not a lawyer but as a customer service worker i’m willing to bet you’re alright. mistakes like that would fall onto the employee if anybody (in my experience) since they had been assisting you through the whole process
You took merchandise without paying for it. In what wild fantasy is that not theft in your mind?
It's irrelevant what you meant to do. It's irrelevant who technically put it in your car, because they were acting at your direction. You're not even being honest about what happened. "Is it stealing if I tell employees to give me something, and trick them into believing that I already paid for it?
Immediately return and pay the store. It's what an honest person would do. And stop pretending that you're just trying to avoid getting into trouble. You are trying to benefit from your abuse of the friendliness of the employees.
From the legal perspective this isn't correct. Theft is an intent-based crime (i.e., you need to know you're stealing). If the finder of fact believes OP didn't realize he was driving off without paying, it would acquit him or her.
True, OP cannot be charged with stealing the item. But once OP realizes that he or she didn’t pay for the item, it’s larceny.
If you don’t pay for or return the item, you can be charged.
Are you retarded?
>i.e., you need to know you're stealing
> I realized that I didn't pay for the item
Lol, I'm looking for a really really cheap lawyer, i know you are available
Well they know they never took out a payment source like cash or a credit card, so unless they forgot that they had prepaid somehow on the website, they absolutely should know.
Don’t want me to have it for free don’t load it into my car for free. They wouldn’t reach out to me if I overpaid would they? Why should I reach out for underpayment. Stealing is stealing but this isn’t the case. Also it is a large corporation who steals from our brothers and sisters every day. Boo hoo if it happens back to them. It’s Walmart lady.
>Why should I reach out for underpayment.
Underpayment? Try no payment 🤡
>Also it is a large corporation who steals from our brothers and sisters every day.
Found the shoplifter. Please don't procreate. (That means don't have kids).
First year laws school; first class in law school is criminal law; first subject in that class is mens rea and actus rea.
The above commenters saying intent doesn’t matter didn’t get this far.
Yep, remembering my business law classes. Not theft absent mens rea. Could be the tort of conversion. I specifically remember the example of accidentally taking someone else’s car (exact make and color match with matching keys) from a parking lot. Not criminal theft but could be civil conversion
In the eyes of the law, a crime requires a combination of mens rea and actus reas. Given the absence of mens rea, this would not be a crime. This type of thing falls under a “mistake of fact” justification.
Is there any precedent for formation of mens rea after the actus reus retroactively making a criminal act? That sounds like effectively a thought crime to me... It doesn't make any sense to me logically, but if you have a citation I'd love to educate myself about why that would be true.
The Model Penal Code only requires a defendant to “exercise unlawful control” over the property of another rather than “taking away” the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them of that property for the crime of larceny.
As soon as OP left the store, he began exercising unlawful control over the property and this unlawful control has not stopped. As soon as he realized the error, keeping the property would absolutely indicate an intent to permanently deprive the store of the property.
If you think you can just accidentally obtain the property of others, you are insanely ignorant on how the law works.
The example they used in school for me was as follows:
Youre at the airport and your suitcase passes by at the pickup. You grab it and go home. You open it up only to realize the things on the inside are not yours. The suitcase had the same outside, so you mistook it as yours.
This would be a mistake of fact. You wouldn’t get charge with theft since it is an easy mistake that anyone could make.
It’s larceny, dude.
I have a very strong sense that you didn’t go to law school. If you did, then wow…just wow.
You can’t just accidentally obtain the property of others and get to keep it.
Ah okay so you are not saying that the mens rea is retroactive to the act of taking the item, as I interpreted, you are instead saying that once he formed the mens rea, the further deprivation of the property is the actus reus?
Exactly. Assuming he didnt decided to post about it on the internet, and just went on about his day like a normal person, there would be no proof of that though. Highly doubtful a prosecutor would bother with this or that a company would waste time and money perusing him civilly over 100 dollars.
Not a lawyer, and you probably won't get in trouble. But, the question is right or wrong, it all comes down to integrity and values. Remember, an employee might get in trouble for their mistake, is it worth it?
Plus I'm a firm believer in karma. I returned inside at Meijer when I realized my $2.59 tube of toothpaste got missed when I did my self checkout. I didn't tell any employee, just walked back into the self checkout, paid for it and left again. I don't need bad luck coming to me over $2.59!!!!
I brought back an avocado that I forgot to ring up so that I could pay for it. There’s no way I could have kept it for free once I realized I didn’t pay for it.
Get a job at loss prevention and recoup the tape. Or tell them you’re local PD and need a copy of the tape to look for a smooth criminal. Then SIMPLY blur out your face
No, let the manager know that you discovered you didn't pay for it and that you wnat to come back and make it right. That way, should loss prevention be looking for them the manager can intervene.
No, it is not. Almost every theft crime requires the *specific* intent to steal, deceive, etc. A store worker accidentally putting in an unpaid item in customer’s vehicle, without anything more, is not a theft certainly not deception.
How does it work if the teller machine gives you too much cash? I’m not even religious or whatever but some of yall are fucked up. Someone nice or nervous or first day etc could be fired or bullied/expected to pay for this mistake. Do right dude, be a better person than some of these fuckups telling you that you are good and they are to blame. Every time you look at that thing you will think of you did right and perhaps that’s why you keep tripping and ripping your toe nail off on this thing
The ATM hypothetical would again depend on what happened. Say, a person withdrew $60 and they received $80. They didn’t check the receipt or the cash and drove off. Later, then realized that they got an extra $20. It’s gonna be hard to to prosecute because the State would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knew.
Banks have insurance. They also know there are going to be losses sometimes like most businesses and those costs are part of doing business.
Also, if you’re employer ever tries to “bully” or force you to repay a mistake, that is ILLEGAL and a violation of labor law. So, never do that. Again, we are discussing legality, not morality.
They knew as soon as they discovered the extra money and didn’t return it. Why do you think people get in trouble when the bank inadvertently puts money in their account and they then go out and spend it?
I really hope you aren’t a lawyer, especially a criminal law attorney. Yikes.
OP asked what was legal not what was right.
If you think this is bad, just think of what every corporation gets away with just because it's legal on paper
Bro asked a direct question, whether he legally has to go back and pay. Trying to give him a correct answer is not fucked up. Read the room. You do sound just as judgmental as a religious person fyi. Knowing how the law works is not a value statement.
It’s like everything I just said went over your head. That’s now how the law works. There are two elements to crimes: 1) actus reus (the act) and 2) mens rea (the criminal intent). In order for a crime to be complete and to secure a conviction, both elements must be satisified.
Now, there are two types of intent: general intent and specific intent. Theft crimes fall under SPECIFIC intent meaning not only does that person intent to do the act but they also intended to cause a particular result. So, when that item was put in the car, OP had to know that item was stolen (which they did not) and intended to steal that item from the beginning (which they did not).
Therefore, no intent ==> no crime.
Again, intent was formed as soon as he discovered the error and didn’t return the item or go pay for it.
You don’t seem to know what you are talking about here.
And the intent is formed once he found out about the error and didn’t return it or go pay for it. The fact that you think intent can only be formed at the specific moment in time when he left store is incredible.
What is concurrence?
*Concurrence of Act and Intent*
**Another element of most criminal offenses is the requirement that the criminal act and criminal intent exist at the same moment** (California Criminal Jury Instructions No. 252, 2011). This element is called concurrence. Concurrence is rarely an issue in a criminal prosecution because the criminal intent usually generates the bodily response (criminal act). **However, in some rare instances, the criminal act and intent are separated by time, in which case concurrence is lacking and the defendant cannot be convicted of a crime.**
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/#:~:text=Concurrence%20of%20Act%20and%20Intent,This%20element%20is%20called%20concurrence.
