Is this a victimless crime?

[margomaps]

http://www.local6.com/news/17618596/detail.html

Melbourne police arrested a Brevard Community College student Friday in connection with an on-campus explosion.

Michael Woodson, 20, of Melbourne, was arrested and transported to the Brevard County Jail, where he was being held on $15,000 bond.

The explosion was reported in an elevator shaft of a building on the Brevard Community College Melbourne campus before 11:15 a.m. Thursday, forcing authorities to lock down the campus and cancel classes.

No one was injured in the incident.

Just a thought experiment.  I'm guessing that I'd agree with most of you: there many activities that harm no one yet are criminal offenses and can be rightly called victimless crimes.  Arguably in this case, there was no victim.  The article claims nobody was physically injured at any rate.  An explosive device was detonated (the extent of the property damage was not given, so I assume there was none), and the university took what was probably a reasonable precaution of closing the campus temporarily.  The article does not indicate the financial cost of doing so, but I'd suspect it might not be negligible.  Is Michael Woodson then being imprisoned wrongly for a victimless crime?  Or can the University and/or some number of its constituents be thought of as victims due to the expense of shutting down the campus?

I guess I'm just exploring how broadly (or narrowly) people view actions that constitute victimless crimes.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

How much do you want us to tear this scenario apart?

I mean, I'm pretty sure that college is publicly funded, which means it belongs to "everyone" and, IMO, property that belongs to "everyone" is fair game for any activity that doesn't cause harm to human beings. I've almost willing to say that even destruction of property that's "public" is fair game. If I own a toaster, I can smash it with a hammer. Likewise, if I own an elevator in a college, I can detonate a bomb on it.

This is, of course, why I reject the notion of public property entirely. Two people can't both own something and have BOTH people able to fully utilize it as they see fit without aggression against another party.

Now, let's move the setting from "publicly funded university" to "private property" like a mall. Here's what opens up a gray area for me. I agree that a road owner could charge fees for various things. For instance, it might be fair to have a driver charged a fee if his tire blows out and he litters on the roadway. Likewise, the mall might rightly charge a fee for disruption of business. I'd certainly say the mall would not be aggressing to expect the bomb detonator liable for the cost of elevator shaft inspection and any damage that might reasonably be cause by his actions (typical arbitration processes here, of course).

The reason I say this is a gray area is that I reject the idea of "implied consent". Would all mall patrons, by the act of entering the mall, be implicitly contracting to the "no detonating bombs" clause? I don't like "one size fits all" things like laws, but I do operate on principles and guidelines, and I'm not PERSONALLY sure where I'd draw the line. Under the "bomber entered into no bombing clause" idea by implied consent, it might also be reasonable to say that an owner of a mall could charge maintainance fees for "littering" if patrons had dandruff or tracked in mud.

I'd also have to question "today" or "tomorrow's libertopia". Today, I might agree that with forced protection services and such, property owners like malls have some sort of expectation that their protection services will handle distruptions to business. In a free society, I might say that the burden for "atmosphere" of a business rests entirely on the business owner. Just as a bar owner would be required to provide music to make a bar more lively, a mall owner would be responsible for providing bomb detection personell and devices to create an atmosphere of "safe".

Having read only your summary though, I'd say that the guy should NOT be put in jail. His bomb detonation may have been distruptive, but the taxation to keep him in a cage requires theft from live, flesh and blood human beings.

[dalebert]

The definition of "own" means you can exclude others from it's use, so "public property" is an oxymoron. Now, if this were private property, then they can certainly kick him off of it and expect compensation for any damage he caused which you would expect to be resolved through private courts that each party consents to in hopes of avoiding a violent conflict over the dispute.

[David]

Destroying someones property is wrong.  Further, an explosion is a threat that forces people to act to avoid harm, those people are clearly victims, not much different than someone would be if I briefly swerved my car into the left of center lane forcing any cars there to swerve to miss hitting me. 

