Did this woman steal the garlic tablets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter atassina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

atassina

Guest
Today at the store, I saw a woman open a bottle of garlic tablets. She broke the seal, unscrewed the cap, shook the bottle, looked inside, screwed the top back on and left it on the shelf. They are now trash and the store cannot sell them. Did she steal the garlic tablets?
 
Did you bring it to the attention of anyone, so they could remove it from the shelf?

If she did it so they were unable to sell it, yes, if she did it to check on the product, meaning to see if it was like one she was shopping for etc., no. One has the right to know what one is purchasing. The way she went about it, is questionable. I would have taken it up to the pharmacy and asked them.

I have done something like this and they opened it up to check and it was not what I wanted and they said fine. I had them open it up though.
 
bhbea said:
, if she did it to check on the product, meaning to see if it was like one she was shopping for etc., no. One has the right to know what one is purchasing. …
Click to expand...
So next time I go for groceries, I should take a can opener with me to see if it’s what I want?

kathy
 
I believe the question was did she steal? and Yes! she did and knew enough to put the cap back on the bottle did she not? IF she had taken the whole bottle would you think she had stolen? In a shoe store you can try on the product first and in garments also but once something is Sealed, there is a reason it is for consumer protection,there is nothing wrong in asking permission to sample something. What she done was rude, ignorant, and against the law. She spent the company’s money without permission. Some one has to pay for what she did, and i’m sure no one want’s to pay for anothers mistakes( thow it seems to happen in life) Love of Christ Nancy
 
nancy_dalrymple said:
I believe the question was did she steal? and Yes! she did and knew enough to put the cap back on the bottle did she not? IF she had taken the whole bottle would you think she had stolen? In a shoe store you can try on the product first and in garments also but once something is Sealed, there is a reason it is for consumer protection,there is nothing wrong in asking permission to sample something. What she done was rude, ignorant, and against the law. She spent the company’s money without permission. Some one has to pay for what she did, and i’m sure no one want’s to pay for anothers mistakes( thow it seems to happen in life) Love of Christ Nancy
Click to expand...
Nancy:
If we try on a shoe, we are not allowed to make the first crack in it. If somebody cracks the finish, they can’t sell the shoe. Yes, I agree, first ask to sample. I find it particularly irritating when I see somebody decide not to purchase an item, like cold cuts or any other type of refrigerated or frozen food, and then leave it in another part of the store, like the laundry or magazine aisle. The store cannot put it back, especially if it is warn-- another piece of trash. Lazy shopping habits like these cause stores money-- another form of stealing. Do you agree? :juggle: Peace, Anthony
 
I don’t know if that would be considered stealing or not but it would be considered to be wrong I would think. However, whether or not she is guilty of a sin, I don’t know. She may not have known that what she was doing was wrong.
 
You Betcha! When i was a child i was in a city, and most big city’s have alot of things like that happen. There are so many people and quite a mixture of minds. I have even found things that were opened and half eaten left on shelfs all over the place. It’s not that they don’t know better i think it’s because they just want to see how much they can get away with, and then when they are caught they cry out I didn’t know? Besides that woman your refering to would be a dead give away if she lied all you’d have to do is smell her breath:p:p Love of Christ Nancy
 
If a merchant cannot sell a new product because of something something you have done to it, you have stolen his ownership of the product. Who want to buy warm bologna? Why is it warm? Somebody was too lazy to put it back in the refrigerated section, and instead left it with the towels, nice and warm, nice and full of bacteria. Do you agree? 🤷
 
atassina said:
If a merchant cannot sell a new product because of something something you have done to it, you have stolen his ownership of the product. Who want to buy warm bologna? Why is it warm? Somebody was too lazy to put it back in the refrigerated section, and instead left it with the towels, nice and warm, nice and full of bacteria. Do you agree? 🤷
Click to expand...
Are you going to eat that cake? If not can i have it? Did you already bite into it? Want to share? OH I get it! Thats the cake you can’t have and eat it to!!😛 Love You Nancy YES I agree!
 