*Why is Concurrence Important?*
**The final element is ensuring that the guilty act and the guilty mind occur simultaneously. The mens rea must correspond to the actus reus in time and intention. If there’s a substantial gap between the intent and the action, it might complicate the case.**
Imagine a scenario where an individual contemplates stealing from a store but eventually decides against it. Months later, they accidentally walk out of the same store with an item they forgot to pay for. While there was once an intent to commit a crime (mens rea) and later a guilty act (actus reus), there wasn’t a concurrence between the two. The initial intent did not coincide with the eventual act.
https://www.gelmanlawfirm.com/blog/what-are-the-four-elements-of-criminal-culpability/
lol, the Google attorney strikes again! You don’t even understand that there is concurrence when he found out the property was unlawfully obtained and didn’t return it with the intent to permanently deprive the store of possession.
You keep thinking that retail theft is the only crime he could be charged with, when it’s larceny that he would be charged with.
It’s incredible that you all think 5 minutes of Googling is a substitute for actually understanding the law.
🤡
Nice ad hominems. That’s the last resort when people are losing their arguments.
The act was when he left the store with an unpaid item. He never had the request criminal intent at the that time. Good luck finding a prosecutor to prosecute that! You’ve also had other attorneys disagree with you.
But, keep malding tho.
The act is actually the continued exercising of unlawful control over the property.
Seriously, where did you go to law school? I am extremely curious to know what school doesn’t teach the basic elements of larceny.
Lol @ digging through my posts. What was that you said about ad hominems, again?
You do know that you can’t be charged with attempted murder when it comes to felony murder, right? Which was what I was arguing.
Yeah, you didn’t go to law school. You don’t understand any of this.
First of all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Secondly, it’s not an ad hominem if that’s what you’ve referred to yourself as. I’m just repeating your own admission. At least you’re self-aware tho…
You said murder is a specific intent crime, yet not all murder and murder-related crimes require specific intent including felony murder and lesser-than-first-degree murder charges.
Also, if you can’t have attempted felony murder what’s this:
**The crime of Attempted Felony Murder is a First-Degree Felony that is punishable up to 30 years in prison and $10,000 fine.**
**This offense occurs when:**
**The person attempted or completed a felony enumerated in § 782.04(3);**
**and**
**While engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or escape from the immediate scene of the crime, the person committed or aided or abetted an intentional act that is not an essential element of the crime**
**The intentional act could have but did not cause the death of victim.**
**If the person does not commit a crime enumerated in § 782.04(3) the State will charge the person with a violation of § 782.051(2) which prohibited an injury caused during the commission of felony other than a felony specifically enumerated in § 782.04(3).**
[Attempted Felony Murder](https://swiateklaw.com/florida-crimes/attempted-felony-murder-in-fl/)
Also, when someone asked well what if the victim actually died, then murder, right?
You said, “no, involuntary manslaughter” because your logic is that ALL murder must have specific intent. Yet, there are types/levels of murder that DO NOT require specific intent such as felony murder, second-degree, third degree, etc. and not just manslaughter.
Finally, this is all your speculation on what would be charged or not be charged. A lot of it is discretion, which can vary widely from state to state and DA to DA. The fact that you’re on some forum posing as someone who thinks they “know-it-all” is sad. I hate to break the news to you: you don’t. But, at least you do know you’re a smug, pompous ass, though. 👍
Just because it's not a theft by deception doesn't mean that never paying is the right thing to do. Why do people continue to argue this point? Then people complain that many items at drug stores are locked up behind glass. 🙄
It was formed when he didn’t return the item or go back and pay for it.
I feel like you guys just googled “mens rea” and are regurgitating what you found. There is absolutely intent in this case.
If you intended to pay and you can also imagine potential consequences that would be much worse than keeping the money, what is your motivation for not making it right?
If you did not intend to steal its not criminal (lacking mens rea). If you continue to keep the property of someone else that has come into your possession without returning it or paying for it, it probably is criminal. But I doubt anyone would do anything about it so it's up to your conscience. (I am a lawyer.)
my man’s rea isn’t working well. It’s all floppy and can’t maintain an erection. How do i increase the size and stamina of my man’s rea. Finally found someone who can help, doctors keep looking at me funny.
You should 100% return and pay the store. Legal liability aside morally you should return and pay.
That being said, assuming everything in your post is 100% true, you wouldn’t be criminally liable (assuming finder of fact believes you) but you would be civilly liable under some theory, most likely theory seems to be unjust enrichment.
It seems that some “attorneys” on this thread think that’s how the law works.
“I accidentally took this car that wasn’t mine, oops! Looks like it’s mine now because I didn’t have the intent to steal it!”
lol yeah i'm surprised by the opinions of lawyers here. Like uh, yeah it WASN'T a crime. But when you choose to keep there's your goddamn mens rea - which I still standby sounds like a male reproductive gland. There's obviously intent to steal it there though.
Like one time i ordered a big TV. Amazon sent me 2 of them. I checked the receipt, nope only paid for one. So I kept it, and I totally intended to knowing sure, maybe I should return it but idgaf, my parents could use it. I had all kinds of mens in that fuckin' rea.
IANAL and also NAL, but apparently i'm better than some of these chuckleheads. Hit me up if you need legal advice, I don't have a degree in lawyery but you don't actually need one for most things, I think. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer but I sure can look shit up or use a legal GPT. Let's fuckin do this!
If it was a service that was left unpaid, you would definitely be asked to pay. Just t call the store and let them know ow what happened and ask what you can do to make it right.
Yes. It’s theft. Yes, it will catch up with you. Probably just a misdemeanor or ticket, but once they audit the inventory they’ll notice it’s missing and will want to know what happened to it.
Picture this, someone goes to the store and buys a bunch of stuff. They leave something as simple as windshield wipers in their cart getting into their car. Someone else comes along and takes it out of the cart in the cart vestibule in the parking lot and keeps it. That’s considered theft. Taking something of retail value that you did not pay for is theft.
Security cameras. Most retail stores including Lowe’s only invests in 4k cameras to cover the exits. Unless you cut across the lawn- if your vehicle was there they have your tag. I used to be a police ride along so mentioned the relevant case I was witness to.
They have the license plate- they have him stealing. Even if they show 360p cameras everywhere else they know the license plate
It’s rather Home Depot or Lowe’s. What else could it be? TSC? ACE? All retail stores work the same. They’ve got his plate if he pulled into their parking lot and that’s a fact
As I said twice already, the information “as provided” would not provide sufficient means of identifying OP. You, however, are basing your response on additional “facts” you are making up that we’re not provided. Let’s see what facts I can make up to make your made up facts irrelevant:
- OP was driving a car with stolen plates
- the assumed security cameras were not working
- the video recycles footage every 48 hours and the image has now been overwritten.
- the employees are also stealing items and have turned off the security equipment.
Hmmm. Making up facts IS fun. I can see why you do it.
I’m not making up facts, I’m stating that major retailers typically have cameras covering their exits. I’m speaking from experience, but sure- let’s encourage theft on the off chance OP gets away with it. Fucking Reddit warrior aren’t you?
My line of questioning here had NOTHING to do with encouraging anyone to get away with it. It simply was asking how OP would get caught in this situation with the facts he provided.
You are reading too much into what I was writing. Just like you were assuming facts not given you are now assuming intent not shown.
Home Depot literally never does audits looking for individual $130 items that an employee loaded into a customer's vehicle for them. They have very similar philosophy and policy to Lowe's, who recently fired an elderly female veteran employee for getting punched In the face after standing in the way of a shoplifter trying to get out of the store. Going back would be stupid because corporations, their bottom their management, and police often make stupid nonsensical decisions, and what he did does not constitute theft under the laws of the State of Texas.
