Except in this case, he’s right. You stole the gas and therefore were a thief. It’s not really an opinion, it’s a fact under any definition of the term “thief.”
Exactly. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You may argue as to whether or not you felt the theft was ethically justified, but you cannot argue that a theft occured.
It CAN be argued.
Say someone uses something expecting to pay for it. When they go to pay, there is unreasonable demands placed on this payment. Either the payee makes it difficult/impossible whatever to pay. If the person then refuses to participate with these demands, has no way to return the item or service and leaves…I contend that it is NOT theft.
The case with the line jumpers…I agree. I did steal. I was irritated, had my reasons and left…and I believe it was theft.
However, walking in to that huge line where they were having issues and the store people where not seeming to try to make the process smoother but fuly expected people to wait a long time…leaving was NOT theft. I fully expected to pay when I filled the tank. I was not allowed to pay without a significant inconvenience (I needed to get to a meeting). They could have easily put up a sign saying they were having issues or have someone standing outside telling people this. They didn’t do this presumably because they didn’t want to turn away business. Particularly damning here is that the pumps had places to fill up and I heard store employees asking people to move their cars from the pump to side parking.
To say the second is theft is the same as the (absurd) scenario of going to pay for a item or service and the person refuses to take your payment but then calls you a thief when you walk away.
And you would be wrong. You are not reporting a situation in which it was made impossible to pay, you are simply reporting a situation in which you chose to not to pay because YOU didn’t feel like waiting. By your own admission, the only issue what your inconvenience. That doesn’t even rise to the level of being “difficult” to pay. Even if you had been placed in a truly difficult position, the law would require you take affirmative steps to avoid the conversion of the goods, such as leaving the money on the counter or leaving information as to where they can contact you for payment. Just walking out was never a legal option, not once you’d pumped the gas. And your comparison to having an offered payment refused is specious; you never offered to pay, you just left.
You converted the goods of a vendor to your own use with the intent to permanently deprive the vendor of them, and without either (a) payment or (b)authorization to convert without payment. That’s theft. Period.
Again, we disagree. You dismiss my example as ‘specious’ but it is not. Under your definition of theft I could make a thief out of you by refusing your payment. If that is allowed under your definition of thief then I challenge your definition as being in conflict with reality.
Again…you are not always right. I know…it is hard for you to accept but it is true.
I love this response. “The sky is green.” “No, it’s not; it’s blue.” “Well, we disagree.” It’s not a matter subject to disagreement. Theft has a specific definition and your conduct meets that definition.
Incorrect. If payment is offered and refused that you have authorization to convert without payment – because you offered to pay and were refused. But in your case you never offered to pay. You didn’t wait to pay; you didn’t leave money; you didn’t leave contact information where they could reach you for payment; you didn’t come back to pay later with a good explanation – wife in labor! – as to why you couldn’t wait. You just left. Committing a theft.
Hey, we can use whatever definition of theft you want. Pick one out – state legal, federal legal, dictionary, UK, Canadian, I don’t care. Just have a cite so we know it’s not just some self-serving definition you made up. You actions will be theft under any of them, and all of them.
I’m not even being particularly judgey about this. But to argue that your actions were not theft is like arguing an egg is not an egg. You are ignoring the reality of the definition – any definition – of the word “theft.”
I am not always right. I promise to try to choke that down. But I am right in this case, which should help.
Oh BlinkingDuck, you are making me laugh so hard, my dear little thief.
Hate to say it, BD, but what you did was pretty clearly theft, and I’m one of the ones who argues that digital piracy isn’t. About the best you could hope for would be to push it as justified theft (though I doubt you’d get a lot of support for that, either), but any definition of the word that wouldn’t include the actions you describe would render the concept pretty much meaningless.
Yep. Thief.
Definitely theft. Rationalize it however you want if it makes you sleep better at night, but it’s unambiguously theft.
Hmm, a debate with a statistician vs. a lawyer about a matter of law. On whom should I bet?
BlinkingDuck, could you give me some odds?
The problem with this argument is that it puts 100% of the responsibility on the customer, the store has a responsibility too. This argument allows the store to conduct their business in a completely unprofessional way, and bear no responsibility for the failure of the transaction.
Part of the store/customer relationship is the service the store provides, in processing the transaction. I go to a gas station, I expect that the pump will accurately measure out the gasoline, apply the advertised price per gallon, total up the bill, and that I will be allowed to pay without an unreasonable delay. That is the business of running a gas station.
If they are unprepared to do business, shut the fucking door and turn off the pumps until you are. Legally, walking away may be considered theft, but personally, I consider it a business loss based on an inability to run your business.
You want to know what’s weird?
I have argued that digital piracy IS theft. 
On law…go with the lawyer 
However, just because something is law, doesn’t mean it is right or correct…unless you define it with circular reasoning as it is the law.
Exactly.
Aren’t you the cutest little sweetie pie!
I admit I cut the line in this thread (waited through the first three pages, then skipped right to the end), but because I have to go get ready for my stint as a multitasking cashier soon; I just have to say that I think both Jodi and alphaboi are right about the OP-described asshole’s behavior, a little.
The key phrase is this one:
SO! He’s definitely an asshole for the crime of trying to cut a line of people in order to get a service, but he’s also been trained (by some of the OP’s coworkers) that this behavior gets him what he wants, at least sometimes. The problem lies in the double-standard: some of the attendees at this particular location can be bullied into making the next person in line wait the few seconds to ring up the line-cutter’s gas, but the OP cannot be so bullied.
(And make no mistake - plopping down a $20 for a cashier and walking away is trying to bully them, unless you’re the customer being attended. A cashier’s very livelihood depends on correct handling of money, and leaving money out in the open, even though it’s not part of any declared transaction and is legally not your responsibility, is still pretty offensive to their sense of their own occupation; most cashiers, I imagine would be willing to give in and just take responsibility for the $20 and perform the service, even if it inconveniences the next person who actually had the decorum to wait, because they’d rather risk the ire of someone with decorum than someone who obviously has very little. Most cashiers would cave, which is why I applaud the OP for sticking to his morals and respecting the customers who deserve respect.)
All that said, it probably would’ve helped to have a more thorough chat with the old guy - obviously, as Jodi mentioned, he’s under the impression that he can throw money at people to pay first and come in for change later, if necessary, but that’s because some of the workers at this station allow it. Being firm with somebody for the sake of decorum also carries the slight responsibility of explaining to them why they’re now a victim of a double-standard. Maybe he’s crotchety enough that he doesn’t care or notice the less-ballsy attendees’ ire as they glare at him while making the next person who actually waited in line wait even longer.
The lesson in this OP is much less ‘dang those old folk sure are assholes with their old ways’ than it is ‘telling a customer they are subject to a certain policy will only sink in if that policy is adhered to by everyone in the store.’
No, it’s theft. If something about your local stop’n’shop annoys you, then give your money to a different business.
Heh. Takes all kinds, eh?
Mind offering up an approximation of your definition of “theft”? I’m not going hold you to every syllable (or use it as the springboard for some counterproductive “HYPOCRITE!!!” argument); I just want to get some idea of the general criteria that are consistent with your take on various situations.
So if you’re in line at a store and they have to change the receipt tape, you just walk out? What, exactly, is your recommended minimum wait time before the theft is OK rule kicks in?