"next generation" wrote in message
news:32478d41-6b27-45eb-b0eb-e574640585af@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
I agree. IMO I would say that:
If a scrote takes his Dad's car it's TWOC.
If said scrote takes neighbours car, it's theft.
I think it's mostly dependant upon whether the victim and the perpurtrator
know each other. In the OP post, it appears that they don't know each other,
and I feel it's theft.
|