Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

a reply to: PanPiper

A step in the right direction, good to see

a reply to: Misterlondon

I think you should perhaps go looking for the judges words when he delivered the final verdict.
Legal precedent has been set, the exact words used will go a long way in determining what will happen in future cases similar to this one.

a reply to: PanPiper


Utter and complete insanity. The result of this is, of course, it becomes ILLEGAL to defend ones food, farm or even home as hunger now trumps individual ownership of food. Home invasion? "I was hungry". Theft of crops in the field? I was hungry. Markets? Shops with candy bars, sodas, etc....

If this follows up, Italy is finished as a nation.

Perhaps this is a good thing, people will see the utter folly of the myopic fantasy of non-ownership and disincentive of personal contribution and production.


Sheer and unmitigated insanity.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Has there been a clear definition of what "to be hungry" means (or perhaps better : avere fame)? First of all, as many have already mentioned here, this opens a huge can of worms. I can eat a full meal and still be hungry. Is 'avere fame' used in the same way as English meaning "to really desire something?" Maybe I'm hungry for a Porsche. May I go steal it now?

Assuming that they have specified the definition to mean "anyone who is starving and has gone without food for X period of time" - how do you prove anything? I guess if I try to rob a restaurant while dressed to the nines it would be obvious I'm a scammer. What if, though, I showed up in a tattered coat, disheveled hair, unshaven, and without a bath (4-5 days of preparation necessary for this heist)?

If I need more clothes and can't afford them (i.e. winter clothes), will I be allowed to rob the department store?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: PanPiper


Utter and complete insanity. The result of this is, of course, it becomes ILLEGAL to defend ones food, farm or even home as hunger now trumps individual ownership of food. Home invasion? "I was hungry". Theft of crops in the field? I was hungry. Markets? Shops with candy bars, sodas, etc....

If this follows up, Italy is finished as a nation.

Perhaps this is a good thing, people will see the utter folly of the myopic fantasy of non-ownership and disincentive of personal contribution and production.


Sheer and unmitigated insanity.

Think Italy like the rest of the EU is already finnished.

a reply to: crazyewok


No doubt. The rest isn't far behind, either.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: PanPiper

A step in the right direction, good to see

That is until you're robbed.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok


No doubt. The rest isn't far behind, either.

Between Mad Merkal and the southen EU countrys like Italys ban# insane policys I doubt the EU will survive the decade.

a reply to: PanPiper

Isee both sides of the argument however I think this action, and the way its talked about, is opening Pandora's box. Kind of like when walmart changed its policy about theft and the less than $20.00 rule.

It also is going to cause issues since grocery stores are losing their ability to protect themselves and will be forced to absorb the cost. Absorbing the cost of anything usually means an increase in prices to the consumer. There is such a narrow profit margin in the grocery industry as it is.

We need to do a better job of resolving some of these issues...

Just to add - If I am not mistaken stealing food is one of the few permissible actions in Islam that wont get you punished / hand cut off. I don't know if there is a connection but it might be worth looking at.

The problem is like anything, nefarious people will exploit this step.
This idea that being homeless or struggling automatically makes you noble is naive and ridiculous.
The parameters of this need to be clearly defined and limits put in place to protect those being stolen from.

a reply to: polyath

It is not a perfect idea and yes it will get abused....

To answer you question about needing clothes for winter no it is not ok to steal, i suspect this idea is for the most disadvantaged people who really need the help.....sadly though the freeloaders will screw it all up and take advantage if they can....its far from a perfect world

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: PanPiper

A step in the right direction, good to see

That is until you're robbed.

Indeed, insurance may be necessary

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If it isn't okay to steal clothes when homeless and facing the possibility of freezing to death in the winter, then surely stealing food to not starve is also not okay.

I knew a restaurant owner that would feed people at the end of the night, he would leave them "doggie bags" of decent clean food that otherwise would be thrown out

a "city harvest" approach would make a lot more sense than legalizing theft

leaves them a very slippery slope

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If it isn't okay to steal clothes when homeless and facing the possibility of freezing to death in the winter, then surely stealing food to not starve is also not okay.

It really is a matter of conscience.....

Some people just do not care about others, greed is the cause of this ...You can see here on these boards day in day out people going on about how hard they work and they dont want freeloaders taking a peice of their pie yada yada yada...

The reality is if we keep letting so many people fall through the cracks we will eventually be worse off, at some point there will be so many disillusioned people we will see similar results to what we are seeing in Europe now with the mass exodus from the middle east and that will affect everyone's bottom line worse than giving away a little food will...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I see the point from both angles. On the one hand, no - we shouldn't support the notion that people can just expect hand-outs. At the same time, we need to realize that people do fall on hard times through no fault of their own and often need a little help to stand back up. From an American point of view, I think our culture is too individualistic. Look at cultures in which community bonding is strong. You may see a lot of poor people - but what you won't see is a lot of homeless and starving (unless the entire family is in that predicament).

I also don't like when someone goes on a tirade against a person for "supporting" that person with their tax dollars. I'm sure math would show that the amount one person pays for another person directly is fractions of a penny.

The reality is if we keep letting so many people fall through the cracks we will eventually be worse off

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the problem we are having in the United States these days is that people forgot the lesson we all learned as kids about how the Native Americans taught the settlers how to grow corn. These days, we aren't willing to give the seeds and help people grow their first crop. We just tell them to find the seeds and figure it out on their own.

a reply to: polyath

I agree ,poor people stick together and help each other much more than wealthy people, in fact we get wealthy people who dont even look after their own kids financially let alone have any empathy towards strangers....

Anyhow looks like we are on the same page....

Do the business have the right to refuse entry to them if they recognize them?
I can't picture a Pakistani in Italy running a small grocery store allowing someone he caught stealing previously back in?

Now if he did not catch them before, then nothing has changed either from before

What I don't understand is that in NA you aren't allowed by Law, as a Restaurant business,give away edible food you can't keep. It's thrown away by the truckload each week. So not only are starving people denied good food due to Gov policy but it's a huge waste money and food. I have no idea what they're allowed to do over there however.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


No, I believe your wrong on the conscience claim.

Playing that gambit is nothing more than the usual left guilt-trip. What you avoid is the freedom of choice vs enforcement
aspect completely.

It is fundamental. This is clear enforcement by a member of the judicial who has no legislative authority and is imposing his views on the remainder.

Which is what you are doing, as well. If an elected gov't decides to address an area such as this one and has a clear mandate to do so, then sobeit.

Most of a similar view as yourself decide via sheer hubris the right to impose yet another arbitrary due to the 'lack of conscience' again via outright theft of others property and goods, in this case, food.

I rebut that it is those that would impose and support this that have no conscience, lack morals and are arrogant beyond belief.

I wonder how many hungry or staving people share your house due to your conscience?