Pregnant mom arrested for forgetting to pay for sandwich

[Dakini]

Everyone would offer to pay when confronted. Even people who are otherwise very obviously shoplifting.

Not really. Seen more then a few who denied having stuff and "lost" their receipts......

If they knew that going "Oh shit! I totally forgot about that!" and offering to pay would get them off the hook, everyone would offer to pay for it. You would have to be stupid not to.

And really, they should just suck it up and tell it to the judge like everyone else has to.

[The Black Forrest]

Not really. Seen more then a few who denied having stuff and "lost" their receipts......

If they knew that going "Oh shit! I totally forgot about that!" and offering to pay would get them off the hook, everyone would offer to pay for it. You would have to be stupid not to.

They didn't have the cash nor credit cards to do that.

That's why they were shoplifting......

[Dakini]

If they knew that going "Oh shit! I totally forgot about that!" and offering to pay would get them off the hook, everyone would offer to pay for it. You would have to be stupid not to.

They didn't have the cash nor credit cards to do that.

That's why they were shoplifting......

Oh, everyone who shoplifts doesn't have the cash or credit cards? Really?

Also people can't go "Oh, I totally forgot I had that in my hand. I'd lose my head if it wasn't so tightly attached. Let me put it back and be on my way." either? I mean, if they have the opportunity to buy their way out of trouble for being so gosh darned forgetful, shouldn't they have the opportunity to refuse to buy something they only picked up and didn't think about because they're so gosh darned forgetful? How is this different? How is selectively arresting people you think might be lying about their intent to not steal better than arresting everyone and letting everyone have access to a fair trial?

[The Black Forrest]

They didn't have the cash nor credit cards to do that.

That's why they were shoplifting......

Oh, everyone who shoplifts doesn't have the cash or credit cards? Really?

Also people can't go "Oh, I totally forgot I had that in my hand. I'd lose my head if it wasn't so tightly attached. Let me put it back and be on my way." either? I mean, if they have the opportunity to buy their way out of trouble for being so gosh darned forgetful, shouldn't they have the opportunity to refuse to buy something they only picked up and didn't think about because they're so gosh darned forgetful? How is this different?

Put your glasses on. Where did I say everyone?

Shoplifters don't all fit under one nice category.

[Dakini]

Oh, everyone who shoplifts doesn't have the cash or credit cards? Really?

Also people can't go "Oh, I totally forgot I had that in my hand. I'd lose my head if it wasn't so tightly attached. Let me put it back and be on my way." either? I mean, if they have the opportunity to buy their way out of trouble for being so gosh darned forgetful, shouldn't they have the opportunity to refuse to buy something they only picked up and didn't think about because they're so gosh darned forgetful? How is this different?

Put your glasses on. Where did I say everyone?

Shoplifters don't all fit under one nice category.

Yeah. Some of them are frazzled and hungry parents who buy a week's worth of groceries while shoplifting their shopping munchies.

[Wiztopia]

Easily. Offer to pay like they did when confronted. The manager was being a jackass and I know for a fact that other Safeway managers would ask them to pay instead of being a jackass and getting them arrested.

Everyone would offer to pay when confronted. Even people who are otherwise very obviously shoplifting.

Not really. The manager is also stupid for more than one reason. If it was a normal item like say a $10 bottle of vitamins then he could easily recover it and put it back on the shelf. He can't put eaten sandwiches back for sale. If he had let them pay and then possibly banned them from the store then everything would be fine. Instead he was a retard who used retarded judgment. He should b e fired but he won't be because Safeway will not do anything about it. Also if they truly intended on shoplifting the sandwiches they would have thrown the wrappers away on a shelf, trashcan, or even stuffed them in her purse to hide them.

[Dakini]

Everyone would offer to pay when confronted. Even people who are otherwise very obviously shoplifting.

Not really. The manager is also stupid for more than one reason. If it was a normal item like say a $10 bottle of vitamins then he could easily recover it and put it back on the shelf. He can't put eaten sandwiches back for sale. If he had let them pay and then possibly banned them from the store then everything would be fine. Instead he was a retard who used retarded judgment. He should b e fired but he won't be because Safeway will not do anything about it. Also if they truly intended on shoplifting the sandwiches they would have thrown the wrappers away on a shelf, trashcan, or even stuffed them in her purse to hide them.

