http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

Aside from arbitrary; a word was left out : Capricious.

Like the TSA incident “Don't touch my package” and "Don't tase me,
bro" incidents.

On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:41:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

He said HD took him to the “stew room” , cuffed him, neglected
medical concerns, etc..

Any man that tries that with me in HD will regret the spanking I put
on him. I'm not going back into ANY room with anybody, especially
amateurs or tough guys.

I walk out the door and let the cops arrest me if I broke the law.

Some rookie would regret even "trying" to get me in some back room,
cuff and then trying to intimidate me. I'd go to jail after some
idiot barked up the wrong tree. His insurance will cover medical
bills.

HD better study policy about detaining a grown man with a few brain
cells.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:00:56 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:41:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

He said HD took him to the “stew room” , cuffed him, neglected
medical concerns, etc..

Any man that tries that with me in HD will regret the spanking I put
on him. I'm not going back into ANY room with anybody, especially
amateurs or tough guys.

I walk out the door and let the cops arrest me if I broke the law.

Some rookie would regret even "trying" to get me in some back room,
cuff and then trying to intimidate me. I'd go to jail after some
idiot barked up the wrong tree. His insurance will cover medical
bills.

HD better study policy about detaining a grown man with a few brain
cells.

True, but that isn't the argument.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:49:20 -0400, wrote:

HD better study policy about detaining a grown man with a few brain
cells.

True, but that isn't the argument.

PDF:

http://images.businessweek.com/pdf/13/Home%20Depot%20Complaint.pdf

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:44:33 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:49:20 -0400, wrote:

HD better study policy about detaining a grown man with a few brain
cells.

True, but that isn't the argument.

PDF:

http://images.businessweek.com/pdf/13/Home%20Depot%20Complaint.pdf

Right, in that context, HD didn't do anything "wrong". They are
legally able to charge the shoplifter that $500 charge. The person
*did* shoplift, even though (he says) it was unintentional.

Oren wrote in news:3072395v9tinotic437p9h78rpnlg6qk6k@
4ax.com:

Any man that tries that with me in HD will regret the spanking I put
on him. I'm not going back into ANY room with anybody, especially
amateurs or tough guys.

I walk out the door and let the cops arrest me if I broke the law.

Some rookie would regret even "trying" to get me in some back room,
cuff and then trying to intimidate me. I'd go to jail after some
idiot barked up the wrong tree. His insurance will cover medical
bills.


U my man dude! U be bad!

BillyBobT wrote in
.121:

Oren wrote in news:3072395v9tinotic437p9h78rpnlg6qk6k@
4ax.com:

Any man that tries that with me in HD will regret the spanking I put
on him. I'm not going back into ANY room with anybody, especially
amateurs or tough guys.

I walk out the door and let the cops arrest me if I broke the law.

Some rookie would regret even "trying" to get me in some back room,
cuff and then trying to intimidate me. I'd go to jail after some
idiot barked up the wrong tree. His insurance will cover medical
bills.


U my man dude! U be bad!

You betcha! Have to keep Oren in mind in case I need to put out a
"contract" :-)


[Hey NSA. jk-jk-jk!]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:48:48 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

U my man dude! U be bad!


No. Not bad. I just would not let a Barney Fife Aisle 6 Manager treat
ME the way this customer was treated. Maybe you would, but I will
not.

You betcha! Have to keep Oren in mind in case I need to put out a
"contract" :-)

I'll be your Huckleberry

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:41:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

Perhaps but it seems that HD is within its rights to pursue the
matter. Really dumb, but within the law.

wrote in :

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:41:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...shaking-down-s
uspected-shoplifters-142619625.html

Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to
steal the gloves.

Perhaps but it seems that HD is within its rights to pursue the
matter. Really dumb, but within the law.



Really dumb, but within the law.

Yep. Like giving someone a traffic ticket for crossing the center line to
avoid hitting something that darted out on the right.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:45:14 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

wrote in :

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:41:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...shaking-down-s
uspected-shoplifters-142619625.html

Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to
steal the gloves.

Perhaps but it seems that HD is within its rights to pursue the
matter. Really dumb, but within the law.



