He didn’t offer any cite that it would apply to a communion wafer, and it is simply not plausible that any prosecutor would bother to try it or that any judge would listen to it.
He doesn’t say, “I’ll bring a eucharist.”
Yes, he did. His cite and explanation did not say that conditional gifts did not apply if the conditions were religious. The concept does not have with it a comprehensive list of all the conditions that are acceptable, a list that omits communion wafers, so your request for a cite is yet another non sequitur. I can give you a gift on the condition that you must sing something from the White Album upon receipt. A request for a cite that conditional gifts would apply to Beatles songs would miss the point. The fact that I’m not at all confident I could find such a cite doesn’t mean it’s not a valid condition.
And whether or not a prosecutor would pursue such a case doesn’t mean as a matter of law Bricker is wrong. It becomes a practical matter. But it does refute your notion that the asshole who perpetrated this provocation was some blameless soul.
The better question, the one you’re avoiding, is why wouldn’t it apply to a communion wafer? Here’s a hint–that’s a question of law, not of your opinion.
Just popped in to see how this debate was advancing. I see that we’re still arguing over “the” and “a”. Can someone PM me when we move on to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or is it “the” pin?
Just to be clear, the issue of a conditional gift relates to civil possession issues, and not a crime. For the crime to happen, the recipient WOULD need to be aware of the existence of the conditions. But for the merely civil instance of not owning the host free and clear the moment it’s handed to you, the concept of conditional gift applies.
So when Diogenes denies that a prosecutor would get involved, he’s correct.
But when he gpes further and asserts that the recipient owns the host the moment it’s handed to him, and is free to do with it as he pleases, he’s wrong.
Doesn’t that depend on state laws, as it does with engagement rings?
Yes. I’m speaking generally of the law of property.
I don’t know anything about Florida to suggest the general rule doesn’t apply, however.
Personally, though I’m not a legal scholar, I find the idea that Cook could somehow be legally obligated to give the wafer back to be fairly dodgy.
What is more relevant is what were Cook’s motivations.
Cook of course claims that he didn’t intend to leave with the wafer until he was supposedly “assaulted” by another student who tried to physically rip the cracker out of his hand, but considering the way his story has changed, and his past attempts to get the RCC at the school sanctioned for giving communal wine to minors and complaining about them recording school funds it’s far more likely that he was planning on provoking them and then lying to make himself seem more sympathetic, particularly since the school investigated his claim of being “assaulted” and they dismissed it when apparently no other witnesses at the service backed up Cook’s version of events.
That said, douchy behavior while noxious is not necessarily against the law, as the Phelps family can testify.
Got it. Thanks.
At least we can agree that it’s not a crime and can’t be called a “theft.”
If it’s purely a civil matter (and I don’t concede even that much, but for the sake of argument…), the only damage the church would have is for the value of the wafer. How. much money is a communion wafer worth? My Googing shows you can get a case of 1000 for less than ten bucks. That would make the value of each individual wafer less than a tenth of a cent. Is it possible to sue for a 10th of a cent? Would any court hear such a complaint. How would a tenth of a cent even be collected? Is it actually possible to sue for things which have no substantive monetary value?
Also, is it permissable for any random bystander to try to take back a wafer by force? is it legal for even a church authority to do that?
Actually, 10 bucks (i.e $10.00) is equal to 1000 cents, so the individual wafers would be be less than a cent apiece.
Unless by “less than ten bucks” you were including the case of “less than one buck”.
You’re right. My math is shit.
Have you stopped claiming that it was robbery when someone tried to reclaim the purloined wafer? (Or are you going to claim that you never said that, much like you deny that you claimed that the term “Eucharist” didn’t refer to the wafer?)
I do a victory dance after my Everest-comparable accomplishment of getting Dio to admit an error.
Just kidding.
There was no “purloined wafer.” Only an attempt by other students to steal Cook’s own property. I still contend that the wafer belonged to Cook the second it was given to him.
Hypothetical:
I see a car advertised for a really good price that says “offer open to Rastafarians only”. Well after a visit to Wikipedia, the “hydroponics” store, etc. I manage to pull off pretty good looking Rasta disguise.
The owner convinced I’m Rasta-rific sells me the car.
As I leave with the car title in my name I say “Ah-ha! I’m not Rasta at all!”, and then to prove it I eat some Wonder Bread.
Did I just lose legal ownership of the car?
I’d say only if the terms of the sale (i.e. the signed documents, if any) contained specific language that included the condition that the buyer be Rasta, in which case your deception could be the basis of court action should the seller decide to pursue it in order to render the sale null and void.
Of course, the court might decide that such a condition was unenforceable.
If that’s the case then it sounds like it wouldn’t be a case of theft at all but decided as a matter of contract, which I think if applied to this case would say that Cracker Jack (new name for the thread’s subject) was guilty of contract violations, not theft.
A court could rule he owes them the value of the cracker, plus resultant damages, however it wouldn’t be theft.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
I don’t know what his purpose for going to the church in the first place, but if he went with a Catholic they should have told him he shouldn’t go to recieve the eucharist because he had not fullfilled the necessary reasons to receive. By observation alone, if he was over the age of 12, he could see the people were eating the host right away not holding it in their hands. Most I have seen fold their hands when returning to their seats. Also there is a difference, if he out of ignorance took it back to his seat, over the one who was mailed a host, then pushed a nail through it and put it on the internet.To me that just proved that person was just being rude and proved nothing against the Catholic belief!