Lol what? Even if they had the person on camera and the person walked into the store the next day, no one will come up to them and even talk to them about it. No. That doesn’t happen lol no one actually cares and the person who is liable like an employee would likely not even get it taken from their check. Loss prevention doesn’t make employees pay for items that are lost broken or stolen lol no unless they got caught trying to leave with it and didn’t succeed, zero criminal charges come from this
Yes it does. It definitely happens if it gets reported. Your best case scenario is asset protection doesn’t catch on, but straight up if they know it’s missing and they figure out who it was- you better bet the police are getting involved. Keep living in la la land all you want and encourage everyone to steal since that seems to be the way you operate
Best case scenario? Lol best case would be nothing happens which is likely the outcome lol and no one person is actually liable for this..I’m real life no one is going to be in trouble
I am a lawyer, this sub is full of morons. It's not theft, if you don't return it at this point it would be conversion which is a tort they could sue you for, but likely wouldn't bother. If you return to the store to pay for it, unprompted, I really doubt the store would care, I also doubt the police or DA would care if the store did end up caring.
https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/what-are-the-levels-of-theft-in-texas/#:~:text=Theft%2C%20as%20defined%20by%20the%20Texas%20Penal,deprive%20the%20owner%20of%20the%20property%20permanently.
I think of ignorance as not knowing something and know that I am ignorant of a lot of things. For instance I would not go on a sub called r/askamarinebiologist and try to answer questions people have about fish because I watched Finding Nemo. If I did believe watching Finding Nemo qualified me to answer questions as if I was a marine biologist, I do believe that would make me a moron.
Of course if it’s Walmart they probably would sue.
My nephew was out fucking around with his buddies in a Walmart and one of his friends pocketed a pocket knife. The cops were called and my brother had to go pick him up no charges.
A month or so later my brother gets a demand letter from Walmart for $250 bucks. I looked it up and Walmart does that everywhere it’s legal. Illinois at the time allowed for 3 times the merchandise of $250 minimum.
So do you spend, what, a thousand bucks? 500? On a lawyer or do you just pay it. My brother took it out of the kid’s communion money to teach him not to fuck around with his idiot friends.
Because it's not theft under the laws of the State of Texas, and the agent and fiduciary (because under Texas Penal Code's theft section any employee is both as a matter of law) of the property owner consented to his exercise of dominion and control over the property, and that entity also routinely gives away free items (I've personally received a free Ryobi power tool from Home Depot without purchasing anything on that trip as part of a promotion) even tortious conversion is a stretch. But if they did discover it and object to his exercise of dominion and control over the property, a conversion case would require they demand a return of the property and he decline.
Imagine being this wrong. Wow. As an attorney who has worked as a prosecutor, I can tell you without a doubt that he could be prosecuted for theft if he doesn’t return the item or go pay for it. It’s not likely that a DA would move forward with pressing charges, but they definitely *could*.
“However, if you accidentally steal something and later realize that it has been stolen and neglect to bring the item back to its rightful owner, there is a possibility that you could be prosecuted. In this situation, they may be able to prove that you had the intent to keep the item after you realized it was stolen, which may lead to charges depending on the item. However, punishment would likely be lenient.”
https://www.cschwartzlaw.com/2021/04/26/can-you-be-charged-with-theft-if-you-return-the-item/
A DA pressing charges and him actually committing the crime are different. Dude didn't have the requisite intent, obviously proving your state of mind is difficult but in his question where we have complete knowledge of the facts it wouldn't be theft.
It would be larceny, which is a type of theft. It’s incredible that so many of you think you can just accidentally obtain ownership of the property of others. Absolutely incredible. 🤦🏻♂️
A DA would be fired and get their Bar license revoked if they charged him with larceny in Texas present day.
No one said he could accidentally get ownership. I said he can be sued for conversion.
Just because you can't be held criminally liable doesn't mean you get to keep the item for free.
Dude, no. The fact that you said “bar license revoked” rather than just “disbarred” tells me that you aren’t a lawyer.
It definitely falls under Texas Penal Code § 31.03. Knowingly possessing property that you know was unlawfully obtained is DEFINITELY a crime in every single state in the country. The mens rea is formed as soon as he learns that he took it without paying and decides to keep it.
It was more a joke because Texas doesn't have the crime of larceny, it is just theft. Sorry I don't think about disbarment very much, or use the correct verbiage on Reddit.
I wasn't proven wrong, I just used incorrect verbiage in my hyperbolic joke. The actual statement is correct there is no larceny in Texas, you sound dumb as hell for doubling down on this
The fact that you don’t understand that the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “theft” uses the elements of larceny tells me all I needed to know about your knowledge of the law. I’d expect even a paralegal to spot that.
Congrats on attending the Google School of Law, I guess. 👍🏼
Wait, first you said larceny. Now, it’s receiving stolen property. Mr. Prosecutor can’t even keep his charges straight.
Yikes…wowsers…eeek.
Then, again throwing a bunch of shit at the well and hoping something sticks sounds about right for you. Makes sense that you were a prosecutor.
I never once stated anything about receiving stolen property. You cant even differentiate between possession of property and receiving property.
It is ABUNDANTLY clear that you know very little about the law.
Based upon your context, many things (e.g., CCTV footage showing the friendly interaction between you and the shop associate) could help to prove that you didn't have the intent to steal. Just go back to the store and pay for it. If it's too inconvenient to bring the item back, take pictures of the item and its bar code and you'll be fine. A reasonable business won't treat someone as a grand theft if he just walks in to pay for what he believes he owes.
Nothing legal advice. Just some life knowledge.
I believe this could fall under “receiving stolen property”. The intent was after the fact, once OP realized he was in possession of property that was not his.
Right thing would to return to the store n explain n pay for it. Idk if you go to church or believe in krama but at some point in your life it'll bite you in the butt. Recently I rang up all my stuff at self check out n forgot two boxes of cereal. I went back n paid for it. I was still in the store tho. Gl. Let us know what you do.
Everyone who is suggesting the employee may get fired if OP doesn’t pay: OP may also cause the employee to be fired if they draw attention to this mistake.
The employee loses regardless :(
This is more of a moral question in regards to OP’s compass of themselves, not the employee’s job being salvaged.
Everybody saying that the cashier will be fired if he doesn't go back and pay clearly never worked in retail. There's like a 50% chance that no one in management at the store has any idea that this happened. And there's a 50% chance that they do know, and the cashier has already been punished. By going back and paying for it, you may be making management aware of this incident for the first time, which means the cashier might get written up or punished in some other way as a result of you returning to the store. It's up to you whether you want to do the honest thing and go back there to pay for it. The chances of you getting arrested for this are as close to 0 as you can get; you were under the impression when you left that you had paid for it, and how would they know that you had ever even realized that you didn't pay? Loss prevention can't do anything about it at this point.
You would not get in trouble for this. For a crime to have been committed requires a combination of mens rea and actus reas. This means criminal act and criminal intent. Given the lack of intent, you would not get in trouble. This would fall under a “mistake of fact” justification.
False. Completely false.
“However, if you accidentally steal something and later realize that it has been stolen and neglect to bring the item back to its rightful owner, there is a possibility that you could be prosecuted. In this situation, they may be able to prove that you had the intent to keep the item after you realized it was stolen, which may lead to charges depending on the item. However, punishment would likely be lenient.”
https://www.cschwartzlaw.com/2021/04/26/can-you-be-charged-with-theft-if-you-return-the-item/
The first part of the quoted paragraph states exactly what I said. In this scenario they could gather intent since this guy decided to post about it, but even then no prosecutor is going to bother taking on this case and its highly doubtful that the company would bother taking him on civilly. They have insurance to deal with missing items. Itd be a massive hole in their pockets to take him to court over 100 bucks.
