Electric car owner arrested for ‘stealing’ 5 cents of electricity

[ForsakenLive]

On a country with logic, they would have just given him a fine.

[WelshDdraig]

On a country with logic, they would have just given him a fine.

and probably made more money, rather than spend more on a warrant for an arrest, and if it goes to court, legal costs. 

[WanderingFool]

While the man may have been being an a-hole, I think his argument still stands as it doesn't change that he wasn't stealing (according to how our society views electricity). 

"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

That's what hypocrisy means.

If "a theft is a theft", then why isn't he arresting everyone at the local coffee shop charging their various devices? That is a perfect example of it. Quite literally. 

In fact, if you want to say "well, he did steal the electricity", does he pay taxes? If so, his money goes to education. To which you could construe that the electricity he took is sort of his to use since he pays taxes. The taxes may not go directly to that school, but in a general sense.

Note that I'm ignoring his attitude. He sounds like an ass. But regardless, being hypocritical about how you define and apply the law is annoying at least, and potentially destructive at best.

 

I personally don't believe it is hypocrisy at all.  To address some of your points.

Coffee shop example: If the owner has kicked you out of his shop before, then you go back and just charge your laptop then you should be charged.  It is important to note that the guy was asked not to use the tennis courts prior to using them....this implies that he has been there before (and my guess would be told to stop using the facilities at the school without their permission, which would include plugging in).   It is a bit curious that the police arrived, I would imagine that the school got tired of the man and finally called for enforcement.

 

Tax argument: This is a false sense of entitlement.  I pay taxes, but that doesn't mean I get to go to the library and remove all of the books.  The fact is if everyone ran on that logic then my old school would have a very large expense.  Even 5 cents/car * 200 cars * 200 school days = $2000 a school year.  This seems quite extreme for a school to pay....so with an extra 2000 expense that is cutting down 2000 in school activities or more taxes

[Vitalius]

Tax argument: This is a false sense of entitlement.  I pay taxes, but that doesn't mean I get to go to the library and remove all of the books.  The fact is if everyone ran on that logic then my old school would have a very large expense.  Even 5 cents/car * 200 cars * 200 school days = $2000 a school year.  This seems quite extreme for a school to pay....so with an extra 2000 expense that is cutting down 2000 in school activities or more taxes

I agree with your first point, I was focused on "don't use the tennis courts", but I guess it could also mean "don't use our facilities at all". But semantics. Meh.

I disagree about the tax argument. Removing all the books isn't the same as getting some electricity. Removing all the books is a disruption to the use of the facility that is the library (get/read books) because then others can't use the facility at all, whereas he's just getting a little electricity for his vehicle. It's hardly the same thing as it doesn't disrupt others using the electricity. 

200 cars? 200 people drive 200 individual electric vehicles to your school? How big is it? I mean, really, you can't just do math like that because firstly, not all of them are going to do it, secondly, not everyone has an electric vehicle, and lastly, not all of them are going to come to school on the same day. As a random guess, I would say if you took the actual values for each of those and multiply it out, you'd probably get between $300-$500, which is noticeable, but if so many people are coming to your school, it probably has a large enough budget that this is a drop in the bucket.

I'm just saying, in all intents and purposes, he shouldn't get arrested for this charge. Trespassing, sure, that makes far more sense. But theft? How absurd. 

[ces160]

This is just ridiculous. How are we ever going to move away from our dependence on gasoline if this shit keeps happening?

[WanderingFool]

I agree with your first point, I was focused on "don't use the tennis courts", but I guess it could also mean "don't use our facilities at all". But semantics. Meh.

I disagree about the tax argument. Removing all the books isn't the same as getting some electricity. Removing all the books is a disruption to the use of the facility that is the library (get/read books) because then others can't use the facility at all, whereas he's just getting a little electricity for his vehicle. It's hardly the same thing as it doesn't disrupt others using the electricity. 

200 cars? 200 people drive 200 individual electric vehicles to your school? How big is it? I mean, really, you can't just do math like that because firstly, not all of them are going to do it, secondly, not everyone has an electric vehicle, and lastly, not all of them are going to come to school on the same day. As a random guess, I would say if you took the actual values for each of those and multiply it out, you'd probably get between $300-$500, which is noticeable, but if so many people are coming to your school, it probably has a large enough budget that this is a drop in the bucket.

I'm just saying, in all intents and purposes, he shouldn't get arrested for this charge. Trespassing, sure, that makes far more sense. But theft? How absurd. 

