Is it wrong to run in road races if you don't pay the entry fee?

it is true wrote:

an example of a bandit being successfully prosecuted under this law.

So it will only be true with an example?

Of course, I understand that typically nothing is proved simply by providing an example. However, as those familiar with the legal system would agree, the law is based entirely on precedent and statute. In this case, since the statute is not clear that entering a race without paying is theft of services, rather than have us waste all of our time debating whether or not it is deceptive or stealthy to walk boldly to the start line without a number and run a race in full view of the RD, other runners, etc., I suggest that we rely on legal precedent. In the absence of any examples of a runner being successfully prosecuted, it becomes more likely that theft of services does not apply in this case. I admit that it is also possible that for the hassle involved no one wants to bother prosecuting bandits however, this view gets us no further in our debate.

malcom crowe wrote:

so banditing a race is the same thing as dipping your hands into the charity and taking actual money? get real

If the beneficiary of the race is a charity and all proceeds go to that group, then, yes, it is stealing from the charity. In many races, the entire application fee goes directly to the charity because sponsors have underwritten the costs of the event. This is even true if only part of the proceeds go the charity and another part goes to cover expenses.

I don't even see a "moral dilemna" here. It is less a matter of whether it is right or wrong and more a matter of what degree of dishonesty in involved. I can't believe anyone could actually argue that it is permissable.

I don't have lexus nexus right now. I can't find an example of someone being prosecuted for the offense, but does that make it unprosecutable?

typically nothing is proved simply by providing an example.

Typically nothing is disproved by the absence of an example either.

Don't quit your day job, Sherlock.

jamoch wrote:

[quote]malcom crowe wrote:

so banditing a race is the same thing as dipping your hands into the charity and taking actual money? get real

If the beneficiary of the race is a charity and all proceeds go to that group, then, yes, it is stealing from the charity. [quote]

This is a strange point of view. Assume the bandit would never ordinarily give to this charity. Assume that the bandit specifically did not pay because she did not want to give to the charity. How can that possibly be stealing from the charity?

By your reasoning, every time I don't give money to charities that come to my door, I am stealing from them - does that make sense?

Law Talkin Guy, I think you should move away from the prelaw cirriculum you are in and try your hand at some other course of studies. Several posts correctly put your opinion on theft of service to rest, but you keep it up. A statute does not have to say something like this "Theft of Services is where a bandit runs a race without paying." I hope you don't plan on practicing any sort of regulatory law. My God, you might have to crack open a CFR or something like that.

By your reasoning, every time I don't give money to charities that come to my door, I am stealing from them - does that make sense?[/quote]

Nice try, but illogical. Let's try this: (1) Race provides service to all paying participants. (2) Participant pays for this service, and (3) Charity gets the money from the application fees. When the charity comes to your door it goes more like this (1) You are not offered a service and you don't take one, (2) You either decide to give or to not give. Two completely different things. Of course no one is stealing from a charity if that person refuses to give them something when they come to your door. You are not taking something from them.

My God, use an example only if it is not so incredibly easy to poke a gaping hole into it.

it is true wrote:

Typically nothing is disproved by the absence of an example either.

We agree on the insignificance of examples. However, I say again, in the absence of certainty, I would rather rely on example (but in this case legal precedent) because it would be too boring and time consuming for each of us to debate the legal nuance of each element of the crime of theft of services. Suffice to say, there appears to be a difference of opinion. In a real court, each side would present previous cases that supported each's respective position.

You are of course correct that there must a first time for everything and just because a bandit has not yet been successfully prosecuted does not mean that banditing is legal. However, I am simply trying to show that simply stating "theft of services" does not "win" the "banditing is illegal argument".

Don't tell me that it hasn't yet happened just because we don't have an example right here in front of us. It could very well have happened hundreds of times. You need some logic lessons, boy.

How about Criminal Trespass - Law Talkin' Guy

jamoch wrote:

Nice try, but illogical. Let's try this: (1) Race provides service to all paying participants. (2) Participant pays for this service, and (3) Charity gets the money from the application fees. When the charity comes to your door it goes more like this (1) You are not offered a service and you don't take one, (2) You either decide to give or to not give. Two completely different things. Of course no one is stealing from a charity if that person refuses to give them something when they come to your door. You are not taking something from them.

My God, use an example only if it is not so incredibly easy to poke a gaping hole into it.

I'm not sure where the hole is. RACE provides service, not CHARITY. Therefore, bandits might steal from the RACE, but not from the CHARITY since the CHARITY has not paid for any of the race services that the bandit uses. If 100 people pay $1.00 entry fee, charity gets $100 and pays nothing for it. If bandit would never pay the charity anyway, now we have 100 paying runners and one bandit. Charity gets $100 - same as before and loses no $ to the bandit. Therefore, the bandit has not stolen from the charity (but may have stolen from the RACE). (I have used capital letters to make the logical link between entities easier for you to understand).

In case #2, the CHARITY has spent its time and money coming to my door but gets no money from me. So, in fact, scenario number 2 is worse than number 1, from the charity's point of view.

I find it ironic that you are so pompous as to chastise me for being illogical, when it appears you are unable to grasp the difference between the race losing money and the charity.

the Entity wrote:

This is a strange point of view. Assume the bandit would never ordinarily give to this charity. Assume that the bandit specifically did not pay because she did not want to give to the charity. How can that possibly be stealing from the charity?

