Slappy's moral dilemma du jour

[MouseMadness]

Alright slappy, what's it gonna be? :lol:

 

[figmentmom]

Alright slappy, what's it gonna be? :lol:

That's right, Slappy - inquiring minds want to know! :ROFLOL:

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

My only point is that this is not always a crime, as you and other posters have definitively claimed. I think my repeated statements that "this is not black and white" reflect that (I even said "not definitely" a crime--not to be confused with "definitely not" a crime). That point still stands.

OK - So when the Superbowl tickets that you order get posted to my address and i keep them, the law is powerless

 

[k.hunter30]

Slappy, do you forward all mail to them? I'd say just do whatever you normally do with their mail, not bringing extra attention to the PIN. :shrug:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

OK - So when the Superbowl tickets that you order get posted to my address and i keep them, the law is powerless

I think his point is that it would be up to the courts in your respective jurisdictions to untangle it, and different judges make different rulings based on the circumstances involved.

 

[figmentmom]

Psst...Slappy, check your private messages!

 

[WDWFigment]

OK - So when the Superbowl tickets that you order get posted to my address and i keep them, the law is powerless

No offense, but you're painting with a bit broad of a brush here. Again, did you read the statutory language or the Circuit cases?

Your hypothetical doesn't provide enough details for me to answer. Even if so, I doubt it could be answered with a definitive "yes" or "no." I think I have made that same point ad nauseam in this thread. There is some black and white in law, but it is mostly shades of grey. That is my point. It may seem like unnecessary parsing over terms, but those subtleties and nuances make a huge difference.

 

[slappy magoo]

FWIW, all, I let her know I had the code, and she said let it go, they can't swing it at any price this year. Thanks for your input. Since Walt Disney himself was a master of "forced perspective," which makes things like the castles and the Matterhorn at DL look bigger than they really are, I truly appreciate how some of you made this question a full-blown lesson on ethics, on par with returning with refillable mugs and pool-hopping...

Something that no one has noted on about this whole story has me scratching my head. The OP stated that his sisters family had to live with them breifly while they were down on their luck, yet they afforded a vacation to WDW. :hammer:

Love for Disney aside, priorities need to be gotten in order here, no? My own pot to, you know, go in, would take priority over any vacation to anywhere. In fact, we were in the same position a few years back, living with my FIL. We desperately wanted to take a vacation anywhere, but more specifically, to WDW. We had a "downpayment fund" that we were putting money into, and we were constantly tempted to dip into it and just take that trip. But, we had to get our heads on straight, and get our own place, complete with said pot, before we could take a random trip to WDW. And we've done just that, and are now repeating the process of the first trip. And I couldn't be more happier and satisfied that I put the trip off.

Sorry...just hard for me to fathom that one would spend the money for a trip to WDW when one doesn't have a roof...or a pot!

Uh...where exactly did I say they were originally staying with me because they were down on their luck?

Granted, things aren't so hot for them (or me) NOW, but that wasn't the case then. They were just waiting for some people to move out of the house they were about to move into, and it took longer than originally planned. NOT that it's any of your business, but I felt it should be explained before I ended with this. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: