Boycott Safeway Supermarket

Off Topic
181

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why are we all supposed to assume that they didn’t intend to steal and then pillory those who state the facts of what happened?

[/quote]

Not saying that you can’t assume that their intent was to steal. But you can’t prove that they did not intend to steal either. You can only assume and assumptions don’t routinely end in convictions. And for the record I was not attacking anyone. My personal opinion is that they probably did intend to steal the sandwich, but then again 18 years of law enforcement has made me cynical of people. I just can’t prove that there intent was to do so, and therefore that is why I supported my point based on facts.[/quote]

Well not true. Did they steal? Yes.

Alrighty then. Intent is not the issue.

I am impressed that you know these folks well enough to intuit their intent. Miss Cleo has a job opening for you.

[/quote]

You don’t get it…Go back and re-read my posts.[/quote]

No, you don’t get the facts of what happened. They stole, they got arrested.

Nothing you have to type about can in anyway change that.

So… put away your Magic 8 Ball.

Did they pay for the sandwich, no. Done.

[/quote]

I am not disputing the fact that they got arrested. That happened. The arrest was made on probable cause and was valid. That is not what I am arguing. My point is that the charge will not be upheld in court and they more than likely will be acquitted. In order support a guilty verdict the prosecutor will need to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. A much higher burden of proof than probable cause. I know what I am talking about. What exactly is your background? Are you an attorney? And how many years of experience do you have?[/quote]

Why are you jumping the gun and presupposing? As far as I have read the District Attorney is reviewing the case as to pressing charges.

You do know the police arrest but it is up to the District Attorney to actually press charges when it is not a fineable issue?

in any case, we do agree they stole the sandwich.

Thread over right?

[/quote]
I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Fella you have some leniency as a cop but you DO NOT HAVE THE LENIENCY TO DENY A THEFT OCCURRED WHEN PRESENTED THE EVIDENCE.

Whew, … there we go. So crazy. Some of you same folks hate when cops act like judge jury and executioner but apparently not when you want them to turn guilty white people free.

Whatever your experience is, it isn’t suiting you well with this.

Cops called, crime committed, cops enforce laws.

Done, end thread.

182

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.[/quote]

Again, what people are missing is that the article states they are being charged with shoplifting BOTH sandwiches.

"But they forgot to pay for the sandwiches…"though the lady only saved “THE” wrapper to be scanned at the register.

So what happened? Did the preggo wife beasted on both? Did the husband ate one and they BOTH ended up “forgetting”? Did they lose track of the other sandwich in the cart along with the wrapper of the ONE sandwich the article stated was eaten?

Was the article just rushed?[/quote]

Oh, I get you. TWO sammiches gone…one wrapper…somebody is lying.

But that article is hilarious painting the picture of the famished and desperate family who needed nourishment RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

LOL[/quote]

Right.

Because you of all people never had the urge to desperately consume a burger or three with your blood sugar depressed from all those heavy curls?
[/quote]

Never in my life have I eaten something in a store aside from those free snacks they used to hand out at Sam’s warehouse.

I was always told that was stealing.

Look…it is.[/quote]

Come back then when you become a parent.[/quote]

Que?

183

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why are we all supposed to assume that they didn’t intend to steal and then pillory those who state the facts of what happened?

[/quote]

Not saying that you can’t assume that their intent was to steal. But you can’t prove that they did not intend to steal either. You can only assume and assumptions don’t routinely end in convictions. And for the record I was not attacking anyone. My personal opinion is that they probably did intend to steal the sandwich, but then again 18 years of law enforcement has made me cynical of people. I just can’t prove that there intent was to do so, and therefore that is why I supported my point based on facts.[/quote]

Well not true. Did they steal? Yes.

Alrighty then. Intent is not the issue.

I am impressed that you know these folks well enough to intuit their intent. Miss Cleo has a job opening for you.

[/quote]

You don’t get it…Go back and re-read my posts.[/quote]

No, you don’t get the facts of what happened. They stole, they got arrested.

Nothing you have to type about can in anyway change that.

So… put away your Magic 8 Ball.

Did they pay for the sandwich, no. Done.

