body: ['reduced into possession' isn't just worded for animals.](https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/204909-(Legal)-reduced-to-possession)
  
  
  1. 'reduce' here doesn't feel like ordinary meaning. What does it mean? I quote [Etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=reduce) because legalese can deceivingly use common words today but actually aim for some bygone meaning.
  
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xZfs3.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xZfs3.jpg)
  
  
  2. Why not just use 'possess'?
  
  
  Herring, [*Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (8 edn, 2018)](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/criminal-law-9780198811817?cc=ca&lang=en&). p. 493
  
  
  
  > 
  > ### Wild creatures
  > 
  > 
  > These are dealt with by section 4(4) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides:
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > > 
  > > Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal
  > >  a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature,
  > >  unless either it has been **reduced into possession [emboldening mine]** by or on behalf of another person and
  > >  possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of **reducing
  > >  it into possession**.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > 
  > 
  > The key distinction drawn in this section is between tamed creatures (e.g. pets), wild
  >  creatures kept in captivity (e.g. wild animals kept in a zoo) or **reduced into possession** (e.g.
  >  wild animals which have been trapped), and wild creatures not kept in captivity. Tame
  >  animals are treated as property and can be stolen. Similarly, wild animals kept in captivity
  >  or **reduced into possession** can be stolen.8 However, wild animals not kept in captivity are
  >  not property and cannot be stolen.
  > 
  > 
  > [....]
  > 
  > 
  > 8 *Cresswell v DPP* [2006] EWHC 3379 (Admin) held that wild badgers were not property.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: reduce into possession