Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
Well we had a TM get nailed for eating food without paying, and he never left the store with it. If the milk is being consumed intentionally in their prank, it's honestly the same thing in the end.
Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
Well we had a TM get nailed for eating food without paying, and he never left the store with it. If the milk is being consumed intentionally in their prank, it's honestly the same thing in the end.
<sigh> So, after the TM ate the food, did he die on the spot and get buried inside the store? He still left the store with it - it was just inside him.
If someone goes to electronics opens an SD card, shoves it in his a**, and leaves the store with it, guess what? It's still theft. Putting the thing you are stealing inside you and taking it away doesn't change the fact you took it and left with it.
Now, if he shoves it in his a**, then takes it out and puts it back and leaves it, then it is vandalism because he damaged it but did not take it. It is called a property offense - when you damage something, but don't take it.
Yes, if they are drinking this milk it would be theft.
Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
Well we had a TM get nailed for eating food without paying, and he never left the store with it. If the milk is being consumed intentionally in their prank, it's honestly the same thing in the end.
<sigh> So, after the TM ate the food, did he die on the spot and get buried inside the store? He still left the store with it - it was just inside him.
If someone goes to electronics opens an SD card, shoves it in his a**, and leaves the store with it, guess what? It's still theft. Putting the thing you are stealing inside you and taking it away doesn't change the fact you took it and left with it.
Now, if he shoves it in his a**, then takes it out and puts it back and leaves it, then it is vandalism because he damaged it but did not take it. It is called a property offense - when you damage something, but don't take it.
Yes, if they are drinking this milk it would be theft.
Well technically he'd eat it on break and theres a good chance he probably **** it out in the restroom before he left, so that may not always be the case!
Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
Well we had a TM get nailed for eating food without paying, and he never left the store with it. If the milk is being consumed intentionally in their prank, it's honestly the same thing in the end.
<sigh> So, after the TM ate the food, did he die on the spot and get buried inside the store? He still left the store with it - it was just inside him.
If someone goes to electronics opens an SD card, shoves it in his a**, and leaves the store with it, guess what? It's still theft. Putting the thing you are stealing inside you and taking it away doesn't change the fact you took it and left with it.
Now, if he shoves it in his a**, then takes it out and puts it back and leaves it, then it is vandalism because he damaged it but did not take it. It is called a property offense - when you damage something, but don't take it.
Yes, if they are drinking this milk it would be theft.
Well technically he'd eat it on break and theres a good chance he probably **** it out in the restroom before he left, so that may not always be the case!
Correct me if I am wrong science nerds but doesn't it take a piece of food a good oh, day or so before what you ate is actually shat out?
Actually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
Actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
If you're intentionally damaging or destroying merchandise... you're stealing it as far as I'm concerned. This stupid prank needs to go away, fast.
tmi tmi tmi tmi tmi tmiactually it could be argued as stealing since the milk is unpaid for and being used in vandalism to the store.
actually it could not be argued as stealing because stealing (called "theft" or "larceny" legally) is a term defined by the law. Theft is defined as carrying away anothers property with intent to permanently take it. Unless they scoop up the milk and leave the store with it then it is not theft.
The actual damage of the milk carton is the vandalism. Any collateral damage to the store would also be vandalism. This is under criminal law.
Under civil law target could sue for damages.
This is the extent of the legal repercussions of what they are doing.
well we had a tm get nailed for eating food without paying, and he never left the store with it. If the milk is being consumed intentionally in their prank, it's honestly the same thing in the end.
<sigh> so, after the tm ate the food, did he die on the spot and get buried inside the store? He still left the store with it - it was just inside him.
If someone goes to electronics opens an sd card, shoves it in his a**, and leaves the store with it, guess what? It's still theft. Putting the thing you are stealing inside you and taking it away doesn't change the fact you took it and left with it.
Now, if he shoves it in his a**, then takes it out and puts it back and leaves it, then it is vandalism because he damaged it but did not take it. It is called a property offense - when you damage something, but don't take it.
Yes, if they are drinking this milk it would be theft.
well technically he'd eat it on break and theres a good chance he probably **** it out in the restroom before he left, so that may not always be the case!
correct me if i am wrong science nerds but doesn't it take a piece of food a good oh, day or so before what you ate is actually shat out?
Can we milkboard 'em now?
We actually caught one of the kids at my store. He was stupid enough to stick around and try to do it again. A really intimidating backroom tm came out and told him to clean it up and the kid listened. It took him an hour and twenty minutes. The LOD said "I probably shouldn't allow this, but it feels so good to watch him clean it up." We all stood around and looked at him.
We actually caught one of the kids at my store. He was stupid enough to stick around and try to do it again. A really intimidating backroom tm came out and told him to clean it up and the kid listened. It took him an hour and twenty minutes. The LOD said "I probably shouldn't allow this, but it feels so good to watch him clean it up." We all stood around and looked at him.
How'd it take him an hour and twenty minutes? Please tell me you made him clean it up with wet napkins or something.
AP? Yes.
Cops? No.
Assuming he didn't cause someone to get hurt.