Did this woman steal the garlic tablets?

[otjm]

This is not one of the clearer threads I have read.

There are several issues at play. Some of them are legal issues, some of them are moral issues.

Legally she did not steal. She did not convert it to her own use. She may or may not have been legally reponsible for minor vandalism.

Morally, it is extremely unlikely she committed any sin. Stupidity is not a moral issue.

It would appear that she was more unthinking than anything. It is entirely possible that she looked into the bottle for some reason; what it was we do not know. According to the poster, she did not remove any of the pills, so it is not an issue of stealing one of them. People do things all the time without thinking about what the consequences are of their actions; it is entirely possible that it simply did not occur to her that the seal was broken and that because of that she had somehow damaged the store (loss of use, loss of value). Just because you may be smart and understand the consequences of your actions does not mean or imply that any other given individual has the cognitive and reasoning power that you do.

Assuming for the moment that she had some cognizance of the fact that opening the seal would cause the bottle to be valueless, it would be at most a venial sin; the issue of proportinality of value comes in. The store undoubtedly does hundreds of thousands of dollars of business, and the cost of the loss of that bottle is minimal proportionlly.

Some of us were actually born at a time where bottles did not have seals. The older a person is, the more likely that the seal is not seen as a protection, damage of which renders the contents valueless, but rather seen as a silly inconvenience.

 

[atassina]

otjm and others: how many of you would purchase a package with a broken seal? How many of you would purchase honey from a large barrel if you knew that somebody else used their hand to scoop out the honey? Would you purchase a package of lunch meat that somebody else had left on the toy shelf?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Not if I was to buy it fresh! I work in a food pantry and we get those things sent to us for donations and no one will take an open container(out dated) but not opened. I went to the health food store the other day and asked the girl there If someone opened one of your containers what would you say? She said" well they would have to pay for it or we would take a loss" And i raised the question but you must make enough money to not have to worry about 1 bottle of pills, then she said" If everyone came in here and just opened stuff up, we’d eventualy be out of business, or they’ed be alot of people in small claims court. See the store employee didn’t go for it either, for she knows she would be out of a job to.
Nancy PS and it’s a sin to steal!

 

[atassina]

I agree

 

[otjm]

otjm and others: how many of you would purchase a package with a broken seal? How many of you would purchase honey from a large barrel if you knew that somebody else used their hand to scoop out the honey? Would you purchase a package of lunch meat that somebody else had left on the toy shelf?

I have purchased items that are no longer sealed; and I also purchased items before sealing was the vogue.

As to the lunch meat - if it was still cold, yes, I would.

Stealing has a specific definition. The public often is not aware of the technical definition (as well as others); that does not automatically convert an issue of damage to one of theft.

Try reading my post again; I really did try to be clear.

 

[otjm]

I work in a food pantry and we get those things sent to us for donations and no one will take an open container(out dated) but not opened.

You may have written this a bit quickly - are you talking about opened containers, not opened containers that are out of date, or opened containers that are out of date (as opposed to opened containers that are not out of date?).

I went to the health food store the other day and asked the girl there If someone opened one of your containers what would you say? She said" well they would have to pay for it or we would take a loss" And i raised the question but you must make enough money to not have to worry about 1 bottle of pills, then she said" If everyone came in here and just opened stuff up, we’d eventualy be out of business, or they’ed be alot of people in small claims court. See the store employee didn’t go for it either, for she knows she would be out of a job to.
Nancy PS and it’s a sin to steal!

