backtop


Print 151 comment(s) - last by msheredy.. on Dec 9 at 11:05 AM

He was arrested for doing so without permission

According to a new report from NBC News, Kaveh Kamooneh of Decatur, Georgia was arrested for plugging his Nissan Leaf into an outlet at a middle school without permission. 

Kamooneh took his 11-year-old son to tennis practice on a Saturday morning at Chamblee Middle School. For about 20 minutes, he plugged his all-electric Leaf into an outlet at the school and stepped away to watch his son play.

But while he was away, Kamooneh saw an officer from the Chamblee Police Department inspecting his vehicle. The officer was responding to a complaint about his Nissan Leaf left parked and charging at the school. 


Kaveh Kamooneh [SOURCE: transportevolved.com]

The police officer said he could not find the owner of the vehicle at the time, but the car doors were unlocked and he picked up a piece of mail on the car floor providing a Decatur address.

But the officer eventually did tell Kamooneh that he'd arrest him for theft. Eleven days later, on November 13, Kamooneh was arrested at his home and taken to the DeKalb County jail. He was held for 15 hours and charged with "theft of power." 

Police say the arrest was made due to Kamooneh's lack of permission to charge his car there. After talking with Chamblee Middle School employees, it was verified that Kamooneh certainly didn't have permission to do so. 

However, Kamooneh feels he did nothing wrong. Clean Cities Atlanta -- an electric vehicle advocacy group -- said Kamooneh only used about a nickel's worth of electricity. 

“Of course I agree that theft is theft, what I don’t agree with is that every taking of something without permission is theft,” said Kamooneh. 

Source: NBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

...
By Grit on 12/4/2013 8:25:05 PM , Rating: 5
“Of course I agree that theft is theft, what I don’t agree with is that every taking of something without permission is theft,” said Kamooneh.

Actually, that IS the definition of theft: taking something without permission and having no intent to return it.

And I don't have to put up a sign saying I don't give someone permission to use something. Since when do we presume someone else's property/resources are our's for the taking??

All that being said, I would have thought a simple subpoena to appear in court for the violation would have been sufficient, as opposed to incarceration (unless he has a prior conviction for theft-related violations?).




RE: ...
By Wolfpup on 12/4/2013 9:11:49 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, "theft is theft", but you're not going to get everyone to agree that that was theft.

If it is, the police should barge in to nearly every public establishment and arrest people for plugging stuff in. I've never seen so many people in my entire life who think that's a crime as I am in this thread. Most people wouldn't think twice about doing it. Half of starbucks' and panera's customers would be arrested.

And geez, same thing applies to wifi. Sane people don't consider it "theft" to use open wifi, if it's not too ridiculous what they're doing, they assume it's there to be used. Of course in that case people actually HAVE been charged for using it, which is about the equivalent of charging for stealing someone's air because they took a breath.


RE: ...
By Jeffk464 on 12/4/2013 9:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
lol, arrested for plugging your cell phone in while at someone's business.


RE: ...
By Gondor on 12/5/2013 5:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you would first ask them whether you may plug it in for a while to charge it up, wouldn't you ? I know I would, it's a matter of common courtesy.

This being said, I don't see how government can justify wasting tax money and time of policemen, DA etc. on something as trivial as "theft of $0.05 worth of electricity" while other (more serious) crimes go unsolved.

What this guy did was impolite and wrong, but wasting further resources over it is even more so.


RE: ...
By Solandri on 12/6/13, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By michael67 on 12/6/2013 11:56:58 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, i don't get why a lot of people are agreeing whit the defendant.

I think a lot of people are using wrong argument.

Like: Letter of the Law vs. Intent of the Law.

I actually think the makers of the intent of the law will calls this stealing also, this is penny theft plain and simple, even if the defendant did not recognized it as suds.

People say: The line has to be drawn somewhere, but here?

Yeah i think so, because what if in 10y time 80% of the people drive electric cars are going to plug in ware ever they want, all those nickels are gone count up.

The defendant said: "There's no record of anyone being arrested for drinking water out of a tap,"

Lets turn this around, i live on a street that connects to the mountain park up the rood from my house, my house is standing strait at street, and on the corner of my house at the drive way, i have a water tap, that i use to wash the house and car, and during summer people going up and down the mountain use the tap to fill up bottles and/or drink from the tap.

I lose maybe $1 a year in water, and even if it was $10 a year i would not care, on the other hand if some one comes and plug a hose on my water tap, and start washing his car with it, whit out my permission i would seriously getting pissed off.

The first, giving someone water because he/she is thirsty is something everyone decent would do, the second not so much.

He was also saying: "People charge laptops or cell phones at public outlets all the time, and no one's ever been arrested for that."

To me its like comparing apples and oranges.

A Leaf uses a hell of a lot more power during charging than a laptop or a phone!

If someone would plug in a phone to the outlet of the side of the house to charge it i would not mind, but if some would plug in a car, i would take a photo and say pay me $10 or i call the police, just because he did it with out permission.

How is this different from the school, as the outlet there was not put there for charging cars, but properly for general maintenance of the school?

People are also saying: Prosecution over this is ridiculous.

Yeah 15 hours in jail for penny theft is seriously over the top, and if he go's to court, he should get of with time served.

But i still think this normally dose deserves to be handed about the same as shoplifting, or any other case of penny theft.


RE: ...
By Piiman on 12/7/2013 1:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Geeezzz I bet if it had been a laptop nothing would have happened. I do think plugging your car into someone else's power is wrong (why should they pay for your car charge?) But just tell him not to do it and bill him for the power. Making him go through the "system" is NUTS


RE: ...
By MightyAA on 12/5/2013 9:54:32 AM , Rating: 1
Not the same thing. The same thing would be to walk into some random business with an extension cord and plugging it into your car when you aren’t a client or there on business. It’s not like this dude was a student or the charging of a phone is equivalent of charging a car.

Arrest is ludicrous though. A warning and discussion about how rude that is should have sufficed.


RE: ...
By tech4tac on 12/5/2013 1:02:12 AM , Rating: 5
The DT article leaves out parts of the story relevant to the context of the situation and why it's my opinion that the police officer was warranted in pursuing the arrest.

He had already been warned by school officials NOT to use the tennis courts without permission (he, not his son was using the tennis courts). Per the details from the 11alive.com link provided by ebakke bellow, if the police report is correct, Mr. Kamooneh was not only trespassing but knowingly stealing . The guy decides that he not only has a right to be there, but he'll also charge his car with the schools electricity while he's at it. He's a pest.

No judge would sentence him for just 5 cents worth of electricity, but enlight of the trespassing, behavioral pattern, and uncooperative attitude magnifying the issue, some corrective action beyond just a warning was warranted. Would a subpoena been enough to make it clear to this guy that IT IS NOT OK? Maybe. Though perhaps the arrest was the only way to make it so... the theft, which by itself seem inconsequential to most, a technicality to make it happen.


RE: ...
By Nagorak on 12/5/2013 7:34:16 AM , Rating: 1
I can't really feel too much sympathy for the school. The schools around here also lock their tennis courts. They put a big ass master lock on them, so people in the community can't use them. It didn't used to be that way, but now it is. So, the tennis courts just sit there not being used except a tiny fraction of the time when school is in session.

Guess what, those schools are funded by my property tax payments, and they keep passing more bonds to increase costs to all of us home owners. If I want to use the tennis courts I damn well should be able to, it's my money that is paying for them to begin with.

The fact they didn't want him or others to use the tennis courts is the problem, not the fact that he did. Of course if he asked for permission it would be denied. The school would rather just have the courts sit empty and unused.


