bloodyrosemccoy | For Great Justice

You're viewing

bloodyrosemccoy's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Man, 79, jailed after forgetting to pay for pie.

And here I thought the crackdown on me that one time was harsh. Looks like I got off easy $500+ later. But on the other hand, I didn’t have priors.

I wonder if my pal Dave The Ever-Vigilant Security Guard transferred to Lake Worth at some point …

People are assholes.

Current Mood: cynical
Current Music: Cake ~ Sheep Go To Heaven

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

zimwifepgk.livejournal.com

I don't know the details of the case, but the soon-to-be-lawyer in me prompts me to comment, and comment IN WHAT IS PROBABLY A BORING FASHION.

Usually, larceny crimes require that a person intentionally deprive someone else of their property with the intent to keep it forever. That intention requires that the person not have a belief that he had a legal entitlement to the property. For example, taking someone else's umbrella off the seat next to yours on the bus in the mistaken belief that it is your umbrella does not constitute larceny.

Now, again, I DON'T KNOW about the details of the 'retail theft' statute this poor man is being charged under, but if it is anything like common-law larceny, he's not guilty. 9.9 If it was put in the bag with other items and the checkout person also didn't notice until later that it was not paid for, the man very likely and in fact almost certainly believed that he had paid for it along with his other groceries and thus had a legal entitlement to it. Thus, he didn't have the proper intent.

He'll have to prove that at trial if the charges aren't dropped, but considering that the cashier has already said s/he didn't notice either, and also considering the guy's memory problems, that shouldn't be too hard. Only way he's screwed is if 'retail theft' is somehow a strict liability crime, or if they really play up his alleged 'prior shoplifting' to combat his 'misunderstanding' defense.

tl;dr--one's COMMON SENSE response to this case with a wtf is supported by at least the common law

From:

padparadscha.livejournal.com

:D

Well, this one hits me because I was arrested three years ago for a similar reason ... I was zoned out and put a chapstick in the wrong bag while shopping. Paid for everything else and left the store, and then got approached by Dave The Ever-Vigilant Security Guard. They refused to believe me when I said I hadn't been paying attention. I got fined and had to pay court fees and had to go see an arraignment at the jail to scare my ass straight. It was very, very annoying to be treated like a criminal for an honest mistake.

I even admitted it in the court--that I didn't know I was taking it. It apparently irritated everyone involved, as it confused the court case; I couldn't plead guilty that way, which meant that the straightforward resolution wasn't going to happen. But I had been told to tell the truth, so I did, for all the good it did me.

... Erm, sorry. It still pisses me off. But it's nice to see someone who agrees with me on the LEGAL level.

Also, hi KidK! I see

alietf mention you sometimes!

From:

zimwifepgk.livejournal.com

=D Hai, she mentions you sometimes too. It has come to my attention that you have an interesting journal, so I read it sometimes. Hope that's okay by you.

e.e See that is the kind of thing about the legal process that bugs me. Sure, you could've lied and said 'Oh sure I'm guilty' and gotten the short treatment, but...that wouldn't have been the truth. While I can understand why the government wouldn't necessarily want to put too much automatic trust in someone's statement that they made a mistake (because then anyone could get away with shoplifting with a similar story), it also doesn't seem right to me that a simple mistake over something as small as a chapstick or a pie should lead to so much trouble. We're all human, sometimes mistakes happen. 9.9; I do know that if I'd been in Dave's position, I would've just asked you to go back and pay for it now, pleasethanks. Maybe in a stern tone of voice, for the look of the thing. >.>

From:

padparadscha.livejournal.com

Fair 'nough that you read it. Mind a friending?

Yeah, I understood their position--welcome to a college town, where I'm sure they lose tons in petty theft. And it really didn't matter, since no one was going to believe me anyway, but I wasn't going to lie and say I did it on purpose just to make it easier on them. (Nor was I going to point out the obvious that it was a DOLLAR SIXTY-NINE they were getting all bent out of shape for, because it does add up.)

What interested me was that everyone I've told the story to EXCEPT DAVE seems to agree that wandering off and forgetting to pay is not only a very possible thing to do, but that they've done something like that before. *sigh* Lucky me.

From:

zimwifepgk.livejournal.com

Sho', you can be friending me and I will friend back. My journal isn't as cool, though. :[ It's mostly about law school and job things, wargh.

Dave was probably just very pleased with himself to have noticed what happened, and wanted his vigilance to be recognized. 9.9 Or I dunno, just one of those rule-sticklers? Not all law-related people are buttheads, though, thank goodness. =D;