|
Post by akamai on Nov 1, 2011 14:59:31 GMT -5
An acquitted thief is still a thief. That's a strange attitude, Joe. Leaving aside the question of the specific case (where the person may or may not have been intending to steal) if a court of law finds you not guilty then you're (in the eyes of the law) NOT a thief. Aren't you always saying that the law is always right even if it's wrong? Hi Linda, I agree with Joseph. FIRST of all, the lady had no business eating the sandwich in the store. When she did not pay for it, it becomes a clear case of shoplifting. Intent has nothing to do with it, and it cannot be proven what her actual intent was either way. The fact that she ate it in the store can mean she was hungry and stupid, or it can also mean that she did not intend to pay for it. Akamai
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Nov 1, 2011 15:00:19 GMT -5
Things aren't always black and white. Acquitted means innocent. Me and Joseph will have to agree to disagree! Acquitted means not guilty. It doesn't mean innocent. It still means that in the eyes of the law you're NOT a thief, Joe. From all practical purposes it works out to being the same.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Nov 1, 2011 15:04:10 GMT -5
Akamai, I've got two kids. Quite often I'll let them eat sweets or stuff in a store (though of course I always pay for it at the check-out).
I don't think it's against any law to eat the supermarket's food inside the store so that's a red herring.
On the second point, I honestly don't believe that if you're shelling out fifty dollars of groceries you're gonna bother to nick two sandwiches!
Christ, at least get hung for a sheep rather than a lamb!
That's one of the main reasons I believe her when she says she forgot.
In any event the way the store and the authorities reacted was totally out of proportion.
You'd think they'd arrested another Richard Ramirez!
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Nov 1, 2011 15:06:01 GMT -5
Things aren't always black and white. Acquitted means innocent. Me and Joseph will have to agree to disagree! Acquitted means not guilty. It doesn't mean innocent. And, of course, found guilty means you're guilty in the eyes of the law. It doesn't mean you DID it!
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Nov 1, 2011 15:24:48 GMT -5
If she genuinely forgot, does that make her a shoplifter. Yes, it does. Intent doesn't matter. Taking merchandise that isn't yours is theft either way. And there was my son, sitting in the trolley seat eating a Mars Bar that he had picked up from the display at the front of the checkout. Now if she hadn't noticed (I hadn't) would I be a criminal? Yes, of course. Where is it written that theft isn't theft if nice people do it? Joe, you're wrong. For any act to BE a crime intent is everything. Motive is different but without intent you can't HAVE a crime. If you absent-mindedly walk off with something then there is NO intent and therefore (without intent and mens rea) there can't BE a crime. That's why the law distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, for instance. If I bash someone over the head in a fit of rage and they die that's manslaughter because it wasn't an intentional crime. If I go out and track someone down and shoot them dead then it's murder because it WAS an intentional crime.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 1, 2011 15:28:24 GMT -5
Akamai, I've got two kids. Quite often I'll let them eat sweets or stuff in a store (though of course I always pay for it at the check-out). I don't think it's against any law to eat the supermarket's food inside the store so that's a red herring. On the second point, I honestly don't believe that if you're shelling out fifty dollars of groceries you're gonna bother to nick two sandwiches! Christ, at least get hung for a sheep rather than a lamb! That's one of the main reasons I believe her when she says she forgot. In any event the way the store and the authorities reacted was totally out of proportion. You'd think they'd arrested another Richard Ramirez! Hi Linda, I NEVER eat anything within a store. When my children were young, I always told them we had to pay for the items before it is ours. The only time I would eat before paying would be at a resturant. First of all, we have no business opening up the wrapping of any merchandise before paying for it, which is what she did, and according to you, you did. You should stop that practice. What that lady did, is a clear case of shoplifting. While there is evidence that she might have been absent minded, you must consider the possibility that she intentionally did it before, and got away with it. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 1, 2011 15:30:13 GMT -5