RE: ...
By djc208 on 12/5/2013 8:23:14 AM , Rating: 3
What happens when the unlocked courts are vandalized? Willing to pay more for the extra cleaning, repairs, new nets, damage to the playing surface? Most schools are fighting to teach the basics with the budget cuts many have taken.

What happens when the students for whom the courts were built can't use them because someone in the community has decided they want to right then?

How do you know the guys using them are from your tax district? How much of your taxes actually go to the schools? How much use of a private court would that amount get you?

You pay the taxes so that those kids can get the same or better education you got when your neighbors were paying taxes so you could go to school, so that one day the same kids will have jobs where they can complain about paying into the social programs you use.


RE: ...
By kmmatney on 12/5/2013 12:54:18 PM , Rating: 4
What they should do is allow people to purchase a key to the locks so people who actually want to play tennis (as opposed to skateboard or do other stupid things) can have access to the courts. The courts I play on (USTA tennis leagues) are shared courts between the high school and the city, so they are locked, but people who want to play on them can buy a key. The courts get a lot of use, and have never been vandalized, although there have been a few occasions where the cops have been called in top kick out skateboarders. The funds from the USTA leagues help pay for the courts.


RE: ...
By Nagorak on 12/5/2013 7:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I see down below that the guy had been using the tennis courts during school hours. That's a little bit different then. Obviously when school is in session the tennis courts should be off limits. It's just a personal gripe of mine that the local courts are locked even over the weekend and after school is out of session.


RE: ...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 5:52:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's just a personal gripe of mine that the local courts are locked even over the weekend and after school is out of session.


Some schools have swimming pools too. Should they let you use them after hours even though they do not have staff to work as lifeguards or for emergencies? Tennis courts are the same situation. Schools cannot simply post signs of non-responsibility. Schools are responsible for all people that use their facilities because those facilities are expected to be supervised and staffed by school officials. They won't pay staff overtime just so you can use their facilities after hours. And they won't leave the facilities open for public use after hours for insurance and liability reasons. Their only recourse - to deny usage of the facilities to everyone except students during supervised hours.

Anything else is legally irresponsible.


RE: ...
By marvdmartian on 12/5/2013 7:42:06 AM , Rating: 3
He just has the typical attitude of the tree hugging hippy, who doesn't feel he will EVER do anything wrong, and doesn't understand why the people he considers beneath him won't see HIS point of view.

That being said, I consider the arrest to be a bit over the top, as a summons to appear would have gotten him in front of the judge just as easily. Being held for 15 hours for theft of 5 cents of power (and trespassing, etc), when we see Hollywood idiots like Lindsay Lohan serve less time than that, of a 30-day sentence, shows how silly this whole situation is.


RE: ...
By mebby on 12/5/2013 1:15:25 PM , Rating: 2

quote:

He just has the typical attitude of the tree hugging hippy, who doesn't feel he will EVER do anything wrong, and doesn't understand why the people he considers beneath him won't see HIS point of view.


Nothing to do we him being a tree hugging hippy. Many gun-toting conservatives feel nothing they EVER do is wrong and don't understand why the people they consider beneath them don't see their point of view.


RE: ...
By AssBall on 12/5/2013 2:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
The conservatives at least have the ability to rationalize their decisions with reasonable debate. Volt owners can't even rationalize their overpriced impracticable subsidized purchases.


RE: ...
By Rukkian on 12/5/2013 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, like all the other tax credits out there? There are tax credits for everything, and since you don't believe in this one, it is wrong. If that is a reasonable debate, then give me unreasonable every day.

I don't personally agree with the tax credits for EV's, but picking just that one out is assinine. What about home owner credits? Why do we give credits for donations? Why do we have any credits at all? Make everybody pay a flat rate, and then we dont have the government picking winners and losers ever.

Will never happen, cause the politicians would loose too much power.


RE: ...
By AssBall on 12/5/2013 2:32:44 PM , Rating: 3
I don't agree with them either, even down to the "I have a child dependent" tax credit. That is one of the biggest and worst ones.


RE: ...
By yomamafor1 on 12/6/2013 9:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
No. You CAN'T rationalize the vehicle based on your preferences and living style (and therefore you don't own one), doesn't mean others can't rationalize it. Not everyone needs a V6/V8 or a truck to get around.

And conservatives have the ability to rationalize their decisions with reasonable debate? HA!


RE: ...
By Piiman on 12/7/2013 2:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not too sure how well your rationalizing skills are since its obvious from your statement that you tend generalize to make things up. Maybe you're not a conservative after all?


RE: ...
By KFZ on 12/5/2013 11:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's always disappointing when you agree with someone up until they go too far and say something completely absurd.

Air is a natural resource. No one created the atmosphere, no one produces it, it's not a part of a business model or a "service" of any kind. Infrastructure, including information technology, IS A SERVICE. I'm not even going to bother explaining why, it's obvious to any "sane" person.

We appear to have two very different interpretations of what "sane" reasoning is. No matter what you want to believe is true, connecting to someone's private equipment to use a service someone else paid for (and may pay extra for, with data caps in place) is nothing like taking in the available, life-sustaining air that all creatures use.

This analogy, much like the inane argument that using your neighbor's wi-fi is no different than reading a book by the flood light from their backyard deck, is completely worthless when you consider that the light source is neither diminished nor would you be ticking up that electric meter by opening your stupid book from next door. Stop arguing nonsense.

Now for the record I would call this theft but the "crime" here is so petty I'm baffled at the result. People are released from major traffic violations with a ticket and a stern lecture.


RE: ...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/4/2013 9:26:10 PM , Rating: 5
He could argue that his property taxes help pay for that public school and the teachers' salaries, so they could spot him 5 cents.

Or at least that's what my lawyer, Saul, told me ;-)


RE: ...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 5:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
But then think about the property tax of everyone else in that city also went in to pay for that electricity (I do believe that he used a lot more than a nickel's worth of power - he was charging for a 20 minutes). Did he get their permission as well? I bet not. So he not only stole the power from the school, but from every other taxpayer in that city that went to pay for that power.

I agree that arresting the guy was pretty heavy-handed. The police department didn't really need to spend the money the resources for that cost when simply serving him a summons to appear in court and fining him if he is found guilty would is more than enough to handle this.


RE: ...
By sweetca on 12/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By wordsworm on 12/5/2013 12:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Be sure to get permission before you charge your phone, then... cause that would be theft for the same reason.


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why not? Please explain.

Why is taking electricity that you have not been given permission to take not theft? How is this different than picking up someone's cell phone and without permission walking away with it? theft is theft.


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2013 9:12:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why is taking electricity that you have not been given permission to take not theft?


If you are inside the building with permission from the owner, it's just presumed you can use the outlets unless otherwise prohibited. They are there for your use, after all.

This is VERY different than pulling up to the outside of someones property, and taking it upon yourself to use a receptacle.

Plus a cellphone uses a tiny fraction of the amperage of an electric vehicle, so nobody cares anyway.


RE: ...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/8/2013 10:59:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite so sure about that.

You are assuming permission. When I invite folks to my house I most certainly do not give them automatic permission to use my facilities. I would expect then to ask that permission.

Likewise when I visit an acquaintance's place, I will ask as well - even if it is to use the restroom. I do not assume that I have automatic permission to use them. I will also abide when my host says 'no' even if I do not like that decision.

His place, his rules.


RE: ...
By geddarkstorm on 12/5/2013 8:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
I also have to disagree with you in this, Reclaimer.

You're still using someone else's energy when you plug in to charge your phone, no different than here. Or how about when you charge a laptop, or simply run a laptop off of an establishment's power? Laptops can use a lot of energy. Isn't that theft, except that everyone does it without a thought -- is that why people will try to say "it's not the same", because it affects them (whereas an uncommon car would likely not)?

