Law Question - Hypothetical Situation - Page 3

SpicyMcVoodoo · 12-13-2006, 03:30 PM

I really don't think this is a deep legal question. Most state's criminal statutes are written such that the act in question here would be considered theft.

Here's another example:
Code Of Alabama

Theft of property - Definition.

A person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:

(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;

So while in Texas you need "effective consent," it appears in Alabama you need to be "authorized" to control the property. If you know the store owner wouldn't want you to take stuff if you have no shirt or shoes, then you've knowingly exerted unauthorized control over the property.

If there's any confusion or apparent depth to the question, it's because people are trying to answer the question without knowing the exact wording of the relevant criminal code.

WickedLou9 · 12-13-2006, 09:53 PM

It;s the same as if someone walked up to you, handed you a check for 10k and took your car.
Wait a second it's not for sale.

Well I paid you so it isn't stealing right?

Inorder for there to be a transaciton there has to be two willing parties. IF one party isn't willing, it's theft.

motivez · 12-14-2006, 03:36 PM

Well the difference between the car analogy and the hypothetical would be that a drink is specifically on sale

JaJae · 12-14-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Well the difference between the car analogy and the hypothetical would be that a drink is specifically on sale

How so, the car and the drink are both marked with a price tag, no?

DosEquis · 12-14-2006, 03:51 PM

There is a lot more paperwork for a car. You don't have to license your soda and there is no "title" for your soda. You need to sign things, such as the title, to show ownership. If you drop 20k, take the keys and drive off, you just gave someone 20,000 dollars and they are going to report the car stolen. You have no title or no bill of sale showing you paid for it. You just fucked yourself.

Just like if someone drops $1.39 on the counter at the store, the clerk can pocket the money. There was no agreement for sale, they put the $1.39 you just left behind in their pocket, and if there is a cop on his way in they could get you for shop lifting. Would the clerk call the cops? Doubt it.

Donkey® · 12-14-2006, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There is a lot more paperwork for a car. You don't have to license your soda and there is no "title" for your soda. You need to sign things, such as the title, to show ownership. If you drop 20k, take the keys and drive off, you just gave someone 20,000 dollars and they are going to report the car stolen. You have no title or no bill of sale showing you paid for it. You just fucked yourself.

Just like if someone drops $1.39 on the counter at the store, the clerk can pocket the money. There was no agreement for sale, they put the $1.39 you just left behind in their pocket, and if there is a cop on his way in they could get you for shop lifting. Would the clerk call the cops? Doubt it.

And if they pocketed your money they just stole your money. Intent has a LOT to do with this I think. The INTENTION was to pay for the product by leaving money on the counter...not to steal the drink. The clerk is the one that just stole something.

DosEquis · 12-14-2006, 05:45 PM

They didnt steal your money. You set it down infront of them. Especially if you did not specify what it was for.

Donkey® · 12-14-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They didnt steal your money. You set it down infront of them. Especially if you did not specify what it was for.

Again, intent. YOUR intent was to lay the money down to pay for the drink. His intent was to pretend like you don't have permission to buy anything because you're not wearing a shirt and pocket your money. It's stealing.

Kytro · 12-14-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They didnt steal your money. You set it down infront of them. Especially if you did not specify what it was for.

While I don't believe this would make the transaction legal, also taking the money would probably be illegal too.

Kytro · 12-14-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Again, intent. YOUR intent was to lay the money down to pay for the drink. His intent was to pretend like you don't have permission to buy anything because you're not wearing a shirt and pocket your money. It's stealing.

I agree in so far as:

1) The guy stole the drink (under most definitions)

2) The clerk would be stealing the money (as it was not given to him, but rather left to pay for the drink, which was taken without permission).

DosEquis · 12-14-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

While I don't believe this would make the transaction legal, also taking the money would probably be illegal too.

possession is 9/10ths of the law. With something like money if you can't prove that it is yours, it is just as much the next guys as it is yours. If you put money down or even accidentally drop the money, whether its $5 or $5,000 dollars and leave it, that is your choice. It is a question of ethics at that point. Do you search for the person who might be missing $5? That is up to the guy that "found" it, but either way it is not stealing. Stealing is taking some thing without permission. They put the money down. You didn't take it from them against their will.

Donkey® · 12-14-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

possession is 9/10ths of the law. With something like money if you can't prove that it is yours, it is just as much the next guys as it is yours. If you put money down or even accidentally drop the money, whether its $5 or $5,000 dollars and leave it, that is your choice. It is a question of ethics at that point. Do you search for the person who might be missing $5? That is up to the guy that "found" it, but either way it is not stealing. Stealing is taking some thing without permission. They put the money down. You didn't take it from them against their will.

The same way the store clerk can prove in a court of law that the guy didn't get his consent of sale for the drink would be the same way they can prove the clerk stole the money.

DosEquis · 12-14-2006, 08:22 PM

its stealing the money if there is a transaction for the soda. Its not stealing anything, from the "customer" or the store, if someone sets $5 on the counter and leaves. The $5 then belongs to who ever picks it up first.

Donkey® · 12-14-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

its stealing the money if there is a transaction for the soda. Its not stealing anything, from the "customer" or the store, if someone sets $5 on the counter and leaves. The $5 then belongs to who ever picks it up first.

That makes no sense. If I leave a bike outside the store and someone takes it by your standards they did not steal it.

Kytro · 12-15-2006, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

its stealing the money if there is a transaction for the soda. Its not stealing anything, from the "customer" or the store, if someone sets $5 on the counter and leaves. The $5 then belongs to who ever picks it up first.

I don't know about the US, but in Australia you can technically be charged with keeping money you find.

There is no technical difference between a $5 note and $5 million in a backpack

SpicyMcVoodoo · 12-15-2006, 10:17 AM

I'll add what is perhaps an interesting kink to the question...

The answer to the question depends on the person. Because criminal law is not strict liability, and requires the requisite intent, two people could do the exact same thing and there could be different legal consequences.

For example, let's say Bob is from Krapzakistan where it's customary to take stuff off the shelf, throw money at the clerk, and the clerk's protest is seen as a sign of thanks. In such a case, if he goes to a store in America and does the same, he may not be guilty of anything. He didn't intend to unlawfully deprive the shop owner of his property, and depending on the circumstances, may not have had reason to know things aren't done that way in this country.

On the other hand, if some uppidy redneck decides to say, "Fuck you, I won't wear a shirt or shoes, but I'll still take your stuff," then throws money at the guy and leaves, that could easily be considered theft.

So to sum things up, the answer depends on the state's statute, the mental state of the person and the circumstances.