$16 from Walmart

[cbg]

What you are still missing, Harold, is that in the OP's state the prosecutor is allowed to use the fact that the items did not scan as intent. He does not have to prove what was in the OP's mind; he is allowed to infer intent by the fact that the OP neglected to see that the items scanned properly. Perhaps that's not the case in your state, but it is where the OP is. And yes, I confirmed that was the law.

So personally I think having an attorney (a PD if necessary) try to plea it down or negotiate a diversion program would be a much better way to go. I think that any attempt at a defense in court would play out the way I sarcastically defined. Clearly you are not familiar with the concept of sarcasm if you thought I was seriously suggesting that as a viable option as opposed to a description of how such a defense would, IMO, come across. Perhaps you might want to take an Extension School course on writing techniques?

That you find it necessary to interpret any answer that is not a ham-handed use of a legal bazooka when a slingshot would do as well, or better, as hostility against the OP (whoever the OP of the day is), really speaks far more about you than it does about me, or the other responders, Harold.

[walkerstalker145]

For those of you offering advice and direction thank you for your time I really appreciate it. I've never been in a situation like this and I'm completely lost.

[Harold99]

What you are still missing, Harold, is that in the OP's state the prosecutor is allowed to use the fact that the items did not scan as intent. He does not have to prove what was in the OP's mind; he is allowed to infer intent by the fact that the OP neglected to see that the items scanned properly. Perhaps that's not the case in your state, but it is where the OP is. And yes, I confirmed that was the law.

So personally I think having an attorney (a PD if necessary) try to plea it down or negotiate a diversion program would be a much better way to go. I think that any attempt at a defense in court would play out the way I sarcastically defined. Clearly you are not familiar with the concept of sarcasm if you thought I was seriously suggesting that as a viable option as opposed to a description of how such a defense would, IMO, come across. Perhaps you might want to take an Extension School course on writing techniques?

That you find it necessary to interpret any answer that is not a ham-handed use of a legal bazooka when a slingshot would do as well, or better, as hostility against the OP (whoever the OP of the day is), really speaks far more about you than it does about me, or the other responders, Harold.

You are filled with anger and contempt, yet you still want to lecture me? Save it.

As the OP said to you: "I guess some random discussion board is the absolute best place for you to be."

[cbg]

Okey dokey.

[Harold99]

For those of you offering advice and direction thank you for your time I really appreciate it. I've never been in a situation like this and I'm completely lost.

Having legal trouble is like being in the 'The Land of Oz' with foreign legal terms, unknown penalties, lying, exaggerating and false threats. If you do not get a lawyer Walmart or the prosecutor would like to throw you in jail for a year or amputate your right arm, which is why you may need a lawyer. IOW, don't take legal advice from them.

The whole legal system is corrupt and your best defense is to get a lawyer that is as corrupt as they are.

Please check back and tell how it turned out. I wish you the best.

And next time, don't show your receipt at the door. Just walk past them and say "no." They will let you go because they know they have no legal right to see it or detain you. Let them tackle you to the ground and physically drag you to the back room, kicking and fighting all the way. After this ordeal you will learn who is your friend and who you can trust...and it isn't a little punk security guard at Walmart looking to put a feather in his hat.

[pg1067]

Unfortunately, your thread was derailed by this site's resident troll (equally as unfortunately, folks who ought to know better continue to engage with the troll). As a result, you misinterpreted something one of the regulars said and decided to call her names. That sort of childish behavior is likely to dissuade folks from trying to help you.

What are the odds of the case being thrown out completely? Should I try and get some money for lawyer? At no point was I asked to pay for the items which I could have easily done. It was honest mistake but Walmart security swears it was on purpose.

For starters, if you want odds, go to Vegas or Atlantic City. Second, I assume you've been charged with violating section 16-13-110 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Correct?

Sub-section (A)(1) of section 16-13-110 requires proof that you did what you did "with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use, or benefit of the merchandise without paying full retail value." The store, the police, and the prosecutor are all allowed to assume you had that intent. No one is obligated to take your word that you did not have that intent. You can testify to that effect in your defense, but it's impossible to predict whether a judge or jury will believe you. After all, someone who did have that intent might also claim not to have had it.

