Arvo, Bonnie, and Mike didn't technically steal from the group.
The two bags they took belonged to Arvo's group.
Those were Arvo's bags.
They were simply taking what rightfully belonged to Arvo.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
The two bags they took belonged to Arvo's group.
Those were Arvo's bags.
They were simply taking what rightfully belonged to Arvo.
Comments
Steal- take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
Those supplies were Arvo's property.
That's actually a good point.
"There is food, house, I take you there." -Arvo
Arvo was gonna give Clem's group the food, so it's stealing from Clem's group.
They were still willing to leave a baby and a 11 year old without any food.
yeah, I think this trumps all for me. Doesn't matter who originally owned them (Arvo kind of gave up his right to them when his group attacked Clem's group and lost), leaving a baby and a kid with no food isn't cool.
@bloop
If I offer you something, that doesn't make it yours.
@Doomflame99
Which is fucked up. I'm okay with criticizing Arvo, Bonnie, and Mike for leaving a infant and 11 year old girl with no supplies. I'm not okay with accusing them with stealing from an infant and 11 year old girl, because that didn't happen.
What matters is they were trying to take everything and leave little children back.
The whole reason that they went to the house in the first place is that Arvo can give Clem's group food so they don't kill him. So he was gonna offer food for his life.
Arvo gave the supplies to the group in exchange for his life, which he DID get to keep despite everything Kenny did. Those supplies belonged to the group as soon as they arrived at the house, and besides that they were trying to steal the truck which certainly didn't belong to Arvo. Kenny got it working with no help from anyone else, so that really was his.
That was before Kenny acts like an a**hole to him and try to kill him...
Dafuq? Seriously? You call a few hits trying to kill him?
no take backs, dems da rulez
Indian giver isn't better than a thief... So what does it matter?
The deal, as made by Kenny, was that Arvo got to live if he took them to where the supplies were. Which really wasn't much a group decision in the first place seeing as even before Arvo said that he could take them, Luke, Mike, and Bonnie defended him and did not want him to die. Doesn't matter if Clem advocates to kill him as well, because Kenny would still be outvoted.
They all jumped on the bandwagon eventually anyway so the point still remains that basically Arvo was allowed to live if he gave up rights to the supplies. Kenny really did a shit job of holding up that bargain considering he almost beat Arvo to death, but whatever.
The catch with this though, is that Arvo was leaving with Bonnie and Mike. Seeing as those two were a part of the original group, they have a right to the supplies, and by extension, Arvo would get to benefit from their share of the supplies. They tried to take it all though, which puts them in the wrong.
Second of all, there is the truck. Arvo never mentioned anything about a car, the only thing he offered them for his life was food so technically the car wasn't for anyone to take except Arvo. But Kenny was the one who got it working, so I guess that passes the rights to the car and where it will be going onto Kenny. Even though seeing as Arvo was working on the car, it was likely that he may have been able to get it working as well. Kenny beat him to it though. Beat him. I think I just made a pun there.
Whether the proper word is "stealing" is pretty irrelevant. They are taking everything that could help the group survive.
Um, okay, fair enough. Your point is valid regarding the bags. Its also completely irrelevant. Please let's not forget that Arvo was a bandit. I don't want to have another argument about whether Arvo and his group were habitual bandits, but on at least one known occasion Arvo said something that can be accurately paraphrased as, "Give us all your supplies, or we will kill each and every one of you." and meant it. Bandit.
As Doomflame99 already pointed out before I had a chance to see this line of complete and utter horse shit, "Well, even though its pretty much guaranteed to kill both of the children in our group, this stuff IS technically the property of the captive bandit we're allying ourselves with. We have every right to leave with it." might be the most piss-poor excuse I have ever heard for anything ever.
Furthermore, the truck was Kenny's and before that the development company's. He got it running, so he's the one who scavenged it. If it belonged to any one person, it belonged to him. You might hypothetically argue that proximity to domicile plays some role in what can be said to belong to whom, and you might be right, but I would counter that the unwritten rules about this sort of thing have much more well-defined provisions regarding who is or isn't currently dead. If it did belong to one of Arvo's group before, no longer. Corpses don't get to lay claim in this world.
You know what? Now that I think about The Unwritten Code of Morally Upright Scavenge, when a bandit draws down on you, he shirks that code and it no longer applies to him. If he ends up on the shitty end of the situation he, himself, created then you have every right to take whatever you want without crossing that line. If the group had a right to the AKs, and the house, and the truck, they had a right to the supplies too. So no, they weren't technically Arvo's, and when half the group splits with everything the group has it IS stealing.
what about the truck Kenny was trying to fix the whole time?
Yep, totally agree with this. Arvo lost all right to any supplies when his group tried to rob Clem's group and lost. And the truck was more Kenny's than anyone. Mike and the others may claim a right to some supplies but not all and not the truck.
And WHO tried to steal from Clem's group in the first place... Arvo.
They're a bunch of traitors, thieves, and assholes.
Your explanations won't change it.
The fact that the topic post in this thread has 4 likes so far would be laughable, if the whole thing didn't just grind my gears so bad that I don't really feel like laughing.
Stealing from someone who steals doesn´t make it right. I know morals doesn´t matter much when no more laws are applied and survival in the shitty situation of the apocalypse takes priority, but it is still wrong if you think morally, not that it matters though.
About the truck, everything from Arvo´s group now belongs to Arvo rightfully, he is the closest person alive to them, and the malfunctioning truck itself has much more value than Kenny´s repair. You can´t claim an object yours just because you fixed it.
Kenny was gonna kill him before Mike and Luke stopped him
I disagree wholeheartedly, sir. Yes, rehabilitation is very possible, and when a system is in place to facilitate this and sequster an individual from the possibility of doing further harm, a desirable goal. As things stand, I am in full opposition to corporal punishment for any reason.
However, once the rule law of has suffered a complete and total breakdown and the only form of justice left is that which is meted out by the individual, that changes. Remember, this isn't an instance of somebody trying to play judge and jury. We KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Arvo engaged in an act of calculated banditry. We all witnessed it firsthand, as did each member of Clem's survivor group. At that point it becomes morally incumbent upon them to execute him, as it is the only sure way to prevent further indiscretions of a similar nature. Not to do so is to be tacitly responsible every time he victimizes someone else. Each member of the group that defended Arvo's life is indirectly to blame for the bullet in Clementine's shoulder.
And? Keep in mind that Kenny somehow-writing hax- killed all the Russians. Why should he not finish off the only one left alive?
i believe mike did not even take both bags. "that is all we have." was bullshit.