Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 27, 2011 at 4:34am

The people who are treating this as if Sue is doing something evil by wanting compensation.

h' said:

"You people" who?

notoriousDUG said:

You people are jack-asses.

 

I happen to know Sue C.  I would rate her as a fine human being and an all around good person and you shits are cutting her down because, after chasing down a bike thief, recovering a bike, being involved in a physical confrontation, working with the police to see that people were arrested and making quite the effort to find the rightful owner, she would like to see a little compensation?  Maybe I just have a completely skewed moral compass but if I lost a bike that retails for 400-500 dollars I would happily pay quite a bit more than the cost of even the finest six pack of beer.  My opinion is that we, as a community, owe Sue a beer or two for taking the risk to get the bike back and putting forth the effort to find the true owner instead of a whole ration of bullshit.  In fact the next time I see her I am going to buy her a beer not only for getting the bike back but as an apology for suggesting she post here as well as other places; of all the places she has posted trying to get this bike to it's rightful owner this is the only one where she has not been lauded for getting the bike back.

 

It would be one thing to call it selling stolen property or refer to her as an 'accessory' if she immediately tried to sell the bike out right or tried to extort the full price of the bike from the real owner but I hardly think expecting a little compensation for the effort she has put out is even close to a crime.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 27, 2011 at 4:44am

It's not evil Dug -it's just lame.  While I believe Sue should be compensated it's wrong to pass the buck down to yet another innocent victim.

 

Just because someone made fun of your dog and gave you a hard time about how ugly he is doesn't give you a right to kick the dog for "compensation."

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 27, 2011 at 4:53am

But we don't live in a perfect world; if we did there would be no need for punishment because no one would ever steal.  Because our world is imperfect people steal things (do bad) and they should expect to be punished, I think we can all agree on that.  Why should the inverse not be true, why should those who recover things (do good) not expect to be rewarded?  And lets not get into the whole karma thing about doing good expecting a reward is not really doing good; I don't buy into that particular bit of thinking because human nature doesn't work like that.

 

Why should a person who puts forth effort to recover stolen property not be compensated for it?  The police get paid to recover stolen property, why should a private citizen who does the same not be rewarded?

 

If you had a bike stolen and somebody recovered it like this would you seriously not be happy to pay the person who recovered it a fee of significantly less than the bike is worth?  If I had a bike stolen and somebody recovered it I would damn well pay them for the effort it took even if they didn't ask for it; people should be rewarded for doing the right thing.

 

And while we are throwing the word entitled around; why is anyone entitled to another person recovering their property for free?  Isn't the concept of having another person get you your stuff back for free an even more entitled way of thinking?  You want a reward (the return of your property) for doing nothing but the other side of the coin is a person wishing to be compensated for actual effort.  Which one of those is a more entitled view; something for nothing or something for actually doing something?

 

 

 

James BlackHeron said:

I'd say etitled is the correct word.  Just because someone had something stolen from them doesn't mean that the person who finds it get's to extract payment from an innocent party for their "hard work."

 

In a perfect world, the person who DID THE HARM -i.e. the crook would have to "pay his debt to society" before they are ever let free again (and I dont' mean sitting in a box which is totally stupid) and would be made to recompense those who have been harmed by his actions and make all parties right for damages/suffering/inconvenience.  

 

But just passing the pain down to another victim is merely continuing the cycle of abuse IMHO.

 

Entitled is definitively the right word. Nobody is ever justified in taking from X to make up for losses caused by Y. 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 27, 2011 at 5:00am

If someone had my stolen property I'd call the cops on them if they wouldn't give it back.  Someone in possession of someone else's property who refuses to give it back to the rightful owner is either a thief or an accessory.

 

Should someone be compensated for "work" not contracted for?  If I break into your property and build a beautiful deck out back should I be compensated for it even if you didn't want one?

 

It's the job of the police to recover stolen property and if they are charging extra to return it to the rightful owners then they are WRONG just as well. 

 

If a person wishes to compensate a finder of property that is their own prerogative but the finder should in no case demand payment for a "job" they volunteered for and had not contract for.  This is just wrong.  You may think differently and we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I feel that one victim of a crime passing down the victimization to yet another victim is wrong.

Permalink Reply by Sue C. on August 27, 2011 at 6:19am

Since you've initiated a conversation about semantics, James, I suggest you use your flaming troll eyes and furiously self-righteous fingers to review English grammar. See, "may ask" is the subjunctive voice and, as such, implies conditionality.  I didn't write "will require." I was in fact making a snarky attempt to highlight the fact that I took on a couple of bike thieves as they nicked my front wheel armed only with the power of Screaming Bloody Murder and came out of it with only a couple giant lumps. Clearly none of y'all have any sense of humor. There's no extortion here; if I'm guilty of anything it's fishing for FRAKKING SHOCK AND AWE THAT I TOOK ON TWO HEAVYSET TEENS IN A DARK ALLEY. 

 

Jesus frakking Christ, people. Take everything this seriously all the time and you'll die of a stroke.

 

If I cared about money, I'd have sold the bike by now. I'm sure I could get 5-600 for it based on what CL has them for.

 

In fact, I just went and got the bike from my friend's basement and noticed a sticker on it for Gary's Bikes up in RP. I called them with the serial number and they gave me the number of the person who originally purchased it. Called and left a message saying "Hi, I have a bike, it might be yours."

 

Pretty certain that if this kid calls and wants their bike back all I am gonna ask is that they pinky swear they'll put a brake or at least some effing toe clips on it cos riding fixed/brakeless without clips is just STUPID.

 

But it wouldn't be a DEMAND FOR EFFING GRIFT MONEY. Jesus, dude. Grift money? I mean, I did just inherit several million dollars from my Nigerian prince uncle and could really use your help transferring it into a US bank account.

Permalink Reply by Sue C. on August 27, 2011 at 6:20am

OH AND GUESS WHAT KID JUST CALLED AND I TOLD HIM HE CAN HAVE HIS BIKE BACK FOR FREE NINETYNINE.

 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 27, 2011 at 6:32am

Whut U tallkin bout soo?  Y U B to critical of me writhing?

 

Imagine that instead of a bike you almost had your baby kidnapped. In the midst of rescuing your child from the kidnapper he (or she) dropped not only your baby but someone else's baby.

 

You risked your life and limb chasing down that kidnapper and he could have shot you.  You deserve to be compensated for your good deed.

Should you expect the other mother to compensate you for rescuing her child?  A baby is not mere property -it's priceless.  So therefore she should probably give you a few million for your trouble -right?

 

 

Permalink Reply by Sue C. on August 27, 2011 at 6:35am

AGAIN WITH YOUR INABILITY TO PARSE GRAMMAR.

done here, troll.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page