Tesco Shoplifting - need help.

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

The police assess the evidence and bring it before the court if necessary . They assessed the evidence and found a lieing witness.

Yes you could do that-but you couldnt recreate the lying security guard ..

The police make mistakes. Not everyone they arrest is found guilty of the crime they are arrested for. Therefore I assume sometimes they make a mistake and decide not to arrest people who in fact would be found guilty.

The OP says that the security guard lied about him putting magazines in his jacket. if he was holding them under his arm then from certain angles it could have looked like that so the guard may have just been mistaken in what he saw.

Plus the only evidence we have that the security guard did actually accuse the Op of doing this comes from someone who walked out with goods without paying them while being confused due to his medical condition. He would not be seen as a trustworthy witness.

hollydays

JReacher1 wrote: »

The police make mistakes. Not everyone they arrest is found guilty of the crime they are arrested for. Therefore I assume sometimes they make a mistake and decide not to arrest people who in fact would be found guilty.

The OP says that the security guard lied about him putting magazines in his jacket. if he was holding them under his arm then from certain angles it could have looked like that so the guard may have just been mistaken in what he saw.

Plus the only evidence we have that the security guard did actually accuse the Op of doing this comes from someone who walked out with goods without paying them while being confused due to his medical condition. He would not be seen as a trustworthy witness.

Lol
When in a hole stop digging

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

Lol
When in a hole stop,digging.

Im not in any hole.

I am just cleverer than you so can argue better

geerex

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's not really stupidity to say walking out of a store with items you haven't paid for is theft.

Obviously it's not 100% legally accurate and as the police didn't progress with it we will never know if the OP would have been found guilty of theft in a court of law.

Personally if it was just one magazine I would agree it was absentmindedness on the OP but now they've said it was £14 worth that's 3-5 magazines which is a sizeable weight. I don't see how you can walk out of a store with that many magazines by mistake.

You didn't read the whole thread....

He was ILL. Don't you know that gives you carte Blanche to nick whatever you fancy? If you get caught "but I'm ill, officer/m'lud". Jobs a goodun.

The-Truth

Nick_C wrote: »

I think Tesco acted properly, but of course they didn't try to prevent him walking out with the goods that he had not paid for. They waited for him to leave so they accuse him of theft.

That's the way all the shops work.

If the security guard had approached OP before he left the store with "excuse me sir, but have you paid for those magazines", they could have prevented what they saw as attempted theft.

Problem is, if they took that approach, there would be no disincentive preventing any dishonest person from stealing.

If you did it the other way around then you'd have people going mental saying they have been accused of theft and were apparently planning to pay as they haven't even left the store yet.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's not really stupidity to say walking out of a store with items you haven't paid for is theft.

Yes it is.

It's animal stupid, and the sort of thing one would expect from a child with very little life experience.

Whether or not it's a court of law INTENT is everything. If you do not intend to take the goods without paying then only an utter buffoon would consider it theft. (If you did not intend to take them, but, on discovery, decide not to go back and pay for them, then, after that point, you have committed theft.)

There are myriad ways that this could happen. Although most are unlikely and rare, there are so many shop visits per day that it is an absolute certainty that, over the entire country, there are thousands - if not tens of thousands, of such events each day.

Personally if it was just one magazine I would agree it was absentmindedness on the OP but now they've said it was £14 worth that's 3-5 magazines which is a sizeable weight. I don't see how you can walk out of a store with that many magazines by mistake.

This, I would agree, is odd.

If nothing else, this highlights the inadvisability of using self service shops without a (shop supplied) basket or trolley

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

Yes it is.

It's animal stupid, and the sort of thing one would expect from a child with very little life experience.

Whether or not it's a court of law INTENT is everything. If you do not intend to take the goods without paying then only an utter buffoon would consider it theft. (If you did not intend to take them, but, on discovery, decide not to go back and pay for them, then, after that point, you have committed theft.)