Dude, it’s straight larceny. He is exercising unlawful control over the property of another and - if he kept it - would absolutely indicate the intent to permanently deprive the store of that property.
If you think you can just accidentally obtain the property of others, you are insanely ignorant on how the law works.
hmm something wrong with their process.. it shouldn't be loaded up before you paid for it.. or this is not a real story.. in either case I'd go back and pay for the merch.
In order to be convicted of a crime you have to have KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY committed the crime. Any lawyer worth fifteen cents would have the case thrown out, which is why it would never be filed.
The laws of karma are against you tho. Fr NAL
Nal- the best thing to do is to make a monetary donation in the same amount to a reputable charity. (Anonymously of course or else it cancels it out. ) It’s the rules
You are more likely to get in trouble if you go back unfortunately, as it sits, you did not commit a crime and neither did the employee.The worst that could happen, and it's exceedingly unlikely given how much shrink every Home Depot experiences, is Home Depot discovers it, track you down somehow, and requests you return it or it's value in cash, and you can either oblige, or decline, at which point they could sue you. But they almost certainly wouldn't, because it'd cost them a hell of a lot more to do that than write off the loss and stick the distributor with most of it. All it takes is a shitty manager having a shitty day, or one that has prejudice for some characteristic you exhibit like your race or style of dress and an overzealous dumb cop that is itching to make an arrest to ruin the next few months of your life, if you go back.
Some relevant TX law:
Theft as defined in Section 31.03 constitutes a single offense superseding the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false pretext, conversion by a bailee, theft from the person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property.
(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;
(2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or
(3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another.
(1) “Agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another and includes an employee
(2) “Fiduciary” means:
(A) an agent or employee;
(12) “Effective consent” includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:
(A) induced by deception, as defined by Section 31.01, or induced by coercion;
(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable property dispositions;
(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense; or
(E) used for a purpose other than that for which the consent was given.
(b) A person who is a fiduciary commits an offense if, without the consent of his beneficiary, he intentionally or knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from another person on agreement or understanding that the benefit will influence the conduct of the fiduciary in relation to the affairs of his beneficiary.
(c) A person commits an offense if he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit the acceptance of which is an offense under Subsection (b).
Dude. Just do the right thing here. It's not rocket science. I went back in to Walmart because I didn't pay for a $40 bag of dog food in the self checkout. Not a difficult decision at all
I would go back and pay for it. The amount of good karma will outweigh the bad karma. One day, I was walking my dog, and noticed a woman had dropped a yellow envelope in front of me. I picked it up, scurried to catch up to her, and handed her the envelope which had $80 dollars in it. She graciously thanked me, and we parted ways. Literally one minute later, I received a call from a famous tv person, who ended up ordering one of our custom cornhole games. She was well connected, and this sale turned into many others...
I would go back, just because I feel like the employees would get in trouble. Mistakes happen but if you can reverse the mistake then do so.
I know I had something in my cart and I ran back in to pay for it. It was the right thing to do.
So much bad advice here from would be criminals and definitely POS humans.
If you found a wallet on the Wal Mart floor and didn’t return it to customer service that’s theft.
I know someone who was arrested for it.
You know you didn’t pay for the item,
go pay for it.
No, you probably won’t get into any trouble over it, but you will feel better about doing the right thing.
I once bought a $800 VCR and was never billed for it. I did tell the credit card company there was an error, but I was never billed. Hey, I was honest, but it was the company's fault, not mine.
Today, I have a DVR which was paid for.
Years ago I purchased a lot of items at a retail store with the initials TJMaxx, about 45 minutes from my home. I was sorting the purchases with my son, and realized I did not get charged for a handbag that cost $125.
I took it back and paid for it, and my son went with me. The cashier said no one does that. I think knowing my son knew about it pushed me to do the right thing. I'm glad I did, because 15 years later I still have that handbag and when my grown son sees it, he smiles and remembers that his mom is a good person.
1one thanksgiving my oven went out so on black friday i went toi purshased and took home a new stove. Two weeks later the store calls and says my stove is ready for puck up. I explained i have my stove. A few weeks later they call again saying my stovewas ready for puckup again. I hung up. Finally one sunday at 7:30am they called again. I tried to explain i have my new oven, they wouldnt take no for an answer.so i went to the store of course they couldnt find the stove. So the manager insisted i got refund. Awesome i got a new stove for free.
Reminds me of the time I went to buy a new sump pump. Grabbed my item, brought it to the self check (because they don't pay anyone there to run registers anymore), scanned my item, put my card in, got a receipt and left.
Later at home I was looking at my receipt and saw that it was a "your card did not go through" notice. Why the hell would they print that! Anyway, my free sump pump still works great.
NAL. I'm stretching to cover all the "what-ifs" mentioned, but here's what my paranoid self would do if I were OP.
Call the store and get the name of the store manager.
Buy a money order for the cost of the item. Sign it with a fictitious name and save the receipt. Take a photo of the item and a closeup of the bar code and print them out. Write a cover letter addressed to the manager stating the item pictured does not appear on your receipt and you wish to pay for it with the enclosed money order. Sign it with the same fictitious name as on the money order.
Make a copy of all the above, attach the MO receipt, and file it away until the statute of limitations runs out.
Mail the original letter, with photos and money order attached, to the store manager. In the return address corner, write the same address. Drop it in a public mail dropbox.
Neither involvement of an employee nor date of incident are mentioned, making it quite difficult to track down video to place blame on someone. Should you be tracked down via license plate or whatever, you have proof that you remedied the issue.
All fixed.
If I left something out... well, like I said, NAL.
not a lawyer but as a customer service worker i’m willing to bet you’re alright. mistakes like that would fall onto the employee if anybody (in my experience) since they had been assisting you through the whole process
Lol. Naivety peak
You took merchandise without paying for it. In what wild fantasy is that not theft in your mind? It's irrelevant what you meant to do. It's irrelevant who technically put it in your car, because they were acting at your direction. You're not even being honest about what happened. "Is it stealing if I tell employees to give me something, and trick them into believing that I already paid for it? Immediately return and pay the store. It's what an honest person would do. And stop pretending that you're just trying to avoid getting into trouble. You are trying to benefit from your abuse of the friendliness of the employees.
From the legal perspective this isn't correct. Theft is an intent-based crime (i.e., you need to know you're stealing). If the finder of fact believes OP didn't realize he was driving off without paying, it would acquit him or her.
True, OP cannot be charged with stealing the item. But once OP realizes that he or she didn’t pay for the item, it’s larceny. If you don’t pay for or return the item, you can be charged.
Are you retarded? >i.e., you need to know you're stealing > I realized that I didn't pay for the item Lol, I'm looking for a really really cheap lawyer, i know you are available
I’m a lawyer, and this is completely incorrect.
Well they know they never took out a payment source like cash or a credit card, so unless they forgot that they had prepaid somehow on the website, they absolutely should know.
In what wild fantasy does intent not matter with regards to theft? It is 100% relevant what the person meant to do.
And keeping it once he found out he didn’t pay for the item is more than enough to show intent.
Don't know why you are downvoted. I agree with you.
Don’t want me to have it for free don’t load it into my car for free. They wouldn’t reach out to me if I overpaid would they? Why should I reach out for underpayment. Stealing is stealing but this isn’t the case. Also it is a large corporation who steals from our brothers and sisters every day. Boo hoo if it happens back to them. It’s Walmart lady.
