Shopping Carts

[crunchtastic]

Or you could put market pressure on them and just stop shopping at stores that don't collect their carts or implement wheel locks.

Would never work, because so few people care enough to inconvenience themselves. After all, we live in a city where only 20% of the citizens vote for mayor. Wealthy, modern humans have become such a vile lot of self-absorbed consumption machines.

[kylejack]

Would never work, because so few people care enough to inconvenience themselves. After all, we live in a city where only 20% of the citizens vote for mayor. Wealthy, modern humans have become such a vile lot of self-absorbed consumption machines.

I was really happy when there was no one in line to vote for Mayor until I realized the implications.

[sidegate]

That's certainly an alternative approach.

[sidegate]

Wow this dog is sure doing a lot of wagging. So now people who obey the law and play by the rules are required to inconvenience themselves to effect a change in behavior on the part of common thieves who are too lazy to carry their groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process (radical concept).

That's at least as vile a state of affairs as the one you cite.

[kylejack]

Wow this dog is sure doing a lot of wagging. So now people who obey the law and play by the rules are required to inconvenience themselves to effect a change in behavior on the part of common thieves who are too lazy to carry their groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process (radical concept).

That's at least as vile a state of affairs as the one you cite.

How are they violating the law? If the grocery stores aren't pressing charges and post no notice on the cart advising people to keep it on-site, and have installed no countermeasures to keep the carts in place, perhaps they don't mind people taking the carts home. Do you take the plastic bags home? Did you pay for the bags?

[AtticaFlinch]

Wow this dog is sure doing a lot of wagging. So now people who obey the law and play by the rules are required to inconvenience themselves to effect a change in behavior on the part of common thieves who are too lazy to carry their groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process (radical concept).

That's at least as vile a state of affairs as the one you cite.

Such is life. You can't legislate morality or ethics. Or, I should say, you can't legislate your morality or your ethics.

However, it is comforting to know I live in the midst of so many do-gooders who never, under any circumstances, violate the law.

[rsb320]

I was at Disco Kroger recently and saw one of those new smaller 'buggies' at the perimeter of the parking lot, over by SkyBar. It was still inside the parking lot, but was locked up. I had to go deeper into the safe zone in order to get one that rolled. Walgreen's, across the street also has the ones that lock.

How does the locking mechanism work?

Edit: I had a funny thought... What if the wireless or whatever device went haywire and everyone inside the store came to a screeching halt!

[poyea]

How are they violating the law? If the grocery stores aren't pressing charges and post no notice on the cart advising people to keep it on-site, and have installed to keep them in place, perhaps they don't mind people taking the carts home. Do you take the plastic bags home? Did you pay for the bags?

I guess I'll have to buy some of these signs to post on my car, my lawnmower, my garden hose, etc. Hate to have some passers-by think they're free just because they don't have a sign.

On the other hand, I think I'd feel much differently if I ever saw any of these carts being pushed BACK to the store. Seems like they only travel one way.

[RedScare]

Wow this dog is sure doing a lot of wagging. So now people who obey the law and play by the rules are required to inconvenience themselves to effect a change in behavior on the part of common thieves who are too lazy to carry their groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process (radical concept).

That's at least as vile a state of affairs as the one you cite.

You know, I really hate to ruin your pious post by bringing some reality to the thread, but I feel compelled to disavow you of the notion that those who wheel their groceries home are "common thieves". You see, they are not committing theft. Here, let me show you...

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

You see, the poor are not intending to deprive the owner of the property. They are merely using the cart to deliver their groceries to their homes. Granted, it would be nice if these shoppers then returned the carts, but the mere fact that they leave the cart by the road instead of bringing it back does not make this a theft. I would have thought the other lawyer posting so vehemently on this thread might have pointed this out, but perhaps he didn't study criminal law in school.

Now, about this laziness you accuse the walking shoppers of. Are we to assume that YOU carry your groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process?

[heights]

You know, I really hate to ruin your pious post by bringing some reality to the thread, but I feel compelled to disavow you of the notion that those who wheel their groceries home are "common thieves". You see, they are not committing theft. Here, let me show you...

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

You see, the poor are not intending to deprive the owner of the property. They are merely using the cart to deliver their groceries to their homes. Granted, it would be nice if these shoppers then returned the carts, but the mere fact that they leave the cart by the road instead of bringing it back does not make this a theft. I would have thought the other lawyer posting so vehemently on this thread might have pointed this out, but perhaps he didn't study criminal law in school.