[ByronB]

If you blow a bomb off in a elevator shaft it sounds like there was at least some intended victims... so I wouldn't say it is entirely victimless (of course as far as I know it could have just been firecrackers, in which case I think jail is a bit of a over-reaction.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

Victimless crime?  I think probably not.  I do know that it was a really dumb thing to do.  From the account in the news report it sounds like it was an improvised device made with black powder that was placed in a glass container.  Setting that thing off in a building will probably cost taxpayers and/or students money because the police responded and someone would have had to clean up the mess, and possibly repair damage.  Also it interrupted classes, which at least some of the students and parents had to pay for.  I don't understand why someone would set something like that off in a building.  If someone wants to make things go bang, they should set them off in a safe location away from buildings and people.

[John Edward Mercier]

I think the problem would be intent...
If I intended to victimize you... but failed through my lack of competence... what would be the verdict?
For victimless crimes there is no victim physical, financial, or otherwise... and no intent to create one.

Dave's swerving is an example... though someone might have needed to alter their path... it was not his intent to make them do so (just the circumstances of the situation).

[margomaps]

Thanks for the replies everyone.  Interesting stuff!

I think the problem would be intent...
If I intended to victimize you... but failed through my lack of competence... what would be the verdict?
For victimless crimes there is no victim physical, financial, or otherwise... and no intent to create one.

The article does not indicate that there was any intent to create a victim, or any actual property damage.  One might be tempted to infer that there was an intent to create damage or a victim, but that's just speculation.  Furthermore, such thinking is at the edge of a slippery slope.  Does everyone who is in possession of a potentially dangerous item have an intent to victimize someone?  Goodbye open carry, the game of baseball, butcher's knives, etc. (witness the UK for an example of this policy).

It might be that he had this home-made explosive for a perfectly benign reason, and that it accidentally detonated in the elevator.  I doubt this is the case, but it seems at least within the realm of plausibility.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Destroying someones property is wrong.  Further, an explosion is a threat that forces people to act to avoid harm

You know, I've got to disagree here. Once the bomb went off, there was no threat. People might have perceived one, but there wasn't. Additionally, I'm not even sure REAL perceived threats are enough to justify the use of force. There was a story where a homeless man was waving a replica pistol around, the cops were called and when he reached for the replica pistol, the cops shot him.

I'm a little torn on that scenario, honestly. Logically speaking, the man brandishing the pistol and raising it to a police officer posed absolutely zero threat of shooting anybody - the gun wasn't functional. What happened was people saw a scenario and chose to get scared. the "threat" posed to the crowd and the threat posed to the police were entirely in their minds. When faced with a slippery slope arguement, knowing one logical conclusion is infringement upon liberty, I'm inclined to lean to the most extreme side to protect liberty. If your actions, which make others cooshe to FEEL threatened when there is no actual threat, should be prevented (say, the Neo-nazi's parading in a Jewish neighborhood) then you have to defend other actions that pose no threat and that people chose to feel scared about.

not much different than someone would be if I briefly swerved my car into the left of center lane forcing any cars there to swerve to miss hitting me.

I'm even questioning this scenario. Drivers, to protect their lives and their property must avoid obstacles. If there's a bucket of paint in the road, I'll swerve to avoid it. Has that bucket committed a crime (in the real "there's a vicitm sense") against me because it's presence required me to act to avoid harm (or damage)? I'd say "No."

If you blow a bomb off in a elevator shaft it sounds like there was at least some intended victims

Some people do things like this for attention or to "make a point". The article says he was kicked out of the community college, it seems quite likely that his intent was to get the college to disrupt their operations. The article also says that 4 people refused medical checks, so perhaps they might be victims yet the article also says "Nobody was injured" so...

I think the problem would be intent...

I've gone over this. What is a crime "with intent"? The more I think about it, the less I think intent matters. For instance, if I had an arguement with someone and shot them. My intent was to kill, but what happened was that the shot passed through cleanly and avoided organs. There is asbolutely assault and absolutely a crime, but is "attempted murder" that crime? Does my intent to kill somehow make the assault "worse"?

The more I think about it, the less I am willing to accept that intent should factor it. "Intent" is a nicer way to say "thoughtcrime". What's happening is that a person is being punished for how they THINK and that too is a nasty slippery slope of vileness.

