|
What is he wanted for in Cali
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What is he wanted for in Cali I don't know, if I had which county it was from I would call/look it up myself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Re: shopflift chat There was an A/T thread some time ago where a guy claimed to basically have spent the last X amount of years of his life basically shoplifting for a living. The way he told it, he would straight up walk into stores, fill up his cart with whatever he needed and then just walk out, alarms and all. For the most part Loss Prevention personnel would either not notice or b) yell at him powerlessly until he left the building at which point they would stop giving a poo poo like an NPC guard in a videogame. It's been a while, but his suggestions basically boiled down to: a) always have enough cash or a credit card in your pocket so that you could claim that you simply forgot to pay for it, if you got grabbed. b) don't hit the same store too often He claimed to only do it at big name stores (walmart, costco, etc) because for that kind of store that sort of loss is basically non-existent so there's no real harm done, and also because small stores are usually really overzealous about loss prevention (makes sense, they have smaller margins and also the owner might actually work there and that's usually the only person that could give enough of a poo poo. Your biggest risk was always some Loss Prevention person that thought they were an actual cop or hero for stopping a shoplifter and would try to physically restrain you and in some cases even tackle you, but that those were almost non-existent nowadays in big name stores because they're too scared of being (rightly) sued for excessive use of force and illegally detaining a person. In the few cases that the cops were actually called, they never gave a poo poo. It's impossible to know whether the dude was for real, but what he said seemed pretty plausible. Also, it was all worth it just to see a whole bunch of people get mad that the dude was stealing from Walmart
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Re: California. If it is for a serious felony or from a larger county, the likelihood is high they will extradite. I bet Clark county and LA county run a bus at least once a week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Found this interesting: http://www.crimedoctor.com/shoplifting3.htm When I worked at a retail store in Ontario years ago (in like 2006) we were actually given this list as what we had to follow before we could accuse someone of shoplifting. We didn't have any door buzzers though. In Australia there's one store that's pretty anal about always checking women's purses when they leave the store, except that whenever I was with my husband they would let me go, and if I was alone they would come up and demand to look into my bag. So I started saying no out of the principle of "gently caress you for thinking I'm more vulnerable without my husband around" and just going "nope" and walking past. One of them once tried running after me and grabbed my arm and my purse, I told him if he didn't let me go I was calling the cops and reporting him for assault, and that was the end of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
All large company has a dedicate loss prevention department made of mostly ex police detectives. large scale thefts would be reported as organized retail theft and investigated, and criminal charges or civil action was pursued fairly regularly. People got away with it just like with all crime, but Walmart and co don't just sit idly by
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
HookShot posted:When I worked at a retail store in Ontario years ago (in like 2006) we were actually given this list as what we had to follow before we could accuse someone of shoplifting. I stopped shopping at Walmart because our closest one took up the practice of looking in all shopping bags, but not even checking against the receipt so it was extra ridiculous. If someone had demanded to look in my purse, I'd have walked right back and returned everything on the spot. It shocks me what people put up with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:I stopped shopping at Walmart because our closest one took up the practice of looking in all shopping bags, but not even checking against the receipt so it was extra ridiculous. It's funny how people sometimes fall back to "We have a policy!" Even if it makes no sense. I once made an issue out of an interaction. I often cross the street to eat lunch with my kids at their elementary school. And by cross the street, I mean some side street that's easier to park on and doesn't have any traffic except for people picking up kids. One day the principal of the school is standing on the sidewalk waiting for me to cross the street to her. She seemed really tense and I knew she was preparing herself to confront me so I just stepped to the side around her and she blocked me. She then told me that I was going to have to walk all the way up that side street to the main road, cross at the crosswalk, then come all the way back down to the school from now on. I said no, I'm a grown man and I'll cross the street right here (there is no law against it in our town as long as you don't cause a traffic problem). She immediately began telling me about her policy that everyone must use crosswalks etc etc. I informed her that she had a good policy but that I had one too and it says that I'll cross the street right here. She then threatened to call the police, I told her to go ahead that I would be in the lunch room when they got to the school. Nothing ever came of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Fight the power maaaaaannnn
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
I stopped for a store alarm once. Got my receipt out, waited, nobody showed up. Nobody even in sight. After like 30 seconds I just left, haven't even paid attention to the things since.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:I stopped shopping at Walmart because our closest one took up the practice of looking in all shopping bags, but not even checking against the receipt so it was extra ridiculous. Yeah, I can understand security for events wanting to look in my purse and stuff, but anytime a store employee wants to do it it's like uh sorry, nope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
