Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 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.

Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference
between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract.


Sincerely,
RJack :)