Should Snatching an iPhone Be a Felony?

theodp writes "English comedian Russell Brand could be facing a felony conviction for snatching an iPhone from a would-be paparazzi and tossing it through a window. Singer/parolee Chris Brown also found himself in iPhone hot water after being charged with 'robbery by snatching' in a similar DIY-paparazzi-thwarting incident, which could be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the value placed on an iPhone. But in the world-of-crazy-pricing created by phone makers and wireless providers ($899 Nokia Windows Phone, anyone?), where the quoted price of an iPhone varies by a factor of 376 from the same company, should one really be charged with a felony for snatching an iPhone, especially when an iPad 2 can be had for $399 retail?"

Comments

Why not?

[shentino]

This is no different than pick pocketing someone.

Usually stealing something directly from someone's person is a serious offense no matter how worthless it is.

Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Why not?

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

I think the summary is just using the story as real-life example of the ludicrous nature of mobile phone pricing structures. No-one is questioning the right/wrong of the offence, but it appears US law determines the seriousness of the offence based on the value of the goods. The question becomes how much is your free/subsidised phone worth? A question only clouded by the lack of transparency in the pricing models of phone companies/manufacturers.

Personally, I believe the ideal of weighting the seriousness of a crime on the monetary value of the goods stolen is inherently flawed. Which is worse - tossing the phone of a paparazzi? Or stealing a sandwich from a homeless guy? It appears that US law may consider damaging a wealthy man's toy to be worthy of a greater punishment than depriving a poor man of his food for a day.

Re:Why not?

[Max Littlemore]

That's why I always carry black PVC tape and super glue. Stick it on and give it back. Not that I'm a celeb mind you.....

Re:Why not?

[TheLink]

Taking it out of someone's hands involves a lot more force (and less skill) than pick pocketing someone.

That said, intention is important too. To me (not the courts) it is whether he intended to permanently deprive the person of the item. Since he threw it through a window my guess is yes, but it was more a "destruction of private property" act.

But if someone was trying to take pictures of you and you knocked the phone/camera away and out of their hands, to me that's not robbery or theft. But still an offense (that could be mitigated depending on how much an asshole the photographer was being at the time[1]).

[1] Which does not seem to apply in this particular case.

Re:Why not?

[JWSmythe]

  Well, the charges change with the degree of force, and other factors.

    A pick pocket won't have made any physical threat. Ideally, they would have the job started and finished before the mark knew what was happening.

    From the article, there appears to be a physical threat, destruction of private property, and disturbing the peace. In cases like this, pick a side, they're both probably just as guilty of some of those charges and more.

    Taking someone's phone and tossing it? IMHO, that should be a misdemeanor at best in any jurisdiction. iPhone, Android, Blackberry, or whatever. The only way I could imagine it being expensive enough to consider a felony would be if it were some elusive prototype.

    Disclaimer: IANAL and everything varies by jurisdiction. Consult with a local attorney for appropriate local information.

Re:Why not?

[snowgirl]

Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.

Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery. (Just like civil battery is the same tort of "battery" regardless of if it results in grievous bodily injury or is just an ear flick, or a poke.)

The difference is most people let a lot of misdemeanors and/or torts go by, because doing something about it would cost more than the harm done.

I learned about this because I actually had a piece of evidence snatched out of my hands in the halls of a court house. Pissed me off to no end, and the cops didn't understand what criminal act could have been committed. It wasn't until much later that I learned that it was technically robbery. (Same guy later went on to break into our apartment and steal more evidence, and my netbook just 2 days before the hearing about my protection order against him.)

Re:Why not?

[Z00L00K]

You forget the possible value of the contents on the device.

So bring the offender to court on a felony charge regardless of if it was a pick pocket or robbery. If someone takes inappropriate pictures - then charge them with that instead.

Re:Why not?

[physicsphairy]

Yes, so we've established this is a crime. That's not disputed.

But there are underlying reason why it was a crime, why that crime is assigned the penalty it has been, and why the legislators implement a price breakdown in the first place. If the specific law does not continue to correspond accurately with those intentions, it probably is being misapplied and/or needs to be modified.

One major function of the penalty (if not the only function) is to act as a deterrent. This means it needs to offset the potential gain to the offender in a way that accounts for his probability of being caught. In this case, a "robbery" charge is silly: robbers get a financial payoff and generally operate so as to escape penalty. Publically tossing someone's property obviously should involve assessing a different penalty because there is no financial reward and the chances of getting away with it are minimal.

Another key difference is where the perpetrator does not understand the value of the property. If someone grabs an unknown electronic item from you and damages it, how important is the price to whether he should be allowed to vote or made to spend significant time in prison? Seems to me that as long as he is required to make full restitution for the cost of the item, the additional criminal penalty should be roughly the same for most cases.

Consider, why did the legislators include a price breakdown at all? One reason may have been increased deterrence for major heists, another may have simply been to target particularly egregious offenses. Neither of which seems to me like something which should depend on whether it was an iPhone or a Nokia.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is worse - tossing the phone of a paparazzi? Or stealing a sandwich from a homeless guy?

The law protects absolute dollars. So its the price of an over-hyped toy versus the cost of a snack. This is why the law is for the rich; and the lawyers who bend it to their will.

Re:Why not?

[sl4shd0rk]

Why not?

Sheesh, this takes fanboism to a whole new level. Stealing is one thing, but being charged with a felony because you picked up the wrong f#cking phone (all iphones look the same) off the bar is just wrong.

If you get robbed/pwned/mugged/beaten it shouldn't matter what was taken. Let's not go making iLaws for christ sakes.

Re:Why not?

[Tom]

This is no different than pick pocketing someone.

Actually, it is. The law makes a difference between taking something from someone with the intent of keeping it for yourself, and just taking it out of their hands and immediately dumping it somewhere else. If you smoke in a non-smoking zone and I take the damn cigarette out of your hands and toss it on the floor, that is legally not a theft. You could probably sue me for the 20 cents or so it is worth (though the counter-suit for smoking in a non-smoking area would spoil your victory). Ok, in the USA you could also sue me for $25 mio. for emotional damage or something.

Anyways, the law makes fine differences. Geeks, you need to be more proud of the law, it is much more geeky than most of us think.

Re:Why not?

[bsane]

I hope they had permission to do so. If not, I'm someone who would certainly smash their camera and/or delete the picture myself. I'm prepared for the consequences of that.

So you're willing to commit a felony (depending on the cost of the phone/camera) in response to a lawful non-threatening action? At least you posted AC...

Re:Why not?

[bsane]

Another key difference is where the perpetrator does not understand the value of the property. If someone grabs an unknown electronic item from you and damages it, how important is the price to whether he should be allowed to vote or made to spend significant time in prison? Seems to me that as long as he is required to make full restitution for the cost of the item, the additional criminal penalty should be roughly the same for most cases.

So as long as a rich person eventually pays for it- he can forcibly take anything he wants and destroy it, and suffer no criminal consequences?

I realize people cynically(?) claim this happens now, but I haven't seen too many people actually argue for it.

Re:Why not?

[BasilBrush]

This is no different than pick pocketing someone.

Pickpocketing is certainly different. It's a crime of deception... done well the victim doesn't know who the criminal is. It's a crime of financial gain for the criminal.

In this case, the criminal wanted the victim to be in no doubt who did it. And he didn't do it for financial gain, but in his own mind as serving out justice.

It's more vandalism than theft.

Re:Why not?

[BasilBrush]

I think it's pretty straightforward. Look at the retail price of the phone without a contract. If it's older, depreciate it or look at second hand prices of such phones.

An unlocked, contract free iPhone 4S is $649 - $849 (16GB - 64GB).

It appears it's a 3rd degree felony.

Re:Why not?

[shiftless]

Why does someone have to go to PRISON and be BARRED FROM LIFE from VOTING and GUN OWNERSHIP, just to suffer "consequences" for breaking a goddamn phone?

Re:Why not?

[Cederic]

I hope they had permission to do so.

People don't need permission to photograph you. It's their camera and light belongs to nobody.

Re:Why not?

[xenobyte]

That's why I always carry black PVC tape and super glue. Stick it on and give it back. Not that I'm a celeb mind you.....

That stupid. I'm assuming you're placing the tape where it obstructs the function of the device?

What you're doing is vandalism, not to mention the damage you'd do to the livelihood if we're talking a paparazzi here.

Now, let's just get this straight - celebrities have no extended right to privacy. If they're out in public you can snap pictures and film them to your hearts content, the same as if the subject had been anyone else. There are rules for private property and rules for publication, but not for the actual recording in public. Anyone can photograph and film anyone in public. It's that simple.

Then the celebrities whine about their privacy and how they hate having their pictures taken but at the same time they have no qualms spending days posing for publicity pictures (which they get paid for) or in general collecting more or less obscene paychecks for 8-10 weeks of work. They enjoy VIP treatment and privileges at clubs and restaurants, not to mention award shows and similar. They wanted fame and the perks that come with it, but they don't want the flipside... Well, too bad. It's all or nothing. That's the way life works.

Re:Why not?

[SpockLogic]

Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.

Yep, convict him of a felony, deport him and that should mean that the arrogant anal sphincter will never be allowed to return.

Perfect.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "being accountable for one's own actions". Want to keep voting, stay out of prison, and own a gun? Then don't do things that will compromise those rights.

Re:Why not?

[physicsphairy]

It's possible you might wish to re-read the passage you quoted.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It appears that US law may consider damaging a wealthy man's toy to be worthy of a greater punishment than depriving a poor man of his food for a day."

Always fun to bash the USA's justice system, isn't it? The fact that the item was taken off a person's body, by force, means that the DA can charge the perp with robbery. Doesn't matter if it's a "wealthy man's toy" or a "poor man's food for a day." But it's easier for you to bash the USA as being more concerned with a person's wealth than with their actual person, isn't it?

Re:Why not?

[bsane]

It's possible you might wish to re-read the passage you quoted.

Look, this is slashdot... I don't have to RTFA or the summary, why should I read posts I reply to?

j/k I did miss the important part of that, and now I'm not sure if I disagree or not...

Re:Why not?

[cynyr]

To be fair, if the person taking the pictures is close enough for me to "snatch" the phone from his/her hand, it would seem to me that they are stepping over some line, harassment maybe? How much space around you can you reasonably expect? here in the midwest, I'd say at least an arms length.

Re:Why not?

[toddestan]

Interesting law, if this is true. What if the camera uses film?

Re:Why not?

[currently_awake]

In a rich man's world the law is made to protect the rich. The bigger issue is all the music files. That phone could be worth $68,246,789!

Re:Why not?

[khallow]

So as long as a rich person eventually pays for it- he can forcibly take anything he wants and destroy it, and suffer no criminal consequences?

Civilian courts have this nailed. The person pays triple damages or so, plus penalties, plus court costs. Even extremely rich people might (and I think do) hesitate at damaging property, if they know they're just creating lucrative opportunities for their victims.

As far as criminal penalties go, I think the problem here is assault and vandalism not theft. Physically grabbing something from an unwilling person is well within the limits of assault for most of the developed world, I bet. And vandalism more accurately describes what is done to the property.

Re:Why not?

[ClioCJS]

Pretty ignorant comment. Most theft are misdemeanors. Read your local police reports. Don't even know why you bothered to comment when you obviously know so little about what constitutes a felony.

Re:Why not?

[davester666]

Even the example of the wide variance in pricing is ludicrous. You aren't 'buying' an iPhone for $199 anymore than you are 'buying' a Mercedes for $1000. You need to make a bunch more payments before it's yours.

Re:Why not?

[spire3661]

If I had to replace my phone due to theft I would out of pocket $800. Felony

Re:Why not?

[Altus]

Seems to me it would be worth what it costs to replace, which does not include the subsidy.

Seems pretty simple, if a $500 camera would be a felony so would a $500 iPhone. Subsidized or not it isn't actually free.

Re:Why not?

[whoever57]

To be fair, if the person taking the pictures is close enough for me to "snatch" the phone from his/her hand, it would seem to me that they are stepping over some line, harassment maybe?

Yes, clearly. The article I read said that the person taking the photo was in a car driving past, so, now, who was it that stepped over a line? Who committed the harrasment?

Re:Why not?

[theArtificial]

Guess you guys aren't going to have much success with televised sporting events with a crowd.

Re:Why not?

[Dahamma]

From the article, there appears to be a physical threat, destruction of private property, and disturbing the peace. In cases like this, pick a side, they're both probably just as guilty of some of those charges and more.

And on the other side, harassment and possibly assault (which is the definition of "feeling physically threatened" regardless of whether the threat was carried out). I can't imagine the circumstances (ie. being goaded into it) wouldn't be taken into account. If not then it's just going to *reinforce* the behavior of sleazy paparazzi to get in someone's face enough to get a reaction and then sue to make money off of the incident! No need to even take and sell the photos any more...

Re:Why not?

[polymeris]

Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.

Forced was used if the guy snatched it out of the paparazzo's hands.

IANAL, but I see three issues here:
- The destruction (or damage, at least) of the $500 phone and possibly its contents.
- The use of force.
- The obstruction of a perfectly lawful action - taking a photograph in a public place.

As a guy who enjoys shooting and looking at street photography, IMO the last one is the most severe offense. A few hundred bucks and a scare is nothing in comparison to the potential erosion to artistic and journalistic freedom if this behaviour is accepted.

Re:Why not?

[Dahamma]

Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery.

No, it's not. It's all about context. If I walked up to you in the street and said "hey, if you can snatch this dollar out of my hand you can have it" and you do, can I then have you arrested for robbery?

Was the context in this case enough to consider it theft/robbery? I seriously doubt it - more like willful destruction of property. Goo luck trying to convince a judge/jury that there is a difference from grabbing something form someone's hand and throwing it out the window, vs. taking it off a table and throwing it vs. intentionally causing you to drop it out of a window. And of those could be considered willful destruction, but not necessarily theft/robbery.

Then again, in the end it may not make much of a difference. Willful destruction of property has similar punishment to theft in many jurisdictions, including being a felony based on the property's value...

Re:Why not?

[Xeranar]

Most of the valuation for seriousness is based on the concept of scaling value. Stealing food from somebody who desperately needs it will surely get you the maximum penalty allowed under the statute. That being said, If anything this is a case where the phone subsidized or otherwise should be based on replacement (without any potential insurance). Thus if I got a $200 iPhone or Android phone but replacing it unsubsidized would cost me $500-600 makes far more sense. In the criminal courts its usually based on replacement as well as civil courts simply because destruction of it means replacement.

Re:Why not?

[ron_ivi]

based on the value of the goods.

The value of the goods is tiny compared to the value of the data on it. For example this access to his email account, that receives the password reset forms for his bank account.

weighting the seriousness of a crime on the monetary value of the goods stolen is inherently flawed.

On the contrary, the US doesn't do that enough.

It'd be kinda nice if someone spent 2,000,000 times as long in jail if he steals $20 million (using shady hedge fund tricks) than if he steals $10.

Re:Why not?

[snowgirl]

Something is wrong when it's that easy to break into apartments/houses.

He was the landlord. And honestly, apartments/houses are always quite easy to break into.

Re:Why not?

[snowgirl]

No, it's not. It's all about context. If I walked up to you in the street and said "hey, if you can snatch this dollar out of my hand you can have it" and you do, can I then have you arrested for robbery?

No, because you're consenting to the act. Just like boxers cannot be arrested for battery during their fight. They have consented to combat.

Goo luck trying to convince a judge/jury that there is a difference from grabbing something form someone's hand and throwing it out the window, vs. taking it off a table and throwing it vs. intentionally causing you to drop it out of a window. And of those could be considered willful destruction, but not necessarily theft/robbery.

The jury doesn't decide what crimes a person is tried for. The prosecuting attorney presents the charges as robbery, and explains what robbery is legally defined to be to the grand jury. They then indict. After that point, the defense cannot argue that the facts of the case fit another crime, but not the crime that the person has been charged with. Besides which, that would be the stupidest defense in the world...

The defense would argue that the person's actions don't constitute robbery. But since snatching something out of another person's hands (without their consent) is technically robbery, good luck on that.

Re:Why not?

[Dahamma]

After that point, the defense cannot argue that the facts of the case fit another crime, but not the crime that the person has been charged with. Besides which, that would be the stupidest defense in the world...

The absolutely can (and do) argue that. All that it takes is to convince a jury that the defendant is not guilty of the crime of which they are accused. And if they do a good job at that the prosecution is free to drop the case and try under a different statute. But of course most prosecutors wouldn't be dumb enough to try someone for a crime like robbery when there is another crime (malicious and willful destruction of property) that carries a similar sentence and is much more appropriate.

And it's *extremely* unlikely that a grand jury would be used for a case as silly as this. Something as minor as this would just be presented to a judge for probable cause before a trial could be set. Of course in this case there's no way it's going to a trial anyway, Russell Brand can afford great lawyers and it will undoubtedly be plea bargained to a misdemeanor and a fine...

Re:Why not?

[RocketRabbit]

Why do you think that somebody with poor impulse control needs a gun nor the ability to vote?

Hell I think it should be legal to shoot somebody who is taking crap from me, no matter it's value. Some states agree.

Re:Why not?

