[pct-l] Charging in town

Thu Feb 11 08:38:26 CST 2016

Ido should have spent $15 and carried a 5 oz battery pack.

On Thursday, February 11, 2016, Jim & Jane Moody <moodyjj at comcast.net>
wrote:

> John,
> Thanks you for the thorough reply. Getting professional or experienced
> advice & info is a big benefit of this forum. Sometimes thoroughness
> requires greater length, so don't apologize.
>
> Watch where you step.
>
> Mango
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "John Papini" <johnthomaspapini at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> To: "Luce Cruz" <lucecruz13 at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net <javascript:;>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 8:05:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Charging in town
>
> Luce,
>
> I love your reference to and explanation of a weak analogy! Gosh, that
> brings back fond memories of formal debating.
>
> I did a lot of debating, in fact, about whether to reply at all, given
> your impassioned writing! We are similar in that regard; I too am
> passionate about responsibility and courteousness, and I believe that
> backpackers who do not share our passion can do us all a great disservice
> by damaging our collective reputation, in ways that Andrea Dinsmore and
> others have described.
>
> Passion affords tremendous power, but it is incumbent upon all of us to
> use the power of our passions responsibly, to temper the fires that drive
> us with prudence and thoughtfulness. This applies as much to the act of
> backpacking, of course - to balance our mad desire to push onward with
> caution and forethought - as it does to thinking about backpacking and
> perhaps more importantly to judging our fellow backpackers. Precisely at
> those times when passion demonstrates how black and white a situation or
> issue can be, I think it is both responsible and courteous to slow down and
> consider how little in life actually is black and white, and how much of it
> is hopelessly and wonderfully gray. As Mark Twain so eloquently put it, “It
> aint what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for
> sure that just ain’t so.”
>
> I agree with Andrea and others that the disrespectful nonsense happening
> on the PCT must stop. This year will be my first thru-hike, and a big
> consideration for me in choosing the PCT over the AT was the cultural
> difference between the two. While I very much hope to meet compelling and
> compassionate people on my hike - people I can call friends long after I
> cross the border into Canada (or don’t, should self or circumstance
> prohibit) - I wanted to avoid the “party” atmosphere associated with the
> AT. It disheartens me to hear that this culture is spreading.
>
> Nevertheless, the kinds of immature activity described in previous emails
> are oceans apart from the innocent actions of Ido, at least as recounted
> here. Perhaps you think it is disrespectful for an individual to plug his
> or her phone into an outlet in a public location - I don’t - but surely you
> can recognize the difference between plugging your phone into an outlet in
> a public location and lighting a paper lantern that could potentially burn
> down a forest? Or from getting drunk and harassing local residents?
>
> Even if you cannot see this difference, your characterization of such
> actions as “theft” is simply incorrect. I am licensed to practice law in
> Texas, not California, but reading your impassioned email - and the
> erroneous accusation of criminal activity contained therein - galvanized me
> to do a small bit of research into California’s criminal statutes
> (California Penal Code 494) and confirm that California is not an outlier
> state in terms of how it defines larceny. In my reasoned reading of their
> statutes, plugging your phone into an outlet would not constitute a crime
> under California law. Again, I am licensed to practice law in Texas, NOT in
> California, so I cannot technically offer you legal advice on this matter,
> but I do believe that Ido’s actions would not constitute a criminal act
> under California law. Your characterization of this as “theft,” then, seems
> to do little to further the important discussion about thru-hiker culture
> and normative behavior, and in my opinion confuses that discussion.
>
> Larceny in most states, and in California, requires both (1) intent and
> (2) an action undertaken with the requisite intent. This action can assume
> any number of forms - from directly taking the property of another, to
> obtaining that property willingly through fraudulent misrepresentation.
> “Property” has been specifically defined, and with technological
> improvements, courts were finding that the scope of the law simply did not
> cover certain misappropriations; if I take your book without your
> permission, you no longer have that book. This is larceny. But if I make a
> copy of your book, you still have your book. This was not larceny under the
> criminal statute as written. And so copyright laws were born. Electricity
> and other utilities, courts determined, similarly fell outside of the
> bounds of the law. So legislators responded with specific statutes intended
> to prevent theft of this “property” just as they did to protect copyrighted
> works. California’s statute on utility misappropriation is Penal Code
> Section 498. This statute can be found here, for those who are interested:
> http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=498
> <
> http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=498
> >
>
> Now, if you review the legislative history behind this statute, you’ll
> find that the purpose of this statute was to prevent direct theft from
> utilities. People were diverting utility services, tampering with meters,
> etc. The law was never intended to prevent individuals from taking
> electricity from other individuals (or businesses), and thus was not
> intended to prevent people from plugging their personal electronic devices
> into public outlets. Interestingly, though, the police did try to use the
> law in exactly this way. The Los Angeles police arrested three individuals
> in 2014 for possession of narcotics, possession of counterfeit money, and -
