alot more seriously than property crime. That's why a guy who sabotages a bike offends me more than a bike thief.

But you still have not proven that knocking over a bike is a crime.

In your hypothetical situation, the law agrees with me also, which is why battery is a felony, and knocking over a bike is not even a misdemeanor.


>> ^That1Swede:
If it had been a different, non-sabotaged, bike would you consider it a crime?
I was curious as to to what you would consider a crime since this guy knocking someone's property over apparently did not. So, sure, for the sake of argument, intentionally knocking a person over (who, lets say, as far as we can tell takes no damage from that fall) is equivalent to intentionally knocking someone's bike over. Unless of course the person was 'tempting' you to knock them over by say.. leaning against a wall somewhere.
>> ^longde:
As far as I can tell he didn't damage the already sabotaged bike.
Battery (knocking over a person) is equivalent to knocking over a bike?>> ^That1Swede:
You're leaving out 'damaged', though I suppose he could've intentionally knocked the bike over for some other reason. I guess I'm not understanding your view here. If I intentionally knocked you over you wouldn't consider it a crime?
>> ^longde:
He didn't destroy or deface the bike, he just knocked it over.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P


If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!


America, we take our right to our lives for granted so much that we punish people for doing what they want to their property to protect those that lie cheat and steal.

If you knock over a bike and damage that property, it's a case of property damage. If you steal the bike, it's a case of property theft.

Both are civil cases, right?

>> ^Psychologic:
If you are upset about this setup then you should:
-Keep your house's windows unlocked... if someone has to break the glass to steal your stuff then they might get hurt.
-Make sure your alarm is turned off... loud noises could damage their hearing.
-Keep your house orderly... an intruder could twist an ankle in the darkness.
-Ignore missing property... pressing charges could result in jail time and hurt feelings.


when an uncle of mine was living in philadelphia, he would intentionally leave his car door unlocked, because he knew someone would just steal something from inside it, and this way they didn't break the glass. although, i think that was more about repairs than the thief's safety.

I want to see the video where the filmmaker(s) confronts the kids that stole the bike. Why didn't they show that?

Also, say someone puts an unwanted television at the curb and someone comes along and takes it. Is that person a thief?

While the rest of you have been debating the ethics of this video, I just stole all your bikes.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!

America, we take our right to our lives for granted so much that we punish people for doing what they want to their property to protect those that lie cheat and steal.


Actually, it's more like "In America, we take our rights for granted so much that we think that people who commit crimes don't have any."

Read my qualifications again, and think about why there's a big difference between that and "doing what they want to protect their property."

Incidentally, do you think it's okay to put landmines in your backyard because you don't like the neighbor's kids taking shortcuts across your lawn (i.e. trespassing)?

>> ^blankfist:
If you knock over a bike and damage that property, it's a case of property damage. If you steal the bike, it's a case of property theft.
Both are civil cases, right?


Good question. Certainly the libertarian view would say yes. I'm pretty sure that in most states the theft would be a criminal matter, though probably one the cops would all but ignore due to the low value of the theft involved. Personally, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about whether it's dealt with through civil court or criminal at that level.

Ramp it up to cars instead of bikes, and I think you've got a case where I'd take a stronger stand for the status quo. If someone breaks the windows on my car, slashes my tires, and keys my car, likely it's going to be a criminal case of vandalism. Ditto if someone steals my car.

Accidental vehicle-on-vehicle damage is more complex, but ultimately that's largely handled as a civil suit, even if it's one where there are technically criminal penalties involved if any party fails to deal with the civil settlement in good faith.

I have owned bikes all of my life. In that time, I have knocked over my own bikes countless times, either by mistake, or by crashing, etc.

You cannot damage a bicycle by knocking it over once, as in the video. (I'm talking more than 1 cent of damage)

Thus, there is no crime. The fact that the bike was sabotaged in the first place lessens the 'knockers' culpability even more.

>> ^blankfist:
If you knock over a bike and damage that property, it's a case of property damage. If you steal the bike, it's a case of property theft.
Both are civil cases, right?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!

America, we take our right to our lives for granted so much that we punish people for doing what they want to their property to protect those that lie cheat and steal.