[youngone]

You're looking at this the wrong way around. How rich is the complainant? How rich is the defendant? The value of the property is of secondary interest.

Re:Why not?

[Formalin]

You know, since it is weighted on the value of the offence, you'd think they would index it to inflation, if nothing else.

"theft under $5000" around here, is generally* a summary conviction (~misdemeanor, usually maximum $5k fine and/or 6mo max sentence), whereas >$5k is always an indictable offence. (I suppose you'd call this a felony, in the US).

*in this case (theft <$5k) it can also be tried as indictable offence, but even then the maximum punishment is reduced (2 years) versus >$5k (10 years). I don't think this is done too often, but I'm not a lawyer...

I agree that the dollar value is a rather shitty indicator of the harm done to the victim, but I suppose this is why we have judges instead of a state machine.

Re:Why not?

[Ihmhi]

This is a load of bullshit.

What happened to "paying one's debt to society"? You served time for jail, your slate should be clean. Instead, we're creating a permanent underclass of ex-cons who either keep hopping back into the system or are readily exploited.

Re:Why not?

[Dwonis]

It sounds more like a giant loophole that lets the established government disenfranchise arbitrary groups voters: just pass a law that makes something they tend to do a felony.

Y'know, like copyright infringement.

Re:Why not?

[snowgirl]

The absolutely can (and do) argue that.

It seems absolutely retarded to admit in open court to committing any crime, unless it is the only way to prove your innocence of a greater crime.

Arguing that you could have committed another crime to raise reasonable doubt is of course possible, but the key there is the hypothetical.

Arguing that the facts of the crime do not fit the charges filed? You would present a motion to the judge that even if the prosecution's arguments were to be accepted in full, then they would not fit the crime being charged. Note again, no admission of the commission of any crime, but rather you're arguing that the prosecution is arguing inconsistent with the facts in their own case. Namely, "even if everything the prosecutors say is taken as gospel truth, then my client would still be innocent of the charges brought."

And in the state of Louisiana, there is no requirement that the robbery be done with intent to permanently deprive the other party of their goods. Now, I hear you say, "but Common Law establishes what robbery is, and you can't just throw the establishment of the crime in Common Law out of the window!" MOST CERTAINLY YOU CAN! In Civil Law jurisdictions, Common Law standards are inapplicable, and guess what? Louisiana operates predominantly under a Civil Law system.

Re:Why not?

[RamenJunkie]

I don't think the punishment is based on the valu of what was stolen, look at the bankers, they get pretty much zero punishment. It is more a combination of higher punishment for wronging a person "worth more" and an inverse proportion to the value of the person doing the stealing.

Re:Why not?

[DerekLyons]

- The obstruction of a perfectly lawful action - taking a photograph in a public place.

As a guy who enjoys shooting and looking at street photography, IMO the last one is the most severe offense. A few hundred bucks and a scare is nothing in comparison to the potential erosion to artistic and journalistic freedom if this behaviour is accepted.

There's a difference between street photography and deliberate harassment of an individual. You're not standing at the top of a slippery slope, you're standing between an apple cart and an Orange Julius.

Re:Why not?

[ColdSam]

Except that the fine print on the ticket explicitly gives them the rights to use your image.

Re:Why not?

[Shotgun]

Tell us again how Russell and Britney would entertain all of the skulls of mush that are entertain by such flatulence if the paparazzi aren't there taking pictures of there ludicrously excessive lifestyles?

Re:Why not?

[xkpe]

Come on... it's now like he downloaded an illegal copy of an iPhone...

Re:Why not?

[HArchH]

What a ridiculously socialist comparison. Without a doubt stealing a $500 device is worse than a $3 sandwich. Attempting to value items based on the evaluator's arbitrary judgement (or your arbitrary judgement in your sandwich example) will lead to completely useless and endlessly appealed criminal charges.

Does the value of the sandwich change if the guy had two of them? Of if he had a sandwich, an apple, and a bottle of beer?

Is his sandwich worthier than yours? Or does its value depend on the proximity of one's next meal?

It already is

[MindPrison]

It's already a felony in basically every democratic city in the world to snatch whatever private property someone else owns, and tossing it away like that (out the window).

It's not yours, so you can't snatch it, it's that simple. Nothing complex about it.

Re:It already is

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. The only question the story raises - why is Russel Brand considered a comedian?

Being cocky and a loud mouth makes you funny now? I'm glad he moved over to the states, he should fit right in over there. We were already really sick of him.

Re:It already is

[Anonymous Coward]

It is certainly a crime, but should it be a *felony*? Basically, should you have your gun ownership, voting, working, and a host of other rights nullified for tossing someone else's iPhone?

Re:It already is

[gnasher719]

It's already a felony in basically every democratic city in the world to snatch whatever private property someone else owns, and tossing it away like that (out the window).

In Germany, it isn't theft, when you are not trying to enrich yourself. Next, in the case of killing a person, there are distinctions being made between pre-meditated or spontaneous cases, or whether the death of the person was intented. In this particular case, there was no intent that the paparazzi would lose their phone, the intent was to protect someone's privacy.

Re:It already is

[TheLink]

I don't think people should even lose their voting rights unless one of their crimes was to screw with the election system or results.

Doesn't matter even if they're a convicted murderer. They should still be allowed to vote. Maybe even from prison (unless we don't trust the prisons to not tamper with or influence the votes).

Re:It already is

[Babbster]

I could be wrong but isn't there an assault here as well? It's obviously a violent act to grab something out of another person's hand against their will and then there's the second violent act of throwing the phone through a window. If that happened to me, I'd certainly be in fear of further violence against me. Thus, it would seem to rise to the level of assault.

Of course, an assault can still be a misdemeanor but there would seem to be the potential for multiple charges arising from the incident.

One final note: Can you really be called "paparazzi" if you're doing the job with an iPhone? Yeah, the cameras in them are okay but wouldn't their quality be beaten handily by even a relatively cheap, dedicated camera?

Re:It already is

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

It's yet another advert for Apple passing as a story.

I don't think so. Where's the pro-Apple angle? I must have missed these endorsements:

Apple - the paparazzi's choice. Protecting your privacy, while you invade someone else's...

Russell Brand, England's premier comedian, says "I only throw Apple phones, no other manufacturer's phones are weighted for the same distance and accuracy".

The iPhone - with an 18 month contract, it's a steal. (Off contract, it's a felony...)

Re:It already is

[pthisis]

Unfortunately just after Louis CK delivered a particular scathing line for team talent, Gallagher would squash him with a novelty-size mallet.

Re:It already is

[julesh]

It's already a felony in basically every democratic city in the world to snatch whatever private property someone else owns, and tossing it away like that (out the window).

There's an awful lot wrong with this statement.

1. The word "felony" is a technical word from US law that has a very specific meaning, and one which refers to a distinction most other countries do not (any longer) make. We have criminal offenses, which have varying scales of punishments, but we do not have the notion of different categories of offence like this. In the UK, for example, we have only a distinction between "indictable" and "summary" offences, which determines whether a jury trial is required (only for indictable offences) and whether a punishment of more than 12 months imprisonment is available (also only for indictable offenses). A felony corresponds most closely to an indictable offence, but the distinction is not really the same at all.

2. At least here in the UK, this would not be considered either theft or robbery. Theft is defined as "taking someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of its use". Robbery is "taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear." As there was no intent to permanently deprive, neither offense occurred.

It may or may not be another offense. If contact was made with the holder of the phone, it may be battery, a summary offense carrying a maximum term of 6 months imprisonment in the UK. Note that battery is a less serious offence in the UK than in the US as it does not require harm to be caused. If no contact was made, but a reasonable person would have feared violence in the situation, it may be common assault, which carries a similar penalty. If neither of these occurred, but the phone was damaged, it may be criminal damage, which is also a summary offence with a maximum penalty of only 3 months imprisonment. In the event there was no touching, no threat of violence, and no damage to the phone, it isn't clear to me that any offence would have occurred at all had this happened in the UK. In any event, none of these offences are considered especially serious, and so are not in the category that we would most commonly consider as parallel to a felony.

Re:It already is

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Hmmm... Since you didn't use the IANAL defence, and have posted a well-informed comment, I'm going to have to assume that YAAL.

Quick everyone - mod this patent-loving, blood-sucker down!

/kidding

Re:It already is

[TheRaven64]

I was going to point out that dead comedians tended not to be very funny. Then I remembered that you were comparing them to Russell Brand...

Re:It already is

[hellop2]

I agree with you. I don't understand why so many other posters think this is a robbery.

Shouldn't a crime require intent? If not, people should be charged with theft whenever they move a chair at a restaurant. This is property damage/vandalism. Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:It already is

[cowboy76Spain]

If I steal your car and throw it down a mountain I will not have profitted from it, yet it would be a crime.

Even more, if I do not enter your car but I douse it with gas and lit, that would be another crime (yes, not theft but arson). Even if you were using that car to follow me and keep harassing me.

Now, we can discuss if the guy can claim that he was under pressure by the paparazzi as a way to soften the sentence. But that does not change that it was indeed a crime.

And for paparazzi, I think the same than sport stars: the problem is not that they get paid for doing what they do, the trouble is that someone is willing to pay them for doing it. Oh, it is easier to blame the individual paparazzi than the public that buys/sees all the gossiping media, but it does not adress the problem.

Re:It already is

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're walking down a public street you can have no expectation of privacy.

Re:It already is

[dkf]

Shouldn't a crime require intent?

Yes, or recklessness, i.e., lacking a reasonable amount of care. For example, killing someone because you can't be bothered to be careful is still wrong, even if there was no actual intent to harm.

Re:It already is

[bsane]

2. At least here in the UK, this would not be considered either theft or robbery. Theft is defined as "taking someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of its use". Robbery is "taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear." As there was no intent to permanently deprive, neither offense occurred.

Grabbing something out of your hands isn't 'force'? Throwing a glass smartphone out a window doesn't show intent to 'permanently deprive' the person of the use of that phone? You live in an interesting world...

Re:It already is

[chrb]

He said "deprive the person of that property" not "use of that property". If someone intentionally breaks something of yours, that is criminal damage, not theft.

Re:It already is

[couchslug]

It's the act that's punished. Consequences hurt? Don't fucking do the act, that being the point. If your self-control is that poor, you don't need access to firearms. (I say this as a staunch Second Amendment advocate.)

If the perp grabbed wallet full of that amount of cash instead, it wouldn't even be interesting and certainly wouldn't make Slashdot.

Re:It already is

[Attila Dimedici]

How would this not be robbery as defined by UK law? The definition of Robbery you gave is "taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear." OK, let's look at that, "taking the property of another", yeah, that is what is being talked about here. "with the intent to permanently deprive that person of that property," they tossed it out the window, that sure seems to me to be an attempt to permanently deprive them of its use. "by means of force or fear", they grabbed it out of the persons hand, that is, by means of force (and maybe fear as well).
I'm sorry, but by the definition you gave in your post, this is robbery by UK law. Now it may be that there are other elements to UK law that would make this not be robbery, but your post fails to make that case.

Re:It already is

[T-Bone-T]

There doesn't have to be a pro-Apple message. I guess you missed the part where the iPad was needlessly mentioned?

Re:It already is

[Hatta]

Because the people who make the rules engineer them in order to disenfranchise large portions of the population as a way of securing power. They work the system so that they can get away with much, much worse behavior than what would be criminal if we did it. Congress is full of people who think the rules don't apply to them because they're strong or smart enough to game the system. And in most cases they're right. Those are the people we really have to worry about. A felon with the right to vote is harmless compared to a representative in a gerrymandered district.

Re:It already is

[shiftless]

Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?

Because your "democracy's" rules are wrong

Re:It already is

[Cederic]

Brand is an ass who thinks he's above the law.

Or possibly he's a hard working professional that values his occasional downtime and finds obtusive intrusive extremely stressful, leading to actions he wouldn't normal consider.

That doesn't mean he isn't an ass, but try living under media scrutiny and see how you hold up.

Re:It already is

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Actually, I took the mention to be a dig at the excessive cost of an iPhone: If a iPad can be sold at $399, then why does an iPhone have to cost so much more? I'm not sure why you took that to be advertising for Apple, unless you think $399 is an exceptionally low price, which few people would be aware of? Of course, I may be unaware of a secret Slashdot agenda. Equally, you may be looking for something that isn't there.

Re:It already is

[gnasher719]

Throwing a phone out of the window doesn't mean intent to deprive the person permanently. The person can get out of the house, go where the window is, and pick up the phone. Furthermore, the depriving must be the intent. The intent was never depriving the person of their phone, the intent was to stop them from taking photos.

Re:It already is

[nine-times]

If you're taking someone's property and then immediately throwing it ou t the window, I would wonder if it's correct to think of it as "theft" at all. Certainly it sounds like a crime, but "theft" is generally when you take something from another person in order to keep it for yourself. What we're talking about is destruction of another person's property without permission. In that light, it almost sounds like it should be a civil case, not a criminal case, unless the act of "snatching" should be considered assault.

Of course, the law should not be blind to the circumstances surrounding an event. Getting into a scuffle with a paparazzi and throwing his camera out a window should be treated differently than roaming bands of teenagers destroying property for no reason. And it would be different still if someone followed you around, waited for you to set your phone down, and then smashed it and destroyed it out of spite for a personal dispute.

Re:It already is

[ulricr]

probably because at 399$ the iPad is slow at cost or below cost to education. for most product you have no idea what the cost price is, there is nothing unusual about the iPhone. Ho, and yes, a smaller device with a cell phone radio could be more expensive to product, that's also reasonable.

Re:It already is

[Schmorgluck]

1. The word "felony" is a technical word from US law that has a very specific meaning, and one which refers to a distinction most other countries do not (any longer) make.

Actually, even though France's penal system is very different from USA's one, it has a roughly equivalent distinction.

Two important things to know before I elaborate:

1. IANAL, I'm just a layman, albeit well informed about the laws of my country, France, thanks mainly to the work of various blogging legal professionals, chief among them an avocat (roughly, attorney) who blogs under the pen name Eolas.
2. Translating legalese, not only between two languages, but two different legal traditions, is a tricky exercise. Expect some quirks. If there's someone familiar with both systems around here, be my guest to correct me. Also, you will see that, in the matter at hand, there are several false friends between English and French. To avoid too much confusion, I will systematically put the French words in italic.

In French penal system, there's this thing called "la classification tripartite des infractions", which can be translated as "the three-parts categorization of crimes" (I'm not sure there's a formal equivalent in the English legalese for Common Law systems). Here we meet our first false friend: the French word infraction is the generic term for penal offences, like "crime" in English. By ascending order of seriousness, and liability, there are:

1. Contraventions: petty offences, similar to what is called, I think, "infractions" in the USA (yeah, the false friend is back). The concept of "summary offence" is also similar, it seems. In the mind of most French, the word contravention is strongly associated with traffic offences, which indeed make the bulk of it. Save for the most severe cases, the process is simplified, without debates before the courts. This is an exception to what is called in French "Principe du Contradictoire" ("Principle of Contradiction", a subset of due process which makes debating an accusation the norm - I know the concept exists in the USA, but I don't know how it's formally called, or even if it has a formal designation). The accused can still cause a debate before a court if they want to challenge the conviction. Contraventions are only punished with fines, at least as the main penalty - additional penalties can be added, like, in the case of traffic offences, loss of the driving license, for example. The standard amounts of the fines are decided through executive order, within the boundaries of existing laws. There's more to this, but I prefer not to delve into the details on a subject on which my grasp is limited.
2. Délits: intermediate offences, roughly equivalent to misdemeanors. Always tried before a court, but without a jury. Main penalties can take the form of inprisonment, fines, or a mix of both. The scale of penalties is set in law, but take note that the judge can always decide to reduce them: the law only defines the cap. For first offences that aren't too severe, suspended sentencing is quite frequent. In some very rare case, the accused can be convicted, but exempt of penalty (a recent case of this: a woman, who had much on her mind due, in part, to a sick child, had had a lapse when bringing her youngest daughter to the nanny before going to work. She actually went there, but forgot to drop the baby and went away. It took the nanny calling her at work in puzzlement of not having seen her, for her to shrug out the delusion that she DID brought her her daughter. Too late. It was a hot day. The baby died in the car. Convicted, but without penalty. She was visibly shattered, and I guess the judge's reasoning was that yes, the case was clear, she was guilty, but there was strictly no point to add a penalty to her suffering. What would you have done?) For a délit, the investigations are handled by a prosecutor, except in the most complex cases (financial cri

Re:It already is

[ancient_kings]

>They already did vote. Their vote said "I'm special, the our rules don't apply to me because I'm strong or smart enough to game the system." >Well, guess they were overruled on that one. Then we should also outlaw anyone who works on Wallstreet from voting too... They make the people in prison look like nuns...

Re:It already is

[ClioCJS]

Every democratic city in the world? Huh? Felony is an american term about crimes bad enough that they are charged at the federal level instead of the state level. It has no "world" definition. You use the word "felony", but clearly you don't know what it means. And no. Almost all theft is charged at the misdemeanor level. Read your local police reports, but if you don't, for chrissakes don't make claims you have no fucking clue about. No fucking clue whatsoever.