> you guessed it - theft of utility services under Penal Code Section 498 for
> charging their cell phones in the LA Metro station! You can see the article
> here:
> http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/12/22/48831/metro-don-t-be-charging-your-cell-phone-in-our-out/
> <
> http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/12/22/48831/metro-don-t-be-charging-your-cell-phone-in-our-out/
> >
>
> After considerable public outcry, the Mayor stepped in and stated that law
> enforcement resources should be "directed toward serious crime, not cell
> phone charging.” The Metro has publicly stated that customers may now use
> their outlets. The charges against these three individuals were dropped (at
> least with respect to utility misappropriation; I’m guessing they still got
> slammed for the narcotics and counterfeit dough). That article is here:
> http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20141223/metro-reverses-ban-on-cell-phone-charging-at-stations
> <
> http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20141223/metro-reverses-ban-on-cell-phone-charging-at-stations
> >
>
> Even more interestingly, this issue has been popping up in a few places
> over the last two years. From this article, you’ll see reference to the LA
> Metro incident described above, as well as an incident in London where a
> man was arrested (and later de-arrested) for charging his cellphone:
> http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2015/07/where-its-ok-to-charge-your-phone/398849/
> <
> http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2015/07/where-its-ok-to-charge-your-phone/398849/
> >
>
> Of course, because public opinion caused a change in policy before these
> cases were adjudicated, there’s no formal caselaw stating that cellphone
> charging is NOT illegal. In other words, courts still haven’t decided, in
> California (or elsewhere, near as I can tell), whether Penal Code 498 is
> meant to or actually covers charging your cellphone. Well, actually, I
> think the issue is more broadly whether taking electricity from a public
> outlet would constitute larceny. Again, the law in California was meant to
> prevent utility customers from stealing from the utility. Not to prevent
> Starbucks customers from “stealing” electricity from Starbucks. If a clever
> individual managed to hide an extension cord from a nearby bodega and used
> it to power his house, would that constitute larceny under Penal Code 498?
> I don’t know. Courts haven’t faced that problem.
>
> However, even without any judicial rulings on this particular issue, I can
> say with near-complete confidence that cellphone charging is NOT a crime.
> And it has everything to do with the point raised by Jay Bruins regarding
> the cost of charging a cell phone. This is one of those encouraging
> instances where the system appears to comport with common sense (rare
> instances, for the cynics among us). You see, in California (and
> elsewhere), there is a long established doctrine of the “de minimis”
> defense. If you’d like, you can read a long paper written by a Berkley
> professor on the de minimis defense here, though I wouldn’t recommend it:
> https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/De_Minimis2_DHusak.pdf <
> https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/De_Minimis2_DHusak.pdf>. To summate,
> the de minimis defense states that even assuming a defendant meets the
> other criteria for the commission of a crime, courts shall dismiss the
> prosecution if the defendant’s conduct did not actually cause or threaten
> the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense, or
> did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of
> conviction (emphasis mine). This is established throughout California’s
> caselaw, but to name a few instances, we have People v. Mijares, where the
> court found that the defendant was not guilty of possession of an illegal
> substance (notwithstanding that she did in fact, for a time, possess a bag
> of heroin), because in her particular case she took the heroin from a
> friend to throw it away; we also have People v. Brown, a murder case where
> the defendant was found guilty, but an issue before the court was whether
> the preparatory acts required for murder in the second degree (as opposed
> to third degree murder or manslaughter), while they clearly existed,
> exceeded the de mimimis standard deeply established in California law (in
> that case, his acts did exceed that standard, but the point here is that
> the standard exists, unequivocally); then we have In Re V-Z-S-, my
> favorite, because while it is a case handling immigration matters, the
> court states, verbatim, that “[n]ot all takings of property, however, will
> meet this standard [for larceny] because some takings entail a de minimis
> deprivation of ownership interests.” Bingo! Even if an individual otherwise
> meets all of the established requirements for larceny, if the deprivation
> of ownership interests is de minimis, the act is not, under California law,
> larceny, and therefore it is not a criminal act. It bears repeating, with
> emphasis: Even if an individual otherwise meets all of the established
> requirements for larceny, if the deprivation of ownership interests is de
> minimis, the act is not, under California law, larceny, and therefore it is
> not a criminal act.
>
> Whew! Sorry for overwhelming you with boring legal details, but the
> important point here is that (1) it is not at all clear whether “taking”
> electricity from a public or private place constitutes larceny under
> California’s utility misappropriation statute, which was designed to
> protect the utility, and (2) even if courts determine that the utility
> statute covers such “indirect" takings, the mere charging of a cell phone
> (as opposed to using an extension cord to power my house) would absolutely
> without a doubt not pass the de minimis threshold required for criminality
> if the cost of such charging is indeed a fraction of a cent.
>
> California law is clear with respect to much more than the de minimis
> defense; Penal Code Section 594-625c very clearly criminalizes destruction