[Harold99]

Unfortunately, your thread was derailed by this site's resident troll (equally as unfortunately, folks who ought to know better continue to engage with the troll). As a result, you misinterpreted something one of the regulars said and decided to call her names. That sort of childish behavior is likely to dissuade folks from trying to help you.

For starters, if you want odds, go to Vegas or Atlantic City. Second, I assume you've been charged with violating section 16-13-110 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Correct?

Since you didn't recognize your girlfriend's unwarranted attack on the OP, at least the OP did.

Sub-section (A)(1) of section 16-13-110 requires proof that you did what you did "with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use, or benefit of the merchandise without paying full retail value." The store, the police, and the prosecutor are all allowed to assume you had that intent. No one is obligated to take your word that you did not have that intent. You can testify to that effect in your defense, but it's impossible to predict whether a judge or jury will believe you. After all, someone who did have that intent might also claim not to have had it.

If you really are a lawyer, you are worthless...just coming here to 'F' with people with your word games.

Five statements of worthless value:

"if you want odds, go to Vegas"

"the prosecutor is allowed to assume"

"No one is obligated to take your word"

"You can testify to that in your defense"

"it is impossible to predict"

So just what was the purpose of your post...to tell the OP he is legally allowed to eat Cheerios for breakfast?

The fact that you have cbg's back makes you the troll here.

[LegalWriter]

And next time, don't show your receipt at the door. Just walk past them and say "no." They will let you go because they know they have no legal right to see it or detain you. Let them tackle you to the ground and physically drag you to the back room, kicking and fighting all the way. After this ordeal you will learn who is your friend and who you can trust...and it isn't a little punk security guard at Walmart looking to put a feather in his hat.

Let's hope the OP doesn't follow your suggestion. To do so wouldn't have the outcome you predict. What it WILL do is escalate what was a possible simple petty theft to a robbery which carries serious prison time. I might point out that refusing to show the receipt is one easy way to convince a jury that you did intend to steal.

[Harold99]

Let's hope the OP doesn't follow your suggestion.

It is not required to show your receipt at the door, not even at a club store like Costco where you've agreed to show your receipt. All Costco can do for not showing your receipt is cancel your membership. they cannot require you to show your receipt.

I am sure you know what a contract is, and what the full execution of a contract is. Well, the full execution of the contract between the store and your purchased goods takes place back at the checkstand. Once a patron pays the purchase price for his goods, and he gets a receipt for those goods, the contract is fully executed and the store has no bearing over you AT ALL. They cannot come back and approach you again at the door and make you prove that you are not a thief. They can ask you to cooperate and show a receipt, but they cannot demand that you show a receipt. Oh, they can tackle you to the ground and drag you back inside, but they better be darn sure you stole something and they can prove it. Actually, I doubt you even have to show the cops the receipt. You can tell them you will show your receipt in court after they press charges...if you really want to strong-arm them.

To do so wouldn't have the outcome you predict.

Oh ya? I tell them "no" all the time and they just step aside.

What it WILL do is escalate what was a possible simple petty theft to a robbery which carries serious prison time.

I believe the OP that he is not a thief...and most people leaving stores are not thieves. If the OP said "no" to showing a receipt, chances are he would have stepped aside and let him pass. But if you are a thief trying to steal that way, you would be correct that it may escalate to robbery.

I might point out that refusing to show the receipt is one easy way to convince a jury that you did intend to steal.

Maybe, but if you intend to steal at all, or steal that way, I won't give any advice on how to do that. I am simply saying that Walmart does not have the right to demand to see your receipt after the transaction is completed, and I welcome you to prove otherwise.

The OP bent over backwards, relinquished his right by showing his receipt, and paid the price for it. If it were me, I'd never show a receipt again.

You may think I am a dick, but I don't like people telling me my legal rights or taking advantage of people's naivety. Which is why I don't like what a lot of you guys do to unsuspecting OP's here.