Re:It already is

[spire3661]

because people never make mistakes and justice is always perfect and we should have ways to strip people of their CREATOR granted rights.

Re:It already is

[N1AK]

democracy is a fragile privilege

Any country that treats involvement in its democracy as a 'privilege' doesn't have a democracy. Otherwise a monarchy is just a democracy with fewer privileged individuals. Removing people's right to vote for any reason fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of a democracy and it doesn't even have any benefits. No one decides not to commit a crime because of voting rights. In return being excluded by society from involvement in democracy is hardly likely to make them value democracy and the rule of law any more than they originally did.

Re:It already is

[Hatta]

Do you want a pony too? You can't give people the ability to remove someone's right to vote, and expect them not to use that to solidify their position. Find ways to criminalize the opposition, and you remove large swaths of people from the electorate.

Re:It already is

[T-Bone-T]

Maybe it was a dig, but not a good one. An iPad with a 4G radio costs basically the same as an iPhone.

Re:It already is

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Wow. The germans are so pragmatically smart. No wonder they rule europe currently. This is exactly what every countries laws should say. It shows so much respect for the citizen. Even the words they used, as long as you are not trying to "enrich yourself". Which clearly defines the boundaries where you can stop abuse from happening to you - legally. This was not a theft. It was damage to someone elses property. To deform the example a bit, if it was not a phone but a giant rubber dildo, even if it cost $1000, should i just have to sit there and take the abuse of having it waved in my face?

The law should read; if people do not back off when you have given them sufficient notice, then anything after that is fair game. How does the paparazzi sticking their camera through windows of cars or whatever, do not count as harassment? that is the real miscarriage here.

Re:It already is

[Attila Dimedici]

How do you know what the intent was? All you know is the action. Throwing a phone out the window has the significant risk of breaking the phone or having it land at a location where it will be unrecoverable. That means, as far as I can tell you, are attempting to deprive them of the the item permanently. You are taking an action that has a high probability of making the phone unusable.

Re:It already is

[darkmeridian]

On a tangent, felons are allowed to run for office even though they cannot vote. The theory is that others cannot be deprived of their right to vote for him but he can be deprived of his own right to vote. Hilarious.

Re:It already is

[maxwell demon]

Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?

Well, if the felons are that many that they can determine the rules, you're already so fucked up that it doesn't matter any more anyway. However, it is not a democracy if you can deny anyone the right to vote.

What if the specific felony just shouldn't be one? Well, most probably the ones who would care about that would mostly be those who were convicted for it. But by denying them to vote, you'll take away their ability to influence that.

Re:It already is

[maxwell demon]

There are already independent voters' guides that summarize the arguments on both sides and provides an overview; we could just turn that into a test.

The problem with that is that there have to be people who prepare the test and the scoring of it. And those people will generally not be without any interest. And don't think you could make such a test design completely objective.

Re:It already is

[maxwell demon]

If you are a single person, calling you "paparazzi" would clearly not be appropriate. Well, maybe unless you've got a multiple personality disorder. :-)

Re:It already is

[SteeldrivingJon]

" In this particular case, there was no intent that the paparazzi would lose their phone" No, that was entirely the intent - to deprive the person of their phone. Not to resell the item, just to put it out of the reach of the owner.

Re:It already is

[SteeldrivingJon]

"Shouldn't a crime require intent? If not, people should be charged with theft whenever they move a chair at a restaurant." If you move a chair at a restaurant, it remains in the ultimate control and possession of the restaurant, because it's still on the premises. If you "borrow" a restaurant's chair, and take it to the business next door, intending to return it at some point, but without permission, you have stolen the chair.

Re:It already is

[gmhowell]

Unfortunately just after Louis CK delivered a particular scathing line for team talent, Gallagher would squash him with a novelty-size mallet.

Seeing as how he just came out of a coma his mallet swing might lack a little umph.

Re:It already is

[gmhowell]

Interesting that Denis Leary hasn't done much new standup since Hicks died...

Re:It already is

[gmhowell]

AFAICT, Brand is still a Brit. Why should he have voting rights or the ability to own a firearm? (The latter being dependent on what visa he's using to be in the US and his state of residence.)

More to the point, he broke the heart of my secret internet girlfriend, Katy Perry (so secret, even she doesn't know about it). That alone should subject him to anal rape. Because, let's face it, at the end of the day, that is the sentence for any crime in the US involving jail: anal rape.

Re:It already is

[gmhowell]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

They do what? They're more of a democracy in what ways? And whatever they do, is it better?

And it's relevant to criminal behaviour in the US how?

Re:It already is

[gmhowell]

Wow. The germans are so pragmatically smart. No wonder they rule europe currently. This is exactly what every countries laws should say. It shows so much respect for the citizen.

Considering what it took to get the Germans to "show respect for the citizen", I'm not sure they're the best to emulate.

Re:It already is

[Hatta]

What do you mean why haven't we already done so? Why do you think we have the highest prison population in the world?

Re:It already is

[spire3661]

well, your username certainly is apt.

Re:It already is

[mbkennel]

"How do you know what the intent was?"

The jury makes an evaluation based on evidence.

"All you know is the action."

And all the other circumstances, such as who the people were, and some sense about how the world and how people's minds work.

For instance, a jury could reason that if somebody had the intent of depriving the other person of the phone *permanently*, they would likely have used more certain means of disposing of such phone. In this case, it looks like the perp certainly had the intent of depriving the other person of the phone temporarily, and possibly the intent of damaging such phone.

Re:It already is

[mbkennel]

"Felony is an american term about crimes bad enough that they are charged at the federal level instead of the state level."

This is not true. Crimes specified in federal statutes are charged at the federal level and crimes in state statues are charged at the state level. Both states and federal government have felonies.

Re:It already is

[Dwonis]

Wait, what? Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?

As a check against the government's power. Right now, all you need to do to disenfranchise a group of people is to make something they regularly do a felony.

Re:It already is

[Dwonis]

FYI, prisoners vote in Canada.

Re:It already is

[Myopic]

I think the thing missing is the crime by the photographer.

Surely if someone held you up at gunpoint, and you grabbed the gun and tossed it through a window, nobody would suggest that you "stole" the gun. That would be absurd, even though (as you put it) "it's not yours, so you can't snatch it" (I guess it's not so simple).

Harassment is a crime, but in that locality apparently this kind of douchebaggery behavior doesn't count. I suggest that that is the problem. If that douchebaggery behavior were codified as a crime, then tossing away the camera would legally become the laudably ethical act that so many of us see it to be.

Re:It already is

[Myopic]

"being excluded by society from involvement in democracy is hardly likely to make them value democracy and the rule of law any more than they originally did."

So, um, okay the reason we (often) don't allow felons to vote isn't because we are trying to teach them the value of democracy or the rule of law, it's because we are trying to protect the extremely important process of voting from enemies of the public.

And I'm not sure how extreme you meant it when you said that thing about the "privilege" of democracy, but of course participation in a vote is a privilege at least at some level, to the extent that there are any rules at all about who gets to vote.

Re:It already is

[Myopic]

Is permanence required for theft in UK? I don't know for sure but I don't think that's part of the law in the USA.

In this case, no matter, because there was no time at which Brand held the phone away from the owner. He tossed it away immediately, where the owner at all times knew where to go to get his phone back.

Re:It already is

[shiftless]

Can't argue with that. Now how about the fact that we have 3% of the world's population, yet 25% of its prisoners. Sounds like either the U.S. has the worst scumbag citizens on earth....or there's a lot of de facto revolutionaries out there.

Re:It already is

[Vegemeister]

Because that makes the system unstable. Imagine, for simplicity's sake, some issue with roughly the same number of people on both sides. Now, let's say side A manages to get a law passed that is disproportionately violated by and/or prosecuted against supporters of side B. Say, due to demographics, or due to an intrinsic component of side B's position on the issue. Let's say this law creates a criminal felony.

This is of course just one of myriad means by which an entity or group with political power can fortify itself.

Re:It already is

[babthooka]

Nothing complex about it.

Indeed, law is black and white, with no room for interpretation, and thus, no room for complexity either. But seriously now....

Re:It already is

[StikyPad]

Wait, what? Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?

Proven that they don't care about the rules, or evidence that the rules are unjust. Who better to speak to the injustice of the law than those who have been most affected by it?

And let's not get carried away here. While the prison population is truly "USA #1", a mere 3% of the population isn't going to decide the law -- not without the help of a near-majority or plurality of the rest of the population.

Moreover, we (ostensibly) fought a war over the right to representation. Free and open elections are the foundation of our society. Convicted felons retain an array of arguably less important rights, and yet we deny them the more fundamental right to vote? To deny anyone a voice in that process says very little about them and a lot about ourselves. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

Re:It already is

[Hatta]

We live in a time when robocalling a few thousand people with false directions is sufficient to affect the outcome of elections. Do you really think imprisoning millions of largely poor people doesn't affect the outcome of elections? You don't think that, e.g., prison reform advocacy could leverage that constituency in any way?

Re:It already is

[spire3661]

Which was exactly my point. I was going to engage you, but then I found it is pointless to argue with such an extreme position.

Re:It already is

[Shotgun]

No that was funny right thar. I don't care who your are.

Git 'er done!

Re:It already is

[Shotgun]

Just make the ballot a list of offices. Every vote is a write in. Other than the Presidency, most voters would simply disenfranchise themselves. If you can't learn enough about the process to be able to correctly spell your own candidates name...you obviously don't care and aren't paying the least bit of attention. The only thing you are qualified to vote for is American Idol, and your vote should have exactly that much impact on my life.

Re:It already is

[Uberbah]

So, um, okay the reason we (often) don't allow felons to vote isn't because we are trying to teach them the value of democracy or the rule of law, it's because we are trying to protect the extremely important process of voting from enemies of the public.

Isn't that a wee bit of hyperbole?

And it's not like convicts aren't already going to be screwed for life on applying for jobs with a felony conviction...now they should be denied the right to vote as well? How is that an incentive for them to keep their noses clean after they get out of their local penitentiary?

"Hey, as long as I'm being treated like a criminal........"

Re:It already is

[Vegemeister]

1. Jim Crow. Disproportionate prison populations persist even now.

2. Marijuana.

Re:It already is

[Vegemeister]

only some 5.3 million disenfranchised felons

So enough to have defeated George W. Bush.

I agree that it is inevitable that the majority will abuse democratic power to solidify its position. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fight the phenomenon. "Gerrymanders gonna gerrymander." is not an appropriate response.

Re:It already is

[Myopic]

I hear you, but I don't think so. The incentive to keep your nose clean is to be out of prison. I hardly think anyone considers the sanctity of suffrage when deciding whether to commit a crime. In a country where major decisions (say, who is President) are made on incredibly thin margins (say, a couple hundred votes in one county), it would be irresponsible to allow criminals to overwhelm those margins.

Even if rescinding suffrage were purely symbolic, I would still support it, because these are in fact people who have declared by their actions that they have contempt for the state.

If I were king, I would set up an official systematic purgatory by which motivated felons could show contrition and earn back full citizenship prerogatives. I'm imagining something optional, voluntary, post-incarceration. In that way, the ex-felon who wants to vote could regain that right.

Re:It already is

[Uberbah]

The incentive to keep your nose clean is to be out of prison.

Criminals expect to get away with committing crimes - it's why they're criminals in the first place. It's same base calculation you make when you exceed the speed limit or don't come to a full stop at a stop sign - you don't think you'll be caught by the man - just to a different degree.

Then there's the fact that people currently behaving themselves don't like being treated as subhuman. Say your wife finds out that you cheated on one of your girlfriends in high school - and spends the next 10 years acting as if you are going behind her back, no matter that you've been faithful to her. Would that make you more or less likely to say, "fuck it - as long as I'm going to be treated as a guilty person, I might as well be guilty" and bang your secretary?

The threat of going back to prison is the stick. Rehabilitation and the chance at resuming a normal life is the carrot.

Besides, convicts released from prison have already served their time. They are already going to pay lifelong consequences for their actions. If you declared bankruptcy in 2000, that's been off your record for a couple of years. If you got a felony conviction for writing bad checks in the same year, that will be with you for the rest of your life.

In a country where major decisions (say, who is President) are made on incredibly thin margins (say, a couple hundred votes in one county), it would be irresponsible to allow criminals to overwhelm those margins.

But where is the "there there"? Felons, even if they somehow formed a monolithic voting block, would do....what?

Re:It already is

[Myopic]

I think you are very reasonable and make good arguments. Likewise, I think I am very reasonable and make good arguments. I'm not swayed by your arguments, but neither am I offended by them. I would be fine with changing policy to allow ex felons to vote, but I prefer the status quo (as it is in most states).

Re:It already is

[Dwonis]

As a hypothetical? Doesn't the U.S. basically do this with pot smokers already?

Well...

[acehole]

Maybe. When I mean 'maybe' I mean maybe when I'm pissing off random thieves on the street by shoving my phone in their face repeatedly until I get a reaction.

Maybe then.

Yes

[phoebusQ]

Why is this a question?

Re:Yes

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Why is this a question?

Because this is an answer.

O, in that case

[MRe_nl]

Might as well punch the paparazzi in the face...

Re:O, in that case

[schlachter]

punch them in the iPhone.

Was it loaded with songs?

[giminy]

See http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html . Perhaps the iPhone is worth $8 billion (I mean, you are technically stealing every song on the iPhone as well as the phone itself).

Why bother stealing the phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Wear something copyrighted.
2. Sue the paparazzi for copyright infringement.
3. PROFIT!!!!

What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[Elbart]

This is not about an iPhone being thrown around, it's about someone else's property being damaged in excess of $500 and that being a felony in Louisiana. Whoopdeedoo, big deal.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a story about two things, paparazzi invading people's private lives, and a prison industrial complex that encourages and indeed forces the criminal justice system to impose multi-year prison terms for petty offences for the sake of profit.

Only on slashdot could a bunch of autistic dolts think it's about "mobile phone pricing structures".

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Yes, but I think the summary is intended to provoke discussion on whether the property is worth in excess of $500 or whether the prices just reflect an industry desire to tie consumers to expensive contracts with the promise of huge discounts/savings on handsets.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[snowgirl]

... and a prison industrial complex that encourages and indeed forces the criminal justice system to impose multi-year prison terms for petty offences for the sake of profit.

.

While I agree that the prison-industrial complex is out of hand. If someone snatched a Fabergé egg out of someone's hand and threw it, no one would be doubting if it were a felonious act. It's clearly an expensive object, taken by force, and then damaged.

As others have noted, it's not about excessive criminal sentences for snatching and damaging another's expensive property, it's about gauging the proper value of an "overpriced electronic toy".

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[Trecares]

Shouldn't consideration be given to the "replacement" cost? I mean, Apple or any other cellphone maker/seller isn't going to replace a phone damaged by another person's mischief. Insurance, if applicable probably does not cover such cases directly.

On top of that, the prosecutor usually goes for the maximum applicable charge. That way they don't look soft on crime, and it gives them the option of a plea agreement. It's all about intimidation. 60 days of jail plus a fine or whatever sounds a hell lot better than 10 years or whatever it comes out to; as opposed to them offering you 60 days at the onset.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[nine-times]

If someone snatched a Fabergé egg out of someone's hand and threw it, no one would be doubting if it were a felonious act

I don't think I entirely agree. What was the situation? Why did the person snatch the faberge egg? If I snuck into security in a museum showing the egg, and I intentionally destroyed it because I didn't like the person who owned the egg, I would expect to be charged with *something*. If a mentally ill person did it suddenly for no apparent reason, then I might question the need to charge him, and whether some action might make more sense.

If, however, the owner of the egg snuck up on someone and started aggressively jamming the egg in the guy's face, I wouldn't think the person being accosted was guilty of anything if he grabbed the edge and threw it away.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[slasho81]

This story is a PR piece for iProducts. It has nothing to do with legal or moral issues.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[khallow]

If, however, the owner of the egg snuck up on someone and started aggressively jamming the egg in the guy's face, I wouldn't think the person being accosted was guilty of anything if he grabbed the edge and threw it away.

Especially, if the accosted person had no clue of the value of the egg in question.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[shiftless]

Well I would, for one. Apparently you don't understand just how serious a felony is. No stupid broken egg is worth taking away years of someone's life, their right to vote, and their right to bear arms.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[whoever57]

This is actually a story about two things, paparazzi invading people's private lives

No, it's about a celebrity-loving publication labelling anyone who would take a photo of a celebrity as a "would-be paparazzo". This is classic weasel-words to impugn the real victims. I have no great sympathy for paparrazzo, but the real victims here (those who lost phones) had not followed the celebrities, they were just accidentally in the same location and took the opportunity to take photos. There is no indication that they would have tried or been able to sell the photos.

Also, if you want to look for sad pr*cks who should not be given any attention, Russell Brand tried to blame his actions on "the memory of Steve Jobs".

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[dkf]

Well I would, for one. Apparently you don't understand just how serious a felony is. No stupid broken egg is worth taking away years of someone's life, their right to vote, and their right to bear arms.

