$16 from Walmart

[Shrinkmaster]

Any "defense" should be discussed with a Lawyer not a website. OP could say there was "no" intent. Guilt requires proof if DA cannot prove intent he might (I said might) prevail. However the cost to defend himself would exceed the other option posted

[flyingron]

Any "defense" should be discussed with a Lawyer not a website. OP could say there was "no" intent. Guilt requires proof if DA cannot prove intent he might (I said might) prevail. However the cost to defend himself would exceed the other option posted

Sorry, not in South Carolina. You misunderstand intent. The intent here is he intended to remove the items from the store. The state doesn't need to show that he had the intent to fail to pay for them. That's just a fact.

[Harold99]

Any "defense" should be discussed with a Lawyer not a website. OP could say there was "no" intent. Guilt requires proof if DA cannot prove intent he might (I said might) prevail. However the cost to defend himself would exceed the other option posted

Bingo! It is the store's or the DA's requirement to show that the OP had intent to not ring up the item. That is a hard burden to prove.

Walmart does not train patrons how to use their checkout devices. So when they are improperly used it is not automatically the patron's fault. They often offer zero oversight and assistance during self-checkout. They intimidate patrons to search their bags upon leaving the store without probably cause to search them.

Shoving an item in your pocket might show intent to steal. Not hearing a beep that you are not trained to hear does not prove intent to steal. One could hear a beep from another register and think it is from their machine. Is there a warning sign that says "people who are hard of hearing should not use self-checkout?" I doubt it. How about a sign saying "If you are not familiar with all the self-checkout devices, please do not proceed in self-checkout." I doubt that too.

If Walmart wants to financially benefit from using patrons to do unpaid labor for them, they can assume all risks and losses associated with using untrained personnel to wring up items. Do they also use patrons to guard their back door at night?

Ron and Jack, if you guys were defense attorneys you'd have no clientele because anyone who came to you would be guilty beyond any defense.

[Shrinkmaster]

VERY good points Harold. If OP has the funds to fight charge he can use this if his Lawyer agrees. However again the cost to defend against this charge will exceed cost of Diversion option.

[cbg]

South Carolina law allows the prosecutor to infer intent by behavior, however.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up. That's what I did.

[Harold99]

South Carolina law allows the prosecutor to infer intent by behavior, however.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up. That's what I did.

As you seem to deflect my question too...which was how this case could be defended, not prosecuted.

VERY good points Harold. If OP has the funds to fight charge he can use this if his Lawyer agrees. However again the cost to defend against this charge will exceed cost of Diversion option.

Which is what Walmart is banking on.

[cbg]

Outside of "my client is a lunkhead who doesn't have the ability to count that God gave the average four year old and who is too stupid to compare what is on the receipt with what is in his basket which it is his responsibility to do when he is using a self-checkout station" gee, I don't know, Harold. Why don't you come down off your mountain top and tell all us what we're missing?

[just blue]

Outside of "my client is a lunkhead who doesn't have the ability to count that God gave the average four year old and who is too stupid to compare what is on the receipt with what is in his basket which it is his responsibility to do when he is using a self-checkout station" gee, I don't know, Harold. Why don't you come down off your mountain top and tell all us what we're missing?

<3 <3 <3

[Harold99]

Outside of "my client is a lunkhead who doesn't have the ability to count that God gave the average four year old and who is too stupid to compare what is on the receipt with what is in his basket which it is his responsibility to do when he is using a self-checkout station" gee, I don't know, Harold. Why don't you come down off your mountain top and tell all us what we're missing?

Reread post #13. You will find a few defense arguments there. As your defense would be "My client is stupid and guilty as charged your Honor."

Yours, and few others, distain for the general public is more than obvious on this site. What did these people do to you to make you so angry and vengeful inside?

Whst you would learn from NDE's is that those people you want to hurt are actually you. And you are them. You cannot harm them without harming yourself. Take that into consideration.

[walkerstalker145]

Outside of "my client is a lunkhead who doesn't have the ability to count that God gave the average four year old and who is too stupid to compare what is on the receipt with what is in his basket which it is his responsibility to do when he is using a self-checkout station" gee, I don't know, Harold. Why don't you come down off your mountain top and tell all us what we're missing?

I spent over $160 I didnt count every single item that I had because I had no intentions of stealing ass hole. I asked for legal advice not your personal opinion about who I am.

But if it makes you feel good to say shit like that about a person that you do not know I guess some random discussion board is the absolute best place for you to be.

Thanks for nothing.