ffu wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:33:28 -0400, "cybercat" > wrote:
>
> -->
> -->"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> -->>
> -->> "Charlotte L. Blackmer" > wrote in message
> -->>>>> All well and good, but she wouldn't be pleased if someone decided to
> -->>>>> steal from her. What I'm talking about is flat out stealing. If
> -->>>>> someone wants to paint it with a different brush, that's their
> -->>>>> problem.
> -->>>>
> -->>>>they're 'stealing' something *you've already thrown away*.
> -->>>
> -->>> *BING* *BING* *BING*
> -->>>
> -->>> and have placed on PUBLIC PROPERTY, i.e., the sidewalk/curb.
> -->>>
> -->>> Now if they take the recycling bin along with it ... THAT's stealing.
> -->>
> -->> Your opinion does not matter. Ask your town attorney what the law is.
> -->Do you admire this kind of petty nitpicking semantics game? As though there
> -->are no stupid laws. I don't give a fat, selfish, smug suburbanite's ass WHAT
> -->the law is, it is utterly petty and miserably small and uncaring to begrudge
> -->the poor or needy your refuse. And yes you bet I am talking about YOU, sf.
> -->If there is a law against them picking things up that are in containers
> -->marked for disposal, it is a law designed to keep the riff raff out of the
> -->fat ****ing smug suburban bitches' sight.
> -->
> -->Charlotte's point was not "what the law is." She is a bigger person than
> -->that. She was talking about a caring, rational person's reasonable
> -->definition of stealing, not that of a mindless penny ante bureaucracy
> -->catering to fatass suburban twits who actually begrudge the needy their
> -->castoff.
> -->
> -->Ugh. I said UGH. bleah. *shiver*
> -->
>
> furball?

That would have been a cough :-)

And the law doesn't matter since every community has some that would
apply anyway on things like loitering, or vagrancy. So if the local
police want to deal with a chronic problem, I'd be more inclined to
believe they'd be enforcing one of those type laws. Not theft.

Bob