Yeah. He can't put the sandwich back on the shelf. The sandwich that these people ate without purchasing. Therefore, he arrested them as store policy dictates he arrests all shoplifters. Because you know, part of a theft conviction never involves repaying the person you stole from, of course.

Yeah, what a fucking retard. He follows store policy and arrests people who appeared to be stealing from his store. How utterly moronic of him to do his job. Wow. Height of stupidity there. It's not at all stupid to eat food in a store and then "forget" to pay for it, but it's sure fucking retarded to report a crime in progress.

Where were the sandwich wrappers if not in a pocket or in a purse? They weren't in the cart. If they had been in the cart, they would have been put on the conveyor with all the other items the people paid for, wouldn't they have? It's hard to forget about items that are still in your cart, don't you think? Even if you found the trash from the food you ate in your cart, you could go "oh yeah, we should pay for these things we already ate now.". Instead, they managed to "forget" to pay for them, which suggests that the wrappers were not placed in the cart, but rather in a pocket or a purse or somewhere their other groceries weren't.

[Wiztopia]

Not really. The manager is also stupid for more than one reason. If it was a normal item like say a $10 bottle of vitamins then he could easily recover it and put it back on the shelf. He can't put eaten sandwiches back for sale. If he had let them pay and then possibly banned them from the store then everything would be fine. Instead he was a retard who used retarded judgment. He should b e fired but he won't be because Safeway will not do anything about it. Also if they truly intended on shoplifting the sandwiches they would have thrown the wrappers away on a shelf, trashcan, or even stuffed them in her purse to hide them.

Yeah. He can't put the sandwich back on the shelf. The sandwich that these people ate without purchasing. Therefore, he arrested them as store policy dictates he arrests all shoplifters. Because you know, part of a theft conviction never involves repaying the person you stole from, of course.

Yeah, what a fucking retard. He follows store policy and arrests people who appeared to be stealing from his store. How utterly moronic of him to do his job. Wow. Height of stupidity there. It's not at all stupid to eat food in a store and then "forget" to pay for it, but it's sure fucking retarded to report a crime in progress.

Where were the sandwich wrappers if not in a pocket or in a purse? They weren't in the cart. If they had been in the cart, they would have been put on the conveyor with all the other items the people paid for, wouldn't they have? It's hard to forget about items that are still in your cart, don't you think? Even if you found the trash from the food you ate in your cart, you could go "oh yeah, we should pay for these things we already ate now.". Instead, they managed to "forget" to pay for them, which suggests that the wrappers were not placed in the cart, but rather in a pocket or a purse or somewhere their other groceries weren't.

Or the kid was acting up which is pretty damn likely so they forgot about the wrappers that were in the cart. Yeah he is a retard. Instead of letting them pay for the sandwiches like they had for the other items he instead gets them arrested because of his own stupidity.

[Dakini]

Yeah. He can't put the sandwich back on the shelf. The sandwich that these people ate without purchasing. Therefore, he arrested them as store policy dictates he arrests all shoplifters. Because you know, part of a theft conviction never involves repaying the person you stole from, of course.

Yeah, what a fucking retard. He follows store policy and arrests people who appeared to be stealing from his store. How utterly moronic of him to do his job. Wow. Height of stupidity there. It's not at all stupid to eat food in a store and then "forget" to pay for it, but it's sure fucking retarded to report a crime in progress.

Where were the sandwich wrappers if not in a pocket or in a purse? They weren't in the cart. If they had been in the cart, they would have been put on the conveyor with all the other items the people paid for, wouldn't they have? It's hard to forget about items that are still in your cart, don't you think? Even if you found the trash from the food you ate in your cart, you could go "oh yeah, we should pay for these things we already ate now.". Instead, they managed to "forget" to pay for them, which suggests that the wrappers were not placed in the cart, but rather in a pocket or a purse or somewhere their other groceries weren't.

Or the kid was acting up which is pretty damn likely so they forgot about the wrappers that were in the cart. Yeah he is a retard. Instead of letting them pay for the sandwiches like they had for the other items he instead gets them arrested because of his own stupidity.

Really? What do you do when you get to a grocery conveyor? I usually empty the contents of my cart onto the conveyor belt. This means reaching into the cart and removing items from there and putting them onto the belt until there is nothing left in my cart. I imagine that people with children do the same thing, regardless of whether their children are acting up. Especially when there are two adults looking after one child. They outnumbered her. One parent could placate the child while the other unloaded the cart. My friends with kids will often go grocery shopping alone and somehow they can manage to look after one child all by themselves at the store. How is it that these two people can't manage to look after one child as a combined effort? Why the hell are they making another one if they can't even handle the one they have?

