Boycott Safeway Supermarket

Off Topic
241

[quote]BONEZ217 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]

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.

[/quote]

holey freaking moley, they admitted to it.

242

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.[/quote]

Ugg.

You beat me by one minute.

But it is probably because of your post delays!

243

[quote]Christine wrote:

[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[/quote]

but that is for a jury, so you want them to be charged to then discuss intent?

you get the conundrum?

they admitted to the cops they did not pay for the sandwiches.

244

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

you are clearly incoherent.

go to bed.

245

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.[/quote]

Ugg.

You beat me by one minute.

But it is probably because of your post delays![/quote]

oh fuck you both running.

you don’t want a jury but you want intent decided

246

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 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]

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.

[/quote]

holey freaking moley, they admitted to it.

[/quote]

wow.

247

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[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[/quote]

but that is for a jury, so you want them to be charged to then discuss intent?

you get the conundrum?

they admitted to the cops they did not pay for the sandwiches.

[/quote]

Yes.

The cops should know better than to arrest the couple.

248

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[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 tt he 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. [/quote],

Some things we do not have to present to the DA’s office. Victimless crimes would be an example. Certain misdemeanors such as domestic assault is mandatory for us to arrest, if probable cause exists. Property crimes such as this, it is our discretion if we want to make a physical arrest or not. We can issue appearance tickets and release and release the suspect and then submit a report to the DA for a review for charges if appropriate. Violent felonies are always taken into custody if Probable cause exists no discretion there.

249

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[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[/quote]

but that is for a jury, so you want them to be charged to then discuss intent?

you get the conundrum?

they admitted to the cops they did not pay for the sandwiches.

[/quote]

oh.
my.
god.

no one took a position relative to LEO charging them. do you get that???

they admitted to the store (and presumably to the police) that they FORGOT to pay.

this is not an argument about what LEO did. this WAS a discussion about how THE STORE HANDLED THE ENTIRE AFFAIR.

EVEN THEY ADMITTED THEY ARE TROUBLED BY HOW IT WAS HANDLED AND IT’S UNDER REVIEW!

jesus h.

250

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 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]

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.

[/quote]

holey freaking moley, they admitted to it.

[/quote]

Maybe if English is your second language they admitted to it.

When somoene says “I ate the sandwich but planned to pay for it, but forgot” that absolutely is NOT an admission of APPROPRIATION WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE OWNER.

Maybe in your universe it makes sense to admit stealing in one breath and in the next breath contrive a whole story about how it wasnt stealing…

Something’s gotta give here.

You havent said anything logical in well over 15 posts in this thread. That’s a feat Prof X has trouble accomplishing.

251

[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.
[/quote]

What about mens rea do you not understand?

252

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[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 tt he 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. [/quote],

Some things we do not have to present to the DA’s office. Victimless crimes would be an example. Certain misdemeanors such as domestic assault is mandatory for us to arrest, if probable cause exists. Property crimes such as this, it is our discretion if we want to make a physical arrest or not. We can issue appearance tickets and release and release the suspect and then submit a report to the DA for a review for charges if appropriate. Violent felonies are always taken into custody if Probable cause exists no discretion there. [/quote]

Jesus man, don’t go clouding the thread with facts.

253

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
Some things we do not have to present to the DA’s office. Victimless crimes would be an example. Certain misdemeanors such as domestic assault is mandatory for us to arrest, if probable cause exists. Property crimes such as this, it is our discretion if we want to make a physical arrest or not. We can issue appearance tickets and release and release the suspect and then submit a report to the DA for a review for charges if appropriate. Violent felonies are always taken into custody if Probable cause exists no discretion there. [/quote]

This is the entire problem with the scenario presented here.

The cops in this case suck.

Also, the Safeway manager sucks.

254

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 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]

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.

[/quote]

holey freaking moley, they admitted to it.

[/quote]

Maybe if English is your second language they admitted to it.

When somoene says “I ate the sandwich but planned to pay for it, but forgot” that absolutely is NOT an admission of APPROPRIATION WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE OWNER.

Maybe in your universe it makes sense to admit stealing in one breath and in the next breath contrive a whole story about how it wasnt stealing…

Something’s gotta give here.

You havent said anything logical in well over 15 posts in this thread. That’s a feat Prof X has trouble accomplishing.
[/quote]

no… what is evident is that there is just two really divided camps on this issue.

You may have noticed I am not the only one that has stated they stole, both… cause they both of course forgot the sandwiches. Which is still stealing.

And then the others that now want cops to be judge and jury. The same folks that then will rail against the cops for being judge and jury.

Guess I am going to have to leave you at your opinion and leave the snarky high school girls with their opinion.

255

[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]

No they did not- What they would have had to have admitted for that to be true is that they deliberately ate those sandwiches fully knowing that they did not intend to pay for them.

If they just kind of forgot, that is not even a misdemeanor, that is pretty much nothing.

256

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

You may have noticed I am not the only one that has stated they stole, both… cause they both of course forgot the sandwiches. Which is still stealing.

[/quote]

No, it is not.

257

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:
Some things we do not have to present to the DA’s office. Victimless crimes would be an example. Certain misdemeanors such as domestic assault is mandatory for us to arrest, if probable cause exists. Property crimes such as this, it is our discretion if we want to make a physical arrest or not. We can issue appearance tickets and release and release the suspect and then submit a report to the DA for a review for charges if appropriate. Violent felonies are always taken into custody if Probable cause exists no discretion there. [/quote]

This is the entire problem with the scenario presented here.

The cops in this case suck.

Also, the Safeway manager sucks.

[/quote]

the ENTIRE premise of MY thread was that the safeway manager sucks. i understand the criticism toward LEO here (b/c they could have exercised discretion) but it wasn’t really my point.

what has been lost thru all the bullshit and fallacious arguments and waxing (un)poetic about what is “possible” v. what was “likely” here, was that a small child was REMOVED from the custody of her parents for 18 hours.

there are some dense fucking people here.

258

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yep…I don’t see those signs either.

I wonder if I can use the toilet paper before I leave the store?

259

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 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]

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.

[/quote]

holey freaking moley, they admitted to it.

[/quote]

Maybe if English is your second language they admitted to it.

When somoene says “I ate the sandwich but planned to pay for it, but forgot” that absolutely is NOT an admission of APPROPRIATION WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE OWNER.

Maybe in your universe it makes sense to admit stealing in one breath and in the next breath contrive a whole story about how it wasnt stealing…

Something’s gotta give here.

You havent said anything logical in well over 15 posts in this thread. That’s a feat Prof X has trouble accomplishing.
[/quote]

no… what is evident is that there is just two really divided camps on this issue.

You may have noticed I am not the only one that has stated they stole, both… cause they both of course forgot the sandwiches. Which is still stealing.

And then the others that now want cops to be judge and jury. The same folks that then will rail against the cops for being judge and jury.

Guess I am going to have to leave you at your opinion and leave the snarky high school girls with their opinion.

[/quote]

it is IMPOSSIBLE that even in an altered state that you cannot understand the following which has been repeated to you in one way or another at least a half dozen times:

there is NO THEFT (stealing) without “intent” under the law. the couple SPECIFICALLY DENIED ANY SUCH INTENT.

no one has yet to criticize the POLICE!!!

i have criticized the STORE!!!

260

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yep…I don’t see those signs either.

I wonder if I can use the toilet paper before I leave the store?[/quote]

I have also never seen one sign in any grocery store that I have ever visited that eating while shopping is prohibited.