Why should the in-game conclusion be different from the theoretical result? Because the theft, of it exists, is more roguish and entertaining than anything else? I suppose I’m sympathetic to those facts, but they don’t matter as a formal matter.

I welcome your garbage stories.

Fair enough, it shouldn't be, but I think it is in practicality.

I'll approach it from another angle. I have no doubt he wouldn't be convicted in any actual court, so legally it should not be theft. The arguments are that he obtained value at someone else's expense without consent, but those things occur everyday that nobody even thinks of calling it as theft, but because there is a physical object moved around in this case, it is.

If someone makes a joke at someone's expense without their consent, didn't he technically steal some goodwill/respect/etc from that person ? That might not have been the best example but it's something along the lines of my thinking.

It might be something annoying and something you wouldn't like, but it hardly constitutes as theft.

Huh? You're comparing a situation where something tangible is taken with situations with where nothing tangible is taken. It's apples and oranges, despite the fact that in both situations someone's reputation may be negatively affected.

it comes down to whether or not the "stolen" tip replaces part of what the second person would have tipped since in that case the server is obviously receiving less money.

otherwise I think it is an apt comparison. nothing tangible is taken just moved around. the customers leave the same total amount and the server gains the same amount so the only change is intangible reputation.

But in your joke example the victim can fight back.

I think a better analogy regarding reputation would be slander.

Do people think if the waitress saw him take the money that she would consider it theft?

What about at Christmas if someone swaps cards on a present so they can represent they have given someone a more expensive present? The person technically gets the same present?

Same concept in my mind. The person who is now not leaving a tip or giving a lesser gift have their reputations harmed.

after some thought im going with theft for the tipping and gift situation. it doesn't matter what you do with the money/stuff after taking it, you still took it.

If the person who leaves the tip changes their mind on way out, and runs back and takes back a few bucks, are they stealing from the server? I'd say no and therefore it seems the money isnt the server's until theyve picked it up.

As a former server if witnessed a spouse do this i would think she was a pathetic person but wouldnt feel like I'd been stolen from. Obv a rando doing it would be different, though I'd feel like the random had stolen from me and not the customer which disagrees with my earlier thought. Possibly stealing from both the customer and the server?

Grunching: should be punished by beheading with an axe, with an attempt to save money by hiring the most out-of-shape executioner with the worst aim possible, and the axe is one of these for $1.99 so progress is slow, and many hours later the executioner keels over from exhaustion and crushes him to death.

Thank you for you perspective as a former server. I posted the "friend" scenario that I had witnessed, because I felt that they were equivalent. I didn't see how a spouse's actions could be considered differently. I still don't.

Would be interested. Especially if "offbeat" means it involves one of those silly laws like "in Kentucky, it's illegal to negotiate with a horse on Sundays".

because if it's a spouse then it's also her money

Not at my house it isn't. And it is terribly presumptuous of you to think that it is of any married couple.

so when you said you "still don't see how it's different" you were just feigning incredulity because there are some atypical situations? yawn

It varies by state, not so much by marriage (no matter the wishes of one or both parties if they're in a community-property state).

Atypical? Probably the 2nd most typical situation. Yawn indeed.

Yep. I assume most people (or at least posters here) are aware of whether they reside in a community-property state.

Here we go. This is reminiscent of law school:

Morris took two items from supermarket shelves and replaced the correct labels with ones showing lower prices. He took the items to the checkout, paid the lower price and was then arrested. Burnside took the label off a joint of meat and placed it on a more expensive joint. His act was discovered and he was arrested before he got to the checkout. Both defendants were convicted. Lord Roskill explained that the switching of price labels amounted to appropriation because it was an assumption by the defendant of the owner's right to determine what price the goods were to be sold at. If accompanied by mens rea it would be theft.

A student borrowed an advance copy of an examination paper, copied the questions and then returned the paper. The Divisional Court held that he was not guilty of theft on the basis that information could not be stolen. Clearly the paper on which the exam questions were typed was property belonging to Liverpool University, but there was no evidence that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the University of it.

The defendant removed his car from outside the garage at which it had been repaired, intending to avoid having to pay for the repair. The Court of Appeal held that the car could be regarded as 'property belonging to another' as against the owner, since it was in the possession and control of the repairer. (Note: were the same facts to present themselves today, a charge of making off without payment contrary to s3 TA 1978 would be more appropriate.)

The defendant was charged with theft of a car. He claimed that he thought that it had been abandoned by the owner because it had been left for over a week with the keys in it. The Court of Appeal ruled that he could not be guilty of theft if he had an honest belief to that effect, as if the car had been abandoned, the owner would not be 'deprived' of it.

And here are a couple for you, Rei:

'A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. For purposes of this subsection "mushroom" includes any fungus, and "plant" includes any shrub or tree.'

Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property, but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcass of any such creature unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in the course of reducing it into possession.

Do you think it's impossible to steal from a spouse?

What the hell does that have to do with stealing someone else's tip?

LOL

What are these examples from?

I don't really understand this last one - it says wild animals cannot be stolen?
So I can take any animal I want from the local zoo with no punishment?

umm.

What if the other guy bought a big salad to go?

He'd probably be a guy who wants credit for his tip.