It's also not like grocery carts are very dark and have a lot of corners and places to hide items, so I'm not sure how a person could fail to notice some wrappers in their cart when it's empty of other items and seeing the wrappers would result in putting 1+1 together and realizing that they ate some sandwiches that were in those wrappers. You'd have to be blind or (to use your favourite word) retarded to miss that.

No, they pretty clearly didn't put the wrappers in the cart. They pretty clearly stuffed the wrappers in a pocket or in a purse or something and then "forgot" about them until questioned. It makes more sense to put the wrappers in a pocket anyway. If you put them in the cart they might fall through the cracks and wind up loose in the store. They're not going to fall out of a pocket.

You can either look at the "wrappers were in the pockets" as a sign that they intended to pay or as a sign that they didn't want the cashier to notice the wrappers and expect them to pay for the sandwich (or maybe they just don't like littering, it's not like stores usually have a lot of garbage cans).

[Kobeanare]

2. Theft requires mea culpa. Sorry. If you want to play the legalism game, then at least play it correctly.

You mean mens rea. If you want to play the legalism game, then at least play it correctly.

[Kobeanare]

nitpick: irregardless isn't a word.

Irregardless has been a word for three or four years now.

[Nornalhorst]

Not really. Seen more then a few who denied having stuff and "lost" their receipts......

If they knew that going "Oh shit! I totally forgot about that!" and offering to pay would get them off the hook, everyone would offer to pay for it. You would have to be stupid not to.

And really, they should just suck it up and tell it to the judge like everyone else has to.

The thing is she "stole" what a sandwich if she forgot to pay for it but got caught and gave you the money would you call the police and detain her for 4 hours seriously, to me that just sounds like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

[Dazchan]

You missed the point. Instead of assuming they were shoplifting they should have assumed they forgot because they had already paid for $50 worth of items. So did you read their minds and found that they in fact intended to steal the sandwiches?

A lot of the people I went to school with were shoplifters. You know what? Every single one of them would buy something while shoplifting. They did this for two reasons:
1. It made the checkout operator less likely to suspect them of shoplifting in the first place, and
2. If they were caught, they could claim that they forgot about the Mars bar in their pocket

You're quick to call the manager a "retard" for following policy, yet you're ignorant of how shoplifters work.

Also: I've never heard of anyone eating food before purchasing it from a supermarket. Perhaps instead of feeling shock/outrage at the store dared to suggest that someone who had stolen something could have done so intentionally, we should be wondering why the fuck she couldn't have waited five more minutes to eat, or (if push came to shove), why she couldn't have checked out with the sandwiches and left her husband to finish the shopping.

[Wiztopia]

Or the kid was acting up which is pretty damn likely so they forgot about the wrappers that were in the cart. Yeah he is a retard. Instead of letting them pay for the sandwiches like they had for the other items he instead gets them arrested because of his own stupidity.

Really? What do you do when you get to a grocery conveyor? I usually empty the contents of my cart onto the conveyor belt. This means reaching into the cart and removing items from there and putting them onto the belt until there is nothing left in my cart. I imagine that people with children do the same thing, regardless of whether their children are acting up. Especially when there are two adults looking after one child. They outnumbered her. One parent could placate the child while the other unloaded the cart. My friends with kids will often go grocery shopping alone and somehow they can manage to look after one child all by themselves at the store. How is it that these two people can't manage to look after one child as a combined effort? Why the hell are they making another one if they can't even handle the one they have?

It's also not like grocery carts are very dark and have a lot of corners and places to hide items, so I'm not sure how a person could fail to notice some wrappers in their cart when it's empty of other items and seeing the wrappers would result in putting 1+1 together and realizing that they ate some sandwiches that were in those wrappers. You'd have to be blind or (to use your favourite word) retarded to miss that.

No, they pretty clearly didn't put the wrappers in the cart. They pretty clearly stuffed the wrappers in a pocket or in a purse or something and then "forgot" about them until questioned. It makes more sense to put the wrappers in a pocket anyway. If you put them in the cart they might fall through the cracks and wind up loose in the store. They're not going to fall out of a pocket.

You can either look at the "wrappers were in the pockets" as a sign that they intended to pay or as a sign that they didn't want the cashier to notice the wrappers and expect them to pay for the sandwich (or maybe they just don't like littering, it's not like stores usually have a lot of garbage cans).