Yes, she took the store’s ability to sell their product.
Oh, and I hate it when people don’t put refrigerated things back in the refrigerator.
I mean, if you put it in the wrong section, okay, but at least put it somewhere that it will keep, y’know?
People are starving in this world and people won’t walk ten steps to put something back so taht it won’t spoil.
Oh, that grates on my nerves!
 
I don’t think this was theft so much as vandalism. Either way the store was unable to sell that product due to her actions. I have purchased items like that only to bring them home and find the seal broken and some of the product missing. Yuck. Would you serve that to your family? 😛
 
Catholic1954 said:
I don’t think this was theft so much as vandalism. Either way the store was unable to sell that product due to her actions. I have purchased items like that only to bring them home and find the seal broken and some of the product missing. Yuck. Would you serve that to your family? 😛
Click to expand...
YOO! If i was having a yard sale and was selling a bike,then you came along and took my bike and ran it into a mac truck and it was a total loss, dont you think you would owe me for what i was selling it for? Small claims court would! Gotta Love it:p Nancy
 
I do not see stealing here.

Destruction of property, yes.
But not stealing.

The woman did not leave with anything, nor did she benefit from the act.
Instead, she simply vandalised the product.

The incident should have been brought to the store manager’s attention and the woman made to pay for the product she has rendered unusable.
 
You are correct, by the dictionary definition, she destroyed the property, but did not steal it. Yet, by not returning the property to its original state, she stole it. Stealing means to take something and intend to not return it. Morally she stole the property.

Anthony
 
atassina said:
Today at the store, I saw a woman open a bottle of garlic tablets. She broke the seal, unscrewed the cap, shook the bottle, looked inside, screwed the top back on and left it on the shelf. They are now trash and the store cannot sell them. Did she steal the garlic tablets?
Click to expand...
No. She damaged property that belonged to another.
 
Baltimore Catechism IV:

*374. Q. What are we commanded by the Seventh Commandment?

A. By the Seventh Commandment we are commanded to give to all men what belongs to them and to respect their property.

“Respect their property” – that is, acknowledge and respect their rights to their property and do nothing to violate these rights.*​

Damaging property takes away from its value, even if it wouldn’t usually be called stealing.
 
nkbeth said:
Baltimore Catechism IV:

*374. Q. What are we commanded by the Seventh Commandment?

A. By the Seventh Commandment we are commanded to give to all men what belongs to them and to respect their property.

“Respect their property” – that is, acknowledge and respect their rights to their property and do nothing to violate these rights.*​

Damaging property takes away from its value, even if it wouldn’t usually be called stealing.
Click to expand...
Therefore, did she steal it or simply damage it. Is damaging a violation of the commandment not to steal and therefore in fact stealing? The garlic tablets were no longer able to be sold. What’s the difference if she merely “damaged” them or put them in her purse? Either way, the store did not get its money.

If somebody carelessly scratches your car, they have damaged your car. However, they have not prevented you from its full, intended use. If they pound it into a three foot cube of metal, yes they have damaged your car, also. However, they have stolen your use of the car-- in essence they stole your car. :juggle:
 
"A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof.

"Provided that a person may be guilty of stealing any such thing notwithstanding that he has lawful possession thereof, if, being a bailee or part owner thereof, he fraudulently converts the same to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner.

"The expression ‘takes’ includes obtaining the possession by any trick, by intimidation, under a mistake on the part of the owner with knowledge on the part of the taker that possession has been so obtained (or) by finding, where at the time of the finding the finder believes that the owner can be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

"The expression ‘carries away’ includes any removal of anything from the place which it occupies, but in the case of a thing attached, only if it has been completely detached.

"The expression ‘owner’ includes any part owner, or person having possession or control of, or a special property in, anything capable of being stolen.

"Everything which has value and is the property of any person, and if adhering to the realty then after severance therefrom, shall be capable of being stolen.

“Provided that save as hereinafter expressly provided with respect to fixtures growing things, and ore from mines, anything attached to or forming part of the realty shall not be capable of being stolen by the person who severs the same from the realty, unless after severance he has abandoned possession thereof; and the carcase (sic) of a creature wild by nature and not reduced into possession while living shall not be capable of being stolen by the person who has killed such creature, unless after killing it he has abandoned possession of the carcase.” Love of Christ Nancy;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top