[/quote]

I am not disputing the fact that they got arrested. That happened. The arrest was made on probable cause and was valid. That is not what I am arguing. My point is that the charge will not be upheld in court and they more than likely will be acquitted. In order support a guilty verdict the prosecutor will need to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. A much higher burden of proof than probable cause. I know what I am talking about. What exactly is your background? Are you an attorney? And how many years of experience do you have?[/quote]

Why are you jumping the gun and presupposing? As far as I have read the District Attorney is reviewing the case as to pressing charges.

You do know the police arrest but it is up to the District Attorney to actually press charges when it is not a fineable issue?

in any case, we do agree they stole the sandwich.

Thread over right?

[/quote]

maybe you missed it.

the law was quoted chapter and verse.

intent is an element to the crime of each degree. [/quote]

and you are jumping the gun also, they were arrested for what they actually DID. They stole. Now the whole part of applying the law comes in with the District Attorney but I am sure you already knew that.

so… did they steal, yes.

thread over.

[/quote]

are you really this fucking dense?

so if you get a speeding ticket, you were definitely speeding?

no.

thread over.

last time…the crime they are accused of requires “intent”. slowly this time.

you can arrest and charge very easily. means nothing.
[/quote]

are you really that fucking ignorant?

Did they steal? yes?

Was it up to the store to pursue legal action and call the cops? Yes.

Did they do so? Yes.

fuck off and read the article.

The cops cannot determine culpability.

shout at the store not the cops.

184

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

The fact of the matter is, you can eat what you want as long as you pay for it.

[/quote]

Cool…we all agree they violated this by NOT paying for it.

185

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

[/quote]

But Christine…that opens the convo up to putting people in jail for marijuana charges and tying up taxes and jail space for bs reasons.

Yeah, it is a shame we give a damn about this…but what happens when the next family tries this during Christmas and “forgets” to pay for the third toy in the basket?

Hey, they paid for two…so they must have meant to pay for the third, right?[/quote]

I live in a state where, if the amount is the amount is less than one ounce, marijuana possession is only a ticket.

And your scenario is ridiculous.

This would be comparable to a couple buying a big cart of toys and forgetting a tennis ball at the bottom of the cart.[/quote]

He doesn’t even know he’s doing it. Logical fallacies.

186

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why are we all supposed to assume that they didn’t intend to steal and then pillory those who state the facts of what happened?

[/quote]

Not saying that you can’t assume that their intent was to steal. But you can’t prove that they did not intend to steal either. You can only assume and assumptions don’t routinely end in convictions. And for the record I was not attacking anyone. My personal opinion is that they probably did intend to steal the sandwich, but then again 18 years of law enforcement has made me cynical of people. I just can’t prove that there intent was to do so, and therefore that is why I supported my point based on facts.[/quote]

Well not true. Did they steal? Yes.

Alrighty then. Intent is not the issue.

I am impressed that you know these folks well enough to intuit their intent. Miss Cleo has a job opening for you.

[/quote]

You don’t get it…Go back and re-read my posts.[/quote]

No, you don’t get the facts of what happened. They stole, they got arrested.

Nothing you have to type about can in anyway change that.

So… put away your Magic 8 Ball.

Did they pay for the sandwich, no. Done.

[/quote]

We dont live in North Korea.

Why do you and others insist on defying black letter law? In this case, it’s really not that difficult to follow. /arrogantsecondyearlawstudentpost
[/quote]

So now you want the cops to have all the power?

get over it. The cops were called because a crime had been committed.

There is a legal system. They just blundered in to it.

187

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Whether is holds up is NOT the issue. That is up to A JURY AND A JUDGE in court. They committed a crime. They got arrested.

Over the top?

hell yeah.

Wrong?

No.

It now gets handled in court. It is not up to the cops to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. It would be up to the store whether they wanted to press charges.[/quote]

jeez you’re terrible at this.

they were ACCUSED of a crime.

they did not COMMIT a crime.

as you so aptly point out, that’s for a judge or jury to decide.

spoiler alert - there are no jury trials for misdemeanors :slight_smile:

188

I hate people who eat in the grocery store, whether they intend to pay or not. Throw the book at them!

Seriously though it’s a disgusting habit. Only theft if you leave without paying and then it’s anyone’s guess if you meant to pay or not. I’ve known people to hang on to wrappers to cover their ass if they get caught. My friend’s ex used to do this. He eventually got arrested and convicted for stealing a YOP. A YOP! How stupid is that?

