gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Settlements


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Settlements
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:32:34 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
>> relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
>> status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
>
> Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.
>
> http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040

We have other actions establishing the intent of the persons here.  But
anyway, you'll notice that only the "Anwalt" talks about complete theft,
while the only relevant opinion is that of the court, and the court does
not talk about theft in its description of the complaint, but "the
taking of a non-own moveable object from somebody else with the intent
of making it his own against the law".

And the Anwalt is not exactly acting without self-interest, as he
writes: "Ich stehe Ihrem Sohn natürlich jederzeit für seine Verteidigung
zur Verfügung.", offering to defend the purportive thief for a fee.  So
he has an interest in making the incident appear worse than it is.

So you manage, again, to dig up a quote that does not actually help your
argument.

I have actually once had an attempt of an interview by a detective that
had imagined me to have pocketed a can of nuts (I had taken a look at
its prize tag, decided that it was overprized and put it back).  The
detective waited until after I had passed the cash register.  Not his
lucky day I guess because me blowing my top was likely not all too well
for keeping a low profile.

But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was
running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal
something.

That detective obviously knew that.  And the court on that page you cite
obviously knew it as well which is why he does not talk about theft but
something quite more iffish.

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]