Accused of Shoplifting After Accidentally Pocketing Merchandise

Sorry Flyingron you are also wrong, she did nothing more than answer with an insult without answering the question, please refer to Ohiogals first and only response in this particular thread where she says that if he refuses to pay the fine he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That is ALL she replied , she didn't reply with an answer speaking of skepticism. It was just a quick insult and nothing more. that is the post I'm speaking of. That is the post that took this discussion in the wrong direction. My reply back, admittedly, didn't help either. Which is why I then came back and apologized to everyone else for calling them judgmental jerks. However, I didn't offer that apology to Ohiogal because I don't feel she deserved it. Her original reply was offensive. So then Dogmatique comes on and defends Ohiogals insulting post with insults of her own. She pretty much implied that I have no right to defend my son from the rude "answer" given by Ohiogal. Pretty much implying that because Ohiogal defends and fights for children everyday that I should just receive the insult and be thankful for it. Once again, I applaud Ohiogal for doing the good work, and I honestly say GO OHIOGAL and KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! The children need people like her. Clearly I don't know Ohiogal or Dogmatique but they don't know me either, nor do they know my son. This whole nasty thread could have avoided taking the turn it it did if Ohiogal would not have replied with an insult or without implying my son is a moron, if you prefer to say that saying he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer is NOT an insult.(But forgive me then, because I DO define that as an insult)She should have not just said anything at all. In which case I would not have gotten ugly myself. I have a feeling some of you agree. Can we please get back to the original question? I want to provide an update as to the proceedings in court this past Friday. My son went in to court, his intention was to plead guilty, and not because he was he just wanted to get past this incident and move on. Being a kid, and kids can be naïve , he didn't understand the long term consequences of the impact it can have. The judge asked him if he had anything he wanted to say before she made judgment. He told his story and he told it honestly. He admitted that he walked out without paying for the part, that was never in dispute. The judge told him that she was not accepting his plea, She Believed Him! She set a date for trial. The Prosecuting attorney, yes the PROSECUTING attorney then actually told the judge that he had never been on a case before where the defendant actually seemed to telling the truth. I know that is very hard for some to believe, I'd have a hard time believing that myself if I were in the legal profession. So trust me I do understand why most of you do think he's guilty. But every once in a while the truth does prevail. I would dare say you all have examples , although rare, where someone who does not deserve to be prosecuted of a crime just because 99.9% others being found guilty for the same offense are indeed lying about their innocence. The Prosecutor asked for my son's phone # because he wanted to ask some questions. I have a feeling that the case will be thrown out before that. I think if a jury were to know that the defendant actually wanted to plead guilty but the judge did not accept the plea because she believed him, and even the prosecutor openly agreed in court that he believed my son, that there is a high possibility of winning the case or it being thrown out before trial. Am I correct? I guess opinions don't matter as much as the verdict but clearly he stands a better than average chance of prevailing. So again the question is, if he is found not guilty can Fleet Farm make him pay a fine? Will a black and white vehicle with the words "Fleet Farm Police" (LOL) show up at his door and carry him off to Fleet Farm Jail? (sorry for the humor, couldn't be helped) Wouldn't his paying a fine to Fleet Farm imply guilt on his part, especially after being found not guilty?. How can they possible impose a fine if he has his day in court and is found not guilty? Wouldn't any Judge throw out such a case seeking damages? Thanks to those that did reply with helpful answers, I honestly do understand the skepticism. Let's all, including myself, post civil answers going forward, Please

Thank You. I have no doubt you know your profession well. I'm sure any of you would defend your son from the intentionally abrasive. Correct? Obviously I was being intentionally abrasive as well, I feel it was provoked. And I'm quite certain most would defend their kids as well. It didn't have to go there, I didn't start it. Thanks for your honesty.

If he is issued a civil demand and chooses not to pay it, the store can report the non-payment on his credit and can potentially sue him. A civil demand has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.

TO OHIOGAL, thank you for doing the work you do and for fighting for Children everyday! I have a younger son as well. Should he be wronged in any way I'm glad to know there are people like yourself fighting for his rights. Please don't ever stop. Despite my reaction to your original post, having been enlightened by dogmatique on your work every day, I commend you for your efforts. Our Children are our future, never stop defending them.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

If he is issued a civil demand and chooses not to pay it, the store can report the non-payment on his credit and can potentially sue him. A civil demand has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.

---

OK I understand. A hit on his credit has much less consequences than a conviction of shoplifting though right? How often does that happen over a $4 part though? I mean, to pursue it further after a not guilty verdict would really have to be the work of someone who really can't deal with losing and simply has an axe to grind? I'm sure it happens everyday, but over a $4 dollar part? Does the Judge have the authority to just throw out such a petty case. I think the courts have bigger fish to fry. Wouldn't the legal team fighting for Fleet Farm more than likely just accept the verdict and let it go?

