[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
If you were going to steal a sandwhich by eating it in the store would you keep the wrapper in the kart where it’s likely to be spotted by the person at the till, or would you stuff the wrapper in behind the dill pickles? It’s unlikely that they couldn’t afford the five dollars if they went on to spend 50 more, it’s unlikely they were out thrill seeking with their child in tow, it’s unlikely that they were attempting to commit a crime if they made no effort to hide the evidance, and it’s unlikely that they’re circus freak stupid. Sure, it’s possible they intended to steal it. It’s just nowhere near as likely as being an honest mistake.[/quote]
Dude, no offense, but they were easily as likely to simply think they were above having to pay for the sandwich SINCE they bought 50 bucks worth of shit. You are acting like this is impossible.
It is also likely she did forget, remembered BEFORE SHE LEFT and then said “fuck it” and walked out anyway.
Both scenarios are JUST as likely and both would mean she stole the damn sammich.[/quote]
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
There was no mention in the article that they attempted to conceal the merchandise. [/quote]
^^you mean like… EATING THE DAMN SANDWICHES??? lololol How is putting it into your body not an “attempt to conceal the merchandise”"??? LOL
^^not hard to prove. See my answer above… she admitted to eating the sandwich.[/quote]
I’m waiting for the irony to happen when your wife gets pregnant.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
and besides, forgot or not, it’s stealing.
I’m not some righteous person here, I stole stuff from K-Mart in 10th grade and got caught. Luckily, the buddy who was with me, his mom worked at the store.
that was fricken scary[/quote]
Ha! I got caught stealing at Kmart too when I was in Jr. High.
Broke me of that habit fast. Scared the shit out of me.
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
There was no mention in the article that they attempted to conceal the merchandise. [/quote]
^^you mean like… EATING THE DAMN SANDWICHES??? lololol How is putting it into your body not an “attempt to conceal the merchandise”"??? LOL
^^not hard to prove. See my answer above… she admitted to eating the sandwich.[/quote]
I’m waiting for the irony to happen when your wife gets pregnant.
[/quote]
[quote]IB.Curlin wrote:
What the mom did would not legally classify as theft/shoplifting unless she intended to steal the sandwich. Hawaii’s shoplifting statute reads:
(8) Shoplifting.
(a) A person conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, with intent to defraud.
(b) A person alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, with intent to defraud.
(c) A person transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment from one container to another, with intent to defraud.
Each offense requiring an intention element.
[/quote]
JESUS H. please do not stop them with the actual fucking law!
“she left the store, she stole”. remember? our legal analyst said so!
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
There was no mention in the article that they attempted to conceal the merchandise. [/quote]
^^you mean like… EATING THE DAMN SANDWICHES??? lololol How is putting it into your body not an “attempt to conceal the merchandise”"??? LOL
^^not hard to prove. See my answer above… she admitted to eating the sandwich.[/quote]
If she kept the wrapper with the intent to purchase what she ate, then her intent was not to steal anything she claims she forgot. Not trying to guess what her actual intent is just what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of what her actual intent is this would be a hard case to prosecute based on the circumstances.
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
There was no mention in the article that they attempted to conceal the merchandise. [/quote]
^^you mean like… EATING THE DAMN SANDWICHES??? lololol How is putting it into your body not an “attempt to conceal the merchandise”"??? LOL
^^not hard to prove. See my answer above… she admitted to eating the sandwich.[/quote]
what part about keeping the wrapper did you miss?? read much?
They took something that didnt belong to them and did not pay for it. that is STEALING and is ILLEGAL. They should face the consequences for their actions. (weather or not they intended to pay for it is irrelevant)
[/quote]
I assume you just PLAY a lawyer on TV? Or on TNation?
[/quote]
^^LOL coming from you of all people this is laughable.
why is their intention relevant? If i’m not paying attention while driving and accidentally go over the speed limit when I didnt intend to does that mean I shouldnt get a speeding ticket?[/quote]
Speed kills more people than wholesome meat sandwiches.
They took something that didnt belong to them and did not pay for it. that is STEALING and is ILLEGAL. They should face the consequences for their actions. (weather or not they intended to pay for it is irrelevant)
[/quote]
I assume you just PLAY a lawyer on TV? Or on TNation?
[/quote]
^^LOL coming from you of all people this is laughable.
why is their intention relevant? If i’m not paying attention while driving and accidentally go over the speed limit when I didnt intend to does that mean I shouldnt get a speeding ticket?[/quote]
coming from me yeah. I only worked with the law for 20+ years and oh yeah, I’ve seen my way in and around court a few times professionally and personally.
what is it YOU do for a living?
and, someone already quoted CHAPTER AND VERSE of the law citing INTENT. they retained the wrapper. it won’t take fucking johnny cochran (or even you apparently) to get them out of this caper.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
and besides, forgot or not, it’s stealing.
[/quote]
exactly. I don’t understand why people are attempting to justify this.[/quote]
and i see you still haven’t actually made it to the quoted law with the element of INTENT or the part of the article wherein they RETAINED THE WRAPPER.