At what point does taking energy to charge a battery device or run a computer move into the realm of theft, then?


RE: ...
By EricMartello on 12/6/2013 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 3
He was stealing and while this story obviously tries to play it down, if all liberals suddenly get free obama-EVs to go with their obama-laptops and obama-phones, a lot of them are going to be charging from outdoor power outlets without permission - aka stealing...because that's what parasites do; they take without asking.

By your logic, I can use my neighbor's lawn mower which is kept in an unlocked shed - because him not locking it is an invitation for anyone in the area to "borrow" it without asking.

If someone gives you permission to enter their home or building, you can proceed with a reasonable expectation that you can use basic resources inside the building. For example, you use the restroom and expend water by flushing the toilet and washing your hands - you didn't "steal" the water because you had implied permission to be in the building.

Similarly, plugging in a laptop or cellphone while you are in someone's home or building with permission is not the same as pulling up to said building uninvited and plugging into their power outlet.

Lastly, the leaf is quite possibly the second ugliest car ever made next to the Pontiac Asstek.


Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By Dug on 12/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 1:55:09 PM , Rating: 3
No! His taxes don't pay for this! Cripes people. Think!

The taxes pay for those facilities and the electricity required to educate students . The taxes don't pay for any taxpayer to come use the facilities as they see fit, and for any taxpayer to come consume as many resources as they'd like for their personal gain.

Your signage questions operate under the assumption that the property is free for the taking unless a sign is posted. That's asinine. I do not have to post that my property is mine and that you're not allowed to steal it. Same is true for the school.


RE: Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By Dug on 12/5/2013 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's a public school.
The charging station is for who? The students?
The teachers? It should be for anyone.

If it's only for those people, then a sign should be put up.

Drinking fountains on public property are used too. No one is complaining about that.

Our schools are public property. We do use the facilities.
Maybe it's different in the South, but I don't understand the mentality of this hands off.


By ebakke on 12/5/2013 2:13:30 PM , Rating: 1
There's no charging station. It's a standard outlet back by the kitchen loading dock.

Drinking fountains are not the same thing. Those are put in explicitly for public use. Electrical outlets, are not.

Do you seriously not get it, or are you being intentionally difficult? If everyone used the buildings (and more importantly, the items that aren't a one-time cost but rather are consumable) because "they paid for it" and because they're "public property" it would massively drive up the cost to run these facilities, and as a result, up go the taxes even more.

This isn't a southern thing - I don't live in the south. It's a property rights and respect thing. If it's not yours, don't take it.


RE: Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 2:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Where's the line for you? Electricity's clearly fine to steal, in your eyes. Or "take" because you already "paid" for it.

How about the shop class? Can I use the table saws, band saws, drill presses, etc on the weekends for my home projects?

How about the auto shop? Can I bring my car in during nights/weekends and fix my car with the school's facilities? Can I use their lift? Their lights? Their heat? Can I run a weekend business out of that shop? What if you want to use it at the same time? Do I get dibs because I was there first? Should we get X time based on our property tax bills?

How about the school supplies? Can I go in on Saturday and take a few pens for my personal use? Can I borrow a projector for movie night?

School maintenance vehicles? Can I drive those on the weekend so I don't have to put any miles on my own vehicle?


RE: Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By Keeir on 12/5/2013 6:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where's the line for you? Electricity's clearly fine to steal, in your eyes. Or "take" because you already "paid" for it.


There is a legal thought that boils down to "punishments should fit crimes".

In this case, the guy was using a tennis court at a local school (typically allowable), with his car parked at the school (typically allowable). He plugged his car into an outlet (not typically allowable). The value of the stolen good in this case is between .01 dollars and 5 dollars. If he is to be punished for stealing, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

What is a punishment that fits this? 100 dollar ticket? 250 dollar ticket? He wasn't endangering lives, he wasn't stealing huge amount of money, etc. Clearly jail time for what amounts to petty theft or shop lifting candy is not fitting.

Now, its been said this guy was trespassing (school had specifically asked him to not use facilities). And the police were just finding a technicality to punish this guy above and beyond what he actually did and what they could punish him with. That's a form of harrasment and discrimination. If this is truely the case, and there appears to be media evidence of this, in the end the school district could end up significantly poorer than if this guy used there power every day for years and years.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 6:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Here's some info for you.

Schools usually don't open their facilities after hours for public use for insurance and liability reasons - they don't want to be sued for allowing you to use the facilities without supervision and they (we) don't pay their staff to supervise anybody but students particularly after hours.

Punishment fit the crime? Sure, go to a store and steal a candy bar - you will be arrested for shoplifting. Go tyo a store and steal a $10,000 Rolex watch- it is still shoplifting.

The guy was charged with theft. If you steal $1.00 or $1,000,000.00 from a bank it is still theft regardless th amount taken. That it is less than $5000 the charge would no doubt be lowered once it gets into a court to something carrying a smaller penalty like a fine, but the charge is still THEFT .


RE: Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By Keeir on 12/5/2013 6:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Schools usually don't open their facilities after hours for public use for insurance and liability reasons - they don't want to be sued for allowing you to use the facilities without supervision and they (we) don't pay their staff to supervise anybody but students particularly after hours.


Sadly, not true.

I know for a fact my local high school allows anyone to use the facilities provided they do so during daylight hours and not during shool hours. This is typically understood,

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201104...

to such a wide extent, a school should be clearly posting if there policy is different. According to the reports posted here in comment, this guy was bared in particular for using facilities during school hours. Imply this school, like many others, allows use during non-school hours.

quote:
Punishment fit the crime? Sure, go to a store and steal a candy bar - you will be arrested for shoplifting. Go tyo a store and steal a $10,000 Rolex watch- it is still shoplifting.


Again, not true.

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/shoplifting-l...

Most states make a large differences in punishments based on the value stolen. Differences about what consistutes arrestable offenses as well as limits on when arrests can occur, etc. This guy was arrested 11 days after the "theft" with a felony warrant. Too bad he didn't steal a 299.99 dollar item from a store. He wouldn't have been arrested at all, let alone 11 days later!


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/8/2013 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
You are confusing the terms arrest and conciction. they are NOT the same.

You go to a store and steal a candy bar - the CHARGE is shoplifting.

You go to a jewelery store and slip a rolex in your pocket without paying - the CHARGE is shoplifting.

The CHARGE is the same in both situations.

It will be up to the courts to determine what CONVICTION should fit the crime - not the police.

-------

Crime and punishment - heads and tails - They are two sides of the same legal coin.

In the case of this story, the man was CHARGED with trespassing and theft. He was NOT CONVICTED .


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 6:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
dbl post - sorry bro.

Punishment fitting crime only applies in courts. At this point he was just arrested (charged) - not punished. The Judge will decide what this fellow's punishment is.


By geddarkstorm on 12/5/2013 8:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
How often do you, or others you know, steal electricity to run a laptop? Looks like you believe you should turn yourself or those you kno in to the police now, as theft is theft.


By ebakke on 12/5/2013 10:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
The only outlets I plug into are those clearly placed for my use, such as charging stations at the airport. Or outlets in a coffee shop where the service provided (in addition to the coffee I purchase) is a heated/cooled space to work; electricity and internet are part of that service. Beyond that, I conserve my battery and then wait until I get home.

So I guess the answer is, I don't steal electricity.


By Rukkian on 12/5/2013 2:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
If it was a charging station for EV and publically accessible, then the drinking fountain may be more appropriate, however, according to the story, he hooked a regular extension cord up to an outlet at the back of school.

Even if it were a charging station, this is the same as if they have a gas tank for maintenance vehicles to refill, and somebody comes along to top off their tank. It is not free to any taxpayer, neither is eletricity.

