Talk:Theft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

we need a helpful discussion of theft; legal and psychological aspects for instance

- And the article, and especially the links, needs to be cleaned up.

I didnt see theft by finding on here (Uk)190.212.76.49 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Theft Photo

Is that bike theft photo really necessary? It is kinda funny, but doesn't fit well the more serious and legal aspects of the whole article. It gives the article a rather silly look. I'm sure we can find a more interesting photo. I'm removing it for now. What do you guys think about it?InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a substantial number of the pictures included in Wiki are redundant or inappropriate but they add to the look and feel of the project. Theft of biccycles is actually a specific offence under s12 Theft Act 1968 so it is not completely wrong. David91 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually find those set of pictures humorous. Unless if it is the purpose of the pics, I think we should replace the image. Akira Tomosuke 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Petty vs. grand theft

The article should at least provide a summery of the differences petty vs. grand theft as is done in U.S. law. --Cab88 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $400 (it can be money, labor or property),[2] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[3] Both are felonies, but grand theft is punishable by a year in jail or prison,[4] while petty theft is punishable by a fine or six months in jail.[5]"

The definition of Felony is any crime which is punishable by a year and a day in jail or more. That is what makes grand theft punishable - it's actually a year and a day - and what makes petty theft not a felony, because it's only 6 months. I don't want to change this outright though...

Much of the US law section should be fixed. First, I'm pretty sure that the assertion that most states still go with larceny is incorrect. At the very least the citation is poor, it cites to the applicable NY statutes, not something that speaks to the law among the states generally. Also, my check on the cited California statutes in Findlaw turn up a number of problems. First, the code doesn't make reference to misdemeanor or felony, it just lists the penalties for grand theft and petty theft- sections 489 and 490 respectively- with other sections modifying depending on circumstances. Second, section 489 lists imprisonment for 16 months, 2 years or 3 years for theft of a firearm and says not more than one year in jail for all other cases (and I have to figure there's another section, because there is very likely a fine that can be imposed as well.

I think a better tactic than just picking NY and California versions, as much as they may be looked to by other states at times, would be to look for articles that discuss the consensus among those states that adopt some version of the model penal code for theft, those states that still use some form of common law larceny, and those notably do not go either way. It should start with an outline of model penal code sections then go to actual application. I myself, however, am not up for that. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Blank space

Can anything be done about the huge blank space at the beginning of this article?

• Fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent. The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, embezzlement, and false pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft. JFLKJAWELJOIAW; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.237.2 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Still unclear

If someone comes from some remote areas of the Amazon and has abousutely no idea what money is and how it works, they take something from the store without paying because he/she does not know they have to pay. Does that count as theft?

Presumably, such a person would not be dishonest and so would not be guilty of theft. But to travel from the Amazon would have required money and some familiarity with the concept of purchasing necessities on the way like food and drinks, so such a defence is unlikely to be credible. David91 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If the person has different idea of "personal possession" and believe that he can take it because it's there, it can be argued that he is not committing a theft. This probably won't be accepted anyway in many courts, but some cultures have a very low and different threshold of personal possession. For example in a certain culture, if you invite someone to your property, the invited person may do whatever he wants to do. Let's say that you have a very expensive wine stored in your refrigerator. A person from that culture will drink it without asking because that's the their definition of "hospitality". This is true even if you told him to not to drink it because on inviting, the "possession" is now actually handed over, so when he decides to drink, he has no moral conflict in ignoring your request. Following this logic, another person from same culture may appropriate anything he can get hand on and take it back home, of course without asking. This is usually a theft, but he does not feel he is stealing, because he considers this as a kind of "gift". If you prevent this person from taking anything, he will actually be angry from being "mistreated". You probably won't believe this, but this culture actually exist. --Revth 05:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wrongful taking"

Shouldn't the intro to this article say something like "unlawful taking" or something else less biased? An encyclopedia should never label anything as "wrong", should it?

The definition is that the taking is wrongful. The definition of wrongful is left open -- if you can show that the taking is not wrongful, it does not fit that definition. For example, murder is wrongful homicide. Homicide in self-defense, execution and homicide in military situations are not generally considered wrongful, and are thus not generally considered murder. To call any of these people murderers would be a claim that the act committed, was, on top of being homicide, wrongful. If no case of these sorts of actions was wrongful, then "murder" and "theft" would be words that did not apply to anything. There is no bias in using the word "wrongful" in a definition, only potential ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHakimi (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Right.