Really dumb, but within the law.

Yep. Like giving someone a traffic ticket for crossing the center line to
avoid hitting something that darted out on the right.

No, not like that at all. The cop isn't too concerned about losing a
good customer, forever, nor by having his ass sued off.

Doesn't sound like any bad intent. The store could
have handled the matter a bit more gently.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/11/2013 8:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html


Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

Good attorney might take that athsma attack to court
for a few bucks.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


On 9/11/2013 8:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html



Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:09:23 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Good attorney might take that athsma attack to court
for a few bucks.

Not only that but the illegal detention, however that isn't the issue.
As I see it, they're allowed to collect $500 and they're trying.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:28:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:09:23 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Good attorney might take that athsma attack to court
for a few bucks.

Not only that but the illegal detention, however that isn't the issue.
As I see it, they're allowed to collect $500 and they're trying.

I don't have a problem with HD collecting money from shoplifters. I
DO have a problem with the thuggery from the store employees.

How many store employees receive these letters from insider theft? Not
many, if any, I venture to guess.

Nothing I've seen says the gloves were taken *outside* the store -
which IS shoplifting.

The store thugs have opened themselves to other legal actions. IMO.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Doesn't sound like any bad intent. The store could
have handled the matter a bit more gently.

Where was store management during all of this? They must have been away...


.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

On 9/11/2013 8:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/11/2013 5:34 PM, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html



Bad publicity for HD in this case. I don't think they intended to steal
the gloves.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:48:06 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Doesn't sound like any bad intent. The store could
have handled the matter a bit more gently.

Where was store management during all of this? They must have been away...


Exactly. It is a management failure for not training the employees;
regardless of if the manager was present or not.

Who allowed Aisle 6 Manager Barney Fife to put hands on a customer,
handcuff him, take him into a "stew room", not allow him access to
his inhaler for medical needs, demand he sign a paper before he would
be released, never call the cops for a crime of shoplifting and make
complete fools of themselves.

The "shake down" is that HD is using lawyers from another state to
intimidate people with demand letters.. Basically to extort money
which is not even covered under CA shoplifting laws.

Nothing says that the two pair of gloves were taken outside, which
then constitutes shoplifting. HD had customer information since the
bill was paid by HD credit card.

http://images.businessweek.com/pdf/13/Home%20Depot%20Complaint.pdf

- CA Penal Code § 490.5 does not authorize any self-help remedies, and
does not authorize the merchant or its agents to recover late payment
fees, credit card fees, installment fees, convenience fees, or
interest. Nor does it authorize an award of attorneys’ fees to a
prevailing party in an action under the statute.

The customer should have called the cops on Barney Fife, Aisle 6
Manager.

Spit!

"Oren" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:48:06 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Doesn't sound like any bad intent. The store could
have handled the matter a bit more gently.

Where was store management during all of this? They must have been away...


Exactly. It is a management failure for not training the employees;
regardless of if the manager was present or not.

Who allowed Aisle 6 Manager Barney Fife to put hands on a customer,
handcuff him, take him into a "stew room", not allow him access to
his inhaler for medical needs, demand he sign a paper before he would
be released, never call the cops for a crime of shoplifting and make
complete fools of themselves.

The "shake down" is that HD is using lawyers from another state to
intimidate people with demand letters.. Basically to extort money
which is not even covered under CA shoplifting laws.

Nothing says that the two pair of gloves were taken outside, which
then constitutes shoplifting. HD had customer information since the
bill was paid by HD credit card.

http://images.businessweek.com/pdf/13/Home%20Depot%20Complaint.pdf

- CA Penal Code § 490.5 does not authorize any self-help remedies, and
does not authorize the merchant or its agents to recover late payment
fees, credit card fees, installment fees, convenience fees, or
interest. Nor does it authorize an award of attorneys' fees to a
prevailing party in an action under the statute.

The customer should have called the cops on Barney Fife, Aisle 6
Manager.

Spit!

There's a lot of this legal loophole gold-digging going on right now.

Patent trolls are different from this, but follow the same idea. I'm hearing about patent trolls in the printing industry.