It's as well to bear in mind that as a UK citizen he won't lose the right to vote. Well, except possibly for the time he's a serving prisoner if he's convicted; I don't know how that works with someone in a foreign jail, but I believe that UK citizens have the right to vote provided they're not actually in jail at the time (and provided they're registered in a constituency). Prisoners on remand (i.e., prior to conviction) have full rights to vote, as does anyone who's completed their sentence.

The UK (specifically England, the most applicable part of the UK given that Brand is a Londoner) doesn't have "felony" as a concept in its legal system. It does have "summary only", "indictable only" and "either way" levels of severity — I know someone who's a magistrate — but "indictable only" is not the same as "felony"; there isn't this whole keying of rights off conviction or not. (Heck, there's been discussion on and off for years as to whether the suffrage should be extended to serving prisoners. Alas, WP is unusually opaque in this area and I'm not sure what the current situation is.)

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[snowgirl]

If a mentally ill person did it suddenly for no apparent reason, then I might question the need to charge him, and whether some action might make more sense.

If a person lacks the capacity to understand right from wrong, then they can't be held reasonable for their actions the same way that other people can.

These exceptions are not novel, or interesting. They're boring and well established law.

If, however, the owner of the egg snuck up on someone and started aggressively jamming the egg in the guy's face, I wouldn't think the person being accosted was guilty of anything if he grabbed the edge and threw it away.

So long as no intentional contact, or threatened force is made, there's no permission for a person to respond with force. It is also well established that public figures have a diminished right to privacy by being a public figure. So, what might be legal for your or I to do, might not always be legal for a celebrity to do.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[nine-times]

My overall point still stands: there could be a doubt whether it's a felonious act. It depends on the context in which the act was committed.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[snowgirl]

My overall point still stands: there could be a doubt whether it's a felonious act. It depends on the context in which the act was committed.

But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...

Of course delving into specifics will produce exceptional cases, but a felonious act is one that is a felony in the "standard" or "unexceptional" case.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[nine-times]

But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...

No, not really. "First degree murder" is already defined by the circumstances of the crime. It's the context of the act that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder or manslaughter. Ending another person's life can even be considered to not be a crime at all, as in military conflict or self defense.

Re:What is up with all these bad summaries lately?

[snowgirl]

But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...

No, not really. "First degree murder" is already defined by the circumstances of the crime. It's the context of the act that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder or manslaughter. Ending another person's life can even be considered to not be a crime at all, as in military conflict or self defense.

... exactly. And since you can come up with a plausible exception (self defense) you can't universally apply 1st degree murder as a felony, because... ok, I mean, intentionally killing someone. If the question is "should intentionally killing a person be a felony?" the blunt answer is yes. Taking into account all exceptional cases it becomes a "it depends".

In the same way, you were applying exceptional cases for the case of simple robbery. If you allow for exceptional cases, then no action can be declared that it should be felonious.

Felony, no.

[bersl2]

There is already too much crime. Civil liability should be enough. If it's unprovoked, simple battery might be in order. But felony?

Stop being so damn blood-thirsty. Breaking somebody's device because they shove it in your face should not ruin lives and occupations.

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

If it's unprovoked, simple battery might be in order.

Except snatching something is robbery. If the value of the object is small enough, then it's a misdemeanor robbery, if it's expensive enough, it's a felony robbery.

No one seems to have difficulty understanding that if you steal a candy bar, that it's a misdemeanor, while if you steal an expensive television it's a felony... so, why does anyone have trouble differentiating misdemeanor vs felony robbery?

Re:Felony, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

>There is already too much crime.
So we'll redefine what is a crime so there'll be less of it. Splendid idea.

Re:Felony, no.

[Freddybear]

"Breaking somebody's device because they shove it in your face should not ruin lives and occupations."

Well, yes, actually, it should. Yes, we know, paparazzi are annoying. But battery, robbery by battery, and destruction of property are not the way to deal with it.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

Except snatching something is robbery.

Is it? The perpetrator apparently immediately relinquished possession of the device. I'd say assault (with the mitigating factor that it was provoked) and vandalism are more accurate charges.

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

Robbery requires theft, which requires intent to deprive an individual of property. This was not robbery. Is possible it was criminal damage, but it strikes me that it should be a civil suit.

You're talking Common Law... Louisiana is the one state of the US that follows more or less Civil Law.

65. Simple robbery

A. Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon.

B. Whoever commits the crime of simple robbery shall be fined not more than three thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than seven years, or both.

Acts 1983, No. 70, 1.

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

Except snatching something is robbery.

Is it?

Yes, it is.

Re:Felony, no.

[gmhowell]

This was a violent act. I have no problem with decriminalizing or legalizing most drugs, get rid of jay walking fines, public intoxication arrests, etc. But to lessen the enforcement of laws against violence? What on earth are you smoking?

Re:Felony, no.

[gmhowell]

I am largely with you except that this was not provoked. If Russell Brand did not enjoy certain benefits of his star status, the argument could be made. But the price of getting a table in a busy restaurant, comps at a casino, and having to work only a few weeks a year, is that people are going to take pictures and shove autograph books in his face. If he doesn't like that, he can retire and become a nice, boring cubicle dweller.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

Was something taken? The aggressor here didn't maintain possession of the phone (but rather tossed it through a window) which strikes me as a key requirement for robbery to occur. Nor did he demonstrate intent to take anything of value (say like having an accomplice outside the window take the phone).

The victim could immediately retrieve their property, though it might be broken or otherwise damaged. That's why I suggested assault and vandalism as suitable charges.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

I am largely with you except that this was not provoked.

I don't think you have a reason for that claim. Just because there are potential benefits to being a public figure, doesn't mean that a provocation somehow isn't one.

A real argument would be that Russell Brand deliberately encourages this sort of interaction (which I don't think is implied by the benefits you mention). If paparazzi in the past get encouraged by Brand's behavior (getting a nice table in a restaurant due to your star status doesn't qualify), then that would weaken the provocation argument.

Re:Felony, no.

[gmhowell]

Provocation? That's a thin skinned little turd if he can go over the deep end just because someone wants a picture.

And while Brand getting a table in a restaurant may not be a legal defense for the fan, it removes any sympathy I have for the 'comedian'.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

That's a thin skinned little turd if he can go over the deep end just because someone wants a picture.

That depends on the behavior. "Wanting a picture" is not a behavior, it's a motive. If it's iPhone in face without asking permission, that's provocation even if Brand gets nice tables at restaurants.

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

Would you happen to know of Kohlberg's stages of moral development? You're operating at about a level 4, while the actual discussion is happening at a 6.

I don't give a shit about the moral arguments behind this matter. What is at argument here is if snatching a person's iPhone and tossing it away is a felony under Louisiana state law.

If you can find some way to argue law outside of appeals to authority, since you know... law is established and maintained by authorities... then go ahead.

SHOULD snatching this guy's phone and tossing it be a felony? As the title of the article proposes? Meh, the argument is of little interest to me, because I know what the answer is: "it depends". But the legal argument can at least be settled, and people are arguing that robbery is not the proper crime to be charging Brand with... when it clearly by law is.

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

If grabbing someone's phone and throwing it on the ground is "robbery", then reorienting the computer screen at a library is also robbery since you snatched the screen and dropped it a quarter inch closer.

Only if the situation described is also described by "Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon."

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

Was something taken?

What fucking report did you read? Of course something was taken. The iPhone was taken out of the paparazzo's hands. That's "taken".

The aggressor here didn't maintain possession of the phone (but rather tossed it through a window) which strikes me as a key requirement for robbery to occur.

And under Common Law, it is. However, Louisiana is not governed by Common Law. It is predominantly a Civil Law system.

Nor did he demonstrate intent to take anything of value (say like having an accomplice outside the window take the phone).

The word "take" here is not "steal", it is not "take with intent to permanently deprive". It is "taken from another person's possession", which snatching something out of another person's hands most certainly is.

The victim could immediately retrieve their property, though it might be broken or otherwise damaged. That's why I suggested assault and vandalism as suitable charges.

That is irrelevant to the charge of robbery in the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

Re:Felony, no.

[gmhowell]

Did the fan touch him? No? Then fuck Russell Brand. Being an obnoxious shit does not give another person the right to put hands on another. Doesn't mitigate it either.

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

No one is debating whether the crime is felony under current law

Yes... they are.

Instead, when discussing law, it is useful to discuss whether it is just

We are in disagreement here.

For example, is it fair that a man be marked a felon and deported for throwing a phone out of a window?

As, I already stated is the case: "it depends". What if the phone were from the future and it contained all the information necessary to stop the next Hitler? Then, HELL FUCKING YEAH it's fair.

As always, morality is an application of ideals upon specific information, and at all times, some new information coming to light can change the moral validation of any argument.

That is what is happening here. By dismissing the actual topic you come off as rather clueless by essentially arguing legal codes are equivalent to justice.

Moral beliefs have no effect upon the world unless they are brought into practical application. If the laws fail to apply justice, then legal codes should be changed. But without understanding the legal codes, one cannot actually know if they are unjust or not, because then one is just arguing against strawmen.

Re:Felony, no.

[schlachter]

we have criminalized everything these days...and our jails are over crowded.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

As it turns out, Brand is being charged with "simple criminal damage to property". Which fits with my assertion, namely, the reason that the police didn't charge him with robbery ("simple robbery" apparently being the appropriate charge) is because he didn't actually take anything. And once again, "taken" doesn't just merely mean grabbed out of one's hands and thrown away.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

Did the fan touch him?

We don't know the behavior of the "fan" here. Maybe he did touch Brand or maybe he just had a cell phone out for an unrelated reason to Brand and was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But yes, I do believe that even without touching Brand, that one could sufficiently provoke.

Being an obnoxious shit does not give another person the right to put hands on another. Doesn't mitigate it either.

Well, assault doesn't require you to actually touch a person. As I understand it, if I were to yell at you or wave some object like a cell phone from inches away (well within your personal space) and I didn't stop the behavior even when you made attempts to disengage (such as backing off, asking me to leave, etc), then that would be assault even though I didn't touch you. And once you have assault, you have behavior which can provoke a response like the one Brand is accused of.

Re:Felony, no.

[gmhowell]

Let me know when you have managed to find a society that imposed manners via legislation, and then we can talk.

Re:Felony, no.

[khallow]

Let me know when you have managed to find a society that imposed manners via legislation, and then we can talk.

Sounds to me like "we" shouldn't have started talking in the first place. You can call it "legislating manners" or whatever, but it's law that has generally worked for a long time.

Re:Felony, no.

[bersl2]

Crime is a social construct, and we've been redefining it since we've had societies.

Let me clarify my statement, though. I am not saying "there are too many instances of crime", as a law-enforcement entity might say; rather, I am saying "there are too many acts which are considered crimes".

Re:Felony, no.

[snowgirl]

As it turns out, Brand is being charged with "simple criminal damage to property". Which fits with my assertion, namely, the reason that the police didn't charge him with robbery ("simple robbery" apparently being the appropriate charge) is because he didn't actually take anything. And once again, "taken" doesn't just merely mean grabbed out of one's hands and thrown away.

First charges made are always "exaggerated". They're basically the most far reaching that they can possibly go for, and then they reign them in as more details emerge, and they have a better idea of what to charge the person with. This is because lessening charges is significantly easier than raising charges.

A good analysis appears to be available on lacriminaldefensepartners.com, explaining a legal theory for robbery, but also the reality of what the prosecutors would probably do. I can't seem to find any better details about Brand's criminal action...

However, it appears that Chris Brown snatched a phone out of a fan's hands and drove off with it, suggesting fully all the intent and conditions of robbery, for simply snatching a phone out of someone's hands.

Re:Felony, no.

[gl4ss]

it was just vandalism. and bullying.

thing is, when street youth gangs do this, the public would be asking for them to get locked up.

$899 Nokia Windows Phone?

[kanto]

Are the paparazzi carrying the accessories of that bundle? Individually bought the Purity HD headset is about 150-200$ and the Play360 speaker maybe 100-150$. Slantdot editing at it's finest.

Re:$899 Nokia Windows Phone?

[ulricr]

he's trying to say that phones are globally overpriced, and not onto in Apple world However, I think what's missing here is to factor in the complexity of these devices. they are computers, and are not really comparatively overpriced. But it seems the bozo who wrote that summary thinks that if a carrier can sell the iphone at 99$, then that is the price of the phone. Forgetting all how the the subsidies work

Price of phone not the issue

[Green Salad]

The price of the phone is not what makes it valuable or its loss dangerous. That's like considering the price of the paper to determine the severity of the offense of the hold-up note to a bank teller.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[narcc]

I hate apple

Replace "iPhone" with "phone" or "mobile" or "smartphone" and absolutely nothing relevant changes.

That's it, though, isn't it? The story doesn't even involve Apple or its products save that it incidentally happened to be the brand of the specific stolen overpriced electronic toy. Hell, no iPad's were involved at all, and yet this click-bait summary managed to work them in anyhow all while mentioning that you can get one for less than the well-publicized $499!

When I clicked the check box to disable advertising I didn't expect the ads to reappear as articles. This is getting ridiculous.

Typo in article summary; word "comedian" redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Englishman, please please please America take this jerk lock him up in Cuba. In return we ^H^H I will happily take Katy, well after July who we will also lock up in restraints!!

Demand a jury trial

[symbolset]

This brings to mind a current activist motion to defeat the US injustice system by demanding a speedy trial due under the Constitution and so creating a DDoS on the courts. If everybody so charged demanded their full rights, the courts must necessarily absolve most as they have not the time nor space to convict them.

Re:Demand a jury trial

[tomhath]

This brings to mind a current activist motion to defeat the US injustice system by demanding a speedy trial

And it also illustrates the stupidity of that suggestion. He can choose between a plea bargain for a misdemeanor and pay a small fine, or try to be an "activist" and face certain conviction for a felony.

It's not clear to me what cause he would be supporting by demanding a trial though; are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?

Re:Demand a jury trial

[yotto]

are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?

In general? No.
For paparazzi?
...
...
Damnit. No there too.
You win this time!

Re:Demand a jury trial

[BasilBrush]

As I recall when this video was a story on Slashdot, most people were on the side of the phone thrower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hut3VRL5XRE

Re:Demand a jury trial

[xenobyte]

are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?

In general? No.
For paparazzi?

The same! - Of course!

The laws apply equally for everybody, even the paparazzi who're only doing their job.

Now, about the story - no real paparazzi would work with a smartphone so that part is bull. If someone was filming with such a toy, it's guaranteed it was a regular fan or similar. Real paps would be filming with a proper video camera, probably with a powerful light on top to really bother the subject. And now we come to the core issue: Both fans and paparazzi are allowed to film in public and taking someones property (the iPhone) and using it to break someone else property (the window) is most certainly not allowed. Now, Russell Brand not only destroyed private property, he also prevented someone from doing something completely legal, and he should be punished with a felony conviction as he's not the first that physically destroys cameras and similar when used legally by paparazzi. It is time to draw the line - you can run and hide, but you cannot physically attack. It is not only uncool and unprofessional, it's a felony.

Re:Demand a jury trial

[tomhath]

They empathized with the phone thrower, but most also understood the video is fake.

Re:Demand a jury trial

[Myopic]

It sounds to me like the law needs to be tweaked a little. In this situation, I have a hard time seeing how you hold Brand as the bad guy. The owner of the camera sounds like an incredible douche, and the douche got a small fraction of what was coming to him. If the law is such that Brand gets punished, then that demonstrates an imperfection in the law.

In the same way that we distinguish "walking down the street" (legal, of course) from "stalking" (creepy, immoral, wrong, and as of recently illegal), we should be able to write a law which distinguishes "taking a picture" (legal, of course) from "ruining a fellow human being's ability to live life" (creepy, immoral, wrong, and hopefully soon illegal).

If we both agree that it isn't appropriate to grab a camera and smash it (and I do agree), then perhaps we could also agree that Brand should have had the protection of the law: he could have called a police officer who would issue a statement or perhaps even a citation to the douchebag. This wouldn't spell the end of the paparazzi, but it would bring their behavior into line with the rest of society.

Re:Demand a jury trial

[jedidiah]

As a moral example, going all Sean Penn on the Papparazzi is understandable. They tresspass in a manner that none of the rest of us would tolerate. Thus jury nullification is a distinct possibility.

The not so new boss

[neurosine]

I don't think government or civil funded agencies should be working for organizations, or associated with them. This is what the legal realities of our world today are all about. So many resources that could be used to better us all are paying to protect the interests of companies. It's great that the founding fathers separated church and state. They should have more clearly stated the intended separation of privately held company and state. I think if they had more clearly foreseen the world today they would certainly strengthen that principal. Not that they didn't try, but those safeties have been systematically circumvented. It is obviously destroying our world and is by far the largest contributor to the downfall of us as a species.... I'm hoping the next fish do better.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we could give a -1 Troll to articles themselves.

Ahh! Can /. stop using The Daily Mail is a Source?

[ConaxConax]

In the style of the worst newspapers, the Daily Mail start with the result they want and steer all discourse towards it, even if it means twisting and lying along the path. They will just make it up if they need to do so, and there have been a lot of cases where this has happened!

it should be a capital offense IMHO

[Adult film producer]

People worked hard for many hours to buy their iPhone... to just dismiss this as a trivial offense is shocking to me.