Prove it.

You missed the point. Instead of assuming they were shoplifting they should have assumed they forgot because they had already paid for $50 worth of items. So did you read their minds and found that they in fact intended to steal the sandwiches?

A lot of the people I went to school with were shoplifters. You know what? Every single one of them would buy something while shoplifting. They did this for two reasons:
1. It made the checkout operator less likely to suspect them of shoplifting in the first place, and
2. If they were caught, they could claim that they forgot about the Mars bar in their pocket

You're quick to call the manager a "retard" for following policy, yet you're ignorant of how shoplifters work.

Also: I've never heard of anyone eating food before purchasing it from a supermarket. Perhaps instead of feeling shock/outrage at the store dared to suggest that someone who had stolen something could have done so intentionally, we should be wondering why the fuck she couldn't have waited five more minutes to eat, or (if push came to shove), why she couldn't have checked out with the sandwiches and left her husband to finish the shopping.

Again I can't argue about following policy. Its in the job description to be a dick if you want to be a Safeway manager.

[Dakini]

nitpick: irregardless isn't a word.

Irregardless has been a word for three or four years now.

It's a bullshit "word" that people use without thinking about what it means.

The word people usually want in that situation is "regardless" adding the "ir-" just makes it mean the opposite of what they want in the sentence.

[Dakini]

Really? What do you do when you get to a grocery conveyor? I usually empty the contents of my cart onto the conveyor belt. This means reaching into the cart and removing items from there and putting them onto the belt until there is nothing left in my cart. I imagine that people with children do the same thing, regardless of whether their children are acting up. Especially when there are two adults looking after one child. They outnumbered her. One parent could placate the child while the other unloaded the cart. My friends with kids will often go grocery shopping alone and somehow they can manage to look after one child all by themselves at the store. How is it that these two people can't manage to look after one child as a combined effort? Why the hell are they making another one if they can't even handle the one they have?

It's also not like grocery carts are very dark and have a lot of corners and places to hide items, so I'm not sure how a person could fail to notice some wrappers in their cart when it's empty of other items and seeing the wrappers would result in putting 1+1 together and realizing that they ate some sandwiches that were in those wrappers. You'd have to be blind or (to use your favourite word) retarded to miss that.

No, they pretty clearly didn't put the wrappers in the cart. They pretty clearly stuffed the wrappers in a pocket or in a purse or something and then "forgot" about them until questioned. It makes more sense to put the wrappers in a pocket anyway. If you put them in the cart they might fall through the cracks and wind up loose in the store. They're not going to fall out of a pocket.

You can either look at the "wrappers were in the pockets" as a sign that they intended to pay or as a sign that they didn't want the cashier to notice the wrappers and expect them to pay for the sandwich (or maybe they just don't like littering, it's not like stores usually have a lot of garbage cans).

Prove it.

I don't have to. I can make the very reasonable suggestion and all you can do is claim that in an entirely empty cart (we're both assuming they paid for everything else, correct?) they didn't see the wrappers or they were too stupid to realize that the "garbage" left over in their cart was actually the wrappers for the sandwiches they ate already and the cashier didn't give the garbage a second look. Have you ever missed an item in a shopping cart that wasn't too heavy to lift so you get the cashier to scan it in place instead of moving it onto the conveyor? I haven't. Things are pretty clearly visible in a cart.

So the cart would have been empty save for the child sitting safely in the children's seat. ...unless they brought the stroller with them which they might have because they walked to the place and 2 year olds don't really walk very far very well (granted, they could have folded up the stroller and put it under their shopping cart).

Look, how often have you purchased a week's worth of groceries? If they genuinely forgot to pay, it doesn't make sense for them to have left the wrappers in the cart because there's no way you could honestly miss the wrappers when the rest of the cart was loaded onto the conveyor without being entirely daft.

So this leaves us with a few options:
1. These people are really, really stupid and didn't associate the trash in the bottom of their cart with the food they ate while in the store.
2. These people intended to steal the items and as such, ignored the wrappers they knew belonged to the sandwiches they ate figuring they'd be allowed to pay if they were caught stealing.
3. These people put the wrappers in a pocket or in her purse while getting the rest of the groceries, intending to bring them out when they got to the cash register.
4. These people put the wrappers in a pocket or her purse while getting the rest of the groceries, not actually intending to pay for the items, but not wanting to litter/leave evidence behind etc.

