Timeline for Proving Theft From a Store
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2023 at 17:13 | comment | added | supercat | @TimLymington: If security personnel had observed the above sequence of events before the person who picked the item checked out, they might reasonably have the cashier ask that the person allow a different item to be substituted, offering an apology and perhaps some token compensation for the hassle, on the basis that the person with the item shouldn't leave with it, but is likely unaware of its presence. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 17:11 | comment | added | supercat | @TimLymington: In many cases, what would matter is whether a prosecutor can convince a jury that actions where undertaken for the purpose of theft, and would have succeeded but for unforeseen circumstances. For example, suspect hides expensive item in cheap item. Someone picks up cheap item, but shortly after that suspect's girlfriend picks up a cheap item from that approximate location and checks out with it. It would likely be up to a jury to decide whether the suspect had relocated the item for the purpose of letting the girlfriend achieve it for the cost of the cheaper item. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 16:00 | comment | added | Tim Lymington | @gnasher729: Fairly sure that moving goods from one part of a store to another (even secretly) is not theft. Until you actually leave, you may still intend to pay on exit. | |
| Sep 15, 2015 at 13:23 | comment | added | Flup | Yes, this is more accurate than my answer. | |
| Sep 14, 2015 at 23:07 | comment | added | gnasher729 | I think in the USA leaving the store is not necessary, as long as the intent can be proven (based on the evidence). Things like hiding goods on your body would be such evidence. | |
| Aug 11, 2015 at 7:26 | history | answered | Flup | CC BY-SA 3.0 |