I'm a bit late, but I don't how much as there are no signatures. Hopefully someone else can fix this as I don't feel quite ready to track down the sources and fix this accordingly.

If I understand the question and answer above, the presumption is that "wrongful" is a moral judgment and should not be used in this article on a legal topic. The problem is that this further presumes that law is not defined by morality and does not even make use of morality for definitions. I'm not even going to try and list numerous examples, historical and contemporary about why this is wrong...err, incorrect...generally. I will however, give this link to an ALI pdf dealing with conversion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion and sorry, I don't know how to do links yet). Link is http://books.google.com/books?id=AAI9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA672&lpg=PA672&dq=%22wrongful+taking%22&source=web&ots=jExbbYRBoS&sig=m-RowVLvAEz5ov6_7wA5bTmpx3E&hl=en

As you can see, the law itself, and those who discuss it, refer to wrongful takings. Editing that out entirely is non-encyclopedic. No, I don't know if that phrase is used solely historically (in which case it's still pertinent, especially for Common Law jurisdictions) or how much contemporary use it enjoys. This should be checked, but the reference to wrongful taking should likely be included someplace. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "wrongful" can mean "amounting to a civil wrong". That may be what is being suggested.James500 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Section about misuse of the term?

IP freaks keep calling copyright infringement/filesharing/cracking "theft", although these don't involve taking something away from somebody else ("permanently deprive the other of it"). There should be a section that addresses this misunderstanding.--84.188.156.54 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clause to the definition at the beginning of the article that precisely quotes Merriam Webster -- as this was the source for the definition in the first place, I hope there won't be too many complaints. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this usage goes back a long way. E.g., on a record from 1960 on the Lobachevsky track, Tom Lehrer says something like "... and I thought it would be interesting to steal [I mean] adapt this idea...". A google search on "steal idea" reveals thousands of hits, with many hits outside the IP proponent's camp. So perhaps there should be a paragraph about the common usage of stealing as in "steal an idea", though this usage does not meet the criteria of removing any property, as ideas cannot be removed from their owner. I presume the "steal of idea" usage is where the IP proponents derives their usage of stealing music etc, so that usage could be listed here, if desired.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esben (talk • contribs)

There's several mentions of the use/misuse of the term "theft" or "stealing" as pertaining to copyright infringment/bootlegging/piracy elsewhere on WP already. The opening paragraphs of copyright infringement mentions it, and has links to other articles such as Dowling v. United States, a 1985 court case which found that copyright infringement could not be equated to theft. Of course, this is a relatively old case that doesn't reflect changing attitudes, what with the advent of the internet, MP3, peer-to-peer file sharing and so on. I'm no expert on legal matters, nor have I kept a close watch on how more recent copyright infringement cases have turned out, but I do think that a section about the common use of the word(s) outside of their legal definition would be a worthwhile addition to this article. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty bad argument, too. By pirating Photoshop instead of buying it, you are depriving the company of money they would otherwise have earned. You gain from another person's loss, it is clearly theft. cacophony ◄► 14:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You gain from another person's not gaining. They lose nothing -- all you've done is make a copy. They could make any number of copies and give any number away for free. The resource is completely non-scarce. They charge because they can. Using the software without paying is considered "Copyright infringement," but is in no way theft.Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you set up a shop next to another shop and sell similar goods for a cheaper price, you are also depriving the company of money they would otherwise have earned, and gaining from another person's loss. That doesn't mean you are guilty of theft though. (I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with copyright infringement; just pointing out that your argument is flawed.) I shouldn't really be debating this here anyway, though. Talk pages are supposed to be for discussion directly related to the improvement of the relevant article. Jibjibjib 08:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any flaw in the Photoshop argument. Adobe Systems (creator of Photoshop) owns the rights to its products and services, which includes the right to distribute (or not to distribute) the product in exchange for goods, services, or any other thing, that they set as the price. If everyone can take the product freely without paying, Adobe Systems would be hard pressed to make a profit on their investment or even recoup their investment. Thus depriving them of something, that they own or are entitled to.

