Boycott Safeway Supermarket

Off Topic
161

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

I drank something while shopping recently. I retained the bottle and paid for it at the counter.

Was I “stealing” up to the point I paid for it?

Answer.

162

[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]

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

163

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Right.

Because you of all people never had the urge to desperately consume a burger or three with your blood sugar depressed from all those heavy curls?

164

[quote]Christine wrote:

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

[/quote]

But Christine…that opens the convo up to putting people in jail for marijuana charges and tying up taxes and jail space for bs reasons.

Yeah, it is a shame we give a damn about this…but what happens when the next family tries this during Christmas and “forgets” to pay for the third toy in the basket?

Hey, they paid for two…so they must have meant to pay for the third, right?

165

http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=681373#.TrCoxrLrE84

“AND WE PUT THE WRAPPERS IN THE CART”.

Ahem.

166

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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]

I defer to IH in all matters of the feline.

167

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

My guess is some people are too busy screaming about reading comprehension to actually grasp the inconsistencies in what they are actually reading.

168

[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.

169

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Right.

Because you of all people never had the urge to desperately consume a burger or three with your blood sugar depressed from all those heavy curls?
[/quote]

Never in my life have I eaten something in a store aside from those free snacks they used to hand out at Sam’s warehouse.

I was always told that was stealing.

Look…it is.

170

Wait…so people here really believe eating shit in the store is right?

If I go and grab a bag of M&M’s and eat the whole bag while walking around, I never considered this ok. In fact, I would fully expect someone working there to comment about it.

The only exception being places like Walmart that serve food inside in the store like small restaurants.

171

[quote]Christine 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]

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

[/quote]

Woah there partner.

So you are then sayiing that police will determine who should go to prison? Maybe all cops should be lawyers then.

Cops arrest, District Attorney charges, not the same thing. Charges can even be DROPPED by the District Attorney.

stop putting all the power with the cops.

They did the right thing. They stole.

Store policy enforced. PER the STORE

172

[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.

173

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Not really.

There is a big problem with the system if people are getting arrested for this sort of shit.

If they have a prior record of petty theft, maybe. If they are on parole for other crimes, again, maybe.

But really! Arrested (assuming they have no prior history, and since this case is several days old, any prior charges or arrests would probably have been made known by now).

What is wrong with some sort of citation to appear in court?

[/quote]

But Christine…that opens the convo up to putting people in jail for marijuana charges and tying up taxes and jail space for bs reasons.

Yeah, it is a shame we give a damn about this…but what happens when the next family tries this during Christmas and “forgets” to pay for the third toy in the basket?

Hey, they paid for two…so they must have meant to pay for the third, right?[/quote]

I live in a state where, if the amount is the amount is less than one ounce, marijuana possession is only a ticket.

And your scenario is ridiculous.

This would be comparable to a couple buying a big cart of toys and forgetting a tennis ball at the bottom of the cart.

174

[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]

are you really this fucking dense?

so if you get a speeding ticket, you were definitely speeding?

no.

thread over.

last time…the crime they are accused of requires “intent”. slowly this time.

you can arrest and charge very easily. means nothing.

175

[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]

We dont live in North Korea.

Why do you and others insist on defying black letter law? In this case, it’s really not that difficult to follow. /arrogantsecondyearlawstudentpost

176

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Right.

Because you of all people never had the urge to desperately consume a burger or three with your blood sugar depressed from all those heavy curls?
[/quote]

Never in my life have I eaten something in a store aside from those free snacks they used to hand out at Sam’s warehouse.

I was always told that was stealing.

Look…it is.[/quote]

Come back then when you become a parent.

177

[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.

Over the top?

hell yeah.

Wrong?

No.

It now gets handled in court. It is not up to the cops to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. It would be up to the store whether they wanted to press charges.

178

[quote]Christine wrote:

I live in a state where, if the amount is the amount is less than one ounce, marijuana possession is only a ticket.

And your scenario is ridiculous.

This would be comparable to a couple buying a big cart of toys and forgetting a tennis ball at the bottom of the cart.[/quote]

What if they planned to steal that tennis ball?

179

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…so people here really believe eating shit in the store is right?

If I go and grab a bag of M&M’s and eat the whole bag while walking around, I never considered this ok. In fact, I would fully expect someone working there to comment about it.

The only exception being places like Walmart that serve food inside in the store like small restaurants.[/quote]

Can you show me one sign in one grocery store that prohibits the practice?

Now you’re left with an empty “what is right?” argument?

The fact of the matter is, you can eat what you want as long as you pay for it.

Again, why are these basic concepts so difficult?

What are you going to compare (fallaciously) it to next? Test driving a car and forgetting to come back with it?

180

My family owned a grocery store for decades. It was, of all things, a specialty meat store-- think “Italian Market”.

My dad told me he was having a buy-one-get-one-free hot dog sale and a guy came in and tried to lift some meat. He was a repeat offender and this time he had something like a trenchcoat of hotdogs on him at the door.

My dad decided to call it in.

The guy kept asking if he could just keep “the free ones”.