Oh it is illegal for me to even elude to health benefits, I can only sell you things recreationally. Makes selling things that don’t get you high interesting.

I sell drugs and drug accessories, I doubt it would be hard to explain.

I love moon. It is a shame it is not better known, great movie.

Yes theatres are too much for a cash strapped general population. But we also see streaming get ruined all the time, the last time netflix had a show I liked (I am not OK with this) they cut it after one season, and for what? We have a situation where movies/shows should be easier then ever to make but we instead have next to nothing worthwhile out and advertised.

I also hate when they remake movies that don’t work with today’s production companies. Remember what they did to Old Boy? Why did they even try? And why did they think removing the big shocker (the whole point of the movie) would work?

false equivalency

Her being innocent or not has nothing to do with the issue of setting a bad precedent in this case being a slippery slope. If using the provided pump software with provided rewards card (granted in a way not foreseen) can be considered theft then the slippery slope is what else can be considered theft.

You think they should be held liable for making a mistake and being taken advantage of? This is blaming the victim.

Yes, they should be held liable. And then hold the makers of the pump software liable in turn. This should be a civil case between companies not a criminal case against a customer.

I started my initial post by very clearly stating “It comes down to intent.” The claim that I’m equating one who accidentally benefits from a glitch, to someone intentionally exploiting it over the course of months to steal tens of thousands of dollars, is ridiculous.

I agree that there might be a case for something else (conversion, fraud, conspiracy), but this is once again where that slope comes in. Relying on proof of intent is problematic to say the least. And yes the line of whats a whoopsy vs whats theft will come up if this goes forward. This is not ideal.

a pattern of criminal behave.

What kinda Kirkland brand minority report is this?

I am not saying she was not taking advantage of this flaw, but the flaw is so bad that I can not in good judgment pin her with theft. Fraud? Maybe. You also have to be careful with legal responsiblity here as it could set a dangerous legal expectation.

I wonder how many times in my life I will get to see Batman’s parents die? Or James bond play poker? Or star wars get ruined?

Explicitly? Nowhere. But for this to be a slippery slope to innocent victims being held criminally accountable for malfunctioning technology, she has to be.

No she does not have to be an innocent victim for this to be a slippery slope, this is just false equivalency.

Is this a joke? This comment section is awash with people saying they fucked up, so she had the right to take advantage of it. I sidestepped this question intentionally, and specifically addressed the claim that punishing her for this would almost inevitably lead to actual innocent people being punished.

Ah, I did not realize they charged the company with a crime. Oh they did not?

She’s not being held legally responsible for not reporting it, she is being held responsible for it for exploiting it to steal tens of thousands of dollars worth of gas.

That is functionally the same thing, if she did report it after the first time I am sure no harm no foul. But if she did not report it in your eyes it is now theft (remember she stumbled upon this). If you think about this critically the number of times should not change the nature of the act.

If I make a self serve machine and tell everyone to use it who’s responsibility is it to ensure it’s functionality? The customer?

This would be I think more like if a staff member was not charging for gas to turn all the blame on the customers who benefited.

Where did anyone say this person was an innocent victim? No one is debating she took advantage here, the issue is no one seems to be putting any culpability on the company who made the pump. The issue here is a slippery slope as it expects a duty to report the error from her that should not be there legally. I could see some other charge like fraud be appropriate maybe, but theft is such a bad thing to charge her with.

The action in question is double tapping a rewards card, at some point a security vulnerability is so bad it is negligent. I find it odd that no one is pointing out she followed the prompts on the screen when making these analogies. A better example would be having a site show you sensitive data (like say the fallout 76 bag scandal, or the sony one) and then claiming the fault is solely on the person who saw the data. I can see other charges then theft maybe, but the liability here can not just be on the person.

We are currently debating whether or not a crime has been committed so, yes it can.

That is the risk, there should not be a line where using a system crosses into theft. The odd part of all this to me is where is the culpability of the gas station in this?

Settle? this is a criminal case not a civil one. Maybe they will plead to something lesser, but ether way it is very bad precedent.

The issue here, is that someone took advantage of a broken pos system and now they are being charged. If this stands you now have the base to potentially charge anyone who uses a broken piece of tech, and tech is getting crappier and crappier by the day.

It does not matter if she took advantage or what the motive was. The underling issue is that now users can be on the hook for bad products. That is terrifying.

This thing is like 6600 lbs, and on what look like street tires. Airing down would be great, before this was highcentered. I am also not so keen on getting under that to dig it out.

Its really heavy, and on sand that is all it takes. (well that and spinning the tires for a bit)

Sorry but how is this not on the system, let alone a crime?

This slope is slick, if she is guilty of theft due to a system error then whats to stop them from saying the price you bought something at was an “error” later?

And lets face it, swiping a card 2 times breaking your system tells me that you should get better QA not charge someone.

They should really make some sort of incentive to keep these people alive. Like if a whistle blower dies before the verdict of the trial/hearing make it an automatic assumption and multiply the punishment by 3 times (Treble!). Then you would have companies doing everything to not have whistle blowers die, not what we have today.