Actually, it's more like "In America, we take our rights for granted so much that we think that people who commit crimes don't have any."
Read my qualifications again, and think about why there's a big difference between that and "doing what they want to protect their property."
Incidentally, do you think it's okay to put landmines in your backyard because you don't like the neighbor's kids taking shortcuts across your lawn (i.e. trespassing)?


About the landmines, people do that in New Mexico and people, as a consequence, don't trespass. You don't have the right not to be maimed when taking something that isn't yours. That right results in the crazy ass law suits of people stealing your stuff and suing you for hurting themselves. Where as I wouldn't put mines in my backyard to keep people off, people shoot trespassers in my state and are protected by law to do so.

This isn't even a case of people protecting their property however. None of these measures were being used in a way to prevent the bike from being stolen. They were done to get some luls off of anyone who rode the bike. Being that the bike wasn't theirs, they took the risk riding it, and as such inherit all the culpability of that action. It is different than, say, throwing a bunch of marbles at a crosswalk and watching people fall over. When he took the bike, he inherited the risk of not knowing any of the ways in which that bike worked, or in this case, was deficient. The fact that it was purposefully made defective is moot.

This doesn't carry over to other situations because other situations require an initial point of contract. Like if you buy a car, turns out to be a lemon you can sometimes sue because of the initial point of contact where you were buying "A" and got "B" instead. This person is taking "B" assuming it is "A" and getting pie in his face as a result. There was no fraud as there was no initial point of contract. The thief could of easily of just walked the bike away instead of riding it if he knew this bike wasn't for riding.

So you know, booby-trapping your property with the intention to cause harm to those who disturb it is illegal. Just thought you should know that, since you're pasting your face on a crime and giggling while uploading it to the internet.

And landmines in New Mexico... are you kidding me? Not only is that patently illegal it is a violation of the Geneva convention...

You actually DO have the right not to be maimed when stealing things/breaking and entering/tresspassing and the like. In some states you can be shot by the owner and that is fine since it is not a dumb trap, but a (potentially dumb) person making a decision. There are many many court cases upholding this right all over the US. Google it.

Poor thief hurting himself like that. We need to get him some money, that will ease his pain.

Can I take my vote back? This video, and the entire comment thread it spawned, is fucking annoying.

Screw you, ACLU pussies. I bet you thought Kevin should have been sued by the thieves in the Home Alone movies too.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!


What if I include a note on the seat that says "do not steal car"? =)

http://teevirus.com/product/I-AM-A-MOTHER-FUCKER

>> ^longde:
I have owned bikes all of my life. In that time, I have knocked over my own bikes countless times, either by mistake, or by crashing, etc.
You cannot damage a bicycle by knocking it over once, as in the video. (I'm talking more than 1 cent of damage)
Thus, there is no crime. The fact that the bike was sabotaged in the first place lessens the 'knockers' culpability even more.



In a civil case you have to prove damages, and also whether there are damages or not doesn't make the act criminal. I doubt damaging someone's bike would be criminal in any state, though maybe in California. Ha. We have a law for everything. Jay walking may one day get you life.

Also whether or not you've knocked over your own bike in the past and how ever much damage was created is anecdotal. If someone knocks over a person's bike and he can prove reasonable damages, he can seek restitution. You may say it's a penny worth of damage, but it's not your call to determine how much damage costs for compensation of a person's property. A reasonable patch job of paint may cost the plaintiff $30 or so, and the person responsible for damaging the bike has a reasonable obligation to make the person whole again. An unscratched bike is being made whole.

However, obviously, if he asked for a brand new bike as compensation, he would not be asking to be made whole. Instead he'd be asking to be made better than he was prior to the damage, which is not reasonable and no small claims court would rule in his favor.

I think that would have made the video better.
>> ^Stormsinger:
You still think it'd be funny if the thief had fallen in the street and gotten run over?

> ^NetRunner:
Actually, it's more like "In America, we take our rights for granted so much that we think that people who commit crimes don't have any."

He doesn't have "any" rights? The only right I see violated here is the right to assume a stolen bicycle will work correctly. If he had strapped a bomb to it then I would agree with you (and the landmine analogy), but all he did was emulate a state of disrepair.

"Booby trapping" something implies adding a dangerous functionality that is not inherent to the situation. Lawns aren't expected to explode, but loose bolts are common... check them before you take off down the street.

