Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,589

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    How do you know that it is Walmart's policy to not lay hands on a customer who just stole from them? I strongly disagree with you.
    Let's see ... hmmm a son who was a Loss Prevention Manager for Walmart, two friends who are managers for Walmart stores, and having sat in on numerous meetings over the years with local and regional Wal-Mart managers on how to address their crime issues.

    True, a defense attorney might not allow his client to take the stand. But there are other ways to argue the fact that it is Walmart's choice to let untrained customers operate a machine that they never trained any customer to use. He can ask the Walmart manager that question when he is on the stand.
    Why would the manager take the stand? Not to mention, what moron couldn't figure out that he has to scan every item? I'd say good luck with that defense.

    I am not saying that taking that tact is right or that it will win the case. I am saying a good lawyer will throw anything he can at Walmart hoping something will stick or discredit them...or sway the jury in any way.
    Sure. A good defense attorney will throw all the crap in the world against the all. But, if NE is the same as most other states, petty theft cases are never going to go to trial as they will be pled out.

    I don't think any of you know what good trial lawyers do in a courtroom to get their clients off. Not even TM, because I do not think he is a 'trial lawyer'. And TM, FYI, not even a jury after sitting through an entire trial knows all the facts. Not even close. Not when lawyers from both sides are subduing as many opposing facts as they can.
    I have sat through a hundred trials or so. Many times more than that in preliminary hearings. I have seen trial lawyers at work for 30 years. I DO have an idea of what they do, how they do it, and the games that can be played.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,831

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Not even TM, because I do not think he is a 'trial lawyer'.
    Another assumption, and one that is wrong unless your definition of trial lawyer is a lawyer who tries cases and does nothing else. Certainly I do more than litigate cases.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    And TM, FYI, not even a jury after sitting through an entire trial knows all the facts. Not even close. Not when lawyers from both sides are subduing as many opposing facts as they can.
    How much of the facts the judge or jury will see & hear depends very much on the particular case at issue. In some they get most or all of the facts, in others they don't. Each trial is different so it's not really possible to make such a sweeping generalization about them. But I certainly will agree that in most trials there are at least some things the jury will never see or hear. That's not necessarily a bad thing — the rules should keep out evidence that is unreliable or that is too prejudicial, for example.

    Moreover, while the jury likely won't hear everything, the lawyers certainly want to know as much of the facts and the available evidence as they can and they'll work to find out as much as possible. I don't want to be blindsided by something I didn't know about when the other side presents it. I want to be ready for it. In order to properly evaluate the case I want as much information as I can — ideally I'd rather not have to assume anything. From there I can decide what things to try to keep out if I can and what things to emphasize in my presentation.

    In any event, the issue I addressed earlier wasn't what facts a jury would hear. I addressed the problem of answering questions in this forum when the information is incomplete. Without all the facts, it's often not possible to give an answer with 100% certainty and in some cases the facts are so lacking that I cannot really do anything with it. So I try to ask questions to bring out more information to help give the person a better response if I think that can be done in a forum like this. And if I make an assumption because I lack the needed information I'll at least try to state that assumption so the person knows that if the actual facts are different the answer may change. Ultimately in some cases all I can really do is provide some general information that may be helpful and suggest that the person see an attorney to lay out everything and get the specific advice he or she needs.

    I would hope that you would not seriously contend that when important facts are missing that we can give someone a really solid answer to his/her situation. It's not really any different than if you were asked a question about contracting work without the essential facts needed to provide a specific answer. I would hope you wouldn't just assume things and state a conclusion with certainty when you lack needed information. Instead, I expect you'd ask for the additional information you need or tell the person that you can't give a solid answer without those facts.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    Let's see ... hmmm a son who was a Loss Prevention Manager for Walmart, two friends who are managers for Walmart stores, and having sat in on numerous meetings over the years with local and regional Wal-Mart managers on how to address their crime issues.
    So in all cases, theft suspects just voluntarily walk back into the store to be charges with theft? I don't think so.

    Why would the manager take the stand? Not to mention, what moron couldn't figure out that he has to scan every item? I'd say good luck with that defense.
    He doesn't have to take the stand but someone from Walmart will be required to answer the interrogatories. Also, the person who witnessed the crime will be required to testify.

    Sure. A good defense attorney will throw all the crap in the world against the all. But, if NE is the same as most other states, petty theft cases are never going to go to trial as they will be pled out.
    I am not saying it will go to trial. We are discussing what would happen if it did. Also, "throwing crap against the wall" is done by both sides...equally!

    I have sat through a hundred trials or so. Many times more than that in preliminary hearings. I have seen trial lawyers at work for 30 years. I DO have an idea of what they do, how they do it, and the games that can be played.
    Saying the other side doesn't stand a chance is what both sides say going in. And when one sides loses, the loser will always have an excuse for why he lost.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Another assumption, and one that is wrong unless your definition of trial lawyer is a lawyer who tries cases and does nothing else. Certainly I do more than litigate cases.