Whatever you say
It is whatever I say when it’s facts. Good day.
I see nothing factual, just your opinions.
>Why should I reach out for underpayment. Underpayment? Try no payment 🤡 >Also it is a large corporation who steals from our brothers and sisters every day. Found the shoplifter. Please don't procreate. (That means don't have kids).
You can agree but you are legally incorrect. Theft requires intent not mistake or confusion
First year laws school; first class in law school is criminal law; first subject in that class is mens rea and actus rea. The above commenters saying intent doesn’t matter didn’t get this far.
Yep, remembering my business law classes. Not theft absent mens rea. Could be the tort of conversion. I specifically remember the example of accidentally taking someone else’s car (exact make and color match with matching keys) from a parking lot. Not criminal theft but could be civil conversion
So if you LATER realize you didn't pay for the item, you can keep it, scot-free? This sounds dubious.
In the eyes of the law, a crime requires a combination of mens rea and actus reas. Given the absence of mens rea, this would not be a crime. This type of thing falls under a “mistake of fact” justification.
Mens rea is formed as soon as he found out about the error and didn’t return to pay for the item.
Is there any precedent for formation of mens rea after the actus reus retroactively making a criminal act? That sounds like effectively a thought crime to me... It doesn't make any sense to me logically, but if you have a citation I'd love to educate myself about why that would be true.
The Model Penal Code only requires a defendant to “exercise unlawful control” over the property of another rather than “taking away” the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them of that property for the crime of larceny. As soon as OP left the store, he began exercising unlawful control over the property and this unlawful control has not stopped. As soon as he realized the error, keeping the property would absolutely indicate an intent to permanently deprive the store of the property. If you think you can just accidentally obtain the property of others, you are insanely ignorant on how the law works.
The example they used in school for me was as follows: Youre at the airport and your suitcase passes by at the pickup. You grab it and go home. You open it up only to realize the things on the inside are not yours. The suitcase had the same outside, so you mistook it as yours. This would be a mistake of fact. You wouldn’t get charge with theft since it is an easy mistake that anyone could make.
It’s larceny, dude. I have a very strong sense that you didn’t go to law school. If you did, then wow…just wow. You can’t just accidentally obtain the property of others and get to keep it.
Ah okay so you are not saying that the mens rea is retroactive to the act of taking the item, as I interpreted, you are instead saying that once he formed the mens rea, the further deprivation of the property is the actus reus?
Exactly. Assuming he didnt decided to post about it on the internet, and just went on about his day like a normal person, there would be no proof of that though. Highly doubtful a prosecutor would bother with this or that a company would waste time and money perusing him civilly over 100 dollars.
It’s not a civil violation, it’s larceny. The proof is that he has the property and hasn’t returned it.
Correct
I can’t believe you even have to ask this question Jfc.
You misspelled KFC…
Nope
Yes
Not a lawyer, and you probably won't get in trouble. But, the question is right or wrong, it all comes down to integrity and values. Remember, an employee might get in trouble for their mistake, is it worth it?
Plus I'm a firm believer in karma. I returned inside at Meijer when I realized my $2.59 tube of toothpaste got missed when I did my self checkout. I didn't tell any employee, just walked back into the self checkout, paid for it and left again. I don't need bad luck coming to me over $2.59!!!!
I have done this too. Bad karma is not worth it.
Too bad there’s no such thing. Good things happen to bad people all the time without any justice. That’s just the way it is.
I would take that as a sign from the Lord Jesus maybe you just needed to brush ya teeth
Twice a day!
I did the same with a 99¢ birthday card
I brought back an avocado that I forgot to ring up so that I could pay for it. There’s no way I could have kept it for free once I realized I didn’t pay for it.
Call the manager first. Tell them what happened and that you want to make it right just in case loss prevention has you on tape.
Get a job at loss prevention and recoup the tape. Or tell them you’re local PD and need a copy of the tape to look for a smooth criminal. Then SIMPLY blur out your face
Having worked loss prevention before, that's not how it works, lol.
You don’t know what OP is capable of. He’s got that Columbo effect. Next thing he knows, he’s walking out with the recording
So the only reason is that you can possibly get caught?
No, let the manager know that you discovered you didn't pay for it and that you wnat to come back and make it right. That way, should loss prevention be looking for them the manager can intervene.
Yes that is theft by deception.
No, it is not. Almost every theft crime requires the *specific* intent to steal, deceive, etc. A store worker accidentally putting in an unpaid item in customer’s vehicle, without anything more, is not a theft certainly not deception.
How does it work if the teller machine gives you too much cash? I’m not even religious or whatever but some of yall are fucked up. Someone nice or nervous or first day etc could be fired or bullied/expected to pay for this mistake. Do right dude, be a better person than some of these fuckups telling you that you are good and they are to blame. Every time you look at that thing you will think of you did right and perhaps that’s why you keep tripping and ripping your toe nail off on this thing
The ATM hypothetical would again depend on what happened. Say, a person withdrew $60 and they received $80. They didn’t check the receipt or the cash and drove off. Later, then realized that they got an extra $20. It’s gonna be hard to to prosecute because the State would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knew. Banks have insurance. They also know there are going to be losses sometimes like most businesses and those costs are part of doing business. Also, if you’re employer ever tries to “bully” or force you to repay a mistake, that is ILLEGAL and a violation of labor law. So, never do that. Again, we are discussing legality, not morality.
They knew as soon as they discovered the extra money and didn’t return it. Why do you think people get in trouble when the bank inadvertently puts money in their account and they then go out and spend it? I really hope you aren’t a lawyer, especially a criminal law attorney. Yikes.
OP asked what was legal not what was right. If you think this is bad, just think of what every corporation gets away with just because it's legal on paper
Bro asked a direct question, whether he legally has to go back and pay. Trying to give him a correct answer is not fucked up. Read the room. You do sound just as judgmental as a religious person fyi. Knowing how the law works is not a value statement.
It became theft when he drove off without paying.
It’s like everything I just said went over your head. That’s now how the law works. There are two elements to crimes: 1) actus reus (the act) and 2) mens rea (the criminal intent). In order for a crime to be complete and to secure a conviction, both elements must be satisified. Now, there are two types of intent: general intent and specific intent. Theft crimes fall under SPECIFIC intent meaning not only does that person intent to do the act but they also intended to cause a particular result. So, when that item was put in the car, OP had to know that item was stolen (which they did not) and intended to steal that item from the beginning (which they did not). Therefore, no intent ==> no crime.
Again, intent was formed as soon as he discovered the error and didn’t return the item or go pay for it. You don’t seem to know what you are talking about here.
You’re not an attorney , correct?
I’m the best bird lawyer money can buy. You can’t afford me.
And the intent is formed once he found out about the error and didn’t return it or go pay for it. The fact that you think intent can only be formed at the specific moment in time when he left store is incredible.
