[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’ve seen that in a movie and it worked! Damn those shoplifters!
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’ve seen that in a movie and it worked! Damn those shoplifters!
They got a misdemeanor, they earned it.
[/quote]
A fifty dollar fine in exchange for the lions share of a hundred million dollar heist?
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]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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?
[/quote]
It’s true and I’ve seen it first hand. One of my best friends lives out in Hawaii and I went to visit. We went out to a U of H football game with a bunch of his friends who are locals out there(my buddy and I were the only white ones). After the game we were walking across the street and a Hawaiian cop walks up to our group and stops us. He points at me and my buddy and says “You two, come over here. You’re getting j-walking tickets.” and let the whole rest of our group go cause they were locals.
The most blatant racist discrimination I’ve ever been a part of in my life LOL
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’ve seen that in a movie and it worked! Damn those shoplifters!
They got a misdemeanor, they earned it.
[/quote]
A fifty dollar fine in exchange for the lions share of a hundred million dollar heist?
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.
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.
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.
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]
I’m an awesome internet lawyer and I know of something called “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal law.
Also, intent is something that has to be proved.
Unless they threw away the wrapper or tried to conceal it in some way, intent is impossible to prove.
Therefore, wasting resources on this is simply silly.
[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]
This is what happens with someone who steals from K-Mart as a child. A tiger simply can’t shed it’s stripes.
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]
I’m an awesome internet lawyer and I know of something called “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal law.
Also, intent is something that has to be proved.
Unless they threw away the wrapper or tried to conceal it in some way, intent is impossible to prove.
Therefore, wasting resources on this is simply silly.
[/quote]
Question…how the hell is NOT showing it to the cashier NOT concealing it?
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.
I do not know if it has been mentioned but, keeping the wrapper does not mean shit. When I was younger I would go to Target or any store with friends to do this. You can never be sure if someone is watching you so, what we did was eat any snacks we wanted and kept the wrappers in our pockets or cart so, if we got caught we would say the forgot about it. Also who cares if they spent $50. I would go shopping for school supplies that I needed and eat a candy bar without paying. Why? because it was easy.
With that said the two times that I was caught the security believed I forgot to pay so, there were no issues.
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]
I’m an awesome internet lawyer and I know of something called “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal law.
Also, intent is something that has to be proved.
Unless they threw away the wrapper or tried to conceal it in some way, intent is impossible to prove.
Therefore, wasting resources on this is simply silly.
[/quote]
But then… you aren’t on the jury are you? The jury is the trier of fact, the judge is the trier of law.
Which one are you again?
right… they stole a sandwich, they got arrested, the district attorney will or will not press charges to THEN get to determine probable cause/reasonable doubt/culpability.
But they may not have “concealed” it…they may have held it in a tight fist because she had to fart really badly thus preventing the wrapper from being seen by ACCIDENT!!
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]
I’m an awesome internet lawyer and I know of something called “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal law.
Also, intent is something that has to be proved.
Unless they threw away the wrapper or tried to conceal it in some way, intent is impossible to prove.
Therefore, wasting resources on this is simply silly.
[/quote]
Question…how the hell is NOT showing it to the cashier NOT concealing it?[/quote]