For example, if someone transfers a legal image from a computer directly to a printing plate, there's a poorly-defined print-related regulation that these trolls are interpreting to mean that the printer must first have a software license of some kind. These trolls are sending bulk letters to all printers with a demand for several $1000's. The large multi-million dollar printers typically just pay it and save the legal expenses. But it's still not right and the small shops can't afford to do that. The legal arm of printing trade group is working to get this particular regulation.

http://www.printing.org/news/11375

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:34:40 PM UTC-5, Red Green wrote:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

The OP said they were wearing their gloves as they were loading their vehicle. Every HD I have seen would have the vehicle outside when it was being loaded, so the gloves were technically outside the store.

On 9/12/2013 9:15 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:34:40 PM UTC-5, Red Green wrote:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html

The OP said they were wearing their gloves as they were loading their vehicle. Every HD I have seen would have the vehicle outside when it was being loaded, so the gloves were technically outside the store.


Right, they just spent $1500. So you approach then and say "I think you
forgot to pay for the gloves" If I was the manager I'd thank for the
business them and give them the gloves.

Home Depot has their own lawyers, and I'm sure those lawyers would have impressed upon every store manager that it's a real serious thing to deny someone their freedom by "locking him in a room" until the police get there.

Even confronting a person in public and accusing them of having stolen goods in their possession is a denial of freedom because if that person walks away, it looks to everyone else that they're trying to make their gettaway.

So, if anyone was held against their will at the Home Depot store, or even accused of theft in public, then Home Depot had better be sure they had stolen something or were trying to steal something. Otherwise they could be sued by that person for having been detained and denied their freedom.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:42:25 +0200, nestork
wrote:


Home Depot has their own lawyers, and I'm sure those lawyers would have
impressed upon every store manager that it's a real serious thing to
deny someone their freedom by "locking him in a room" until the police
get there.

Even confronting a person in public and accusing them of having stolen
goods in their possession is a denial of freedom because if that person
walks away, it looks to everyone else that they're trying to make their
gettaway.

So, if anyone was held against their will at the Home Depot store, or
even accused of theft in public, then Home Depot had better be sure they
had stolen something or were trying to steal something. Otherwise they
could be sued by that person for having been detained and denied their
freedom.

I don't know if HD credit card billing is itemized or not. Surely the
customer should have been given a receipt from the cashier (for
possible returns).

That is what is missing in the story - the receipt.

Barney Fife, Aisle 6 Manager, should have asked the customer for his
receipt before he started to go John Wayne on him and treat him like a
red headed step child.

No, I don't think so.

The law does not judge us on what we say we thought or what we say we were doing, but what a reasonable man would have thought or done under similar circumstances. Those guys took the work gloves off the rack in the store and put them on, proceeded to load their lumber with the gloves on, proceeded to the cashier's station and only took the gloves off to pay for their lumber, then put the gloves back on and left the cashier station heading for the exit.

Now, if at some point between the cashier's station and the exit, a store security guard stops them and says "Sir, can you show me the receipt for those gloves?", and he replies: "Damn. I was going to pay for these gloves, but I just forgot to."

Who amongst us would believe him?

A reasonable person under those circumstances would have paid for the gloves along with the lumber. A reasonable person taking off unfamiliar gloves to pay for the lumber and putting them back on afterward would have drawn their attention to the gloves and realized that those gloves need to be paid for too. A reasonable person would only walk away from that cashier station with the gloves unpaid for if he didn't intend to pay for them.

In a situation like that, what else would you expect the guy to say? He came up the the only half a$$ed excuse he could think of in a hurry, which is that he simply forgot to pay for the gloves. If he was a bit more mentally nimble, he woulda said that he was just gonna use them to load the lumber onto his truck, and then he was going to return to put them back on the store rack.

But, he'd still be charged and possibly convicted of shoplifting cuz a "reasonable man" don't do that neither.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:42:25 +0200, nestork
wrote:


Home Depot has their own lawyers, and I'm sure those lawyers would have
impressed upon every store manager that it's a real serious thing to
deny someone their freedom by "locking him in a room" until the police
get there.