Re:it should be a capital offense IMHO

[mallydobb]

+1 Troll...most of the people getting their iPhones are getting them on contract and they are around the same cost as other devices...and if you take into consideration the contract prices the value of the iPhone is less than $500, the limit for a felony.

What do you mean?

[fireylord]

As the worst newspaper around, the Daily Mail start with the result they want and steer all discourse towards it, even if it means twisting and lying along the path. They will just make it up if they need to do so, and there have been a lot of cases where this has happened!

FTFY

Why does his privacy have not value?

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing here is that the iPhone may have enough value to make this a felony, but his privacy has no value at all. Paparazzi can follow and harass him all they like and he can do nothing about it. Now you might not have sympathy for celebs, but they do the same thing to mothers of murder victims and others. A (British) paparazzi only today followed the mother of one of the dead Belgium schoolchildren (coach crash in Switzerland) to get 'sad mother' shot.

IMHO, throwing a paparazzi camera out of a window should have no more value than the damage to the phone. It was NOT THEFT, he can go get his phone, it was not assault, he did not hit the Paparazzi. It was not a mugging, no threat of violence was used. I don't even rank this the same as taking a normal persons phone and throwing it out the window because the Paparazzi was the person who came into close proximity and shoved the camea phone in his face.

He didn't go seek out the Paparazzi, the reason they're in conflict is entirely the Paparazzi actions.

So it's a misdemeanor since it's paparazzi, or possibly a 'jolley jape'.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Entropius]

He's claiming that it's not robbery since there was no taking of property.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[blane.bramble]

IMHO, throwing a paparazzi camera out of a window

You are all doing it wrong. You throw the paparazzi out of the window.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[bsane]

He's claiming that it's not robbery since there was no taking of property.

Which is clearly absurd- he took it, then he threw it out a window. Just because a thief dumps what he stole in a river doesn't absolve him of the crime.

Whether or not it should be a felony, I don't know, but taking someones phone is a crime regardless of what you do with it.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

Which is clearly absurd- he took it, then he threw it out a window. Just because a thief dumps what he stole in a river doesn't absolve him of the crime.

Arguably it's more vandalism than theft. I'd say it would be closer to taking a baseball bat to someone's car than stealing his wallet and keeping the money.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[bsane]

Arguably it's more vandalism than theft. I'd say it would be closer to taking a baseball bat to someone's car than stealing his wallet and keeping the money.

I could be on board with that if he had picked it up off a table and thrown it out a window. Physically taking something out from someones hands _is_ force, with an escalation of force implied. Its a criminal act in its own right. We're not in kindergarten anymore, and physical confrontation, physical intimidation and such have criminal consequences.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

Indeed it can be argued that Lady DIana Spencer would not have died were it not for the Paparazzi's actions. For sure it appears her driver was drunk. But the speed at which he drove appears to have been due to the pursuit by paparazzi.

The law is the law. But in terms of real justice I think that paparazzis should take the occasional smashed camera or phone or punch in the mouth as part of the job. They take the job on, usually freelance, in the full knowledge that they are harassing people, and from time to time those harassed people will will snap and strike back. It seems to be adding insult to injury to go running to the police and pressing charges. But what else can one expect from such scum?

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it can be argued that Lady DIana Spencer would not have died were it not for the Paparazzi's actions. For sure it appears her driver was drunk. But the speed at which he drove appears to have been due to the pursuit by paparazzi.

Being followed by paparazzi does not allow you to drive at illegal speeds through Paris.

She died because the driver was drunk, AND she wasn't wearing a seat belt.

At the time of the crash they were traveling over 150 km/h. One person (the bodyguard) survived the crash, and he was wearing a seat belt.

QED.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Dark$ide]

Indeed it can be argued that Lady DIana Spencer would not have died were it not for the Paparazzi's actions.

Er no. Diana Spencer may have been able to survive the road accident by doing two things 1) not getting in a car when the driver was THREE times over the French drink drive limit of 0.5mg and 2) wearing the three point seatbelt fitted to the rear seats of the car.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[blind biker]

You are all doing it wrong. You throw the paparazzi out of the window.

Yeah, but the question remains: is that a felony? Or littering of public spaces?

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[drumlight]

Judge Snyder rules it a case of "Boys will be boys".

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

Whilst those 2 points are doubtless true, neither one contradicts what I said.

Indeed the first of your points I already made.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

Being followed by paparazzi does not allow you to drive at illegal speeds through Paris.

Indeed it doesn't. But it does seem to have provoked it nevertheless, and no doubt was a distraction.

She died because the driver was drunk, AND she wasn't wearing a seat belt.

Correction: She died because the driver was drunk AND the paparazzi were hounding them contributing to speed and distraction AND she wasn't wearing a seat belt

Once you've accepted that more than one thing contributed to the death, as you have, then it makes no sense to exclude the paparazzi's contribution to the death.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[angel'o'sphere]

It was not a mugging, no threat of violence was used.
OFC it was mugging. And ofc violence was used. Or how should the item hold in the hands of the Paparazzi get out of his hands? Regardless how "soft" your violence is, you take it against his will/wish out of his hands, so it is violence/mugging. As simple as that.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[barry99705]

Depends on who sees you do it.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[whoever57]

I don't even rank this the same as taking a normal persons phone and throwing it out the window because the Paparazzi was the person who came into close proximity and shoved the camea phone in his face.

The articles I read did not suggest that it was a paparrazo (do paparrazi use camerphones?). It was just some random guy driving past. The camera was not "shoved in his face". Also, if you are going to effctively ban using a camera in a public street (by making it acceptable to grab the camera and hurl it), where does it end? Can I photograph the police without the police taking my camera and hurling it? Why should someone who can afford to go places that would provide privacy have special protection when he chooses to put himself in a public place?

What if the files on the camera were lost as a result of the camera being thrown through a window? What are the value of those?

It is a viable argument that the charge is excessive, but be clear that the victim was NOT Russell Brand and the person who lost his camer did nothing wrong.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[whoever57]

He's claiming that it's not robbery since there was no taking of property.

Which is clearly absurd- he took it, then he threw it out a window.

I don't know about the laws in the USA, but I think that in the UK, there must be an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object.

One might argue that the intent was to smash it, and that might constitute permenently depriving someone of an object.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[mjwalshe]

yep the Tabs killed lady DI - let alone the other poor buggers they monster who commit suicide one of the witnesses at the levenson enquiry blames the NOW for her mothers suicide attempt

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[iocat]

RTFA. Chris Brown kept the phone. He grabbed it from someone's hand and drove away.

His privacy doesn't have value because he's a celebrity. That's settled law. The iPhone has value because some lady purchased it. Also settled law.

You can whine about how it's not right all you want, but then I'd counter with whining about how it's not right that a woman-beating piece of garbage like Chris Brown is still a celebrity.

And I'd further argue that only his celebrity kept him out of jail after that incident, so a) maybe he should calm down when someone takes a picture of him and b) maybe the fact that he can't calm down means he belongs somewhere where he can't hurt people.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[gmhowell]

Whilst those 2 points are doubtless true, neither one contradicts what I said.

Because what you said is idiotic and doesn't merit contradiction. How can a motorcycle force an armored Mercedes around?

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

Because what you said is idiotic and doesn't merit contradiction.

Careful! With that much pomposity you might explode.

How can a motorcycle force an armored Mercedes around?

I didn't say it did. If you payed any attention to the story, you'd know that the driver was attempting to get away from the paps, and that, compounded by being drunk was the reason for his excessive speed. The paps persuit was one of the contributory factors whether you want it to be that way or not.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[gmhowell]

Why was he trying to get away? Were they waving guns?

It was a death by stupid. Sorry if a couple of rich gits died, but they died of stupid. Not by people chasing them with cameras.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[RocketRabbit]

Oh, he has privacy. Except when he or anybody goes into public. If he can't handle hordes of adoring followers, he shouldn't have gone into show biz.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[HereIAmJH]

Correction: She died because the driver was drunk AND the paparazzi were hounding them contributing to speed and distraction AND she wasn't wearing a seat belt

As despicable as some of the paparazzi can be, they did not contribute to the speed. They weren't endangering her safety by taking pictures, and even if they were, speeding off would not have been the correct response. Going back inside and calling the police would have been better. Her driver, pure and simple made the decisions that were responsible for the crash. If OJ proved nothing else, he proved that being chased does not put any obligation on you to drive fast.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

Why was he trying to get away?

Because people often have an adverse emotional reaction to a herd of photographers persuing them. Heck you are reacting emotionally to the story, adding in "rich gits" as if that made any difference to the facts of what happened.

The fact is the paparazzi pursuing was a factor.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

As despicable as some of the paparazzi can be, they did not contribute to the speed.

Yes they did. The driver was trying to get away from the paparazzi. That's why he was driving at an excessive speed. Alcohol will have given him more confidence, porrer judgement and lesser ability to drive. But the cause of the speed was the chasing paparazzi.

They weren't endangering her safety by taking pictures, and even if they were, speeding off would not have been the correct response.

The "correct response" isn't in question here. Just whether the paps contributed to the death of Diana, and it did.

If OJ proved nothing else, he proved that being chased does not put any obligation on you to drive fast.

OJ didn't manage to avoid photographs being taken, so he proved no such thing.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Lunzo]

I think the real scum are the readers of tabloids and gossip magazines. If there wasn't a demand for compromising photos of celebrities, the paparazzi wouldn't exist. They're giving people what they want to see.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[gmhowell]

Being rich gave them access to an armored Mercedes with a driver. Being gits made them dumb enough to let an inebriated person drive for them while they refused to wear seatbelts.

I reject the paparazzi as a factor, regardless of any police report. The means to stay alive were completely, 100% within the control of Dodi and Diana. There were multiple stupid things they did that led to their deaths.

People in the past (and present) have had adverse emotional reactions to their white daughters or sisters dating 'coloreds'. Does that mitigate the guilt when that man lynches the black for that offense?

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

I don't agree and I think you would have a hard time selling this to a jury as "theft".

Wiki: In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

The GP (and its GP) correctly points out that there was no "taking of property", and remember that "taking" is a legal term of art. I would make it even more clear by saying that there was no "intent to deprive the owner". The intent was not to deprive the owner of the camera, but to stop its current use. He didn't keep the camera. The owner can go retrieve the camera, immediately. So there might be a crime, and I'm open to the possibility that the crime was "theft", but it doesn't seem that it was from what I know.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

Interesting. So, you see this as unequivocally a crime on Brand's part against an innocent (if jerkish) photographer. What level of harassment do you (you personally) think Brand should legally tolerate before having legal justification for some kind of altercation?

I mean, aggressively invading the personal space of a person with a camera is, in your estimation, a legally innocent act. Okay, so what if the photographer had shoved the camera so close that it had bumped Brand's arm just a tiny bit, then would you construe that as "battery" thus releasing Brand to grab the camera and throw it?

Or perhaps that would even release Brand to physically batter the photographer in self defense? Is it the actual physical touch by the photographer where you draw the line?

I'm just wondering what you think would constitute legally actionable behavior on the part of the photographer.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[jedidiah]

Seems like you're going to get charged with a felony either way so you might as well throw the Paparazzi out the window. It might give the rest pause before being jack*sses.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

I always wondered about that. Who doesn't wear their seatbelt? More to the point who, when in a car driven by an angry drunk guy at a hundred miles and hour, doesn't put on their belt? It seems crazy.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[jedidiah]

Sure they did. They were likely breaking the law too. They certainly would have been considered to be breaking the now. If not as "members of the press" then as individuals they would be. That would make the equally liable for the situation that ensued.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

I hear you, but I just think it's naive to say that there is no shard blame for the paparazzi. To dismiss their contribution to that specific situation, and all the altercations they have with the people they harass, seems to be a misguided attempt to partition the world into tidy moral boxes. It's untrue and simplistic to ascribe a person's behavior strictly to that person, as if he is an island. For legal reasons, we sometimes simplify things in order to have workable laws, but the law isn't the end of the way we determine who to blame in a tragedy. I think it is clear that the paparazzi shares the blame and should be ashamed.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

To me, mugging requires threat of bodily harm. I was not at this scene when it happened, so I can't say, but it seems to me that Brand was obviously just trying to stop the asshole from being a photodouche, and appropriated the instrument of that douchery -- perhaps misappropriated. To me that doesn't necessarily imply a threat to the asshole, but certainly I acknowledge that it often would include a threat of violence. Yanking a camera away doesn't sound like a mugging to me, and if I were on a jury and they tried to sell me on it, they would have a difficult case to make.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

Actually, you only included two of the three parts of the legal definition of theft. Theft is

* taking something
* against the will of the owner
* with the intent to deprive

Brand took the phone and tossed it away. He didn't keep the phone, he immediately and in the presence of the owner put the item in a place where the owner could immediately retrieve it. It's hard to call that intent to deprive, it's intent to stop the use.

That's my guess as to why he was written up for "simple damage to property" instead of theft.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[hobarrera]

I don't know how this works in the US, but in some countries, by being a public figure, or political figure, you immediately loose part of your privacy - a picture of you in a public space can be publish, while it can't if you're not a public figure.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[ultranova]

Because people often have an adverse emotional reaction to a herd of photographers persuing them.

The thing is, a "herd of photographers" is an annoyance, just like, say, a herd of mosquitos would be. Now, everyone would rather avoid a herd of mosquitos; but if you do so in a manner that obviously endangers yourself and others, and it ends badly, the fault lies with you, not the mosquitos, no matter how disgusting their bloodsucking parasitic nature might be.

I hate to use the term "personal responsibility", since it's been corrupted into a form of Just World Fallacy by right-wing bandits, but nothing else really fits here: just because you have an "adverse emotional reaction" doesn't mean that a stupid decision made by you wasn't really made by you. It just means that the rest of us might take it into account and be more lenient or sympathetic than we otherwise might be (see various heat-of-passion laws). Luckily, that doesn't apply here, since the people making those stupid, recless and frankly extremely selfish decisions ended up killing themselves rather than some innocent bystander.

In other words, adults are expected to put up with some amount of "adverse emotional reaction" without acting crazy.

The fact is the paparazzi pursuing was a factor.

Simply because someone selling you a faulty alarm clock directly resulted in you waking late the next morning doesn't mean that they are a factor in you speeding on your way to work, at least not in the "partially responsible for" sense.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[PessimysticRaven]

Of course not, it's trash-removal. A public service.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

The thing is, a "herd of photographers" is an annoyance, just like, say, a herd of mosquitos would be. Now, everyone would rather avoid a herd of mosquitos; but if you do so in a manner that obviously endangers yourself and others, and it ends badly, the fault lies with you, not the mosquitos, no matter how disgusting their bloodsucking parasitic nature might be.

The problem with your post, the other posts arguing the fact, and indeed the insurance and legal systems generally is the false notion of finding a single person who's "fault" it is. An event, such as the ones we label an "accident" very often has multiple contributory causes, and other things that might have prevented the event, if only...

Once again, the paparazzi were a contributory cause to the death of Lady Diana. Which isn't the same as saying it was their (sole) fault. Her death may not have happened it only they had not been there or didn't pursue her.

Nothing to do with fault; nothing to do with selectively labelling people "adults" regardless of their age; nothing to do with "personal responsibility", or any other such products of a human sense of morality. Just the facts and logic.

Simply because someone selling you a faulty alarm clock directly resulted in you waking late the next morning doesn't mean that they are a factor in you speeding on your way to work,

Yes they are.

at least not in the "partially responsible for" sense.

And then you're back to morality and apportioning a single person to be at fault again.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[tehcyder]

Indeed it can be argued that Lady DIana Spencer would not have died were it not for the Paparazzi's actions.

Er no. Diana Spencer may have been able to survive the road accident by doing two things 1) not getting in a car when the driver was THREE times over the French drink drive limit of 0.5mg and 2) wearing the three point seatbelt fitted to the rear seats of the car.

The French drink drive limit equates to drinking about 1 pint of beer, so he had drunk the equivalent of 3 pints of beer. While I'm not defending drink driving, for someone who was used to alcohol, that is hardly as seriously drunk as you suggest.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

They're both scum. Those who supply it and those who demand it.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[BasilBrush]

People in the past (and present) have had adverse emotional reactions to their white daughters or sisters dating 'coloreds'. Does that mitigate the guilt when that man lynches the black for that offense?

You're equating not wanting to have a picture of yourself and your lover splashed across the tabloids with racism. That's a very short straw you're clutching. In fact less of a straw, more of a lead weight.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[angel'o'sphere]

As I said: I agree with your general standpoint.
However in a country where you have no jury, like in germany, the case is clear: it is mugging. Or more precisely "robbery".
The weaker accusation could perhaps be: assault and property damage.
May point basically only was: as soon as you take something out of the hands of the owner he basically apply violence and work against his will and resistance. Working against ones resistance (using a weapon and thread or not) is enough to make it robbery (in a legal sense).

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Myopic]

Damn, Germany doesn't have juries? That blows my mind. This incident happened in Louisiana, which although it's in the USA, is the one state with the most crazy legal system, by a long shot. Who the heck knows how the law works down there! I sure don't.

