I am viewing it a little differently. Yes, he removed it from a security post but he specifically stated that he put it in his cart. Therefore, he did not conceal it. People constantly put things in their cart and then take them back out again if they decide against the item. Now, of course I am taking him at his word.
Here's the problem: Absent a compelling reason for removing the spider wrap AND prying it off the locking peg hook (thus defeating TWO security measures) that is BELIEVABLE, it looks like intent to commit theft. He didn't just place an item in his cart them put it back. And I'd bet that the video shows him displaying all sorts of behavior associated with theft as well (looking around nervously, walking away from the area whenever others come around, etc.).
I once pried an EAS sensor off a belt because it was preventing me from trying the belt on; but then I went up and purchased the belt immediately. In that case, anyone could see a possible reason for removing the tag in that I obviously wanted to try the belt on. In this case, he'd better have some similar rationale that would be obvious to a judge or jury.
Concealment is one possible item of evidence that can support a prosecution for theft, but it is not a required element of theft -- if you grab a hand truck and try to walk out of a store with a stack of microwave ovens, in plain sight of everyone, then change your mind, that's theft even without the slightest hint of concealment.
His "word" is that he removed the item from the security mechanism by which it was attached to the display, rather than seeking help from store staff, then "got paranoid" and "ditched" the item -- that is, he has told us that he was stealing the item then got cold feet.Quoting llworking
There's no "probably" about it. He admitted in his own words that he was trying to steal.
Secondly, if you read his original post, not only did he rip the item off a locking peg hook, he ALSO removed the spider wrap sensor. He defeated two security devices. I'm very sure this would rise to the level of a conviction.
Even if I never concealed the merchandise, tampered or damaged the packaging in the removal of the spyder wrap? The item was never opened. What could be the charge? Because I didn't steal anything, if you "think" about taking a piss outside in public, unzip your zipper and then decide not too, they cant charge you with indecent exposure.. So how can I be charged for stealing when I didn't steal, open, conceal any merchandise in a store. No matter what my initial intent it, this is not a debate on morality, I just need to know how they can charge me.
- - - Updated - - -
And I didn't rip it off a locking peg, the spyder wrap was the only thing holding it onto the peg, I slid a corner of the spyder wrap off and the hard drive, fell right out.
OP also commited a crime under MPC section 750.360a.
MCL 750.360a.
If he's charged with third-degree retail fraud, he would be better served by dealing with that charge rather than arguing that he shouldn't be convicted of retail fraud because he committed a more serious offense. Also, even if he were charged with first- or second-degree retail fraud, it looks like it's a context in which the additional charge could be added -- not an "either/or".
For the statute you found, the video footage would be compelling; the question would be whether they could prove intent to steal. I suspect that it would be difficult for a jury to come to any other conclusion under the circumstances, but I'll leave some room for doubt having not seen the video.