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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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).

Re:Yes

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Why is this a question?

Because this is an answer.

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?

[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.

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.

$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: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.

Re:it doesnt matter really

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

[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]

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?

Considering the religious aspect of Apple..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it should be considered an act of sacrilege.

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.

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"

My thinking...

[msobkow]

Avoid the theft/snatching charge.

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

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.

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?