I wish Brand good luck fighting this, because I'd hate to see the good guy (Brand) lose to the bad buy (photographer).

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[Shotgun]

Well...there is such a thing as felony littering.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[gmhowell]

You're equating not wanting to have a picture of yourself and your lover splashed across the tabloids with racism. That's a very short straw you're clutching. In fact less of a straw, more of a lead weight.

Why, that's a very 21st century take on a less enlightened people.

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[angel'o'sphere]

Juries are a thing which is pretty ancient and more or less only still active in the anglo saxon world (but I don'r know to what extend in england/GB e.g.)

Yeah in fact I hope that the photographer gets his ass kicked ;D

Re:Why does his privacy have not value?

[marcello_dl]

> Well...there is such a thing as felony littering.

Are you positive about that? Microsoft sold millions of vista PCs and nobody complained.

Re:In Russell Brand's case

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Since Steve Jobs died I cannot bear to see anyone use an iphone irreverently, what I did was a tribute to his memory.

This tweet was quoted in TFA. To be fair, he's quite funny when he wants to be - so "talentless" seems a harsh assessment.

Re:sticking a metal device in my face?

[snowgirl]

you'll get shot

And you'll go to jail for escalating force well beyond what is reasonable...

Unless you can show that you had an actual fear that it were a weapon endangering your life, and you had no duty to retreat. (Some states hold that if you are in public, you have a duty to attempt to run away before you attempt lethal force. In a few states, this duty even applies inside your own home.)

dont like the prices of smartphones?

[FudRucker]

then vote with your wallet, i have never owned an iphone or any other brand of smartphone for exactly that reason, i refuse to spend as much on a cellphone as i would a desktop or laptop computer, i opted to buy a cheap Tracfone for for around 29 bucks and buy a pre-paid card to program it with by three months at a time, that way if my phone gets lost or stolen or broken i have not lost much on it

Re:dont like the prices of smartphones?

[MrKaos]

then vote with your wallet, i have never owned an iphone or any other brand of smartphone for exactly that reason, i refuse to spend as much on a cellphone as i would a desktop or laptop computer, i opted to buy a cheap Tracfone for for around 29 bucks and buy a pre-paid card to program it with by three months at a time, that way if my phone gets lost or stolen or broken i have not lost much on it

but you miss out on having live location and status feeds of you anus posed to facebook and twitter

That's WHY they are called 'updates'

Re:dont like the prices of smartphones?

[shiftless]

They call this being "penny wise, and pound foolish"

-- Former Tracfone owner

Not since 1967 in Englnd and Wales

[fantomas]

Apparently felony was abolished in the Criminal Law Act 1967 in England and Wales "which made all felonies (except treason) misdemeanours". Arrestable offences were abolished in 2006.

Considering the religious aspect of Apple..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it should be considered an act of sacrilege.

$399?

[Barefoot Monkey]

$399? The iPad2 is priced at $1055.28 for the cheap non-3G one over here! *sits in a corner and grumbles about rich countries getting the lowest prices*

Re:$399?

[mallydobb]

I live where the iProducts and other high quality electronic devices also cost significantly more than in the US, but it isn't because the manufacturers are raising prices, its due to the taxes, VAT, import, customs, duty, and such that raise the selling price of the devices.

Should be a felony...

[ninsega]

More than the money value of the phone, a phone is a communication device. For that reason alone it should be a felony to snatch any phone.

Re:Should be a felony...

[geekmux]

More than the money value of the phone, a phone is a communication device. For that reason alone it should be a felony to snatch any phone.

So, now we've gone beyond the crime of pricing said "communications device" WAY over what it is actually worth, and now you're going to try and sit here and convince me that because of the advent of personal communications devices, it should NOW be a felony to remove one from someones person? What's next, are the "victims" of said crime going to start suing for emotional distress and lost wages because people couldn't possibly leave their house without a "communications device" glued to their side, and had no way to tweet every 60 seconds? OMG, the horror...

If this doesn't scream "entitlement", I really don't know what does. Try and grasp the fact that people didn't even walk around with cell phones 20 years ago. Having one is not a human right, so don't try and give me this bullshit that it's now a crime NOT to be entitled to one. This is bad enough we're questioning a felony conviction over tech that literally becomes worthless within a few years.

Re:Should be a felony...

[Skidborg]

I'm not sure I agree with the GP, but I see his point. If you grab someone's communication device from them you are then free to engage in a wide variety of criminal activities without your victim having any way to call for help. However, if you're willing to risk charges of assault, armed robbery, or whatever else you're going to do, another charge of phone snatching probably isn't going to deter you.

Re:Should be a felony...

[dkf]

More than the money value of the phone, a phone is a communication device. For that reason alone it should be a felony to snatch any phone.

Can we extend that to empty bean tins too? After all, as all good schoolchildren know you can use them to make a communications device.

I pose this question

[MrKaos]

sHOULD IpHONING A sNATCH bE A fELONY?

Re:it doesnt matter really

[firefrei]

overpriced electronic toy

I'm not an Apple fan, but an iPhone is not overpriced for the amount of quality design and hardware you get for it, and it's not a toy - it's a powerful portable computer that can do some impressive and useful things. A Tonka truck is an example of a toy, in case you've forgotten how to describe things without hyperbole.

Phonicide in public interest!

[gweihir]

Obviously, stopping a paparazzi is in public interest. Freeing somebody from an iPhone clearly is too. So IMO, this should result in a public commendation, and if needed in a psych-eval for the former iPhone owner to determine whether there is any residual damage that could mandate putting them into a closed psychiatric facility to protect the public.

Re:Just keep him there..

[phonewebcam]

Yes, its amazing how many Americans don't realise he scurried off over there to avoid the fallout from his disgusting obscene phone call "joke". The kind which, naturally, had a member of the public done exactly the same would have got them prosecuted.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[FrozenFood]

no really, its a toy.

If I connect an ipad to my desktop, windows detects it as an "entertainment device"

Where do you draw the line?

[geekmux]

The problem with this suggestion of a felony conviction over questionable MSRP pricing structures is where do you draw the line? What happens next month when someone snatches a Coach purse, or some other obscenely overpriced piece of shit that we Americans seem to love to waste money on?

Start questioning one overpriced product, and it tends to lead you down a very dark path that NO retailer or manufacturer wants people screwing with.

Theft + force = robbery.

[mbstone]

Stealing an item of personal property is larceny. Add the use of force or fear and it's robbery. Robbery is always a felony because of the inherent risk that someone could be injured or killed. That's why Jerry Dewayne Williams is serving 25-to-life for stealing a slice of pizza.

Re:Theft + force = robbery.

[Overzeetop]

Programmers belong in cubicles, criminals belong in jail.

You say that like there's a functional difference.

Re:Theft + force = robbery.

[darkmeridian]

Cue the world's smallest violins. The guy had been convicted of five previous felonies. At some point, he has to stop committing crimes. Of course, it's bullshit because his pizza theft was originally a misdemeanor that got bumped up into a felony due to his previous convictions, then it became the third felony under the three strikes law. But if I had been convicted of five felonies, you can be sure I would not be stealing pizzas or even jaywalking.

He did learn his lesson. He ended up serving five years in prison. Now he's bemoaning how he has to walk on eggshells because if he commits another crime, he's going back to prison for a long time. So it sounds like the law did the trick.

Re:Theft + force = robbery.

[David_W]

Programmers belong in cubicles, criminals belong in jail.

You say that like there's a functional difference.

Yeah, jail cells are bigger.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[rampant mac]

"...detects it as an "entertainment device""

Since when are entertainment devices all toys? I get entertainment from a variety of things, like driving a car really, really fast around a track on the weekends. I play golf with friends where I use an app on my iPhone to judge the distance to the pin. The device I'm staring at right now to type in this message entertains me.

So, cars, golf clubs, mobile computers and desktop computers are toys?

Remember the WILD WEST

[arcite]

What happened when someone stole your horse?

That seems equivalent to stealing an iPhone, a device that has all your digital data, financial information, communications, essential life info requires for personal and professional survival.

Re:Remember the WILD WEST

[Nocturnal Deviant]

if you put your financial information onto a portable, loseable and stealable device without a way to remotely wipe it, hint, you are doing it wrong.

when someone stole your horse(which fyi are worth around a factor of 10 times that of an iphone), which is a felony. you know THEFT OVER 5000, when it has historically become a felony.

Re:Remember the WILD WEST

[cbope]

And in the Wild West, shooting someone who stole your horse was allowed in many cases. Are you saying we should allow someone to shoot someone else simply for taking away their phone and chucking it out the window?

Do you support vigilante justice by the way?

My thinking...

[msobkow]

Avoid the theft/snatching charge.

Just punch the papparazi in the face and deal with the misdemeanor assault charge.

Re:My thinking...

[Peter Harris]

Louisiana - where the only consistently applied and rational law is the law of unintended consequences.

Re:My thinking...

[gmhowell]

I think they ought to tie a chain around this Russell Brand AND the paparazzi dudes neck and the other end to a hitch on a monster truck and floor it.
decapitate both those fuckers necks.
I would pay to see that.

Screw that. Trial by Thunderdome.

Re:My thinking...

[nbritton]

Just punch the papparazi in the face and deal with the misdemeanor assault charge.

Trust me, just walk away... sitting in the defendants seat is never a pleasant experience. At the very least you will fork out $2k for a retainer and forever explain why the first hit when someone googles your name is an arrest report.

Re:My thinking...

[gl4ss]

then the paparazzi has documentation about that AND a scoop.

the intention is to make the paparazzis life harder by destroying the phone which works as a contacts hub etc.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

do you plug your car or golf clubs into your computers?

Russell Brand is a douche

[thetoadwarrior]

He didn't steal the phone for any good reasons (ie to feed his family) he did it to be an ass. His largest crime though is going around calling himself a comedian when he clearly isn't one. Just do society a favour and castrate the ex-junkie.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

OMG SO EVERYONE SHOULD GET IPADS INSTEAD OF PC's FOR WORK

that is what i see when i read your post....fact: ipad does not replace a pc. get this through your fanboy heads. its not a microsoft conspiracy either. I am a linux user.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[mapkinase]

Yesterday I was listening to C-SPAN, and they were discussing a concept of crime under passion, giving an example of jealous husband who stumbles upon his wife having sex with another man, and that in some jurisdictions it's considered as a factor for sentence reduction.

I think snatching a camera when the owner is actively abusing "being in public" concept, could fall into that category.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[FrozenFood]

can i run visual studio or Siemens Step 7 on an ipad?

no? then bugger off while I write software for a million dollar industrial machine.

anyone can make a gimicky hardware toy, e.g OpenPandora, raspberry pi, apple ipad, but for real work cad (email and word dont count), I need a x86 Windows PC.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[FrozenFood]

you can plug your car in using the ODB scanners which use CANBUS. cheap USB scanners with windows software are on amazon now.

its not too far fetched to have a programmable golf bat.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[erroneus]

I think you seriously misunderstand the intent of the article. It is definitely not about Apple iThings. But since the general public doesn't have a slashdot car analogy to use, the article writer finds the general public's awareness of Apple iThings to be convenient to help put cost/value considerations into a frame and perspective they can easily identify and measure. And that's pretty important when getting a message across I should think.

The article also rightly calls out that iPad is less expensive than iPhone. The message of this article is that these devices are demonstrably exaggerated in price by carriers and/or manufacturers and that a consequence of such exaggeration is that theft of such devices moves into the range of felony under most juridictions. While they could have written the message that "mobile phones are overpriced" it helps to make the case by demonstrating some very concrete examples of real-world consequences of these exaggerated prices. After all, people have simply accepted the high price of these things and their rate of loss and theft.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[kdemetter]

So, cars, golf clubs, mobile computers and desktop computers are toys?

Are you familiar with the saying 'Men don't mature when they grow up , they just get bigger toys' .
You don't ever get that feeling of awe when looking at a brand new car, or the latest iPad ? I do.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[FrozenFood]

its a toy

if the ipad had USB slots, esata, RS232, RS485, ProfibusDP master, UART, SD card, DVI, gigabit ethernet port, then I would get one to work with.

you can lose the shitty camera and sensors as they dont add any value to me.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[hackwrench]

I never got "that feeling of awe", but then I have Asperger's. I find this arguing over semantics entertaining though. Does that man that people are toys, because that would explain a lot.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[WrongSizeGlass]

can i run visual studio or Siemens Step 7 on an ipad?

I don't think you could run either of those on a Windows phone ... or Windows tablet ... or a Mac ... or a Linux desktop ... or a Linux server ... or <insert name of main frame, big iron or super computer here> either. I guess that makes all of them toys?

Just because it doesn't run the specific software that you require doesn't make it a toy.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Anonymous Coward]

See Firehose

--
"Math is hard! Killing Gooks is fun!" - Vietnam Barbie

This is a tech site?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how factors work.

Re:Let me guess - you're a liberal

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The problem here is that Crashdot is full of idiots who worship scum like Russell Brand, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE 'FAMOUS'.

Name one.

Just one.

Go on.

I'll be impressed.

Slashdot pricing

[Coop]

iPhone $400, data within $100,000, privacy breach $1,000,000. Definitely a felony.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[a_nonamiss]

I would be willing to bet that the "million dollar industrial machine" you talk about can't run visual studio and Siemens Step 7, either. So why are you wasting your life writing software for a toy?

DON'T TOUCH OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF

[gavron]

Russell Brand wouldn't have to worry about it if he hadn't STOLEN a pap's phone. (What he did with it later is irrelevant).

DON'T TOUCH OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF. Don't like their camera? Sorry. Don't like their phone? Sorry. Don't like their iPad? (stupid, I know, but the OP mentioned iPads so I am bringing it up for completeness.)

I don't care if you're a Hollywood Celebrity, a faux Paris Hilton celeb, or just someone who's self important.

DON'T TOUCH OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF.
Then you won't have to wonder if you committed a felony or misdemeanor by your UNLAWFUL ACT.

Wait... let me summarize. ACT LAWFULLY AND KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. Don't try to claim your act of vandalism is "only a misdemeanor." It's really "only" poor manners and UNLAWFUL on your part.

Cheers and all that.

E

Re:DON'T TOUCH OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF

[Anonymous Coward]

ACT LAWFULLY AND KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF.

I saw that pop off the page and for a second I thought you were talking about the paparazzi. This is like your younger brother holding his hand in front of your face and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!". While we're shouting about basic rules to live by, how about "DON'T BE A DICK"? Russell Brand has never stolen my phone and thrown it through a window, probably because I've never hounded him and tried to take his picture with it. Or does the right to free-speech also grant papparazzi the right to be a complete dick to anyone they like with no consequences whatsoever?

Re:DON'T TOUCH OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF

[gavron]

If that pap is violating Russell's free space, Russell doesn't get to shoot him, kick him, or steal his iphone.

He can do what we're all supposed to do. Call the police.

If he does anything else (much as most of us might do) he has acted unlawfully.

The key is not "was he provoked" because that's not part of the standard of the law for felonious theft. It's "were his actions legal?"

They were not.

Feel free to hit your brother as you see fit. It's still battery.

E

"Worthless"

[shiftless]

If it's worthless, then maybe I can give you my address so you can mail me a free one.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[FrozenFood]

If you are thinking of the S7-300 which a CPU can cost up to 5k USD, or the mighty S7-400 which CPU the size of a shoebox can list up to 20k USD. Well in that case you would be wrong, because at the very top of siemens control hardware family lives the 19" Industrial PC. Which if sir has to ask, sir cannot afford..... ...which only runs Windows XP or Windows 7.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[dimeglio]

Of course it can replace a PC. It just depends what your requirements are for work. Why I work, 80% of users can switch to tablets like the iPad, and save the company millions in maintenance and support fees.

No

[epp_b]

Not if it's from a papperazzi.

Snatching Product Placement Headlines

[retroworks]

I'm more concerned with how Apple has snatched the headline. I have no idea what brand of telephone Russell Crowe threw at the head of the concierge in NY in 2005, nor did I think its brand had something to do with the court ruling the phone was a weapon. This appears to be a case of product-placement inside of real crimes.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[T-Bone-T]

Except the wifi iPad has nothing to do with the iPhone besides being made by the same company and running the same OS. The 4G iPad is a more fair comparison, starting the $630 and going up to $830. That is in the realm of mobile phone pricing and does mobile phone things.

Re:The future

[FrozenFood]

write 250,000 lines of C on a keyboard or touchscreen?

Re:Let me guess - you're a liberal

[shiftless]

Nice rant, but you did absolutely nothing to argue against the GP's statement.

By the way: if you ever walk up to me with an iPhone as a paparazzi, trying to snap pics and video against my permission, you'll be lucky if it's just your phone that gets thrown through a window. You can bitch and cry and moan all you like but when you fuck with other people, expect to get fucked up.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Kneo24]

Better than being a Never Nude, I suppose.

Proud?

[shiftless]

Geeks, you need to be more proud of the law, it is much more geeky than most of us think.

Why would you ever be proud of something which is specifically designed to enslave people (prison) and ruin their lives?

Re:Proud?

[barry99705]

Wow, that's some wickedly distorted views on life.

Re:Proud?

