FunkyTownNoob
Par Member
No, not at all. In fact, the only ones I've had returned to me are the ones with my social and birthday.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Harrassing Texts from Disc Thieves
- Thread starter juju
- Start date
- Status
No, not at all. In fact, the only ones I've had returned to me are the ones with my social and birthday.
FunkyTownNoob
Par Member
Why is there a legal distinction of the differences in theft then? Theft under $5000 is what they consider a hybrid offense. Over $5000 and it is an indictable offence the can carry a punishment up to 10 yrs in prison.
That is because there is a difference. Morally speaking, all theft is equal. Legally speaking, there are certain distinctions which can be made about the stolen property in question.
Pretty much every state in the country has a statute on lost, mislaid or abandoned property folks. Very few discs in existence that might be fished out of a pond or some schule are worth the gas money or mailing expenses to get back, much less getting the police involved or incurring legal fees.
But theoretically, if someone were that nuts, and you had a disc with their name and number on it, with no definitive proof of how you acquired it, its basically your word against theirs. They could simply state that the disc was taken out of their bag.
But theoretically, if someone were that nuts, and you had a disc with their name and number on it, with no definitive proof of how you acquired it, its basically your word against theirs. They could simply state that the disc was taken out of their bag.
Please don't lump me in with everyone else. I'm not talking about nor have I mentioned anything about the legality of this issue. I'm only speaking to the logic you're applying to the discussion.
My problem with these kinds of threads is the people that are rationalizing the taking and keeping of property that doesn't belong to them. Your arguments are exactly that...rationalization of something that is unethical and wrong.
FunkyTownNoob
Par Member
I never once rationalized anything unethical and wrong. I was merely pointing out flaws in the wallet/disc comparison. Playing devil's advocate if you will.
I actually do the right thing because it typically pays off in dividends. I've gotten some really sweet plastic for returning people's favorite discs and whatnot.
However, like others have stated, if someone actually pursues legal action over a disc that THEY lost and gave up on, they are ridiculous.
I actually do the right thing because it typically pays off in dividends. I've gotten some really sweet plastic for returning people's favorite discs and whatnot.
However, like others have stated, if someone actually pursues legal action over a disc that THEY lost and gave up on, they are ridiculous.
The bolded is another example of the rationalization of keeping found discs. Why is it assumed that because a disc is lost and not recovered by the owner that it was given up on? You know the circumstances of how every disc comes to be lost?
If we're going to discuss the ethics and morality of what to do with found discs, then the value should be irrelevant to the discussion. Ethically speaking, it shouldn't matter what the value of something is, thus comparing a disc to any other object is perfectly valid. If you find something that clearly belongs to someone else (name and contact info certain implies that ownership and the desire to have it returned), you shouldn't make assumptions about how it came to be where it is or what its meaning may be to the owner. You should make whatever effort you can to return the object to its owner. If you can't do that, then you should just leave it where it is and let someone else (perhaps even the owner himself) find it. Why assume that the owner has "given up" instead of assuming that they are about to come back and look for it again?
FunkyTownNoob
Par Member
I guess you missed the part where I said I'm actually a fellow disc returner. You're preaching to the choir about the moral correctness of returning discs. I don't feel we are debating the same point so let's just agree to disagree.
Just because I'm quoting your posts, doesn't mean I'm addressing only you. I saw the part where you're a disc returner (good for you). But the things you're saying are a good jumping off point for the things I wanted to say. Nothing personal.
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
Not all lost discs have been given up on.
Examples of ways that I've lost a disc:
It fell out of my bag without me realizing it
Playing doubles, we take my partner's lie and forget to pick mine up
Throwing multiple shots and forgetting to count how many I threw when picking them up
Looking until the sun goes down for a disc that, unbeknownst to me, rolled away from the area where I was looking and was sitting on the next fairway
Letting a noob borrow a disc, they throw it and weren't paying attention to where it went and thus are no help in the recovery effort
Trying to play a quick round before work, shank a drive, spend 20 minutes looking and realize that I have to leave now or be late to work
and the list goes on...
