Cops bust open face of Black Friday grandpa

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Exactly. It allows for reasonable stop and detainment until authorized law enforcement can be summoned to the merchant's location.

Again I have to ask what you are trying to argue here?
Watch the tape. Are you telling me you see reasonable stop and detainment?
What are you trying to argue here?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
As I said already the part A applies first. There has to be intent before part B, the method is even applied. Not the other way around.

Concealment is part of section A. It is #5 to be precise.

Originally posted by KendraSins
No. I apparently do not know the answer.

Really? So you expect everyone to believe that you are at a total loss as to whether assualt is a crime in Arizona? Try again.

I thought I did until I read your posts. You keep trying to paint the picture that this man was guilty of a crime all while completely ignoring the fact that the cop is also guilty of a crime. Now, going by your posts, apparently the cop is innocent and assault must not be against the law. Which is it?

Reread all of my posts in this thread and show me where I condone the police's actions if this man was purely shoplifting. If you are going to engage me in a debate than try and do it from somewhere other than appeals to emotion and purposeful obtuseness.

Originally posted by KendraSins
Again I have to ask what you are trying to argue here?
Watch the tape. Are you telling me you see reasonable stop and detainment?
What are you trying to argue here?

What tape? There is no tape. There is only the cell phone footage that comprises part of the incident. Where is what transipred prior to that? Where is the initial interaction between the the two parties? Stop being naive.

Edit to add: I see I will most likley not get a response from you since you have gotten yourself banned.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by: 5. Concealment.

So again. I'm repeating myself. Intent to deprive

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So again. I'm repeating myself. Intent to deprive

And so am I, as concealment, as defined in Arizona law, is intent. As far as Arizona is concerned, once you conceal merchandise you have displayed intent. It is than incumbant on the defendant to prove said intent was not to deprive the merchant of their goods, not the other way around.

That's not what the law says. It quite clearly says the other way around.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
That's not what the law says. It quite clearly says the other way around.

Here is the entire law, and it is quite clear:

2005 Arizona Code - Revised Statutes §13-1805 Shoplifting; detaining suspect; defense to wrongful detention; civil action by merchant; classification; public services in lieu of fines
Share |

A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:

Anyone who does any of the following has committed and act of shoplifting:

1. Removing any of the goods from the immediate display or from any other place within the establishment without paying the purchase price; or

2. Charging the purchase price of the goods to a fictitious person or any person without that person's authority; or

3. Paying less than the purchase price of the goods by some trick or artifice such as altering, removing, substituting or otherwise disfiguring any label, price tag or marking; or

4. Transferring the goods from one container to another; or

5. Concealment.

The defintion of concealment and the fact that intent is already implied by concealment:

B. Any person who knowingly conceals upon himself or another person unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment while within the mercantile establishment is presumed to have the necessary culpable mental state pursuant to subsection A of this section.

The remainder of the law is here for review:

C. A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person who is suspected of shoplifting as prescribed in subsection A of this section for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.

D. Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or criminal action against a peace officer, a merchant or an agent or employee of the merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful imprisonment or wrongful detention.

E. If a minor engages in conduct that violates subsection A of this section notwithstanding the fact that the minor may not be held responsible because of the person's minority, any merchant injured by the shoplifting of the minor may bring a civil action against the parent or legal guardian of the minor under either section 12-661 or 12-692.

F. Any merchant who is injured by the shoplifting of an adult or emancipated minor in violation of subsection A of this section may bring a civil action against the adult or emancipated minor pursuant to section 12-691.

G. Shoplifting property with a value of two thousand dollars or more or shoplifting property during any continuing criminal episode regardless of the value of the goods is a class 5 felony. Shoplifting property with a value of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars is a class 6 felony. Shoplifting property valued at less than one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor, unless the property is a firearm in which case the shoplifting is a class 6 felony. For the purposes of this subsection, "continuing criminal episode" means theft committed from at least three separate retail establishments within a period of three consecutive days.

H. In imposing sentence on a person who is convicted of violating this section, the court may require any person to perform public services designated by the court in addition to or in lieu of any fine that the court might impose.

I. A person who commits shoplifting and who has previously committed or been convicted within the past five years of two or more offenses involving burglary, shoplifting, robbery or theft or who in the course of shoplifting entered the mercantile establishment with an artifice, instrument, container, device or other article that was intended to facilitate shoplifting is guilty of a class 4 felony.

The question to you is; if he did not have implied intent as the Arizona law dictates than how could they have detained/stopped him in the first place? Intent is implied by concelament in Arizona, there is no other way to explain this.

Oh ffs. The law is quite clear. If I "conceal" the goods and then take them out and pay them at the cash register I have committed no shoplifting. It says "intent to deprive". Can we stop this now?

It's really not for me to decide his guilt or innocence, but I do know that if that is the punishment for shoplifting, it's cruel and unusual and he was deprived of due process.

