Comment by bradlys | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradlys | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is one of the reasons I don't buy things from Home Depot if I can help it. I've gone to multiple stores thinking something was in stock to only find they were all out of stock. On top of that, the staff there are almost helpless when it comes to finding things that aren't on the shelf itself. If it's up top, be prepared to waste an hour trying to get someone to fetch the item. (If it's there!)

Their poor system can work in your favor though. Went to go pick up my order after it being cancelled at multiple places. Turns out, at this one, they only had 2 of the 4 items at pickup. I tell them it says there are more in stock, they confirm. We go hunting for the remaining 2. Takes 30 minutes for them to fetch the remaining two from the top with my help (without my help, they would have never found it!). We go back to the register, they punch in that they're giving me 2 more. I go home with all 4 of my items. I was never charged for the full order. Only the initial 2.

I mean technically that is stealing but I guess its pretty low on the scale of "bad stuff".

Is it? They rung me up with it - it's up to them to decide what to charge me. I'd put as "bank error in my favor." I only noticed later when I was making sure they didn't overcharge me when looking at my bank account. (They had to charge and refund about 3x)

It's still stealing, the correct move would be to go back and pay the correct amount as you likely would have done if they overcharged you.

That said, I doubt you could legally be held responsible and I see no problems with what you did morally either. If you noticed at the time I'd find it morally questionable, but you can't fix every mistake.

Stealing requires intent, generally.

Not just that, but like, the parent commenter actually got his items rung up in the store. So the parent wouldnt have even noticed they didn’t get charged for those items unless they were constantly checking their bank account for actual dollar amounts charged for every purchase. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be able to claim that the parent commenter is at fault here.

I said they weren't at fault legally or morally. That doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.

I mean, imagine this.

I walk up to a cashier, and he by accident drops $10 in my shopping cart (without me noticing). Then he proceeds to inconspicuously take those $10, look at it, and silently put it back in the bag (again, without me noticing). I discover those $10 only when I get home. I had no idea it was even there, and the store employee definitely looked through every single item in my bag and saw those $10, but just decided to put it back there. Did I steal those $10?

I struggle to even call it something like "theft by accident", which would be if the cashier forgets to scan an item because they didn't notice it. In my hypothetical scenario, the cashier noticed and picked up the item.

>Did I steal those $10?

Yes. You have acquired it without the intentional consent of the owner, who presumably thought it was your $10. I don't think it's a crime nor would I find you personally responsible.

That’s a weird definition of theft. By this definition if I pick up a quarter off the sidewalk I’m stealing too.

If you picked up a hundred dollar bill in the same situation and didn't have any intention of returning it, would you consider that stealing?

My definition of theft doesn't presume it was legally or morally wrong, so many innocent actions would still be theft.

Return it to who?

If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise?

I think you just have an odd definition of theft.

From Merriam Webster:

1. a : the act of stealing

specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

1. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

2 : a stolen base in baseball

3 obsolete : something stolen

>If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise?

Presumably the owner would retrace their steps and try to find what was lost. Most people would do this for a hundred dollars, but you can also imagine a child doing it for a quarter. Is it theft if you say you haven't seen it? How about if you never run into the person but intended to say you haven't seen it?

At what point it becomes "theft" is tenuous at best. I'd rather call many things "theft" and withhold judgment until I learn the details as it limits instantaneous judgments upon hearing of a thief.

As for your definition, at what point something becomes unlawful is never clear, and nobody's actual definitions for concepts ever mirror a dictionary definition.

I think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it. Or at least greatly stretching the definition.

And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? That's weird to me too, especially combined with your follow up of limiting instantaneous judgement. How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?

>think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it.

Everybody does that all of the time, your definition for words are based on your own experiences.

>And assuming theft unless otherwise proven?

No, assuming theft. More things are called theft.

>How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?

You still think that a thief is a bad person. I assume basically everyone has committed theft, so withhold judgment until I have more information.

There are common definitions of what words mean. If the meaning of words become arbitrary then we lose the ability to communicate effectively.

An action was taken, e.g. picking up a quarter off the side walk. There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter. By using a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning, and a negative one at that, and associate it with an innocent action you're already labeling it in a negative way for everyone else. Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person. If only you don't think so and label someone else doing nothing bad a thief, then you're labeling someone a bad person.

It's like me calling you a rapist. But I don't mean rapist in the typical way, I just mean anyone that has sex. So to me a rapist is not a bad person and I'll withhold judgement until I have more information. So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?

>There are common definitions of what words mean.

What are they? People assume their definition is common, but everything is much less clear than that. This causes frequent disagreements, and it's best to get more information.

>There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter.

There is no need for me to label the action at all unless I'm in a position to explain what I mean. My position on the action is primarily private. Changing the definition is more useful in the other direction, when you call someone a thief I don't assume I have any idea what they did or what kind of person that makes them.

>Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person.

Using such labels to judge an entire persons worth is ridiculous in a number of ways. There are too many ways that both of us would consider innocent that can get you labeled a thief. I was almost booked for stealing $40 of gas after realizing I lost my wallet after filling the tank. Am I a bad person because of that?

>So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?

This started as me labeling an action as theft. If I walked around blindly calling people thieves I would expect the misunderstanding to cause problems for me.

> This started as me labeling an action as theft.

That's what I mean with the rapist example too. If you have sex with someone, do I have the right to call you a rapist first and withhold judgement until I have more information? If for me a rapist isn't necessarily a bad act.

No, you are jumping straight into calling someone a rapist. If I described perfectly consensual sex and you replied "it's rape" with no explanation, you should also expect repercussions for the misunderstanding.

Labeling an act primarily privately and publicly labeling a person are vastly different.

This might answer your question though. If you pointed at someone and said "this person is a rapist," I would withhold judgment until learning more details. A label is not enough to evaluate someone's life. And I try to limit who i casually toss such labels onto, preferring to give some detail into their act.

Generally, but it can happen by accident. Have you never accidentally stolen a borrowed pen?

"bank error in your favor" is not a real thing and a bank will definitely hold you accountable for that. But I honestly read your description as HD just giving you the extras as a gift for your hassle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com