Examples of ways that I've lost a disc:
It fell out of my bag without me realizing it
Playing doubles, we take my partner's lie and forget to pick mine up
Throwing multiple shots and forgetting to count how many I threw when picking them up
Looking until the sun goes down for a disc that, unbeknownst to me, rolled away from the area where I was looking and was sitting on the next fairway
Letting a noob borrow a disc, they throw it and weren't paying attention to where it went and thus are no help in the recovery effort
Trying to play a quick round before work, shank a drive, spend 20 minutes looking and realize that I have to leave now or be late to work
and the list goes on...
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,316
Finding the disc in the bush is not "taking." It is finding. No reasonable person would argue with you on that point. Taking the disc from the bush is, however, "taking." Theft is the taking part. The "possession" drivel you are making up so it won't appear that you know as little as you do has nothing to do with the crime of theft.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,316
You are confusing property law with criminal law. It's an easy trap to get caught in. Theft is a crime that must be statutorily defined in the US. The question as to whom is the owner of property is defined by the common law in many, but not all states, but it is a completely different analysis altogether from what constitutes the crime of theft.
FunkyTownNoob
Par Member
Obviously the Semantics Game is one you most certainly like to play. But judging from your Forum Police signature, and your overall demeaning tone in your post, I'll politely decline. Don't have time for people with no respect for other's opinions.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,316
Wrong! There's quite the difference.
You do not get charged with the same crime if you keep or steal someone's disc as you would if you kept or stole their wallet or car.
Comparing discs to anything else valuable is wrong and dumb.
Not getting charged with the same exact same crime also has nothing to do with whether or not taking the disc or wallet is theft. For example, first degree and second degree murder are still "murder" and there are many other specific murder statutes.
There are many other distinctions and specific statutes that define some thefts as misdemeanors or felonies or define specific punishments depending upon either the value or classification of the thing that was taken. But they are all still theft.
As to dumb, I'm guessing that you give yourself a special exemption.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,316
Yes, definitely call it semantics when you get it wrong, especially when your argument is a semantic one itself. :doh: Your "opinion" about what is theft is objectively wrong because theft has a definition. Taking a disc that doesn't belong to you with the intention of keeping it is theft. Don't expect respect for your opinion when it is contrary to something that is so well defined.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,316
Me: It's not the same
Doof: You're wrong, it is the same and here's why they're different.
Me:
I'll help you out. It's animals and elephants.
Jay Dub: They're not animals, they're elephants. Comparing the two is stupid and wrong.
Me: Even if it's an elephant, it's still an animal.
Jay Dub:
Simple Enough
If someone puts her/his number or Email on a disc, they would like to get it back. You are not obliged to call but you should not keep the disc. You can compromise by leaving it at the course if you don't want to make the contact.
If someone does not write his/her number or Email on the disc, you should feel free to keep it. No extraordinary effort required to locate the owner but feel free to do so if you wish.
I write my name or initials in my discs but only to distinguish them from other people's on the course. If I leave a disc at a course, then whoever finds it is free to keep it.
If someone puts her/his number or Email on a disc, they would like to get it back. You are not obliged to call but you should not keep the disc. You can compromise by leaving it at the course if you don't want to make the contact.
If someone does not write his/her number or Email on the disc, you should feel free to keep it. No extraordinary effort required to locate the owner but feel free to do so if you wish.
I write my name or initials in my discs but only to distinguish them from other people's on the course. If I leave a disc at a course, then whoever finds it is free to keep it.
My point was to let the finders keepers crowd know they generally have no legal high standing in keeping a disc they found unless they can prove the person who put it wherever they found had no intention of getting it back. A moral conundrum that could likely be resolved with a simple phone call.
- Status
Similar threads