However, the store emplyoee’s second comment was not responsive to the question. You asked if they made enough to not bother about one bottle of pills; her answer did not respond to that but talked about “everyone”.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that it is a sin to steal - which means something other than what the woman in the OP did, as she did not take the pills. She damaged the property; but damaging property and stealing property are two entirely different things. Both may be a sin. Or may not, depending on the issues that make something sinful objectively and subjectively.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

OTJM, you mentioned what if she had no intention to steal the product, but what if she did and then chickened out? Now the intentions could have been there,when she opened the bottle so at that point she did steal because she broke the seal, then she might have decided 'I might get caught" so she put them back, but the fact still remains She did break and enter. Everyone knows that there is a seal on things you can’t even open a perfume bottle today that is why they have samples. May be the store is responsible for her sinning by not having freebies? Love of Christ Nancy

 

[otjm]

OTJM, you mentioned what if she had no intention to steal the product, but what if she did and then chickened out? Now the intentions could have been there,when she opened the bottle so at that point she did steal because she broke the seal, then she might have decided 'I might get caught" so she put them back, but the fact still remains She did break and enter. Everyone knows that there is a seal on things you can’t even open a perfume bottle today that is why they have samples. May be the store is responsible for her sinning by not having freebies? Love of Christ Nancy

That is carrying the what if a bit far. If she was going to steal them, she would not open the bottle and break the seal; she would simply “palm” them, put it in her purse or pocket, and go about her business. Her actions are not the actions of someone stealing. They are much more like someone who lacks common sense and the ability to think through their actions before acting; in other words, someone noodling along on one or two burners instead of all four. People do lots of dumb, stupid things without harmful intent.

She did not break and enter; that is a tem that applies to burglary. She broke the seal of a bottle, apparently out of curiosity; once her curiosity was satisfied she put the bottle back with apparently nary a thought in her gray little head.

Maybe your sampling of the human population was different than mine, but I have met people who don’t seem to know what the seal is for, other than to frustrate them. They do not have much awareness of a lot of things; and there may be things they know if you question them, but the don’t recall in ordinary every day life. that is, the operate in what would seem to be almost a parallel world. They are generally simple folks, not particulary sophisticated or articulate.

Try not to be harsh with them.

The store is not responsible for anyone’s sinning through intentional estruction or theft; the individual is. But that does not necessarily mean that ll actions which result in another’s loss are sinful. Stupidity appears to be more inherited than intended.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

You know i read something once that said, the greatest thiefs in the world are the most intelligent, and they do know better, the fear of getting caught put’s a damper on alot of their actions. Now we are under the assumption from what we have for evidence in this case,but if a camera picked up on this a picture is worth a thousand words. Another thing we can assume if you will/ It just may be there was a camera and the owners felt it was not worth the effort. If you did something to me and it was against the law but i felt i was not going to prosecute you then the crime could be considered null. And by the way there was no discription as to if she was poor or wearing a fur coat,please dont peg people because their poor, they may be the most honest people you could ever meet. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[otjm]

You know i read something once that said, the greatest thiefs in the world are the most intelligent, and they do know better, the fear of getting caught put’s a damper on alot of their actions. Now we are under the assumption from what we have for evidence in this case,but if a camera picked up on this a picture is worth a thousand words. Another thing we can assume if you will/ It just may be there was a camera and the owners felt it was not worth the effort. If you did something to me and it was against the law but i felt i was not going to prosecute you then the crime could be considered null. And by the way there was no discription as to if she was poor or wearing a fur coat,please dont peg people because their poor, they may be the most honest people you could ever meet. Love of Christ Nancy

I type too fast, and don’t proofread what I type, so I went back and re-read what I wrote.

You might do likewise.

The word “poor” is not used in my post. I did not describe her in economic terms. It really helps to read what someone actually writes, not what we project onto their writing when we read it. It makes discerning their point so much easier…

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

HI There!, All your statements are mere assumptions the lady, wether intent or non intent did steal, wether knowing or not, if she was seen by a policeman she would have been delt with according to the law. i’m not a lawyer and if she did it in my store i would let her know and if she did it again she would be barred from my store, with a restraining order! I do believe in a 2nd chance and forgiveness, and it could be just as you stated, but where do you draw the line? Come let us reason together. God Bless Nancy

 

[Zooey]

She stole the value of the product, because it is now unsaleable.

 

[otjm]

She stole the value of the product, because it is now unsaleable.

One cannot “steal” the value of a product. She damaged the product. That caused a loss of value, but a loss of value is not stealing. It may be a conversion, but conversion and stealing are two different concepts.

