[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you. [/quote]
Litigation is out of control in the U.S. [/quote]
What isn’t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you. [/quote]
Litigation is out of control in the U.S. [/quote]
But at least that would be fair.
Otherwise, anyone could call you a rapist and there is nothing you could do about it.[/quote]
Civil litigation is out of control. Only the state, via due process, can charge a person with rape. Susie Rottincrotch can’t.
I haven’t read the entire thread only the first few pages.
Why couldn’t corporate tell the managers to make a management decision? Announce over the loud speaker ‘that there would be a cashier enforced limit at check out with ‘food stamp’ purchases. Only buy what is needed for that day, sorry for the inconvience’. I mean if the person brings up a cart with $700 dollars worth of food being purchased with a ‘food stamp’ card, transaction denied by cashier.
Another idea, as a manager, quickly print out 100s of papers stating that if the customer uses card for more than their limit at that transaction they could face theft charges. Doesn’t have to be pretty, have the customer sign this paper prior to check out. I believe that this would stop people from going over board on the spending at the time. And make the customers think twice about stealing the goods.
Just throwing some ideas out there.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you. [/quote]
Litigation is out of control in the U.S. [/quote]
But at least that would be fair.
Otherwise, anyone could call you a rapist and there is nothing you could do about it.[/quote]
Civil litigation is out of control. Only the state, via due process, can charge a person with rape. Susie Rottincrotch can’t. [/quote]
Yes, but Susie Rottencrotch could publicly denounce you as a rapist, and falsely claim that you raped her, and the damage to your name and reputation would be immense. If you didn’t have the recourse of suing for libel or slander, which would not only result in a large cash settlement for you, but also clear your name, the damage might be irreparable.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you. [/quote]
Litigation is out of control in the U.S. [/quote]
But at least that would be fair.
Otherwise, anyone could call you a rapist and there is nothing you could do about it.[/quote]
Civil litigation is out of control. Only the state, via due process, can charge a person with rape. Susie Rottincrotch can’t. [/quote]
Yes, but Susie Rottencrotch could publicly denounce you as a rapist, and falsely claim that you raped her, and the damage to your name and reputation would be immense. If you didn’t have the recourse of suing for libel or slander, which would not only result in a large cash settlement for you, but also clear your name, the damage might be irreparable. [/quote]
True, but then again it happens anyway with slander/libel laws on the books. See the Duke lacrosse case as an example.
That doesn’t mean if I witness a rape I have to wait until a juror says it’s rape to call the guy a rapist.
Being “PC” is also out of control in this country.
Varqanir,
To keep it simple; do you think what the shoppers did was morally right? Forget about the law, I can find two good attorneys to argue each side; it’s what they do. Hell in my line of work I have to argue for my clients in front of a board and sometimes it even goes my way. The difference is after walking out of the building, I do not continue to believe my bullshit.
I thought you stood on a higher moral ground then most, am I wrong?
usmccds423,
I’m with you, as I stated before, wrong is and will always be wrong. If you notice in my original post, I separated the law from right and wrong, they are not always synonymous with each other. I would like to believe that anyone arguing with this being wrong, is arguing for arguments sake and truly understands the difference.
By the way, anyone hear from the guy who started this shitstorm?
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
Varqanir,
usmccds423,
I’m with you, as I stated before, wrong is and will always be wrong. If you notice in my original post, I separated the law from right and wrong, they are not always synonymous with each other. I would like to believe that anyone arguing with this being wrong, is arguing for arguments sake and truly understands the difference.
By the way, anyone hear from the guy who started this shitstorm?
[/quote]
Ya, I agree with you. Justifying theft just boggles my mind.
I wouldn’t worry about Conservative, he’s here somewhere…
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A coroner may rule “wrongful death” but cannot always, just from looking at a corpse, determine that the death was committed in a malicious or premeditated manner.
[/quote]
Frankly, I’m stepped in here late and probably shouldn’t have commented because I’m not following this thread so I’m not really clear what the point of this discussion is, so, sorry, carry on. [/quote]
It was about people stealing from Wal-Mart.[/quote]
Actually the thread was originally about how Walmart in LA could not have known that those people didn’t have the balances to buy all that shit when the the Walmarts in every other state did.
“How Do You Feel About WalMart?”
[/quote]
You are correct, what I said is how the thread evolved, but not its original premise.
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
I’m with you, as I stated before, wrong is and will always be wrong. If you notice in my original post, I separated the law from right and wrong, they are not always synonymous with each other. I would like to believe that anyone arguing with this being wrong, is arguing for arguments sake and truly understands the difference.
By the way, anyone hear from the guy who started this shitstorm?
[/quote]
Of course from where we sit we know it was wrong. And from a common sense standpoint it was wrong because it is possible that the govt will try and recoup what people overspent. I’m sure it’s recorded and saved. By recoup I don’t mean make them pay back cash but recoup by reducing their monthly amounts until it’s paid back.
