A story about what gun control laws can do, one life ruined

It wasn't just some stranger's home. It was more like a family home. He grew up in that home. The theft wasn't even out of the main home but from a small side cabin on the property.
We can't really know for certain but from the story I get the feeling that the cabin was used as his dad's personal workshop and storage space. It had never been used by the stepmom and she had never spent much time inside the cabin.
And this young man was only 19 years old. He had spent lots of time in that cabin with his dad, working on father-son projects together.
I would say that very much alters the circumstances of what happened, and makes this very different from an "ordinary" theft.

It sounds like the stepmom only chose to press charges out of spite, probably because she just did not like her stepson very much.

She probably had never touched any of those tools in her life and would never have used them.

 

It was not legally his home, his father the person who lived there who might give him open permission is deceased and the property belongs to a person who is not HIM.
That means his permission if it was permission, is gone. Him having grown up there is not legally significant.
Small side cabin: Is still a dwelling place, and its still breaking and entering.

Still breaking and entering, still theft. She could never have clapped eyes on it and if she legally owned it and he didn't its still theft and breaking and entering.

He could've been 14 and itd still be theft and B&E.
Wow that's so cool!!! But its still theft and B&E.

Yes, people are allowed to do that.

Still hers not his.

 

Legally, technically, yes, it was not his.
But in every other way (ethically, morally) it's not that simple.

Arguments about how things should be should not just be all based on what the wording of the law is.

The main point wasn't that he shouldn't have been arrested, but rather that the justification to arrest him was weaker than a normal theft case. It is possible for someone to plausibly argue that he shouldn't have been arrested.

And of course all this only makes the argument stronger that he shouldn't have had his gun rights taken away. So the law is not always right, and I don't think it was meant to apply to situations like this.

 

Legally, yes. Ethics is just the study of morality, so you're basically saying the same thing since we're not contrasting professional standards vs personal morays by using a term of art as none of these people are professionals bound by a professional licensing body and their rules.
So morally/ethically: It is wrong to take things which are not legally our own. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to break and enter.

You sound like a hippie trying to justify why someone was stealing. I don't care if he needed money to feed his family, stealing is wrong, morally, ethically, legally, practically.

It was exactly as strong as a normal theft case and in fact WAS a normal theft case: He stole ****, he got caught, he got punished. Open, shut.
We don't arrest thieves now?

He shouldn't have had his gun rights taken away because the constitution demands that there are not allowed to be 2nd classes of citizens and that all citizens have certain rights including the right to keep and bear arms. That's what the law SAYS and it is IGNORED to allow for statutes which strip a felon of their rights: Creating a 2nd class of citizen which is constitutionally repugnant.

 

How many times have we read posts about complying with police when individuals have been beaten or shot by police? The victim of that beating/shooting gets no sympathy because they should have simply done what they were told by police.

As for the laws being wrong or ridiculous and resulting in people spending inordinate amounts of time in prison, a great example being addressed right now is simple possession of pot. And, again, there are many posts saying that it is a ridiculous waste of government time and energy.

 

Based on the story he broke law at least 15 times and it paying the price. I guess he finds the laws very inconvenient, but they exist for a reason. The guy is an idiot.

The "little mistakes" in this case is theft, firearms crime and escaping from custody.

 

How is it being addressed exactly? You're not talking about Biden's order are you? The one that has the effect of freeing zero persons because there are zero persons in now for simple possession in the fed system?

 

I'm referring to the pardons that will allow people the ability to gain employment and eliminate the status of pariah for simple pot possession.

 

Yeah those are illusory. Bidens order only pardons those in the federal system in jail for simple possession. A report has come out: There are exactly zero people that will be able to take advantage of that order.

 

I'm sorry, I don't agree with you.
Those tools should have been his, not the stepmother's. That was not legally the case, we agree.
If you're simply trying to make the argument that because legally they were not his, they should not have been his, I find that to be mostly a circular argument (using circular logic).

The whole point of this thread is that the law is not always right.

