Unemployed Ohio woman charged for taking $2.87 from fountain to buy food

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014623862

n/t

It seems like this kind of statute would originate at the state level but I suppose it could be a county law if Ohio gives them that kind of power.

She was taking money from a fountain.

A lot of times, people will beg for money "for food" but it goes elsewhere...just saying.

She'd have been better off going to a nearby church or mosque if she were actually in a state of hunger, until she could get some social programs assistance to help her out.

They have made it illegal to take money from a fountain (steal bread) when you have no money but are hungry.

As for going to a church or mosque, they are not always an option. In many poor communities religious organizations are already strapped due to the lousy economy.

As for your "just saying" comment; yes, I know what you are saying: Don't give money to the poor because they will buy drugs.

Lovely.

You're just looking for an "I'm right, you're wrong" fight, and nothing will please you. I'd take my chances at the church or mosque if I were hungry--I'm quite sure if they didn't have a piece of bread or cheese for me, they'd be able to point me in the right direction...that IS a big part of what they do, donchaknow.

So have a swell day, why don't you? Go hang around fountains and hand out money to people stealing money from them; yeah, that'll solve the world's woes!

Let us know how it works out for you. Or don't.

Just saying....

You could try being a little subtle in your attempts to disrupt, but I guess you just can't help yourself, is that it?

In your case, I'd say "pathetic" to describe what you are attempting is closer to the mark.

Just saying....

Usually, the troll is the one who comes into a thread with outrageous comments that don't fit in with views of the vast majority.

I don't think the vast majority at DU believes that most of the poor will buy drugs with donations.

You do. So who's the disrupter?

Never mind. I will never read the answer.

Something in the 19th century. Some guy named Valjean stole some bread or something.

If you're hungry in the 21st century, please steal something more nutritious than bread.

n/t

And not well, either(apparently, at that point, France had deported all the French).

But I see what you mean. I think stealing is wrong, but in the pantheon of wrongs it is less so than starving or worse allowing somebody else to starve.

This is a lot like the Heinz dilemma.

However, the real crime is that in a country that discards and throws away as much food as we do, that anyone in this country are food insecure or starving. NO ONE, anywhere, should ever want for food, water, or shelter.

According to Endhunger.org, up to 40% of the food in the United States is wasted. When you consider the amount of overeating, we could likely feed an entire other country the size of the US if we managed our food efficiently.

http://endhunger.org/food_waste.htm

However, this isn't what happens so is it a crime to steal food if the choice is between life and death? Even if not near the point of starvation, is it a crime to take sustenance from a society that has failed you?

But, as I said, it doesn't make sense to have a country which discards the amount of food we do and have people starving or living in food insecurity. Is it a crime to hold a doctor at gunpoint to preform a life-saving operation that one cannot afford?

that one cannot afford.

I agree that it is illegal but if the only reason for death is a lack of money then it is no crime to take what is necessary to survive.

While there is the concept of the "lesser of two evils" it doesn't negate both are evil.

Perhaps because I don't believe in evil except as a construct used to describe the worse of possible choices.

Regardless, if using that construct then the evil would be in withholding that operation from the poor person, not in the poor person demanding the operation be done.

Legal, moral, crime, these are not all interchangeable terms. Let's see how far down the road you would go...is it a crime (sticking with your term) to hold a family member of a doctor hostage to get said doctor to preform a life-saving operation? Anarchy is not the answer.

I hope you didn't mean to be rude but you were. We've disagreed before but I believe I've always treated you with respect.

We should try to keep it that way.

There is a difference between the concept of "crime" and "morality." Crimes by definition are illegal, which why they are crimes. Does it mean all "crimes" should be "illegal"? No. (Abortion and gay sex comes to mind.) It also does not mean all crimes are immoral (such as stealing food when one is starving). So, no, I wasn't being rude, simply stating the issue as I see it.

And I'm sure you did not mean to be rude, as I stated in my last post. It is however, how your post came across.

