The Crazy Girl -
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg
Would you ever do the Nasty on a First Date with a guy/girl?
He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.
Zeus posted...
He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.
I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.
I'm yet to meet a normal girl on Tinder, it's packed with crazies
mrduckbear posted...
The Crazy Girl -
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg
What's the bother of posting a photo at all if the face is blurred and the body covered?
Zeus posted...
mrduckbear posted...
The Crazy Girl -
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/09/40FD244D00000578-4561710-A_man_from_the_US_rang_the_police_after_his_Tinder_date_refused_-a-22_1496305414196.jpg
What's the bother of posting a photo at all if the face is blurred and the body covered?
Why not point out the equally as pointless pic of tinder?
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
SusanGreenEyes posted...
Zeus posted...
He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.
I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.
One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.
Zeus posted...
SusanGreenEyes posted...
Zeus posted...
He's lucky that he got off easy. In some states, he would need to legally evict her which could take months.
I'm pretty sure that would only happen if she stayed between 30-60 days, depending upon which state they live in.
One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.
Bloody hell, do some of these states consider the person a tenant from just a stay of one or two days?
One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
Zeus posted...
One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.
Yeah they were lying about it. No state would ever claim that bullshit unless the cops were just being lazy.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
aDirtyShisno posted...Let me just quote your last paragraph there.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store .And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.
XlaxJynx007 posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...Let me just quote your last paragraph there.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store .And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.
XlaxJynx007 posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...Let me just quote your last paragraph there.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store .And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.
aDirtyShisno posted...
XlaxJynx007 posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...Let me just quote your last paragraph there.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store .And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.
You can't be charged with false arrest if your actions can be justified. It can be difficult to prove theft prior to exiting, yes, but it's possible to do so. Back when I was a police officer, one of the first people I arrested was a shoplifter at Target and we arrested them in the store. He was about to leave and that's when we stopped him, hence proof of intent.
aDirtyShisno posted...There is. You get banned from the establishment and they will no longer serve you, plus they will probably call the police to have you arrested for your prior crime. Unless you literally never stay very long in one place and always go to a different restaurant each time you eat you will run out of places to dine and dash from pretty quick.
XlaxJynx007 posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...Let me just quote your last paragraph there.
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
Many clerks and security personnel will not, however, apprehend a suspected thief until that person has actually left the store. The reason is not that they lack justification before that moment, as just explained. Instead, they simply want an open-and-shut case. It will be difficult to argue that one intended to pay for the goods when one has walked out without doing so; on the other hand, defendants who are apprehended pre-exit may be able to convince the jury that their actions were consistent with an intent to eventually pay for the merchandise before leaving the store .And as soon as they get away with it you are liable for a 'false' arrest, since you just proved they didn't do anything wrong in court. You want proof? Wait until they're out the door.
See this is what really confuses me, how do you prevent people from just wandering in, eating stuff, and leaving? It can't be a big problem or they would have to have more security etc. I know dinning and dashing is a thing, and I have seen people arrested for it (although again, not exactly sure how they can really protect themselves from it), but at least in that case they have a ticket order, and plates with food that was eaten etc, as proof.
For dinning and dashing though, why wouldn't people just get up to use the restroom etc, and then leave from there, especially if they didn't finish all the food etc? I would imagine it's almost impossible to actually stop people from doing that, but then you have like 200+ people in my area standing around with signs asking for money for food etc.
So yeah, why would they stand for the whole day, begging for food, if they could literally just go into any resteraunt, order food, eat it, then leave without paying.
I for instance often just leave my money on the table and leave without waiting for someone to come (since I don't want change anyway), never once have I been asked to wait or anything.
I could probably have not paid for like 80% of the meals I have had and gotten away with it, just by not actually leaving money behind (I'm impatient and when I'm done eating I don't like sitting in front of dirty plates).
There has to be SOMETHING that prevents this from happening regularly. I mean, even if you went to jail for a night or two or something, if you g ot a super delicious steak dinner with lobster/shrimp etc out of it....I could see alot of homeless people being down for that.
"There is. You get banned from the establishment and they will no longer serve you, plus they will probably call the police to have you arrested for your prior crime. Unless you literally never stay very long in one place and always go to a different restaurant each time you eat you will run out of places to dine and dash from pretty quick."You are oversimplifying too much. I work at Union Station where we see 70,000+ people every day and all of the stores see someone new try and shoplift from them just about every hour and we still know who the regulars are. Even some of our crooks/thieves/scum will be gone for up to a year and when they come back all someone says is "Hey George, remember when you tried to rob from us last year? Get out."
That is the thing, even in smaller suburbs I have lived in, there are over 50 places to eat, and honestly you like need to travel a few blocks usually to find more. You could rotate through towns and never eat at the same place twice in a year easily, but remain within 20-30 miles of your starting point.