They took something that didnt belong to them and did not pay for it. that is STEALING and is ILLEGAL. They should face the consequences for their actions. (weather or not they intended to pay for it is irrelevant)
[/quote]
I assume you just PLAY a lawyer on TV? Or on TNation?
[/quote]
^^LOL coming from you of all people this is laughable.
why is their intention relevant? If i’m not paying attention while driving and accidentally go over the speed limit when I didnt intend to does that mean I shouldnt get a speeding ticket?[/quote]
Speed kills more people than wholesome meat sandwiches.[/quote]
traffic offenses do not require “intent”. but don’t let that detail stop you from lawyering Greg.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
I disagree. Especially, not in this circumstance.
How many times have you been in a grocery store and someone is either snacking or is drinking something from the store, then pays when they get in line?
Personally, i’ve seen it may times and no one was arrested.
Hey, congrats on the marriage thing, also.
[/quote]
I’ve seen it quite a few times as well but these people didnt pay for it when they got in line. Thats the difference.
oh and thanks! 32 days and counting… its coming up quick! lol[/quote]
Personally, I think they deserved the benefit of the doubt and were treated unjustly. That’s my opinion.
We can agree to diagree.
[/quote]
I agree with you IH, she should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
Even if she wasn’t given the benefit of the doubt, why arrested? Couldn’t she just have been given a summons to appear in court?
This really seams like a waste of police time. A court summons with a fine or some shit like that should be enough. It’s not like she committed armed robbery or stuffed the sandwich under her shirt.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
coming from me yeah. I only worked with the law for 20+ years and oh yeah, I’ve seen my way in and around court a few times professionally and personally.
[/quote]
I didnt know that “working with the law for 20+ years” and “seen my way in and around court a few times” (undoubtably meaning you’ve been in trouble with the law more than once) means that you’re a lawyer.
"She openly munched on one while they shopped, saving the wrapper to be scanned at the register later.
But they forgot to pay for the sandwiches as they checked out with about $50 worth of groceries.
“When the security guard questioned us, I was really embarrassed, I was horrified,” she said. They were led upstairs, where the couple expected to get a lecture, pay for the sandwiches, and be allowed on their way."
SAVING THE WRAPPER.
NO MENTION OF “LEAVING THE STORE”, but that’s actually irrelevant…unless of course they hopped into a waiting car, guns-a-blazing as they made off with two sammiches worth $5.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
coming from me yeah. I only worked with the law for 20+ years and oh yeah, I’ve seen my way in and around court a few times professionally and personally.
[/quote]
I didnt know that “working with the law for 20+ years” and “seen my way in and around court a few times” (undoubtably meaning you’ve been in trouble with the law more than once) means that you’re a lawyer. [/quote]
but I do know the law. and apparently better than you.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
what part about keeping the wrapper did you miss?? read much?
[/quote]
I didnt miss that part. yes I “read much”
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and i see you still haven’t actually made it to the quoted law with the element of INTENT or the part of the article wherein they RETAINED THE WRAPPER.
lol[/quote]
If I go into a liquor store, eat a candy bar then put the wrapper in my pocket and walk out its not stealing because I kept the wrapper?
I can just say “Ooops I forgot. I intended to pay for it.” and it wouldnt be a crime?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
coming from me yeah. I only worked with the law for 20+ years and oh yeah, I’ve seen my way in and around court a few times professionally and personally.
[/quote]
I didnt know that “working with the law for 20+ years” and “seen my way in and around court a few times” (undoubtably meaning you’ve been in trouble with the law more than once) means that you’re a lawyer. [/quote]
but don’t let none of this get in the way of your reading the article incorrectly, making assumptions and then not knowing the law. no sir.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
coming from me yeah. I only worked with the law for 20+ years and oh yeah, I’ve seen my way in and around court a few times professionally and personally.
[/quote]
I didnt know that “working with the law for 20+ years” and “seen my way in and around court a few times” (undoubtably meaning you’ve been in trouble with the law more than once) means that you’re a lawyer. [/quote]
but I do know the law. and apparently better than you. [/quote]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
what part about keeping the wrapper did you miss?? read much?
[/quote]
I didnt miss that part. yes I “read much”
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
and i see you still haven’t actually made it to the quoted law with the element of INTENT or the part of the article wherein they RETAINED THE WRAPPER.
lol[/quote]
If I go into a liquor store, eat a candy bar then put the wrapper in my pocket and walk out its not stealing because I kept the wrapper?
I can just say “Ooops I forgot. I intended to pay for it.” and it wouldnt be a crime? [/quote]
really not sure why this is so difficult for you. i mean i really don’t.
if you put the wrapper in your pocket, that arguably would be an ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL and go toward INTENT. the above scenario is vastly different than someone having a wrapper in the cart and forgetting to have it scanned. if they concealed it otherwise (and the article does not say that they did), then you have an argument.
for crying out loud, you sound like fucking X in target now. gimme a break. what other crazy scenario will you dream up next to avoid conceding that maybe they (and you) got it wrong here?