Add to all this, that he was using the tennis courts that he had been told numerous times not to use, and was a a-hole to the cops, and I understand the cops arresting him, even if, on the surface it seems unwarranted.


RE: Didn't his tax dollars pay for this already?
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 2:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would give tax money for R&D of wireless power transmition so innocent people like this lovely guy wouldn't be molested by "the Law". I wonder how much tax money was spend for officer coming on place of crime, arresting lovely guy, holding him for 15 hours?
Fine should be 5 cents for killing innocent electrons or are they really that innocent?


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 6:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
The guy was also trespassing on school property and was told numerous times not to.

Not only that, but he was being a not-so "lovely guy" to the police. if he wasn't being am ass to the police, i am sure he would have simply gotten a summons to appear in court and fined.

I will tell you this though - if YOU pull into my driveway and plug your electric car into MY power socket without my permission, I would not only have you car towed away at your expense, but I would make it my mission to ensure you are charger with theft of MY power as well. I am not paying my electric bill just so YOU can drive your car with it.


By ebakke on 12/5/2013 6:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
don't feed the trolls :)


By geddarkstorm on 12/5/2013 8:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, those are all the reasons the police did what they did with this guy. If a person keeps trespassing while being told not to, arrest is a likely outcome.

The electricity draw has little to do with this, though since everyone is obsessed with that (albeit, the article feeds that idea), at what point does using electricity become theft? A phone, a tablet, a laptop, a plug in electronic like a boombox or light or air compressor or heater or lava lamp, a car? Do we evaluate the idea that taking electricity is theft based on how much is taken (a gaming PC brought over for a lan party could take more than that leaf would need to charge its batteries), or based on the size/obviousness/rarity of the item doing the taking?


By AssBall on 12/5/2013 2:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Does your house have a sign on it that says I can't go in and rape your wife and eat your baby? Looks like you have some work on to do on that logic.

You can't park in front of a loading zone, you can't use public power without authorization. I'm not sure why these written rules are so obtuse to you.


i'm not smart, please bear with me
By Joz on 12/4/2013 8:39:39 PM , Rating: 5
So, the cop opened someone's vehicle and inspected it for "information" without a warrant or permission from the owner?

Smells like a good lawsuit to me.




RE: i'm not smart, please bear with me
By Wolfpup on 12/4/2013 9:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I didn't even think of that. The only crime I see in this story is this officer breaking and entering without a warrant.


RE: i'm not smart, please bear with me
By stm1185 on 12/4/2013 9:10:59 PM , Rating: 3
Go watch any episode of Law and Order, the power cord running from the car to the outlet is more then enough probable cause, especially since the vehicle was part of an ongoing crime.


By stm1185 on 12/4/2013 9:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's like if there was a trail of dollar bills from a bank that was just robbed to a car in the lot with a bag of cash on the seat. Of course they can search it.


RE: i'm not smart, please bear with me
By sweetca on 12/5/2013 12:18:03 AM , Rating: 1
lol, what?

Someone potentially illegally plugging into an outlet to take power is noot probable cause to search a vehicle.


RE: i'm not smart, please bear with me
By kerpwnt on 12/5/2013 1:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
With today's legislature (and often judicially) backed stop-and-frisk police, I wouldn't be surprised if it was. They probably have fantastic feel good reasons, like "if it saves just one life," or "for the children."

Welcome to the new G-Dang Magnited States of 'Murikah!


By Strunf on 12/5/2013 7:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
The car is part of the ongoing crime so yeah the police has every right to search it, of course the cops could just as easily check the plates of the car.


By bsd228 on 12/5/2013 1:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only crime I see in this story is this officer breaking and entering without a warrant.


the fact that the car was unlocked is significant here. No Breaking occurred.


By Calin on 12/5/2013 2:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the officer opened a vehicle left on the school's premises. Would you be entitled to open vehicle left in your driveway?


By Argon18 on 12/5/2013 11:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
Nope. It's called "probable cause". An officer can enter a private home, business, or vehicle, and without a warrant, if he has probable cause that a crime is being committed.

No different than if an officer hears a woman screaming "help! rape!" he doesn't have to knock politely on the door and ask permission to enter.


By ilt24 on 12/5/2013 1:31:13 AM , Rating: 5


We received a 911 call advising that someone was plugged into the power outlet behind the middle school. The responding officer located the vehicle in the rear of the building at the kitchen loading dock up against the wall with a cord run to an outlet. The officer spent some time trying to determine whose vehicle it was. It was unlocked and he eventually began looking through the interior after verifying it did not belong to the school system.

The officer, his marked patrol vehicle and the electric vehicle were all in clear view of the tennis courts. Eventually, a man on the courts told the officer that the man playing tennis with him owned the vehicle. The officer went to the courts and interviewed the vehicle owner. The officer's initial incident report gives a good indication of how difficult and argumentative the individual was to deal with. He made no attempt to apologize or simply say oops and he wouldn't do it again. Instead he continued being argumentative, acknowledged he did not have permission and then accused the officer of having damaged his car door. The officer told him that was not true and that the vehicle and existing damage was already on his vehicles video camera from when he drove up.

Given the uncooperative attitude and accusations of damage to his vehicle, the officer chose to document the incident on an incident report. The report was listed as misdemeanor theft by taking. The officer had no way of knowing how much power had been consumed, how much it cost nor how long it had been charging.

The report made its way to Sgt Ford's desk for a follow up investigation. He contacted the middle school and inquired of several administrative personnel whether the individual had permission to use power. He was advised no. Sgt. Ford showed a photo to the school resource officer who recognized Mr. Kamooneh. Sgt Ford was further advised that Mr. Kamooneh had previously been advised he was not allowed on the school tennis courts without permission from the school . This was apparently due to his interfering with the use of the tennis courts previously during school hours.

Based upon the totality of these circumstances and without any expert advice on the amount of electricity that may have been used, Sgt Ford signed a theft warrant. The warrant was turned over to the DeKalb Sheriffs Dept for service because the individual lived in Decatur, not Chamblee. This is why he was arrested at a later time.


http://www.11alive.com/news/article/314666/40/Elec...




By coburn_c on 12/5/2013 1:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
He was trespassing on a public school campus, had parked in the loading docks to access an outlet, and he was a jerk.

None of the blog posts of this story mention the trespassing, odd..


By Strunf on 12/5/2013 8:05:41 AM , Rating: 1
That's cause it sells more to have a news painting the Police or the School as the bad guys than a news about just another jerk.


By jimbojimbo on 12/5/2013 10:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, funny how the DT article basically takes a completely different stance on this and reported things entirely differently. DT says he was at the school to drop off his child who was there for tennis practice and then stayed to watch. This article says he was there playing tennis on the school courts.


By Shadowmaster625 on 12/5/2013 9:14:48 AM , Rating: 1
So the guy steals 5 cents worth of electricity that is paid for by his own tax money. And for that we now have to worry about the guy taking revenge in some unspeakable way.


By Schrag4 on 12/5/2013 11:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like this guy, with his egocentric attitude, was going to find something to "take revenge" for eventually anyway. Sure he (probably) paid for that electricity. He also paid for the light bulbs in the school. Does that mean he's entitled to go take a bulb from the school to replace one that burns out in his house? If not, why not? How's that any different?


By Griffinhart on 12/5/2013 9:27:17 AM , Rating: 2
why does this sound like a South Park Episode waiting to happen?


By Keeir on 12/5/2013 6:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sgt Ford signed a theft warrant.


This is the problem. In this situation, an indivudual was trespassing (the real crime). The "stealing" of electricity sets a dangerous precedent.

Even if he left his car plugged for 24 hours, then its still less than 5 dollars of electricity.

A 911 call, multiple police, etc, etc for "theft" of power is silly.