I used to work security at a steel plant. Think rentacop, polyester-shirt-uniform security. We used to do vehicle searches for...something? I was never able to get a good answer on what, specifically, we were looking for. The steel plant coated rolls of steel, think 60-ton rolls of steel. Nobody is going to steal those. Most of the workers had their own tools, so even if they had taken a tool that was company property, I wouldn't know. Once a year for my 7 years i made a formal request that the company buy some UV paint and a flashlight that would pick up the color. $50 for the (admittedly decent quality) flashlight, ~$200 for the paint required to put a smear on each tool and 5 minutes of training. Every year it was rejected due to lack of qualified use. Anyway, we were supposed to look in the glovebox, in the trunk and under the seats. Quite a few times i was refused entry to vehicles to search, which was fine by me, still counted as a search. The only real training i ever received in regards to the actual security portion of the job (got HAZMAT and HAZWOPER training as well as CPR/HeartSmart) was one sentence, repeated three times on my first day. "Under no circumstances do you ever physically block someone from leaving a premises. Make a note, call their supervisor, but do not physically try to stop them. That is kidnapping and the company will not be responsible if you do that."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its a pretty rampant fallacy that police departments and municipal courts exist as some sort of revenue engine, whose sole purpose is to drain the noble poor of their last meager pennies. Enforcing the law is not a profitable endeavor. It doesn't matter if trial and prosecution cost more than the amount of the ticket. Even still, people are entitled to their trial by jury, and I'm there for my docket regardless, so it doesn't really cost anything more than an extra half hour of my time. It was specifically called out in the Ferguson report, during the DoJ's investigation of the Michael Brown shooting. The Atlantic has an excellent summary and analysis if you don't want to read the whole thing. Or, if you'd prefer, you can have it explained to you by a British comedian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:The revenue generation thing is not a fallacy, and it's a huge loving problem. Or, I could ignore what you posted, because it's Furgeson, and instead go look at the budgets and operations of the cities and police departments I work for and represent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Or, I could ignore what you posted, because it's Furgeson, and instead go look at the budgets and operations of the cities and police departments I work for and represent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Revenue as an accounting term means money in. Fines go to the city, minus the portion that the State takes. These things are simple and true. What I said was, "Its a pretty rampant fallacy that police departments and municipal courts exist as some sort of revenue engine, whose sole purpose is to drain the noble poor of their last meager pennies." People seem to like the idea that the only reason cops give out tickets is to get money, as if they wouldn't write tickets if there wasn't any money behind them. This idea is not true. The sheer number of warnings that police hand out is evidence enough that they aren't in it for the money. Enforcing the law is a perfectly valid and reasonable objective for giving out traffic citations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Or, I could ignore what you posted, because it's wherever the hell you work, and instead go look at the budgets and operations of the cities and police departments in my community. Wow, it works both ways!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Perhaps it's the best of all possible worlds...the police can enforce the law and raise money on the backs of the poor...all at the same time!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Revenue as an accounting term means money in. Fines go to the city, minus the portion that the State takes. These things are simple and true. what you're saying is either wrong, or so carefully worded to be meaningless and saying nothing that could be wrong frankly it's more dignified to be wrong
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Since this the legal questions thread, how many lawyers are in it to see that the laws is properly carried out and just outcomes are achieved, and how many are just in it for the money? And how closely does it map to speciality? The only lawyers I know personally break down 50/50. One is a public defender in Oregon (not in it for the money) and the other does some kind of corporate contracts stuff in SF (100% about the money).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:08
|
|
Blarzgh has the right of it. Statements about criminal justice policy that are categorical are usually too broad to be accurate. A lot of the things that, e.g., BLM criticizes are widely variable at the municipality level. Some places are fine, some places are horrible. It usually has to do with (often unwitting, decades-old) policy minutia or the biases of individual people on the ground. Hermsgervørden posted:Since this the legal questions thread, how many lawyers are in it to see that the laws is properly carried out and just outcomes are achieved, and how many are just in it for the money? And how closely does it map to speciality? There's a full range of motivations, certainly, but very few attorneys are 100% in it for the money. The kind of jobs that can pay enough to produce that level of sociopathy are rare. Instead, what can commonly happen is that the sometimes really horrible emotional experience of being the societal janitor that is often an attorney's job will cause the attorney to become a bitter, spiteful alcoholic. They get that way because they do have some sense of ethics, though, not by not caring. What's common in lobbying or corporate slimeball law isn't that the attorney is only in it for the money, but rather that their sense of justice shifts to accommodate the requirements of their position or work. This, too, is common in pretty much any setting that places stress on a person's sense of ethics. The legal system needs representation for pretty much everyone for its adversarial advocacy system to function properly. That includes scuzzballs, indigent criminal defendant or corporate.