So yeah. If they didn't catch the wrappers in their cart, they'd have to be stupid or attempting to steal.

A lot of the people I went to school with were shoplifters. You know what? Every single one of them would buy something while shoplifting. They did this for two reasons:
1. It made the checkout operator less likely to suspect them of shoplifting in the first place, and
2. If they were caught, they could claim that they forgot about the Mars bar in their pocket

You're quick to call the manager a "retard" for following policy, yet you're ignorant of how shoplifters work.

Also: I've never heard of anyone eating food before purchasing it from a supermarket. Perhaps instead of feeling shock/outrage at the store dared to suggest that someone who had stolen something could have done so intentionally, we should be wondering why the fuck she couldn't have waited five more minutes to eat, or (if push came to shove), why she couldn't have checked out with the sandwiches and left her husband to finish the shopping.

Again I can't argue about following policy. Its in the job description to be a dick if you want to be a Safeway manager.

You're also quick to call a person a dick when he's just trying to deal with shoplifters in the most appropriate way for his store.

[Dakini]

If they knew that going "Oh shit! I totally forgot about that!" and offering to pay would get them off the hook, everyone would offer to pay for it. You would have to be stupid not to.

And really, they should just suck it up and tell it to the judge like everyone else has to.

The thing is she "stole" what a sandwich if she forgot to pay for it but got caught and gave you the money would you call the police and detain her for 4 hours seriously, to me that just sounds like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

She didn't give them the money. She offered to pay them the money, but she only did that when confronted with the fact that they hadn't paid for the items they were trying to steal. They had ample time to pay for these items, but they neglected to do so. They were given the same opportunities to pay as everybody else. Instead, they walked out the store without paying for the items and were caught. Therefore, they get arrested.


Seriously, did nobody else have to deal with assemblies at school when they were teenagers from police officers about how much it sucks to be caught for shoplifting and why you shouldn't do it from an "it will be a giant pain in your ass and give you a criminal record" standpoint as well as an "it forces businesses to raise their prices to break even" standpoint?

[The Parkus Empire]

The thing is she "stole" what a sandwich if she forgot to pay for it but got caught and gave you the money would you call the police and detain her for 4 hours seriously, to me that just sounds like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

She didn't give them the money. She offered to pay them the money, but she only did that when confronted with the fact that they hadn't paid for the items they were trying to steal. They had ample time to pay for these items, but they neglected to do so. They were given the same opportunities to pay as everybody else. Instead, they walked out the store without paying for the items and were caught. Therefore, they get arrested.


Seriously, did nobody else have to deal with assemblies at school when they were teenagers from police officers about how much it sucks to be caught for shoplifting and why you shouldn't do it from an "it will be a giant pain in your ass and give you a criminal record" standpoint as well as an "it forces businesses to raise their prices to break even" standpoint?

Hence why businesses shouldn't be taxed.

[Dakini]

She didn't give them the money. She offered to pay them the money, but she only did that when confronted with the fact that they hadn't paid for the items they were trying to steal. They had ample time to pay for these items, but they neglected to do so. They were given the same opportunities to pay as everybody else. Instead, they walked out the store without paying for the items and were caught. Therefore, they get arrested.


Seriously, did nobody else have to deal with assemblies at school when they were teenagers from police officers about how much it sucks to be caught for shoplifting and why you shouldn't do it from an "it will be a giant pain in your ass and give you a criminal record" standpoint as well as an "it forces businesses to raise their prices to break even" standpoint?

Hence why businesses shouldn't be taxed.

They should be taxed on the property they own and on the profit they make. I'm quite fine with stores being taxed by the government.

They shouldn't have to pay the "five finger discount" tax as well though.

[The Parkus Empire]

Hence why businesses shouldn't be taxed.

They should be taxed on the property they own and on the profit they make. I'm quite fine with stores being taxed by the government.

They shouldn't have to pay the "five finger discount" tax as well though.

Aye, though obviously businesses won't actually be paying that tax, just the consumers. Same goes for the people who own the business. Thus, taxing the rich is, in fact, merely taxing the poor and middle class, just with 20% More Red Tape in Every Box.

Am I serious?

[Dakini]

They should be taxed on the property they own and on the profit they make. I'm quite fine with stores being taxed by the government.

They shouldn't have to pay the "five finger discount" tax as well though.

