I’m sure some of you have misplaced your precious pager–whether that’s a Blackberry, a Wyndtell, or a Sidekick. Or a Motorola T-900 Walkabout. Or an Ogo (it’s okay, you can admit that you owned one…we’ll try not to laugh).
One person left his Sidekick II in a Manhattan taxicab. This is his resulting story: How NOT To Steal A Sidekick II. Props to Evan for taking the high road here.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
16 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I would do the exact same thing she is doing if my SK was stolen…. WOW!
They are lucky it isn’t my SDK…I’d be knocking on their door with a baseball bat…
WOW!..That was totally awesome. Many props to the guy for doing that!
Man, I feel for Evan- someone broke into my car last year while I was inside Blockbuster and stole my Sidekick. Of course I deactivated it right away, but the memory still makes me shake my head about how people can get so desperate enough to steal stuff they end up not being able to use anyway! Go Evan, she deserved this public humiliation, a lesson she’ll never forget for the rest of her life.
Wow!! All those attention Evan’s getting by doing this.. Hands up to Evan!
Aaah! The site ain’t working! I’m addicted to this guy’s crusade and have been checking since you posted it. Woke up this morning and the first thing I do…? Check the Sidekick site and I get “cannot find server.”
What’s the update? Did the guy get his friend’s Sidekick back?
And by the way… I never had an Ogo. :-D
This is all quite fascinating. I do hope that no one who sees the website goes and becomes a vigilante though.
This is a very interesting brand of justice, one that is initiated, and possibly served, by bloggers.
There are going to be laws that will govern this type of situation in the future. Because of Evan’s postings, someone actually drove by the alleged thieve’s residence with a camcorder in hand and was confronted by the landlord. Nothing serious happened, but we all know the types of nutjobs and sickos out there. Since people have an innate desire of delivering justice, danger is imminent.
I hope thieves and ******** take note and clean up their acts.
Remember the Scarlet Letter?
In it a woman convicted of a moral crime had a red A sewn onto her chest; the A, of course, stood for adultery.
I note the phrase “honorable thing to do” was used. This is also therefore considered a moral crime. Like in the old days, we throw stones. Only today’s stones are blog-stones; and if you get stuck with a blog-stone, likely others will follow: birds of a feather, you know!
Like many of you, I can truly sympathize the young lady who lost her Sidekick. This woman is probably fortunate to have a friend like Evan.
Brand X brings to my attention that this kind of “act” will probably be debated, then resulted into a legislation/law. For the sake of brevity, I do not intent to discuss this subject; however, I think it is necessary to look beyond the scope of Evan’s action.
While we do not condone any initial belligerent act/wrong such as killing, stealing, lying, etc., does it give us a moral license to bring forth a total humilation toward the “aggressor”? In another word, does it give us a moral license to “wrong” those who have wronged us or our friends?
In my opinion, it depends on the situation. In some situations, it is ok to “wrong” those who have wronged us. Let’s think about Winston Churchill’s action to restore terror bombing of German cities (which killed countless of innocent civilans). Such an action called “Supreme Emergency”, that is an moral license to “suspend” the inalienable rights such as life and liberty of individual or collective body of indivuduals
for the sake of greater good. Think of a quote like this: a lesser evil is better than other form of evil to save humanity, mankind, etc.. In the case with the German and British, Winston had to use a form of terrorism to “save” England or arguably the civilization of the West. Such an act of Winston may be morally permission, unless you disagree on a realistic or pacifistic ground.
Waht does that say about Evan’s action? In my opinion, I do not think he has a moral license to bring shame or humiltation to any person. Primary because the person who stole his friend’s pager does not impose an immediate, immense or life-threatening threat to him or his friend.
Yes, the thief is wrong to steal and refuse to return the sidekick to its rightful owner. However, it is also wrong to bring total humilitation or embarrassment to the thief. This issue should be settled privately, rather than pubicly. Evan publizes the story, but to employ specific information such as pictures, screen names, email, etc… is simply wrong. I do not want to defend the thief in this matter, but it is just that I do not think it is necessary to include all these specifics just to bring total humiltation.
I underscore that thief is not to be condoned, but the bottom of the line is that… his friend should be accountable for leaving her handset/sidekick in a taxi. If the thief refused to return the handset and the police isnt doing anything, then there is not much to do about it but to be extra “cautious” next time.
I look forward to hear your comments
If total humilitation works in making someone think twice of stealing something in the future, I’m all for it!! What’s the difference if someone gets arrested- that in itself is a total humiliation, being placed in the back of a police car for all to see!
Ha, yeah! I second that, KBM.
KBM,
I appreciate your comment, and would like to respond to you on the subject. You asked an interesting question: “what’s the difference if someone gets arrested…”
By “gets arrested”, I am assuming that you meant when an official agent of enforcment is doing the arrest of a suspect. If that is what you meant, then the difference is that the official agent does not intent to bring a “total humiltation” to a suspect. Official agents perform arrests because they have legal obligations to do so. In fact, one can chose to turn oneself in without being “arrested” in public. It is clear that official agents do not intentionally bring humiltation to anyone, just doing their job. As far as I am concerned, there is nowhere in any police procedure say “ok, let’s inflict total or part humiltation of a suspect because blah blah blah” nor does exist a procedure of humilitation.
I hope I answer your question; if i misunderstood the question, please do not hesitate to help me understand your question better.
I have a question to ask: If total humiltation failed to enable one to realize the potential future consequence dictated by performer of “total humiltation”, what would you position be?
I look forward to hear from you soon.
Thank you
The intention of the arresting officer isn’t what I’m referring to- the experience of being arrested itself and placed in the backseat where bystanders can see you (even if the person is innocent of whatever charges) must have been humilitating at least - coz either it meant you got caught or you were innocent but isn’t wearing a T-shirt that says so (with the exception of being arrested for civil disobedience and protests).
True, total humilitation doesn’t work for everyone, some people are truly without conscience, but in this case, it certainly appears to be working- the girl and her military boyfriend are now trying to save face. Not only that, the girl has a web of friends who are now witnessing the potential ramifications of theft. Next time they see a Sidekick that’s not theirs…they’ll flash back to the aftermath and think more carefully…”is it worth the public humilitation?”
I just got one word for that blog……..wow. That blogger did some work… since one of the sites that I’m on is the football link on the top blogs list that is updating the story, I’m heading over there now to see what hearing folks are saying about this. But wow, in internet speak, somebody is getting “pwned” big time.
Blog Justice… for the latest on this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06.....ref=slogin