Can't argue with that

Sort of? If we wanted to argue it- the crime best fits conversion not theft. Theft is the unauthorized taking of property with intent to deprive. We could argue that 1. You didn’t intend deprivation; and 2. That you were authorized to handle the goods.

If you take a bottle of sports drink and drink it in the store- no crime has been committed, and unless the store has rules or policies against eating before paying- you’ve done no legal wrong (at least in the USA.) The theft only occurs if you leave the premises without paying for the item- just like you can wear a shirt around a store all day- but if you don’t pay for it before leaving or return the item in the same condition it was when you found it- you are stealing.

NOW- the original meme didn’t specify that you LEAVE the store- that is the point it becomes theft. in reality if you eat the item- poop in the store- and do not flush.... you did NOT return the item. You destroyed it. because even if you stayed long enough that all the particles of the item had evacuated your digestive tract- you still “kept” certain nutrients and other components and turned them into glucose and hormones and other things- just like the food item has now been turned into feces.

Theft is not the same thing as destruction of property. The questions we must ask are about motive/intent: Did this person INTEND to deprive of property? Did they TAKE the property from the person- or did they merely transform the property from the condition the owner had it and desired it in- to a different undesirable condition?