Sure, but I didn't see that as the complaint, rather the leeches going
after the $500, which is, apparently, legal.

Even confronting a person in public and accusing them of having stolen
goods in their possession is a denial of freedom because if that person
walks away, it looks to everyone else that they're trying to make their
gettaway.

So, if anyone was held against their will at the Home Depot store, or
even accused of theft in public, then Home Depot had better be sure they
had stolen something or were trying to steal something. Otherwise they
could be sued by that person for having been detained and denied their
freedom.

I didn't read the suit in its entirety but I didn't see that as the
beef. It should have been.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:28:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:42:25 +0200, nestork

wrote:





Home Depot has their own lawyers, and I'm sure those lawyers would have

impressed upon every store manager that it's a real serious thing to

deny someone their freedom by "locking him in a room" until the police

get there.



Sure, but I didn't see that as the complaint, rather the leeches going

after the $500, which is, apparently, legal.



Even confronting a person in public and accusing them of having stolen

goods in their possession is a denial of freedom because if that person

walks away, it looks to everyone else that they're trying to make their

gettaway.



So, if anyone was held against their will at the Home Depot store, or

even accused of theft in public, then Home Depot had better be sure they

had stolen something or were trying to steal something. Otherwise they

could be sued by that person for having been detained and denied their

freedom.



I didn't read the suit in its entirety but I didn't see that as the

beef. It should have been.

I guess that depends on what's permitted under CA law, ie can a
merchant detain someone they suspect of shoplifting, how, under
what circumstances, etc. If someone sees a person snatch granny's
purse, it's generally accepted they can tackle them and I don't
think anyone doing that has been charged with assault. So, with
shoplifting, I'm not sure what the line is.

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:43:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/12/2013 9:15 PM, wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:34:40 PM UTC-5, Red Green wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-d...142619625.html



The OP said they were wearing their gloves as they were loading their vehicle. Every HD I have seen would have the vehicle outside when it was being loaded, so the gloves were technically outside the store.





Right, they just spent $1500. So you approach then and say "I think you

forgot to pay for the gloves" If I was the manager I'd thank for the

business them and give them the gloves.

You are right. I make every effort to shop at Lowes or some other retailer than Home Depot.

I have bought more than a few defective items as well as outrageous customer service in the past.

This latest item makes it difficult to believe that are a good and resposible retailer.

I also see it as a breakdown in morals.

How in the world did such a policy ever come into effect ?

Where are the regulatory agencies and courts while this goes on ?

I know jobs are hard to find, but I would not work for such a company.

Just my thoughts.

Andy

If someone has a good experience in a store, they may tell 2 or 3 others about it.

If they have a bad experience, they will probably tell 10 others about it.

Excerpt from a training course for managers.(J.C. @ennys)

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:15:19 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


The OP said they were wearing their gloves as they were loading their vehicle. Every HD I have seen would have the vehicle outside when it was being loaded, so the gloves were technically outside the store.

This is WHAT the article says; nothing about being outside!

"...Before loading some lumber into the cart, he says, they put on
work gloves. When they checked out, all the merchandise was scanned,
except for the gloves, which Chen had belatedly added to the pile. He
paid $1,445.90 with his Home Depot credit card. As he and his friend
were walking toward the door, they were stopped by a security guard,
who accused Chen of stealing the gloves. "

The Class Action Suit states: (p.2)

"...After spending nearly $1,500 at Home Depot, Plaintiff
was stopped by a Home Depot security guard, who falsely accused him of
trying to shoplift two pairs of work gloves – together worth less than
$8 – that he had used to load the merchandise into his cart."

(p.4 &5 )

"...During checkout, the lines were extremely long and a Home Depot
employee came through Plaintiff’s line ringing up customers with a
wireless scanner. At this time, Plaintiff and his friend were still
wearing the work gloves. Plaintiff and his friend had two carts, and
assisted the employee in ringing up the items in the carts. When
Plaintiff moved up to pay the cashier, he removed his gloves and
placed them on top of the merchandise in his cart. The cashier asked
Plaintiff if his items had all been scanned, and the employee who had
scanned his items with the wireless scanner said yes. At all times,
the gloves were open and visible to the Home Depot employees. The
cashier processed a total amount of $1,445.90 for the items in
Plaintiff’s carts and Plaintiff paid using his Home Depot credit card.
Both the Home Depot employee scanning Plaintiff’s items with the
wireless scanner, and the cashier, failed to scan the gloves."

