Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Uh retard dak. You wrote:
>
> "But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
> knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was
> running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal
> something."
>
> That's not an evidence to rebutt presumption of intent to consummate a
> theft, stupid.
>
> In terms of German law, according to BGH:
>
> http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/ist-das-ladendiebstahl
>
> "Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte
> Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der
> Diebstahl vollendet."
>
> Got it now?
>
> And, BTW, "Gewahrsam" above isn't confinement but rather
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewahrsam
>
> as in
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besitz

In that case, the wording would need to be "ist deren Gewahrsam
begründet".  German grammar has grammatic gender, "Ware" is feminine.
And even if we were assuming that whoever wrote that merely got the
gender wrong, you'd have to say "dessen" rather than "sein" in order to
indicate that the possessive pronoun is not referring to the subject of
the sentence but to the object.

> "And the particular sentence makes little enough sense:
>
> "As soon as a perpetrator puts an item into his clothes or a carried
> bag, his confinement is justified, and thus the theft is completed."
>
> That's shaking the order and dependencies of the acts up rather
> absurdly."
>
> LMAO!!!

Whatever.  When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with
grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning.

-- 
David Kastrup