There are myriad ways that this could happen. Although most are unlikely and rare, there are so many shop visits per day that it is an absolute certainty that, over the entire country, there are thousands - if not tens of thousands, of such events each day.




This, I would agree, is odd.

If nothing else, this highlights the inadvisability of using self service shops without a (shop supplied) basket or trolley

I see you're back to your old tricks of selectively taking quotes I make for the purpose of trolling....

You've deleted the legally accurate part to allow you to start a straw man argument and be personally abusive.

There really is no need for that sort of behaviour (especially on a sabbath)

hollydays

JReacher1 wrote: »

The police make mistakes. Not everyone they arrest is found guilty of the crime they are arrested for. Therefore I assume sometimes they make a mistake and decide not to arrest people who in fact would be found guilty.

The OP says that the security guard lied about him putting magazines in his jacket. if he was holding them under his arm then from certain angles it could have looked like that so the guard may have just been mistaken in what he saw.

Plus the only evidence we have that the security guard did actually accuse the Op of doing this comes from someone who walked out with goods without paying them while being confused due to his medical condition. He would not be seen as a trustworthy witness.

So the police were wrong, the cctv was somehow wrong,( and not even reliable by all accounts) the security guard didn't lie-the ops story is made up. The op was carefully observed by the security guard on camera who mistakely thought that rolling up a roll of magazines and concealing them in his jacket looked similar experience to carrying them under his arm, despite the zoom facility? And being in the shop for ages?
The op isn't a reliable witness-that I'll concede. The op is the defendant -you can't be a witness to yourself and I have to remind you it's innocent until proven guilty not guilty till proven innocent .

Of course anything he may say on here could be a lie . The same can be said of you.
The law allows for genuine mistakes etc that's not to say anyone can use the law to get away with things . I pity anyone with an elderly confused parent who might find themselves in this situation -it happens and thankfully when it happens the right decision will be reached. I know plenty of examples friends have told me about about people who've tried to claim they did stuff like this accidentally and their poor excuse was found out.the majority need to face the effects of the law-but not all.

hollydays

JReacher1 wrote: »

I see you're back to your old tricks of selectively taking quotes I make for the purpose of trolling....

You've deleted the legally accurate part to allow you to start a straw man argument and be personally abusive.

There really is no need for that sort of behaviour (especially on a sabbath)

Which part of your post was legally accurate??

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

So the police were wrong, the cctv was somehow wrong,( and not even reliable by all accounts) the security guard didn't lie-the ops story is made up. The op was carefully observed by the security guard on camera who mistakely thought that rolling up a roll of magazines and concealing them in his jacket looked similar experience to carrying them under his arm, despite the zoom facility? And being in the shop for ages?
The op isn't a reliable witness-that I'll concede. The op is the defendant -you can't be a witness to yourself and I have to remind you it's innocent until proven guilty not guilty till proven innocent .

Of course anything he may say on here could be a lie . The same can be said of you.
The law allows for genuine mistakes etc that's not to say anyone can use the law to get away with things . I pity anyone with an elderly confused parent who might find themselves in this situation -it happens and thankfully when it happens the right decision will be reached. I know plenty of examples friends have told me about about people who've tried to claim they did stuff like this accidentally and their poor excuse was found out.the majority need to face the effects of the law-but not all.

I'm not saying he's guilty. I am just saying nothing he has posted proves he is 100% innocent. You've taken his statement of events and the fact that the police didn't pursue charges and naively assumed that means he didn't commit a crime which is frankly rather sweet and shows you have a nice human nature.

The reality is though that this case won't go to court so it is up to tesco to decide whether or not he purposely shoplifted and take what action they see fit. They've decided he did and banned him.

Therefore the only facts of the case we know are:

1) the police reviewed the evidence and decided not to press charges
2) tesco reviewed the evidence and decided to ban him from their stores.

Neither of these facts prove either way if the OP committed a theft of not.

You need to understand that you can commit a crime and not be convicted for it