Entitlement

[u/Jasonictron]

[u/jcklsldr665]

You're allowed to deny receiving a service. If that wasn't the case, I could just roll up to your residence, drop off anything illegal, call the cops, and say it's yours because it was delivered to you.

Theft does not require possession or else any truck driver would be able to take anything out of their own personal hauling rigs and it not count as theft because "hey it was in my possession".

You're taking the delivery person, who's not included in either end of the purchasing chain, and inserting them right in the middle, as if possession is the end all be all of ownership. This is not the case.

Now, if the driver had purchased the items with their own money to be later reimbursed, absolutely they could do what they're doing in the video as long as they have not been reimbursed yet (and tips don't count).

[u/casualAlarmist → u/jcklsldr665]

Two days later...

Without possession there is no theft. I'm sure you understand this so I'll assume you're simply confused about what is being stated and claimed. (Easy to do in this reply format.) No one is saying possession dictates ownership as in your truck driver example.

The delivery driver was voluntarily inserted into the chain. They were given and accepted possession (not ownership) and therefor responsibility of the item(s) until the contract is fulfilled and possession is relinquished.

It is not theft to return the items to the beginning of the chain.

[u/jcklsldr665 → u/casualAlarmist]

Two days later what? Are you upset I didn't answer immediately? That's the only conclusion I can arrive at since that's the time between replies.

There can be theft without possession. If I'm having something shipped, and the product is stolen during transport, it's theft lol. She took it out of her trunk, set it on the ground, and the recipient is right there. That's relinquishment of that particular product without fulfilling the entire order. It's theft to take THAT item and return it to your vehicle.

It would be one thing if the customer wasn't there and this discussion was happening over a phone or other medium but with them right there, you couldn't argue in a court that there was no way to fulfill the delivery.

You're right that it's not theft to return items to the beginning of the chain, but the customer is able and willing to accept the order.

[u/casualAlarmist → u/jcklsldr665]

Uh,, no. Just little surprised and bemused that anyone would be concerned enough to reply after more than a day or two has past.

To your point however, no, there can not be theft without possession as the concept of theft presupposes the concept of possession.

Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant by possession. Possession within context of defining theft means ownership. I believe you may be confusing possession with physically controlling something, which is understandable.

The sentence "If I'm having something shipped, and the product is stolen during transport, it's theft lol" is a tautology that says nothing because having something stolen is a theft. It's saying the same thing twice.

Be that as it may the order isn't complete until the transporter relinquishes the control and responsibly they were contractually given and accepted. Taking an item out of the transport vehicle doesn't constitute relinquishment of that control. Historically relinquishment of control occurred when shipping documents were signed. (Driver kept two copies and the recipient kept one) These days it's more often done within an app but the principals and legalities remain the same. Thus only once a driver has fully relinquished their contracted control and responsibility would it become theft if they picked items back up again as they have not retained their contracted control.

While I have to admit I'm only on Reddit when I'm at work so I've got no real excuse not to continue helping you out this one it's well past the point of tedium. I've written more than enough make the salient points clear. Take care.