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what you're saying is either wrong, or so carefully worded to be meaningless and saying nothing that could be wrong Yep: blarzgh posted:Its a pretty rampant fallacy that police departments and municipal courts exist as some sort of revenue engine, whose sole purpose is to drain the noble poor of their last meager pennies. Phil Moscowitz posted:Perhaps it's the best of all possible worlds...the police can enforce the law and raise money on the backs of the poor...all at the same time!! Yep. A highly regressive tax that you don't even need to call a tax!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEL4KfbJyGI
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
I worked for two different city attorney's offices in the twin cities. Prosecutors have to handle traffic cases in minnesota. One of them was very by the by the book. You sped? Plea to speeding and take the insurance hit. We can work on the fine -- even community service in some cases. The other was all about the money. We'd do all sorts of things to avoid a record, if you paid a bigger fine. Guess which one people complained about the most?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
nm posted:I worked for two different city attorney's offices in the twin cities. Prosecutors have to handle traffic cases in minnesota. Neither of these methods really addresses the fact that the punishment can impact poor people very severely while not even serving as a deterrent for the rich. That is, unless they were big on modifying fines/penalties proportionate to income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Since this the legal questions thread, how many lawyers are in it to see that the laws is properly carried out and just outcomes are achieved, and how many are just in it for the money? And how closely does it map to speciality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Neither of these methods really addresses the fact that the punishment can impact poor people very severely while not even serving as a deterrent for the rich. Quick let's ticket all the rich drunk people in the back of cabs
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:It's really a relatively tiny percentage of lawyer jobs that pay big bucks. If you're really just in it for the money, you're generally way better off getting your MBA than your JD. Same with jobs people with MBAs get. An MBA isn't going to do much for you either unless you are great at managing people and climbing the corporate ladder. I know a few people who paid $80k+ for an MBA and they've got a bit of a network, but they're getting paid the same as the guy next to them without an MBA. I think it's really more of a thing people should get when they know they will need it, not that getting it really guarantees more money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Same with jobs people with MBAs get. An MBA isn't going to do much for you either unless you are great at managing people and climbing the corporate ladder. I know a few people who paid $80k+ for an MBA and they've got a bit of a network, but they're getting paid the same as the guy next to them without an MBA. I think it's really more of a thing people should get when they know they will need it, not that getting it really guarantees more money. Everyone knows SHRM-SCP is where it's at bro. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Question. Back in 2014 I sold part of my business and entered into a non-compete with the purchaser (I retained a portion of the business that offers different services than business that was sold). I'm in the process of selling off the rest of the business and am concerned with the non-compete. Non-compete specifically lists my S-Corp but not the name of the actual business. The non-compete contains the statement "This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns" Does that mean if I sold the business to a different entity that operates it, the non-compete is still in effect? Is there a specifc type of sale (asset only, etc.) that would allow the non-compete to not transfer and hamstring the new owners?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Y'all turned me into a caricature of a traffic lawyer, so this is what you get! Traffic Court is literally 4.25% of my time as an attorney. I mean literally, on my monthly reports, its 4.25%. But, having done it now for about six months, my perspective on it has changed. From my perspective, and the perspective of people on that side of the glass at muni court, the objective is enforcement. Its important that cops enforce the law, and they can't enforce the law if the Courts don't prosecute the complaints they turn in. I recall distinctly having a conversation with one defendant, who got popped for speeding and failure to maintain financial responsibility(no insurance). His tickets combined were like $625. He was incredulous at how a little thing like that could be so expensive, etc, said that my cops just wanted to make money off people, and that it was bull poo poo, and they could have given him a warning, blah blah blah. This was the only way I could think of to put it to him: Every car you pass on the highway, going 92mph without insurance is a person, or a family that you could have destroyed, and/or bankrupted. Sure, you didn't, and thats good. But, cause one accident without insurance, and that's it. Can you afford hundreds of thousands in medical bills, and damages? Most people can't. Sure, its