Why yes I do. Here, say hi.

Whoa, hold on.... you have a talking dog?

That’s what I thought when I first read the headline.

I read the entire article, looked at my dog with a confused expression on my face, then suddenly realized that he’s not talking about a 911 3.0 RSR with a manual transmission.

Not gonna throw any stones here. I received a used manual with the purchase of an older enduro bike, and bought another copy (still in shrinkwrap) to read in non-messy environments.

“Theft by taking” is a distinction from “theft by receiving”, which would be acquiring property that belongs to someone else that you know/should have known was stolen.

I like this one:

Especially since they are rigged. The owner sets how many times the game must be played before players are allowed to win. Link for the manual. This dad committed theft by taking; the mall committed theft by deception.

This has actually been my Switch’s console name since I first got it.  “Snitches get Switches”  It took over from my “Bruce Wii”

Excuse me I think you mean “be best”.

As opposed to theft by deception, or as it’s better known, fraud.

Theft by authorized taking is for the cops - see “civil asset forfeiture”.

Deadspin readers will get this and laugh. Kotaku-only readers will only kinda get it.

Likely a technical sub-classification due to the fact that under select circumstances, eg, you actually playing the damn game and winning, the taking is not always necessarily unauthorized.

I hate you. Enjoy your hate filled star you punny one.

Man, the absolute worst part of this is that the guy is a goddamn middle school teacher.

And yet somehow the machines are legal.

theft by unauthorised taking

Wonder if the snitches got Switches.

Mario Kart?