[benatkin]

I think the idea was that the author of the post voluntarily handed it to the scumbag. They use the term parting because it doesn't carry the connotations that lended or gave do. However, nothing appeared to be amiss until he didn't return it, so until he didn't return it, it was voluntary. Since that was long past the in-person interaction, the parting during the in-person interaction could be considered voluntary.

It would be interesting if someone stole for the first time like this. They could decide first to take the chance to steal it, and once they have the potentially stolen goods, decide whether or not to return it. Then the moment where they became a thief would be a fuzzy period of time between the time it was agreed to return it to the time he sold the equipment to a third party.

[KukicAdnan]

But I don't see how it was "voluntary." There must have been some agreed upon contract through KitSplit right that makes this not a voluntary but a business-type transaction where the rules are clearly stated: You paid $X, and you get Y for an agreed amount of time. If you don't pay, you don't get it, if you don't return within the timeframe agreed you're in breach of said contract.

[benatkin]

The parting is part of a sub-transaction within the overall transaction. In the in-person meeting where the parting happened, the parting it was voluntary. Within the context of the whole transaction, it wasn't voluntary. That context is eliminated when deciding whether it's robbery or voluntary parting, because that's just about the one in-person interaction.