If some guy steals a gun and accidentally shoots himself in the foot because he didn't check to see if it was loaded or the safety was off then I have a hard time blaming the owner, even if the owner left it in that condition intentionally.

caveat raptor

Properly teaching a bike thief a lesson would mean U-locking their necks to bike poles for a month with signs identifying their crime.

This guy, however, is a retard. He creates a bike thief, and then he's all, "Let this be a lesson to you", like all thieves everywhere are going to go, "Oh no! There might be soap under the grips! I'd better not steal any more bikes!" He achieves nothing.

And I hope the kid picked up the bike and ran away with it before they could catch him.

you people and your stereotypes....Testosterone is the least of your worries when you dissuade vigilantism of any kind in this day and age of illusory safety and comfort, and fair and level moralities for everyone...welcome to the world of the real-or, go live in bumfuck Idaho, Vancouver, or Sri Lanka-How about Singapore..where the punishment of spitting gum on the street fits the crime of caning??...

I would love to live in singapore; in fact, I have been working on a work visa for there.

> ^messenger:
He creates a bike thief...


How? Do you mean that he created crime by allowing people to see property that wasn't theirs?

Wouldn't that mean stores create crime by selling items that people would rather have for free? Does this mean that children and attractive women create sexual predators as well?

I swear I'll work Hitler into this argument somehow...

There was no bike thief made this day. People who don't steal bikes won't grab the first one they see leaning up against the wall. People who don't steal bikes wouldn't case the joint for a good few minutes before making a move. This was not the first time that he attempted to gain lulz at the expense of others. With this is mind, I feel that this was a just punishment.

@ ad-absurdumfags
Even though the bike was unsafe to ride, in both situations it was on a flat surface and sabotaged to the point that no thief would have gotten far enough to get the speed to injure themselves.

land mines/=soapy handlebars

I would guess that if the bike were a more expensive type it would have been taken sooner. I'd say most people who saw it thought it was too junky to bother and didn't want to get in trouble over a 50 dollar bike. I think the last guy who took it saw that it was unattended long enough that it was an easy grab.

And while the guy intentionally sabotaged the bike.....it's not as if he deprived the guy of his ability to check it out to make sure it was safe to ride first. Loosening bolts is detectable as it would wiggle, spinning the pedal, gripping the handles and twisting to make sure they were tight. Along with making sure the seat wasn't loosened and the tires were inflated. Why didn't he do these things? Because he stealing, but again........no one deprived him of the chance to check it out first.

This is more along the lines of people who steal a non-maintained car that loses a tire, has no brakes, no power steering, one extremely flat tire, etc. You, the thief, created a situation where you didn't take the time to check a few basic things.....so whatever happens from there on is on your head. If you kill someone because you can't stop, you have to deal with those charges. Not the owner of the car, hell he may have had it sitting there waiting to be repaired when you stole it. In this case, while the bike was intentionally damaged, the thief didn't bother to check and he's responsible for whatever happens after that....for all he knows the owner of the bike hurt himself on it and just left it.

This is absolutely hilarious. The liberals/socialists are chiming in that being a victim of theft is morally wrong? While their whole political platform depends on stealing from other people? Makes sense I guess (within that perspective) but whew talk about a fucked up moral compass.

Riding a shitty bike with soapy handlebars and direct-drive isn't illegal. Neither is leaving a bike against a building so this discussion is so mind boggling retarded I can't believe it generated so many responses.

I can understand the wacko socialists having their moral compass on backwards, but longde you are a pretty reasonable guy, why the defense of this?

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by burdturgler.

Bravo.... *clap*... *clap*... *clap*...

This may be the most useless waste of time I have ever seen.

I had a little free time and a desire to get my mind off work--- where the disputes are louder and even less consequential.

>> ^imstellar28:
This is absolutely hilarious. The liberals/socialists are chiming in that being a victim of theft is morally wrong? While their whole political platform depends on stealing from other people? Makes sense I guess (within that perspective) but whew talk about a fucked up moral compass.
Riding a shitty bike with soapy handlebars and direct-drive isn't illegal. Neither is leaving a bike against a building so this discussion is so mind boggling retarded I can't believe it generated so many responses.
I can understand the wacko socialists having their moral compass on backwards, but longde you are a pretty reasonable guy, why the defense of this?

