Online shop and given bottle of alcohol with security tag on

davidmcn

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

But would they be reckless?

Depends how thirsty they are.

unholyangel

peter_the_piper wrote: »

How would the shop know he had the tag, they were meant to have removed it before sending.:rotfl:

I didn't say they'd get caught for it, was merely giving a good logical reason why the OP may not want to do this. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who do not let the probability of being caught for an offence determine whether they commit the criminal behaviour that completes the offence.

peachyprice wrote: »

I'm curious, what would the criminal offence be?

And more to the point, how would the store prosecute anyone when they are unaware that the tag has even left the store, never mind where it has gone?

As above, didn't say they'd be caught! But if you (for example) speed but don't get caught, does that then mean you didn't commit the offence of speeding?

davidmcn wrote: »

Even if they happened to cause damage, I can't see there's criminal intent.

So what was their intent? Did the tag magically fall off all on its own while they were admiring their purchase?

That aside, the offence of criminal damage is intent or recklessness. While negligence would fall into the civil offence/wrong category.

davidmcn

unholyangel wrote: »

So what was their intent?

To separate their bottle from the supermarket's tag?

The removal technique shown in the video I linked to above doesn't appear to damage the tag anyway - and the value of the tags is trivial.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

davidmcn wrote: »

To separate their bottle from the supermarket's tag?

The removal technique shown in the video I linked to above doesn't appear to damage the tag anyway - and the value of the tags is trivial.

The value doesn't matter but even if you removed it without damage you'd still need to return it.

unholyangel

davidmcn wrote: »

To separate their bottle from the supermarket's tag?

The removal technique shown in the video I linked to above doesn't appear to damage the tag anyway - and the value of the tags is trivial.

Which is why i don't think the OP would get caught. They'll be plentiful & cheap, so not worth the company keeping track of them. Particularly in a supermarket.

But again, you can commit an offence and not get arrested, charged, prosecuted or convicted of it.

Donhilton

It's a sign op you should stop drinking. You should get down to your local alcoholic anonymous asap.

mksysb

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

The value doesn't matter but even if you removed it without damage you'd still need to return it.

No you wouldn't. You're missing the fact that it now belongs to the OP as it was included with his purchase. He could give it back to the shop as a gesture of goodwill, or just throw it in the bin. Certainly no offence committed.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

mksysb wrote: »

No you wouldn't. You're missing the fact that it now belongs to the OP as it was included with his purchase. He could give it back to the shop as a gesture of goodwill, or just throw it in the bin. Certainly no offence committed.

If its criminal damage to cut it off then they arent free to keep or dispose of it.

unholyangel

mksysb wrote: »

No you wouldn't. You're missing the fact that it now belongs to the OP as it was included with his purchase. He could give it back to the shop as a gesture of goodwill, or just throw it in the bin. Certainly no offence committed.

And you seem to be missing the fact that the contract was for a bottle of whatever, not bottle + security tag - the supermarket never intended to transfer ownership of the tag. So no, it wasn't included with his purchase.

mksysb

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

If its criminal damage to cut it off then they arent free to keep or dispose of it.

But it's not criminal damage to cut up your own property, which the tag now is.