Crime, by definition, is illegal. But, as I have already said, I don't believe all crimes are immoral, and in some cases, shouldn't be crimes (i.e. illegal). Now, what about crimes that aren't addressed, including by legal means, such as letting a citizen starve; there is a real moral dilemma. As for my post, it was as rude as yours, so I am guessing you also didn't mean to be rude. So, I see it as a draw.

You say the two concepts cannot be separated yet you then say that letting a citizen starve is a crime that is not addressed. I believe what you are saying is that it is not illegal to let a person starve but it is criminal, or unjust. If this is so, I agree completely but I also think that argument supports my own which is that laws and justice are not the same. While it is criminal to let a person starve it is not illegal and while it is just to take food to survive it is illegal.

The answer is not charity, the answer is recreating our laws to be more just. The crime is in withholding the operation, not in forcing the withholder to do it. And the crime is forcing people into the streets, not squatting.

How do we address this problem? That's the $64,000 question. How do we change the very core beliefs of a public that thinks that all laws are just? Not easy to do when the main focus of our media is geared toward implanting the belief into their heads each day.

I also agree charity is not the answer; it is simply a Band-Aid. However, I believe both of your examples are crimes, they are just different in severity.

And the answer is obviously education. The problem is finding enough people who understand to be teachers.

I'm afraid we'll never see it in our lifetimes, but we can make the start for another generation.

Stores and resturants in my area uses to donate a lot. But the trial lawyers put a stop to that.

I'm sure they were forcing restaurants and shops to only serve the homeless on white table cloths and demanded they be offered a choice in wines.

Or maybe, must maybe, they were trying to make sure the poor weren't being fobbed off with rotted and unsafe food while the owners took a write-off.

I wonder which is more likely.....

But many people scapegoat lawyers, until they need one.

Than any other segment of society...there are good ones and there are unscrupulous ones who are after the all mighty $$.

There is amoke evidence of the harm the frivolous have caused to society. Thos is one of them.

n/t

Had stopped many things in every day life... I am suprised you haven't seen it. I know tort reform is not progressive but you can't deny that there are abuses.

Yes, there are many abuses in many aspects of our world, but trial lawyers get singled out as scum because a corporate owned media pushes the idea that they are bad people.

Also, I read the link you provided above. It's incredibly one sided and lacking many pertinent details. Yes, people can mount frivolous suits, but if they win, it's not the lawyers fault, it's the jury or the judge. Personally, I think it's worth the risk for an open court system.

Lastly, tort reform is pure propaganda. It's only purpose is to make it more difficult for victims to recover costs when corporations are negligent or malicious.

The food was still edible, maybe a bit dry, but it was better than tossing it in the trash.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
-Anatole France

Thanks for posting it.

Then it is business.

Hell, you could steal the entire Hostess company if you wanted to and get paid to do so

Is it illegal? Yes. Is it a crime, on premise, yes. Is prosecuting someone for such a thing a good idea? No, not if you want a future.

Let me do this, how is "stealing" bread any different than standing your ground?

Every now and then, justice needs to be shamed right back into compliance with what is right. And with that, I leave you to debate. Happy Friday!

Who threw money into a fountain would want someone prosecuted under any law for grabbing a few dollars from the fountain for some food.

As to the poll if the only crime is to steal bread/food to feed oneself then I say it is no crime and I doubt anyone would say otherwise. But of course that limits it to a pure instinctive need for food at that moment the crime was committed. If one is hungry they must eat--every time you eat something you are KILLING something that was once alive. Stealing seems small in comparison.

It's a shame that they won't have a say in the matter.

Minor violations should be a warning and a look at the ID. maybe the community needs to intervene at this stage in a positive way

Do it twice or in an obnoxious or threatening way then we can start talking about a crime.

Society has failed this person. It's no crime to survive.

So it goes.

and lack food or means to get food --i refuse to call that stealing or looting or criminal.

it's food.

trust me...NO ONE will buy them from you.

I think what you mean is, "Is it unjust?", and I would say no. It's illegal and is a crime but it is not unjust.

