Re: Overheard on the scanner

On  Sat, 17 May 2008 13:19:36 -0700 David Friedman
<ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> carved the following into the hard
stone of rec.arts.sf.fandom 
>In article <he1u249hpcflsn9lbh4io2df88csqcq99r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On  15 May 2008 21:30:47 -0400 "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> carved the following into the hard stone of rec.arts.sf.fandom 
>> >Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> You're moving the goalposts.  We weren't talking about people who
>> >>> vandalize property, but about people who walk harmlessly across it
>> >>> after seeing no sign.
>> >
>> >> So, a hole ripped in the fence isn't vandalism?
>> >
>> >It isn't vandalism by every person who walks through the hole.
>> 
>> Ah. So, if someone else committs a criminal act, it's OK for you to
>> benefit from it?
>
>Frequently.
>
>Suppose I'm one of the two physicians in a town, and someone murders the 
>other. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with my benefitting 
>from the reduced competition.
>
>Do you disagree?

Except that in the case of the ripped fence, you are taking advantage
of the physical act.  At better analogy would be a bank robber drops a
bag of money in front of you while fleeing. You haven't robbed the
bank, but if you take the money you are just as guilty of theft.

>Consider a more recent and less defensible example. The state of Texas 
>decides that a pregnant woman is a minor, despite her showing them a 
>birth certificate showing that she is 22. Since they claim she is a 
>minor, they hold her in state custody. She has a baby. They finally 
>decide to concede that she is, in fact, 22. But since her baby was born 
>in Texas and they have been arguing that all members of her religious 
>sect are presumptively unfit as parents, they claim the right to seize 
>the baby. 
>
>The baby was born in Texas only because they had held her there, which 
>they now concede they had no right to do. Does that mean they can't 
>claim control over the baby? Legally speaking I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

That is indefensible because it violated her right against
unreasonable search and seizure.

However, I fail to see how it relates to the case of seeing a fence
that has been obviously vandlaized to create an opening, and assuming
that the owner did it to allow access.
--

Douglas E. Berry  Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might 
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel 
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784