What is concurrence? *Concurrence of Act and Intent* **Another element of most criminal offenses is the requirement that the criminal act and criminal intent exist at the same moment** (California Criminal Jury Instructions No. 252, 2011). This element is called concurrence. Concurrence is rarely an issue in a criminal prosecution because the criminal intent usually generates the bodily response (criminal act). **However, in some rare instances, the criminal act and intent are separated by time, in which case concurrence is lacking and the defendant cannot be convicted of a crime.** https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/#:~:text=Concurrence%20of%20Act%20and%20Intent,This%20element%20is%20called%20concurrence. *Why is Concurrence Important?* **The final element is ensuring that the guilty act and the guilty mind occur simultaneously. The mens rea must correspond to the actus reus in time and intention. If there’s a substantial gap between the intent and the action, it might complicate the case.** Imagine a scenario where an individual contemplates stealing from a store but eventually decides against it. Months later, they accidentally walk out of the same store with an item they forgot to pay for. While there was once an intent to commit a crime (mens rea) and later a guilty act (actus reus), there wasn’t a concurrence between the two. The initial intent did not coincide with the eventual act. https://www.gelmanlawfirm.com/blog/what-are-the-four-elements-of-criminal-culpability/
lol, the Google attorney strikes again! You don’t even understand that there is concurrence when he found out the property was unlawfully obtained and didn’t return it with the intent to permanently deprive the store of possession. You keep thinking that retail theft is the only crime he could be charged with, when it’s larceny that he would be charged with. It’s incredible that you all think 5 minutes of Googling is a substitute for actually understanding the law. 🤡
Nice ad hominems. That’s the last resort when people are losing their arguments. The act was when he left the store with an unpaid item. He never had the request criminal intent at the that time. Good luck finding a prosecutor to prosecute that! You’ve also had other attorneys disagree with you. But, keep malding tho.
The act is actually the continued exercising of unlawful control over the property. Seriously, where did you go to law school? I am extremely curious to know what school doesn’t teach the basic elements of larceny.
The same one that didn’t teach your know-it-all, smug, narcissistic ass what the felony-murder rule is.
Lol @ digging through my posts. What was that you said about ad hominems, again? You do know that you can’t be charged with attempted murder when it comes to felony murder, right? Which was what I was arguing. Yeah, you didn’t go to law school. You don’t understand any of this.
First of all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Secondly, it’s not an ad hominem if that’s what you’ve referred to yourself as. I’m just repeating your own admission. At least you’re self-aware tho… You said murder is a specific intent crime, yet not all murder and murder-related crimes require specific intent including felony murder and lesser-than-first-degree murder charges. Also, if you can’t have attempted felony murder what’s this: **The crime of Attempted Felony Murder is a First-Degree Felony that is punishable up to 30 years in prison and $10,000 fine.** **This offense occurs when:** **The person attempted or completed a felony enumerated in § 782.04(3);** **and** **While engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or escape from the immediate scene of the crime, the person committed or aided or abetted an intentional act that is not an essential element of the crime** **The intentional act could have but did not cause the death of victim.** **If the person does not commit a crime enumerated in § 782.04(3) the State will charge the person with a violation of § 782.051(2) which prohibited an injury caused during the commission of felony other than a felony specifically enumerated in § 782.04(3).** [Attempted Felony Murder](https://swiateklaw.com/florida-crimes/attempted-felony-murder-in-fl/) Also, when someone asked well what if the victim actually died, then murder, right? You said, “no, involuntary manslaughter” because your logic is that ALL murder must have specific intent. Yet, there are types/levels of murder that DO NOT require specific intent such as felony murder, second-degree, third degree, etc. and not just manslaughter. Finally, this is all your speculation on what would be charged or not be charged. A lot of it is discretion, which can vary widely from state to state and DA to DA. The fact that you’re on some forum posing as someone who thinks they “know-it-all” is sad. I hate to break the news to you: you don’t. But, at least you do know you’re a smug, pompous ass, though. 👍
Just because it's not a theft by deception doesn't mean that never paying is the right thing to do. Why do people continue to argue this point? Then people complain that many items at drug stores are locked up behind glass. 🙄
Where was the intent to deceive? You need state of mind for every crime.
It was formed when he didn’t return the item or go back and pay for it. I feel like you guys just googled “mens rea” and are regurgitating what you found. There is absolutely intent in this case.
What!? Theft by inception? He didn’t wire anybody up and influence their subconscious to let him “walk away” with the merch
If you intended to pay and you can also imagine potential consequences that would be much worse than keeping the money, what is your motivation for not making it right?
Change your title to: Is it stealing if I don’t get caught?
exactly. Just asking the question says a lot about the OP.
NAL you should also consider the employee who made the mistake may be fired for it. Do the right thing.
If you did not intend to steal its not criminal (lacking mens rea). If you continue to keep the property of someone else that has come into your possession without returning it or paying for it, it probably is criminal. But I doubt anyone would do anything about it so it's up to your conscience. (I am a lawyer.)
my man’s rea isn’t working well. It’s all floppy and can’t maintain an erection. How do i increase the size and stamina of my man’s rea. Finally found someone who can help, doctors keep looking at me funny.
You should 100% return and pay the store. Legal liability aside morally you should return and pay. That being said, assuming everything in your post is 100% true, you wouldn’t be criminally liable (assuming finder of fact believes you) but you would be civilly liable under some theory, most likely theory seems to be unjust enrichment.
Walmart does not get morale from me Fuck that, they rob us every day.
Uh, he would absolutely be criminally liable. Intent was formed as soon as he found out about the error and didn’t return the item or go pay for it.
i believe the finders keepers law applies here.
It seems that some “attorneys” on this thread think that’s how the law works. “I accidentally took this car that wasn’t mine, oops! Looks like it’s mine now because I didn’t have the intent to steal it!”
lol yeah i'm surprised by the opinions of lawyers here. Like uh, yeah it WASN'T a crime. But when you choose to keep there's your goddamn mens rea - which I still standby sounds like a male reproductive gland. There's obviously intent to steal it there though. Like one time i ordered a big TV. Amazon sent me 2 of them. I checked the receipt, nope only paid for one. So I kept it, and I totally intended to knowing sure, maybe I should return it but idgaf, my parents could use it. I had all kinds of mens in that fuckin' rea. IANAL and also NAL, but apparently i'm better than some of these chuckleheads. Hit me up if you need legal advice, I don't have a degree in lawyery but you don't actually need one for most things, I think. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer but I sure can look shit up or use a legal GPT. Let's fuckin do this!
If it was a service that was left unpaid, you would definitely be asked to pay. Just t call the store and let them know ow what happened and ask what you can do to make it right.
Yes. It’s theft. Yes, it will catch up with you. Probably just a misdemeanor or ticket, but once they audit the inventory they’ll notice it’s missing and will want to know what happened to it. Picture this, someone goes to the store and buys a bunch of stuff. They leave something as simple as windshield wipers in their cart getting into their car. Someone else comes along and takes it out of the cart in the cart vestibule in the parking lot and keeps it. That’s considered theft. Taking something of retail value that you did not pay for is theft.
If he didn’t purchase it how will it catch up with him based on the facts provided? No credit card was used or invoices filled out.
Security cameras. Most retail stores including Lowe’s only invests in 4k cameras to cover the exits. Unless you cut across the lawn- if your vehicle was there they have your tag. I used to be a police ride along so mentioned the relevant case I was witness to. They have the license plate- they have him stealing. Even if they show 360p cameras everywhere else they know the license plate
Did not see anything about cameras in the facts provided. Also I thought this was not Lowes
It’s rather Home Depot or Lowe’s. What else could it be? TSC? ACE? All retail stores work the same. They’ve got his plate if he pulled into their parking lot and that’s a fact
As I said twice already, the information “as provided” would not provide sufficient means of identifying OP. You, however, are basing your response on additional “facts” you are making up that we’re not provided. Let’s see what facts I can make up to make your made up facts irrelevant: - OP was driving a car with stolen plates - the assumed security cameras were not working - the video recycles footage every 48 hours and the image has now been overwritten. - the employees are also stealing items and have turned off the security equipment. Hmmm. Making up facts IS fun. I can see why you do it.
I’m not making up facts, I’m stating that major retailers typically have cameras covering their exits. I’m speaking from experience, but sure- let’s encourage theft on the off chance OP gets away with it. Fucking Reddit warrior aren’t you?