Now, about this laziness you accuse the walking shoppers of. Are we to assume that YOU carry your groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process?

No, it is not theft, but it is a crime, a Class-C misdemeanor under the Business and Commerce Code:

From Section 17.31 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code

(f) A person may not:

(1) remove a shopping cart or laundry cart from the premises or parking area of a retail establishment with intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of the cart or the retailer of possession of the cart;

(2) remove a shopping cart or laundry cart, without written authorization from the owner of the cart, from the premises or parking area of any retail establishment;

(3) possess, without the written permission of the owner or retailer in lawful possession of the cart, a shopping cart or laundry cart outside the premises or parking lot of the retailer whose name or mark appears on the cart; or

(4) remove, obliterate, or alter a serial number, name, or mark affixed to a shopping cart or laundry cart.

(g) The requiring, taking, or accepting of a deposit on delivery of a container, shopping cart, or laundry cart is not considered a sale of the container or cart.

(h) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. Each violation constitutes a separate offense.

(i) This section does not apply to the owner of a shopping cart, laundry cart, or container or to a customer or any other person who has written consent from the owner of a shopping cart, laundry cart, or container or from a retailer in lawful possession of the cart or container to remove it from the premises or the parking area of the retail establishment. For the purposes of this section, the term "written consent" includes tokens and other indicia of consent established by the owner of the carts or the retailer.

[ricco67]

LAWYER FIGHT!

Bets?

[AtticaFlinch]

LAWYER FIGHT!

Bets?

Going with Red on this one. He merely said it wasn't theft and then proved it wasn't theft.

Pointing out it's a Class-C misdemeanor doesn't make it any worse than someone driving 61 in a 60 mph zone. Speeding is also a Class-C. Are speeders common criminals?

[RedScare]

Going with Red on this one. He merely said it wasn't theft and then proved it wasn't theft.

Pointing out it's a Class-C misdemeanor doesn't make it any worse than someone driving 61 in a 60 mph zone. Speeding is also a Class-C. Are speeders common criminals?

Or, perhaps turning onto Yale Street into the 2nd lane instead of the nearest available lane.

[kylejack]

I will endanger the public by operating my vehicle over the speed limit, but a stray cart is something up with which I shall not put!

[barracuda]

I will endanger the public by operating my vehicle over the speed limit, but a stray cart is something up with which I shall not put!

Hah. As is often the case, an obsession with the status quo becomes a zero-tolerance policy.

A rogue shopping cart is more like someone doing us a favor. That's one less vehicle off the road, and one more person getting some physical exercise. Besides, it's not easy carrying more than one or two bags of groceries a long distance.

[Jesse]

Hah. As is often the case, an obsession with the status quo becomes a zero-tolerance policy.

A rogue shopping cart is more like someone doing us a favor. That's one less vehicle off the road, and one more person getting some physical exercise. Besides, it's not easy carrying more than one or two bags of groceries a long distance.

I'm just saying I wish they wouldn't dump the carts in front of my house, in the park, in the middle of the street, etc. If you don't have a car and need help with groceries - fine, use a cart. But for god sakes return the damn thing! Is that really too much to ask? I'm not complaining about people using them - I'm complaining about people discarding them like trash when they're done. Shall we get into the legalities of littering now?

[Marksmu]

You know, I really hate to ruin your pious post by bringing some reality to the thread, but I feel compelled to disavow you of the notion that those who wheel their groceries home are "common thieves". You see, they are not committing theft. Here, let me show you...

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

You see, the poor are not intending to deprive the owner of the property. They are merely using the cart to deliver their groceries to their homes. Granted, it would be nice if these shoppers then returned the carts, but the mere fact that they leave the cart by the road instead of bringing it back does not make this a theft. I would have thought the other lawyer posting so vehemently on this thread might have pointed this out, but perhaps he didn't study criminal law in school.

Now, about this laziness you accuse the walking shoppers of. Are we to assume that YOU carry your groceries home, and, god forbid, maybe lose a few pounds in the process?

Ahhh still trying to bait me into a response so you can attempt to prove your intellectual superiority. Its my understanding that you are a criminal defense attorney - you should know that intent can be inferred by actions. Criminal intent can be inferred by the actions that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the criminal intended to deprive the store of its cart.

