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 don't think any jail time is warranted. If he winds up getting charged, perhaps he should be required to do community service and told to stop doing these things.
He's no real danger or threat to the community. He's just a nuisance to others, at worst. He clearly has some mental health issues, at 45 still living at home with his mother.
I saw his dating profile, that included a photo of a man's super-muscular body that turned out to not be him. It didn't show his face. Back when I did online dating, I knew right away when I saw these types of pictures that it was some weirdo or fake profile. I'm just really amazed these women fell for it. A lot of my sympathy for them vanished when I saw that. They have a lot of growing up to do. There is no Don Juan out there who is going to sweep them off their feet. They need to learn to be happy with an ordinary guy.
Off topic, and not speaking for that guy specifically, but older adults living with parents doesn't always = "mental health issues". Maybe their parent is sick and needs to be cared for by their children. Maybe the parent is actually living with their child in their child's home. Also, plenty of less-privileged cultures around the world have inter-generational homes where it's not unusual to have 2 or 3 generations of a family living under the same roof. (My dad's side of the family in Hong Kong is in this situation because the cost of separate housing is insane.) I just had to mention this because it's a pet peeve when someone makes a sweeping generalization based on one's living situation.
I agree though that dating profiles without a face pic are an immediate red flag. They're either fake profiles, or the person is clearly trying to hide their identity for some reason or another (like cheating on their spouse/bf/gf, was a convict, etc...). Stay away from these.
Ok. There was a post upthread, where there's actually a term for women who go out to eat with men just to purposely charge them for an expensive dinner, and then leave. Sneating, I believe it is. So when there's a word for something, it's a thing. But ok, you haven't seen it happen.
I don't think we're disagreeing on much. I agree this guy is a cad, that he's going out with women so he can walk the check (which he apparently does at salons without having a date present). I agree he's been a nuisance to businesses and that he owes some back money, and fines.
What I don't agree on, is this. Is a man responsible for paying for the food his date has eaten? Because that's the crux of this here. His dining and dashing his own check doesn't rise to a felony - apparently the $950 threshhold. They're having to charge him with his date's food also to rise to a felony.
So. Do we agree on that? That a man isn't criminally responsible for paying for food his date eats?
Yes, I agree with that. But these women were not his dates. He pretended they were, but his intent from the get go was to defraud them into buying him a $200 meal.
Our jails are already over-filled and new ones being built at alarming rates, so forgive me for thinking a non-violent crime of stealing a few overpriced food items and a salon "do" (probably should be jailed for going to a salon instead of barbershop though) doesn't warrant up to 13 years locked-up.
I don't think we're in disagreement about the guy being bad. We just disagree on the amount effort placed in this particular law enforcement.
Thanks for clarifying the Priscilla/JerZ quote.
He is not going to get 13 years, Jeez!
If someone is arrested and charged with 10 counts of shoplifting. and shoplifting carries a max sentence of 3 years, it can be reported in a headline that the person faces a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. But odds are the person will get probation to 6 months. No one is going to jail for 30 years for shoplifting, and this guy isn't going to jail either most likely.
It was apparently more than one salon, the article said he was "famous for it" by then with police.
I don't get people. A man got beat to death for grabbing a guy's wallet and many people in the thread were like "Yeah, the guy deserved it!" This is theft too, he has a history of theft of services, but here everyone wants the guy to go free to steal more. Why is theft of services so okay but theft of goods deserves death or at least a long prison sentence?
In my observation, people don't make up words and write articles with quotes from people who have experienced that, if it isn't a thing.
The word "sneating" does come up on a couple of tabloids (and nowhere else) during a Google search, but quotes from anonymous Tinder users don't make it much of a "thing" imo.
Yes, I agree with that. But these women were not his dates. He pretended they were, but his intent from the get go was to defraud them into buying him a $200 meal.
That's really a civil issue then, not a criminal one. And these women would need to prove in court that he agreed to pay for everything. That's not easy to prove.
Just because someone made up a nasty word for something doesn't mean it's a "thing." All it means is that someone made up a nasty word.
I'm sure there are some dinner whores here and there, but I doubt they're the ones asking the guys out to dinner, implying or straight out telling them that it's their treat, and then skipping immediately after finishing the meal.
"Sneating," to me, is kinda similar to a guy misleading a girl and making him think he's interested in her when he's really only interested in "one thing." Both things are shady, but both involve the other person to be a willing participant (even if under misleading pretenses).
Ordering a bunch of food and sneaking out without paying is a different thing entirely.
That's really a civil issue then, not a criminal one. And these women would need to prove in court that he agreed to pay for everything. That's not easy to prove.
It's not civil, because he conned them/defrauded them from the beginning. It isn't any different then if he took their money playing 3 card Monty on the bus (which I lost $50 doing on my first trip to NYC as a teen). Again, intent has everything to do with it. You're still trying to take this out of context and make out like he was going on actual dates with people rather than engaging in a fraud campaign with dating as the bait to get his victims.
I honestly don't think the women care if they get their money, I didn't read about any of them suing him, in any case. They want to see a crook get what's coming to him, and hopefully banned from every dating website in the world.
The dashing part makes it easier to prove. There are many men who will want to split the check when the time comes, etc, but not very men who pretend they need to use the rest room and run out the back door. If you read the articles, these women were humiliated waiting and waiting, and it was finally restaurant staff that discovered he actually walked out ages ago and had to tell the women. The restaurant workers were appalled, and I'm sure they would help the women. Combined with the number of women and his history of other petty crimes, I think it's quite clear it wasn't a dating miscommunication and will be clear to a judge as well.
It was not the women who went to the cops but the other way around. A cop that had been looking for this guy for the other thefts contacted the woman after she posted her story on social media about him and word started to get around about the others, and asked her and the other women to press charges so they could finally get the guy.
That's really a civil issue then, not a criminal one. And these women would need to prove in court that he agreed to pay for everything. That's not easy to prove.
Maybe it wouldn't be. The dates were arranged via OLD. It might be in writing.
If someone is arrested and charged with 10 counts of shoplifting. and shoplifting carries a max sentence of 3 years, it can be reported in a headline that the person faces a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. But odds are the person will get probation to 6 months. No one is going to jail for 30 years for shoplifting, and this guy isn't going to jail either most likely.
It was apparently more than one salon, the article said he was "famous for it" by then with police.
I don't get people. A man got beat to death for grabbing a guy's wallet and many people in the thread were like "Yeah, the guy deserved it!" This is theft too, he has a history of theft of services, but here everyone wants the guy to go free to steal more. Why is theft of services so okay but theft of goods deserves death or at least a long prison sentence?
His bail is over $300,000, if that doesn’t prove the intent to actually put him away for 13 years, it’s an extreme abuse of prosecutorial discretion. I suspect it’s an extreme abuse of prosecutorial discretion (and a really ignorant judge going along with such an excessive charge and bail amount). IMHO it’s cases like these that completely discredit the justice system.
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.