The gloves WHERE not outside the door and the customer was accosted
inside the building. Shoplifting requires the item to be removed from
the store. The parking lot or vehicle are not mentioned, best I can
tell.

Your' re welcome

On Friday, September 13, 2013 10:48:18 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:15:19 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:





The OP said they were wearing their gloves as they were loading their vehicle. Every HD I have seen would have the vehicle outside when it was being loaded, so the gloves were technically outside the store.



This is WHAT the article says; nothing about being outside!



"...Before loading some lumber into the cart, he says, they put on

work gloves. When they checked out, all the merchandise was scanned,

except for the gloves, which Chen had belatedly added to the pile. He

paid $1,445.90 with his Home Depot credit card. As he and his friend

were walking toward the door, they were stopped by a security guard,

who accused Chen of stealing the gloves. "



The Class Action Suit states: (p.2)



"...After spending nearly $1,500 at Home Depot, Plaintiff

was stopped by a Home Depot security guard, who falsely accused him of

trying to shoplift two pairs of work gloves – together worth less than

$8 – that he had used to load the merchandise into his cart."



(p.4 &5 )



"...During checkout, the lines were extremely long and a Home Depot

employee came through Plaintiff’s line ringing up customers with a

wireless scanner. At this time, Plaintiff and his friend were still

wearing the work gloves. Plaintiff and his friend had two carts, and

assisted the employee in ringing up the items in the carts. When

Plaintiff moved up to pay the cashier, he removed his gloves and

placed them on top of the merchandise in his cart. The cashier asked

Plaintiff if his items had all been scanned, and the employee who had

scanned his items with the wireless scanner said yes. At all times,

the gloves were open and visible to the Home Depot employees. The

cashier processed a total amount of $1,445.90 for the items in

Plaintiff’s carts and Plaintiff paid using his Home Depot credit card.

Both the Home Depot employee scanning Plaintiff’s items with the

wireless scanner, and the cashier, failed to scan the gloves."



The gloves WHERE not outside the door and the customer was accosted

inside the building. Shoplifting requires the item to be removed from

the store. The parking lot or vehicle are not mentioned, best I can

tell.



Your' re welcome


"The cashier asked Plaintiff if his items had all been scanned, and the employee who had scanned his items with the wireless scanner said yes."


Doh! Good find. IMO, that's it for HD. One of HD's employees,
who was using the wireless scanner to scan their many items, told
the cashier that all the items had been scanned. The gloves were
in plain sight the whole time. HD hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Now some will say, but the guys should have known that the person
using the wireless scanner didn't scan the gloves. The Plaitiffs
answer to that is there were TWO SETS OF GLOVES. Apparently each
guy was wearing a pair. So, each could have assumed that the
scanning person scanned the gloves of the other person twice.
I see them do that all the time. If you have 5 identical things,
sometimes they just scan one 5 times. That defense only works
if the gloves are identical. But I think even without it, with
the HD scanning person telling the cashier that everything had
been scanned, HD is gonna lose.

Not a chance.

Judicial decisions form something called "case law" which other judges consider when making their decisions.

If the judge were to say "Well. There you have it. The employee told the cashier that all of the items had been scanned. So, Chen's attempt to shop lift the gloves succeeds! Decision for the defendant." That would make our entire system of commerce one big game.

What matters here is not what the store employees did or didn't do, but what Chen did or didn't do. He was attempting to walk out of the store wearing gloves he didn't pay for.

Sure, he can make noises about his forgetting or not realizing he was wearing them, but the bottom line is that now he's got a date in court and he has to convince the judge of that, and his fate lies in whether the judge believes him. If not, then Chen gets a criminal record as a shop lifter that follows him around for the REST OF HIS LIFE. Here in Winnipeg I can check the Court records online, and I can tell if any adult has ever appeared before the court for anything, and if I want to pay the $5 fee for them to pull the records, I can find out all the details about what went down. It's just a real big hassle over $10 worth of work gloves.