[shiftless]

The truth is pretty damn ugly. Do some research on all the evil that is privatized prisons.

Re:Proud?

[Tom]

Your distorted view is one reason why you really should learn more about the law.

Criminal law is but one small part of the law, and crimes with prison sentences an even smaller part of that. Now I understand why someone from the US - which has turned prisons into a commercial enterprise forgetting that all for-profit entities share one goal: Growth - would have this distorted view. But that doesn't make it right.

Law is a cornerstone of civilization. Law governs commerce. Law is what allows me to buy something in a store without doing my own background check on the owner or his business. Law is what allows me to sign a contract with someone I don't know. Law is what guarantees me that the house I buy really is mine and that I will get my salary at the end of the month. Law allows me to buy food without being an expert on spotting overdue product.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[camperdave]

I wish we could give a -1 Troll to articles themselves.

I thought that was what the firehose was for.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[tepples]

[Where] I work, 80% of users can switch to tablets like the iPad

By "tablets like the iPad" did you mean to include tablets running Android OS? If not, the signing requirement hurts smaller businesses that aren't big enough to qualify to develop and deploy internal applications.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Cederic]

Does that man that people are toys, because that would explain a lot.

Oh yes. Play with them. Especially the pretty ones.

(Observe all appropriate initiation protocols or you may get hurt)

Re:it doesnt matter really

[CrzyP]

Where you work is not where almost everyone else in the world works, buddy. You can't replace the nations banking, trading, medical, and _____ infrastructure with iDevices, or Android devices, or :cough.crapberries:. I don't know what you do, it really doesn't matter, but you are wrong. iPads are mainly used as consumer toys, not IT solutions (which is maybe 1-5% at this point).

Re:it doesnt matter really

[CrzyP]

A quick Google definition search: toy/toi/ Noun: An object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something. An object, esp. a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult: "in 1914 the car was still a rich man's toy". Bam!!

VS on tablet PCs, XCode, Eclipse, AIDE

[tepples]

can i run visual studio or Siemens Step 7 on an ipad?

I don't think you could run either of those on a Windows phone ... or Windows tablet

If it's a Windows On ARM tablet, it'll be locked down as tight as a Windows phone. But if it's a Windows On Atom tablet, you can probably run Visual Studio just fine because Windows will see those as a PC with a pen.

or a Mac

Macs can run XCode. If you add a $200 copy of Windows, they can run Visual Studio.

or a Linux desktop

A Linux desktop can run plenty of Free IDEs. So can an Android tablet running AIDE. I guess this leaves iPad and Windows On ARM tablets as the only major tablets that can't be used for application development even when docked to a keyboard.

Why do we buy the gutter press?

[Roger W Moore]

Paparazzi can follow and harass him all they like and he can do nothing about it.

Not true - he can decide not to be a celebrity. The victims of crime or accidents, who not only had no choice but are also suffering from the repercussions of the event are the ones who need the protection. However I think the most effective way to stop them is to stop buying their papers. We do not need governments to do this for us - we can, and should, do it ourselves by making such activity (at least in the case of victims) highly unprofitable. Afterall in a democracy the government should reflect the will of the people and if the will of the people is to read gutter journalism like this we should not expect governments to act until we show we are willing to stop reading such stories.

Re:Why do we buy the gutter press?

[Shotgun]

Have you seen the reactions of "celebrities" who have pissed off the cameramen for one reason or another, and then the flashes stop? No paparazzi means no limelight means the phone stops ringing means the celebrity isn't working. The next thing the women celebrities will do is show up at a nightclub in a short skirt and no underwear to give everyone a picture. The guys will be sure to be seen leaving the nightclub with some rank whore.

Funny how that works.

Honeycomb/ICS tablets yes, iPad no.

[tepples]

you CAN (easily) write a program every bit as fancy as anything you can produce on a PC, on a tablet or phone even.

Only if the tablet runs Android or some other operating system that allows unsigned or self-signed code. You can write a program on an iPad, but you can't test it because of how Apple's developer program works. You have to use something like Citrix or VNC to a PC to compile and run it, and if you're out of range of Wi-Fi and in the United States, a cellular data plan for doing that regularly can become expensive. I keep my netbook because I can code while taking the bus to and from work.

Data caps

[tepples]

Citrix is seamless even over 3G

How many megabytes per hour does Citrix use?

There are other technologies like HTML 5

How does one write a barcode scanner application in HTML5? There isn't yet a widely supported API to (ask the user to) access a device's camera.

more computationally intensive ones can be coded server side

Not while the user has zero bars because moving vehicles don't get Wi-Fi and the user either has already exceeded his monthly 3G cap or is unwilling to pay for 3G in the first place. For hobby coding on the bus to and from work, a 10" laptop doesn't rely so heavily on a cellular data subscription.

No such thing as UK law: 3 different systems in UK

[fantomas]

There is English law (which also includes legal issues in Wales), Northern Irish law, and Scots law. No such thing as "UK law".

Copyright Math

[hemo_jr]

The Judicial system is where copyright mathematics was born. The prosecutors will go for the max and a felony.

And you can't just look at the hardware value, alone. The paparazzo probably had $8 billion worth of (infringing) content on it, as well.

Documentation

[tepples]

Observe all appropriate initiation protocols [when playing with people]

Where are said initiation protocols reliably documented? Are the letters of Paul in the Bible any good?

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

this. you can prattle on about how useful an ipad is as a regular consumer, i dont give a crap.

you.
can.
not.
replace.
a.
pc.
with.
an.
ipad.
IN ANY SORT OF ENTERPRISE IT ENVIRONMENT.

or engineering environment for that matter.

ask an engineer if they would prefer to run autocad through citrix or xensource as a VM(to oh you know, a pc.) on their ipad, or simply run it on their pc....wait never mind that STILL says you need a PC to be effective or at least a server which does not inculde a beowulf cluster of ipads.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

It also is an infrastructure nightmare, you have to lock down all of those ipads to make sure some dolt doesnt download something stupid, give me a few hours with an exploit and your entire business would shut down completely.

dont have a backup due to no pc's?

that sucks.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Kjella]

There's the firehose but it doesn't do anything for stuff that's gotten on the front page. I'd like to see a moderation and a bar that listed the percentages like

[---- 43% Informative ---] [--- 22% Insightful ----] [11 % Interesting --- ] [--- 12% Troll ---] [--- 9% Flamebait --- ] [--- 3% other ---] of coursed sized to proportions.

That way you could easily see if other people thought this was worth reading or not, not just whether it passed the somewhat arbitrary submission process.

You may have answered your own question

[tepples]

Why would I want my democracy's rules to be determined by the same people who've proven they don't care about the rules?

Because perhaps they care more about the rules than some other people. Let me guess: you would have approved of taking away someone's right to vote for having smuggled slaves out of the South into Canada in pre-1860s United States.

Unless you're rich enough to write your own undemocratic laws

The following does not apply to phone theft or vandalism, but would you approve of taking away someone's right to vote for having violated an undemocratic law that was written by someone who was rich enough?

any car chash in Louisiana is a felony now?

[Joe_Dragon]

As just about any cash is property damage that exceeds $500. So the cops must do a felony arrest after one?

Value != Price

[WillHirsch]

The prices offered for iPhones on the linked AT&T page may "vary by a factor of 376" but that's because some of the phone's value is embedded in the contractual commitments that come with it when offered at lower prices. You have two choices: use the "no commitment" price, or take the total value of the two-year contract and try to subtract the value of an equivalent plan with no handset. I doubt there is much difference at all.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[T-Bone-T]

The iPad can be locked down and I have backups of my iPad on my PC.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

correct. on your PC. is this a personal pc we are talking about though? I thought this was for business.

You just proved my point.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[multimediavt]

And relevant to the OP, it depends on the laws where you are at the time of theft what is and isn't a felony. In Virginia, theft of any item or items totaling a value of $200USD or more is a felony (yes, two hundred dollars, not thousand). This varies by state in the U.S., but I am reasonably certain that most smartphones and tablets would make the cut in most states for felony theft status.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[cynyr]

Make that show up in the top of the RSS feed as well.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[NatasRevol]

You are an idiot.

80% of enterprise users have 2 apps: email, web.

Thus, a tablet can replace their desktop/laptop.

Yes, there will always be people doing things that aren't suitable for a tablet. That doesn't negate the fact that most people CAN use a tablet for all their work.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[meerling]

That's because of the limited list of choices for USB IDs.
What do you expect it to be listed as?

Re:it doesnt matter really

[cynyr]

I don't even want to run Autocad/inventor/solidworks/excel on a PC... I want a workstation.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Bert64]

Give me a few hours with access to a pc and its also possible to make a colossal mess of the business...

Corporate networks are built on the idea that everything inside is trusted, and everything outside is behind a firewall. Once you get on the inside, its easy to rip the whole thing apart. Having the network full of ipads would actually make that more difficult.

It's also easier to prevent an ipad user from getting owned or doing stupid than a windows user. Exploits could exist for either system, but the ipad provides less functionality to be attacked and has a better mechanism for updating third party apps.

Also, if you're going to deploy something like an ipad you should only do so when its the most appropriate tool for the job, and the same applies to a pc... This attitude that a windows based pc is automatically the best tool for any task is stupid. If you assess the actual needs of the users, weighed against security concerns and costs there are many use cases where ipads are actually a good choice.

For example...
A salesman who travels to client sites, needs to be able to quickly and easily show brochures and other information to his prospective clients, an ipad is much easier to carry round than a laptop or a big stack of paper brochures and has a bigger screen than a phone. In one case i'm aware of they actually double up as a (rather large) gps in the car, so the salesman can easily find his next client.

A warehouse that dispatches goods, an ipad or similar device can be carried around, it connects to a webserver over wifi which shows the worker the next order, and shows them which part of the warehouse to collect the goods from. He collects the goods, packs them, the warehouse inventory is updated to remove the items and the worker is then given the next job. I've seen some places use specialised hardware for this, but it tends to be more expensive than an ipad while not offering any benefits.

Re:He's as funny as the obscene phone calls he mad

[Dark$ide]

This guy is generally despised in the UK. In fact when he was caught making his obscene calls and the BBC was fined by Ofcom because of it he said "All I ever wanted to do was make people laugh".

Well Russell, start when you're ready.

Please don't post links to the Daily Mail website, you're not helping our colonial friends in any way by posting links to their bland, lying, untrue, overblown, one-sided shite.

We should point out that the Daily Mail is to good printed journalism as Fox News is to good television journalism. I wouldn't wipe my arse with torn up copies of the daily mail, the ink comes off the paper too easily.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Bert64]

Your a small niche, locked into a particular piece of proprietary software tied to a particular proprietary machine.

I also occupy a small niche, i require low level wireless manipulation tools that run only on linux with a modified kernel (i guess they could potentially be ported to any other system where you have access to kernel source code)...
I could potentially do my work on an openpandora or raspberry pi, but an x86 windows pc or ipad would be useless. Does this make all these devices toys?

Plenty of work also gets done on mainframes, as well as sparc or power based servers, many of which cost millions of dollars. does this mean that your x86 windows based pc is a toy?

The vast majority of home computer users do little more than browsing the web, even reading email is typically done via a web browser these days... These users would get by just fine with a raspberry pi or similar low cost machine.

The vast majority of corporate computer users do little more than word processing and email, again these tasks could be performed by a much cheaper machine running much cheaper software, saving millions of dollars.

There will always be niches that are tied to specialised equipment, and those working in such niches usually get ripped off with much higher prices and tools which are either very dated or wholly inferior.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

Most people actually want a physical copy of said brochure being that it is a physical copy of something they might spend money on.

you can lock down a windows pc to the point that you can only access an intranet with no physical box access. comparing how much you can lock something down is fruitless.

also ipad is wireless thus susceptible to packet sniffers and OTA spoofing.

also a full network of ipads means most of them are leaving your network on a daily basis increasing chance for something to happen. not to mention the fact that being that they are all on the exact same hardware/software its made exponentially easier to attack from a network security perspective.

If i can counter every single argument that you put out without even using brainpower than your solution is no better than mine.

yes it is comparing apples to oranges but the fact is, you need a pc to even sync with said ipad. backups are crucial. fact of life.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

which is still a pc by term of generalization =p if your going to go to that level ill simply say "ibm compatible"

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Nocturnal Deviant]

you still need a pc to have backups. my argument is still completely valid, You are an idiot for your sheer lack of reading comprehension. I said REPLACE.

Theft is a felony where i live

[nurb432]

"snatching" = stealing ( you aren't making a copy of it :) )

In time inflation makes taking anything a felony..

[American Patent Guy]

..under this law. What legislator is going to stand up and ask for this $ limit to be raised? That only helps the boys sitting in the jail cell, and they don't vote...

Value of contents?

[SEWilco]

The value of the contents could exceed the value of the device. If the only copy of a year's work is in there, it is worth a lot. If an encrypted copy of a database is in there, preventive measures can also be expensive.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Sir_Sri]

It could also be that felony laws need to adjusted based on new inflation values and so on.

Or it means that the police should start to take seriously the theft of 500 dollar items. Which is somewhat problematic given the costs of taking things seriously.

There are phones that are thousands of dollars, those you would expect to be treated on par with comparably jewelry, but a 500 dollar item is in a messy place. It's cheap enough that your insurance deductible usually won't make it worth making a claim on (yes, some people have less than 500 dollar deductibles) in a lot of cases. So you just eat the loss? What consequences does this have for kids in schools who regularly steal stuff from each other? None of these things are handled well by laws written when 500 dollars had probably double or triple the buying power it does today, but it's still a lot of money.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[slasho81]

Relevant.

It should be treated like the theft that it is

[J'raxis]

Many places define value for purposes of theft as the highest amount possible determined by reasonable standards. In New Hampshire for example, the theft law defines "value" as:

"Value'' means the highest amount determined by any reasonable standard of property or services. (RSA 637:2, V)

Are you suggesting that because you don't like the manufacturer's pricing models, that we should just write a special exception into the laws for phones requiring some other standard be used?

This is not a situation like when the RIAA claims a mere copy of bits on a disk representing "music" and sold for $0.99 is actually worth $50,000. If someone steals someone's smart phone, the victim actually paid the $800 for that physical, tangible property, and will have to pay $400 again to replace it.

There are certainly problems with the felony laws: In many places, the threshold between misdemeanor and felony was defined decades ago and hasn't been updated for inflation. For example, it was set to $500 in New Hampshire sometime in the 1970s, and was only increased to $1,000 in 2010 (SB205, 2010), whereas $500 in 1971 is actually worth $2661.24 today (Inflation Calculator). But this doesn't mean we should be adding special exceptions into the laws for products people don't think are worth the purchase cost.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[kelemvor4]

That is so pathetic; most people I know with iPads use theirs more for work than entertainment.

Interesting, most people I know with any kind of tablet (ipad included) use them for collecting dust after the first couple weeks. Seriously, I know four people with ipad or ipad2 that don't use them _ever_. I've got a Samsung galaxy tab sitting on my desk that I haven't used in a month or two. I've never met anyone who used one for actual work.
I think gimmick might be a better word than toy.

California's anti-paparazzi law favors celebrities

[Tarantura]

Should Snatching an iPhone Be a Felony? When celebs do it, hell yes. Screw 'em. Laws should reflect this. Why?

When Schwarzenegger signed an anti-paparazzi bill in 2010, it made it far easier for 'famous people' to sue media outlets that use photos that invade celebrities' privacy (particularly when vehicles are involved) in the state of California. Living in Los Angeles, I see celebs often enough to be quite jaded. Paparazzi annoy ME by getting in my way trying to snap those pictures for TMZ et al, but tough shit 'famous person', you're getting what you wished for. Having one's cake and eating it too, indeed.

I personally feel little sympathy for celebrities - their careers are often spent in and dependent upon being the center of attention, and cashing those multimillion dollar checks only further cements my opinion that they're also cashing in their personal lives, too. Period.

Essentially a nepotism-based employment opportunity where you're given the winning lottery ticket on a gold platter (with few real exceptions), being rich and famous takes a certain personality to handle that few have. Whether they're confusing their fame with wisdom or pushing their politics on the masses, these people need to be held far more accountable for their actions. Most were born on third base and confidently act like they hit a triple (as the saying goes).

(Irony: Brands' father was a professional photographer.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[rtfa-troll]

OMG SO EVERYONE SHOULD GET IPADS INSTEAD OF PC's FOR WORK

that is what i see when i read your post..

In that case you need your eyes tested.

..fact: ipad does not replace a pc. get this through your fanboy heads. its not a microsoft conspiracy either. I am a linux user.

A tablet does not replace a PC in many applications (e.g. as a developer's workstation) in just the same way as a PC does not replace a tablet (in e.g. carrying patient's notes or fully mobile work). That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there are many people who are using tablets for work.

The criticism of my post seems to be based on the idea that the only work people do is software development and being PHBs. Doctors work too; graphic designers, believe it or not, work too; architects and artists work too. For each of those groups, a tablet where you can present information and read a bit of email is actually more valuable for their work most of the time.

To accuse me of being an Apple fanboi (note the spelling), is ridiculous based on my posting record. As a Linux user you should be able to recognise that it is perfectly possible to work without Windows. Something I do every day.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Being famous isn't a blank check.

