No, you’re making assertions I didn’t claim. You have to demonstrate that a theft occurred. A theft, by definition, requires a claim of ownership. An owner. Without a claim of ownership, there is no crime because you can trivially argue it was a gift or abandoned property.
Again you are making things up. A defense attorney is welcome to argue (for example) that the guy who battered me unconscious with a baseball bat on the security footage and took my wallet was actually "gifted" my wallet, or the wallet was actually "abandoned" by my unconscious self, but nobody has to testify as to the ownership of my wallet for a successful prosecution. The jury as finder of fact has sufficient evidence from the security footage alone.
Of course I have no idea what you think you mean by "claim of ownership" at this point- courts make ruling based on "admissible evidence" as I said. There is no legal requirement for the evidence to be a "claim of ownership".
Feel free to have last word if you want, this conversation has gotten silly.
Yeah your whole counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”. Let’s go with the wallet analogy, subtraction out the unrelated battery part. Let’s say someone straight up pick pocketed your wallet, you didn’t know, and someone else reported it. The perp gets arrested. One of the three things will happen next:
1. You are informed of the theft. You confirm that the wallet is yours and perp is charged.
2. You are informed of the theft. Instead you claim that it was not stolen because you either don’t care, feel bad for the perp, you hated that wallet anyway, or any other reason. There is no case. One rando stranger’s word against another, the perp walks.
3. You are not informed of the theft. No one can prove that the wallet was stolen, because we find ourselves back in situation #2.
