[quote]Professor X wrote:
But, but they INTENDED to pay!!
How do you know this?
They look like such good people!!
But they stole it.
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!![/quote]
They were white. So that makes it true.
Maybe I should be the blond one, as much as I forget shit.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
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?
[/quote]
Judge, jury and executioner, Blondie!
Cut off their hands![/quote]
I do like that about you. A person who can make some damn decisions around here.
CHRISTINE FOR PRESIDENT!!! =)
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.[/quote]
But did they intentionally not show it to the cashier or did they forget to show it to the cashier?
Either way, cut of their hands.
I want to be elected president!
[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]
Intent IS the issue. smfh
and you cannot prove INTENT, therefore you are unlikely to get a conviction.
keeping the wrapper +
open consumption +
paying for $50 worth of other goods
likely =
NOT GUILTY
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do they call it a lion’s share anyways?
[/quote]
This is a question for IH.
[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]Christine wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do they call it a lion’s share anyways?
[/quote]
This is a question for IH.[/quote]
Is a lion’s share the same as a tiger’s share?
and my mother’s maiden name is lion so do I get everyone’s share?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.[/quote]
Again, what people are missing is that the article states they are being charged with shoplifting BOTH sandwiches.
"But they forgot to pay for the sandwiches…", though the lady only saved “THE” wrapper to be scanned at the register.
So what happened? Did the preggo wife beast on both? Did the husband eat one and they BOTH ended up “forgetting”? Did they lose track of the other sandwich in the cart along with the wrapper of the ONE sandwich the article stated was eaten?
Was the article just rushed?
edited for grammerz
[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]Professor X wrote:
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.[/quote]
act of commission v. act of omission.
if you put it in your pocket it could very well be argued you concealed it.
if it was lying in the cart and you just failed to present it (like a jug of water UNDER your cart - happens all the time), and you paid for other shit, you got a strong argument it was an oversight.
this is really not complicated stuff.
but apparently it is.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.[/quote]
But did they intentionally not show it to the cashier or did they forget to show it to the cashier?
Either way, cut of their hands.
I want to be elected president![/quote]
They ate something without paying for it. Every time I see someone do this my thought is they are stealing. I don’t see eating the chocolate covered raisins as NOT stealing just because you only ate two of them and the store can make more.
They ate something without paying for it which is already wrong to start with and then did not show the wrapper to the cashier.
Yeah, arresting them is over the top…but what it isn’t is ILLEGAL.
[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]
she’s a dentist apparently.
[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]
Who disagreed with this? It may not hold up,…but guess what…that is what COURT is for…not the general public.
They committed a crime. Whether it gets thrown out isn’t even the issue here.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Sure, it’s possible they intended to steal it. It’s just nowhere near as likely as being an honest mistake.[/quote]
This.[/quote]
but just cause its an “honest mistake” does that mean that they shouldnt have to face the consequences for breaking the law?[/quote]
If it was an honest mistake you would be hard pressed to find a law they broke.
[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]anonym wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL at “eating a sandwich, not paying for it and not showing the wrapper to the cashier” now equaling “NOT concealing it”.[/quote]
Again, what people are missing is that the article states they are being charged with shoplifting BOTH sandwiches.
"But they forgot to pay for the sandwiches…"though the lady only saved “THE” wrapper to be scanned at the register.
So what happened? Did the preggo wife beasted on both? Did the husband ate one and they BOTH ended up “forgetting”? Did they lose track of the other sandwich in the cart along with the wrapper of the ONE sandwich the article stated was eaten?
Was the article just rushed?[/quote]
Oh, I get you. TWO sammiches gone…one wrapper…somebody is lying.
But that article is hilarious painting the picture of the famished and desperate family who needed nourishment RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
LOL
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
a couple things:
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]
Dude come on.
Intent is relevant because it’s an element of the crime. You can’t legitimately get into a discussion of legal technicalities without knowing at least the basics of the stuff youre talking about.
Speed limit scenario is not comparable. There is no intent element necessary. Although I know plenty of people whove gotten out of speeding tickets by giving some emergency excuse. So the person intended to speed but was treated with leniency BASED ON THE SITUATION. How bout that…
This thread makes it very clear why lawyers are compensated nicely for their work.