[DH]

when you have legal possession.

---

In this case you sadly missed the point that the item was taken within the physical confines of the store and that the “legal” possession of the item was that of the store...not the shopper who had yet to transfer “legal” possession of the item via actually paying for it and removing it “legally” from that store’s ownership and inventory.

If assault was involved then the assault was a crime but theft did not occur due to the fact that she was in fact simply moving the inventory of the store around within the store until she actually bought it and it became her “personal” property.

[TigersEye]

‘Possession’ and ‘ownership’ are terms with different legal connotations. She didn’t have legal ownership but she did have legal possession.

[ConservativeLawyer]

item was taken within the physical confines of the store and that the “legal” possession of the item was that of the store

Was there something unlawful about the customer's possession of the item inside the store?

Lawful possession and ownership are not the same thing.

The customer had lawful possession. Title (ownership) is what had not yet transferred out of the store until the item is paid for.