Support this on Patreon!

Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part! Also, you can use the arrows on your keyboard to flip through pages quickly.

Use this link to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Join the conversation!
There are now 4 comments... what are your thoughts?
  1. Sean Rice says

    If the last one isn’t satisfied, say, she wanted it for her OWN party and could demonstrate that she would be returning it AFTER the party, would there be a separate charge?

    This is assuming, of course, that she is still stupid enough to “borrow without permission.”

    • I would guess that it’s not time specific. Intent to deprive someone of their property for a week would still be the intent to deprive them of their property. The clause is there to establish mens rea, I suspect. If you took their property because the backpack they had stuck it in looked like yours, you didn’t take it with the intention to deprive them of it, you took it because you were mistaken about the facts. If you took it knowing it wasn’t yours, you had the intent to deprive them of their property.

      • You could also have taken their backpack with the intention of putting it in the “lost and found” pile, or with the intention of running after them to try to catch them before the bus leaves. Then you would have been taking someone else’s stuff intentionally, but not with the intent to deprive them of it.

  2. Scott McNay says

    Umm… actually… She didn’t take it to deprive him, she took it because she liked it. Based on her thought bubbles, a duplicate would have been just fine. Oh, and free.

    Is this one of those cases where the phrase has a specific meaning to the legal profession?

Class Participation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Support this on Patreon!