Talk:Larceny

message: The article says that leaves that have fallen from trees, garbage, dirty diapers, the contents of a septic tank could not be stolen because any rational person would not pay anything for them. This is of course wrong, garbage of all kinds is being traded and used as raw material for biogas production. 78.108.52.23 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  value of goods 

message: The 13th citation web link (N.Y. Penal L. § 155.00 (3), found at NY State assembly website. Retrieved october 2, 2008.) doesn't work and has no information. Please update.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.161.62 (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: Does this make any sense?  "The difference between rotating a doughnut (larceny) and rotating a pie (not larceny)."  They are both round so neither center would change.
The least movement of the property from its original position is sufficient to satisfy the asportation element of common law larceny. However, as noted the entirety of the property must move from its original position. In rotating a doughnut all the doughnut moves - with a pie the center does not move. Thus rotation of a doughnut would constitute a taking while rotation of a pie would not. Another example would be a tire lying on its side. If a thief lifted the tire intending to roll it away, the lifting movement would not be sufficient for common law larceny since a point of contact between the tire and the ground has not changed.Gambino23 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: Hello?  Don't we normally have a disambiguation page for this sort of thing (re bottom of page)?  Sargdit: your issue seems to have been addressed. - J Alexander D Atkins 10:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English law, larceny was replaced by theft in 1968. Many of the federal and U.S. state laws retain the term larceny. And, to clarify your example, the garage only has a lien for the unpaid bill and not ownership (and, yes, that means that a person can steal his or her own property). David91 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: Difference  between larceny and theft  is  that the  theft is done  with dishonesty whereas larceny  not. 
element of dishonesty haa to   be presetn at the time of  performing  act. 
eg. THEFT : stealing with intention to deprive the owner. .
LARCENY:  accidenally  removing / taking  away   however not returning  the  same on  having  knonwledge  of  it as wrongly removed. 
subhash  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.106.186 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between larceny and theft is not made clear in this article. Several dictionary sources did not make the difference clear. Could this difference be made clear, perhaps in the introduction? MykellM (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference

message: Per the discussion and removal of the tag there , I am removing the tag here and at WP:PM. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Theft]]

message: Is there any particular need for there to be a distinct Arizona section? meccaneer (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arizona

message: When I click in "Português" on the LARCENY page, the Portuguese page shows "Latrocínio" which is a type of theft where you kill to rob, instead of showing "Estelionato".
200.152.99.94 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation to Portuguese

message: Why is the definition of Larceny not the sentence in the lead? The lead feels very disjointed and informs you "was an offence under the common law of England" Who cares? I just think that it might be worth rearranging, if not rewriting the lead --96.235.229.161 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Lead? 

message: I just stumbled over this article, and I am not a lawyer, but have serious issues with the part of the definition of larceny concerning the intent, even if it is properly reflected in this article according to the official definitions by the law.
Here is my problem: The intent of larceny is being described essentially as to deprive the owner of their stuff.  But if someone steals something, then deprivation of the owner is rarely the intent, rather the intent is to get the stuff for oneself so that one can benefit from it.  Therefore, merely as a consequence of the action of stealing motivated by the intent of benefitting, the original owner is deprived of said stuff and its benefits. So the deprivation of the owner is not part of the intention of stealing, but rather a consequence of the way reality works in response to the act of stealing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.144.206 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with Intent of Larceny

message: Isn't there a contradiction in the 'Take' element of the US System?
".. control over the property, although momentary, was sufficient to constitute a taking."
this goes against the definition of the definition of 'Deprive'
"..To "deprive" another of property means (a) to withhold it or cause it to be withheld from him permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him, or (b"
DrBob127 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that "deprive" really only refers to the intent element, not the actual action, but I am not a US lawyer - maybe one can explain explain. The article is generally quite muddled, so it may well be the case. Westmorlandia (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be "deprive permanently", and refers to the action as well as intent. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The sections under Other factors on taking asportation and intent are largely redundant and should be deleted to clean up article or incorporated into new sections.Jgard5000 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates for deletion 

message: Pardon me for being so picky (I know this has almost nothing gotta do with the subject matter, though it's about the content), but the spellings offense and offence are on the same page in the same paragraph.
Shouldn't something be done to make it more consistent ? 60.49.67.253 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: Currently the opening paragraph of this page is the following: Larceny is Larceny. Though true, this strikes me as utterly uninformative. I don't believe I possess the necessary knowledge and expertise; nevertheless, this issue needs to be addressed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.227.169 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph