Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 0:18:48 GMT -5
Haven't read the 11 pages, but if it was seriously a mistake, how is it that this got far enough that she was charged with larceny? Isn't that a bit extreme? The case was $21 for crying out loud. I don't get it. 6th degree larceny is the equivalent of the 6th degree burn you get from a warm kitten sitting on your lap. She won't even have a record.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Jul 2, 2014 0:41:05 GMT -5
Haven't read the 11 pages, but if it was seriously a mistake, how is it that this got far enough that she was charged with larceny? Isn't that a bit extreme? The case was $21 for crying out loud. I don't get it. 6th degree larceny is the equivalent of the 6th degree burn you get from a warm kitten sitting on your lap. She won't even have a record. Then why did she even get a mugshot? You can tell I clearly don't have any knowledge of this stuff. The optics are awful for Emma.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 0:45:50 GMT -5
I've done this twice before. Self check outs are the worst, not once did someone phone the police on me.
The only thing I learned from all this, was to always go to a cashier.
I'd still like to meet Mr/Ms moral police who decided to call the cops on her.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jul 2, 2014 0:57:43 GMT -5
Haven't read the 11 pages, but if it was seriously a mistake, how is it that this got far enough that she was charged with larceny? Isn't that a bit extreme? The case was $21 for crying out loud. I don't get it. She claims it was a mistake, obviously the store and the state disagree. It's not a crime if it was a mistake. Even at a lower-tier theft charge, the state would still have to prove intent if Emma pushed this to a trial. And they'd have to have probable cause of the crime, including intent, even to bring the charge. We haven't seen any video surveillance, we haven't seen any data entry logs for the self-check out system, though I'm sure both exist. Those might be very telling, they might not be. We have no idea. It's obviously not the crime of century no matter what.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Jul 2, 2014 1:04:28 GMT -5
I don't get it. Another millionaire athlete arrested for stealing something worth $20? Stupid Just cause she works in the WWE doesn't mean she's a millionaire, probably not even that close. I legit LOL'd at Emma as a millionaire athlete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 1:31:21 GMT -5
6th degree larceny is the equivalent of the 6th degree burn you get from a warm kitten sitting on your lap. She won't even have a record. Then why did she even get a mugshot? You can tell I clearly don't have any knowledge of this stuff. The optics are awful for Emma. You get you mugshot taken when you're charged not convicted. Near as I can tell legally, besides some arbitrary community service, she got off scot-free. She could be in trouble professionally, but legally she's fine.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Jul 2, 2014 1:39:18 GMT -5
B: She's telling the truth, but she would have had to wait to have a "proper" trial, so, she took the plea as an easy way out. Honestly, if it's not staying on her record and it's a token community service punishment it's probably cheaper, quicker and easier to just plead guilty and spend an afternoon picking up trash in a ditch.
|
|
|
Post by The 1Watcher Experience on Jul 2, 2014 5:00:54 GMT -5
I wish her the best of luck in her future purchases.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jul 2, 2014 5:32:37 GMT -5
6th degree? Seriously? I'm probably comitting 6th degree larceny just lingering too long at the tie rack.
|
|
|
Post by berlynwright on Jul 2, 2014 5:51:43 GMT -5
does this mean she stole from Kevin Bacon indirectly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 6:16:09 GMT -5
6th degree? Seriously? I'm probably comitting 6th degree larceny just lingering too long at the tie rack. All I know is 7th degree is leaving your own items in the store and walking out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jul 2, 2014 6:50:31 GMT -5
It's not a crime if it was a mistake. Not true. A mistake is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, hence why things like "negligent manslaughter" exist. You do not have to be intent of committing a crime to be guilty of one.
|
|
Capt Lunatic
Unicron
Buttah in mah ass, lollipops in mah mouth
Posts: 3,241
|
Post by Capt Lunatic on Jul 2, 2014 6:56:07 GMT -5
Australians...crime is just a way of life for those people.
