[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
whelp. you are dense.
cops called. crime ALLEGED. THEFT ALLEGED.
yup. done. end thread.
[/quote]
Nope, although I bet you feel good throwing all the personal insults around like a high school bully.
Theft committed, cops called, thieves arrested, charges pending.
nothing else is up in the air at the moment.
All that happened, happened correctly.
YOU are such a hypocrite always calling out cops but NOW, NOW you want them to make the laws.
what a hypocrite.
[quote]OctoberGirl 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]
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.
[/quote]
you’re obviously high. you’re not this stupid.
the cops arrested the ALLEGED thieves.
again…slowly this time …when you get a speeding ticket, does it mean you were speeding?
[quote]BONEZ217 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]
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. [/quote]
It still gets prosecuted. The store is who presses charges.
Why would the cops make that decision in the store if the store is pressing charges?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
My family owned a grocery store for decades. It was, of all things, a specialty meat store-- think “Italian Market”.
My dad told me he was having a buy-one-get-one-free hot dog sale and a guy came in and tried to lift some meat. He was a repeat offender and this time he had something like a trenchcoat of hotdogs on him at the door.
My dad decided to call it in.
The guy kept asking if he could just keep “the free ones”.[/quote]
LOL.
When I first saw this story, my first thought was that they must have been repeat offenders and the store finally got fed up.
But… we don’t have any evidence that this is the case yet.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…so people here really believe eating shit in the store is right?
[/quote]
I dont, but I also dont think it’s a crime. “Wrong” and “Criminal” are very different things. This isnt an issue of what’s right or wrong. Well it is in the sense of how Safeway handled it, but that’s obvious.
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
[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?[/quote]
You are so wrong about what a cop can and can’t do when presented with evidence of a crime especially from a big name store.
Can you imagine the news storm if the cops hadn’t done they exact right thing they did?
Even the arrested thieves admitted to stealing. What else were the cops to do.
No, you don’t get to know my background. It doesn’t make the truth anymore truthful.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you’re obviously high. you’re not this stupid.
the cops arrested the ALLEGED thieves.
again…slowly this time …when you get a speeding ticket, does it mean you were speeding?
[/quote]
LOL.
In America, you are innocent until proven guilty…so OF FREAKING COURSE THEY ARE ALLEGED THIEVES.
That doesn’t change anything. The store pressed charges. They got arrested.
Whether it holds up in court isn’t what we are discussing.
I hate to see money wasted on this also.
Also, what is up with the insults?
What grade is this?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Your statement assumes that cops only arrest people who commit crimes.
This is not true.
I wonder if the lady was a total asshole to the store or the police to get the full treatment…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
another fallacious argument. LOL
no one stated what was “possible” or “impossible”.
i and others quite clearly stated that it was unlikely given everything we know thus far.
let me continue to help you here since logic is not your strong suit:
unlikely does not = impossible. and no one said that.
it’s not “impossible” you’re a white lady but based on everything i know thus far, it’s likely you’re a black dude.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
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. [/quote]
I am good with you saying I look silly.
I think you are silly for refuting what even the thieves confirm. They stole the sandwich.
It’s all good.
You need to understand that charges are pressed by the District Attorney. The cops were correct in their actions.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Your statement assumes that cops only arrest people who commit crimes.
This is not true.[/quote]
Uh, not with my background. I don’t know where you got that. The point here is, it is NOT up to the cops to decide innocence.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
smh
the were arrested b/c they were ACCUSED of stealing the sammich.
store has still not decided whether to press charges.
betcha they don’t.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
another fallacious argument. LOL
no one stated what was “possible” or “impossible”.
i and others quite clearly stated that it was unlikely given everything we know thus far.
let me continue to help you here since logic is not your strong suit:
unlikely does not = impossible. and no one said that.
it’s not “impossible” you’re a white lady but based on everything i know thus far, it’s likely you’re a black dude.
[/quote]
LOL at “unlikely” Unless you are PSYCHIC you do not know “intent” and thus this is now in a jury’s hands or those of a judge himself.
Yes, please… stop with name calling.
This is not the PWI forum. We have some standards here!
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you’re obviously high. you’re not this stupid.
the cops arrested the ALLEGED thieves.
again…slowly this time …when you get a speeding ticket, does it mean you were speeding?
[/quote]
Nope, even the thieves admitted to the crime.
Stop with speeding analogy. Have you never learned there is no exact analogy.
[quote]debraD wrote:
I wonder if the lady was a total asshole to the store or the police to get the full treatment…
[/quote]
I kinda wondered that too.
And the fact that both her and her husband both ate and both forgot.
how convenient.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
whelp. you are dense.
cops called. crime ALLEGED. THEFT ALLEGED.
yup. done. end thread.
[/quote]
Nope, although I bet you feel good throwing all the personal insults around like a high school bully.
Theft committed, cops called, thieves arrested, charges pending.
nothing else is up in the air at the moment.
All that happened, happened correctly.
YOU are such a hypocrite always calling out cops but NOW, NOW you want them to make the laws.
what a hypocrite.
[/quote]
oh snapple. you played that pathetic bully card? you must be a “vixen” right? LOL
ALLEGED theft.
ALLEGED thieves.
ALLEGED crime.
And in case you weren’t paying attention, I TOOK NO POSITION RELATIVE TO THE POLICE.
DUH
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
My family owned a grocery store for decades. It was, of all things, a specialty meat store-- think “Italian Market”.
My dad told me he was having a buy-one-get-one-free hot dog sale and a guy came in and tried to lift some meat. He was a repeat offender and this time he had something like a trenchcoat of hotdogs on him at the door.
My dad decided to call it in.
The guy kept asking if he could just keep “the free ones”.[/quote]
LOL.
When I first saw this story, my first thought was that they must have been repeat offenders and the store finally got fed up.
But… we don’t have any evidence that this is the case yet.[/quote]
Well, that, but the I think the real issue was he thought he was entitled to the ‘free’ hotdogs and was adamant about it. I think the concept of “buy-one-get-one-free” was lost on him.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Your statement assumes that cops only arrest people who commit crimes.
This is not true.[/quote]
Uh, not with my background. I don’t know where you got that. The point here is, it is NOT up to the cops to decide innocence. [/quote]
I have read enough of your posts to get your background.
Your statement is above. “If they committed no crime, then the cops could not arrest them.”
This is a false statement.