Boycott Safeway Supermarket

Off Topic
221

[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:

[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]

You should really do yourself a favor and bow out and sleep on this.

You keep saying they admitted to “stealing” when it has REPEATEDLY been pointed out to you that the law in this instance requires an INTENT to steal. They claimed they “forgot”. This is not tantamount to an admission of theft.

even you know this.

go to bed.

you’re past the point of intellectual coherence.

222

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

the store did not press charges.

have you not had your fill of being outright wrong yet?

223

[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:

[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]

Are you currently intoxicated? I feel as if I am arguing with a drunk. You obviously don’t have a clue about what us Cops can and can’t do or how much discretion we can apply to a situation. So don’t presume that you do. Like I said before, I have been a LEO for 18 years, so I know what I am talking about. You obviously don’t. And what in the fuck does a “Big name Store” have anything to do with us.

224

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

uh, you need to know that no one in this entire thread criticized the actions of the cops.

minor detail i know, but you are on a roll.

225

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Possibly, but almost certainly it will not. Regardless of what the store wants. If the store wants to file a civil claim, that’s its prerogative.

“Crimes” are reported all the time. Many times the cops do not report the issue to the DA. Id like to hear the 18 year P.O. weigh in on this. He’s already said he has authority to use his judgment.

Cops DO have discretion as to whether to arrest/issue a citation.

Prosecuting the charge is not the same as arresting the people.

226

There are some serious logic deficient posters on this thread.

So, here is a take off on the story. How come cashiers never get prosecuted for theft when the charge the wrong price. How many times have you gotten home and realized you were overcharged. Do you call the police and they escort you to the store and arrest the store and the manager? Why is theft at/from the store treated different?

For all of you saying that this couple committed a theft, would you say that the overcharging clerk is also guilty of theft?

227

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

i already told you. no jury here.

no one claimed to be psychic. another misdirection by you.

you’re definitely trolling here.

you took a statement about “likely” and “unlikely” and again, exaggerated it (fallacious argument) into something it wasn’t.

228

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

no… I change that, you are now a snarky high school girl. You are an adult male right?

Okay again,… Cops don’t determine this. They were called to a store for a theft. Thieves admitted to stealing. Cops arrested thieves.

229

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
This type of event does sort of speak to varying degrees of honesty that some people have. There really are a lot of people who believe that they can walk around a store chowing down and have no qualms or doubts at all about not paying for it.

My sis used to do this (and I’d assume still does) even to the extent of grabbing hands full of certain items like yogurt coated raisins, and virtually any small fruits or veggies and feeding them to her kid. I asked her about it once, and she said it wasn’t stealing at all, citing how much she was spending and the fact that “they don’t even count that type of stuff” as her rationale for doing it.

[/quote]

Right-o. Yet we have a few experts running around here saying that if you somehow present a scannable tag on some 1/2 empty bag, it’s not stealing whatsoever. I keep looking for that try before you buy sign at my local store. So far, nothing.

230

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

again, time for bed sweetie. you’re babbling.

“crime” requires a conviction. a conviction requires proving “intent” in this instance. they SPECIFICALLY DENIED THAT INTENT. This means they did not “admit to the crime”.

duh.

231

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

uh, you need to know that no one in this entire thread criticized the actions of the cops.

minor detail i know, but you are on a roll. [/quote]

You do realize how crazy you sound right?

232

[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:

[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]

Are you currently intoxicated? [/quote]

MOST INTELLIGENT REPLY IN THE THREAD.

Go to bed Celeste.

You’re babbling.

233

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

uh, you need to know that no one in this entire thread criticized the actions of the cops.

minor detail i know, but you are on a roll. [/quote]

If this thread is about the actions of the cops, why did you title it “Boycott Safeway Supermarket”?

I could see boycotting the Safeway where this happened, but why would I boycott my local Safeway?

234

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
Are you currently intoxicated? I feel as if I am arguing with a drunk. You obviously don’t have a clue about what us Cops can and can’t do or how much discretion we can apply to a situation. So don’t presume that you do. Like I said before, I have been a LEO for 18 years, so I know what I am talking about. You obviously don’t. And what in the fuck does a “Big name Store” have anything to do with us. [/quote]

not currently and you are wrong. If a store is presenting a thief who admits to the crime the cop has to then proceed with the arrest.

Fella, I am not sure what you are arguing.

What happened, happened by matter of law, from there the District Attorney can or won’t proceed.

are you done with trying cast aspersions on me to make a better argument?

235

[quote]jolopez wrote:
There are some serious logic deficient posters on this thread.

[/quote]

The 2nd most intelligent and on point retort of this thread.

236

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

What part of any of my posts insinuates that Im unaware that the DA prosecutes a case?

It’s clear that my statement about ‘stealing’ being a legal conclusion and not a factual issue went right over your head. I guess that’s why you thought this was an issue of arrest vs prosecution, when it’s actually an issue of whether this claim is viable or not.

237

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

no… I change that, you are now a snarky high school girl. You are an adult male right?

Okay again,… Cops don’t determine this. They were called to a store for a theft. Thieves admitted to stealing. Cops arrested thieves.
[/quote]

Really. Go to bed.

last time. real slow.

“theft” is a crime that under the code in that State requires an element of “intent”. it has been quoted earlier in the thread.

the couple DENIED such intent.

GO.TO.SLEEP.

238

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
no… I change that, you are now a snarky high school girl. You are an adult male right?

Okay again,… Cops don’t determine this. They were called to a store for a theft. Thieves admitted to stealing. Cops arrested thieves.
[/quote]

They didn’t admit to theft. The admitted to forgetting to pay.

Theft requires intent.

/internet law degree

239

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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:

[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]

Are you currently intoxicated? [/quote]

MOST INTELLIGENT REPLY IN THE THREAD.

Go to bed Celeste.

You’re babbling.
[/quote]

you really just hate when folks don’t fall in line with you

It’s okay. This is all for the courts.

and again, if this was a black or hispanic couple or teenagers I just bet the comments would be different

now go ahead and get back to your high school insults you snarky little school girl.

240

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

uh, you need to know that no one in this entire thread criticized the actions of the cops.

minor detail i know, but you are on a roll. [/quote]

You do realize how crazy you sound right?

[/quote]

seriously.

what is wrong with you?

do you care to tell us all where in this thread that LEO was criticized?

can you do that?

or maybe you should just go to sleep.