    How much of the facts the judge or jury will see & hear depends very much on the particular case at issue. In some they get most or all of the facts, in others they don't. Each trial is different so it's not really possible to make such a sweeping generalization about them. But I certainly will agree that in most trials there are at least some things the jury will never see or hear. That's not necessarily a bad thing — the rules should keep out evidence that is unreliable or that is too prejudicial, for example.

    Moreover, while the jury likely won't hear everything, the lawyers certainly want to know as much of the facts and the available evidence as they can and they'll work to find out as much as possible. I don't want to be blindsided by something I didn't know about when the other side presents it. I want to be ready for it. In order to properly evaluate the case I want as much information as I can — ideally I'd rather not have to assume anything. From there I can decide what things to try to keep out if I can and what things to emphasize in my presentation.

    In any event, the issue I addressed earlier wasn't what facts a jury would hear. I addressed the problem of answering questions in this forum when the information is incomplete. Without all the facts, it's often not possible to give an answer with 100% certainty and in some cases the facts are so lacking that I cannot really do anything with it. So I try to ask questions to bring out more information to help give the person a better response if I think that can be done in a forum like this. And if I make an assumption because I lack the needed information I'll at least try to state that assumption so the person knows that if the actual facts are different the answer may change. Ultimately in some cases all I can really do is provide some general information that may be helpful and suggest that the person see an attorney to lay out everything and get the specific advice he or she needs.

    I would hope that you would not seriously contend that when important facts are missing that we can give someone a really solid answer to his/her situation. It's not really any different than if you were asked a question about contracting work without the essential facts needed to provide a specific answer. I would hope you wouldn't just assume things and state a conclusion with certainty when you lack needed information. Instead, I expect you'd ask for the additional information you need or tell the person that you can't give a solid answer without those facts.
    I don't have time now but in my case there were five lawyers involved in my trial. Only one was a real 'trial lawyer'. Yet I am sure they all call themselves trial lawyers because they get involved in trials.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,589

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    So in all cases, theft suspects just voluntarily walk back into the store to be charges with theft? I don't think so.
    Yeah. Pretty much. They are NOT manhandled, tackled, or grabbed. Those few employees I am aware of who did that when the act was NOT in self defense were fired or otherwise disciplined. And, yeah, I've read the policy, it prohibits going hands on.

    He doesn't have to take the stand but someone from Walmart will be required to answer the interrogatories. Also, the person who witnessed the crime will be required to testify.
    The witness is rarely the manager, and, WHAT "interrogatories"? Again, if the defense wants to paint their client as a moron who can't do what teenagers successfully do every day, then I'm not sure if that would be the best course of action. Not sure if I have ever seen the "my client is a morn" defense work before. But, I guess there's always a first time.

    I am not saying it will go to trial. We are discussing what would happen if it did. Also, "throwing crap against the wall" is done by both sides...equally!
    The prosecution tends to have greater limits on what they can toss against the wall. If they toss something, they'd better be able to support it. The defense can speculate in an effort to cast reasonable doubt.

    Saying the other side doesn't stand a chance is what both sides say. And when one sides loses, the loser will always have an excuse for why he lost.
    Sure. Most of the time it's that they did not manage to sway the jury. And, you might be surprised how often one attorney or the other will acknowledge their case is weak. In my experience the prosecution is often more confident because THEY get to choose which cases go to trial and which get pled out or dropped. They tend to only take cases to trial that they stand a good chance of winning. It's a matter of resources. Defense attorneys don't usually have an option, they have to respond to the DA's decision, so they are more likely to be left with a dog of a case whereas the prosecutor is more likely to have a strong case.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,333

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    I'm curious, Harold. What is your definition of a real "trial lawyer"? Perhaps knowing how you interpret the phrase would help create a meeting of the minds.

    I'm just asking for a definition - this is not intended as a put down, a rebuttal, or any other kind of insult. Just a question.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,831

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I don't have time now but in my case there were five lawyers involved in my trial. Only one was a real 'trial lawyer'. Yet I am sure they all call themselves trial lawyers because they get involved in trials.
    Then I still don't know what your definition of a trial lawyer is. But that's a rabbit hole we don't really need to go down for this thread, so save the time on it. That's certainly not going to help the OP with his situation. Suffice to say that if your definition is a lawyer who exclusively litigates cases and nothing else then you are quite right I'm not a trial lawyer under that definition.

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    Not sure if I have ever seen the "my client is a morn" defense work before. But, I guess there's always a first time.
    It's not the strongest defense you'd want to play as a defense lawyer, but if there's nothing better then in at least some kinds of cases it can work. I can't speak to how well it would work in a shoplifting case but that defense has worked in some tax evasion cases.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I still don't know what your definition of a trial lawyer is.
    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    I'm curious, Harold. What is your definition of a real "trial lawyer"?
    On my 50 mile ride this morning I had time to think about this.

    The term 'trial lawyer' is a term, likely, crafted by lawyers to be used on civilians, clients and potential clients of lawyers. I highly doubt it has any significance between lawyers in describing what type of lawyer they are or how good they are in a courtroom. It’s like saying he is a contractor that knows how to hold a hammer. Saying a lawyer tries cases, from time to time, says nothing about him. But if a lawyer says “I’m a trial lawyer” we are all supposed to be impressed with that self-imposed title.