I do find the feeding frenzy of commentary here fascinating.

Here's my own angle, and why I opened my yap to begin with. I could immediately tell that this would be one of those videos that would sort people into two camps, one that says "this is awesome, more people should do this", and the other that says "this is horrible, what kind of asshole does something like that?"

I fall into the latter category. I think people in the other camp are broken human beings in some way I have yet to really understand.

To me, premeditated plans to hurt other human beings are not something moral people should do without a really good reason. "Because they stole from me" just isn't enough in my book, especially if you were intentionally trying to get someone to steal from you just to give yourself a justification for inflicting harm on another human being.

I keep throwing out examples where the items stolen are essentially worthless (pens, trudging on the grass in my backyard), and where the danger I'm secretly presenting to the "criminal" is high (explosions, both times), to see whether people defend that (as GeeSussFreeK did), or if someone who supports the filmmaker's actions will clearly take a stand against landmines and exploding pens as being immoral.

The closest I've gotten is Psychologic telling me that those situations differ from what's in the video in a special way (i.e. bikes are inherently dangerous in ways that pens & grass aren't), which at least implies that he thinks landmines aren't okay.

Most are pointedly ignoring those examples, and just tossing insults at the people who think the filmmaker did something wrong.

My point is really this: you libertarians and property rights aficionados have misunderstood your own credo. What's the first axiom of libertarian philosophy? Self ownership. A person's body is their property. Whatever else you might say about the thief, his body is his property, and the filmmaker knowingly and intentionally made an effort to damage it.

It's true that the thief could have avoided the danger. But you guys always tell me that we don't need safety regulations, because if someone gets hurt by the actions of another person, that other person owes their victim restitution (imstellar in particular gets credit for explaining that one to me a year or more ago). This is why the filmmaker should be free to endanger people without hassles from the state in the first place.

So, let me restate what I said in my first comment here: they both owe each other restitution. The thief stole from the filmmaker, and should make him whole. The filmmaker also intentionally sabotaged the bike, which may have damaged the thief's property (his body), so he owes the thief restitution to make him whole.

If you walk away from that, you are not defenders of equal, individual rights, you are just a bunch of fair-weather libertarians. You want your rights respected when it means you get to skip on having to pay taxes, but when it comes to having to defend people you don't really like, you're ready to toss them to the wolves (and film the carnage and sell it to people).

This goes along the lines of On Star being able to kill the fuel to your engine when it's stolen. They are intentionally disabling the vehicle, which COULD cause an accident and harm the thief in the vehicle. Not going to bother looking it up, but the system is still around so I'll just assume they haven't been sued because the thief could have been harmed.

What if the thief steals a car with one of the tiny spare tires vehicles have? The ones where you shouldn't drive over X miles or go over Y MPH. Thief could steal it, drive down the road at 100+ mph, tire blows, accident ensues. He'd be laughed out of court. But the driver intentionally put the spare tire on it.

Or better yet, I have a bicycle and the brake pads aren't adjusted properly and are rubbing, so I back them off to where they don't rub. I go inside to get the tools to fix it, or make a call for someone to come get me and the bike.......and it's stolen. Guy gets hurt, good luck suing. Or........maybe we have one of those anti-theft systems to remove the front wheel and we didn't reattach it properly. Guy steals it, wheel comes off.

Stealing shit you know nothing about is a situation you get yourself in, the circumstances change if you ask to borrow it and the guy forgets to tell you that it's broken/defective/unsafe.

It's the equivalent of climbing a fence in the black of night, get up into some barbwire at the top and tear yourself up. The owner did it with the intention of hurting you if you climb it, because he doesn't want you in his fenced area stealing. Or electrified fencing......

and gloating about how he was going to injure (or worse) someone who fell for his bait


That never happened in the video.

c.f. Katko v. Briney.

Ideally you would use the least force (of the tools at your disposal) that is necessary to stop the theft. What lesser force could Briney have effectively used? He had already tried locking and boarding up everything, to no avail, and he certainly couldn't afford a human guard. A booby trap that dials 911 and shoots a tranquilizer dart at the criminal is a bit above the level of technology that he had to work with circa 1970 in rural Iowa.

Quote from Netrunner: they both owe each other restitution.

Precisely, they're now even.

Here, read some jurisprudence on the many variations on this theme. It's actually rather complicated

HA!!! That's awesome! I totally did this to my seven-year-old nephew once! I thought someone was stealing candy from my pantry and he had been over a lot so I set up a little surprise.

Then on Christmas when everyone was over he comes running into the living room screaming and pointing at his throat! That's right you thieving little fucker! How do you like your Snickers now! HAHAHAH!!!!11!1!!1

So anyway, the battery acid burned off most of his taste buds and vocal chords but other than that he's totally fine. And his parent's will never have to pay to have his tonsils taken out, so everyone wins! That'll teach the little shit...

How about a lesson in preventing your bike from getting stolen, like not leaving it unlocked in compton. dumb ass.

>> ^longde:
Nothing to do with race in my case, and everything to do with reckless pseudo-vigilantism. If the filmmaker put a tracer on the bike and then confronted the thief with some cops, I wouldn't have a problem with the concept. But this way, he can hurt not only the would-be thief, but innocent people who don't expect to have to dodge an out of control bicycle.
Plus the whole Compton angle is so contrived. If you abandon a bike in a busy intersection for hours, what do you expect but someone will pick it up. Those kids are not the 'career' bike thieves the cameraman is supposed to be targeting.


I disagree with your entire premise. If you leave a bike in most parts of the country, it doesn't get stolen. If we had a hundred jury rigged bikes in places like this, maybe people would stop fucking stealing shit that isn't theirs.


There's no valid defense for the thief.

The guy didnt just randomly knock the bike over. He was casing the bike, checking to see if anybody would react to the bike. Its an old ploy used when stealing things, start fucking with the object and see if anybody cares. If nobody reacts, then steal it, or have your buddy steal it. If somebody says anything this guy would just say it was an accident (or stab you in the neck and steal all your shit while doing the "Reginald Denny" dance around your body). You guys that say "he just knocked over the bike, he didnt commit a crime" are just naive, or more likely, misguided milquetoast pussys.

Yet another opinion: The bike didn't come with an guarantee of safety. Should all bikes be expected to be safe?

What if I actually had a broken bike without brakes or something and I left it somewhere before I got it fixed? Would it be my fault if someone stole it and got hurt?

What if I locked it up and someone broke through the lock? Would that change anything?

>> ^longde:
That is the opposite of what peeves me about the video. Film guy went out of his way to tempt someone to steal and thereby create a crime.

I take it you never let your pies cool on the window sill, then?

People keep suggesting hypotheticals where the person owning the bike a) didn't try to get his bike stolen, and b) didn't intentionally make the bike dangerous.

I agree, when both of those things are true, I don't think the bike owner owes the thief jack shit.

Neither is true in this case. The bike owner made his bike dangerous, and then tried to get his bike stolen -- he even changed locations to a high-crime area because no one stole it fast enough. He also made those intentions clear in a film, along with film of him successfully getting someone to ride the sabotaged bike and fall (and possibly get injured).

Ordinarily it would be hard to prove that the bike owner wanted his bike stolen, and that he intentionally sabotaged it. A bike thief presenting this theory without evidence would rightly be laughed out of court. However, the bike owner provided us hard evidence of this (i.e. the video), which changes the situation.

Just because he could have left the bike there in a dangerous state without meaning to hurt anyone doesn't matter. That isn't the actual situation depicted.

It's sort of like claiming someone laying down rat traps isn't responsible for killing the rats the traps catch -- those rats killed themselves because they were taking cheese they didn't own!

The bike owner is not creating the crime, he's exposing the personality flaw in the thief. The thief creates the crime.

He broke the law by stealing, and got hurt because of it. Did the guy try to get the bike stolen? Yep, and police do it all the time on TV leaving fancy cars/bikes in bad neighborhoods. The point is, people don't have to worry about the bike if they don't mess with it. If I don't climb over people's fences, I don't have to worry about their dog biting me. If I don't enter people's households uninvited, I don't have to worry about getting shot.

There is no gray area here, the guy stealing the bike wasn't confused if the bike was his or not. He even took the time to make sure no one was watching him as he stole it. It's no different than saying "People who have stuff outside their house want it to be stolen." And proceed to climb their barbwire fence, cut yourself to ribbons, and the owner posts the video on the internet. "Im going to teach you thieves a lesson, this nice booby trapped fence that you shouldn't be on in the first place."

Why bother owning anything if people can take whatever they want.....especially if you live in a high crime area.....and then turn around and try to sue if they manage to hurt themselves in the process of taking whatever they want.

It's a broken way of thinking where everyone has to be responsible that their property is safe for people to commit crimes on or against, and it's really silly at this point. He was old enough to know better, and maybe he's learned something from it....doubt it though.

Yes! This is classic! you are comparing the thief to a rat that cant help himself from eating the cheese even though it may be a trap. You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.
That is a really bad analogy on your part.... Or are you exactly right, this guy and people like him are comparable to rats?

>> ^NetRunner:
It's sort of like claiming someone laying down rat traps isn't responsible for killing the rats the traps catch -- those rats killed themselves because they were taking cheese they didn't own!

It's mindboggling to me that people can't see the both these parties in the video are criminals. One is taking property, and the other intentionally injured another.

I think it is sad that property is deemed more important than human life/limb.

You say that the thief deserved it? So, now its ok to take the law into your hands and mete out punishment by any means? You folks sound like minutemen.

Do you want some extra-legal person meting out punishment to you when you break the law (speeding, tax cheating, drug use, jay walking, etc)?

>> ^longde:
It's mindboggling to me that people can't see the both these parties in the video are criminals. One is taking property, and the other intentionally injured another.
I think it is sad that property is deemed more important than human life/limb.
You say that the thief deserved it? So, now its ok to take the law into your hands and mete out punishment by any means? You folks sound like minutemen.
Do you want some extra-legal person meting out punishment to you when you break the law (speeding, tax cheating, drug use, jay walking, etc)?


Shrug, in most places if you jay walk and get hit by a car because you didn't look, the guy driving the car isn't automatically guilty because you decided to dart into traffic. If you hadn't ran blindly into traffic, you wouldn't have been hit by the car...cars are dangerous after all.

If you're speeding to such excess that you hit another car because he pulled out in front of you in a blind corner.....the guy pulling out in front of you is not at fault for your recklessness. He set up a situation where you got in an accident, but he's not going to be charged by any sane police officer if you're doing 50 over the speed limit. If you hadn't been speeding you wouldn't have created the situation you got hurt in....speeding is dangerous after all.

If drug use impairs your judgement enough to cause you to get your ass kicked because you decided to pick a fight, in most court rooms unless the guy kicked your ass to extremes and really did a lot of damage......you'd be the guilty party and he'd be safe under self defense. But you couldn't have fought the guy if he weren't there, so it must be his fault. If you hadn't been high you would have thought better of it and not started a fight and got yourself hurt.....fighting is inherently dangerous after all.

The guy stealing the bike has no reasonable case to make against the guy who left the bike there. It's not as if he asked the guy if the bike were safe to ride, or if he had permission to use his property. It's the equivalent of diving into a fenced off pool without knowing there's water in it. There's an implicit "Don't mess with my property" when you park your car, or leave your bike outside a store when you go in. People remove the front wheels off their bikes as a anti-theft measure......does the guy who hops on it without the front wheel get to sue when he besides his face on the curb?


Simply put, the guy stealing the bike had no reasonable cause to think that bike was his or that it was fully functional and safe. He decided to chance it thinking he'd get a free bike out of it and busted his ass in the process. Hell I'd argue he even knew something was up with the bike because he was looking down at it when he first started pedaling, then he stood up to really put the speed on and shortly after he busted his ass. No one forced the guy to ride it or continue on after he had suspicion about it. Now if after he fell on the bike, the dude with the video camera ran out and kicked him in the face....... intentional harm and "extra-legal" punishment might come into play. Guy wouldn't have been hurt if he hadn't taken the bike.

>> ^csnel3:
Yes! This is classic! you are comparing the thief to a rat that cant help himself from eating the cheese even though it may be a trap. You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.
That is a really bad analogy on your part.... Or are you exactly right, this guy and people like him are comparable to rats?
>> ^NetRunner:
It's sort of like claiming someone laying down rat traps isn't responsible for killing the rats the traps catch -- those rats killed themselves because they were taking cheese they didn't own!