And now to lay waste to your other argument. Let's say that you, Entity, a sophomore at the local high school (and a guy who should probably opt for the logic instuctors who are known as the easiest graders when you attend the local community college in a few years), have a grudge against 7-11 because they recently raised the price of Slurpies by a nickel and you and your friends now need to ask for a bigger allowance.

And so, you decide that there is no way that you are going to pay for that drink. In other words, 'you specifically did not pay because [substitute "you" for "she"] did not want to give to the [sub "7-11" for "charity"]. When the store manager catches you and calls your Mom, try the line that you didn't pay because you specifically did not want to give to the 7-11.

The race organizer will get a good laugh too.

Real Portland Runner wrote:

Don't quit your day job, Sherlock.

I apologize for any incorrect assumption of dual identity...you know when couples have been together long enough to complete each other's sentences and meld into the same person? well...you two have reached that level. I hope one day you will gain the right to properly honor your relationship.

another one wrote:

How about Criminal Trespass - Law Talkin' Guy

I have already agreed that this has merit.

Please do not think that i am saying it is not illegal to bandit races. I am saying that it is dubious to claim that it is a theft of service. That does not mean that there are not other ways this could be illegal.

THe race and the charity are the same thing. The race's proceeds going to the charity. Not always, obviously, but often. You take money away from the organizer and that entity has $25 less to pass on to the charity. If all 500 people in the race would do as you do, the charity might even lose money if they absorbed any of the risk (often the charity is the organizer and hires an outside race director to put on the event - this is a very common arrangement, I can assure you).

With that said, I swear this is my last post to you on this because this is just way too easy.

Consider: What if you sneak into a movie that has 100 seats and only 5 are taken for the duration of the movie The movie theater seemingly hasn't lost any money either (you just took an unoccupied, unsold seat, right?). But, as with the bandit, the guy sneaking into the theater has used some sort of deception, fraud, etc. to see the movie without paying. I think we both know that you and your 7-11 crew are going to be in big trouble with Mom AND Dad for that one. And now that you have the 7-11 heist and this on your juvenile file, you might miss your homecoming dance.

jamoch wrote:

Several posts correctly put your opinion on theft of service to rest, but you keep it up. A statute does not have to say something like this "Theft of Services is where a bandit runs a race without paying."

I'm not sure that the posts have put my opinion to rest. Many posts have simply repeated that banditing is a theft of service - but without any more foundation than my claim that banditing would not meet the legal definition of theft of service. It is telling that you have not been able to tell the difference between an actual meritorious argument and a simply restatement of an position.

The main disagreement seems to be whether or not to bandit a race is an attempt to acquire service by deception. No post yet has been able to "prove" that banditing is a theft of service. I have admitted that it is debatable. But I have said that rather than engage in continuous hypotheticals, why not look to the case law for "proof". I have further admitted that the absence of proof does not mean it is not possible, but merely that it is more common in the legal profession to look to precedent when faced with an uncertain statute.

I agree that a statute need not explicitly state that banditing is a theft of service. My point was, since the statute was not explicit, a look towards case law would be most convincing and efficient. However, without getting into the minutia of the rules of statutory interpretation, I would point out that the statutes are generally very explicit in stating that entering a theater, using a ski lift, staying at a hotel, are all theft of service. In these cases, when the statute is so specific, it is arguable that banditing was not to be included. ALternatively, many state statutes describe theft of service in terms of stealing utilities, cable, etc. Again, applying rules of statutory interpretation, one could argue that the intent of theft of service legislation is too deter theft of utilities, and banditing was therefore intended to be considered a theft of service.

reader wrote:

Les, read all of the posts.

I read the posts and still don't see anything addressing my questions. To put it another way, say I run the race course as a workout 365 days a year. When I'm out doing my workout, hundreds of racers come whizzing by (something that's happened to me). Am I a bandit because I happen to be doing the same activity on the same street as the racers?

Re: all the discussion of legal issues. Whether legal or illegal I wonder if any race director has ever pressed charges against a bandit for theft.

Right along the movie theatre lines, what if there is a showing that is outside, usually at a public park that got reserved for the day?

And to Law Talkin Guy, I know you're hung up on the deception/stealth in the definition of theft of services that you found on google. Maybe I can help. All the runners who paid for the race actually go to some expo or table or counter to register or pick up their shirt and number, right? This is commonly accepted. Does a bandit do this?

Maybe you want to split hairs on "running in plain sight of the RD and other runners" but how about pre-race registration? Does the bandit stand in line to pick up their number?

[quote]jamoch wrote:

THe race and the charity are the same thing. The race's proceeds going to the charity. Not always, obviously, but often. You take money away from the organizer and that entity has $25 less to pass on to the charity. If all 500 people in the race would do as you do, the charity might even lose money if they absorbed any of the risk (often the charity is the organizer and hires an outside race director to put on the event - this is a very common arrangement, I can assure you). [quote]

You have made an assumption that was not in the original post. Based on your assumption, your point of view is supportable (but I don't agree), based on the "facts" as I understand them, the race was covering all the costs and giving the entry fees directly to the charity.

The original poster wrote:

"If the beneficiary of the race is a charity and all proceeds go to that group, then, yes, it is stealing from the charity. In many races, the entire application fee goes directly to the charity because sponsors have underwritten the costs of the event."