Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
> "... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy.

You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was
On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 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.

As usual, Terekhov was wrong, and the Colorado case is an
example which demonstrates this. Borrowing a DVD from a
library is a legal act. Borrowing a DVD from a library and
failing to return it is theft. The status of the theft is
established once sufficient time has passed and the item
has not been returned.