FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Masked Man Tells Bank: "Just Kidding!"





Soulfire
I saw this at Comcast and thought it was quite humorous, for lack of a better word.

Comcast wrote:
WILLISTON, N.D. - A man wearing a ski mask walked into a bank and demanded money, then told tellers, "just kidding," authorities said.

Ryan Wright, 20, surrendered to police Monday night, said Sgt. Mark Hanson, a Williston police detective. Wright was formally charged Tuesday.

Judge David Nelson set his bail at $1,000 and ordered Wright to stay away from alcohol and bars. A preliminary hearing was set for March 21, court officials said.

"He never showed a weapon, but the tellers got quite scared and concerned and thought the worst," Hanson said.

No customers were in the bank at the time of the Feb. 17 incident, he said. Wright then went about his banking business, taking some money from his checking account and then leaving.

If convicted, Wright faces up to five years in jail and a $5,000 fine.

"You don't walk into a bank with a ski mask and say 'Give me all your money,'" Hanson said. "It's just like going on an airplane and saying you have a bomb."


I agree with Hanson's statement that it's like going on an airplane and saying you have a bomb. Although the punishment might be a bit heavy, no *real* harm was done, this guy needs something to tell him what he did was wrong.
ocalhoun
I think I'll try just walking up to the teller (without waiting in line) and demanding lots of cash.
No weapon, no mask. If they give me money its their own fault.
Insanity
Would it really be worth the risk of getting shot, eh?
The Philosopher Princess
This is a very good real-life example to show how a “real” threat of initiation of force is initiation of force. This is not always an easy principle for people to catch, so I hope I can explain what I’d like to.

Soulfire, I believe I catch your drift with the following:
Soulfire wrote:
no *real* harm was done

You mean, no “*real* harm” in the sense that no money was stolen and no one was physically harmed. And on that you’re right.

However, as is my point with this post, there actually was “real” harm. Because a threat of force is a kind of force. Consider the following hypothetical change to the “just kidding” story. What if a bank guard noticed the masked man, believed (reasonably) that people’s lives were in danger, and the guard then shot the “kidder”?

Reasonable people would not blame the guard for using force because it was used in defense, not offense. But defense only happens when offense existed first. A threat (and I mean a real threat) of offense is offense. You know why? Because the people on the other end of real offense and a threat of real offense cannot tell the difference. The person who knows the difference -- at the time -- is the offender.

There are lots of comparable examples. If a person signs a contract (not under duress) they can’t later say, “oh I was just kidding when I said I’d give you $200 if you dug that hole for me; oh, you’ve already dug the hole? too bad!”

People saying “just kidding” after threats of force and signing agreements need to be held accountable for their actions, because they actually have used force and have agreed.

At least, this is what my political philosophy holds. (Of course, there's more to it, like how to figure out what constitutes real, as used above.) Does this fit, or not fit, your philosophy? I'd be interested to know from anyone.
Soulfire
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
This is a very good real-life example to show how a “real” threat of initiation of force is initiation of force. This is not always an easy principle for people to catch, so I hope I can explain what I’d like to.

Soulfire, I believe I catch your drift with the following:
Soulfire wrote:
no *real* harm was done

You mean, no “*real* harm” in the sense that no money was stolen and no one was physically harmed. And on that you’re right.

However, as is my point with this post, there actually was “real” harm. Because a threat of force is a kind of force. Consider the following hypothetical change to the “just kidding” story. What if a bank guard noticed the masked man, believed (reasonably) that people’s lives were in danger, and the guard then shot the “kidder”?

Reasonable people would not blame the guard for using force because it was used in defense, not offense. But defense only happens when offense existed first. A threat (and I mean a real threat) of offense is offense. You know why? Because the people on the other end of real offense and a threat of real offense cannot tell the difference. The person who knows the difference -- at the time -- is the offender.

There are lots of comparable examples. If a person signs a contract (not under duress) they can’t later say, “oh I was just kidding when I said I’d give you $200 if you dug that hole for me; oh, you’ve already dug the hole? too bad!”

People saying “just kidding” after threats of force and signing agreements need to be held accountable for their actions, because they actually have used force and have agreed.

At least, this is what my political philosophy holds. (Of course, there's more to it, like how to figure out what constitutes real, as used above.) Does this fit, or not fit, your philosophy? I'd be interested to know from anyone.

Ah yes, but by *real* threat I was referring to the physical side of it (hoping the people would catch that, with the emphasis). I'm not saying emotional stress or things along that line aren't called, I'd be pretty scared if I was in the same bank at the same time as a "robber" - fake or not.
The Philosopher Princess
Yes, Soulfire, I did catch that, as I explained. Let me ask, more directly, the additional issue I brought up: Do you consider threats of force to be real crimes just as “real” force is a real crime? Even if you’d be “pretty scared” (as you said, and as most of us would be), that doesn’t mean you consider it to be a crime. And, you had said earlier that the “punishment might be a bit heavy”, so I wonder. This is a question of political philosophy.
xorcist
ocalhoun wrote:
I think I'll try just walking up to the teller (without waiting in line) and demanding lots of cash.
No weapon, no mask. If they give me money its their own fault.