Write the guy a ticket for X dollars (100, 200, 500, whatever) for the misuse of school property and arrest him for trespassing (if that's required... the arrest for theft is so far it may come back and actually end up costing the school district and police department alot of additional funds in defending against a lawsuit.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/2013 6:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
So, if I pump in $5 of gas into my car and drive away without paying -- that's all right to? In essence this guy is topping up his car at the expense of the rest of the taxpayer's even if it really is a nickel's worth of power. The amount is irrelevant. Theft is theft regardless if it is theft against a person of it is theft against the public.

As I mentioned elsewhere I don't think arresting him is warranted when a simple summons to appear in court would have done just as well. The arrest and 5 hour detainment was pretty heavy handed. But from what I understand this guy has a history of abusing the school's property and he has been warned in the past.


By Keeir on 12/5/2013 6:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
I am confused?

Where did I say it was okay?

quote:
Theft is theft regardless if it is theft against a person of it is theft against the public.


If someone took 5 pennies from my bowl of pennies, I doubt I could get them thrown in jail. I doubt anything would happen. Heck, if I called the police on that issue, they might fine me! People steal from me on nearly a daily basis. I steal from people on nearly a daily basis. There is a threshold that is consider "acceptable" "theft". Our society would be unable to function if every action that led to the theft of 5 cents worth of goods were punishable by arrests and jail time. You yourself had to even say "5 dollars" from a business! Not .05 dollars from a public installation. If you went to Mcdonalds yesterday and took many more napkins than you needed for your meal, you "stole" from them. Probably into the cents range even. Do you deserve jail time?

quote:
But from what I understand this guy has a history of abusing the school's property and he has been warned in the past.


The issue is almost not whether this guy deserved punishment, but how it was accomplished. If he was abusing school property, then punish him that way using the correct laws/guidelines. Having an arrest warrant for theft of 5 cents worth of goods is bad, especially in this situation. The police department essentially admits they were looking for a way to punish this guy more than they legally could punish him. And used this as an excuse. That's not the type of police department I want, regardless of how much this individual may or may not have deserved jail time.


By Wererat on 12/7/2013 12:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the article quote. So, really, this guy got arrested not just for the $0.05 of electricity (which is wrong, although only an a$$ cop would act based on this) but for trying to trump up a lawsuit on the poor cop who responded. The officer had, after that, only the choice of playing hardball or being steamrollered by some Volt owner's lawyer.

If it'd been my vehicle, I would've apologized to the officer and offered to talk to the school about reimbursing them for whatever electricity; the school staff would then be on the hook to either say OK or try and be jerks over $0.05.

That said, whomever placed a 911 call because a car was plugged into a power outlet ought to be arrested for abuse of the 911 service.


Really!
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 10:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's fascism and cop shall be tortured and molested!
"The officer was responding to a complaint about his Nissan Leaf left parked and charging at the school."
Complainer! Think about that state of mind!?
That person should be hanged without right of defense.




RE: Really!
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 10:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'd call in a heartbeat. *I* pay for the damn electricity, the parking spot, the tennis courts, etc. I pay for it so that the state can indoctrinate.. er.. teach, the children. I do *not* pay for it so that after I've paid for a 25% discount on some dude's car, I can now give him free fuel.

This is no different than if he went up to a fuel tank for maintenance vehicles, and took a few gallons from that for a non-EV.


RE: Really!
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 10:57:19 AM , Rating: 1
You don't pay for sh**t! Or You don't know SH**T about financial system!


RE: Really!
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 11:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, ok. And I suppose that vote I had a month back where my neighbors voted to increase the amount I'll owe for the next 10 years, was all in my head too? Get lost.


RE: Really!
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 11:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
OOO you had a vote?? Such a democracy, I hope you enjoyed it!
You owe for stuff? you should know your priorities!


RE: Really!
By Argon18 on 12/5/2013 11:52:28 AM , Rating: 1
tanjali, you are either mentally retarded, or are a bored 12 year old.


RE: Really!
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 1
That was brainless,.. I mean priceless!!!


RE: Really!
By AssBall on 12/5/2013 2:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
I pay for 20% of every Volt sold. So anyone wanting to charge it can suck my balls.


RE: Really!
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 1
You don't pay for sh*t! You are poor idiot that think has any worth in anything. You don't have money to afford your self a muffin, you homeless stink, and here you act like your paying 20% of every can of sh*t Volt. Do you print money on cheep Lexmark printer? Maybe that's possibility of your wealth.


RE: Really!
By AssBall on 12/6/2013 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
That guy you sucked off for meth the other day. That was me. The meth was Tide and sugar.

Don't do drugs, kids!


RE: Really!
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 10:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
And your hyperbole is both unfunny and terrifying. Have the right thoughts or else tanjali will advocate unspeakable things done to you.


What happened to reasoned conversation?
By wetdog2 on 12/4/2013 9:06:00 PM , Rating: 5
Why couldn't the school had just told him that it wasn't allowed? There have been times when I've wandered into a restricted area of a hospital, construction site, etc., where I've been told by a security guard or cop that I wasn't supposed to be there. It didn't take an arrest for me to comply. Nobody cuffed me and said, "Trespassing is trespassing."




By Jeffk464 on 12/4/2013 9:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
That would have required common sense, why solve a petty problem yourself when you can involve the police.


By jimbojimbo on 12/5/2013 10:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
I guess they did tell him he wasn't allowed and he also wasn't allowed on the tennis courts after he interrupted its use during actual school hours. Basically the school tried to be nice over and over but now they're using whatever they have in their powers to stop this guy once and for good.
He sounds like an ass and deserves a huge fine.


More To The Story
By ebakke on 12/4/2013 10:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
The local NBC affiliate has a statement from the police chief which gives a bit more context to this whole situation:
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/314666/40/Elec...

According to the police, Mr. Kamooneh chose not to defuse the situation by simply saying "oops, ok - I'll unplug it".




RE: More To The Story
By ebakke on 12/4/2013 11:00:17 PM , Rating: 3
And I think this snippet is particularly important, since every news outlet and aggregators like DT are reporting the opposite:
quote:
Mr. Kamooneh's son is not a student at the middle school and he was not the one playing tennis. Mr. Kamooneh was taking lessons himself.


RE: More To The Story
By Nagorak on 12/5/2013 7:40:17 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think that's really relevant. If he lives in the community then he's paying property taxes to support the school and its facilities. But it sounds like he was playing during school hours before, which obviously isn't acceptable.


RE: More To The Story
By Strunf on 12/5/2013 8:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
Sure it's relevant, it's not cause I pay taxes like everyone else that now I should be entitled to use public facilities like if they were mine and this even outside school hours, if the School allows it then ok but there's no reason to think everyone should be entitled to it, plus people using the courts after hours without any control will very often incur extra costs for the school.


My 5 Cents
By seraphim1982 on 12/5/2013 11:10:45 AM , Rating: 1
In my 5 cents of opinion today....

These are my reasons for why he isn't wrong. His taxes pays for those facilities and electricity, so really why can't he. What's the difference between stealing 5cents in electricity and stealing internet. In reality it equates to about the same thing..... but everyone does the latter and no one really cries afoul, unless one of the MPAA douches tries to throw you under the bus for streaming.

Why he should have been arrested. He was being a flat out @hole. If he just concede that he was wrong with the cop, he probably would have been let off.

I think the overall lesson don't be a dick to the police, because in the police state of america.




RE: My 5 Cents
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 11:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
His taxes pays for those facilities and electricity, so really why can't he.
No, he doesn't. First of all, his kid doesn't go to that school. We don't know if he pays property taxes for that school or not. But even if he did, the taxes do *not* fund people showing up to use the facilities for whatever they want, and consume resources they wish to have. The taxes pay for those facilities and the electricity required to educate students. It's an important distinction.

Do you think it's OK for him to bring his trash to the school dumpster, because he pays taxes? What about if he wanted to charge his car there every night? What if he needed a lawn mower; can he "borrow" the school's for a bit? Can he bring a portable gas can and take some fuel from the district's tank? Where's the line for you when stealing is OK because his taxes fund something else, and when stealing's stealing?

Also, I cry foul to you using someone else's internet. You might not get caught, they might not care, but it's still not yours. For all you know, the hotspot you're using is a bandwidth-capped account and you're literally costing the person money.


RE: My 5 Cents
By Rukkian on 12/5/2013 2:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you except on internet. If you have a capped account and are stupid enough to have a wide open, unencrypted network, it is your issue, not the person taking it. It is a different issue if there is encryption and somebody were to break through it.


RE: My 5 Cents
By ebakke on 12/5/2013 2:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
so if my car is unlocked and it's stolen, it's my fault not the thief's?


This might be irrelevant but..
By yik3000 on 12/4/2013 9:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
If i charge my phone at my company, at starbucks. does it make me a theft of power?




By inteli722 on 12/4/2013 10:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Clearly. Now go send yourself to the cops, you filthy animal.


By jimbojimbo on 12/5/2013 10:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
If they told you not to do it before, then yes.


Stupid
By room200 on 12/4/2013 10:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
All of you high and mighty "it's theft simple as that" might want to remember when you plug your phone in for "just a minute" without asking someone. How many of you have done that?




RE: Stupid
By CaedenV on 12/5/2013 7:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, most of us don't do that. Most people are responsible adults who charge our devices at night and don't have a need to drag a charger cable with us throughout the day.

On the rare occasion that I have run out of power before the end of the day then it is common courtesy to ask to charge your device. Often times it is much faster or simpler to charge your phone in the car, or to simply borrow another person's phone to make a quick call.


RE: Stupid
By room200 on 12/8/2013 2:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't do it because it doesn't feel right, but almost everyone I know will do it without even flinching.


Theft is theft...
By SAN-Man on 12/4/2013 8:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
... and he only used a nickel because they caught him. How many times before has he done this and for how long? Where else has he done this and for how long? You know someone brave enough to do this has done it multiple times.

It wouldn't be OK for him to take liquid fuel out of a tank and it's NOT alright to charge without permission.

I'm glad he was arrested. He won't do it again.

Theft is theft.




RE: Theft is theft...
By inteli722 on 12/4/2013 10:33:06 PM , Rating: 1
So you don't plug in your cell phone in any public place without permission? Or your tablet? Or your laptop?

This is simply that on a larger scale. Come on, public. Go all or nothing. Either allow charging of any electric device, or arrest someone for charging their cell phone. Your choice.

This whole thing is bullshit. Are people this prissy over 5¢?


RE: Theft is theft...
By SAN-Man on 12/5/2013 7:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't.


Cover under some state statute
By Magendanz on 12/4/2013 11:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
In Washington state, we have RCW 43.01.250, which says, "It is in the state's interest and to the benefit of the people of the state to encourage the use of electrical vehicles in order to reduce emissions and provide the public with cleaner air. This section expressly authorizes the purchase of power at state expense to recharge privately and publicly owned plug-in electrical vehicles at state office locations where the vehicles are used for state business, are commute vehicles, or where the vehicles are at the state location for the purpose of conducting business with the state."

I wonder if this would have been considered adequate "permission" under the circumstances.




RE: Cover under some state statute
By eldakka on 12/5/2013 1:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
where the vehicles are used for state business, are commute vehicles, or where the vehicles are at the state location for the purpose of conducting business with the state.


I'm not sure if tresspassing on school property to use the tennis court counts as "state business/business with the state" or "commuting".


Not surprised
By Doh! on 12/5/2013 9:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
If he was an old white man, this would never make the headline, let alone an arrest. He is living in one of the most bigot-filled states in the US, particularly the law enforcement officers. They're like those hard-ass officers straight out of Hollywood movies.




RE: Not surprised
By jimbojimbo on 12/5/2013 11:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. If he was an old white man these outlets would've reported the truth then everybody here would be bashing him for being an ass and that he deserves jail. Now though every outlet is telling a different story of how he was just there watching his kid going through tennis practice and how innocent he is and how he loves the earth.


green entitlement
By DocScience on 12/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: green entitlement
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 11:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think, He's green. He's superior and He deserves it.
and everyone should think and finance his actions!


RE: green entitlement
By Argon18 on 12/5/2013 11:57:30 AM , Rating: 1
I do appreciate your sarcasm; it was funny, really.

However I feel obligated to point out that all school buses use diesel fuel, and all Hummer H2's use gasoline. So the scenario is implausible.

Either that, or the H2 owner is so stupid that he's actually putting diesel fuel into his gasoline H2. Which is more than believable.


good
By p05esto on 12/4/2013 10:36:51 PM , Rating: 1
I despise electric vehicles almost as much as people who go to starbucks or buy Apple products. This makes my heart rejoice.




RE: good
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 3:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
I know why people despise stuff, probably despise what they see in a mirror.


He should have been shot! Eh.
By croc on 12/5/2013 1:11:21 AM , Rating: 1
This just highlights what entitled self-absorbed assholes EV owners are. They don't think they should pay taxes like other car owners. They think they deserve subsidies. And they should be allowed to grab power wherever they are from whomever.

I can't believe people are pretending this isn't a big deal. How about I just go siphon fuel out of your vehicle to gas up mine?

You people know goddamn well outside outlets aren't for public use! They are there for the property owners convenience. If someone just walked up to your property and started using your outside receptacle, you would call the cops too!

Right-wingnut job like you should've been around to have shot the feller, eh.

Feel free to siphon fuel from my tank, ButtHead. I drive a diesel. And it is locked, and the dog will bark, then I will HAVE to shoot you - for making the dog wake me up.




RE: He should have been shot! Eh.
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 11:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
I believe in and support this EV owners terrorism and my tax payers money should go freely for them and you should give your tax money for diesel and middle east!


What a f**ken Joke
By Makaveli on 12/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: What a f**ken Joke
By jimbojimbo on 12/5/2013 11:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
His kid doesn't go to the school. He was the one playing tennis on the courts.


If it's not theft....
By stevhorn on 12/5/2013 8:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
then what's to prevent him, and anyone else, from plugging in there every night, charging his battery, any leaving in the morning (all on the taxpayer's buck). The guy is either a moron for not seeing what's wrong with his behaviour, or he's just another "entitled" narcissist.




Really!
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 10:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's fascism and cop shall be tortured and molested!
"The officer was responding to a complaint about his Nissan Leaf left parked and charging at the school."
Complainer! Think about that state of mind!?
That person should be hanged without right of defense.




5 cents
By tanjali on 12/5/2013 10:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
If anyone should complain about this kind of stuff is an idiot!
Talking about EV owners like some kind of different species and like they require for themselves some extra attention is idiotic. Even if I am not an EV owner, I wish I was, they really are contributing for betterment of humanity. At least they think they are, and they are in some way.
I am not an EV owner because I still think they are overcharging their customers giving an inferior product, especially battery price and esthetics of the vehicle, excluding Tesla, (in esthetics and inferiority department). You shouldn't expect better of an old, corrupt system.
Conclusion, that school or complainer is not green and I think whole world should be green. Whoever says I am not green and I am against those green huggers is ultimately against betterment of humanity, clean air, less noise, better future for their children. Ultimate retard!
Their main complain is, it cost more, its not so green, its inferior and they may be right, but they don't say nothing about improving or god forbid do something about it, just tearing it to the ground!