Yes, it does. Intent doesn't matter. Taking merchandise that isn't yours is theft either way. Yes, of course. Where is it written that theft isn't theft if nice people do it? Joe, you're wrong. For any act to BE a crime intent is everything. Motive is different but without intent you can't HAVE a crime. If you absent-mindedly walk off with something then there is NO intent and therefore (without intent and mens rea) there can't BE a crime. That's why the law distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, for instance. If I bash someone over the head in a fit of rage and they die that's manslaughter because it wasn't an intentional crime. If I go out and track someone down and shoot them dead then it's murder because it WAS an intentional crime. No Linda, Joe is correct. Intent, in many cases, in many crimes cannot be proven either way. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Nov 1, 2011 15:31:37 GMT -5
But in some crimes it can. Works both ways
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 15:52:42 GMT -5
I NEVER eat anything within a store. When my children were young, I always told them we had to pay for the items before it is ours. The only time I would eat before paying would be at a resturant. First of all, we have no business opening up the wrapping of any merchandise before paying for it, which is what she did, and according to you, you did. You should stop that practice. What that lady did, is a clear case of shoplifting. While there is evidence that she might have been absent minded, you must consider the possibility that she intentionally did it before, and got away with it. Akamai The voice of reason. Shoplifting is a big problem in the United States, with biliions of dollars lost each year to theft. The law-abiding end up paying for it. Eating something in a store before you've paid for it is just so.... ghetto.Jesus, how can anyone defend such behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 15:57:54 GMT -5
For any act to BE a crime intent is everything. Not in California. Motive is different but without intent you can't HAVE a crime. Not in California. If you absent-mindedly walk off with something then there is NO intent and therefore (without intent and mens rea) there can't BE a crime. Not in California. You're expected to know the law. Absent proof of purchase, the legal assumption is shoplifting. That's why the law distinguishes between manslaughter and murder, for instance. Not in California. There is a distinction but it has nothing to do with intent. Had a homicide not occurred but for your action or inaction, you can be convicted of first-degree murder here. As for manslaughter, there is a thin line between irresistible impulse and the split second it takes to form premeditation. In fact, I can't think of a single case in California of true manslaughter. Thousands plead guilty to it who are actually guilty of first-degree murder. If I bash someone over the head in a fit of rage and they die that's manslaughter because it wasn't an intentional crime. Not in California. You're guilty of first-degree murder. If I go out and track someone down and shoot them dead then it's murder because it WAS an intentional crime. Not in California. You are just as guilty of first-degree murder if you miss and kill someone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 17:40:21 GMT -5
And, of course, found guilty means you're guilty in the eyes of the law. It doesn't mean you DID it! Yes, since there is always some doubt.
|
|
|
Post by pipsqueak on Nov 1, 2011 17:50:52 GMT -5
i have absent mindedly forgotten to pay for stuff countless times - it happens quite unintentionally. some people are absent minded and not criminally minded. not only a ludricrous reaction on the part of the supermarket but a cruel over reaction to separate a young child from its mother. what were they thinking?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 1, 2011 17:59:56 GMT -5
i have absent mindedly forgotten to pay for stuff countless times - it happens quite unintentionally. some people are absent minded and not criminally minded. not only a ludricrous reaction on the part of the supermarket but a cruel over reaction to separate a young child from its mother. what were they thinking? Well, it is in Honolulu.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 1, 2011 22:25:12 GMT -5
But in some crimes it can. Works both ways In some cases it can. But it never has to be proven in order to get a conviction. In this case, being that she had the wrapper to scan, that would be reasonable doubt as far as her INTENT, but nevertheless, she was shoplifting, intent or not.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 1, 2011 22:29:24 GMT -5
i have absent mindedly forgotten to pay for stuff countless times - it happens quite unintentionally. some people are absent minded and not criminally minded. not only a ludricrous reaction on the part of the supermarket but a cruel over reaction to separate a young child from its mother. what were they thinking? You should stop that practice of being absent minded in a store, because it is shoplifting whether intentional or not. Worse than that, she opened, and ate the sandwich without paying for it first. That, in itself constitutes shoplifting, but the store policy is you have to leave the store without paying to be charged.
|
|