As far as the cheaper price shop next to the expensive shop goes, the "deprivation" there isn't a theft, nor is it an valid response here. Simply put, the expensive shop typically does not 'own' a potential marketplace. It's apples and oranges.

True: but copyright is not a form of property: it's a state-granted monopoly over copying rights. I don't really see how breaching someone's monopoly on copying could be compared to depriving them of property: although it's certainly illegal in many circumstances and jurisdictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lierodeath (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking and/or using something that isn't yours without permission is theft. We all learned this in Kindergarten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.250.206 (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily; for example, dishonest borrowing of a motor vehicle is a specific offence under the UK Theft Act 1968 because there is no "intent to permanently deprive". A Taking and a Using, but not a theft. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you gotta love the tendency to lawyer about what is and isn't theft, as if the opinions of people on teh interweb had any influence at all on reality! Rodhullandemu has the most valid point here, because he has a clear and inarguable source - and sources beat all. If people can provide a reliable, third-party, authoritative source that adds something constructive to the article, then it can be added. If people want to make a point about how, despite law X, Y isn't theft because of Z, well, that's why they invented blogs. Here at Wikipedia, we have to deal with real life. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Merriam Webster is a good enough source for me: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What about talking about taxation as theft. I can't believe that the only thing that's even mentioned is tax EVASION. What about mentioning the fact that many believe that taxation is, in itself, theft? It's the forcible taking of another's property without their consent, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarlifter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added the article Taxation as theft to the see also section. James500 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Felony?

In the "Theft in the U.S." Section, it says that both petty and grand theft are classified as felonies, yet it says the punishment for petty theft is only six months in jail. Isn't the defintion of a felony a crime that lands it perpetrator in jail for a year or more? Pogo 17:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on sources

It says, "repeat offenders who continue to steal may become subject to life imprisonment in certain states", but the first cited example (Rummel v. Estelle) is unclear on whether the sentenced party would actually be in jail for his life, or for 12 years. In addition, the second example (Lockyer v. Andrade) was contested and found to be grossly disproportionate in comparison to an earlier case.
Are there any other examples that are more clear on this? I'm in favor of changing the statement to be more specific on what happened to the defendants in those cases, but I'm not sure what exactly went on. It's clear that they were convicted for crimes they committed. I know that much. It's the exact reality of the sentence that seems ambiguous. Kennard2 07:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest first finding a statute that permits life imprisonment and look the statute up in an annotated report of that jurisdiction's laws- be they statute, code, or whatnot. Since the statement is in the present tense, you only need to find a current law, not have to go drudging through historical versions. The annotated copy should include all relevant cases and also be listed by categorized case notes, with table of contents for the same. Typical categories include "Constitutionality". Then just skim the paragraph descriptions in pertinent case notes until see something about court can give life sentence or court improperly gave life sentence and then look up the actual cases. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger with "Larceny"

I can only speak for British jurisdictions. Until the Theft Act 1968, theft was everywhere covered by the Larceny Act 1916 - since the Republic of Ireland was then part of the UK, it applied there. After independence in 1926 (?), the Republic was able to pass its own laws, but retained the Larceny Act. Hence, when I practised law in the 1970s, I dealt with an extradition warrant to RoI under the 1916 Act (for a seagoing vessel valued in the millions) - hence the term certainly persists in some jurisdictions. AFAIR there is little practical difference between the two terms - the Theft Act 1968 was specifically stated, IIRC, to be a codifying (but modernising) statute. So I'd support a merger as long as historical & territorial distinctions were made clear. It's much the same as arguing a distinction between "fraudulent conversion" and "obtaining property by deception". --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Larceny is not exactly the same as theft, either in NY law or the common impression. Keep them separate. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems nobody else is that interested, so I'll remove the merger tag. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Larceny

This is not a request to merge with Larceny, but we may want to at least determine what distinguishes them. The section above mentioned England, but the U.S.A., section 4 of Am.Jur.2d (American Jurisprudence) indicates that the two can be interchangeable.

