🚀 go-pugleaf

John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> >                          The weight of facts in favor of
>> > the store owning the item is far greater than the weight of the
>> > facts of the perpetrator owning the item. 
>> 
>>   Possession is 9/10 of the law.  It is undisputed that OP had
>> the item when he was on the returns line.
> 
> If that is your idea of law, then how would you propose to
> prosecute shoplifting?  If all I have to do is take an item
> and it becomes mine, then that gives a whole new meaning to
> shopping.  I never have to pay for anything again.
> 
>>   Under the old common law what they did was not theft, although in
>> some cases it might be barritry, or consignment, or unlawful disposal
>> of goods lawfully obtained, or illegal conversion, all of which have
>> been crimes for a long time.  I don't know the statutes in MN, but
>> most likely all forms of taking what isn't yours are larceny.
> 
> I don't think anyone disputes that.  The dispute is who owned
> the property--the store or the perpatrator.
> 
>> >                                           As a result, the store
>> > should keep their item unless the perpetrator can prove otherwise.
>> 
>>   "Should" is interesting.  Is that "should" as in "will maximize their
>> profits, because they'll piss off some customers, only some of whom
>> will make a stink, but they'll catch more would-be thieves this way"?
> 
> It is worth pissing off a few customers to pervent retail theft.
> Consider that if a typical customer buys a typical $1000 item,
> the store might earn $50 in profit.  Yes, margins are that thin
> on stuff like computers and TV's.  If a thief takes a typical
> $1000 item, the store is out $950 for the cost of the item.
> That makes the loss of one item cost the same as the profit from
> 19 customers.  You also need to factor in the heard-like mentality
> of the great masses--if you catch a few high profile shoplifters
> and make a bit of news, everyone hears about it, which tends to
> help keep the honest people honest.

Do not underestimate John Weeks ... There may be no latin terms in
his post, but there are roman numerals in his name. That's pretty
lawyerly right there. I think an even more important point is that
he talks about the hurd-mentality of the masses--sure sign of an
independent thinker.

How many thinkers do you encounter nowadays?

Show some appreciation people