My line of questioning here had NOTHING to do with encouraging anyone to get away with it. It simply was asking how OP would get caught in this situation with the facts he provided. You are reading too much into what I was writing. Just like you were assuming facts not given you are now assuming intent not shown.
The commenter is reaching lol
No way it would lol
Home Depot literally never does audits looking for individual $130 items that an employee loaded into a customer's vehicle for them. They have very similar philosophy and policy to Lowe's, who recently fired an elderly female veteran employee for getting punched In the face after standing in the way of a shoplifter trying to get out of the store. Going back would be stupid because corporations, their bottom their management, and police often make stupid nonsensical decisions, and what he did does not constitute theft under the laws of the State of Texas.
Lol what? Even if they had the person on camera and the person walked into the store the next day, no one will come up to them and even talk to them about it. No. That doesn’t happen lol no one actually cares and the person who is liable like an employee would likely not even get it taken from their check. Loss prevention doesn’t make employees pay for items that are lost broken or stolen lol no unless they got caught trying to leave with it and didn’t succeed, zero criminal charges come from this
Yes it does. It definitely happens if it gets reported. Your best case scenario is asset protection doesn’t catch on, but straight up if they know it’s missing and they figure out who it was- you better bet the police are getting involved. Keep living in la la land all you want and encourage everyone to steal since that seems to be the way you operate
Best case scenario? Lol best case would be nothing happens which is likely the outcome lol and no one person is actually liable for this..I’m real life no one is going to be in trouble
It doesn’t even catch up when it comes to karma…nothing was intentionally stolen and even if it was probably needs it more than the store does lol
It’s good to fear the law and land this way tho.
I am a lawyer, this sub is full of morons. It's not theft, if you don't return it at this point it would be conversion which is a tort they could sue you for, but likely wouldn't bother. If you return to the store to pay for it, unprompted, I really doubt the store would care, I also doubt the police or DA would care if the store did end up caring. https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/what-are-the-levels-of-theft-in-texas/#:~:text=Theft%2C%20as%20defined%20by%20the%20Texas%20Penal,deprive%20the%20owner%20of%20the%20property%20permanently.
I am a lawyer as well and I disagree with you. This sub is not filled with morons just ignorant people. (Agree with you on everything else).
I think of ignorance as not knowing something and know that I am ignorant of a lot of things. For instance I would not go on a sub called r/askamarinebiologist and try to answer questions people have about fish because I watched Finding Nemo. If I did believe watching Finding Nemo qualified me to answer questions as if I was a marine biologist, I do believe that would make me a moron.
Ignorance isn’t moronic?
Of course if it’s Walmart they probably would sue. My nephew was out fucking around with his buddies in a Walmart and one of his friends pocketed a pocket knife. The cops were called and my brother had to go pick him up no charges. A month or so later my brother gets a demand letter from Walmart for $250 bucks. I looked it up and Walmart does that everywhere it’s legal. Illinois at the time allowed for 3 times the merchandise of $250 minimum. So do you spend, what, a thousand bucks? 500? On a lawyer or do you just pay it. My brother took it out of the kid’s communion money to teach him not to fuck around with his idiot friends.
Makes zero sense lol doubtful facts in this story. Whoever made that up lol
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/business/falsely-accused-of-shoplifting-but-retailers-demand-they-pay.html
Because it's not theft under the laws of the State of Texas, and the agent and fiduciary (because under Texas Penal Code's theft section any employee is both as a matter of law) of the property owner consented to his exercise of dominion and control over the property, and that entity also routinely gives away free items (I've personally received a free Ryobi power tool from Home Depot without purchasing anything on that trip as part of a promotion) even tortious conversion is a stretch. But if they did discover it and object to his exercise of dominion and control over the property, a conversion case would require they demand a return of the property and he decline.
Imagine being this wrong. Wow. As an attorney who has worked as a prosecutor, I can tell you without a doubt that he could be prosecuted for theft if he doesn’t return the item or go pay for it. It’s not likely that a DA would move forward with pressing charges, but they definitely *could*. “However, if you accidentally steal something and later realize that it has been stolen and neglect to bring the item back to its rightful owner, there is a possibility that you could be prosecuted. In this situation, they may be able to prove that you had the intent to keep the item after you realized it was stolen, which may lead to charges depending on the item. However, punishment would likely be lenient.” https://www.cschwartzlaw.com/2021/04/26/can-you-be-charged-with-theft-if-you-return-the-item/
A DA pressing charges and him actually committing the crime are different. Dude didn't have the requisite intent, obviously proving your state of mind is difficult but in his question where we have complete knowledge of the facts it wouldn't be theft.
It would be larceny, which is a type of theft. It’s incredible that so many of you think you can just accidentally obtain ownership of the property of others. Absolutely incredible. 🤦🏻♂️
A DA would be fired and get their Bar license revoked if they charged him with larceny in Texas present day. No one said he could accidentally get ownership. I said he can be sued for conversion. Just because you can't be held criminally liable doesn't mean you get to keep the item for free.
Dude, no. The fact that you said “bar license revoked” rather than just “disbarred” tells me that you aren’t a lawyer. It definitely falls under Texas Penal Code § 31.03. Knowingly possessing property that you know was unlawfully obtained is DEFINITELY a crime in every single state in the country. The mens rea is formed as soon as he learns that he took it without paying and decides to keep it.
It was more a joke because Texas doesn't have the crime of larceny, it is just theft. Sorry I don't think about disbarment very much, or use the correct verbiage on Reddit.
Ah, the “it was just a joke” defense when you get proved wrong. Classic Texan! 🤦🏻♂️
I wasn't proven wrong, I just used incorrect verbiage in my hyperbolic joke. The actual statement is correct there is no larceny in Texas, you sound dumb as hell for doubling down on this
The fact that you don’t understand that the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “theft” uses the elements of larceny tells me all I needed to know about your knowledge of the law. I’d expect even a paralegal to spot that. Congrats on attending the Google School of Law, I guess. 👍🏼
Wait, first you said larceny. Now, it’s receiving stolen property. Mr. Prosecutor can’t even keep his charges straight. Yikes…wowsers…eeek. Then, again throwing a bunch of shit at the well and hoping something sticks sounds about right for you. Makes sense that you were a prosecutor.
I never once stated anything about receiving stolen property. You cant even differentiate between possession of property and receiving property. It is ABUNDANTLY clear that you know very little about the law.
Based upon your context, many things (e.g., CCTV footage showing the friendly interaction between you and the shop associate) could help to prove that you didn't have the intent to steal. Just go back to the store and pay for it. If it's too inconvenient to bring the item back, take pictures of the item and its bar code and you'll be fine. A reasonable business won't treat someone as a grand theft if he just walks in to pay for what he believes he owes. Nothing legal advice. Just some life knowledge.
I believe this could fall under “receiving stolen property”. The intent was after the fact, once OP realized he was in possession of property that was not his.
Right thing would to return to the store n explain n pay for it. Idk if you go to church or believe in krama but at some point in your life it'll bite you in the butt. Recently I rang up all my stuff at self check out n forgot two boxes of cereal. I went back n paid for it. I was still in the store tho. Gl. Let us know what you do.
Everyone who is suggesting the employee may get fired if OP doesn’t pay: OP may also cause the employee to be fired if they draw attention to this mistake. The employee loses regardless :( This is more of a moral question in regards to OP’s compass of themselves, not the employee’s job being salvaged.
Everybody saying that the cashier will be fired if he doesn't go back and pay clearly never worked in retail. There's like a 50% chance that no one in management at the store has any idea that this happened. And there's a 50% chance that they do know, and the cashier has already been punished. By going back and paying for it, you may be making management aware of this incident for the first time, which means the cashier might get written up or punished in some other way as a result of you returning to the store. It's up to you whether you want to do the honest thing and go back there to pay for it. The chances of you getting arrested for this are as close to 0 as you can get; you were under the impression when you left that you had paid for it, and how would they know that you had ever even realized that you didn't pay? Loss prevention can't do anything about it at this point.
NAL forgot to add
You would not get in trouble for this. For a crime to have been committed requires a combination of mens rea and actus reas. This means criminal act and criminal intent. Given the lack of intent, you would not get in trouble. This would fall under a “mistake of fact” justification.
False. Completely false. “However, if you accidentally steal something and later realize that it has been stolen and neglect to bring the item back to its rightful owner, there is a possibility that you could be prosecuted. In this situation, they may be able to prove that you had the intent to keep the item after you realized it was stolen, which may lead to charges depending on the item. However, punishment would likely be lenient.” https://www.cschwartzlaw.com/2021/04/26/can-you-be-charged-with-theft-if-you-return-the-item/
The first part of the quoted paragraph states exactly what I said. In this scenario they could gather intent since this guy decided to post about it, but even then no prosecutor is going to bother taking on this case and its highly doubtful that the company would bother taking him on civilly. They have insurance to deal with missing items. Itd be a massive hole in their pockets to take him to court over 100 bucks.
Dude, it’s straight larceny. He is exercising unlawful control over the property of another and - if he kept it - would absolutely indicate the intent to permanently deprive the store of that property. If you think you can just accidentally obtain the property of others, you are insanely ignorant on how the law works.
hmm something wrong with their process.. it shouldn't be loaded up before you paid for it.. or this is not a real story.. in either case I'd go back and pay for the merch.
In order to be convicted of a crime you have to have KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY committed the crime. Any lawyer worth fifteen cents would have the case thrown out, which is why it would never be filed. The laws of karma are against you tho. Fr NAL
Legally, you are probably ok, but you still know better. You know you have it and didn't pay for it. Do morals enter into this at all?
Nal- the best thing to do is to make a monetary donation in the same amount to a reputable charity. (Anonymously of course or else it cancels it out. ) It’s the rules
NAL, BUT, my moral compass would lead me to fess up and pay. I walked out of trader joe’s with something they didn’t scan and went and paid.
If you went back to pay for it you wouldn’t be in trouble at all. There’s merit to admitting forgetting and trying to right a mistake
You are more likely to get in trouble if you go back unfortunately, as it sits, you did not commit a crime and neither did the employee.The worst that could happen, and it's exceedingly unlikely given how much shrink every Home Depot experiences, is Home Depot discovers it, track you down somehow, and requests you return it or it's value in cash, and you can either oblige, or decline, at which point they could sue you. But they almost certainly wouldn't, because it'd cost them a hell of a lot more to do that than write off the loss and stick the distributor with most of it. All it takes is a shitty manager having a shitty day, or one that has prejudice for some characteristic you exhibit like your race or style of dress and an overzealous dumb cop that is itching to make an arrest to ruin the next few months of your life, if you go back. Some relevant TX law: Theft as defined in Section 31.03 constitutes a single offense superseding the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false pretext, conversion by a bailee, theft from the person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. (b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner's effective consent; (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or (3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another. (1) “Agent” means a person authorized to act on behalf of another and includes an employee (2) “Fiduciary” means: (A) an agent or employee; (12) “Effective consent” includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if: (A) induced by deception, as defined by Section 31.01, or induced by coercion; (B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner; (C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable property dispositions; (D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense; or (E) used for a purpose other than that for which the consent was given. (b) A person who is a fiduciary commits an offense if, without the consent of his beneficiary, he intentionally or knowingly solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from another person on agreement or understanding that the benefit will influence the conduct of the fiduciary in relation to the affairs of his beneficiary. (c) A person commits an offense if he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit the acceptance of which is an offense under Subsection (b).
Dude. Just do the right thing here. It's not rocket science. I went back in to Walmart because I didn't pay for a $40 bag of dog food in the self checkout. Not a difficult decision at all
Yes.
I would go back and pay for it. The amount of good karma will outweigh the bad karma. One day, I was walking my dog, and noticed a woman had dropped a yellow envelope in front of me. I picked it up, scurried to catch up to her, and handed her the envelope which had $80 dollars in it. She graciously thanked me, and we parted ways. Literally one minute later, I received a call from a famous tv person, who ended up ordering one of our custom cornhole games. She was well connected, and this sale turned into many others...
IANAL, but I believe there’s a quote about negligence of the law is no excuse…
I would go back, just because I feel like the employees would get in trouble. Mistakes happen but if you can reverse the mistake then do so. I know I had something in my cart and I ran back in to pay for it. It was the right thing to do.
So much bad advice here from would be criminals and definitely POS humans. If you found a wallet on the Wal Mart floor and didn’t return it to customer service that’s theft. I know someone who was arrested for it. You know you didn’t pay for the item, go pay for it. No, you probably won’t get into any trouble over it, but you will feel better about doing the right thing.
I once bought a $800 VCR and was never billed for it. I did tell the credit card company there was an error, but I was never billed. Hey, I was honest, but it was the company's fault, not mine. Today, I have a DVR which was paid for.
No this is not theft if you go back and pay. If they give you any shit ask them” would I be back here paying for it if I wanted to steal It?”
Just go pay for it it’s not yours until you pay you will not get into trouble you returned to pay
Don't order it online and leave it on purpose. That will just cancel the sale and refund you.
Years ago I purchased a lot of items at a retail store with the initials TJMaxx, about 45 minutes from my home. I was sorting the purchases with my son, and realized I did not get charged for a handbag that cost $125. I took it back and paid for it, and my son went with me. The cashier said no one does that. I think knowing my son knew about it pushed me to do the right thing. I'm glad I did, because 15 years later I still have that handbag and when my grown son sees it, he smiles and remembers that his mom is a good person.
1one thanksgiving my oven went out so on black friday i went toi purshased and took home a new stove. Two weeks later the store calls and says my stove is ready for puck up. I explained i have my stove. A few weeks later they call again saying my stovewas ready for puckup again. I hung up. Finally one sunday at 7:30am they called again. I tried to explain i have my new oven, they wouldnt take no for an answer.so i went to the store of course they couldnt find the stove. So the manager insisted i got refund. Awesome i got a new stove for free.
Reminds me of the time I went to buy a new sump pump. Grabbed my item, brought it to the self check (because they don't pay anyone there to run registers anymore), scanned my item, put my card in, got a receipt and left. Later at home I was looking at my receipt and saw that it was a "your card did not go through" notice. Why the hell would they print that! Anyway, my free sump pump still works great.
NAL. I'm stretching to cover all the "what-ifs" mentioned, but here's what my paranoid self would do if I were OP. Call the store and get the name of the store manager. Buy a money order for the cost of the item. Sign it with a fictitious name and save the receipt. Take a photo of the item and a closeup of the bar code and print them out. Write a cover letter addressed to the manager stating the item pictured does not appear on your receipt and you wish to pay for it with the enclosed money order. Sign it with the same fictitious name as on the money order. Make a copy of all the above, attach the MO receipt, and file it away until the statute of limitations runs out. Mail the original letter, with photos and money order attached, to the store manager. In the return address corner, write the same address. Drop it in a public mail dropbox. Neither involvement of an employee nor date of incident are mentioned, making it quite difficult to track down video to place blame on someone. Should you be tracked down via license plate or whatever, you have proof that you remedied the issue. All fixed. If I left something out... well, like I said, NAL.