|
Ah, but there was nothing about the money being given back being counted as non-stolen.
0. He stole $11
Amount stolen = $100
1. He paid for goods with stolen money, from which he got change; i.e. he stole $100-worth of goods and change.
Amount stolen = $100
Total amount stolen = $200
You have to remember the devious mind of the question-setter.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If he had purchased $70 of goods with $100 of his own money, you would agree that the store had received $100, and had given $70 of goods and $30 of change, for a total "loss" of $0.
The only loss here was the crime - stealing $100, and therefore the store lost $100.
Your method counts the stolen money twice.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
But the (trick) question doesn't say anything about discounting the fact that the money was paid back in, or anything about profit/loss, and all three amounts were /technically/ theft.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. So according to you, we have a few additional crimes here:
- The customer stole $100 (theft)
- The customer took $70 worth of merchandise and paid for them with the stolen $100 (paying with stolen money)
- The shopkeeper received stolen goods (the $100 stolen by the customer)
- The shopkeeper gave $30 under false pretenses to the customer
If your legal theory is correct, then
- Every shopkeeper who receives money must somehow verify that the money is legitimately owned by the customer.
- "Fencing" has been expanded to the case where the thief also uses the proceeds of the theft.
From a "God's eye" view, you may be correct, but I'd hate to be the prosecutor who has to prosecute this case...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, it ain't no "legal theory"! Although,legally, they guy would be prosecuted on all counts, and receive a harsher sentence.
It's an "awkward bugger setting trick questions" theory!
The phrasing avoided any mention of "returned" money not being definable as "stolen", so there were three trick-question-style acts of theft:
0. The cash was stolen from the till. $100 stolen
1. The goods were stolen, because they were paid for with stolen money. $70 stolen
2. The change was obtained unlawfully. $30 stolen
From the trick-question perspective, that's $200 stolen (that word being the only pertinent one).
It's only logically that it's only $100.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods? How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: So, would the shopkeeper be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods?
If it were 60 years ago, and the shopkeeper were Margaret Thatcher, I'd vote Aye, and demand the death penalty.
Think how much suffering that would have prevented.Daniel Pfeffer wrote: How would your answer change if the thief went to another shop and spent the $100 there?
It's still $200, but this clarifies the non-logic of it -- he steals $100 from one shop, and $100 from another shop.
But that still wasn't my point.
The way the question was phrased, the answer can only be $200.
It's a trick question, phrased in a way to get logic-centric people to make the mistake of thinking logically.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
100.
70 - worth goods
30 - cash
charges: robbery and shoplifting among others (I guess)
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember whose face is on the $100 bill, so I can't answer in a fitting manner.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Franklin. Now, what's your answer?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
It can't be Benjamin Franklin, because someone said it in a bulletin board on the Internet.
If [edit] you're Peter is [/edit] not counting funds returned to the store as non-stolen, which [edit] your Peter's [/edit] phrasing implies, it's $200.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I will accept your solution if you give me half of your answer!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Half of the answer is 21.
Do you want that converted to Euro from 1924 Reichsmarks, or 1980s Italian Lire?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said converted to; that's nothing to do with what collectors might pay.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In that case pay mi directly in Rechsmarks - 21. In 1s and 5s please...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Euros only, as per our iron-clad agreement.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Franklin, I don't know.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
What was actually stolen was $100.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say 170$. 100$, as 70$ return to the shop but other 70$ in goods go away. They cancel each other out.
100 were of the shop to begin with.
70 is the value of the goods the thief took, without paying good money.
The change doesn't count as it affects only the implementation of the money exchange.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
modified 20-Feb-17 5:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
According to complinated sums, the thief get's away with $100.
Action Thief Till Goods
Start 0 0 0
Theft 100 -100 0
Goods 170 -100 -70
Payment 70 0 -70
Change 100 -30 -70
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
What was the profit margin on the goods?
Rules for playing Javascript frameworks.
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: How much was actually stolen from the shop?
By definition the $100 was "stolen money"
- giving it to the shop to pay for goods does not make it any less stolen
Basically he stole $100, used stolen money to pay for the goods, and got change of $30 from money that was never his. The $100 was stolen, the goods were not paid for using his money, the change was received on money not his.
Using stolen money even at the place you stole it from does not make it batter.
"two wrongs do not make a right?"
How much was actually stolen from the shop?
NOT: How much did the thief get away with.
Even though the cash register is only out $100 the total theft (by definition of theft and by law) was $200,
add in the crime of using ill gotten proceeds - 3 strikes - he's down.
It's English people, learn proper use of your language.
Sin tack
the any key okay
modified 20-Feb-17 6:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
It is fascinating how math and ethics can differ... 
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not ethics, it's proper English.
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
