Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I totally missed that the store was closed in the headline. /headsmack
That changes everything.
You are right, they trespassed.
I was simply looking at the paying for the items thing with nobody there.
It makes this worse because they committed a crime and then the story tries to go on about how honest they are because they paid for the goods. If they were so honest, they would have respected the closed sign. Them taking items (even with paying for them) without permission while a store is closed (closed store implies sales are not permitted) shows a certain disrespect for property ownership.
Now I am not saying these kids are thugs, but they do need a lesson of respect for private property.
The lights were on and the door was unlocked. It's not like they broke in.
What the hell were they doing in a closed store? That is trespassing. Don't even try and say they didn't know, they knew fully well it was closed. Stop praising this, what they did was illegal from the start even if they did pay for it.
The lights were on and the door was open at the convenience store. Any one of us would have assumed it was open. Are you seriously arguing against that?
The lights were half-lit, nobody was present, the store hours are on the window right next to the entry door.
What I am pointing out is that the conditions were not... logical for an "open store". The lights were half-lit and nobody responded to them.
This should have caused them to investigate further "Hey guys, is the store closed? What does the sign say out there? Oh crap, its past 6pm, they are closed, lets head out".
That is what they should have done.
I am not saying they are bad kids, just they missed some things and should have been paying more attention.
Glorifying the fact that they paid when nobody was there? Well... that is stupid, they SHOULD be paying, there is no "good deed" in doing what you are supposed to be doing anyway.
The lights were on and the door was unlocked. It's not like they broke in.
You are missing the point.
The lights were half-lit, the door wasn't "open", it had a malfunctioning lock (not their fault, just saying this store was completely in close mode). Lights are often left on in half-lighting, so some lights being on is not an indication of an "open store". What indicates an "open store" is the signs and the sign is clearly marked next to the door.
So no, they did not show intent to break in, they just didn't pay attention to the obvious signs (half-lit store, nobody around, store sign saying hours of operation).
So as I said, I am not calling them criminals, just saying that they were technically trespassing and had an obligation to determine such when they realized the store was not operating in normal fashion.
Yes he is. They would have been arrested otherwise.
Not true.
Trespass requires pressing charges. The owner obvious did not press charges.
Also, it is somewhat a questionable issue. In order for them to be charged, they would have to show that they knew the store was closed. This wouldn't be hard, the signs are clearly posted and the conditions (nobody present, lights half-lit) would support a strong case for such.
Obviously she didn't press charges, and was more relieved that they didn't take anything.
Never assume that when a person is not arrested, especially in terms of property violations of another, that it is because they committed no crime.
You could steal from me, and If I chose not to press charges, they would not arrest you. So your reasoning is invalid.
The lights were half-lit, nobody was present, the store hours are on the window right next to the entry door.
What I am pointing out is that the conditions were not... logical for an "open store". The lights were half-lit and nobody responded to them.
This should have caused them to investigate further "Hey guys, is the store closed? What does the sign say out there? Oh crap, its past 6pm, they are closed, lets head out".
That is what they should have done.
I am not saying they are bad kids, just they missed some things and should have been paying more attention.
Glorifying the fact that they paid when nobody was there? Well... that is stupid, they SHOULD be paying, there is no "good deed" in doing what you are supposed to be doing anyway.
This was not trespassing as two of the three conditions regularly used for trespass cases was not met.
This was not trespassing as two of the three conditions regularly used for trespass cases was not met.
Harm and intent.
Sorry, but there is no condition for harm on trespass, if they harmed it would be another crime (destruction or theft of property).
The condition of intent is questionable and would be determined in court, but since there were no charges pressed, it is irrelevant.
Look up trespass law, it is pretty clear on the qualifications of it. Only intent is the issue and that is actually established by them entering without paying attention to the sign, staying while nobody was present and transacting business without the presence of the owner. You may be able to make a defense on intent, but remember... ignorance is not an excuse in the law. Them not paying attention to the sign can not be used as a defense against trespass. The sign clearly denotes the time of operation.
Basically, if my door is unlocked and my lights are on, yet I have a sign out saying closed or showing my business hours of operation, and you then enter? You are trespassing.
The lights were half-lit, nobody was present, the store hours are on the window right next to the entry door.
What I am pointing out is that the conditions were not... logical for an "open store". The lights were half-lit and nobody responded to them.
This should have caused them to investigate further "Hey guys, is the store closed? What does the sign say out there? Oh crap, its past 6pm, they are closed, lets head out".
That is what they should have done.
I am not saying they are bad kids, just they missed some things and should have been paying more attention.
Glorifying the fact that they paid when nobody was there? Well... that is stupid, they SHOULD be paying, there is no "good deed" in doing what you are supposed to be doing anyway.
Right, because when you are walking down the street talking to your friends, you pay that much attention to a store when you go into it. They did a good thing, end of story.
But hey, I guess there is always that guy who can find a problem with ANYthing, isn't there? Why can't you just say "good story" and leave it at that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