only a .0001% chance for every car you pass. But add those up. If you pass 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000, now you're up to a 1% chance that you destroyed someone's life. Eventually someone's going to hit the jackpot. So, its a crime to do it, whether you hurt someone else or not. Someone has to care about you breaking the law, and thats the Cop's job. Thats how I feel about it; someone has to care about enforcing the law. You can't and shouldn't send people to jail for misdemeanor traffic violations. You can't and shouldn't take away people's drivers licenses for every single ticket. You can't and shouldn't force people to do physical labor(community service), and you can't force them to learn anything from defensive driving. Really, the only reasonable thing to do is to issue a fine for the violation. The vast majority of people either acknowledge they broke the law, or decide they don't care enough to deal with it, and just pay the fine. Right or wrong, you can't make people care enough to deal with it if they don't want to. After that, I'd say 20%-30% of people just don't show up. They either forget about their appearance, or don't care, or feel like if they just ignore it then it goes away. If you can't make it for a good reason, you can call and get a continuance. Regardless of the reason, its impossible for the Court to get in peoples' minds and figure out why they didn't show up. Whats left over is a pile of cases, which means a list of people, who are either pretty convinced they didn't break the law, or they know that they did and they're looking for a way out of their ticket, or a way to limit the impact it has on their daily lives. For people who think they aren't guilty, or who simply want their day in Court, they are entitled to their trial. For people who can't afford to pay, the Courts offer indigency prove-ups, payment plans, defensive driving, community service, time served, etc. There may be a better answer out there for dealing with poor people and traffic citations, but "I'm too poor to have to follow traffic laws" is not a solution that anyone is advocating for, I don't think; unless they elect other forms of punishment where available, like community service or defensive driving (which take time away from work that its hard to swing when you're poor), the only option is to pay the fine, either within 30 days, or over time. Sitting on this side of the glass, larger social issues about demographics and income inequality are not the top priority, and they really shouldn't be. The top priority should be enforcing traffic law. Its not, and shouldn't be a big picture endeavor. Leave that to the politicians. This is my effort post on the matter, and thats all I have to contribute. tl;dr - Municipal traffic courts have the right, and the imperative to care about enforcing traffic laws more than, or even instead of socio-economic issues about poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:Question. Now this is my wheelhouse. 100% go talk to an attorney. Depending on what state you live in, how the non-compete was drafted, when and how it was signed, and what you sell there are a ton of different answers you could get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Now this is my wheelhouse. 100% go talk to an attorney. Depending on what state you live in, how the non-compete was drafted, when and how it was signed, and what you sell there are a ton of different answers you could get. That's what I figured the answer was going to be lol. Could you provide a quick example of when it would and wouldn't carry over? I'm in Texas
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:That's what I figured the answer was going to be lol. nnnnnnope! But I can refer you to someone if you have a County/City in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:That's what I figured the answer was going to be lol. He's right. This is the sort of question that (a) depends on the details and (b) you can't cheap out on and go with free advice. The purchaser is not going to be interested in "well, i heard from this guy on the internet..." that he's secure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
quote:Sitting on this side of the glass Is this a metaphor or do they really partition traffic court with glass?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:40
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Is this a metaphor or do they really partition traffic court with glass? There's a big pane of one-way glass on the back wall of the traffic court courtroom. All the government attorneys, judges and police sit there when they're not up, sip complimentary government synthetic wine, laugh at the poors, and count their traffic ticket money.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:Question. Yes, sell it to the guys on the other side of the non-compete. Even better - go talk to an attorney. Hermsgervørden posted:... how many lawyers are in it to see that the laws is properly carried out and just outcomes are achieved, and how many are just in it for the money? Have you considered that maybe the contracts lawyer wants to ensure that contract law is properly carried out and leads to just outcomes that are specified in the contract. Working for peanuts doesn't mean you care about the law more or less than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Is this a metaphor or do they really partition traffic court with glass? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzF5VawGgiA Notice the graffiti on the traffic lawyer? The glass partition saves on aesthetic and mechanical maintenance and accentuates the bleak hopelessness and alienation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:He's right. This is the sort of question that (a) depends on the details and (b) you can't cheap out on and go with free advice. The purchaser is not going to be interested in "well, i heard from this guy on the internet..." that he's secure. The buyer should also retain their own lawyer, because they aren't going to be interested in your lawyers opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:25
|
|