[Beelzebud]

Damaging private property is against the law, period. If these assholes hate their job so much they should quit. If the photographer took Brand's phone from him, do you suppose nothing would happen? I doubt it.

Re:Being famous isn't a blank check.

[forkfail]

On the other hand, someone else being famous should not be a blank check for douche baggery either.

Re:Being famous isn't a blank check.

[Beelzebud]

Millions of people wish that their biggest worry was having too many photos snapped of them. Celebrities need to get over it. They became famous, deal with it. Assaulting people, and damaging private property isn't acceptable.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It certainly is not illegal a police beating

[daninaustin]

Some states do have laws making filming police illegal, but the courts have been throwing them out as being unconstitutional.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[ZorinLynx]

I'd really like to learn more about this fantasy land you live in.

Enterprise users use a hell of a lot more than just E-mail and web. Office is a big one, for example. Also, depend on the business, there are other more specialized applications.

I really wish I could live in your fantasyland, it would make being an IT guy a hell of a lot easier. :)

Can you cite a source for this

[daninaustin]

It might be illegal to take a picture of a celebrity (or anyone else) by pointing your camera at their backyard, but as far as i can tell it is perfectly legal to take a picture of them in a public place. Selling the pictures without consent is a totally different issue.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[T-Bone-T]

Why can't you simply substitute my PC for a server? Multiple iPads can be synced with a single machine.

Everything is becoming a felony

[daninaustin]

I'm not sure it's any different than the other things that are being made a felony. It's no worse than someone being labeled a sex offender for public urination. As for nullifying rights for convicted felons: If you can't trust them with a gun, then maybe they shouldn't be let out of prison in the first place.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[MagusSlurpy]

The only thing PCs are used for at my plant by 100 out of the 105 employees is browser-based training videos, so this actually would work. Of course, the company also just buys $300 crap boxes every five years, so they're still probably coming out ahead versus if they'd bought tablets. We just got upgraded in December to new Lenovo boxes running C2D E8400s, I wouldn't be surprised if Lenovo gave them to us.

Plus, the employees are much more challenged if they want to swipe desktops.

But do any tablets offer network-based administrative control? Because that's what our (and most) IT guys really love, the ability to control updates and patches and software versions.

Maybe that is why the petty crime rate is so high?

[daninaustin]

I think you are kind of making the point for having this sort of thing as a felony. The crime rate for the UK & Europe is substantially higher than it is for the US. Incentives/dis-incentives do work, even for criminals.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[mattventura]

The keyword in your post is "can". It can replace it, but for intensive data entry or email, the lack of physical keyboard and the smaller screen means that even though you can replace it, you shouldn't.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[blackest_k]

Brochures are a little out dated these days, why would you want to keep a paper brochure , find it later as its tossed in the pile of other brochures from other suppliers, even the brochure from 2010 which isn't current but nobody can be bothered with sorting through and removing out dated info.

On the other hand , can you email me your latest brochure price list ect... sure 5 minutes later your working on the next order from that supplier, bonus points if you store supplier info together on your server so you can pull up the "brochure" even faster next time.

Keeping unnecessary paper is a waste of time and resources.

For profit?

[daninaustin]

Prison industrial complex? Put down the bong. It's about 2 things: Segregating criminals from society by locking them up and providing a disincentive to commit crimes.

No duty to retreat in Louisiana

[daninaustin]

This is not a case where deadly force should be used, but for those claiming it is vandalism rather than theft : Texas law permits deadly force for malicious vandalism at night. Ya'll be careful now.

Re:No duty to retreat in Louisiana

[snowgirl]

This is not a case where deadly force should be used, but for those claiming it is vandalism rather than theft : Texas law permits deadly force for malicious vandalism at night. Ya'll be careful now.

I've heard that in Texas you can legally shoot someone who is attempting to repo your car at night as well, so long as you had good faith to believe it were a theft, rather than a repo.

Re:No duty to retreat in Louisiana

[daninaustin]

I think that's pretty much correct except that it's only for parts of the car without serial numbers (as strange as that sounds.) The car itself has a VIN number so it can be identified but things like the hubcaps, that are not are not identifiable would qualify. I am not a lawyer, but his is how it was explained to me by a Sheriff who taught my first CHL course about 10 years ago. Since then it has gotten easier to legally use deadly force with the castle doctrine and other laws.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[JohnBailey]

Of course it can replace a PC. It just depends what your requirements are for work. Why I work, 80% of users can switch to tablets like the iPad, and save the company millions in maintenance and support fees.

Then stop posting on slashdot and get the coffee to the customer faster.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[geminidomino]

If your job requirements are such that an iPad can replace a PC for work, then you're working in a job that doesn't require a damn computer.

Re:No such thing as UK law: 3 different systems in

[Attila Dimedici]

That is as may be, I am not familiar with UK law. The person I responded to said, "At least here in the UK," and then proceeded to give specific examples of definition from the law. They never delineated between the different areas of the UK, so I am unable to address what portion of the UK they were referring to. I was only able to address the definitions that they gave as being part of "UK law".

Cost of the phone

[CurryCamel]

I'm sick and tired of people looking at the price tag of the phone at purchase time only, and ignoring any monthly fees and/or elevated prices for other services.
Forgetting some 350$ worth of accessories when bemoaning a 899$ price tag on a phone is just one exellent case point.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[rtfa-troll]

a job that doesn't require a damn computer.

What do you even mean by that? What do you mean by a computer? Most smartphones today are "computers". There are lots of people that need to get delivery addresses but do not need the full functions of a PC. In the old days they could have worked by getting those in the morning on a sheet of paper. Now their competitors all have modern communication devices; if they tried to work in the old way they would not be competitive and would not get any business. For these people a tablet, which could provide them full routing information on a nice display may be perfect. They need a computer but they don't need a PC.

Assault and Battery can already be felonies

[Eightbitgnosis]

It seems like any other damages beyond that would be cover under tort law.

Why does the involving of an Iphone matter in the slightest?

references?

[fantomas]

References? Also note that there are different legal systems in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland so you'll probably want to be indicating which bit of the UK you are referring to.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[maxwell demon]

You don't ever get that feeling of awe when looking at a brand new car, or the latest iPad ? I do.

I feel sorry for you.

Re:FOR COMPARISON:

[maxwell demon]

So you don't see a difference between a gun and a cell phone? Hint: Shooting a gun on someone is a serious crime, shooting a photo of someone isn't.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[chrismcb]

Replace "iPhone" with "phone" or "mobile" or "smartphone" and absolutely nothing relevant changes.

That's it, though, isn't it? The story doesn't even involve Apple or its products save that it incidentally happened to be the brand of the specific stolen overpriced electronic toy. Hell, no iPad's were involved at all, and yet this click-bait summary managed to work them in anyhow all while mentioning that you can get one for less than the well-publicized $499!

When I clicked the check box to disable advertising I didn't expect the ads to reappear as articles. This is getting ridiculous.

The main item in the story is an iPhone, but somehow that means the story doesn't involve an Apple product? The value of this product is at issue because if it is over $300 it is a felony, if it is under $300 it is a misdemeanor. There is a discussion on how it is hard to pin down the exact value of this product, and a comparison to another, similar product for the same company that has an MSRP of $399 (where did you get well-publicized $499 figure from? apple.com has it listed for 399) The value of the device is what the story is all about. So the fact that it IS an Apple device is important. The fact than in iPad retails for $399 is important.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[chrismcb]

and it's not a toy - it's a powerful portable computer that can do some impressive and useful things.

An XBox or PS3 is a powerful computer that can do some impressive things. And yet many people would also consider them a toy.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[firefrei]

An XBox or PS3 is a powerful computer that can do some impressive things. And yet many people would also consider them a toy.

Sure - they're customised computers though, designed for playing games. iPhones are multipurpose devices, which can play games, but also browse the web, listen to music, launch a remote terminal service to your machine, book flights, whatever you want. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse just because it's an Apple product and well liked?

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Rakarra]

Shooting someone over a worthless piece of electronics. You must be Duhmerican!

I think it's just that he has no regard for thieves and criminals who attack him, that's all.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[narcc]

But do any tablets offer network-based administrative control?

This comes as no surprise, but RIM offers enterprise tools for managing BlackBerry Playbook tablet computers and other brand handsets with BlackBerry Mobile Fusion.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Rakarra]

The iPad can't come close to replacing a PC, but really probably the reason why Windows gave that message is that without iTunes installed it's detected as a music and video player. IE, an entertainment device. It doesn't know about Apps or anything else.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[gweilo8888]

Where's the abuse of being in public? You're in public, that means you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. What next, you're not allowed to look at the famous while they're in a public place, without prior written permission?

The famous are very happy to take the positive aspects of fame. Along with that comes a responsibility to put up with the negatives. I like Russell Brand, actually. Find him bl**dy hilarious. That doesn't mean I think he has the right to steal one person's property, then damage that person's property *and* the property of the completely innocent person whose window he threw it through, just to make a childish point.

If the paparazzo was breaking any law, Brand would be within his rights to call the cops, just like the rest of us. If they weren't, then he wouldn't. Either way, he doesn't have the right to dish out vigilante justice and expect to get away scot free.

Snatching an iPhone ...

[PPH]

... should be grounds for a diminished capacity defense.

So should modding this post down.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[gmhowell]

Except for a very, very limited number of people, damned few jobs require a computer. Hell, plenty of people have programmed computers via punchcards, IOW, without a computer. However, a staggering number of jobs benefit by having a computing device.

Your arrogance is impressive.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[gmhowell]

Your friends must be mildly retarded then. Go check the prices for used iPads on eBay. Then come back and explain why it makes more sense to use them for gathering dust instead of selling them for money.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[gmhowell]

Censoring out 'bloody'? What kind of poofter are you?

Re:No such thing as UK law: 3 different systems in

[gmhowell]

There is English law (which also includes legal issues in Wales), Northern Irish law, and Scots law. No such thing as "UK law".

Blame julesh, who said: "At least here in the UK, this would not be considered either theft or robbery." Ask your countryman to be more precise.

Re:The future

[shiftless]

Who said anything about C?

Solution

[Torodung]

He should have his lawyers delay the trial a few months until the iPhone 5 comes out, then the thing will be completely worthless.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[jedidiah]

A mobile browser is in no stretch of the imagination a replacecment for a PC browser. That's a little like saying we could all run Netscape 1.0.

A tablet doesn't even do web or email to adequately displace a PC.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[jedidiah]

It's much like saying that you can replace a shovel with a teaspoon. Both objects do much the same thing but they are hardly interchangeable.

Re:The future

[jedidiah]

Hell. Nevemind 250K LOC. Just make it through a Slashdot post.

Being able to do something just hobbling along and doing it well are entirely two different things. Business is going to care about getting stuff done effectively and efficiently.

If the task requries more than a mouse on a PC, then it's likely to be a disaster on a tablet.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[jedidiah]

This has nothing to do with "it being Apple". It's a simple matter of allowed capabilities. An iPad is presented as an appliance with meaningful limitations on what the end user can do with it.

It's not a PC because Apple has chosen to play the role of corporate IT tyrant with it. The same goes with any other PC trying to pretend it's an appliance. (Android, Tivo, Router, NAS)

Re:it doesnt matter really

[geminidomino]

It's not arrogance. Somewhere else in the sub-thread someone made the same point: that a large percentage of enterprise needs fit into the "Web + Email" functionality. Except that hasn't required a "computer" (for any meaningful context of the term) in over a decade. WebTV, 'web-appliances', and dumb-phones all provided the same subset of functionality for years now.

The iPad doesn't change that at all. It's still just a toy that happens to include the ubiquitous base function.

The real problem

[Lord Kano]

is that celebrities do not like hearing that the same rules that apply to everyone else applies to them.

LK

Re:it doesnt matter really

[dufachi]

With Windows 8, your argument may lack credibility as it's very obviously designed for the tablet user in mind. Too bad everyone uses a mouse and keyboard. Gotta run the mouse in a "3 snaps in a Z formation" to load the browser or some other ridiculous pseudo-swipe.

Re:FOR COMPARISON:

[daninaustin]

It doesn't matter whether the gun was loaded. It's a serious offense to threaten someone with a gun (or knife or club) and it's also an invitation for someone to shoot you (legally).

Re:it doesnt matter really

[firefrei]

I hate to reference Wikipedia, but anyway:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer)

A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator.

Note there's also a section in the contents regarding Tablet PCs. You might argue that Wikipedia is not the definitive source for what the definition of a PC is (and you're be right), but neither are you. As far as the quoted above definition goes, I think the iPad fits it pretty well. It's a personal device that runs programs - it being a walled garden doesn't by definition make it no longer a PC.

We're on the cusp of a redefinition of what typical computers are for people. I'm happy to go along with it simply because I don't want to be a grouch who is unable to accept that definitions are malleable. Otherwise I'd continually be incensed by the media's use of the word "hacker" all the time.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Y-Crate]

But do any tablets offer network-based administrative control?

This comes as no surprise, but RIM offers enterprise tools for managing BlackBerry Playbook tablet computers and other brand handsets with BlackBerry Mobile Fusion.

The Playbook has a track record of very, very secure email. So secure in fact, that it didn't exist for the better part of a year.

A company that can't get email working on its flagship tablet for that long after it ships is completely dead in the water. Apple can do some nutty things, but not being able to figure out how to implement email in your own product is just straight-up insane.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Y-Crate]

If your job requirements are such that an iPad can replace a PC for work, then you're working in a job that doesn't require a damn computer.

Please tell me that you don't work in IT. If you do, I pity the people who are forced to make their business case to you.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[geminidomino]

Nope, development. So they have to make their use cases to me.

Bwahaha.

Yes

[inglorion_on_the_net]

Yes. I mean, if it were any other phone, a misdemeanor would be enough, but if it's an iPhone, then definitely a felony.

Re:Let me guess - you're a liberal

[Fjandr]

Hell, I don't even know who Russell Brand is...

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Vegemeister]

On the contrary, he's certainly a Europeon. In America, they would have shot the paparazzi.

Everything!

[jmcvetta]

Let's just make everything a felony! That'll stop crime, for sure.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[flyneye]

No, it's O.K. ,Paparazzi are undesirable like cockroaches or diarrhea, not even human. A medal for service to the public is recommended.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... buying one should be.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:it doesnt matter really

[DamnStupidElf]

In other news, 80% of enterprise users deemed completely worthless.

Absolutely !

[ToddInSF]

Because, well all know, making something a felony always results in reducing the incidents of that behavior !

It also distracts from the complex and disturbing privacy issues that nobody really wants to get into, because it steps on too many government and industry-impacted toes...

How much of a right do people have to hound and harass other people, and is your right to pester someone greater than their right to the level of privacy that you enjoy ?

More than just hardware

[slapout]

Once you factor in the required contract and data plan, you're talking thousands of dollars.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[narcc]

It shipped with email though BlackBerry Bridge. If you wanted a stand-alone client, you could download one from App World from the very first day.

but not being able to figure out how to implement email in your own product is just straight-up insane.

Yeah, it would be crazy if it was true, which, of course, it's not. The PlayBook had email from day one.

Really, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Is Apple "completely dead in the water" because they "couldn't figure out" copy/paste or MMS for a year after the iPhone was released?

Re:California's anti-paparazzi law favors celebrit

[Shotgun]

So the law should be based upon what you have personal sympathies for? I take it you don't have a problem with that? You don't see how that could go wrong?

Re:Let me guess - you're a liberal

[Shotgun]

Consider yourself blessed.

Head in the iClouds

[tepples]

you still need a pc to have backups.

Even with iCloud?

It Depends

[geriatrix]

There is a legal term "Mens Rea" or in English, "Guilty Mind". This is a general principle in law that the court must prove that whatever you did was done with intent or at least with a degree of criminal negligence (e.g., no-one intends to have a car crash by driving negligently). I don't know if Brand or Brown's actions qualify as felony but deliberate destruction of someone else's property fits the bill of Mens Rea. There is however the issue of provocation. Everyone has their own thresholds and I suspect if I was subject to the same chronic provocation that some public figures receive I would be sorely tempted to grab the implement of torment and shove it into a part of the tormentors anatomy where the sun don't shine. Fortunately I'm not a public figure (and I don't have much sympathy for Russel Brand)...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:California's anti-paparazzi law favors celebrit

[Tarantura]

So the law should be based upon what you have personal sympathies for? I take it you don't have a problem with that? You don't see how that could go wrong?

Laws should be blindly enforced, regardless of how much $$ you have access to or how famous your face is. I don't care how much a celebrity whines that their personal life is being violated as long as the same so-called violation could be legally directed towards a non-celebrity. I'm certainly not claiming to base a law on my personal opinions. It's simple: Do not give celebrities any more special treatments (esp. legal authority) over their already royalty-level treatment they get now, but that's exactly what the 2010 CA anti-paparazzi law did that was signed into law by someone who was himself a major celebrity.

This thread is off-topic ever so slightly, but does anyone really think these 'rich and famous' should be legally treated 'better' than the rest of us? But, that's a flaw in our (USA's) legal system, isn't it. Money does buy happiness...er...powerful lawyers.