Possible Shoplifting Charges

hi, my name's Mark, i was "caught" shoplifting today at my local target store here in Texas. I put quotation marks on caught because i didn't have anything on me when i left the store. Here's the story, I was planning on taking a case for my ipod, i opened the package, put it in my pocket and walked around for a bit before changing my mind. i took the case out of my back pocket slowly and kicked it away. After doing that i walked towards the door and as soon as i got out, a security guard and one of the employees asked me to walk with them. So we go to their security office and i get asked in a rather vulgar way where the item is and to empty my pockets and show some id. I empty my pockets show some id and tell them straight out that i was going to steal the case but that i chickened out before leaving the store. So they entered my driver's license info into the computer which i'm assuming is used so that i won't be able to work at a target and their affiliates. They didn't call the police and they didn't ask me to sign anything or take my picture like some of the other stories i've read on here. I did however offer to pay for the broken packaging and that they could keep the case. After a while of waiting for them to finish putting my info into the computer, the lady asked me if i was really willing to pay for the case and i said yes so they bring a new unopened case and i get escorted to pay for it at the register. Once that is done, i am escorted out of the store, told that i can never shop there again and that i will be getting a letter from target.

My question is this, 1) if i didn't leave the store with the case, is it still shoplifting?? 2) even though i paid for the case and got a different one, am i still liable for the case i opened?? and finally, 3) what might that letter from target be about??

I'm pretty glad that i didn't go through with my plan but i am still pretty worried about what might happen with this situation. if anyone on here can help answer my questions and maybe give me some advice i would be eternally thankful.

sincerely,
Mark

most likely they will send you a civil damages bill...depending on how much the case costs it will be aprox 10X that dollar amount. from there they can chose to prosecute within 60 days. you will not know if they choose to prosecute until that 60 days is up. this sucks i know, im on day 3 of waiting to see if i get charged for trying to shoplift less than $24 worth of merch from a meijer store in michigan. i dont know where you live or those applicable laws but in my state its 10X the property's non sale value and a waiting game.....good luck...

Quote:

---

My question is this, 1) if i didn't leave the store with the case, is it still shoplifting?? 2) even though i paid for the case and got a different one, am i still liable for the case i opened?? and finally, 3) what might that letter from target be about??

---

If your state considers concealemnt a crime then yes if not no. However you did open the package and mad eitem unsaleable therefore you could be charged with vandalism! Yes you can still be lible for item you made it unsalealbe. The letter might be Civil Demand which was mentioned earlier by a fellow lifter! It is not likely you are facign any criminal charges since Police were not called and you paid for item, in fact Target really shouldnt have even banned you considering they allowed you to pay for another item stillin package. all in all worst you can expect is Civil Demand which will be near $200.00 I would guess

This stop should have NEVER been made. Company policy was broken numerous times. Call the store, talk to the Store Manager and see what can be done.

Why shouldn't the stop have been made? Is it because, after watching the suspect open the packaging to steal the item and put it in his pocket, the LP officer didn't maintain sufficient constant observation to see him slip it back out of his pocket before trying to leave the store?

Even without constant observation they still have him on damages now that he opened package.

The AP team member must maintain sufficient surveillance of the subject in order to know the location of the merchandise and ensure the subject does not discard the merchandise.

Target AP Team Members MAY NOT stop a subject who has damaged merchandise. If they see this, they must alert a Guest Services Manager to talk to the customer.

They are not allowed to initiate a stop where the customer rips open a package and then discards the merchandise. The poster screwed himself by admitting he was going to steal the item, but that in itself is not a crime. In order to commit the crime of larceny, the item must be taken with INTENT TO DEPRIVE. By merely ripping open the package, you do not deprive the store of the item.

Here there was a taking with intent to deprive, then a change of heart. Whether or not the stop violates Target rules is a separate issue.

The ripping open of the package is an act of vandalsim! So accorcding to Bam vandalism is ok at Target!