    Most professions like surgeons, who we also trust with our lives, are graded and overseen by their peers. Lawyers are not. If a heart surgeon kept losing patients that he should not be losing, he would no longer be a heart surgeon. If a lawyer kept losing cases he should be winning, nobody would know about it and he would go on trying cases. And, he’d keep touting that he a 'trial lawyer.' Similar to contractors that are also not graded by their peers. But people do not put their lives in our hands like they do with lawyers.

    Even cyclists, we are graded by the UCI. There are seven levels of cyclists…open class, category 5-1, and then pro. And even pros have levels amongst them. Same with UFC fighters.

    Lawyers have no grading system between them. They think if they say “I’m a trial lawyer” because he’s tried cases, that it means something.

    A ‘trial lawyer’ to me is an “A List” lawyer who possesses all the crafts, knowledge and skills of effectively performing in a courtroom. He should be held in very high regard by unbiased lawyers, similar to “A List” actors who are held in high regard by their colleagues, and be able to absolutely swoon a civilian client. He has to be an expert in so many fields of diversion, misleading, persuasion, subduing, charisma, presentation, attire, defending, bashing, supporting, discrediting, adapting and learning details of foreign subjects and occupations, etc. To be a real ‘trial lawyer’ it takes much more than passing the BAR and being an Officer of the Court.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,831

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    On my 50 mile ride this morning I had time to think about this.
    A ‘trial lawyer’ to me is an “A List” lawyer who possesses all the crafts, knowledge and skills of effectively performing in a courtroom.
    Fair enough. But then under that definition you wouldn't know whether I might be a "trial lawyer" or not because you have never seen me in a courtroom. Your point is well taken, though, that not all lawyers are good at trial work — simply passing the bar and getting admitted to practice doesn't automatically make any lawyer good at litigating cases.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,213

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting Shadowbunny
    View Post
    Because every time you steal you increase your odds of getting caught. And increase your odds of having a criminal record.
    Something else that increases a thief's odds of being caught: posting on a public message board about a significant history of stealing from the nation's largest retailer, which also has a large and sophisticated loss prevention department.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: Shoplifting

    Quote Quoting pg1067
    View Post
    Something else that increases a thief's odds of being caught: posting on a public message board about a significant history of stealing from the nation's largest retailer, which also has a large and sophisticated loss prevention department.
    As you know from experience, message boards are fictional entertainment and the lowest form of evidence.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Fair enough. But then under that definition you wouldn't know whether I might be a "trial lawyer" or not because you have never seen me in a courtroom. Your point is well taken, though, that not all lawyers are good at trial work — simply passing the bar and getting admitted to practice doesn't automatically make any lawyer good at litigating cases.

    You are correct in that I have not seen you perform in a courtroom setting. But I have heard you give your opinion of many cases here and this is my clue.

    I have watched three trials from start to finish where I knew most of the details of the cases. OJ’s case, my friend’s murder trial and my trial. In each trial there was a highly skilled trial lawyer who prevailed. In two cases there were incompetent lawyers and in the OJ case, well, Marsha Clark did a good job but screwed up in a few key areas like moving the trial location, underestimating Black jurors and allowing the glove performance. So, knowing all the facts, I have witnessed how each side wins and loses.

    This is where I see you as being out of alignment with a trial lawyer:

    A good trial lawyer will not be dissuaded by their client breaking a law or appearing guilty. They slough that off as though it is irrelevant. You seem to think it matters greatly.

    A trial lawyer will know both lawyer’s approach and tactic. You often say that the other side has no argument, when a good trial lawyer can pull rabbits out of his a$$...I’ve seen it. This leads me to believe you could not jump sides and rip your argument apart like any good trial lawyer should be able to do. You seem to believe your observations of a case when there is always a counterargument.

    In my friend’s murder trial the only witness was a homeless tweeker that was riding a bike at 1:00am and supposedly witnessed the crime in the dark. No murder weapon ever found and no real motive. From your posts here, you’d have said the case was weak. But not if you’re going up against a highly skilled trial attorney who uses performance, not law and evidence to prevail.

    You rarely emphasize the fact that juries are often stupid, complacent and can be manipulated to either side regardless of evidence. But a good trial lawyer knows that well and capitalizes on that fact.

    You appear to give laws and evidence too much credit. Maybe because you underestimate what skilled trial lawyers use, which is drama, misdirection, discrediting, bias and psychology.

    Disclaimer: I may be wrong about you because our relationship is very disconnected. So if I have you wrong, my apologies. You offer a lot of good stuff here and kudos for not bashing like the 5-10 trolls do.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Can I Be Prosecuted for Shoplifting if I Ran Away After Being Caught Shoplifting
    By optic144 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-10-2017, 03:48 PM
  2. Juvenile Court: Minor Caught Shoplifting with Minor Friend Who Has History of Shoplifting
    By donnadm in forum Juvenile Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 06:12 PM
  3. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Caught Shoplifting, and Admitted to Previous Shoplifting
    By cast002 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 04:51 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources