On 25 Mar, 19:59, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
> "next generation" wrote in message
>
> news:24b8e35f-d5a2-4858-beaf-127f385f5d46@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > for theft in law the police have to prove that you:
> > -dishonestly
> > -appropriate
> > -property
> > -belonging to another
> > -intenting to deprive the other
>
> > borrowing amounts to taking for his/her own use and is the same as
> > outright taking, regardless of whether you planned to return it.
>
> It only amounts to an outright taking if, when returned, the bicycle has
> lost what is called "its virtue"- e.g. taking a season ticket, using it up,
> and returning the actual piece of card itself still amounts to theft of the
> season ticket, because when returned it is useless. The same cannot be said
> of a bicycle, if it's still a bicycle when it is returned.
I'm sure I've already replied to this, but it hasn't appeared. Your
wrong on both counts. The intention to deprive happens because the
victim does not know who took the bike and for what purpose and has
not given consent for it to happen. Consent is the main issue. Unless
you knew the person and could argue implied consent, it's theft. |