Correct me if I'm wrong but if it does go on his credit report he does have a right to have a statement of some kind offering an explanation directly on his credit report. Forgive me for not knowing the terminology on that but I recall hearing you have some sort of right to have a "rebuttal"( for lack of better word coming to mind)that goes directly on your report. It's not the credit that worries me, he's young and has plenty of time to improve that. What did worry me, at least before this past Friday in court, was the criminal record aspect

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

If he is issued a civil demand and chooses not to pay it, the store can report the non-payment on his credit and can potentially sue him. A civil demand has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.

---

I disagree. It is not a debt its a settlement to avoid a potential lawsuit. As such, it cannot be reported as a debt. What's more, its a losing proposition for them is he is found not guilty.

I think there is a good chance that the case is going to get tossed.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

What's more, its a losing proposition for them is he is found not guilty.

---

Not necessarily. You can be acquitted in criminal court and found liable in civil court, a la OJ. Being found not guilty does not necessarily mean he didn't do it, it could just mean the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. A signed admission and civil demand letter would be pretty damning evidence in a civil court.

I don't know that they would waste their time on such a suit but it isn't a slam-dunk loss for them if they do.

I have a question here.

Exactly how big should an item be, for the store to have the right to pursue the issue without being accused of "pettiness"? How much loss are they expected to absorb (which results in higher prices for all of us, btw) before it would be acceptable for them to take action?

I'd like to hear from the OP. At what point would you consider that the store is justified in taking action to discourage theft?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I have a question here.

Exactly how big should an item be, for the store to have the right to pursue the issue without being accused of "pettiness"? How much loss are they expected to absorb (which results in higher prices for all of us, btw) before it would be acceptable for them to take action?

I'd like to hear from the OP. At what point would you consider that the store is justified in taking action to discourage theft?

---

I think that companies have reached the point where they are taking things to far because the civil demands have turned loss prevention into a profit center. I think that there are a certainly percentage of cases where the person truly did not intend to steal at all...particularly those who haven't gotten past the checkout stands yet.

I do not know how many times in my life that I have nearly forgotten to get something off the bottom of a shopping cart, or actually have forgotten and returned to the checkout stand to pay for it, as soon as I noticed. 20 years ago something like that would never become an issue. If it happened now, and loss prevention noticed it before I did, they would put me through all that mess...and maybe even would if I noticed it before they did.

Whether that is or is not the case, I still would like the OP to tell me what she thinks is a large enough amount. If her son has been found not guilty, I haven't seen her post that unless I missed it in one of the tirades. The only one who knows for sure if he really did make a mistake or not is the son, but clearly the OP thinks the store should eat such a small amount either way. I'd be very interested to hear just when she thinks it's okay for the store to pursue any kind of action. Clearly in her mind if it's a small amount, the store should just let it go. So when is it large enough, in her mind, for the store to justify it and when is it so small that they should just accept theft as a cost of doing business?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Whether that is or is not the case, I still would like the OP to tell me what she thinks is a large enough amount. If her son has been found not guilty, I haven't seen her post that unless I missed it in one of the tirades. The only one who knows for sure if he really did make a mistake or not is the son, but clearly the OP thinks the store should eat such a small amount either way. I'd be very interested to hear just when she thinks it's okay for the store to pursue any kind of action. Clearly in her mind if it's a small amount, the store should just let it go. So when is it large enough, in her mind, for the store to justify it and when is it so small that they should just accept theft as a cost of doing business?

---

I'd love to know that answer, too. My first job as a teenager (in ancient times) was at a "five and dime" store. I had to set up a cosmetic display near the entrance. Worst place in the world to put tiny, individually boxed lipsticks and perfumes because every day, I'd go there to straighten it up, and it looked like locusts picked it apart. The tiny boxes were often emptied of contents. Hey, they were cheap little doo-dads, so what, right? By the end of each day there had to be a couple hundred in losses. I finally convinced my boss to change the display to something a little harder to pinch.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

She didn't "insult" anybody. All she did is express sketicism that the story was true, but answered it even based on the assumption that it was true.
It's the poster who flew off the handle and given her temperment, I suspect her son would do better getting assistance from someone else (like a lawyer) ... and yes that one WAS an insult.

---

Thank you Flyingron -- and Dogmatique. I didn't insult her son. I said he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Which is true. He "forgot" he pocketed something which is a story hear constantly AND he doesn't want to pay the civil demand because it isn't fair and he just won't pay it. That is going to cost him. That goes on his credit report and will harm him for years to come. In addition his excuse is one that is heard constantly. He stole the part. He NEVER should have put it in his pocket. EVER. He hid it (secreted it) and left the store with it.