[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]
I read the article correctly. I did not make any assumptions.
I believe you were the one who assumed that it was an honest mistake and that she actually intended to pay for an item that she did not pay for. Or did I misread that as well?
[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]
Well I have been a cop for 18 years. I have arrested, charged, and testified in court more times than I care to count for various crimes, including retail fraud. And yes…I do know a little about criminal law. At least enough to make be dangerous. Does that qualify?
[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]
Glad you cleared that up Mr. Attorney.
LOL[/quote]
You’re welcome.
Yup. I made a living GIVING ATTORNEYS DIRECTION/MARCHING ORDERS.
What IS it YOU do again?
You can LOL all you want, but it seems I got it right, and you’re wrong. Do you want me to quote back to you your erroneous legal analysis here?
[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]
But what if you really did forget to pay for it?
At least one time I didn’t empty my cart completely when paying for my groceries. The cashier didn’t notice that there was something left in my cart and I didn’t notice until I was unloading the groceries into my car.
I did go back an pay for the item (it was a bottle of fish oil).
Anyway, I had no intent to steal that fish oil, but I did, unintentionally pass the exit with it.
[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]
I read the article correctly. I did not make any assumptions.
I believe you were the one who assumed that it was an honest mistake and that she actually intended to pay for an item that she did not pay for. Or did I misread that as well?[/quote]
never stated that. we can go in circles for as long as you want.
i stated it was heavy handed. i went to great lengths to explain to X that it was “more likely than not” it was an honest mistake.
you did ASSUME they left the store. you wrote it. want me to quote it back for you?
you did assume that saving the wrapper and their intent was irrelevant. want me to quote it back to you?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.[/quote]
the article does not say that they wrapper was in the cart. It said that she “saved the wrapper to be scanned later.” Could have been in her purse, her pocket or anywhere.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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.[/quote]
the article does not say that they wrapper was in the cart. It said that she “saved the wrapper to be scanned later.” Could have been in her purse, her pocket or anywhere.[/quote]
the article did not provide her blood type of whether she was “natural” or “brazilian” or “landing strip” either. but then again, none of that was the point now was it?
anyway, i conceded that if it were concealed, the argument toward intent is strong.
concede. you familiar with that concept? better start. you’re getting married right?
[quote]gregron wrote:
I believe you were the one who assumed that it was an honest mistake and that she actually intended to pay for an item that she did not pay for. Or did I misread that as well?[/quote]
never stated that. we can go in circles for as long as you want.
[/quote]
your second post in this thread was:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
no one here ever make an innocent mistake?
there are mistakes and oversights, and then there are crimes.
this was not a crime[/quote]
if that is not saying that it was an honest mistake and that she intended to pay for it I dont know what is.
The article states that Wifey, Hubby and Daughter went to the store to get food. Famished, Wifey picked out two sandwiches and “openly munched on one while they shopped, saving the wrapper to be scanned at the register later.”
But then, at the register, they “forgot to pay for the sandwiches” as they were checked out.
The article implies only one was eaten, but also states that they are being charged for shoplifting both.
Did the husband eat one, as well, and they BOTH forgot to pay for them?
I do wonder how this would have been reported if it had been a black couple. And in the article, at least the one I read, there is a very pretty little white woman wiping tears away. Also, if it had been a black couple, or a hispanic couple their ethnicities would have been reported.
We don’t know where they saved their wrappers. It could have been deep in their pockets.
Yah it seems excessive but I bet they won’t forget again.
AND, if they had been black or hispanic and this had happened and they said they might pursue a lawsuit I really do think the comments would have been about them milking the system after stealing.
[quote]gregron wrote:
I believe you were the one who assumed that it was an honest mistake and that she actually intended to pay for an item that she did not pay for. Or did I misread that as well?[/quote]
never stated that. we can go in circles for as long as you want.
[/quote]
your second post in this thread was:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
no one here ever make an innocent mistake?
there are mistakes and oversights, and then there are crimes.
this was not a crime[/quote]
if that is not saying that it was an honest mistake and that she intended to pay for it I dont know what is.[/quote]
I later clarified to X but I still stand behind this.
They will never be able to prove intent here. Never. I said “this is not a crime”. I stand by it.
I don’t think if you try to steal something that you OPENLY consume it in the store in plain sight of cameras, employees, etc.
I’m making as assumption, but I’m making the MORE LIKELY assumption.
I do wonder how this would have been reported if it had been a black couple. And in the article, at least the one I read, there is a very pretty little white woman wiping tears away. Also, if it had been a black couple, or a hispanic couple their ethnicities would have been reported.
We don’t know where they saved their wrappers. It could have been deep in their pockets.
Yah it seems excessive but I bet they won’t forget again.
AND, if they had been black or hispanic and this had happened and they said they might pursue a lawsuite I really do think the comments would have been about them milking the system after stealing.
[/quote]
oh geez celeste…what is the above tripe? your white guilt showing?
one of greg’s first posts pointed out that Hawaiians don’t like white mainlanders. if anything, this was a potential prejudicial act against the couple. imagine that huh?
btw i think i read about at least half a dozen shootings in philadelphia just this past week (typical) - not one mentions the race of the alleged and/or accused shooter or the victim.
gratuitous photo of the poor still freaking crying victim[/quote]
make sure you check under your cart before you leave the store celeste…you don’t want to be that thieving ass white lady with a jug of water under your cart.
The grocery store I shop at has a sit down deli with fountain beverages, coffee, and an awesome selection of sammiches and deli foods to prevent things like this.
It also helps prevent me from coming home with a cart full of steak and cookies, which is what happens when I shop hungry.
That aside, you guys are missing the big picture. While these two distracted the police with a misdemeanor, a gang of international jewelry bandits were cleaning out the crown jewels on the other side of town.
Does that qualify?