RE
By JamesT.Kirk on 12/5/2013 11:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
As one of the commentors indicated when confronted by the cops he didn't have enough sense to be contrite but instead wanted to be argumentative. A fair amount of the cops out there would have probably let him go with a warning, but no, Mr. EV driver tried to bull his way through which resulted in his arrest.

For those people compairing this act to plugging in a laptop at Starbucks I have to say there is no compairson. If you are at Starbucks you just payed too much for a coffee so the electricity is assumed to be included in the tab. But this smuck wasn't buying any thing and any one with an I.Q. higher than a houseplant knows you just don't plug in your electric car at any outlet you find. He was being a moocher and got arrested for it.

If I were him and facing a judge I would apologise and hope I got no jail time. And I would provide my lawyer with a copy of my recipt for the payment of school taxes. Just in case the judge wanted to be an iron ass.




sigh
By Roy2001 on 12/5/2013 12:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
I guess this guy has the habit to charge the car whenever it is possible, guess I would have done same....

Last time when I was shooting my son's basketball practice, I found the camera battery gone, so I used the backup battery and charged the discharged battery on wall outlet. Guess I am lucky that no one reported to police :)




By Dug on 12/5/2013 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
The person that used 911 is the person who should be arrested.
Good lord, you really used an emergency line that is to only be used in emergencies to complain about someone plugging his car in? Thanks for wasting everyone's time and tying up resources for people that really are in danger.
Get a life.




By foxalopex on 12/6/2013 10:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
I am an EV owner myself with a Volt. Granted unlike the Leaf, I have the option of using gas when I run out of battery so I don't have the same kind of you'll be stuck in mysteryland when your battery runs out.

Most of the owners on the Volt forum and myself believe you should always ASK for permission to use an outlet. Especially if the outlet wasn't there for EV or block heater use to begin with. Even if the costs of electricity are trivial. If the outlet is wired improperly due to the amount of current an EV can draw, you could potentially cause a fire.

The law handled this one incorrectly. He should have been given a warning or fined for the offence. Tossing him in jail actually cost taxpayers far more than 5 cents. Now if he was actually trespassing or as some suggested the school had already told him NOT to be on school property then charge him with trespassing or misuse of school property. Don't say stupid stuff like we tossed him in jail for 5 cents of electricity That just makes you look like an idiot. I'm not sure if this is the media focusing on EV's making the story overblown or the cops screwing up.

You have to laugh sometimes at the media coverage and how horrifically messed up people's views on things are:

3 Telsa's caught on fire with one of them crashing hard enough to go through a brick wall, in all cases people walk away fine, panic.
Paul Walker dies in a huge gasoline car fire after a Porsche hits a tree. oops freak accident?




By bupkus on 12/6/2013 8:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Experts+Masturbation+Prev...
Why oh why is this thread so damn long? Don't you realize you could be doing something beneficial for your health instead.
Okay, I suppose you can do both at the same time.




waste of taxpayer dollars
By tsuf on 12/7/2013 11:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
a




By tsuf on 12/7/2013 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting discussion, lots of angles one might not thought of. Some on point, some silly of course. I find it helpful to look at the bigger picture when tangled up in a narrowly focused situation. The purpose of law (and enforcement, else-wise law is useless), is to maintain a safe, fair environment for everyone. But first, law has a cost, society must be willing to pay that cost, which means we (me, and the rest of us), require that law enforcement not WASTE the resources we have allotted (ie taxes, and maximize return by apprehending the truly dangerous or egregious perpetrators . Every enforcement action must be judged by whether it returns a benefit greater than it's cost. True?

Some of the arguments here have essentially made that point, spending 100's, if not thousands of dollars to make a meaningless point (theft is theft, gee... no one knows that?), is an irresponsible use of law enforcement resources. One of the purposes of enforcement is to reduce the likelihood of illegal actions by others, thereby improving society for all of us. It is only my opinion, but I seriously doubt this enforcement will have any impact at all societally. People will continue to take home napkins from McDonalds, pencils from work, flowers from public parks, water from drinking fountains in private businesses, use non-public bathrooms without first seeking permission, going 1/4 mile per hour over the speed-limit, and the list goes on infinitum.

So what do we do? Well, most of the time..... nothing. Why? I mean isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? The difficulty is when "principle" meets reality. The reality is we live in an imperfect world, does that surprise anyone? Therefore we cannot construct, nor enforce, a perfect law. Instead we rely on the commonsense, of the law making community and all it's minions, to assess whether to expend valuable resources, or not, in a circumstance.

We EXPECT law enforcement to use commonsense and not waste tax-payer dollars. This is proper, because we do give law enforcement that discretion, we DO NOT EXPECT them to enforce the law "PERFECTLY". To do so would be a financial and social disaster, and cost society an ENORMOUS amount of money, which I, for sure, am unwilling to pay. I do NOT ever want anyone arrested or prosecuted for 5 cents of theft. The social benefit to me is zero.

Aside from the above first order consideration. The likelihood of prevailing in court is nil. A good defense lawyer will shred this arrest on so many grounds as to be absurd, wasting even more resources that could be put to better use, including the defendants money (better spent on goods and services). A school is essentially a public place, not private. If the case is based on not having official permission to use a tiny amount of resources, then I am sure the school can be shown to have a pattern of allowing all sorts of resources to be used without permission by all sorts of people. This is where commonsense comes in, no court will allow selective prosecution, so no case.

The real truth here is the defendants aggressive conduct, and while I personally feel little sympathy for him, I still do not want law enforcement to take action because I lose my cool and mouth off to them.... do you? There are other issues too, law is about intent, you actually cannot be convicted of a crime unless intent is proved. I suspect it would be difficult to prove the defendant actually "intended" to steal. He intended to plug-in, but that is not the same as intending to steal, he (and many of us) may not have given any thought at all to 5cents worth of electricity. Theft is NOT theft, the action proves nothing.... it is intent that determines theft. You have to take deliberately take something you "KNOW" you have no right to take, and has value. For example, you cannot steal garbage, even if it is highly valuable, and not your garbage. The presumption of ownership and/or value is legally removed. Nor can you steal an orange rolling down the sidewalk, even if an orange vendor is nearby, and it is not your sidewalk. You had no intent to steal the orange, you simply found it without ownership or value (value requires a possible transaction between at least 2 individuals), so you ate it. You had no obligation to investigate ownership or value, however, you would have to return it if someone made a valid claim before you ate it. In fact if you then kept the item, knowing it was in fact someone elses, you may very well be guilty of theft.

Many have mentioned the plugging in of electronics as the same thing, and they are absolutely right. The assumption that establishments offering wi-fi to customers, are also offering electricity, is simply an assumption. There is no legal rationale that this is not theft (no one gave explicit permission). The argument would be (if you created a scene for some reason, cops called, and theft of electricity tacked on because you were belligerent), selective enforcement. The establishment has a pattern of not prosecuting people for plugging in.

What about trespass? How many people plug-in and spend no money purchasing the stores goods and services? Is that trespass, coming in to use the free wifi....isn't the assumption you will spend money? You see the problem with this? life is not perfect, humans are messy creatures, law cannot discern infraction at some miniscule benefit, so we just live with the messiness. Anyways, I will continue to take napkins from McDonalds, use free wifi (and plug-ins whether I know that is allowed or not), use whatever outlet I can find (if not home) if I need to power something up for a moment and so forth.... and you know what, so will every single person on this forum. In fact, given the totality of law and interpretation, probably most of us break numerous laws everyday, some even with intent.... anyone here speed, make a rolling stop?