He could have avoided that whole hassle by paying the extra $10 bucks for the gloves. Then he wouldn't be sweating.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 01:01:04 +0200, nestork
wrote:

Judicial decisions form something called "case law" which other judges
consider when making their decisions.

Um, judges have to follow WHAT the law says. They interpret the law,
but have to follow the law as on the books.

A ruling can set a precedence for the future cases. He must still
must interpret the law first and apply the law equally.

He should not be changing the law to fit each individual case. That
would be considered judicial activism - subject to interpretation by
an appellate courts.

The judge can be overruled and the case remanded back to the lower
court.

Maybe things are different in Canada.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 7:01:04 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
[_2_ Wrote:

;3121464']

"The cashier asked Plaintiff if his items had all been scanned, and the

employee who had scanned his items with the wireless scanner said yes."





Doh! Good find. IMO, that's it for HD. One of HD's employees,

who was using the wireless scanner to scan their many items, told

the cashier that all the items had been scanned. The gloves were

in plain sight the whole time. HD hasn't got a leg to stand on.







Not a chance.



Judicial decisions form something called "case law" which other judges

consider when making their decisions.



If the judge were to say "Well. There you have it. The employee told

the cashier that all of the items had been scanned. So, Chen's attempt

to shop lift the gloves succeeds! Decision for the defendant." That

would make our entire system of commerce one big game.


You're starting with the premise that it was in fact shoplifting,
which is not even close to proven. I don't believe in most
jurisdictions it's not shoplifting if it's clear that it was not
intentional. In this case, there is plenty of doubt. The fact
that the cashier asked if everything had been scanned and the
HD employee doing the wireless scanning answered "yes" is
far more than reasonable doubt. It would also easily meet
the civil case test of prevailing with a preponderance of the
evidence, ie just tipping it in your favor.

When a cashier asks if everything has been scanned, and the
stores own employee who is doing the scanning replies "Yes",
then the customer just says "She was doing the scanning. I
wasn't paying close attention. She said she scanned everything
and I took her word for it. Top that off with the fact that
they bought $1500 worth of stuff that they did pay for
and it's Game, set, match.




What matters here is not what the store employees did or didn't do, but

what Chen did or didn't do. He was attempting to walk out of the store

wearing gloves he didn't pay for.



BS. His argument is that he thought he had in fact paid for
them because HD's own employee stated to the cashier that everything
had been scanned.





Sure, he can make noises about his forgetting or not realizing he was

wearing them, but the bottom line is that now he's got a date in court

and he has to convince the judge of that, and his fate lies in whether

the judge believes him.

If not, then Chen gets a criminal record as a

shop lifter that follows him around for the REST OF HIS LIFE.

Good grief!
Did you even read the article? He was not arrested. HD hasn't
filed any charges. He doesn't have a criminal court date. He's just part
of a class action civil suit against HD for going after folks
like him for money.

As for a criminal case, when the store's own employee announces
that everything has been scanned, the gloves were in plain sight,
ie not concealed, well, they have no criminal case. There isn't
just reasonable doubt, there's a mountain of doubt. A prosecutor
wouldn't even bring the case it's so silly.




Here in

Winnipeg I can check the Court records online, and I can tell if any

adult has ever appeared before the court for anything, and if I want to

pay the $5 fee for them to pull the records, I can find out all the

details about what went down. It's just a real big hassle over $10

worth of work gloves.


It's also a big strawman because Chen was not arrested.







He could have avoided that whole hassle by paying the extra $10 bucks

for the gloves. Then he wouldn't be sweating.



Again, you've convicted him as a shoplifter when it could have
been an innocent mistake. As for sweating, he has nothing to sweat
about. HD with the class action lawsuit, they may have something to
sweat about.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 14:02:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

"The cashier asked Plaintiff if his items had all been scanned, and the employee who had scanned his items with the wireless scanner said yes."


