Fanavans

[deleted]

Accepting that he had the intent as well as the actus reus, in that he moved it, what is missing is "unlawful taking."

Yup it has to be unlawful. There is at common law, an implied license to pick up good in a store and transfer them to the counter, or put them back. It's comes from old contract cases and without it, stores would be bound to sell you whatever you pick up and you would (arguably) be bound to buy it. So the common law said implied license, and when you bring the stuff to the counter you make an offer to buy it.

So that in this example, there is no crime because an element 'unlawful taking' is missing.

If it wasn't so, every time you took a flyer from someone on the street you'd be committing larceny.

Now I don't know if this question is state specific in the US, but catergorically, under the common law of England (before the abolishion of larceny) this would not have been a crime.

Source: common law barrister.

The labor party had that in a rudimentary form in the 1990s. We are doing it better, but again, efficiency is one thing, but paradigm shifts is what I'm holding out for.

And so fucking depressing

Fascinating. Thanks for pointing that out. It's a good step.

Still we are in the old world though. Admittedly at the bleeding edge of it. I can't wait to see the next iteration of thism.