You seem to want more of an explanation in places that I feel that already that I have adequately explained. For example, my outlining situation 1 and situation 2 was to ensure with thread participants on this topic that we are talking about the same thing.. and some posters are trying to equate situations 1 and 2 (including yourself) that in my view should clearly and logically be understood as different... b/c the actor in situation 2 is different from the actor in situation 1 (which makes a very meaningful and material difference).
The difference does not change the situation.
My four legged animal is brown. Your four legged animal is black. My four legged animal is a dog. It does not therefor follow that your four legged animal *is not* a dog.
Theft is taking without permission. In both situations, more than adequately explained by yourself, permission is not given and taking occurs. It does not matter the why for that does not matter under the definition of theft. What it is about your situation 2 that does not fit the definition?