If you read the larceny article carefully, you will see that the definition at common law was the unlawful taking of tangible personal property. In this modern age, there is no distinction under theft statutes. It is possible to steal services. This would have been handled under the laws of contracts at common law. Modern jurisdictions have saw fit to prosecute these offenses criminally. Stealing HBO by using a cable converter would not be larceny, but it would be theft. Legis Nuntius (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot "steal" HBO -- you wouldn't be depriving anybody of any property. It's against your cable contract, though... Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I reviewed the NY Penal Code, and skimmed Virginia's as best I could via Findlaw, and both of those appear to have larceny for goods and theft for services. I also understand that larceny originally only applied to goods. But the thing about common law crimes, and of course statutory crimes, is they can change. Larceny used to require a "carrying away" in addition to a taking, but that was dropped in most to all jurisdictions that still use it. The Common Law used to only recognize burglary committed at night (I think, or day. Pretty sure night). So I'm wondering if there are jurisdictions that have larceny offenses that cover the same acts as theft offenses in other jurisdictions. IMHO (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian law

The section on Australian law is confused, at best. I'm not sure what "Victoria - Australia North and south" means, exactly. If it means Victoria, as well as the Northern Territory, and South Australia, then it's wrong as the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) only refers to Victorian law. Further, the section on Victorian law could be improved by stating what the basic offence is, rather than just referring to the Act. Ie, something like:

S 72(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) states that "A person who steals is guilty of theft..." For the purposes of the Act, "[a] person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 72(1))

The rest of the section on Victorian law is also vague, and probably in need of cleaning up.

Australian Law - Victoria

The example given for information not being considered property in Victoria, while it links to an Australian university website, is actually an English court case, and references English Acts of law.

P.S I put a second header in because I didn't write the unsigned comment above and didn't know what to do with it. fwaggle (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Second sentence

Can somebody please fix the second sentence? I would do it myself, but the page is protected.

"As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property" It obviously is wrong. For example; arson is a major crime against property, but surely theft does not refer to arson.

 Done and tidied generally. Rodhullandemu 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Theft is hurto in Spanish

Please fix the interwiki. 201.243.134.90 (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done--ArwinJ (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural development of theft

Theft is a long established tradition and many thieves perceive it as a natural right. Does cultural history belong to this page or elsewhere? I'm thinking pirates, Olympian Hermes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.47.167 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Articlefixer, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove copyright infringement and piracy from the list of related offenses. Copying is not theft. It is only considered so by some due to propaganda. However, no law in the world recognizes copyright infringement as a form of thievery because copying doesn't deprive anyone of property.

Articlefixer (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright infringement is theft of intellectual property. Copyright infringement also goes by the name "copyright theft". --Stickee (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Partly done - I have removed copyright infringement for the reasons given below, but not piracy as the latter refers to the offence that consists of robbery on the high seas. James500 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

--- I second the request to remove copyright infringement from the list of related offenses. Piracy can stay, because it refers to actual piracy (like the kind done by people with hooks for hands and have pet parrots). As for copyright infringement, in the actual laws, it is referred to as "copyright infringement", not "copyright theft", and there is no theft going on in a legal sense (deprivation of property the owner has); there is instead going on exactly what "copyright infringement" means - an infringement on the exclusive rights of the rights-holder. --- (see also the section "Criticism of the term itself" in the article on intellectual property, and "theft" in the article on copyright infringement.) --- However, whether or not copyright infringement is theft in a moral or financial sense (the hotly debated issue of lost sales) is a whole other matter of debate, and if the term is in that section because some people perceive it to be theft (regardless of what the laws say), then I withdraw my request. --- Now as for plagiarism, it could be regarded as "stealing" of credit, in addition to the act itself is an act of fraud, so if it's left on the list, that's fine with me for now, although plagiarism isn't nessecarily illegal (for example, as is the case with public domain works - see "Legal aspects" of the plagiarism article for plagiarism per se) --- Finally, please move this paragraph if it is in the wrong place. --- Shrewmania (07/13/2011) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

As far as I can see, in England and Wales, copyright infringement is not theft. The offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 requires an intention to permanently deprive the person to whom the property belongs of that property. A copyright is intangible property. But simply selling pirated copies of the copyrighted work is not theft because it does not deprive the owner of the right itself, i.e. the owner does not thereby cease to have the right that he would otherwise have. In order to steal a copyright a person would have to do something like selling or assigning the actual right itself in breach of trust or to defeat a co-owner. See Professor Griews book.

