[blacksmith_tb]

Well, he robbed vacation homes, so I don't know that owners were really put out as much as all that. What strikes me as funny is that he went to such lengths to rob them, it seems like gardening, hunting and fishing would have been easier. But I suppose it's possible it was the thrill of getting away with it that motivated him.

[jboggan]

He burgled vacation homes, huge difference.

Hunting and fishing are not as calorically rewarding as what he could get concentrated in peanut butter and sweets. Read the GQ article, it's fascinating how he would intentionally get fat for the winter.

[svachalek]

I've never heard "burgle" used as a verb in the U.S. although it seems to still be common elsewhere.

[hossbeast]

You need to read J.R.R. Tolkien

[DonaldFisk]

"Burgle" is a back-formation from "burglar". "Burglarize" is the earlier form of the verb, first used in 1829 by the English author William Hazlitt.

[azinman2]

Common for U.K.

[digler999]

> I don't know that owners were really put out as much as all that

They were "put out" for the exact value of the items he stole. Whether the theft results in a direct detriment to the victim is irrelevant.

[sbuttgereit]

Robbery is robbery; the immorality of which has no dependency on how "put out" his victims were... as though it were for you or me to even make such a determination. He was a thief that stole stuff from people: nuff said. I hope at some point his victims got justice.

[totalZero]

Robbery is not robbery.

Burglary is not armed robbery. They are different in the eyes of the law, and justly so.

Theft of a candy bar carries a different penalty from theft of an automobile, and justly so.

A thief is a thief, and a criminal is a criminal, but not all crimes are identical. There is a difference between the rigidity of ethics, and the flexible punishment-must-fit-the-crime nature of justice.

[sbuttgereit]

Of course, you are correct in your statements, but contextual application in this discussion would appear to be in error on at least one point.

You are correct in that I used an term incorrectly: I shouldn't have said robbery, I should have simply said "theft". Robbery indicates force: there was no indication of direct force/intimidation that I saw. Point conceded.

Where I think your criticism is incorrect. Your examples differentiate based on the what the criminal was trying to get away with. Trying to steal a candy bar is different that trying to steal an automobile: the resources involved in obtaining a candy bar legitimately are much smaller than the resources dedicated to obtaining a car. You rightfully call out that distinction, they are different (as individual acts) and I would not disagree that they should be different in what answer justice should demand of the criminal. Where you go astray is that the context of my criticism of was that the original commentator was differentiating the severity of the crime not on the value of the property stolen, but on some perception of the of the victim's "need". So, it's not the difference of the value of the good taken, but a judgment on how important that should have been to the victim. This is a very important distinction and changes the validity of the ethical judgement. I assert that, whereas the value of the stolen item is correctly a part of the determining the severity of the transgression, the "need" of the victim is not a proper factor in determining the severity of the crime. (And yes, this is a generalization. If I steal a hospital respirator from a medical supply company showroom floor, it is different than if I steal it while it's in use by a patient... though even then the theft aspect should likely be seen as the same and there are just other, different ethical/legal crimes in addition to theft.)

[totalZero]

I see where you're coming from, but to be succinct:

If your argument were correct, then duress would never serve as an acceptable defense.

I'm not saying that Chris was under duress (his situation was due to his own choices, not forced upon him), but the fact is, some accused criminals are able to defend their crimes by saying "my actions were necessary to avoid a serious, immediate danger in a situation that was forced upon me." That is a form of need and it is a legally workable defense, at least in the USA and UK.

[wtbob]

Over a decade ago, a thief broke into my car and stole some items. The feeling of violation still burns within me now. It's terrible to think that someone was in my car, my space, and took my things, and used them for some unsavoury end.

In the grand scheme of the universe, those things are pretty minor. But they still hurt.

I don't know that I'd want to hurt the person or people who stole from me; I think that I'd like to get to know why he or they did it, that I'd like to see why that seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But it does hurt, even now.

[jlarocco]

> ... as though it were for you or me to even make such a determination.

Don't be ridiculous. Both you and the OP (and anybody else who wants to) are fully qualified to determine the morality of the situation for yourselves and discus it. Why would either of you not be?

[Mz]

as though it were for you or me to even make such a determination.

The article indicates that some of them put out pen and paper and tried to get him to leave a grocery list. He declined to cooperate, so they stopped.

I doesn't sound like some of these people were particularly bothered by him getting free groceries and otherwise leaving the place essentially untouched.

I am not saying that makes his choice "morally correct" or anything. But, you are trying to impose a determination here that dramatically differs from the evidence we have been presented for how some of these people felt about the situation.