If breaking a law is illegal then doing something ethically wrong would be unjust or criminal. Some believe you cannot separate the two; that all laws are just and therefore there is no difference between what is illegal and what is criminal.

My belief is that they are not the same thing. As an example, it is illegal to steal bread when you are starving but it is not illegal to withhold that bread from a starving person. Is withholding that bread just? I believe it is not. And if withholding the bread is not just then where is the crime in stealing it to survive? The law may say it is wrong, but I believe that the withholding of the bread is criminal, not the taking of it.

In other words, the law has failed the starving person and so has society. What do the laws of society matter when it has left you to starve? At that point, isn't it society that is criminal even if it is not unlawful?

I disagree with this, as do you from how I read your response. A group of people legislating does not always produce justice (the best example I can think of immediately is slavery in the U.S.).

However, I think a crime is simply a violation of a law. So, yes, it is a crime and it is therefore illegal. But it is not unjust.

I tried to clarify in the OP that the idea was that "crime" would be used as a synonym for "just" but I think some posters didn't get that; likely because I wasn't as clear as I thought I was.

The same goes for the quote you used in your title. To clarify: if breaking a law is called "illegal," then doing something ethically wrong would be called "unjust" or "criminal." "Illegal" is not necessarily a synonym for "criminal" in this context.

punishable by law


2. an action or activity considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/crime


So, by definition # 1 - obviously it is a crime. Definition # 2 - not so clear

It may not be immoral - but by definition - it is a crime.

n/t

"There is no justice in letting the poor starve."

You said it best.

So if we define breaking laws as illegal and offending justice as criminal, then we can ask if they are the same or no?

Many people believe the two are inseparable but I don't agree.

And help can be found elsewhere.

If it were a matter of sustenance and survival, though, if the person would suffer or die without stealing the bread, then clearly the value of his/her life outweighs the unethical dimension of stealing.

But there are other alternatives. There is the food stamp program, and it does have emergency provisions to generate immediate help. There is the Salvation Army. There are churches covering the nation that offer food for the hungry.

If someone is unaware of those avenues, and does steal, it would almost seem a good thing for them to be caught so that the authorities could inform them of the options available to them.

I don't think charges should be pressed against anyone stealing a loaf of bread in order to survive.

But yes, it is illegal and it is a crime.

stifling progressive measures to help those who struggle and suffer under the weight of poverty, all while they collect more and more money without actually contributing anything useful to this world. It may not be illegal, but that doesn't make right. Hell, the rich set up the rules in the first place so their idea of legal has nothing to do with right and wrong and all about protection of their own selfish interests. The reality is that those who are rich that do not contribute in kind to the world that gave them so much are the real thieves, the real low-lifes.

We live in a society that has created a status quo legal system that doesn't merely favor the wealthy, it criminalizes poverty. It is illegal to take food if you have no money, it is illegal to take shelter if you have no home.

Some have suggested that the poor can get help from charities and government assistance but my experience is that these avenues do not cover everyone in need. I believe that food stamps are not provided to those with a drug conviction while charities are not always able to help as they are sometimes overwhelmed.

Sometimes the only legal thing to do is die.

the people sing? Singing the songs of angry men!

[link:

She gets $47 million a year and one of her first questions is "What do you do for a living?" and if you are poor or have a menial job and receive any aid AT ALL she will rule against you because she's pissed off at you for taking HER money when she pays her taxes.

My guess is that she is paid so much in part for delivering the message that being poor is a sin.

It's like the anti-Oprah. The message it tells America is that the rich are fed up with US.

I'm surprised she didn't campaign for Romney.

Bread? You can starve eating bread!

However, there should be no punishment.

one can call it illegal but not a crime.

Of course it's a crime.

Is it morally wrong? To me, that's the question. Lots of things are morally wrong but not crimes, and vice versa.

I suppose if a person is starving, it's not morally wrong.

But it's a moral obscenity that anyone in this world can go hungry when there are people that hold such unbelievable amounts of wealth.

There is enough to go around, however, capitalism and free trade have failed to be the most effective means of distribution.

But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.