●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byBrett Buck ( 811747 ) writes:
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one!
byarglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) writes:
Socipaths/psychopaths believe they're cleverer than everyone else, and often end up representing themselves in court, with typically disastrous results. They're very capable of manipulating an amicable or even neutral audience, but fall apart under hostile examination by skilled lawyers.
bysamwichse ( 1056268 ) writes:
Last time my wife did jury duty, it was this guy representing himself. He stole a wheelchair from a donation center. For use as a halloween costume. This is in a very wealthy area.
He was offered a fine + slap on the wrist amount of community service. "No," he said, "I will not admit wrongdoing."
He represented himself, and incriminated himself right there in the courtroom saying it wasn't a crime because he intended to bring it back.
He ended up with several months in prison. The jury maxed it out because he
bysydneyfong ( 410107 ) writes:
Obviously the defence didn't work in your story, but it may not be as flawed as you might think.
Depending on the jurisdiction (at least applicable to UK-based common law jurisdictions), there is a requirement to prove an intention to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the item, and as such an intention to return the item can allow you to wriggle out of the definition of the crime.
I'm not familiar with criminal law in the US, but I suppose the precise definition of theft various from states to states, so not sure how well this would stand in the exact scenario you described. Even if the jurisdiction adopted a similar legal definition of theft, the jury could still call BS.
Parent
twitter
facebook
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...