I'm saying that if you can predict someone's behavior, and use that ability to harm them, you're culpable for the damage you incur on your victim.

If I drop a pot of gold coins on the street, but and have it rigged to blow up if anyone moves the pot or takes a coin from it, am I really immune from all guilt?

It's kinda funny that you read that to be some sort of racist/eugenical comment. How about you, do you think thieves are genetically inferior people who's rights don't need to be respected? It might explain why you think people should be allowed to do as much harm as they like to them without being held legally responsible for it.

@NetRunner
So far you have deployed pens that blow up, landmines and exploding pots of gold. I can only assume the rat traps contain a nuclear component?

@burdturgler, nah. The rats get big spring-loaded metal bars that break their necks.

If it makes you feel better, poisoned cheese would work too. I probably should have put poison in my pot of gold rather than explosives just to mix it up a bit.

But what can I say, I like things that go boom, and people keep telling me that I can legally inflict as much harm as I like on people for my own amusement because I'm "only" killing criminals who I didn't extend a guarantee of safety to.

I figure why not go for something that really looks spectacular on film to boost sales.

I was actually looking forward to the marshmallow sized mushroom cloud.

Why I like this video and discussion: It exists in an odd moral middle ground between equally ridiculous extremes.

-Should someone be required to keep their property completely safe in case it is stolen, or are they allowed to disembowel an assailant in the street for the slightest infraction?

-If someone neglects basic safety checks in their hurry to willingly commit an illegal act, is their resulting avoidable injury any less their fault because the original owner hoped it would happen?


In these cases, my general enjoyment of the situation is a balance between the irony involved (like) and the severity of the consequences (dislike).

-When someone spends 30 minutes tearing the plexiglas shielding off a wall to get at the $20 bill someone dropped behind it, only to find that it was a fake advertisement for a local church, I laugh. The irony outweighed their loss and disappointment.

-When someone takes a shortcut across a 20ft "no trespassing" zone and loses a leg to a land mine, I feel sadness. The consequence far outweighed the severity of the infraction.

Somewhere between these extremes lies a guy in the middle of a street who was just outsmarted by a bicycle that wasn't his. He was set up on purpose by someone with more free time than sense, but he did it to himself, and as a consolation prize he got to keep a bike that wasn't worth the time it took to steal in the first place.

I didnt mean to be kinda funny. I really am amused by the way you compare the perp in this video to a rat attracted to cheese in a trap. Dont turn this back on me , you are the one who made the comparison.
No, I dont believe we can do anything we want to criminals, but, I'm all for reasonable actions againt the assholes of this world. >> ^NetRunner:
>> ^csnel3:
Yes! This is classic! you are comparing the thief to a rat that cant help himself from eating the cheese even though it may be a trap. You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.
That is a really bad analogy on your part.... Or are you exactly right, this guy and people like him are comparable to rats?
>> ^NetRunner:
It's sort of like claiming someone laying down rat traps isn't responsible for killing the rats the traps catch -- those rats killed themselves because they were taking cheese they didn't own!


I'm saying that if you can predict someone's behavior, and use that ability to harm them, you're culpable for the damage you incur on your victim.
If I drop a pot of gold coins on the street, but and have it rigged to blow up if anyone moves the pot or takes a coin from it, am I really immune from all guilt?
It's kinda funny that you read that to be some sort of racist/eugenical comment. How about you, do you think thieves are genetically inferior people who's rights don't need to be respected? It might explain why you think people should be allowed to do as much harm as they like to them without being held legally responsible for it.

@csnel3, I'd be like a rat too if someone laid a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk in front of me and had booby trapped it in some way I didn't see. I wouldn't hesitate to snatch it up.

I'm serious, I didn't mean it as a demeaning assessment of the guy who stole the bike, just as an analogous situation -- if you lay a trap with bait to injure or kill a rat, you're responsible for what happens to the rat. If you lay a trap with bait to injure or kill a person, you're responsible for what happens to the person.

I probably should have said "bear trap" instead of rat trap because it wouldn't have the same negative connotation, but then I don't think you were offended by my lapse in political correctness.

The fact that the comparison delighted you so much seems like I very much should keep turning this back on you. You were "seriously amused" by it. Why? What is it about me saying something like that tickles you so much?

I mean, I'd understand if the comparison offended you (or anyone else), but it shouldn't have been funny at all. Ideally it should have made things click into place, and made you feel a bit horrified about the events in the video.

I guess if you can prove this thief has the brain function of a rat and needed this bike to sustain his life, then we'll be in the same ball park.

Otherwise we're more in the realm of: Every time the rat attempts to take the toy of another rat, he gets flipped on his side. I think the rat would even figure it out that he probably shouldn't be taking other rat's toys, assuming he didn't realize this at the very beginning.

This comment thread took a turn for the better when NetRunner started waxing philosophical. The biggest problem I have with the video is the subtext of racism in it.

Can't get your bike stolen at the beach? Let's go to Compton, those nigga's will steal anything!

@NetRunner. I never brought up race, and I dont care if you use a bear or a rat as you try to compare animals to humans. I think its funny that you claim you cant see the difference between a 20 dollar bill in the middle of the street and a kids bicycle outside a mini-mart. I assume that you, just like most people, can tell the difference, you just dont want to, for the sake of this discussion. Why does everything have to be made a bigger deal than it really is? So again, dont paint me as a racist or put words in my mouth. Dont try to say something is wrong inside me because I'm not offended by your analogy, I am just amused with it. As John Merrik said " I am not an animal"!!.

@csnel, I started typing "I'm not saying there's no difference", but as soon as I wrote that I thought, "why is there a difference?"

I mean, unless I thought I dropped the $20, it's taking someone else's property. Why doesn't that condemn me to whatever trap the owner of the $20 bill laid for someone who stole his money?

I do understand that we don't tend to think of bills of currency as a piece of our property, since we don't care which $20 bill we have in our wallet so long as we have the total amount we expect in there, but still unless you think you're the one who dropped it, what right do you have to take something that isn't yours?

Anyways, back to the animal comparison, you did actually bring race, or at least genetics, into it when you said:

You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.

@NetRunner . There is a difference!!!! finding a $20 bill in the street is not stealing. Taking the bike from in front of the store is. Its very simple, no need for confusion.What a person does after finding the money is a seperate moral decision. I dont think that guy took the bike home and then tried to go find the rightful owner, even if he did, he still stole the bike in the first place. You ask "why is there a difference?" I say, There just is.... Why ask why?

As far as me bringing up race. Gimme a break. I was bringing up species. There is a big difference. Clearly this video is a race arguement waitng to happen, but I was not going there. I really was tring to say that man and beast are completly different, and reject the comparison of tempting a man with a kids bicycle to a piece of cheese in a rat trap.

I dont think everything has to be taken to the extreme. Nobody got murderd, blown up or decapitated. So we dont have to discuss this video like those things did happen . And I think most of the world agrees with that.
Your arguement that tempting people to break the law should net a person shared responsabilty with the criminal wont be very popular with a scantily clad rape victim.


>> ^NetRunner:
@csnel, I started typing "I'm not saying there's no difference", but as soon as I wrote that I thought, "why is there a difference?"
I mean, unless I thought I dropped the $20, it's taking someone else's property. Why doesn't that condemn me to whatever trap the owner of the $20 bill laid for someone who stole his money?
I do understand that we don't tend to think of bills of currency as a piece of our property, since we don't care which $20 bill we have in our wallet so long as we have the total amount we expect in there, but still unless you think you're the one who dropped it, what right do you have to take something that isn't yours?
Anyways, back to the animal comparison, you did actually bring race, or at least genetics, into it when you said:

You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.

@csnel3 this conversation is kinda starting to seem a bit pointless. You're not trying to give reasons for why your way of looking at things is better, you're basically just telling me you think I'm wrong, that it's obvious I'm wrong, but you can't explain why.

Anyways, just wanted to say, there's a big difference between trying to defend yourself from accusations of rape by saying the woman was wearing scantily-clad clothes, and anything I've said here.

For one, at no point am I saying the criminal gets a pass on their crimes. Whatever crime they are tempted into committing, they committed, and deserve to be legally charged for them. I'm saying that the person who entices the crime with the intent of inflicting harm on the criminal is committing their own separate crime, namely the harm they inflicted on the criminal with their actions.

It seems like a bad idea to suggest that things should be otherwise. That's all I'm saying.