No, what he said was that an LP has to speak to a manager before acting on the vandalism of merchandise. It's a policy I can't quite understand, but if that's there policy I assume that they have a reason for having implemented it.

thanks for the quick responses guys...

so i understand that they might not press charges since the cops weren't called, i wasn't made to sign anything and my picture wasn't taken. all i was told to do was pay for another case and that i couldn't shop there again. i understand the whole intent to deprive situation but is it still depriving when you don't leave the store with the merchandise?? i checked what constituted shoplifting here in texas and it says i have to actually leave the store with the item and since i didn't do that, does it help me?? as for the damages bill, i did end up paying for another case that wasn't opened, can i still be sent a bill even though that's what i was told to do, were the employees just trying to make an extra sale for the store or might this have been a slap on the wrist?? i've never really heard of shoplifters being told to pay for merchandise of the same value before so i'm pretty confused about that.

Your situation is not your typical shoplift. That is why you were given option to pay. As I said early on in some states (not yours) concealment is a crime. Your only crime was damaging merchandise and you righted that wrong. Now far "bill" you might expect a letter of "Civil Demand" if that does come you may have good cause to fight it if its worth the time and money.

I'm wondering what line of thinking led to letting the poster purchase an unopened piece instead of the one he opened. Logic de Target???

Had the poster pulled that in our store, it'd been property damage, then PD would've done ya for stealing 'cause our state has a concealment law.

........sell him a shiny new one then show 'im to the door....that's rich!!!:wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Here there was a taking with intent to deprive, then a change of heart. Whether or not the stop violates Target rules is a separate issue.

---

You are correct, these are two separate issues BUT he never deprived the merchant of the item. In order for shoplifting charges to be filed, he must have removed the item from the store with intent to deprive. The ripping of the package shows intent, but he did not follow through so the shoplifting charges will not be able to be filed. But whatever....

They can probably file a myriad of other charges against you, but it is not likely. The reason that a manager is approaching them is because "Security" is confrontational.

All this is a mute point because the guy screwed himself when he told the APS that he intended on taking it, but then got scared. Count your blessings partner.

Quote:

---

Quoting bam!

---

.........All this is a mute point.......

---

Did I miss the point that a mime became involved in this story?

Now if this point becomes MOOT, meaning disingenuous to the gist of the storyline or basis of occurrence, then there's no need for a mime at all.

Signed, "uneducated, store-level dick"!

Last I checked, an arcticle of mechandise "ripped" from its original packaging and rendered unsaleable is, in fact, depriving the retailer of said item. Doesn't take Einstien to figure out that the item cannot be sold as new.

Oh, now I see you have turned into the all mighty grammer police man also! Damn, I should have known you would try to attack my words since my arguement was so solid. Go to "google" type "define: mute" in the search box and hit enter. Then click on the first link. Repeat for "moot".

Ripping an item out of its package does not necesarily mean that the merchant is deprived of that item, it means that it cannot sell that item and might just maybe have to return it to the DC for CREDIT where it will be charged off the stores inventory. No loss here! Since you work at the Fast Mart in your "hood", you really don't have high volume, but here in the big city, we have two trucks a day. Do you think that everything comes off pristine and perfect? Should we charge the truck drivers and the dock workers with vandalism because they cracked that glass or ripped open that package? With you in charge the whole store would be locked up.

Why are you debating this anyway? The guy told the AP guys that he was intending to steal it so he screwed himself in the end.

Quote:

---

Quoting souperdave

---

Did I miss the point that a mime became involved in this story?

Now if this point becomes MOOT, meaning disingenuous to the gist of the storyline or basis of occurrence, then there's no need for a mime at all.

Signed, "uneducated, store-level dick"!

Last I checked, an arcticle of mechandise Learn how to spell or at least use spell check before you make remarks about other people's spelling,punctuation or word usage. "ripped" from its original packaging and rendered unsaleable You are making an assumption. The item might not be "rendered unsaleable. We were not there, so we are just guessing as to its condition before/after this dude tried to steal it. is, in fact, depriving the retailer of said item. Doesn't take Einstien to figure out that the item cannot be sold as new. Not being able to sell something as new doesn't mean that the merchant was deprived of the item. Retailers sell stuff "used" or "open box" all the time, so this is irrelevant.

---

Better luck next time bucko.

Why is it I can't find the "MOOT" button on the remote.....bam you really are an ignorant jaggoff.

Quote:

---

Quoting PaulE

---

Why is it I can't find the "MOOT" button on the remote.....bam you really are an ignorant jaggoff.

---

Let the first person who has never made an error on a forum cast the first stone.

Like I said previously, when the arguement is so solid it cannot be defeated, go after the poster and nitpick - a true sign of a grade a moron.