Is the question whether he shoplifted or is the question is that police brutality?

If he is accused shoplifted, he can be tried by a jury.

When the police get accused of police brutality, oh, we might have it out here in the court of public opinion, but it means jack. Police judge their own- innocent usually it seems.

Police that get into situations like this need some judgement - officially- but citizens should be included.

Right now it's a bit us against them game. They even call 'us' civilians, as if they are something special and different.

Something's got to give soon because it's already broken. Just waiting on the flood.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Oh ffs. The law is quite clear. If I "conceal" the goods and then take them out and pay them at the cash register I have committed no shoplifting. It says "intent to deprive". Can we stop this now?

You are adding to the law via your own personal interpretation. There is no part in the Arizona law about removing merchandise from the establishment after concealing it, the act of concealment implies shoplifting in Arizona as it indicates intent.

I will ask again; if this were not the case then on what grounds would they be able to detain/arrest the person in the Original Post?

Originally posted by hadriana
Is the question whether he shoplifted or is the question is that police brutality?

Why does it need to be mutually exclusive? He could have shoplifted and they could have used excessive force if he was being compliant upon being confronted.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You mean like walking past the register? Your turn. Answer me this: How is "knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive" fullfilled if the goods are paid at the register?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Explanation: Then under the letter of the law just holding the product in ones hands or placing it in a basket is an ACT of concealment and although the act [of concealing] may be poorly performed it is still an act of obscuring the product!

Here is why ...

Hiding (Concealment) [wiki]

Hiding (also called abscondence or concealment) is obscuring something from view or rendering it inconspicuous.

Such as inconspicuously placing the product so its partially or fully obscured in a shopping basket or holding it in ones hands!



Personal Disclosure: If the person in question had not yet left the store then IMO no crime had yet been commited ... otherwise store security are just cherry picking as everytime you pick up a product you ARE breaking the law. You don't get to have it both ways ok!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You mean like walking past the register?

He did not walk past the register and was still on the sales floor. Again, if concealment is not shoplifting why was he stopped?

Your turn. Answer me this: How is "knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive" fullfilled if the goods are paid at the register?

My opinion is irrelevant, the Arizona law is clear, stuffing merchandise into your clothing, whether you intended or not to pay for it, is shoplifting.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: Then under the letter of the law just holding the product in ones hands or placing it in a basket is an ACT of concealment and although the act [of concealing] may be poorly performed it is still an act of obscuring the product!

Wrong. There is something called statutory interpretation which allows common sense to prevail in instances such as you used as an analogy. Placing merchandise in a basket would not be considered concealment for this very reason.

Here is why ...

Hiding (Concealment) [wiki]

Hiding (also called abscondence or concealment) is obscuring something from view or rendering it inconspicuous.

Such as inconspicuously placing the product so its partially or fully obscured in a shopping basket or holding it in ones hands!

The wikipedia interpretation of concealment is not what is being debated, the Arizona shoplifting law and its concealment statute are.

Personal Disclosure: If the person in question had not yet left the store then IMO no crime had yet been commited ... otherwise store security are just cherry picking as everytime you pick up a product you ARE breaking the law. You don't get to have it both ways ok!

Again, why was he detained for shoplifting prior to exiting the store (or even approaching the register) if this is not considered shoplifting in Arizona?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Nice dodge. I'm not going anywhere. Answer my question. Also the answer to why he was arrested is pretty obvious. The goons don't know their laws and their use of force protocols. Nothing unusual there.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Nice dodge.

There is no dodge, if goods are payed for at the register there is no theft, however the Arizona law considers concealment intent to shoplift.

Also the answer to why he was arrested is pretty obvious. The goons don't know their laws and their use of force protocols. Nothing unusual there.

The use of excessive force is not the point of contention.

So what you are now saying is they should not even have detained him? That concealment, according to the Arizona law, is not shoplifting?

Really?

Buckeye Assistant Police Chief Larry Hall said Saturday that Newman's case is "basically in the court's hands right now, as far as the resisting arrest and shoplifting goes." source

"There are four minutes before the video was taken that were not captured,” said Larry Hall, assistant police chief. “A specific video game was being released at that time. Everyone was grabbing at the boxes. One of the Walmart employees saw the suspect take a video, stick it into his waistband and conceal it. ”

Hall said a Walmart employee took Newman by the arm and escorted him to two off-duty police officers who were working as Black Friday security. source

From the supsects attorney:

Nolan said even if the police suspected Newman of shoplifting, the force was excessive. However, he believes there was no intent to shoplift or resist arrest. source

Notice he is not saying wrongful detainment. The attorney needs to prove there was no intent to shoplift by concealment because the act of concealment in Arizona is considered shoplifting. How could they have 'supsected him of shoplifting' if, as you and others maintain, he did not exit the store or pass the registers? There would be additional charges filed if this were so. The law in this case is quite clear.