You ain't a looter if you have AS...

Post Reply New Topic

[If this isn't the right place to post, please move it.]

I am sure most of your have heard of the earthquakes Christchurch, New Zealand over the past year... (So far around 6000 of them, only two were "pretty bad").

Anyway, following the second major quake a guy was arrested for looting damaged buildings...

He has now been released and charges dropped because of his "mental capabilities".

Here are a few links:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10737782
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5 ... tic-looter

Now, my question is this:

Does his AS excuse what he did - looting?
(Keep in mind, he had tools with him, so one would think he had it planned in advance rather than a spur of the moment thing)

Do you agree the charges were dropped?

I don't. He did the crime and he should be punished just like anyone else.

There was a huge outcry from the community following saying that the police should drop charges and should not have charged him in the first place because he is "mentally handicapped" or even "ret*d".

Either he is working the naivety of the system and should be prosecuted, or....

It's possible someone could have pressured him into taking the fixtures for them by saying things like "Look, everyone is doing it, you won't get caught," and they could have said "Even if you do they'll let you go because you have AS"

It really depends on what his integrity is. Is he a typically smart individual with AS who realized a way to level the playing field in a corrupt world or is he a typically smart but naive person with AS who is intimidated easily?

That article made me angry. I guess having AS is a free pass to looting.

But the only problem about it is, they kept focus on him instead of on everyone else who looted. I doubt he was the only one who did. They didn't make articles about looters or publish other articles on other individual looters.

It was a disused and empty building before the quake.

Brilliant, lets all go on a looting spree.

(I should add that this is a joke)

There were plenty who got caught looting and were arrested.
This case is public because the fellow in question is apparently a mentally challenged aka a ret*d.



So?

If you have an empty property it's OK for someone to steal whatever isn't (or in this case IS) bolted to the floor? More-so when something very terrible has happened and hundreds have died...

Why didn't he bother robbing the place earlier, seeing as it was already abandoned?
He's scum, plain and simple.

I'm not excusing what the person in question did; theft is theft.
However, the story has been in the news already.
As far as I can remember, the building was already disused and empty and not secured.

He stole a single lightbulb.

A single lightbulb.

So no breaking and entering, no criminal damage, no fire setting, no arson, no throwing objects, no taking of boxes of items, or high value items like tvs etc.
he basically walked into an open building and took a lightbulb, and happened to get caught, and the police decided that 'looting' was an appropriate charge.
Can you imagine the result in court if he got an even half way decent defence lawyer? for a 30p bulb?

I hope you don't live in Britain, you would get four years hard labour for that outrageous piece of incitement.

So it was abandoned? Was it still owned?

Even if a building is abandoned, someone still owns it but lot of people go in and scrape it or vandalize the property. I even heard that can get you arrested if you are caught trespassing. But if you have autism, the charges are dropped and you're free to go.

It had nothing to do with his AS. It had to do with the choice he made. He shouldn't have gone away with it.

As someone with autism, I hate it when people flash the "disability card". It makes people in general resentful so when someone does have a good reason to use accommodations because of their disability, people are less willing to compromise. They think "it's just an excuse".

The guy had OCD with a passion for light bulbs. This drove him to enter a wrecked building, putting himself at risk and probalby his boyfriend who followed him to try and get him to see sense.

The owners of the store had no wish to proceed with a prosecution. They were not considered about a cruddy light bulb.

The police assaulted him. The guy was villified in the local newspaper

It was a storm in a tea cup. .

People should be less keen to jump to nasty conclusions and make harsh and ill considered condemnation of fellow citizens.
.

All guy wanted was the lightbulb hanging in a socket in an unused and wrecked building.

Eventually idiots in the police force were identified and the case was dropped. As well it should have been.

I don't understand what you are saying... If you have OCD it's OK to steal?
Or are you implying that this was spontaneous in the heat of the moment thing, if so why was he carrying tools? Why on this night?


If he cannot control himself from stealing, and putting himself and others in danger, and doing god knows what else, perhaps he should be institutionalised for his own sake as well as those around him?


And how exactly does that excuse his actions?



He should be pressing charges against them.
That is a different matter entirely.


And would they have vilified him if he wasn't looting?


He entered a property and took what he wanted - is this not theft?
He entered it in an opportune moment, with the tools required to take whatever it is that he wanted.

Yet he has done nothing worthy of condemnation?


So, what you are saying is, it is OK to steal unused things?


Yes, he is a looter but it is the police who are the idiots?

When making a judgement on anything - you should analyse to establish truth. OCD, the wreaked building, a a simple lightbulb, the police assaut, the 11 days spent in custody, the original ommission of guilt, the fact the owners of the building didn't want a police prosescrution, the public exposure and villification are all mitagating factors that change the dynamics of this situation. Nothing is ever straight forward or simple.

The owners of the store didn't wish to take action because they understood the real issues - they werent worried about the light bulb.

Every situation and every person (before having a judgement passed on them) should be open to analysis and justice in the truest sense of the word.

I'm not into lumping people in categories based on a diagnosis or whatever and making harsh judgements about them.

Time is better spent on evaluation of how you manage yourself and the way you deal with others.

Indeed; the sentencing is indeed politically motivated here in Britain, and the sentencing - as well as often being a bit dodgy and well open to the interest of human rights lawyers - is far too disproportionate for some, so that people who have never been in trouble with the law get punished severely (for them) whereas those are what we call petty thieves and yobs before feel it less or get much milder sentences. And of course the serious criminals never get caught.