Posted on 03/02/2005 7:09:34 AM PST by esryle
That shoplifting wasn't mentioned in his arrest only means that it had nothing to do with the actual reason that he was arrested, not that he won't be charged with it. The police can arrest you if either they have a warrant or if they have probable cause (basically if they catch you in the act of committing a crime).
To arrest Gale for stealing, they would have had to catch him in the act, which they likely didn't. They asked him to step outside so that they could talk (ie, gather information to determine the likelihood that the crime had been committed), but he refused and caused a scene, which made investigating the accusation of shoplifting difficult. Since they didn't catch him in the act of shoplifting, those charges will only come if the restaurants lawyers decide that it's in their best interest to press them, at which time the evidence of the situation will be weighed separately from his other conduct.
"Well, since the value of the item in question was under $5, they could have escorted him off the premises with,"
They tried.
"According to police, Gale was asked to step outside to discuss the incident."
*the sound you hear is a black helicopter over your house*
Well, let's wait and see if he is. If he isn't, I say the lawyer has a field day. Rightly or wrongly. Just reality. Let's hope Chuck E. Chees has some kind of probable cause
The police can arrest you if either they have a warrant or if they have probable cause (basically if they catch you in the act of committing a crime).
Yep. Actually, they shouldn't bother messing with you at all unless probable cause exists. If none existed, they better get to making some up.
To arrest Gale for stealing, they would have had to catch him in the act, which they likely didn't
Not true, witnesses, videotapes, and statements or corroboration from other employees are sufficient to support a shoplifting charge. Provided those making the statements are 100% truthful and actual saw a theft taking place.
A lack of a receipt is not sufficient. So if police were called for shoplifter, the manager better have reasonable cause that such shoplifting happened - or like I said, the mouse is going to be paying some money to Mr. Gale. Whether you or I like it or not. The private lawyer isn't in this for the challenge of it. If he didn't think the case was going to produce money, Mr. Gale would probably have a public defender right now, and he would be speaking to every media outlet he could find.
They asked him to step outside so that they could talk (ie, gather information to determine the likelihood that the crime had been committed), but he refused and caused a scene, which made investigating the accusation of shoplifting difficult.
Actualy, the police should have been talking to the manager, since it is nearly impossible to prove that you *didn't* steal something. The "step outside" thing could have been a "we don't want witnesses while we beat your ass into confessing" thing. Apparently, some of the local folks had a reason to fear this type of treatment. Perhaps the tasering in full view of the public WAS the better of the two options? Considering the fact that they would zap him in the lap of a woman with a kid, I don't know that I blame him for not wanting to be alone with these gentleman. He had better chances taking has whipping with onlookers. If they do that to him (and bystaders) with witnesses, the chap may have not stood a chance in a dark parking lot.
Since they didn't catch him in the act of shoplifting, those charges will only come if the restaurants lawyers decide that it's in their best interest to press them, at which time the evidence of the situation will be weighed separately from his other conduct.
Well, as a business you should have a decent amount of evidence before calling the police and levelling an accusation. These are litigeous times, and 90% of juries are non-business-owning consumers. People don't like being called outside by people with questionable judgement for eating a salad they paid for with their two kids.
Yeah, you are absolutely right. The law is the law, eh? Since we both KNOW that's right, I will expect you to apply that same law is the law principle to the "illegals" who enter into the U.S. illegally. They have entered the country illegally, thus breaking the law, eh???
Feel free to ticket all jaywalkers you want to. I am the foremost proponent of the advocacy of adhering to the rule of law, wherein God's moral Law is the highest of all.
Tell us WHO'S "Rule of Law" Mexican Invaders are "adhering to" when they ignore American Immigration Laws?
I am the foremost proponent of adhering to the rule of law, the highest of which is the moral Law of God, after which one should always adhere to one's fully-informed human conscience, and lastly one should always adhere to merely human laws which do not violate the higher laws.
From Romans:
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
"Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."
Mexicans are breaking American Law by invading without U.S. authority.
What does God say?
BTTT
"Actualy, the police should have been talking to the manager, since it is nearly impossible to prove that you *didn't* steal something. The "step outside" thing could have been a "we don't want witnesses while we beat your ass into confessing" thing. Apparently, some of the local folks had a reason to fear this type of treatment. Perhaps the tasering in full view of the public WAS the better of the two options? Considering the fact that they would zap him in the lap of a woman with a kid, I don't know that I blame him for not wanting to be alone with these gentleman. He had better chances taking has whipping with onlookers. If they do that to him (and bystaders) with witnesses, the chap may have not stood a chance in a dark parking lot."
You're doing a very good job here of showing your bias- you start every train of though assuming that the cops are guilty and making excuses for Gale. You have absolutely no evidence that Gale had reason to fear stepping outside with the cops without assuming first that his own behavior had nothing to do with him getting tasered- and when you use that as a justification of his behavior, you're using circular reasoning.
Well, my bias was formed when the tasered the guy in a lady's lap. The lady said the cops were repeatedly poking Gale in the chest too. Forget about Gale, I'm not sure I anyone would want to go to an area with no witnesses in the company of such folks.
The patrons didn't seem afraid of Gale, so I don't see any public safety issues here. But I wasn't there, I guess the witnesses will be questioned for the civil suit that is sure to follow.
You have absolutely no evidence that Gale had reason to fear stepping outside with the cops without assuming first that his own behavior had nothing to do with him getting tasered-
No just tasered, but tasered in the lap of a lady holding a kid, twice, after being repeatedly poked in the chest.
If they guy had no fear of stepping outside with these guys, then he is less intelligent than I had initially thought.
and when you use that as a justification of his behavior, you're using circular reasoning.
Well, you are sort of making the case that I have bias and you don't. I don't think that either one of us believe that.
Unless the guy was threatening the cops, or the patrons, he shouldn't have been zapped in a patrons lap a foot or so from some kids. That was just bad judgement anyway you cut it. Even if Gale was an ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.