[PragmaticPulp]

> But if the intent all along was to return it the next day, stored safely the entire time, that's not theft.

Legally, this isn't even remotely true.

If you deprive someone of their legal possessions without permission, even with intent to return it later, you are guilty of theft.

There is no loophole that allows you to temporarily steal things as long as you intend to return them.

Intent only comes into play if the person had no intention of depriving the other person. An example would be if you accidentally pick up someone else's jacket because you thought it was yours.

[Dylan16807]

Permanent deprivation seems to be the more common standard as far as I can tell, not just deprivation.

The difference isn't a loophole.

[xboxnolifes]

I'm fairly sure if you steal something with the intent to return it 5 years later you will still be charged with theft.

[PragmaticPulp]

No, theft is theft, regardless of whether or not you return the item later.

There is no loophole that allows people to temporarily steal things as long as they kindly return them later.

[jeff_tyrrill]

The parent isn't claiming that it's legal to take something so long as you have intent to return it. Just that the standard definition of theft requires "permanently" as an element, and maybe taking something temporarily would be some other crime.

See the model penal code[1] "(1) "deprive" means: (a) to withhold property of another permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of its economic value, or with intent to restore only upon payment of reward or other compensation"

See [2] which mentions the "permanent" requirement three times.

[1] https://archive.org/details/ModelPenalCode_ALI/page/n207/mod...

[2] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/theft-over...

[PragmaticPulp]

We’re so deep into pedantry that we’re missing the point of the conversation.

To clarify, most jurisdictions have definitions of theft that will be true even if you only deprive the person of their property for a short period of time:

> Today, many states have extended the definition of theft to include depriving the owner of the property even for a short period of time, thus rendering unauthorized borrowing as theft.

From https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/theft-crimes-a-s...

So yes, maybe there is some jurisdiction somewhere that wouldn’t define unauthorized borrowing as theft, but chances are good that if you borrow something without authorization, you can be guilty of theft (among other things) in most jurisdictions.

[dragonwriter]

> No, theft is theft, regardless of whether or not you return the item later.

Theft generally (specific statutes may vary!) requires intent to permanently deprive; if you don’t have that, its not theft.

It may be another crime, and its almost certainly the tort of trespass to chattels, so its not “allowed”.