Well I will admit that taking books isn't close to an example...I was a bit rushed for time and couldn't think up a better example...electricity is a harder to compare to as people get charged by usage and it is "piped" to school.  I guess if you really want a more relevant example...imagine the school has a natural gas line coming into it.  If someone were to go and fill up a few tanks of natural gas, it would be theft...whether it is 5 cents or $100. The heart of the example was to say that paying taxes doesn't entitle someone to use a service for which the tax money wasn't intended towards.  Another example could be stealing cable...if you only watch the "free" OTA services but you do so through coaxial it still makes it theft of a service.

 

The cars example was just a hyperbole of the tax argument.  There actually is roughly 30-50 cars though at my former elementary school.  The purpose was to show that things can add up and it is important to set a status quo in what you allow.  For now there might not be many electric cars...but what if graphene capacitors become a thing, then you now could have a lot more electric cars on the market...and not only that, but ones that can charge quickly.  So if you allow those 5 cents now, you could bet that it will be abused later (leading to dollars per car).

 

For myself I look at it like this.  He was trespassing and stealing....and I bet his defiance had something to do with charging him of theft.  (Theft is easier to prove than trespassing).  Do I agree with him getting arrested...perhaps.  The 5 cent claim is by his own account though, he claims to have been there for only 20 minutes...and given that when the officer told him to unplug he made claims of the officer damaging the vehicle, perhaps this guy isn't telling the full story   My schools outdoor outlets typically are locked for example (so would it change if he happened to find an unlocked one)...also it should be noted that someone phoned 911 to report him...I am guessing that either this is a common occurrence at the school of people stealing power, or maybe he was actually parked there for an extended amount of time.  So I am not going to call it absurd, I will reserve my judgement (and given that others aren't being arrested for the same thing assume there are other details the guy isn't telling the media)

[Vitalius]

Well I will admit that taking books isn't close to an example...I was a bit rushed for time and couldn't think up a better example...electricity is a harder to compare to as people get charged by usage and it is "piped" to school.  I guess if you really want a more relevant example...imagine the school has a natural gas line coming into it.  If someone were to go and fill up a few tanks of natural gas, it would be theft...whether it is 5 cents or $100. The heart of the example was to say that paying taxes doesn't entitle someone to use a service for which the tax money wasn't intended towards.  Another example could be stealing cable...if you only watch the "free" OTA services but you do so through coaxial it still makes it theft of a service.

 

The cars example was just a hyperbole of the tax argument.  There actually is roughly 30-50 cars though at my former elementary school.  The purpose was to show that things can add up and it is important to set a status quo in what you allow.  For now there might not be many electric cars...but what if graphene capacitors become a thing, then you now could have a lot more electric cars on the market...and not only that, but ones that can charge quickly.  So if you allow those 5 cents now, you could bet that it will be abused later (leading to dollars per car).

 

For myself I look at it like this.  He was trespassing and stealing....and I bet his defiance had something to do with charging him of theft.  (Theft is easier to prove than trespassing).  Do I agree with him getting arrested...perhaps.  The 5 cent claim is by his own account though, he claims to have been there for only 20 minutes...and given that when the officer told him to unplug he made claims of the officer damaging the vehicle, perhaps this guy isn't telling the full story   My schools outdoor outlets typically are locked for example (so would it change if he happened to find an unlocked one)...also it should be noted that someone phoned 911 to report him...I am guessing that either this is a common occurrence at the school of people stealing power, or maybe he was actually parked there for an extended amount of time.  So I am not going to call it absurd, I will reserve my judgement (and given that others aren't being arrested for the same thing assume there are other details the guy isn't telling the media)

And that's just it WanderingFool, if they are to call that theft of services, then so must plugging in at a coffee shop, with any device, be theft. 

And I disagree, the taxes went towards the school's electricity, which is meant to run the school, of course, but at the same time, he paid for that (indirectly, through taxes). Just as much as he has the right to go a library (so long as it is funded by tax payer's money), he should have the right to use services at a school. He can't have one without the other because they are essentially the same thing.

Well, you said "the officer told him to unplug", and like I said, that's not what the story says. We don't really know if he was told not to get electricity there, as you mentioned.

We will see.

[miyabwah]

America is getting as much attention as a whiny teenage girl.