And even if you still believe what he did was wrong and that he should have been punished, understanding the circumstances in which he did it can still elicit sympathy for him. It is possible to view something as wrong but less wrong than the same action would be in a different situation.

Like I stated before, considering the circumstances, I think it's possible they might not have even decided to charge him with a felony if he had not tried to run away from police while carrying a gun (although doing that was technically not a crime).

 

Except legally speaking they were not and morally speaking stealing things is wrong.
If he wanted them and was legally entitled to them, there was a process available to him. At no point would that involve breaking and entering. He chose not to take it and to engage in self help remedies at his own peril.
Property rights are enshrined in law. You're saying he has a right to the property, ergo the legal niceties are relevant and dispositive.

The whole point of this thread is that you support a thief.

Stealing from a family member, particularly your father's widow, is a more debased and degenerate action than stealing from a stranger. Morally speaking.

 

Can you at least agree that there is some reason that maybe this should not have been treated exactly the same as a normal theft case?

If we were talking about a stranger breaking into someone else's home and stealing something that clearly belonged to that other person rather than the person taking it, then it would be understandable why that person would be charged with a felony.

But if you think all of that same logic should apply in this case, then I think you're not thinking about things very clearly.

Let's look at the probable facts:
The tools belonged to father.
When the son was younger, the two worked on projects together with the tools
The father almost certainly would have wanted to leave the tools to his son.
The son had been permitted to take the tools before and it was not a problem.
The tools were kept in a structure set apart from the house that the stepmother did not use, a structure that the son had spent lots of time with his father in.
The stepmother had never touched those tools and had no use for those tools, they were not hers at all before the father died.
The son was only 19 years old. Not too long before he had lived in the house, on the property, as a member of the family.

I'm not sure if this is true but according to some versions of the story I can find, the father left the tools to his son in his will, but the issue was that the probate period had not finished and the tools had not legally passed to the son yet, after the death.

 

No. As stated: Theft from a family member is actually worse. Since you want to talk morality.

Breaking in to a family member's home and stealing from them is worse than stealing from a stranger. You violate in both cases, but in the former you violate the familial bond as well.

I don't think you're thinking very clearly, since you're stumping for a thief.

And let's look at the other facts: If his dad wanted him to have it, he would've given them to him prior to death to own or left a specific devise.
Those things were apparently not done and "you weren't using it" is not a legal or moral defense to theft. Neither is "the owner used to let me borrow this".
Neither is "i used to live here" a legal or moral defense to breaking and entering.

If the father left a specific devise, he should've waited for the probate period to complete. That is the legal and morally right thing to do. He should not have broken and entered.

 

That's an unreasonable assumption. He probably couldn't have known exactly when he would die. Lots of people are not very good about planning their own estate planning. It can be a complicated process, take an expert, and lots of people don't even want to think too much about it, for several emotional reasons. And it might have just made more sense to keep the tools in the cabin, for storage purpose reasons. Likely the father did not even imagine that there would be any issue between his surviving family members. It would have been only natural for the son to go back into the cabin and take tools as he needed them or keep them stored there, even after the father's death.

It sounds like the stepmother was just being a (*)itch.

You realize the son probably had a key to the cabin that had been given to him by his father?
It sounds like the cabin was a workshop storage area.

 

There are two certain things in life: Death and taxes. If dad didn't plan out his devise by will, that's on dad. ****ing up is ****ing up. Theft is theft.

No it would not have been only natural to break and enter and take things.

Which is her absolute right as the owner of the property. And all the more reason for young son not to be such an idiot.

 

All I'm saying is that it would not have seemed so obviously morally-ethically wrong to that young man.
I, and probably many others here, probably would have done the same thing at the age of 19.

Think about it from the perspective of this young man. This is your family home. And on the property, separate from the house, is a place that you have always thought of as you and your dad's, or mainly your dad's. Your dad has always let you go in there and take whatever you want. It's not a place your stepmother ever used or went into. Then suddenly your dad dies and your stepmother you have never liked tells you to stay away.