Furthermore, criminal intent can be inferred using the natural and probable theory. I will remind you of it, in case you have forgotten...Criminal intent may also be presumed from the commission of the act. Intent can be inferred by the action itself....the natural and probable consequence of the act of removing the cart from the parking lot, is that the owner of the cart will no longer have USE of the cart. That has deprived the person of their property. The law does not care for how long the deprivation took place, merely that it did. Thus, even a pathetic lawyer could make the case that the person who took the cart from the grocery store, did indeed intend to steal it.

The stores just do not make a habit out of prosecuting people, and the cops seem to have more important issues to deal with. However, just because they do not get prosecuted does not make the theft any less criminal.

[kylejack]

Ahhh still trying to bait me into a response so you can attempt to prove your intellectual superiority. Its my understanding that you are a criminal defense attorney - you should know that intent can be inferred by actions. Criminal intent can be inferred by the actions that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the criminal intended to deprive the store of its cart.

Furthermore, criminal intent can be inferred using the natural and probable theory. I will remind you of it, in case you have forgotten...Criminal intent may also be presumed from the commission of the act. Intent can be inferred by the action itself....the natural and probable consequence of the act of removing the cart from the parking lot, is that the owner of the cart will no longer have USE of the cart. That has deprived the person of their property. The law does not care for how long the deprivation took place, merely that it did. Thus, even a pathetic lawyer could make the case that the person who took the cart from the grocery store, did indeed intend to steal it.

The stores just do not make a habit out of prosecuting people, and the cops seem to have more important issues to deal with. However, just because they do not get prosecuted does not make the theft any less criminal.

Admit it, you're a plastic bag thief.

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm just saying I wish they wouldn't dump the carts in front of my house, in the park, in the middle of the street, etc. If you don't have a car and need help with groceries - fine, use a cart. But for god sakes return the damn thing! Is that really too much to ask? I'm not complaining about people using them - I'm complaining about people discarding them like trash when they're done. Shall we get into the legalities of littering now?

I have no doubt we all agree it would be the best practice for all the people who take the carts to also return them. It happens in my idealized dreamworld... along with honest politicians, benevolent corporations, stable single-income households and leprechauns.

The stores just do not make a habit out of prosecuting people, and the cops seem to have more important issues to deal with. However, just because they do not get prosecuted does not make the theft any less criminal.

Seem to? I hope the cops have more important issues than rounding up carless poor folks and imprisoning them (or whatever) for what is essentially no more a crime than what you did the other week (which RedScare so lucidly pointed out). They're no more criminals than you are... unless, you're saying that I can't presume you intended to turn wide right onto Yale simply because you did turn wide right onto Yale.

And, correct me if I'm wrong on this, as I'm not an attorney, but doesn't the natural and probable theory require an actual crime (or other action) to be proven in the first place prior to making any presumptions of guilt on another matter? As in, the defendant walked away saying, "Ha ha ha, I'm taking this cart and never returning it." (or some similar action), before it can be presumed he is never going to return it? Just walking a cart off the lot doesn't guarantee any consequence at all. If a person walks a cart home yet leaves it at home on his next trip to the store - where he walks another one home - then I could see how the natural and probable theory could apply, but not before walking that second cart off the lot. Maybe I'm demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding in the law here, but I just don't think your theory applies here, Marksmu.

Any other attorneys care to weigh in?

[Marksmu]

I have no doubt we all agree it would be the best practice for all the people who take the carts to also return them. It happens in my idealized dreamworld... along with honest politicians, benevolent corporations, stable single-income households and leprechauns.

Seem to? I hope the cops have more important issues than rounding up carless poor folks and imprisoning them (or whatever) for what is essentially no more a crime than what you did the other week (which RedScare so lucidly pointed out). They're no more criminals than you are... unless, you're saying that I can't presume you intended to turn wide right onto Yale simply because you did turn wide right onto Yale.

And, correct me if I'm wrong on this, as I'm not an attorney, but doesn't the natural and probable theory require an actual crime (or other action) to be proven in the first place prior to making any presumptions of guilt on another matter? As in, the defendant walked away saying, "Ha ha ha, I'm taking this cart and never returning it." (or some similar action), before it can be presumed he is never going to return it?

straight from the horses mouth.......

A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the owner of property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (Vernon 1989). Appropriation of property is unlawful if it is without the owner's effective consent. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03((1) (Vernon 1989). “Appropriate” means to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(5)( (Vernon 1989). “Exercise control” means the intent to deprive the owner of his property without his effective consent. Roberson v. State, 821 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). “Deprive” means to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A) (Vernon 1989).