> of property. To the extent that this McDonald’s employee deliberately
> damaged Ido’s cellphone (and such actions were not mere accident), that
> employee could have been found guilty of destruction of property,
> imprisoned for up to a year, and fined anywhere from $0-$10,000. The
> statute sets forth maximum fines based on property cost - under $400, the
> fine maxes out at $1000. Over $400, and the fine maxes out at $10,000. I
> mention this just in case you’re thinking that destroying a phone could be
> de minimis. It isn’t.
>
> I worry, given the length of my response, that perhaps I am guilty of the
> very thing against which I cautioned at the beginning of my email: allowing
> my passions to drive me forward without the necessary partnership of
> temperance. I decided to sleep on it. After a good night’s rest and
> additional reflection, I believe that this email is the marriage of both
> passion and of thoughtfulness. Perhaps my legal research was excessive -
> beyond what was necessary to prove my point - but perhaps not. Perhaps the
> full weight of the law, as legislated by California elected officials and
> adjudicated by California courts, is necessary to stand against those who
> might falsely affix the label of “criminal” to the innocent among us.
>
> Luce, I don’t know you, and I don’t mean to imply that you are some kind
> of monster that runs around falsely accusing innocent people to assist you
> in making a point or to give your words unwarranted weight. I think, like
> me and others on this list, you are passionate about backpacking, and about
> maintaining a culture of responsibility and courteousness - of respect. And
> I applaud you for that, as I applaud Andrea Dinsmore and others who have
> shared their stories. Self-control and established group norms are
> necessary to maintain positive relationships between hikers and residents,
> to maintain a culture of which we can all be proud.
>
> But Luce, charging your phone in a public place isn’t the same as risking
> wildfires or drunk & disorderly conduct. It’s just not. It’s not inherently
> dangerous and it’s not inherently disrespectful. Most importantly, though,
> it’s not criminal. Not in California, not in Texas, and while I haven’t
> checked, probably not in Oregon or Washington either.
>
> By all means let’s have a discussion about appropriate behavior on the
> trail. That’s important, even necessary. But try not to falsely throw
> around accusations of criminality as though you have some authority on the
> subject, OK? I don’t know Ido or Ido’s friend, but I’ll give them the
> benefit of the doubt just as I give it to you. Life is gray.
>
> Stay passionate,
> John Papini
>
> > On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:19 PM, Luce Cruz <lucecruz13 at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jay Bruins <jbruins at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> Just so we’re clear, the cost to charge a modern phone is peanuts:
> >> http://blog.opower.com/2014/09/iphone-6-charging-47-cents/
> >>
> >> $0.47/365days * 4 days between towns = $0.0051 per town*. This is no
> more
> >> “theft” than finding a penny on the ground and taking it with you.
> >
> >
> > That is a very weak analogy.
> > http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/
> > The difference is so clear it doesn't even deserve reasoning out, but the
> > penny that someone could have likely willfully thrown on the ground in
> > order to be rid of it is much different than the electricity that must be
> > paid for, every single little watt.
> >
> > Sure, your own little device might not amount to much, but if a quarter
> of
> > the herd did so, at your purported $0.0051/town, and the number of people
> > stealing the electricity was in the number of say 500, you now have a
> total
> > of $2.55. If more than 500 do this, say, double the amount, than it
> totals
> > $5.10. Where is the limit before the person that has to pay for the
> > electricity is allowed to become upset over this theft in your mind? When
> > does the owner or financially responsible party get to be victimized by
> > this? $5? $10? $10.01?
> >
> > This is why these matters are not up to you.
> >
> > Theft is theft, no matter what it is. That anyone would argue that it is
> a
> > meaningless thing is despicable. When all the trail angels and things
> that
> > were considered "free" without being explicitly free are gone, we will
> know
> > exactly how that came to be. We can blame the same mentality that says
> that
> > catching more than the possession limit while fishing isn't hurting
> anyone,
> > or that taking a roll of TP out of a bathroom doesn't really cost a
> > business or trail angel that much. "Restroom is for customers only" means
> > precisely that, that paying customers are helping to shoulder the burden
> of
> > water, electricity, cleaning, maintenance, and repairs.
> >
> > It might cost us all plenty in the long run. Ask Andrea Dinsmore. That
> is a
> > fine example of what happens when someone has had enough of this selfish
> > mentality. And she is not alone. There may be no telling how many may
> have
> > offered kindness in the past and decided that entitlement mentality
> wasn't
> > worth dealing with any longer?
> >
> > If you steal, no matter how small the item in value, even if only
> > "peanuts", you are a thief. Trying to tell me it's no big deal will say
> > volumes about you and will do nothing to change anyone's mind about it.
> >
> > This is my final word on the matter for the season unless this becomes a
> > glaring problem a few months from now.
> > --
> > Luce Cruz
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pct-L mailing list
> > Pct-L at backcountry.net <javascript:;>
> > To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >
> > List Archives:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> > All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> > Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net <javascript:;>
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net <javascript:;>
> To unsubscribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.

-- 
- David Austin
davidaustin777 at gmail dot com