Yeah, the author is trying to see what would happen if they roll a can into the bag. This is meant to conceal the act from the computer. The act of concealing merchandise is all that is required in many jurisdictions. If they walked out without the concealing act, then I would think the error should be on the store.
There have been some cases of self checkout prosecution too. They don't need any proof of intent. Even regular errors can be prosecuted.
> They don't need any proof of intent. Even regular errors can be prosecuted.
In Common Law jurisdictions, there's no intent required for prosecution of alleged theft, but there absolutely is intent required for conviction! Anything else is a miscarriage of justice.
Except statute and common law can define intent using prima facia definitions. In PA it's considered prima facia evidence as defined in statute that you're hunting if you're walking in the woods with a gun. Doesn't matter your true intent. If you removed an item from a store without paying for it, that's prima facia evidence of shoplifting defined in common law. Again, true intent doesn't matter. The courts will even create president that goes against statute just to make conviction easier - the statute for dog control says it must be "under reasonable control". Instead the courts have ruled that it is a strict liability offense and not subject to the reasonable standard.
So yeah, there's a lot of miscarriage of justice, or at least potential for it. Nobody really cares until it happens to them.
There have been some cases of self checkout prosecution too. They don't need any proof of intent. Even regular errors can be prosecuted.