accidentally stole pack of gum

[fakeworest]

Your error was in assuming something was free for the taking just because it was sitting there.
You INTENTIONALLY took the pack of gum.

You are confused on the meaning of "intent" in this context.

your arguing semantics. the guy is making the claim he did not INTEND TO STEAL. Of course picking up anything and walking with it, by paying or not, is intending to take.

Again, if he feels that maybe 10% of the average population or more would make the same mistake seeing the box, bring it to court and test it out. If you think noone would make the same mistake after seeing the box then your toast... all thieves that are caught could claim they thought it was a give-a-way.

You Are Guilty, too much $$$.

 

[Zigner]

your arguing semantics. the guy is making the claim he did not INTEND TO STEAL. Of course picking up anything and walking with it, by paying or not, is intending to take.

Please do not give legal advice.
I am not arguing semantics. I am giving the legal meaning of the term.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Might as well get specific. Criminal intent <> Webster's Dictionary intent.

“Theft” described. A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person:

(1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof;

Theft in the third degree. (1) A person commits the crime of theft in the third degree if, by means other than extortion, the person:
(a) Commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015; and
(b) The total value of the property in a single or an aggregate transaction is under $50.

(2) Theft in the third degree is a Class C misdemeanor.

Since the intent required is either "intent to deprive another of property" OR "to appropriate property to the person", the act of lifting the gum up and walking out with it would seemingly satisfy the second definition.

 

[divona2000]

Hmmm, OP stated days ago on another site that:

""...It said sobriety Test Gum on the cover...""

ineedhelp123
Default Re: What is Going to Happen to Me for Taking a Pack of Gum
Last edited by ineedhelp123
10-04-2008 at 09:34 PM.

 

[Zigner]

Hahaha, now THAT would explain things...

 

[quincy]

Just to help with ihatebias' defense a wee bit:

Various gum companies (among other companies) have given away free samples in stores in the past.

Walmart gave away free Ice Breakers, free samples have been given of Dentyne brand gums, Stride gum was given away, Jolt gum was given away, and Wrigley's "Stay Alert" gum was given away. "Test runs" of new brands have appeared on store shelves throughout the country at various times in the past.

So, it would not be entirely out of the realm of possibility that ihatebias saw a pack of gum labeled "Test" and assumed it was a free giveaway.

It would also not be entirely out of the realm of possibility, therefore, to claim that ihatebias' intent was not to deprive the store of its merchandise but, rather, to help the gum company test their product.

Not that I think this defense would necessarily work to avoid the theft charge or fines, however. . . . .

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

Well, you're supposed to take the system seriously at both ends. I'f I'm a juror and there's even a 20% chance it happened the way he says, it's his lucky day. It's a pack of gum, I'm not going to risk restful sleep putting him through hell.

 

[fakeworest]

Exactly, was his intent to deprive the gum company store of something that is theirs.... or was he intending to help the gum company in a promotional giveaway by generating publicity for a new product of theirs? what ever happened to the creative defense?

If you look at intent that way, why wouldn't my advice still be valid?

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

He's a prosecutor up against "no crime without intent". If the meaning of "IS" can be challenged, he can attempt to narrow the definition of intent as well. Poor guy comes here for a break from work and sees his basic toolkit challenged just as often as real life. I'm sure it's great at getting defendants to pee thier pants and plea, but the real world is substantially more complex and trying to account for every human's behavior is just a ridiculous task that no one but the law would claim to be able to do.

 

[seniorjudge]

He's a prosecutor up against "no crime without intent". If the meaning of "IS" can be challenged, he can attempt to narrow the definition of intent as well. Poor guy comes here for a break from work and sees his basic toolkit challenged just as often as real life. I'm sure it's great at getting defendants to pee thier pants and plea, but the real world is substantially more complex and trying to account for every human's behavior is just a ridiculous task that no one but the law would claim to be able to do.

What does all that mean?

 

[Zigner]

Quincy, phlawed & fakeworest -

Please note the added information that the gum pack actually said sobriety test gum.
Makes his story just a bit less believable...

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

What does all that mean?

Just that the flow of conversation here is a natural example of the human condition. The prosecution has it's terms and what they need them to mean to make the job manageable, and the defendants likewise express what it means to them, in their defense. This is why the jury is so important to the process. Definitions evolve out of necessity as much as anything else, the consitution just hands criminals way too many rights and presumptions to let it stand from a prosecutorial perspective.

I don't doubt that you guys have seen it all and had your BS detectors sharpened considerably, but the system has to be just a little naive and innocent to work properly. Be as a sheep among wolves, or some such advice.

 

[seniorjudge]

Just that the flow of conversation here is a natural example of the human condition. The prosecution has it's terms and what they need them to mean to make the job manageable, and the defendants likewise express what it means to them, in their defense. This is why the jury is so important to the process. Definitions evolve out of necessity as much as anything else, the consitution just hands criminals way too many rights and presumptions to let it stand from a prosecutorial perspective.

I don't doubt that you guys have seen it all and had your BS detectors sharpened considerably, but the system has to be just a little naive and innocent to work properly. Be as a sheep among wolves, or some such advice.

Your clarification has left me confused.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

Quincy, phlawed & fakeworest -

Please note the added information that the gum pack actually said sobriety test gum.
Makes his story just a bit less believable...

You are definitely right, it's most likely he knew... but only most likely. I would have to hear the exact wording of the jury instructions. Really I would hope that all of that would be used to its best advantage before reaching us, the public. Once he's there having endured all that, with the presumption of innocence, and his testimony that it wasn't intended, it's still 2 out of 3 in his favor unless you can really show him a liar on the stand or some other way.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

Your clarification has left me confused.

Ok, second time: shame on me. I'm chuckling along with you.