[WanderingFool]

And that's just it WanderingFool, if they are to call that theft of services, then so must plugging in at a coffee shop, with any device, be theft. 

And I disagree, the taxes went towards the school's electricity, which is meant to run the school, of course, but at the same time, he paid for that (indirectly, through taxes). Just as much as he has the right to go a library (so long as it is funded by tax payer's money), he should have the right to use services at a school. He can't have one without the other because they are essentially the same thing.

Well, you said "the officer told him to unplug", and like I said, that's not what the story says. We don't really know if he was told not to get electricity there, as you mentioned.

We will see.

With the coffee shop example, like I stated could be construed as theft depending on the circumstances.  There are actual shops where they post signs saying not to plug into the socket...the other places it is implied you can use the socket, as long as you are a customer.  If you go into a coffee shop, don't buy anything, use electricity and the someone calls the cops then yes it is theft.

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree about the taxes portion though.  To me, I look at is as if it is public museums.  Just because certain artwork is owned by the government via tax payer dollar doesn't allow you the right to lets say copy a painting.  In this case the tax funds are used for schools...yes the schools pay for electricity, but they also pay for their internet....that doesn't mean I can go in there and siphon off their internet.

[Valinor]

And that's just it WanderingFool, if they are to call that theft of services, then so must plugging in at a coffee shop, with any device, be theft. 

And I disagree, the taxes went towards the school's electricity, which is meant to run the school, of course, but at the same time, he paid for that (indirectly, through taxes). Just as much as he has the right to go a library (so long as it is funded by tax payer's money), he should have the right to use services at a school. He can't have one without the other because they are essentially the same thing.

Well, you said "the officer told him to unplug", and like I said, that's not what the story says. We don't really know if he was told not to get electricity there, as you mentioned.

We will see.

 

He definitely has a right to use the facilities provided by the school, but what his taxes are paying for is the ability for him to (potentially) send his children there. I'd be fairly confident in thinking that one of the services provided by schools is not as a place to charge my electric car (unless there was a designated spot for doing so, and the school had said it was ok of course).

 

Plugging in at a coffee shop is different, as most coffee shops don't have an issue with people charging devices; if they did, they would likely not provide sockets in publically accessible areas, or at least have signs up advising people that charging was not permitted.

 

That being said, considering the offence, being arrested is pretty OTT imo. For something of this nature I'd expect at most a fine, and possibly just a warning.

[Vitalius]

I think we will have to agree to disagree about the taxes portion though.  To me, I look at is as if it is public museums.  Just because certain artwork is owned by the government via tax payer dollar doesn't allow you the right to lets say copy a painting.  In this case the tax funds are used for schools...yes the schools pay for electricity, but they also pay for their internet....that doesn't mean I can go in there and siphon off their internet.

No, it allows you to view the painting. That's the service the public museum offers. Not copy. Not the same thing.

Here's a better analogy: Are public, tax payer funded, museum's usually free? Am I allowed to use the services they offer without it being construed as theft? I can go and use the bathroom, get a drink from a water fountain, and view the museum pieces all I want because it's free and offered as such. 

The question, then, I guess, is "is electricity/internet offered freely?" and I would say that depends on the school. Some school's offer guest wifi, while others don't. Is it theft if I use their guest wifi? Obviously not. Is it if I hack into their system and us the admin/teacher/student wifi? I would say yes then.

This is a grey area. I think that's the point the article is trying to make. And I personally agree with the defendant on his argument that it is no different than someone charging their phone at a coffee shop. 

Better question: Why have electrical outlets in places the school would never use them if they aren't public to be used? I mean, really. If it has no distinct purpose and is in the open, it pretty much defaults as public. 

[Valinor]

Better question: Why have electrical outlets in places the school would never use them if they aren't public to be used? I mean, really. If it has no distinct purpose and is in the open, it pretty much defaults as public. 

 

Regardless of where the outlet is positioned it's still school owned and so up to the school as to whether "the public" should be allowed to use it. Considering that it was near some tennis courts and a parking area I'd hazard a guess that it'd be used for lighting, perhaps. Or maybe that's the area where they hold fairs, and so they'll need power for that (and it'd be cheaper than having to rent a generator).

 

If I leave my laptop on my front doorstep then I'm an idiot, but it's still theft if someone takes it (although not breaking and entering).