Even if you did go back in say a month or two, your chances of having the same server etc, or being remembered (especially if you just left and there was no confrontation) would be really small (and that is saying the same employees are even there still).
This has always kinda confused me. I have seen people arrested for this before, but, thinking back on it, I think they WANTED to be arrested (as in they told the waitress they could not pay and waited for the cops).
Last time I saw this was like 10+ years ago in Alameda CA, at a dinner, and the guy just told them he couldn't pay and waited for the cops. I think he wanted somewhere warm to spend the night. It was sad actually.
Point is, I don't see how these companies are preventing homeless people from doing this all the time. It's not like they have anything to loose, and not all of them won't do it out of morals/principles etc (especially if they are really hungry).
As far as cameras, I know alot of convienence stores have them, but I worked at a safeway (admittedly 20 years ago or so), and they did not have cameras covering the isles etc. Someone could easily have just gone in, eaten a bunch of food, and then left. That was before they had all the sandwich/oriental/hot food bars etc even (which is even easier for you to get away with because alot of people pay for them right there, and then eat at the tables nearby). Heck now most safeways have a starbucks with tables as well, you could get the hot food from the safeway counter, travel over to the starbucks area and eat it, and then leave and nobody would know you never paid.
I'm sure if it happened a ton, eventually the loss of merchandise would be discovered and prevention methods would be taken (for isntance you have to pay for the hot food at the bar, before it is given to you). Those are not currently in effect though, which makes me wonder....why are the homeless not doing things like this? It would be great if it was because they think it is wrong etc, but I don't believe that.
aDirtyShisno posted...
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
"Hey George, remember when you tried to rob from us last year? Get out."
Zeus posted...
One night was enough in CT, unless the person it happened to was lying about it. She had let some woman stay there after a party (somebody she apparently didn't know all that well) and then the woman refused to leave. Cops refused to help without an eviction order.
Yeah they were lying about it. No state would ever claim that bullshit unless the cops were just being lazy.
You can't be charged with false arrest if your actions can be justified. It can be difficult to prove theft prior to exiting, yes, but it's possible to do so. Back when I was a police officer, one of the first people I arrested was a shoplifter at Target and we arrested them in the store. He was about to leave and that's when we stopped him, hence proof of intent.
See this is what really confuses me, how do you prevent people from just wandering in, eating stuff, and leaving? It can't be a big problem or they would have to have more security etc. I know dinning and dashing is a thing, and I have seen people arrested for it (although again, not exactly sure how they can really protect themselves from it), but at least in that case they have a ticket order, and plates with food that was eaten etc, as proof.
XlaxJynx007 posted...It's Union Station. We call the cops if someone is sitting on the floor. They're always on site.
aDirtyShisno posted...
Zeus posted...
aDirtyShisno posted...No you can't, actually. You have to wait until that person walks out the door before you can arrest him.
If she didn't leave the house how could she steal anything? It'd all still be inside...
If you take an object and put it in your pocket (or purse), you can be arrested in a store. You don't need to physically leave the store. Same would go for homes.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/can-i-be-convicted-shoplifting-when-i-never-left-store.htm
No you don't. Just have to prove intent.
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
aDirtyShisno posted...
"Hey George, remember when you tried to rob from us last year? Get out."
Pretty sure you'd call the cops if somebody robbed you. That would mean they used force.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/01/08/0497C226000003E8-0-image-a-1_1496302803557.jpg
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
Revelation34 posted...In this you are correct. While the commen man cannot legally detain someone unless they are making a citizen's arrest 'merchants' and their employees have special permissions to detain those persons they believe are shoplifting from their establishments. They cannot however exercise other procedures such as search and seizure of evidence unless the evidence is in plain view and is property of the establishment.
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.
Revelation34 posted...
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.
Zeus posted...
Revelation34 posted...
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.
Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.
Revelation34 posted...
Zeus posted...
Revelation34 posted...
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.
Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.
Except not in this context. Detaining and stopping have the same function and effect in this example. Further, if you're going to make a claim that it's unlawful for them to do so despite a legal blog already okaying it, I would expect you to at least present a source.
Zeus posted...
Revelation34 posted...
Zeus posted...
Revelation34 posted...
That link is wrong. Store employees cannot detain shoplifters. Only loss and prevention and security can.
Actually, they can. Most stores have policies against it, but legally an employee can stop a shoplifter. There's no special law that designates loss prevention (which, by the way, is a separate function with no real presence at most retailers; a rep from the department might show up a few times a year) or security (which most retailers don't have anyway) as being the only people who can detain suspected thieves.
Detain, not stop. Those are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.
Except not in this context. Detaining and stopping have the same function and effect in this example. Further, if you're going to make a claim that it's unlawful for them to do so despite a legal blog already okaying it, I would expect you to at least present a source.
Detaining means holding a person such as taking them to a back room until cops get there.