It really helps if we can define our terms, and use terms correctly; failure to do so makes for difficulties in communication. We seem to be moving farther and farther into an era where communications are “whatever!” based, rather than being based on correct terminology. The result is lazy thinking. This whole discussion started with an OP that used the word incorrectly. This is not a matter of nit picking; it is a matter of a basic ability, or inability, to covey concepts and have a meaningful discussion about them. It is the equivalent of having a discussion about sin, when what is really being discussed is a matter that is not sinful, but may be a poor choice, or an illogical response to a situation.

Put another way - say the pills were in a glass jar as opposed to a plastic one, and instead of breaking the seal, she was very careless and caused it to fall and break. She still had damaged the pills; they were still unsaleable - but that is not stealing either, although the results were the same - the pills have no value.

 

[otjm]

HI There!, All your statements are mere assumptions the lady, wether intent or non intent did steal, wether knowing or not, if she was seen by a policeman she would have been delt with according to the law. i’m not a lawyer and if she did it in my store i would let her know and if she did it again she would be barred from my store, with a restraining order! I do believe in a 2nd chance and forgiveness, and it could be just as you stated, but where do you draw the line? Come let us reason together. God Bless Nancy

If she was seen by a policean he would not arrest her for stealing, because he would have no evidence of any criminal intent. She might have been liable in a civil court for conversion, but police do not deal with that; it would be up to the store owner.

As to assumptions, I have made no assumptions whatsoever; I have merely pointed out that the OP effectively has made an assumption, and I have suggested that there are a number of possible scenarios concerning her mental attitude/knowledge/intent, allk of which are possible real world scenarios, which she might have had or not had, all of which would lead to varying conclusions. The original question was a) mistaken in its legal assumption based on observed actions, and b) is subject to differing conclusions based on possiblities the OP did not consider.

My intent is to educate. We have a tendency to jump to conclusions. Partly that is based on poor definition of terms. Partly it is based on assumptions that an act implies certain intent. All too often we presume (=assume = assumption) that acts are based on certain attitude/knowledge/intent; that is due to the fact that we are too quick to judge.

I am not suggesting that what she did simply doesn’t matter; no where in my posts have I said that. I am trying to get people to think instead of react; to consider that there may be possiblities beyond what first comes to mind.

Further, I doubt that any court is going to give you a restraining order against her; if for no other reason than that she would be extremely unlikely to cause enough damage over a long period of time to justify the thousand dollars or so you would pay to an attorney to try to get one; in addition, as a store owner you might want to simply have a store member “assist” her, since the cost of that would far outweigh the negative publicity you would garner in the press, once they found that you were going after this little old lady. One damage to reputation - deserved of not deserved, is far more damaging to your economic bottom line than ten times the positive publicity.

Where do I draw the line? I have found that line drawing has a tendency to reduce the amount and number of solutions that can be found to an issue.

To begin with, no one has shown that anyone tried, in a non-confrontational manner, to let her know what the results are of her actions. If in fact she was thoughtless in unsealing the bottle, it is entirely possible she would offer to pay for it (and I would explain that mistakes happen, no, I donn’t want the money; I just want her to not do that again and please come back and shop as I consider her a valuable customer). From there, I sould have store employees primed to “help” her if she came into the store and did somthing similar again. And I would make sure they did it with kindness.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Anyone that causes a loss of a product that cost money to make is not concerned in it’s value, or the fact it no longer has any value because of their thoughtlessness.By the way she was a lady,your making it sound like we are picking on some poor thing that walked in from the cold to sniff garlic to keep warm How’s that for assumption? Should i try to think about what you are going to say next? or would that be stealing your thoughts(ideas?) They do that in Holly Wood all the time. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[otjm]

Anyone that causes a loss of a product that cost money to make is not concerned in it’s value, or the fact it no longer has any value because of their thoughtlessness.By the way she was a lady,your making it sound like we are picking on some poor thing that walked in from the cold to sniff garlic to keep warm How’s that for assumption?

Any assumption is on your part, as I did not make her so. You need to read a bit more carefully.