Aye, though obviously businesses won't actually be paying that tax, just the consumers. Same goes for the people who own the business. Thus, taxing the rich is, in fact, merely taxing the poor and middle class, just with 20% More Red Tape in Every Box.

Am I serious?

I hope not.

Believing that businesses should be taxed does not preclude the belief that they shouldn't be robbed blind.

[The Parkus Empire]

Aye, though obviously businesses won't actually be paying that tax, just the consumers. Same goes for the people who own the business. Thus, taxing the rich is, in fact, merely taxing the poor and middle class, just with 20% More Red Tape in Every Box.

Am I serious?

I hope not.

Believing that businesses should be taxed does not preclude the belief that they shouldn't be robbed blind.

I'm sure that if businesses had the choice forgo either the expense of taxes, or that of shoplifting, they'd quickly chose taxes. However, that isn't important so much as interesting in this context.

You believe that any expense that businesses must pay, is passed on to the consumer. Obviously, this is in some way true, for income covers such expense. However, if you believe that shoplifting, or lack thereof, directly affects prices, then you must believe that taxes also do so. This is a common argument in support of the Fair Tax, which maintains that any business expense is merely a consumer expense, and thus simplifies that matter by a sales taxes supplying most government income. However, it also includes a "prebate" (I do believe we've gone over this) that covers the taxes for necessities. Whatever those are is debatable, but in order to prevent a threadjack, let us assume they are whatever you believe them to be. It seems to me that, following your premise, a Fair Tax would indeed be fairer, since the poor would have a respectable amount of money to cover that tax which consumers must bear.

Now you to know my views on the Fair Tax, from previous threads, and I am fairly certain they are in line with yours, so we won't go in to that. What we will go in to, at your discretion, is what you fundamentally believe about the rich and businesses. Do you think, that if shoplifting completely stopped tomorrow, that businesses would lower their prices?

[Dakini]

I hope not.

Believing that businesses should be taxed does not preclude the belief that they shouldn't be robbed blind.

I'm sure that if businesses had the choice forgo either the expense of taxes, or that of shoplifting, they'd quickly chose taxes. However, that isn't important so much as interesting in this context.

You believe that any expense that businesses must pay, is passed on to the consumer. Obviously, this is in some way true, for income covers such expense. However, if you believe that shoplifting, or lack thereof, directly affects prices, then you must believe that taxes also do so. This is a common argument in support of the Fair Tax, which maintains that any business expense is merely a consumer expense, and thus simplifies that matter by a sales taxes supplying most government income. However, it also includes a "prebate" (I do believe we've gone over this) that covers the taxes for necessities. Whatever those are is debatable, but in order to prevent a threadjack, let us assume they are whatever you believe them to be. It seems to me that, following your premise, a Fair Tax would indeed be fairer, since the poor would have a respectable amount of money to cover that tax which consumers must bear.

Now you to know my views on the Fair Tax, from previous threads, and I am fairly certain they are in line with yours, so we won't go in to that. What we will go in to, at your discretion, is what you fundamentally believe about the rich and businesses. Do you think, that if shoplifting completely stopped tomorrow, that businesses would lower their prices?

I also believe that taxes benefit everybody, including people who don't shop at that store (except when they're the sort of horrible regressive tax you're proposing, of course). The "five fingered discount" tax only benefits the assholes who are stealing from the stores at the expense of everyone else. There's a rather large difference between the two.

[The Parkus Empire]

I also believe that taxes benefit everybody, including people who don't shop at that store (except when they're the sort of horrible regressive tax you're proposing, of course).

I don't see how it's any more regressive than any other tax, if you believe that consumers pay it all in the end.

The "five fingered discount" tax only benefits the assholes who are stealing from the stores at the expense of everyone else. There's a rather large difference between the two.

Mmm. Not really. To say that the rich benefit from taxes is quite a stretch. It is mostly the poor and middle class who benefit, bailouts aside. Certainly private security for the rich folk would considerably cheaper than paying all they do for cops to bust some nigger who doesn't even live in the same neighborhood. This can probably be compared to many other services.

Anyway, the question with which I ended my previous posts still stands.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.


In some jurisdictions of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.

No mens rea, no crime. Continued detention of myself will be viewed as unlawful detention and false imprisonment, and i will sue you if you try. Take my money and get out of the way.

Thanks and bye. Heres a tip for your good work, b*t*h.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lel9hiod7i
*pays for sammich*

^memorise and recite.