|
|
odor31
Unicron
The Stunner Collector
Posts: 3,240
|
Post by odor31 on Jul 2, 2014 7:17:27 GMT -5
It's hilarious. I almost did this last night with a piece of merchandise of about the same amount. I thought of Emma and walked back in and paid for it. Also, via self-check out. Just forgot it on the bottom of my cart.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jul 2, 2014 9:25:11 GMT -5
It's not a crime if it was a mistake. Not true. A mistake is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, hence why things like "negligent manslaughter" exist. You do not have to be intent of committing a crime to be guilty of one. Ignorance or mistake of LAW is not an excuse, but mistake of fact certainly is. The state has to prove the requisite intent for any crime. For any theft statute, the requisite intent is the intent to deprive someone of property. If you accidentally take the wrong coat off a coat rack, you haven't committed a crime. But if you claim you didn't realize stealing was against the law - that's not a defense. Here's the statute used in this case, Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-119(9) "Larceny defined. A person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner. Larceny includes, but is not limited to: ... (9) Shoplifting. A person is guilty of shoplifting who intentionally takes possession of any goods, wares or merchandise offered or exposed for sale by any store or other mercantile establishment with the intention of converting the same to his own use, without paying the purchase price thereof. A person intentionally concealing unpurchased goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such store, shall be prima facie presumed to have so concealed such article with the intention of converting the same to his own use without paying the purchase price thereof." So the only time the state doesn't have to prove intent under this statute, is if you conceal the items on you while you're in the store, like if you hide something in your pocket. In that case, intent to steal is presumed, but a defendant could still try to overcome that presumption at a trial. And then CT breaks things down by degree just based on the value of the stolen property. Under $250 is 6th degree. www.cga.ct.gov/2001/pub/Chap952.htm#sec53a-119.htm
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 2, 2014 9:31:27 GMT -5
It's not a crime if it was a mistake. Not true. A mistake is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, hence why things like "negligent manslaughter" exist. You do not have to be intent of committing a crime to be guilty of one. it's not shop lifting if it's a mistake.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Jul 2, 2014 9:36:18 GMT -5
JTG, I love the
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jul 2, 2014 10:55:40 GMT -5
Not true. A mistake is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, hence why things like "negligent manslaughter" exist. You do not have to be intent of committing a crime to be guilty of one. it's not shop lifting if it's a mistake. But, in all probability, it wasn't just a mistake. Security typically watches shoplifters for quite some time before they make an apprehension. That means she likely concealed it earlier on in the shopping trip and they waited until after she left the point of sale and apprehended her shortly before she reached the doors. Store security, when doing their jobs properly, always try to show intent and this means that they don't often try and stop people for stuff at the register because that's too late and it's also typically well monitored by at least 2 people or so to begin with. It seems to me to be most likely that she concealed it (possibly by accident) early on in her shopping trip. Well-trained loss prevention will normally be able to show a clear, unambiguous sequence of events before they apprehend somebody just so they can win legally. It's part of the training. That being said, none of us were there. We have no reason to believe her version of events. Likewise, we have no reason to believe the store's version of events. All we know is that she either plead guilty to the charges (Do we know that?) or that the judge did not believe her story do the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Which leads me to be more skeptical of her version of events--however, that's based on very little and I would not condemn her for anything personally without being privy to more information. At the same time... Really, people use the excuse of "I didn't know I was stealing it" or the "It was an accident" pretty much all the time when they're caught in the process. Doesn't mean she's lying, but it's not exactly an original defense. At the same time, we all know that self-checkouts are kind of BS and can imagine a scenario where we could get in the same kind of trouble. So yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of her side of the story, but I don't feel such a smug sense of superiority that I completely condemn her story either.
|
|
|
Post by Deadman Inc on Jul 2, 2014 11:45:59 GMT -5
it's not shop lifting if it's a mistake. But, in all probability, it wasn't just a mistake. Security typically watches shoplifters for quite some time before they make an apprehension. That means she likely concealed it earlier on in the shopping trip and they waited until after she left the point of sale and apprehended her shortly before she reached the doors. Store security, when doing their jobs properly, always try to show intent and this means that they don't often try and stop people for stuff at the register because that's too late and it's also typically well monitored by at least 2 people or so to begin with. It seems to me to be most likely that she concealed it (possibly by accident) early on in her shopping trip. Well-trained loss prevention will normally be able to show a clear, unambiguous sequence of events before they apprehend somebody just so they can win legally. It's part of the training. Exactly this. I've done some training with Loss Prevention before, and this is a pretty good description of the process. Furthermore, I'm not sure what it's like in state this took place, but here in Jersey, LP can fine you up to $500 dollars for shoplifting, regardless of the price of the item, and handle the situation themselves without having to have someone arrested and go to court. This is set up this way precisely to keep the courts from being bogged down with tons of small shoplifting charges. The way that it was explained to me was that the problem people/repeat offenders/etc get fined heavily for how much of a disturbance/issue they cause during apprehension and as a deterrent to keep them from wasting LP's time again. What could have happened here is that there may have been something that she did that did not look innocent to the LP in the store, but was not intentional by Emma. Maybe she tucked something in a pocket, underneath something, etc in such a manner that would flag the LP to keep and eye on her, and simply forgot about it. Perhaps when they stopped her at the door, she gave them a hard time. "Do you know who the hell I am?" etc. Speculation of course, but if she was difficult with the LP, they might have felt it necessary to involve the police. Or she pissed them off enough to. It's worth pointing out that if they had the police invovled to the point where she was arrested, it means the LP has to take a day from his time to go to the court hearing, and most LP I worked with preferred to settle the issue in store without having to do that, because it's a hassle. So there is possible more the story than we're getting.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Jul 2, 2014 12:26:07 GMT -5
JTG, I love the Crime Time should invite Emma. Apparently she knows how to get booked.
|
|