[Vitalius]

Regardless of where the outlet is positioned it's still school owned and so up to the school as to whether "the public" should be allowed to use it. Considering that it was near some tennis courts and a parking area I'd hazard a guess that it'd be used for lighting, perhaps. Or maybe that's the area where they hold fairs, and so they'll need power for that (and it'd be cheaper than having to rent a generator).

 

If I leave my laptop on my front doorstep then I'm an idiot, but it's still theft if someone takes it (although not breaking and entering).

Again, not the same thing. That's an item. This is a service. In a public place. Although he was banned from the place (as he had been told not to use them).

Odds are, the Tennis courts have lights above them. Just like how the parking lots will have lights above them as well. 

[Valinor]

Again, not the same thing. That's an item. This is a service. In a public place. Although he was banned from the place (as he had been told not to use them).

Odds are, the Tennis courts have lights above them. Just like how the parking lots will have lights above them as well. 

 

Fair enough, item =/= service. Although if I have an unsecured wifi network I'm still an idiot but it's still (I think) illegal for someone to come and use it.

 

And we don't know what the situation is with lights/other power needs, so we can't really make any reasoned argument about them without knowing more. Ofc if the situation is that there's some random electrical socket which is never used then that's fairly ridiculous but still not a reason for someone to just use it for their personal use.

[Matthias2556]

wow. just wow. 

 

what is the economy coming to!?!?!

[Glenwing]

Having assisted in property management in the past, I have dealt with shady neighbors using our water lines instead of their own to (extensively) water their yard on a regular basis, we ended up having to get locking caps for the outside water spouts.  Water costs money, so does electricity.  Charging your phone in a coffee shop is one thing, but charging a car off of someone else's outlets could conceivably shift a lot of money's worth of electricity onto someone else's bill over time.  And it may be a social norm to plug into a business's or restaurant's power to charge your phone, but they could ask you not to plug into their grid if they really wanted to.  It's not a right that electrical outlets must be provided for your use wherever you go.

 

Obviously this is a pretty silly overreaction, and it's a public institution which complicates things more, but in principle I do agree that people should not be free to use other people's electricity.  Common sense really.  Of course in practice it is not so clear-cut, as there are many trivial situations that this would have implications in.

 

Clearly, we have another area of the law that needs to be smoothed out.

[Youbetternot]

This some stupid shit 

[Vitalius]

Fair enough, item =/= service. Although if I have an unsecured wifi network I'm still an idiot but it's still (I think) illegal for someone to come and use it.

 

And we don't know what the situation is with lights/other power needs, so we can't really make any reasoned argument about them without knowing more. Ofc if the situation is that there's some random electrical socket which is never used then that's fairly ridiculous but still not a reason for someone to just use it for their personal use.

Fair enough about the lights. 

See, I think the disconnect here is that you are a likening this to a private residence. The differentiation between "public" and "private", as to which, I'm pretty sure this is a public school, is important. 

In that difference, a random light socket makes sense if it is where people would usually go. For example, at the stands to some sporting event (i.e. football, American or European, baseball, even tennis), I am used to there being light sockets around. Usually just in a wall near a place people tend to congregate (bathrooms or concession stands). 

It being beside a tennis court makes sense both for the lighting thing, but also because that's where people congregate and would use them. 

Another analogy I thought of is this: What if I'm walking through the park and I see a water fountain. Then I use said water fountain and get fined for stealing water. That is absurd to me. Either put a sign that says "don't use this unless [reason]", lock it, or turn it off. 

It being in a public place implies it is for public use unless otherwise noted. 

Now, you might say "well, he was told not to be there", in which I agree it makes sense that he should get in trouble for that, but my problem is the idea of "he was using the electrical outlet for electricity and thusly stole it" or "A theft is a theft". 

If it can be applied here, with that rationale, then it can be applied elsewhere (coffee shop), where people haven't necessary been told "Hey, you aren't supposed to do that." Ignorance isn't an excuse, but at the same time, that should be true of the institutions as well. They should be aware of the public's view on how things are treated in certain places. Such as a service (water or electricity) in a public place. Implying public use. 

What @Glenwing said. I agree with him.

[IdeaStormer]

Well legally it is stealing.

 

Those of you that are appalled, can I plug in my car/computer/phone-charge/etc. to that outlet by the side of your house?

 

Electricity is paid for by someone and even if he pays taxes he is not allowed to just plug in at any school, government building, national park power outlet he wants.