I am not sure whether copyright infringement could be described as a "related offence", but that expression is both nebulous and arbitrary. In any event the list "specific forms of theft and other related offences" should at least be split in two to make it clear which is which.

I am going to reduce "copyright infringement" to "see also".James500 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Articlefixer, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

As well, data theft, computer crime, and plagiarism should be removed from the list. These are not related to theft at all.

Articlefixer (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done See above request. Same applies. --Stickee (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Partly done - I have moved plagiarism to "see also" for the same reasons as copyright infringement (see the request above).James500 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut

I have removed and replaced the following passage. It is not clear that there is any source other than the words of section 3. It seems to me that the passage asserts:

• That "appropriation" requires the commission of a civil wrong (I presume that is what is meant by "wrongfully")
• That using property in an unauthorised way is co-terminus with "dealing with it as an owner"
  

I think that both of these assertions require a source. James500 (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Section 3 defines "appropriation". This occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way.

Another cut

The introduction contained this definition of theft:

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

I think this is no good because:

• The word "taking" appears to refer to the taking and carrying away of larceny and may not be applicable to the theft of intangible property.
• In Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner it was declared that theft can be committed "even though the owner has ... consented to the property being taken away". And see R v Gomez. The absence of the owner's consent was also feature of larceny.
• This looks distinctly like a definition of larceny.

Accordingly I have deleted it. James500 (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Check revision history

On 25 January 2007, content was removed from this article here. The revision makes nonsense of the text and appears to be a failed attempt to revert vandalism by simply deleting the rude words inserted instead of undoing the edit altogether. I am going to restore the content that was removed. The history of this article may need to be checked for further damage. James500 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone object to mentioning the political slogan Property is theft! at some point on this page, and if so, why? I honestly cannot understand why this has been deleted as it appears notable and relevant. James500 (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that it is included in the "see also" of the article Property, and logically it should be included in both articles or neither. James500 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done James500 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mundraub?

In german law there is a special case of petty theft "Mundraub", which defines extremely low punishment in cases of theft for feeding yourself. I couldn't find anything like that in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.52.105 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion worked / didn't work??

The article history lists an 04:46, 29 July 2013 reversion ("Reverting possible vandalism by Adetka to version by Flyer22") by someone following the disgraceful 04:45 insertion of "The act is usually committed by Niggers so don't let in your house or near your belongings." Yet the offending sentence still shows onscreen in the article, although it DOESN'T SHOW on the Edit screen. I've done a "Control+Refresh" to make sure I'm not looking at a previous cache, so I can't figure it - did the other guy's reversion go okay, and if so, why does the sentence still show?? Pete Hobbs (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Theft vs Robbery

@108.168.56.28: let's discuss the differences here, shall we? Dschslava (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does a taking need to be illegal to be theft?

The concept that theft must be illegal to be theft implies that legalizing it will make it not theft. Imagine if we defined murder as merely being the illegal killing . All legal "murders" would no longer be murderHPearce (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal murder is not murder, just as legal theft is not theft. I do not consent to paying taxes, but the government forces me to, taking my money against my will. The only reason it's not theft is because it is legal. The same arguments could be made for the intentional killing of others, which is why the murder article specifically says that it must be an illegal killing twice in its first sentence.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course taking needs to be illegal/unlawful to be theft. For instance, if you go and take your sister's bicycle at her house after she approved you to do so when you asked if you could borrow it, that act of taking the bicycle is not theft. And there are many examples like these.Tvx1 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, theft in COMMON usage is different from theft in LEGAL usage. Legalised theft is still theft to the common person. Also, can the people that keep vandelising this page by insisting to put "legal" in there stop. it is not only wrong but offensive. Theft, even if government approved is still theft. Infiltratr (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations provided. I would provide more however I do not want to over cite. Infiltratr (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

With no objection, merger proceeded 2601:401:503:62B0:7997:4B99:3BDB:1D3F (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that Grand theft be merged into Theft. Petty theft already redirects to theft; the content of grand theft is a natural fit for this article, the grand theft article is in need of significant work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:503:62B0:F1EA:8EAF:E4FA:51C0 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628225209/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)