So what do we do? We have a perfectly designed system, it is call ticketing, fines. If a small infraction of some law is perceived as willful, or regular, or some harm involved.... then ticket the person, that will regulate their behavior and small circle of their acquaintances etc. In this case, it is not the electricity, that is a non-issue, there does though seem to be a case of trespass, and willfully ignoring direct communications from school officials... ok, fine, ticket him. Otherwise, the presumption that a tax payer has some fundamental (though not perhaps legal) sense of right to use things he has contributed to (ie public school facilities), is perfectly understandable, and in fact practiced (so to speak) across this nation. If that is not the case, it is incumbent for the facility to post a notice re non use and prosecution for trespass if ignored. Warnings carry alot MORE weight then some nit-picking interpretation of law.

What needs to happen here is a reprimand to those who allowed this selective, and absurd use of the law against a citizen. If in fact there is sufficient justification re trespass, fine the individual, and let him decide if he wants to fund a court battle, rather than just spend our resources without benefit.




What is Theft?
By techyguy on 12/8/2013 7:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
My first time at a salad bar, I once accidentally stole a $0.25 packet of salad dressing because I thought it was free with a salad.

I would have been violated if the store called the police on me, for such a simple misunderstanding.

Considering the recent state of the electric vehicle, and low technical aptitude of many people, I can see why some don't understand.




I think we can all...
By msheredy on 12/9/2013 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
...agree there is only 1 man who is guilty for "theft of power."




By Visual on 12/5/2013 5:24:56 AM , Rating: 1
If one places an electric outlet in a public area, then they clearly intend to allow the public to use it. No need to ask for permission.

If a cop needs to figure out who the owner of a vehicle is, he calls in to check the plate, he does not break in the vehicle and read through the owner's private mail.




mis-understanding
By milktea on 12/4/13, Rating: -1
RE: mis-understanding
By ritualm on 12/4/2013 8:21:20 PM , Rating: 1
tl;dr = You can't cure stupid.


RE: mis-understanding
By SAN-Man on 12/4/2013 8:22:31 PM , Rating: 4
What misunderstanding? The criminal CLEARLY knew that he DID NOT ask and the school CLEARLY knew that he DID NOT ask. Seems cut and dry to me.

So the school has to post a sign which says "DON'T STEAL FROM US" otherwise idiots will assume it's OK to steal from them?

What kind of stupid world do you live in?


RE: mis-understanding
By GulWestfale on 12/4/2013 8:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
jimmy page sure seems to have put on some weight.


RE: mis-understanding
By Cypherdude1 on 12/4/2013 8:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What misunderstanding? The criminal CLEARLY knew that he DID NOT ask and the school CLEARLY knew that he DID NOT ask. Seems cut and dry to me. So the school has to post a sign which says "DON'T STEAL FROM US" otherwise idiots will assume it's OK to steal from them?
The driver could have walked into the principal's office and given the principal a dime. That would have fixed the problem.


RE: mis-understanding
By Samus on 12/4/2013 8:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
All he had to do was ask. They would have probably said yes.

I asked at a gas station once when I was desperate and they said "yes for a few minutes." I said I needed 30 minutes and it'd cost them about 15 cents, and they said "ok that's how much we get from a lottery ticket sale so buy a lottery ticket its up to 300 million this week." I laughed and got some power.


RE: mis-understanding
By Cypherdude1 on 12/4/2013 9:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I asked at a gas station once when I was desperate and they said "yes for a few minutes." I said I needed 30 minutes and it'd cost them about 15 cents, and they said "ok that's how much we get from a lottery ticket sale so buy a lottery ticket its up to 300 million this week." I laughed and got some power.
Did you win the PowerBall Lotto? You won the PowerBall Lotto didn't you? Because of your car, you bought the ticket and you won. I never win, dangnabit.


RE: mis-understanding
By Samus on 12/4/2013 10:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, no, but paying $1.00 for some quick power was well worth it. Otherwise I would have needed a tow. I'd only owned a Leaf for a month so I was kind of "experimenting" with the realistic range.

And a word of advice to anybody buying an EV. LEASE. The leaf alone has improved its range 30% over the last 3 years with cooling system revisions and battery redesigns. This is common among all EV's (and Hybrids to some extent.)

The problem is if you buy one, you will have trouble selling it in 4-5 years when all the EV's are getting double the range.

And...you still get the $7500 tax credit if you lease. It just gets amortized over years with financing instead of one lump sum. Because after all, the $7500 really goes to the manufacturer in the end (they end up still getting $30,000 for the vehicle you "paid" 22,500 for)


RE: mis-understanding
By Spuke on 12/5/2013 1:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And a word of advice to anybody buying an EV. LEASE. The leaf alone has improved its range 30% over the last 3 years with cooling system revisions and battery redesigns. This is common among all EV's (and Hybrids to some extent.)
Good advice, thanks.


RE: mis-understanding
By Wolfpup on 12/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: mis-understanding
By SAN-Man on 12/5/2013 8:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
It is not new at all, your ignorance is not proof. Theft of power has been around 100 years or so.


RE: mis-understanding
By chaos386 on 12/4/2013 10:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
He was already using the facilities, so it seems like a reasonable assumption that most publicly-accessible portions of said facilities would be available for use. Using the bathroom also costs the school a few cents for the soap and paper towels used, for example, but it's not something you'd think to ask permission for before using.

It was an incorrect assumption that the outlet was available for use, but one that could easily be made in good faith.


RE: mis-understanding
By jRaskell on 12/5/2013 8:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He was already using the facilities, so it seems like a reasonable assumption that most publicly-accessible portions of said facilities would be available for use.


It only seems reasonable to make such an assumption if he had permission to use the facilities. Not only did he not have permission, but he had been told explicitly in the past NOT to use the facilities. So he wasn't just stealing power, he was also trespassing.


RE: mis-understanding
By chaos386 on 12/5/2013 4:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Earlier versions of the story reported online made it seem like he was there supervising his son. Given the latest facts, yeah, I'm gonna reverse my opinion and side with the police. Since he explicitly disallowed from being there, it's theft to use their electricity.


RE: mis-understanding
By stm1185 on 12/4/2013 9:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a mis-understanding. He understood you can't just hook up to someone else's outlet and siphon off power they are paying for. He just thought it wasn't a big enough deal for the school to do something about it.

Just like he probably takes a dime from the cripple kids jar at 7-11 thinking the same thing. No one is going to fight me on this so it's ok.

It just wasn't that sleazebag's day, a Cop showed up who is payed to give a dam.


RE: mis-understanding
By Reclaimer77 on 12/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: mis-understanding
By Spuke on 12/5/2013 1:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone just walked up to your property and started using your outside receptacle, you would call the cops too!
I most definitely would and so would my neighbors. I live in a rural area with custom homes. One of the reasons we (all) live out here is to be away from the knuckleheads.


RE: mis-understanding
By Jeffk464 on 12/4/2013 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see, how much money do you think the government spent to punish someone over 5 cents. You can bet its in the thousands of dollars, that's brilliant. Small crimes need to be punished through appropriate fines, otherwise its the tax payer that gets penalized.


RE: mis-understanding
By jimbojimbo on 12/5/2013 11:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just about arresting him. It's about protecting the school and they did their job as they should.


RE: mis-understanding
By Jeffk464 on 12/4/2013 9:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course I agree that theft is theft


Not true, the amount is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. There is a big difference between stealing a stick of gum and pulling off a multi-million dollar jewelry heist.


RE: mis-understanding
By jbeenemd on 12/4/2013 10:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, is it really stealing when they offer electricity by placing a plugin there for you? A good lawyer would bring up the comparison of placing a water fountain there and charging you for stealing if you drink the water. Just my $.02 worth. Even if he gets a decision in his favor, he has lost money by having to take time off for court and a lawyer.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki