3 ms·

It is different. In the checkout case, the cashier's intervening negligent act led to you getting the item for free. It might still be theft (or fraud or some

It is different. In the checkout case, the cashier's intervening negligent act led to you getting the item for free. It might still be theft (or fraud or some related charge), but only if those laws create a strict liability crime out of keeping something that you know was given to you by mistake. I'm not sure but I think there might be specific laws to that effect if you knowingly take advantage of a bank's mistake. Whether there's a similar law in general, probably depends on where you live. In the pure theft case, there's no intervening act by a store employee. It requires criminal intent. The argument that if the customer knew, it's theft, applies equally to cases where the product is rung up incorrectly, which several other people in this thread have claimed to have witnessed. I guess we're all thieves now. I've been overcharged and undercharged at stores. Also even if the intervening act by the store employee doesn't matter, it would be impossible to prosecute. They'd have to show that the customer knew the checkout person missed the item. How would they do that? Interrogating people you live with to find out if you mentioned it to them? No, they don't have access to admissions on HN years later.

kortilla 5y ago
> In the pure theft case, there's no intervening act by a store employee. It requires criminal intent Yes there is, they have cameras and people who can frisk at the doors. I don’t think you want to go down the path of “if there was some action an employee could have taken to stop it, it’s not theft”. > No, they don't have access to admissions on HN years later. “They can’t prove it” is not an argument that something isn’t theft. You can go through whatever mental gymnastics you want to go over how difficult it will be to legally prove theft for prosecution, but it doesn’t change what it morally is at all.

kortilla 5y ago

> In the pure theft case, there's no intervening act by a store employee. It requires criminal intent Yes there is, they have cameras and people who can frisk at the doors. I don’t think you want to go down the path of “if there was some action an employee could have taken to stop it, it’s not theft”. > No, they don't have access to admissions on HN years later. “They can’t prove it” is not an argument that something isn’t theft. You can go through whatever mental gymnastics you want to go over how difficult it will be to legally prove theft for prosecution, but it doesn’t change what it morally is at all.