Yup all they have to do is say no and then go on doing what they keep on doing.
Soulfire
I suppose I do, a threat is a crime, but not as severe as commiting an actual crime.

Take, for instance, this example:
I could threaten someone with death. Or I could actually kill them. In my opinion, the threat was wrong and a crime, but killing the person would've been more of a crime.

I hope that explains it well, it made sense to me.
The Philosopher Princess
Soulfire wrote:
I could threaten someone with death. Or I could actually kill them. In my opinion, the threat was wrong and a crime, but killing the person would've been more of a crime.

Very well explained! And thank you for clarifying that.

Soulfire wrote:
I suppose I do, a threat is a crime, but not as severe as commiting an actual crime.

Yes, “not as severe”, but it’s still “an actual crime”. Just because a crime is “not as severe” as another crime does not mean it is not “an actual crime”. (I’m just being a picky Princess on the use of “actual.” Choice of words matter Smile.)
Vrythramax
In the state I live in the threat of violence and/or conspiracy to commit a crime both carry the same penalty as the actual commision of the crime itself. As it stands in the US now with all the terrorists induced fear going on anyone who does this kind of [dumb] thing is going to get raked over the coals. I'm not sure I would go for any defense he might put forth saying he was drunk at the time either...I have many friends and family members who drink, sometimes alot and not one of them has ever done anything like that. Granted I know alcohol effects people in differant ways, but in this case I have a feeling this guy started something and then couldn't/wouldn't go through with it. I say this because he was still sober enough to continue with his banking. All in all, I'd say he should be nominated for Dumbass of the Day...at least.
no_face15
I had a guy come in with a ski mask when I was working the overnight shift at a local drug store and pull the whole "empty the drawers, now!" on me. I laughed and he said "naw just give me a pack of cigarettes" (I think it was Winston's he wanted but don't remember). Anyway, I wonder how far the guy took it, because that seems way severe. If you're a cashier and someone asks for money, you should ask to see a weapon, it's just like carding for alcohol, the criminal will understand.
Ressurrector
Pretty dumb idea for a joke. Especially in this time of terrorism. But I kinda disagree with most people here. I feel you should actually have to "commit" a crime to be charged with it. How so you ask? Well its like this... We all have a free will and the ability to change our mind at will. So if someone decided to kill someone then changed their mind and didnt do it they reserved there right to change their mind and exibited something called *takes deep breath* ..."SELF CONTROL" Isn't that what laws were made for? To scare you into Behaving by the law or suffer its ultimate consequences and punishment. So now we live in a country that can persecute and prosecute based on ideas alone. This at one time was reserved for people with murder plans/conspiracy but now can be anything. Just imagine when and if the government gains the ability to read peoples thoughts. We will immediatly have 80 percent of the male population charged and convicted of premptive statutory rape and sexual battery just cause they secretly thought nasty thoughts of women they walked past while in public even though they didnt act them out.

This man deserves a punishment of some kind and an understanding of the magnitude of what he did, but not a robbery conviction.
chirag
Code:
Pretty dumb idea for a joke. Especially in this time of terrorism. But I kinda disagree with most people here. I feel you should actually have to "commit" a crime to be charged with it. How so you ask? Well its like this... We all have a free will and the ability to change our mind at will. So if someone decided to kill someone then changed their mind and didnt do it they reserved there right to change their mind and exibited something called *takes deep breath* ..."SELF CONTROL" Isn't that what laws were made for? To scare you into Behaving by the law or suffer its ultimate consequences and punishment. So now we live in a country that can persecute and prosecute based on ideas alone. This at one time was reserved for people with murder plans/conspiracy but now can be anything. Just imagine when and if the government gains the ability to read peoples thoughts. We will immediatly have 80 percent of the male population charged and convicted of premptive statutory rape and sexual battery just cause they secretly thought nasty thoughts of women they walked past while in public even though they didnt act them out.

This man deserves a punishment of some kind and an understanding of the magnitude of what he did, but not a robbery conviction.


Agreed
alkady
Ha ha ha ha ha, That a good one. This reminds me of this article of a guy who robbed a store and used the money he stole to buy things in the store.
Related topics
The Unofficial Jokes Thread
IE 7 to take a cue from Firefox
Great One-Liners & Quotes
The Blonde Telegram
Funny Business
Saga of the Empire State building
my hobby is sleeping
I don't know english :(
ghost? exist
Toilet Rules in Islam
"Radical" Islamic Muslims; Please Read
does anyone go to movie theaters anymore?
Wouldn't this scare the s**t out of you?
Kindle Global
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.