 

We've all seen the power poachers at the coffee shops, libraries, restaurants but one of these days someone will f-up their power outlets that are out in the open just to prove a point. If you are one of those power poachers you better carry a circuit tester and use it before plugging in or you could end up with fried electronics. Just like with sex its your responsibility to protect yourself if you plug your power cord in any old outlet.

 

Not that I have ever done that

[CoffeeBlack]

Comparing a school to a cafe is completely idiotic. A cafe expects people to charge their electronics there. The two aren't even remotely similar.

[WanderingFool]

Fair enough about the lights. 

See, I think the disconnect here is that you are a likening this to a private residence. The differentiation between "public" and "private", as to which, I'm pretty sure this is a public school, is important. 

In that difference, a random light socket makes sense if it is where people would usually go. For example, at the stands to some sporting even (i.e. football, American or European, baseball, even tennis), I am used to there being light sockets around. Usually just in a wall near a place people tend to congregate (bathrooms or concession stands). 

It being beside a tennis court makes sense both for the lighting thing, but also because that's where people congregate and would use them. 

Another analogy I thought of is this: What if I'm walking through the park and I see a water fountain. Then I use said water fountain and get fined for stealing water. That is absurd to me. Either put a sign that says "don't use this unless [reason]", lock it, or turn it off. 

It being in a public place implies it is for public use unless otherwise noted. 

Now, you might say "well, he was told not to be there", in which I agree it makes sense that he should get in trouble for that, but my problem is the idea of "he was using the electrical outlet for electricity and thusly stole it" or "A theft is a theft". 

If it can be applied here, with that rationale, then it can be applied elsewhere (coffee shop), where people haven't necessary been told "Hey, you aren't supposed to do that." Ignorance isn't an excuse, but at the same time, that should be true of the institutions as well. They should be aware of the public's view on how things are treated in certain places. Such as a service (water or electricity) in a public place. Implying public use. 

What @Glenwing said. I agree with him.

 

While there is a mentality that coffee shops offer free plug-ins many also offer free wifi.  The thing is the expectation, in a coffee shop they intend for you to sit down with a cup of coffee (in hopes you will buy more).  They allow you to plug in and use free wifi because it is just good business to do so.  The problem when it gets to a public facility is you approach things differently.  Many buildings have plugs on the outside (it is so maintenance can do work without generators or without propping open doors and finding indoor outlets).  An outdoor outlet is intended to be used by school officials (and in case of kids plugging in low wattage devices).

 

The police reports says someone phoned 911...so there was at least one person who thought he was stealing.  Yes it is a public building, but the building wasn't designed as a power station....we have power stations here where you can charge your car...but guess what even though government funds went to fund the installation, people still get charged to use those stations.

 

For your fountain example...if I went and started grabbing buckets of water from the fountain (and if it is a place where water is charged per litre) then I actually believe it is theft of water.

[neon]

Of course it's stealing, in a coffee shop, a library or an airport there is an implied permission to be able to use the power sockets to charge your items because you are most likely doing work using them, similar to why they have WiFi for the same devices to use, in fact in all those places the sockets are most likely provided for the sole purpose for the customers to use.

 

At a school they are obviously not provided for the general public to use, because it is simply not a general public place or where the general public should be, remember just because it's a government/local authority owned (aka public) building doesn't mean it's open to everyone, you can't just stumble into a 10 Downing Street or the White House even though they are owned buy the public (I assume the White House is a public building).

 

Last point a tablet and similar devices are tiny electricity compared to charging a car, a years worth of charging for an iPad is something like £3, an electric car can be several hundreds.

[CoffeeBlack]

Also, people saying he should be allowed to use it because it's publicly funded are wrong. A computer at a school is publicly funded but can you claim it as your own? No, it's stealing. Publicly funded entities still own the money they are given or awarded, they are just constricted to using it a certain way.

[Askew]

I wonder if there is more to this, maybe the cop asked him what he was doing and he gave the cop shit so the cop decided to throw the book at him.

[Puppet]

I wonder if there is more to this, maybe the cop asked him what he was doing and he gave the cop shit so the cop decided to throw the book at him.

 

Yeah that's what I originally thought, but the fact he was arrested 11 days later suggests that there was no aggravation involved, I assume that would have lead to an immediate arrest.

 

Stealing the electricity is definitely wrong, I wouldn't do it and if I was that desperate, would definitely seek permission.

 

It is hard to tell from a news article exactly what happened, but some cops really need to be more civil, sometimes kind words do a lot more for communities than prosecutions.