(And then what is the stepmother going to do with tools? She's a woman and has never used those tools, nor is she likely to ever use them. Tools are kind of a "man thing". And these were tools that the son had many memories with his father over, when they both used the tools together)

Yes, legally the property reverted entirely to the stepmother at that point, but from the perspective of this young man the legal change in status is kind of like a distant abstraction.

This should not have been a reason to charge him with a felony, not with everything else a felony entails under the law.

 

Are you saying the young man wasn't taught not to take things he had not yet legally become obligated to?
Are you saying he is somehow so mentally deficient he doesn't know not to break, enter, and steal things?
He sounds criminally insane if so.

This is your step mother who apparently hates you's house. There is stuff there you get when the probate process is over. You know its not over yet. You break in and steal it anyway, because what's she going to do, call the cops? Hand, meet stove.

She would be the rightful owner until and unless divested by the will. Likewise, even if the house had been left to him directly, a widow is entitled to live in the homestead for life. Even if it were separate property this would be true. That's not his house. That's her house. You don't take things that don't belong to you.
I'm not even goin to address the "man thing" argument other than to say : That is complete and total horseshit and you know it.

Well, its not a distant abstraction now is it? Guess he should've been a person of ordinary prudence.

He was charged with a felony becasue he broke, entered, and stole. There is no exception for "but we wants it and you don't uses it precious".

 

Well, it is known he did probably have autism, and 19 years old is still not the most mature. There are plenty of things many 19 years olds do not know or fully understand.

It does seem kind of morally not right for a stepparent to take everything and not allow their stepchild to have anything after the death of that young adult child's parent, especially something that is like in this story.

 

IF he's non compos mentis such that he cannot understand that stealing is wrong, then he can be declared criminally insane and kept essentially in a maximum security hospital for life then. That doesn't seem like a good idea though.

Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
He's an adult, he's responsible for his own actions.

 

Fine, but you can agree that this was definitely not the type of case where he should have later been sentenced to prison for 4 years for having guns?

I mean, what happened here was not like a case of normal burglary.

Not saying that I agree with it, but there would have been more reason to sentence him to prison for having guns if the original crime had been something like a normal burglary.
(The logic of taking away a criminal's gun rights in the case of normal burglary is not the same logic as in this story)

 

As the law currently stands? He lost his rights. SHOULD the law say that particular part? I don't think that is constitutional, see Bruen.
Would theft still be a crime under Bruen? YEP. Would B&E? YEP.

You're right it was burglary of 1) a habitation and 2) the habitation of a family member, specifically his father's widow. Profligate. Degenerate. Reprehensible. Morally wrong.

Again: Committing crimes against a family member is often considered more heinous.

 

In my strong opinion, this wasn't a "crime" against the stepmother. Only legally was it.

The wording of the law does not always reflect what it is right, in all situations.

Even if you do argue that she still should have had the (moral-ethical) right, it still makes it a weaker argument than, for example, if he had broken into her bedroom and stolen her jewelry.

I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

This was NOT the type of situation that most people envision when they form a concept of the word "burglary" or "theft".
The main point being, there was a lack of adequate justification for the law to take away his gun rights.

 

Crimes are legal things, so that's fine. Taking things that are not one's own, or breaking in to places one does not own, are likewise morally wrong to everyone but a communist.
Morally speaking, he both entered into and took things from a place he was not entitled to enter without invitation from the owner. His invitation from his father lapsed just as soon as dad died.
He had no right, legal or moral, to do what he did.

I don't think you grasp that whether he stole something that was dear to her or that she wasn't using he still stole from a family member.
If he'd stolen her heirloom jewelery it would be worse, but both pass the minimum bar of 1) breaking and entering and 2) burglary.

I'm saying ******** where you eat, committing crimes against your own family, is often considered more profligate and degenerate behavior, not less, than attacking a stranger's property in the same fashion.
Why? Because basic bonds of loyalty and kinship should prevent you robbing a family member. If you lack that, you are little better than an animal.