189

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

[/quote]

But Christine…that opens the convo up to putting people in jail for marijuana charges and tying up taxes and jail space for bs reasons.

Yeah, it is a shame we give a damn about this…but what happens when the next family tries this during Christmas and “forgets” to pay for the third toy in the basket?

Hey, they paid for two…so they must have meant to pay for the third, right?[/quote]

I live in a state where, if the amount is the amount is less than one ounce, marijuana possession is only a ticket.

And your scenario is ridiculous.

This would be comparable to a couple buying a big cart of toys and forgetting a tennis ball at the bottom of the cart.[/quote]

He doesn’t even know he’s doing it. Logical fallacies. [/quote]

Logical fallacy?

LOL

I used an example of THREE TOYS and only paying FOR TWO. That is NOT the same as a cart full of toys and forgetting a tennis ball.

THREE EQUALLY SIZED AND EQUALLY PRICED TOYS and the family only pays for two.

How is that now different than this?

190

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why are we all supposed to assume that they didn’t intend to steal and then pillory those who state the facts of what happened?

[/quote]

Not saying that you can’t assume that their intent was to steal. But you can’t prove that they did not intend to steal either. You can only assume and assumptions don’t routinely end in convictions. And for the record I was not attacking anyone. My personal opinion is that they probably did intend to steal the sandwich, but then again 18 years of law enforcement has made me cynical of people. I just can’t prove that there intent was to do so, and therefore that is why I supported my point based on facts.[/quote]

Well not true. Did they steal? Yes.

Alrighty then. Intent is not the issue.

I am impressed that you know these folks well enough to intuit their intent. Miss Cleo has a job opening for you.

[/quote]

You don’t get it…Go back and re-read my posts.[/quote]

No, you don’t get the facts of what happened. They stole, they got arrested.

Nothing you have to type about can in anyway change that.

So… put away your Magic 8 Ball.

Did they pay for the sandwich, no. Done.

[/quote]

I am not disputing the fact that they got arrested. That happened. The arrest was made on probable cause and was valid. That is not what I am arguing. My point is that the charge will not be upheld in court and they more than likely will be acquitted. In order support a guilty verdict the prosecutor will need to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. A much higher burden of proof than probable cause. I know what I am talking about. What exactly is your background? Are you an attorney? And how many years of experience do you have?[/quote]

Why are you jumping the gun and presupposing? As far as I have read the District Attorney is reviewing the case as to pressing charges.

You do know the police arrest but it is up to the District Attorney to actually press charges when it is not a fineable issue?

in any case, we do agree they stole the sandwich.

Thread over right?

[/quote]
I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Fella you have some leniency as a cop but you DO NOT HAVE THE LENIENCY TO DENY A THEFT OCCURRED WHEN PRESENTED THE EVIDENCE.

Whew, … there we go. So crazy. Some of you same folks hate when cops act like judge jury and executioner but apparently not when you want them to turn guilty white people free.

Whatever your experience is, it isn’t suiting you well with this.

Cops called, crime committed, cops enforce laws.

Done, end thread.

[/quote]

whelp. you are dense.

cops called. crime ALLEGED. THEFT ALLEGED.

yup. done. end thread.

191

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Whether is holds up is NOT the issue. That is up to A JURY AND A JUDGE in court. They committed a crime. They got arrested.

Over the top?

hell yeah.

Wrong?

No.

It now gets handled in court. It is not up to the cops to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. It would be up to the store whether they wanted to press charges.[/quote]

jeez you’re terrible at this.

they were ACCUSED of a crime.

they did not COMMIT a crime.

as you so aptly point out, that’s for a judge or jury to decide.

spoiler alert - there are no jury trials for misdemeanors :)[/quote]

If they committed no crime, then the cops could not arrest them.

192

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Que?[/quote]

Thread… Moveing… Too… Fast…

Quoted… Wrong… Post…

193

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Whether is holds up is NOT the issue. That is up to A JURY AND A JUDGE in court. They committed a crime. They got arrested.

Over the top?

hell yeah.

Wrong?

No.

