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.
A Texas prankster who partook in the viral trend of licking ice cream in cartons of Blue Bell and placing them back in grocery store freezers has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.
Yes, a very stupid thing to do. I would have fought the charge if I was him, though, as he ultimately paid for the ice cream. Being stupid isn't criminal. According to Texas Penal Code Section 28.03, criminal mischief occurs when an individual intentionally damages or destroys property, tampers with property, causes a loss of inconvenience to the property owner, or creates markings of some kind on an owner's property.
I argue that such a law was never intended to cover "damage" or "tampering" to consumables that you were intended to and did buy. I see plenty of people opening up bottles of soda to drink while they shop, but then of course pay for the soda when they are checking out. I think its ridiculous to argue that they are guilty of criminal mischief.
Another thing, he theoretically have purchased the ice cream first and then pulled the same stunt, posting the video online. In such a case, there would be no question that he would be untouchable. Yet, the "damage" would be the same per the video footage uploaded to the internet.
Yes, a very stupid thing to do. I would have fought the charge if I was him, though, as he ultimately paid for the ice cream. Being stupid isn't criminal. According to Texas Penal Code Section 28.03, criminal mischief occurs when an individual intentionally damages or destroys property, tampers with property, causes a loss of inconvenience to the property owner, or creates markings of some kind on an owner's property.
I argue that such a law was never intended to cover "damage" or "tampering" to consumables that you were intended to and did buy. I see plenty of people opening up bottles of soda to drink while they shop, but then of course pay for the soda when they are checking out. I think its ridiculous to argue that they are guilty of criminal mischief.
Another thing, he theoretically have purchased the ice cream first and then pulled the same stunt, posting the video online. In such a case, there would be no question that he would be untouchable. Yet, the "damage" would be the same per the video footage uploaded to the internet.
Ultimately being the key word. He put the ice cream back for others to buy. Def. criminal mischief.
Ultimately being the key word. He put the ice cream back for others to buy. Def. criminal mischief.
No, its not. That was a stunt and there was no chance that someone would have picked up that carton as he took it and paid for it right after the filming ended from what I gather (unless I'm misunderstanding something).
No, its not. That was a stunt and there was no chance that someone would have picked up that carton as he took it and paid for it right after the filming ended from what I gather (unless I'm misunderstanding something).
"Police visited the store and verified he did in fact purchase the container, but Walmart had already spent money to replace its inventory of ice cream due to the widely seen video, WOAI reports."
"Police visited the store and verified he did in fact purchase the container, but Walmart had already spent money to replace its inventory of ice cream due to the widely seen video, WOAI reports."
That^^ is criminal mischief.
No, that's not. And I posted the criminal mischief code language in this thread. That's Walmart overreacting/taking safety preacautions based on the video posted. Walmart taking the step to remove and replace all of the BB in the section is NOT the suspect/licker destroying property. That's the property owner destroying property in order to assuage public concern for the product following the release of the video.
Now, I personally think what the suspect/licker did should be criminal (specifically, uploading his disgusting behavior to the web without a notice that it was a stunt and that he purchased the carton), but that's another story.
No, that's not. And I posted the criminal mischief code language in this thread. That's Walmart overreacting/taking safety preacautions based on the video posted. Walmart taking the step to remove and replace all of the BB in the section is NOT the suspect/licker destroying property. That's the property owner destroying property in order to assuage public concern for the product following the release of the video.
Now, I personally think what the suspect/licker did should be criminal (specifically, uploading his disgusting behavior to the web without a notice that it was a stunt and that he purchased the carton), but that's another story.
Give it up, trying to defend this criminal! What he did was disgusting, and he correctly was charged with a crime, as he should have been!
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.