Trader, you caught the lonely nugget in this mess. Seems everyone
else missed it.

Doh! Good find. IMO, that's it for HD. One of HD's employees,
who was using the wireless scanner to scan their many items, told
the cashier that all the items had been scanned. The gloves were
in plain sight the whole time. HD hasn't got a leg to stand on.


....exactly - not even a police report for petty theft ($8) has
surfaced to this day.

Now some will say, but the guys should have known that the person
using the wireless scanner didn't scan the gloves. The Plaitiffs
answer to that is there were TWO SETS OF GLOVES. Apparently each
guy was wearing a pair. So, each could have assumed that the
scanning person scanned the gloves of the other person twice.
I see them do that all the time. If you have 5 identical things,
sometimes they just scan one 5 times. That defense only works
if the gloves are identical. But I think even without it, with
the HD scanning person telling the cashier that everything had
been scanned, HD is gonna lose.

Point taken. I'd have no problem showing Barney my receipt, but come
hell or high water, treating me the way this customer was, is not in
my nature. Convicts are treated better.

Barney should be fired! Period.

Not a chance.

What matters is not what the store employees did, but what Chen did, or in this case failed to do. He was caught walking out of the store wearing gloves he hadn't paid for.

No judge is going to say "Well, there you have it. The store employee with the wireless scanner failed to scan the gloves, but stated that all the merchandise had been scanned. Chen's attempt to steal the gloves succeeds! Decision for the Defendant."

That would turn our entire system of commerce into a big game whereby theft becomes legal if you can get away with it.

The bottom line here is that Chen now has a day in court where the onus is on him to prove that he meant to pay for the gloves, but simply forgot. And, if the judge doesn't buy his story, Chen now has a criminal record for shoplifting that's gonna follow him around for the rest of his life. If he'd paid the stinking $10 for the gloves, he would have avoided this whole mess.

Almost certainly, if Chen's criminal record is as clean as a drill sargeant's whistle, the judge is gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and tell him to pay Home Depot for the gloves and go home. But, if Chen has a habit of forgetting to pay for things, then those gloves are yet one more line on his criminal record.

Here in Manitoba, Provincial Court proceedings become part of the public record, and anyone can search for anyone's name online. If that person has been involved in a law suit with someone else, or has been charged with an offense by the Crown, such as arson or murder their name shows up. If you go down to the Courts building and pay the $5 search fee, you can read through the court records in person to get all the details on what went down. Before I rent to anyone, I check their name on the Court of Queen's Bench Online Registry to see if they've kept their nose clean until now. And, those records don't expire. Even after a person dies, his name will still be in the Court's website forever.

Here, check out this web site:
http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/

It's just plain stupid to get a criminal record as a shop lifter over a $10 pair of gloves. Just ask Lindsay Lohan. When she gets sticky fingers, it's a $1500 necklace, not a $10 pair of work gloves.

On 9/14/2013 7:22 PM, nestork wrote:

It's just plain stupid to get a criminal record as a shop lifter over a
$10 pair of gloves. Just ask Lindsay Lohan.

Yes, it is. That is why I'm confident it was an error, not an attempt
ro stal them. Why not pay for the gloves while trying to slip out the
cart with $1500 in materials? That is believable, this was a simple error.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 01:22:12 +0200, nestork
wrote:

The bottom line here is that Chen now has a day in court where the onus
is on him to prove that he meant to pay for the gloves, but simply
forgot. And, if the judge doesn't buy his story, Chen now has a
criminal record for shoplifting that's gonna follow him around for the
rest of his life. If he'd paid the stinking $10 for the gloves, he
would have avoided this whole mess.

Almost certainly, if Chen's criminal record is as clean as a drill
sargeant's whistle, the judge is gonna give him the benefit of the doubt
and tell him to pay Home Depot for the gloves and go home. But, if Chen
has a habit of forgetting to pay for things, then those gloves are yet
one more line on his criminal record.

I'd like to know where you get the notion that Chen has been charged
with a criminal violation (petty theft) for shoplifting.

What makes you think he is or will be facing a court? Sounds like you
are reading more into this case than what has actually taken place.

Please clarify.