Appellant argues that because he could not get the shopping cart off the premises, he is at most guilty of attempted theft. However, to prove theft, it is not necessary to prove that the property was taken off the premises; it is only necessary to show that appellant exercised control over the property with an intent to deprive the owner of the property.

So if you REALLY want to get technical here removing a shopping cart from the premises of a grocery store, is theft if done without the owners effective consent.

If you read the penal code statute in conjunction with the business and commerce code, a person does not have consent unless they have written permission.

I did not put the smileys there - it did that on its own.

[kylejack]

straight from the horses mouth.......

A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the owner of property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (Vernon 1989). Appropriation of property is unlawful if it is without the owner's effective consent. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03((1) (Vernon 1989). “Appropriate” means to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(5)( (Vernon 1989). “Exercise control” means the intent to deprive the owner of his property without his effective consent. Roberson v. State, 821 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). “Deprive” means to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A) (Vernon 1989).

Appellant argues that because he could not get the shopping cart off the premises, he is at most guilty of attempted <a name="SearchTerm" class="SearchTerm" title="SearchTerm">theft. However, to prove theft, it is not necessary to prove that the property was taken off the premises; it is only necessary to show that appellant exercised control over the property with an intent to deprive the owner of the property.

So if you REALLY want to get technical here removing a shopping cart from the premises of a grocery store, is theft if done without the owners effective consent.

I did not put the smileys there - it did that on its own.

Did you or did you not remove that plastic bag from the premises in an attempt to deprive the store of its bag?

[AtticaFlinch]

straight from the horses mouth.......

A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the owner of property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (Vernon 1989). Appropriation of property is unlawful if it is without the owner's effective consent. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03((1) (Vernon 1989). “Appropriate” means to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(5)( (Vernon 1989). “Exercise control” means the intent to deprive the owner of his property without his effective consent. Roberson v. State, 821 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). “Deprive” means to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A) (Vernon 1989).

Appellant argues that because he could not get the shopping cart off the premises, he is at most guilty of attempted theft. However, to prove theft, it is not necessary to prove that the property was taken off the premises; it is only necessary to show that appellant exercised control over the property with an intent to deprive the owner of the property.

So if you REALLY want to get technical here removing a shopping cart from the premises of a grocery store, is theft if done without the owners effective consent.

If you read the penal code statute in conjunction with the business and commerce code, a person does not have consent unless they have written permission.

I did not put the smileys there - it did that on its own.

Strange about the emoticons. At least it's the cool dude smileys, and not the skeptical dude smileys.

Again, I'm not an attorney here, but...

"Appropriation of property is unlawful if it is without the owner's effective consent."

I think it could be argued since charges are never filed by grocery stores in urban areas, consent is implied. Likewise, if you managed to remove a cart with locking wheels, then you could definitively say the owner didn't consent to the cart being removed from the property.

"'Deprive' means to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner."

If/When the carts are returned, they've lost no value. They're a one-time tax write-off because any depreciation is negligible. If the intent is to return it, and if the value doesn't drop, then can it possibly be said the owner has been deprived of its property? Seems a tough sell. I bet a prosecuter would drop the case before arguing those fuzzy grays in front of a jury.

I get what you're saying, Marksmu, but it doesn't make it wrong. I think the fact the "crime" is on the books as being no more criminal an act than speeding says more to the reality of the situation than any other interpretation of the law.

[LTAWACS]

How are they violating the law? If the grocery stores aren't pressing charges and post no notice on the cart advising people to keep it on-site, and have installed no countermeasures to keep the carts in place, perhaps they don't mind people taking the carts home. Do you take the plastic bags home? Did you pay for the bags?

I thought there had to be a sign stating that the carts should not be removed from the premises?

Yes, I pay for the bags. Indirectly. By shopping there. ¿

Such is life. You can't legislate morality or ethics. Or, I should say, you can't legislate your morality or your ethics.

However, it is comforting to know I live in the midst of so many do-gooders who never, under any circumstances, violate the law.

Yes. Welcome to the nayborhood. Good to have you back.

We've missed you AtticaFlinch. /Mr. Smith

[RedScare]

Yep, straight from the horse's mouth...

straight from the horses mouth.......

A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the owner of property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (Vernon 1989). Appropriation of property is unlawful if it is without the owner's effective consent. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03((1) (Vernon 1989). “Appropriate” means to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(5)( (Vernon 1989). “Exercise control” means the intent to deprive the owner of his property without his effective consent. Roberson v. State, 821 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). “Deprive” means to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A) (Vernon 1989).