Should i try to think about what you are going to say next? or would that be stealing your thoughts(ideas?) They do that in Holly Wood all the time. Love of Christ Nancy

I would suggest that you might not try to do so. You don’t seem to be able to follow what I say, so I would hazard a guess that you won’t be able to predict what I would say with any greater accuracy.

Your first sentance of the post looks like it was trying to go somewhere; or perhaps you were simply musing out loud. What were you trying to say?

I have not denied that she caused a loss. Having dealt with all sorts of people throughout my life, I have had enough experiences with people who don’t think before they act that I realize they are not in the extreme minority. My suggestions have been that theft - stealing - was not what she did; the question was generally to an implied guilt of theft. I have tried to answer that. If my answers offend you, that is a different issue; they are not meant to be. They are, however, meant to educate people to look beyond an immedate, and all-too-often unfounded reaction to other people’s choices. If I have helped you to think a bit more on the issue, great. If I have failed to assist you in that process, then perhaps we can move on to a different thread as we are both wasting our time.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

OK, may be her intent was not to steal, but she did cause a loss? Right? Is it because you might be seening the garlic tablets as a minute thing because they are of little value? or something small and not worth the effort? you know if it was a Cadilac of emense value would it be differnt? Let’s say she dented it so the whole door had to be repaired? Would that be differnt? Thank You.

 

[otjm]

OK, may be her intent was not to steal, but she did cause a loss? Right? Is it because you might be seening the garlic tablets as a minute thing because they are of little value? or something small and not worth the effort? you know if it was a Cadilac of emense value would it be differnt? Let’s say she dented it so the whole door had to be repaired? Would that be differnt? Thank You.

The question “did she cause a loss” has been asked and answered; in fact, it has been answered several times.

The issue about damaging a car door in non-responsive to the OP. The OP posited the issue and asked “did she steal”, and the answer is no, she did not steal.

The answer would be the same given the same scenario, whether the tablets cost $5.95 retail, or $59.50 retail, or $595 retail. From the scenario, we are given someone who for some reason, which most likely would be curiosity, broke the seal on a bottle, looked and or smelled the tablets, put the lid back on and put it back on a shelf.

The answer is not dependeant on the value; the answer depends on intent (if the issue is a question of sinfulness), and depends on the action itself (if we are talking about stealing, as opposed to damaging).

The action is at least as likely, if not extremely more likely, to be a thoughtless act in terms of any intent to damage rather than any intent to do damage to the store owner. People do stupid things which cause damage because they do not think through the effects of their acts. It is highly likely from the scenario that she did not intend, whcn she picked the bottle off the shelf, to damage it beyond sale value; it is much more likely she simply did not think through her action to realize that once she broke the seal, it would be unsellable to anyone else. So in simple terms, the issue is intent and not value. It is much more likely that this was a thoughtless act than any intent to deprive the store owner of the value of the bills, and thoughtless acts do not equate with sin.

Yes, she damaged something. In civil law, she could be held liable for the damage (the cost of the bottle of pills). Morally, it is highly questionable whether there was any intent, which is a separate issue from liability. And nothing I have said previoulsy is to the contrary.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

OK In a round about way she without knowledge broke the seal on the garlic tablets,put them back on the shelf, caused some( unknowned) to her, dammage,and some loss,she did not steal anything in a literal sence, but she un knowingly took and did deprive the owner of his rightful money due to him, so now he’s at a loss and she is the victim. Right? Boy! you sure know how to argue like a woman, are you a woman? That’s ok I still love you Nancy

 

[otjm]

OK In a round about way she without knowledge broke the seal on the garlic tablets,put them back on the shelf, caused some( unknowned) to her, dammage,and some loss,she did not steal anything in a literal sence, but she un knowingly took and did deprive the owner of his rightful money due to him, so now he’s at a loss and she is the victim. Right? Boy! you sure know how to argue like a woman, are you a woman? That’s ok I still love you Nancy

I did not say knowledge - I said intent. There is a difference.

And I never said she was a victim.

And no, I am not a woman.

Try reading what I actually write; I don’t think I obfuscate anything.