It now gets handled in court. It is not up to the cops to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. It would be up to the store whether they wanted to press charges.[/quote]

jeez you’re terrible at this.

they were ACCUSED of a crime.

they did not COMMIT a crime.

as you so aptly point out, that’s for a judge or jury to decide.

spoiler alert - there are no jury trials for misdemeanors :)[/quote]

holey heck. EXACTLY!!!

the store called the cops, the cops arrested the thieves.

the matter was then turned over to the District Attorney.

crime committed, cops called, thieves arrested, matter to be determined

get over it.

194

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

[/quote]

But Christine…that opens the convo up to putting people in jail for marijuana charges and tying up taxes and jail space for bs reasons.

Yeah, it is a shame we give a damn about this…but what happens when the next family tries this during Christmas and “forgets” to pay for the third toy in the basket?

Hey, they paid for two…so they must have meant to pay for the third, right?[/quote]

I live in a state where, if the amount is the amount is less than one ounce, marijuana possession is only a ticket.

And your scenario is ridiculous.

This would be comparable to a couple buying a big cart of toys and forgetting a tennis ball at the bottom of the cart.[/quote]

He doesn’t even know he’s doing it. Logical fallacies. [/quote]

Logical fallacy?

LOL

I used an example of THREE TOYS and only paying FOR TWO. That is NOT the same as a cart full of toys and forgetting a tennis ball.

THREE EQUALLY SIZED AND EQUALLY PRICED TOYS and the family only pays for two.

How is that now different than this?
[/quote]

you don’t know how it’s different?

can you consume the third fucking toy and just be left with the wrapping?

your analogies, strain as you might, fail repeatedly. and badly.

195

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why are we all supposed to assume that they didn’t intend to steal and then pillory those who state the facts of what happened?

[/quote]

Not saying that you can’t assume that their intent was to steal. But you can’t prove that they did not intend to steal either. You can only assume and assumptions don’t routinely end in convictions. And for the record I was not attacking anyone. My personal opinion is that they probably did intend to steal the sandwich, but then again 18 years of law enforcement has made me cynical of people. I just can’t prove that there intent was to do so, and therefore that is why I supported my point based on facts.[/quote]

Well not true. Did they steal? Yes.

Alrighty then. Intent is not the issue.

I am impressed that you know these folks well enough to intuit their intent. Miss Cleo has a job opening for you.

[/quote]

You don’t get it…Go back and re-read my posts.[/quote]

No, you don’t get the facts of what happened. They stole, they got arrested.

Nothing you have to type about can in anyway change that.

So… put away your Magic 8 Ball.

Did they pay for the sandwich, no. Done.

[/quote]

I am not disputing the fact that they got arrested. That happened. The arrest was made on probable cause and was valid. That is not what I am arguing. My point is that the charge will not be upheld in court and they more than likely will be acquitted. In order support a guilty verdict the prosecutor will need to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. A much higher burden of proof than probable cause. I know what I am talking about. What exactly is your background? Are you an attorney? And how many years of experience do you have?[/quote]

Why are you jumping the gun and presupposing? As far as I have read the District Attorney is reviewing the case as to pressing charges.

You do know the police arrest but it is up to the District Attorney to actually press charges when it is not a fineable issue?

in any case, we do agree they stole the sandwich.

Thread over right?

[/quote]
I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Fella you have some leniency as a cop but you DO NOT HAVE THE LENIENCY TO DENY A THEFT OCCURRED WHEN PRESENTED THE EVIDENCE.

Whew, … there we go. So crazy. Some of you same folks hate when cops act like judge jury and executioner but apparently not when you want them to turn guilty white people free.

Whatever your experience is, it isn’t suiting you well with this.

Cops called, crime committed, cops enforce laws.

Done, end thread.

[/quote]

You are sorely misinformed on what my level of discretion is.

Yes I could make an arrest based on the information presented. But the question is is that in the best interest for all the parties involved? I think not. Are you advocating that they should have separated that little girl for 18 hours from her parents based on what occurred? Common sense must rule when applying the law.

And I must have missed it. What were your qualifications to be an authority on this topic?

196

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If they committed no crime, then the cops could not arrest them.[/quote]

Now I know you be trollin’!

197

[quote]debraD wrote:
I hate people who eat in the grocery store, whether they intend to pay or not. Throw the book at them!

