Otherwise, even if Michael Douglas' character did not "steal" when he was in that convenience store and conflicted with that South Korean clerk, he did damage and destroy a few items there, and isn't that at least almost as bad as stealing regardless of law's official "stance" on the matter? Cheers.
shareBy current California law it is clearly worse. You're allowed to take up to $950 worth of merchandise before it becomes a felony. If the merchant tries to stop you, they're guilty of felony assault. If you damage someone's property, that's still a crime. Back when the film was made, the laws were different, and theft was still a crime, so it's less clear which was worse.
shareI would say it is worse. Stolen property can be returned in some cases but damaged or destroyed property will cost the victim (or their insurance company) money. Violently destroying property can also put people in fear for their own safety because "hey this guy is nuts, is he going to come at me next??"
shareBut then how come in this movie the Korean store clerk and that detective kinda let his property damaging antics slide but are concerned about whether or not he committed a robbery, oh, and wasn't taking the baseball bat and "paying" for an item LESS than its established cost and by using threats, in a way, ALSO a form of "stealing"?
share