That's not really stealing as he did pay for the item first, then returned it to get his money back. What he's actually doing is.....he's being a "dick" to the stores that would put it back on the shelf to let someone else buy an incomplete toy. Or....depending on the store policy, they may have to "destroy" the toy. The store may even lose money on those items. But what does he care, he got what he wanted. *rolls eyes*..........

*edit*

If the store employees would actually check the stock before accepting the return, then this guy wouldn't have been able to pull this off......

 

*sigh* Really? You want to argue semantics? Ok. Fine.

Stealing | Define Stealing at Dictionary.com

Steal | Define Steal at Dictionary.com

Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com

Larceny | Define Larceny at Dictionary.com

Ok....so let's take a look at those definitions....and compare it to what that guy did? Shall we?

Ok so the definition of the word stealing...that's pretty straight forward. But the technical aspect that everyone wants to argue will fall under "theft" and larceny", so lets focus on that. But I'm going to requote here for posterity

Under the definition of stealing....was he trying to hide the fact that he took an item from the toy? No. In fact, there was nothing subtle about it. He even admitted to it defiantly like the jerk he may be. Yet it still does not remove the fact that he initially paid for it and then returned the item in a dishonest fashion. Did he steal? No. Was he being a dick? Yes! Was his actions wrong by any moral standard? HELL YES. If you want to still argue, then let's revisit the definition of theft:

"the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another;"

At the time when he removed the mech tech weapon, the prime was HIS! HIS!!!! IT WAS IN HIS POSSESSION!!!!!!! Technically...at that time...HE BOUGHT IT. How hard is that to understand? And even then, if you want to get technical, did he NEED someone's permission to take the mech tech weapon? Show me where it states that permission is required. As long as at the time, the toy was bought and paid for, it is his right to DO with the toy whatever he wishes.

Did he "win insidiously". Win what? What did he win? What was he competing against? Which...goes to the next one. Ok so lets look at "insidiously". Which is basically "stealthily treacherous or deceitful". There was NOTHING "stealthily" about his actions. Most retail employees at Walmart/ Target don't even bother checking. That.....is a totally different topic.

"operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease." Well....obviously the store doesn't care and a loss of 4 toys.....its really not a grave effect.....but...maybe if it were you and me who took the loss.......in this case...its the store...and no. Not even a dent in their budget. Hmmm...nope not insidious. And not even subtle or by chance.

Yes, this I agree with you on. But would you not say the store employee also has some responsibility to ensure that the full and entire product was being returned? You wouldn't expect to get away with returning a blu-ray player without its remote would you? Or perhaps a blu ray case without the disc? Bad example? Probably. Technically this guy committed an act of deception. He lied. He cheated the system. Did he steal? By technical definition, he did not. But because everyone's moral standards would indicate that his actions is morally wrong, and that he is causing the store to lose money on the potential sale of said item, people think....and associate it with theft.

This doesn't even fit under larceny BECAUSE:

"the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use. "

The guy paid for the toy. He didn't keep it, and yes he returned it, but at the time of the toy being in his possession, he paid for it first. Simple...technicality.

I even thought of this next word:

Embezzle:

Embezzled | Define Embezzled at Dictionary.com

But dammit..once you buy something...a store doesn't care. So it can't be that either. Hmmmmm.....but it is fraudulent.....

No its not. It WOULD be stealing if he were taking the weapon out while the product was STILL in the store, and BEFORE he paid for it. What he committed was an act of fraud. Plain and simple. And if I were the store employee looking at that, I wouldn't even give him a partial refund. I'd tell him to take the toy home and come back with the complete product or keep it and deal with the purchase he made.

You want to say he stole? Ok, show me where he left the store with the product without paying for it. Show me where this was taken from the store without the store acknowledging that the item now (at the time) belonged to him. You can't can you? All you have is the fact that he returned an incomplete product back to the store. That's all you have. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not arguing in defense of this guy. But clarifying that its NOT technically stealing. Do I condone what he did? No. I don't even condone his freaking attitude he takes about it. Its like he's proud to create whatever joy in collecting he can at the expense of others. That to me, falls more in line with being a cocksucker than anything else. Just my opinion. No offense meant by it.

 

THANK YOU!

If that is your opinion then that's fine. And yes.... you're right nonetheless, it is WRONG.