Seriously though it’s a disgusting habit. Only theft if you leave without paying and then it’s anyone’s guess if you meant to pay or not. I’ve known people to hang on to wrappers to cover their ass if they get caught. My friend’s ex used to do this. He eventually got arrested and convicted for stealing a YOP. A YOP! How stupid is that? [/quote]

UNPOSSIBLE. We have learned in this thread that if you buy enough shit, then you could not POSSIBLY be stealing a smaller item.

198

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why are we all supposed to assume that they didn’t intend to steal and then pillory those who state the facts of what happened?

[/quote]

Not saying that you can’t assume that their intent was to steal. But you can’t prove that they did not intend to steal either. You can only assume and assumptions don’t routinely end in convictions. And for the record I was not attacking anyone. My personal opinion is that they probably did intend to steal the sandwich, but then again 18 years of law enforcement has made me cynical of people. I just can’t prove that there intent was to do so, and therefore that is why I supported my point based on facts.[/quote]

Well not true. Did they steal? Yes.

Alrighty then. Intent is not the issue.

I am impressed that you know these folks well enough to intuit their intent. Miss Cleo has a job opening for you.

[/quote]

You don’t get it…Go back and re-read my posts.[/quote]

No, you don’t get the facts of what happened. They stole, they got arrested.

Nothing you have to type about can in anyway change that.

So… put away your Magic 8 Ball.

Did they pay for the sandwich, no. Done.

[/quote]

I am not disputing the fact that they got arrested. That happened. The arrest was made on probable cause and was valid. That is not what I am arguing. My point is that the charge will not be upheld in court and they more than likely will be acquitted. In order support a guilty verdict the prosecutor will need to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. A much higher burden of proof than probable cause. I know what I am talking about. What exactly is your background? Are you an attorney? And how many years of experience do you have?[/quote]

Why are you jumping the gun and presupposing? As far as I have read the District Attorney is reviewing the case as to pressing charges.

You do know the police arrest but it is up to the District Attorney to actually press charges when it is not a fineable issue?

in any case, we do agree they stole the sandwich.

Thread over right?

[/quote]

maybe you missed it.

the law was quoted chapter and verse.

intent is an element to the crime of each degree. [/quote]

and you are jumping the gun also, they were arrested for what they actually DID. They stole. Now the whole part of applying the law comes in with the District Attorney but I am sure you already knew that.

so… did they steal, yes.

thread over.

[/quote]

lol youre making yourself look silly with all of these ‘thread over’ closings, when youre completely wrong.

“Steal” is a legal conclusion. The woman ate or appropriated (if you fancy big words) the sandwich. It is absolutely not “stolen” until the woman left the store with the intent to not pay for it. There are zero facts to support an essential element of this crime.

Unless the petty statute says that ‘intent can be presumed when Z occurs’ this charge will be used as toilet paper. lol @ prosecuting this.

199

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

I am presupposing based on my experience with the courts. In my experience this case, based on what the article has informed us of, would not hold up. Therefore, if I was the cop at the scene, I would not have made the arrest. I would have obtained the information that was relevant at the scene, drafted a report, and submitted it to the prosecutor to let him/her decide if criminal charges are appropriate. [/quote]

Whether is holds up is NOT the issue. That is up to A JURY AND A JUDGE in court. They committed a crime. They got arrested.

Over the top?

hell yeah.

Wrong?

No.

It now gets handled in court. It is not up to the cops to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. It would be up to the store whether they wanted to press charges.[/quote]

jeez you’re terrible at this.

they were ACCUSED of a crime.

they did not COMMIT a crime.

as you so aptly point out, that’s for a judge or jury to decide.

spoiler alert - there are no jury trials for misdemeanors :)[/quote]

If they committed no crime, then the cops could not arrest them.[/quote]

i’m going to continue to help you here. thank me later okay?

“probable cause”.

i can claim i saw you pull your dick out in public and guess what? if LEO deems my story credible, you’re getting arrested. it doesn’t mean you actually pulled your dick out.

get it?

200

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If they committed no crime, then the cops could not arrest them.[/quote]

Now I know you be trollin’![/quote]

?

They stole the sandwich. That is why they were arrested. Would I arrest them for this? NO, I would not. But THE STORE IS WHO PRESSES THE CHARGES HERE…and they now call the cops. the cops do not decide in the store whether they “intended” to buy something.