Hooligans Sportsbook

What Would You Do?

  • Start date
  • Replies
    283 Replies •
  • Views 16,885 Views
Brock Landers wins again! :theshrink:


Cougar calm down. Plenty of things to be passionate and fight over. Whom I decide to impose my snobbish ways upon is not one of them.

Well, I just don't want to to basically be called a "lowlife" by Nina for not telling Brock to run back to the bank.

Ansd all this even after I stuck up for her...how quickly we forget

Sad
 
In any case, I think it's pretty clear that it is theft and regarded as such by law enforcement.

This point I'm not willing to concede. They are duty bound to investigate all complaints made to them where a crime may have been committed. The absence of an arrest is the proof here. If the coppers have a case they can arrest, but it looks like they don't have any proof in this case, and it would be hard to prove in a court of law. Like I said the guy would ahve to be counting the money on camera, or talking or boasting, say on a online forum somewhere about the incedent.
 
I'm going to bow out of this discussion for now because I just realized that I've now somehow gotten into a debate with someone who I have on ignore so I'm only seeing his quoted posts.

I don't have debates with MF'r because he is never wrong about anything. Good luck to you Rage.
 
This point I'm not willing to concede. They are duty bound to investigate all complaints made to them where a crime may have been committed. The absence of an arrest is the proof here. If the coppers have a case they can arrest, but it looks like they don't have any proof in this case, and it would be hard to prove in a court of law. Like I said the guy would ahve to be counting the money on camera, or talking or boasting, say on a online forum somewhere about the incedent.

Your point was that it wasn't a theft. Simply knowing that you received the extra money is enough to prove intent. Is that difficult to prove? Perhaps. Can someone get away with it? Probably. That doesn't mean it isn't a theft by law.

If I murdered someone and got away with it, I still murdered someone.
 
Last edited:
Your point was that it wasn't a theft. Simply knowing that you received the extra money is enough to prove intent. Is that difficult to prove? Perhaps. Can someone get away with it? Probably. That doesn't mean it isn't a theft by law.

If I murdered someone and got away with it, I still murdered someone.

I use a definition of theft that states:

Theft the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

So to your point, yes the intention is there, but with the permission or consent. A teller is acting as an agent of the bank, and is giving permission or consent for me to intentionally leave the property with money that isn't mine.

To your example, I've I intended to murder someone, and went to their house to murder them, but when I got there, they shoot themselves while I'm in the room, I didn't murder them.
 
I use a definition of theft that states:

Theft the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

So to your point, yes the intention is there, but with the permission or consent. A teller is acting as an agent of the bank, and is giving permission or consent for me to intentionally leave the property with money that isn't mine.

To your example, I've I intended to murder someone, and went to their house to murder them, but when I got there, they shoot themselves while I'm in the room, I didn't murder them.

Consent is the keyword in that definition. The bank (and the teller) is ignorant to the fact that the money is being taken. The person, in fact, does not have permission nor consent to take the extra money. And that is evident in their efforts to recoup that money.

If you were to use that argument, a rogue teller could simply give away large sums of money to a friend. Since the teller is an agent of the bank, the person who receives those funds couldn't be complicit in the crime nor could those funds be recovered.