[John Edward Mercier]

Intent has to factor.
Imagine that he had the device, but had no intent to inflict damage...
Restitution would need to occur... but an aggression (crime)? I don't think so.

What your asking is the severity of the aggression (charges), not whether an aggression was committed.

[BillKauffman]

Likewise, if I own an elevator in a college, I can detonate a bomb on it.

Not without the consent of all the other owners (that is what collectively owned property means) or their delegated authority.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Like usual, I feel as if terms are being redefined for your arguements.

Restitution would need to occur... but an aggression (crime)? I don't think so.

Restitution doesn't apply if nobody has been harmed. Without a harmed person, there is no crime. Property damage is aggression and is harmful. In this article, it seems as if NEITHER injury to persons or property has happened.

Not without the consent of all the other owners (that is what collectively owned property means) or their delegated authority.

There's no such thing as "collectively owned property". If you own it, you may do anything you want with it provided you don't harm other human beings. Since I'd be prevented (by force!) from detonating a bomb there in your scenario, I'm not the owner. "Collective property" is a fallacy. Collectively owned is what the govenrment people say when they want to rationalize stealing your money to pay for their monopoly business directives.

[BillKauffman]

"Collective property" is a fallacy.

If I own a car with three other people it is jointly or collectively owned.

I can not use it without the explicit consent (consensus) of the other owners by definition.

[margomaps]

Additionally, I'm not even sure REAL perceived threats are enough to justify the use of force.

You're out in public with your wife.  A large, powerful man with a "crazy look in his eyes" approaches you.  He staggers up to your wife, pulls a knife, raises it over his head and gnashes his teeth...

What happened was people saw a scenario and chose to get scared. the "threat" posed to the crowd and the threat posed to the police were entirely in their minds.

Would you be "scared" (alarmed, angered, whatever)?  Do you perceive this man to be a threat?  Maybe he's just playing a prank and the threat is entirely in your mind.

When faced with a slippery slope arguement, knowing one logical conclusion is infringement upon liberty, I'm inclined to lean to the most extreme side to protect liberty.

Easy to say when it's not you or your wife who is about to be murdered 1 second from now.

Some people do things like this for attention or to "make a point".

Like the man with the knife?  Maybe his point was just to draw attention to the dark and dusty corners of the zero aggression principle.   

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I can not use it without the explicit consent (consensus) of the other owners by definition.

Then you have the same right to use it that I do, that is - none without the owner's consent. If you and I have the same right to use it, which is true? 1.) I also own the car. 2.) You do not own the car?

You're out in public with your wife.  A large, powerful man with a "crazy look in his eyes" approaches you.  He staggers up to your wife, pulls a knife, raises it over his head and gnashes his teeth...

I didn't say "I don't understand why someone would use force". I simply says it doesn't justify it. If someone harms you, the use of force is justified. Meaning that force used to prevent further harm doesn't create a debt to the victim. This is what I mean by "justifies". Retalitory force is "justified". In this situation, yes, I might very well feel threatened. I might even act out of that fear. But once everything is said and done, I have used force against someone who has not harmed me. I'm not saying that the threat of harm is okay, merely that those issues raise ethical and philisophical questions for me. I'd sleep like a baby dropping someone who broke into my house - he's committed aggression against me. I'd have restless nights over a man not on my property who hadn't harmed me.

Put in a different scenario. Say that you sleepwalk (for an explanation of "How did this happen?") and live on the tenth story apartment building. It's one of those buildings where the tenant actually owns each floor. You awake from a sleepwalking session dangling over the edge of your balcony, facing a fall to your death on the concrete below you. Your neighbor, who has always been a dick to you, sees you and tells you he'll harm you if you tresspass on his property.

Do you tresspass on his property? Yes, the guy is a scumbag, but he DOES have the right to choose who comes on his property and since you yourself technically put yourself at risk he's not responsible for assisting you.

I sure as hell would! But I'd also admit that I had aggressed by tresspass rather than try to justify and rationalize it. I'd do what it took to keep myself alive, even if that meant aggressing against other people. That said, I'm also an ethical person, and even if my life depended on it, initiation of force is something that doesn't sit lightly with me or my Jiminy Cricket.