What if you steal money from the rich and give it to a poor person so that person can get a hummer in the strip club before blowing the rest at the craps table? What if you did not know that is how the poor person would spend the money after you Robin Hooded it to him?

A ton of people who steal rationalize it to themselves that they are doing the right thing, so they would say that is their motivation. The problem with the bulk of thieves - they tend to avoid truth at times.

Sure. I guess that I was assuming omniscience re these types of questions.

Most thieves spend little or no time constructing elaborate rationalizations for their behavior. To the contrary, the thought process for most thieves is -- "I want X. That guy has X. I'll just take it from him."

You give most thieves way too much depth by assuming they take ownership of their theft with the "the I want x" part. Most quickly assume that their theft is justified because the person they are stealing with deserves it for whatever reason, and that is as far as it goes. Maybe the target had a nice watch, or are an evil landlord or corporation or they look like a jerk. The vast bulk of criminals greatly reduce the blame from themselves for their actions, with very few thinking things out in detail like the dude earlier in this thread who has a specific age cutoff to pass (to reduce butt sex) before he will commit a crime.

I don't know--I think a fair few slip in a little bit of I deserve it(or some version of it) in the mix as well. The act of actually taking it is basically that thinking realized anyway.

What a surprise. Monteroy is being needlessly argumentative. The thought process of "I want X, he has X. I'll take X" hardly implies depth. That is the thought process of a toddler when he takes a toy from a playmate. It is the thought process of a dog that grabs a steak off the kitchen counter and runs out the door with it.

The thief who tries to rationalize his behavior is engaging in much deeper thinking than what I described.

If you ask them to justify their behavior, then sure, you often will hear some version of "I deserved it" or victim blaming. But I'm dubious about whether your garden variety meth addict spends a lot time workshopping justifications for theft that go beyond the obvious.

I disagree. A thief who is self aware of what he wants to steal and why and understands his or her actions is putting more thought than the standard "I am Robin Hood" character who takes no responsibility for their own actions because it was the victim's fault for some arbitrary reason. As for being argumentative, not sure what to tell you - I believe in what I am saying, and I also have no memory of any interactions with you in the past. I kind of have no memory of you whatsoever.

What kind of thief has no idea what he is stealing? Someone who steals packages off of doorsteps? A blind thief?

People break into places all the time with no idea of what they will steal. People rob people all the time with no idea what they will get. Homeless people get rolled all the time, and its not like they are wearing a Rolex. A couple thieves stole a tractor trailer up here years ago, drove away for an hour or so, opened it up and saw they stole a several ton block of nickel. Was worth a fortune in theory, and had they known what was in there they probably would not have taken it, since they had no real way to fence a 10 ton block of metal. Was a pretty bad risk/reward crime in the end.

Anyways, while you are trying to be argumentative (without irony) - my point is simple. Most criminals are pretty low level thinkers, and most do not accept responsibility for their behavior, they just blame others and to me that is a lower level of thought than one who knows what they are and why they are doing what they are doing. You can choose to disagree if you like on this - literally no difference to me in the end as it is just a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours.

All the best.

You are describing people who are stealing because they believe that the item, or something inside the item, will be convertible to cash. They don't care what the item is. It's all a proxy for cash.

This seems very important to you, so consider that you won the internet for now on the topic that most people steal for money, even though that was only really a sub-topic you created. Still, you win. Congrats!

I still maintain the Robin Hood mentality is for the vast majority of cases a simple way for people to steal to rationalize their less than Robin Hood like behavior, and the number of genuine and understandable "Robin Hood" cases that many find appealing in theory are actually pretty rare. The OP's example is an example of a non- Robin Hood scenario, but he knows that.

I also still believe that many people who steal use the Robin Hood rationalization (even if the poor that benefits is themselves) as the no brainer excuse for their behavior. As odd as it may sound to you - I actually believe that people who steal that do it with a purpose and understand what they are doing without making excuses are using more brain cells behind that activity, even if it is not one a behavior that is considered positive. No need to counter that with stating that people steal for money - you already won the internet on that sub-topic.

All the best.

If low-volume dickishness and unwarranted condescension were categories on the internet, you would be a winner as well.

They are using a lot of braincells because a large portion of them are overflowing with resentment and general sadism but haven't lost it enough to not have the capacity to formulate a plan.

The more tarnished ones are just caving in to their addiction at this point and can't stop themselves. Then a few of those beauties end up like Jeff Dahmer who just don't give a **** and fully know what they are doing. It becomes a bit tough for those people to still use the robin hood defense to fool some folks when they're eating your dick.

Both of us are being dicks in this chat, after you went into the nitpick mode on a topic where people can have differing opinions, however only one of us is aware of that. Perhaps you believe you are going to redistribute my condescension to those less fortunate who need some for themselves, so you feel justified in tossing out the variety of personal attacks to obtain it.

All the best.

I'm pretty sure you're both aware of your actions but if only one of you is, that person is the bigger dick.

Just sayin'.

To be clear, i am not suggesting that many thieves actually have Robinhood motivations. That sort of motivation surely is very rare.

I'm quite aware that i was being a dick. My fuse admittedly was shorter with Monteroy than with other posters. That's probably because i had the background knowledge that he is obnoxious in his exchanges with everyone here. But whatever. Time to move on.

I have come to really appreciate Monty's style despite being very irked by it prior.

It takes some forum art to be able to be so prickly and so directed with so few words.

As someone who is unable to do brevity, I have learned to appreciate him, even when his biting comments are directed at me.

And Rococo just needs to post more as there is rarely a word wasted when he does. Direct and to the point!

All the best!
lol.

Yeah, it's his thing.

I'll say one thing for him though, he's an equal opportunity shrew.

It's the thing for most posters on this narrow demographic forum, but as Cuepee mentioned - I tend to not waste words. I also do not whine, while that is a much more common behavior from others, and that difference tends to cause some friction at times.


You had the advantage on me in that regard as I have no memory of you before this chat. I agree it is time to move on, and I am happy you found another poster to vent to as that can be cathartic to some.

All the best.

As someone who has also been on the receiving end of a few barbs from Monte, he at least isn't mean-spirited about it.

+1 on your Rococo comment.

Even though you and I have had our differences (understatement), I still find you to be one of the best posters in this Forum.

I honestly cannot understand why you would think that. You must prefer reading tomes to cliff notes. lol.

Even i cringe at having to re-read my posts at most times, due to excessive length.

My biggest issue is I try to anticipate every counter or issue someone might raise in my post and incorporate those answers proactively which then leads to length.

I think that is mistake because... oops

I've really enjoyed reading all the responses ITT, so thank you all.

To take it back to the poker cheating angle a second. If Bernie Madoff comes back to life and magically gets out and still has all his dough, and we cold deck him for a few mill, does anyone blink an eye?

I guess if we ever get caught, we are reliant on jury nullification to get away with it, which, as Rococo will tell us, is not a great trial strategy.

Still, it's a fun thought experiment. Thanks again for all the responses.

In fact, in most jurisdictions, I'm pretty sure arguments to jury nullification are not even allowed.