However, from where the people who did this sit there was nothing wrong about it. There was no moral dilemma. Poor people tend to think differently about certain things. I know because I have worked in inner city schools and even lived in an inner city. The way peopled reasoned, their moral codes, it was all alien to me but I realized that it was born from the environment and not because they were born that way.
My mother-in-law lives in an inner city. We have tried to convince her to move out but she won’t. There was a large dumpster in her driveway because she was having the siding on her house replaced. The following day it was overflowing with trash. It took the people in the area less than a few hours to take advantage. They knew they weren’t supposed to do that but if you were to ask if they felt like they did something wrong they would say no. Poverty makes people selfish.
Wall Mart is a retail giant… Spent alot of time studing them in sales & marketing in school… They are a proffit machine whoever they do treat people like shit. But biz is biz in capitalisim you gotta break eggs to make a omlette
Why would anyone want to rape a woman named Susie Rottencrotch anyways?
On topic: What the people did was wrong plain and simple. Being poor is not a justification for their actions.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Why would anyone want to rape a woman named Susie Rottencrotch anyways?
On topic: What the people did was wrong plain and simple. Being poor is not a justification for their actions.[/quote]
Lol, it’s an old military refrence.
Agreed, them being “poor” is just an excuse for their behavior.
Part of welfare should include random tests like this, then denying future eligibility to people who abuse it. If you did this “on the job” and got caught you would be fired.
Any welfare extended past a year needs to be a zero interest loan. And the way it will be paid back is through an increase in future state or federal tax withholdings. And if they refuse to get work, then it comes off of their federal income tax refund.
There are thousands and thousands of folks who get like $5k a year in a damn federal income tax refund even though they don’t pay a cent in taxes!! These are mostly the single mothers with 8 kids using the “Earned income credit”.
For the fellas: deduct it from their future SSI benefits!
And we wonder why our country can’t pay our bills.
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
Varqanir,
To keep it simple; do you think what the shoppers did was morally right? Forget about the law, I can find two good attorneys to argue each side; it’s what they do. Hell in my line of work I have to argue for my clients in front of a board and sometimes it even goes my way. The difference is after walking out of the building, I do not continue to believe my bullshit.
I thought you stood on a higher moral ground then most, am I wrong?
[/quote]
I comment on the difference between homicide and murder and you call into question my moral judgement. Interesting.
Not seeing the connection, but I’ll answer your question.
I think that fraud is morally wrong.
I think that knowingly and intentionally defrauding a business constitutes theft.
I think that theft is morally wrong.
That said, if my family were starving, and I had the opportunity to defraud a multibillion dollar corporation (that profits from the slave labor of political prisoners in a communist country) out of a few hundred dollars of food by taking advantage of a technical glitch, at little risk of prosecution, I might choose to do the morally wrong thing, and not lose too much sleep over it. Thankfully, I am not in that position.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think that fraud is morally wrong.
I think that knowingly and intentionally defrauding a business constitutes theft.
I think that theft is morally wrong.
That said, if my family were starving, and I had the opportunity to defraud a multibillion dollar corporation (that profits from the slave labor of political prisoners in a communist country) out of a few hundred dollars of food by taking advantage of a technical glitch, at little risk of prosecution, I might choose to do the morally wrong thing, and not lose too much sleep over it. Thankfully, I am not in that position. [/quote]
â?¢ The Sliding Scale of Morality
E = Exposure
P = Punishment
V = Value
T = Temptation
T = V / E x P
As E and P increase, T decreases. 2) As V increases, T increases.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
There are thousands and thousands of folks who get like $5k a year in a damn federal income tax refund even though they don’t pay a cent in taxes!! These are mostly the single mothers with 8 kids using the “Earned income credit”.[/quote]
This isn’t entirely correct as written.
I’m not about to get into a tax lecture right now, but your statement is cloudy at best, and disingenuous at worst.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
There are thousands and thousands of folks who get like $5k a year in a damn federal income tax refund even though they don’t pay a cent in taxes!! These are mostly the single mothers with 8 kids using the “Earned income credit”.[/quote]
This isn’t entirely correct as written.
I’m not about to get into a tax lecture right now, but your statement is cloudy at best, and disingenuous at worst.
[/quote]
I thought it was the earned income credit (maybe it’s titled something else), but I know for a FACT there are many single women who are unemployed that get very large federal tax refunds. I thought the credit for 3 qualifying kids under this program was a $5800 Federal tax credit.
I think the ones who do this will work just 2 weeks to “qualify”. I should have included that, since they know the system better than the fathers of their children. But I consider that “not working”. Sorry, I should have made that distinction.
Explain to us on how this happens, because I know it does. I’m not a tax guy for sure. Maybe it’s when the unemployed women have all of their kids declared “disabled” and it’s from their SSI checks?
But it is possible to get a refund without paying taxes, right?
Wallmart should have a new rule …NO MORE FAT CHICKS
www.peopleofwallmart.com # just awful