Stick to working for daddy. It's safer that way.

[AtticaFlinch]

I thought there had to be a sign stating that the carts should not be removed from the premises?

Yes, I pay for the bags. Indirectly. By shopping there. ¿

I suppose the same could be said for the people who take the carts. If someone takes the cart without also shopping at the store, we've got a different situation then, don't we?

Yes. Welcome to the nayborhood. Good to have you back.

We've missed you AtticaFlinch. /Mr. Smith

Is Mr Smith a former HAIFer? If his views resembled mine, he sounds like a cool dude (this cool dude smiley was intentional). I can see why you miss him.

[august948]

You know, I really hate to ruin your pious post by bringing some reality to the thread, but I feel compelled to disavow you of the notion that those who wheel their groceries home are "common thieves". You see, they are not committing theft. Here, let me show you...

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

You see, the poor are not intending to deprive the owner of the property. They are merely using the cart to deliver their groceries to their homes. Granted, it would be nice if these shoppers then returned the carts, but the mere fact that they leave the cart by the road instead of bringing it back does not make this a theft. I would have thought the other lawyer posting so vehemently on this thread might have pointed this out, but perhaps he didn't study criminal law in school.

If someone left their car unlocked and the keys in the ignition in a grocery store parking lot and then I loaded my groceries in the car, drove to my house, unloaded the groceries and then abandoned the car at the side of the road wouldn't that be considered theft?

[RedScare]

To be sure, I am not advocating that shopping cart borrowers should not return the carts. They should. Carts left in locations away from the store CAN be stolen by hobos, chop shops for scrap metal, and others. My only point is that, just as teenagers who take your car joyriding are not charged with theft (as opposed to Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle) because they do not intend to PERMANENTLY deprive the owner of the property, neither can those using carts to transport their groceries be accused of theft. In fact, it is this very real legal conundrum that is the BASIS for the shopping cart specific laws that prohibit taking them home. Even though the laws are class 'C' misdemeanors, they serve a useful purpose, as police officers cannot arrest shopping cart "thieves" unless specific facts give rise to the belief that the person intends to permanently deprive the grocery store of the property.

The law does not operate under "ballpark" rules. The terms used in the law have specific meanings. This is normally a good thing, as it protects the public from arbitrary enforcement of the law. It can also frustrate those who wish to see people arrested because they 'criminals' as opposed to committing a crime.

EDIT: I inadvertantly answered August948's question without seeing it. No, that person would be guilty of UUMV. By the way, it is a class 'C' offense to leave your keys in an unattended vehicle, also.

[Marksmu]

Yep, straight from the horse's mouth...

Stick to working for daddy. It's safer that way.

I intentionally did not post the case name, full facts, or the holding of that case, b/c I knew you would come flying in with some dumb stuck up smart A $ $ look how smart I am, and how stupid you are response EXACTLY like you did. Thank you for taking the bait.

I took that snippet of quotation straight from a Westlaw where an individual was CONVICTED of THEFT in Texas for stealing a shopping cart from a small grocery store. His defense was precisely your allegation, that he never intended to steal it just use it. Evidence offered at trial showed that the individual had taken several carts from the store and never returned any of them. Further evidence was offered showing the cost of the cart to the store, and the costs associated with the carts retrieval. The jury concluded that costs of retrieval, and the fact that no carts were being returned were tantamount to theft as it did in fact deprive the store owner of use of the cart, and value in the cart as the added cost to retrieve the carts exceeded the actual price paid for them.

The jury rejected your weak defense and he was convicted of Theft.

So Ill keep on doing what I do, laughing at you, because you took the bait just like I knew you would. Your arrogance is hilarious. I do not pretend to know everything so I look it up. You simply spout off like your some legal god. I wish I knew your real name, that way if I ever got myself into hot water I would know what criminal defense attorney to avoid! Though my guess is you get most of your cases appointed to you.

[kylejack]

If someone left their car unlocked and the keys in the ignition in a grocery store parking lot and then I loaded my groceries in the car, drove to my house, unloaded the groceries and then abandoned the car at the side of the road wouldn't that be considered theft?

It would certainly be considered theft, you took those bags without express written permission!

[Jesse]

I thought there had to be a sign stating that the carts should not be removed from the premises?

I'm willing to bet all the stores nearby (Kroger, Fiesta, CVS, etc) have such a sign.