Can a Shoplifter Claim that a Store Made it Too Easy to Steal as a Defense

My question involves criminal law for the state of: VA

As for sidewalk sale, since retailer uses public space to display the items and blurred the boundary of retail and public space, should the retailer share some responsibility for thief/damages? What if retailer is actually an extortionist who often plays a role of the victim as benevolent force in law jurisdiction, aims at obtaining compensation?

what are you talking about?


are you suggesting that if a merchant displays merchandise on the sidewalk they somehow should share culpability if somebody should steal from them? If so, not hardly.

theft is not predicated on the merchandise being on private or public property. Theft is real simple; taking property that does not belong to you, no matter where it is when you take it.

as to the extortionist question; I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

By moving the retail space from private property to public property, the retailer is de facto lower the barrier of thefting in exchange for more exposure to potential customers. Shouldn't the retailer be blamed for making theft too easy to implement?

Regarding the extortionist question, I meant the act of deliberately place some porcelain products toward the middle of the passage way and thus when customers pass they may break them easily. The sellers will then claim for compensation.

Quote:

---

bohomos;900643]By moving the retail space from private property to public property, the retailer is de facto lower the barrier of thefting in exchange for more exposure to potential customers. Shouldn't the retailer be blamed for making theft too easy to implement?

---

do you write comedy for a living? That is about the funniest thing i have read in quite awhile. I don't care if I set my wallet in the middle of the street, if a person takes it with the intent of depriving me of it, they have stolen my wallet and it is not attributable to me. I did not make them steal it.

Quote:

---

Regarding the extortionist question, I meant the act of deliberately place some porcelain products toward the middle of the passage way and thus when customers pass they may break them easily. The sellers will then claim for compensation.

---

and a person who is not negligent should have no issues here. If one has trouble walking, I would suggest they stay away from breakable items.

and the merchant would not be due a profit but compensation for their losses. Not a very smart attempt at extortion. Usually extortionists are in the business to make money, not break even.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

do you write comedy for a living? That is about the funniest thing i have read in quite awhile. I don't care if I set my wallet in the middle of the street, if a person takes it with the intent of depriving me of it, they have stolen my wallet and it is not attributable to me. I did not make them steal it.

---

Would you agree entrapment should be encouraged and expand to all criminal activities like thefts, not just dealing with drugs or child pornography?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and a person who is not negligent should have no issues here. If one has trouble walking, I would suggest they stay away from breakable items.

and the merchant would not be due a profit but compensation for their losses. Not a very smart attempt at extortion. Usually extortionists are in the business to make money, not break even.

---

Displaying breakable items on public property and expecting people to take extra cautions walking on the street, is the law too favorable to merchants?

btw, extortionists does make money. The compensation for their losses equal to number on the price tag, which certainly includes a gross margin and not break even.

Quote:

---

bohomos;900652]Would you agree entrapment should be encouraged and expand to all criminal activities like thefts, not just dealing with drugs or child pornography?

---

I did not describe entrapment and what yuo described is not entrapment. In fact, entrapment applies to a police agency enticing a person to commit a crime with the intent of inducing them to actually commit the crime.

Quote:

---

Displaying breakable items on public property and expecting people to take extra cautions walking on the street, is the law too favorable to merchants?

---

the laws of negligence apply everywhere, all the time. If you are so clumsy you cannot avoid breakable objects, stay home.

Quote:

---

btw, extortionists does make money. The compensation for their losses equal to number on the price tag, which certainly includes a gross margin and not break even.

---

I know extortionists make money. That was my point. THe store is not committing extortion in your example.

and the cost of the merchandise is greater than the invoice price so paying the retail price is a simple way to add those costs into the damages. If you want, you could probably put on a successful argument that you deserve a discount since their actual damages are not actually (usually but realize some merchandise, especially sale merchandise, is sold at a loss) equal to the marked retail price.

Quote:

---

Quoting bohomos

---

As for sidewalk sale, since retailer uses public space to display the items and blurred the boundary of retail and public space, should the retailer share some responsibility for thief/damages?

---

If you steal, you can be prosecuted, even if it seems like it's going to be easy.

Quote:

---

Quoting bohomos

---

What if retailer is actually an extortionist who often plays a role of the victim as benevolent force in law jurisdiction, aims at obtaining compensation?

---

And that, folks, is why you shouldn't post your brilliant insights online when you are stoned.

Quote:

---

Quoting bohomos

---

By moving the retail space from private property to public property, the retailer is de facto lower the barrier of thefting in exchange for more exposure to potential customers. Shouldn't the retailer be blamed for making theft too easy to implement?

---

No. Theft is never justified just because the item was easy to steal. Taking property that does not belong to you is wrong. Even little kids know that. And that principle is what the crime of theft is all about: taking stuff that doesn’t belong to you is wrong. It really shouldn’t fall on the store to have to take elaborate measures to deter theft in the first place. If everyone respected that basic principle that taking stuff that doesn't belong to you is wrong such steps wouldn’t be needed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

It really shouldn’t fall on the store to have to take elaborate measures to deter theft in the first place. If everyone respected that basic principle that taking stuff that doesn't belong to you is wrong such steps wouldn’t be needed.

---

Not to mention that we would all be paying significantly lower prices in those stores. Retail security is a multi-billion dollar industry. Those multi-billions are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices (as well as the aggravation and environmental impact of those blasted theft resistant packages!).

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188520

I thought this thread was a result of my example! Sorry about this Esteemed Colleagues, I had no idea OP would run with my example like this. :rolleyes:

As the comedian Ron white says: you can't fix stupid.



I have also realized you often cannot determine it from a first post of somebody asking a question.



And where the heck is the like button. Mr k's response deserves an infinate "like".

And to assume that YBIYBI is actually a law invites more laughter.....

Quote:

---

Quoting HRinDEVON

---

And to assume that YBIYBI is actually a law invites more laughter.....

---

it's good to know YBIYBI is not really a law. That's all I wanted to ask. Thanks!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I did not describe entrapment and what yuo described is not entrapment. In fact, entrapment applies to a police agency enticing a person to commit a crime with the intent of inducing them to actually commit the crime.

---

Well, can non-law enforcement agencies do entrapment activities? Like knowingly purchase large amount of fake/expired product and sue the merchant for huge compensation, or a bored lawyer intentionally leave a wallet under camera trying to sue whoever pick it up without turning it in?



and btw, who edited my subject??

Actually, entrapment doesn't even apply to non-law enforcement. You cannot legally or factually be "entrapped" by a lawyer, department store, private person, et al