+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: When tools are outlawed... (/thread-5031.html)
When tools are outlawed... - wakim - 01-07-2006
Found in today's newspaper:
"[...] 43, of [...], was arrested outside the [...] Mall Dec. 17 on four counts of retail theft after officers found stolen clothing in her vehicle. Police were alerted by employees at the [...] store who reported seeing someone removing anti-theft devices from clothing. She was charged with possession of an anti-theft detection device remover after officers found a pair of needle nosed pliers in her pocket."
Tip-off the police department about the location of your local hardware store; I bet not only are these stores in possession of great quantites of anti-theft detection device removers, but that they are also guilty of possessing them with intent to distribute.
When tools are outlawed... - Urza-DSF - 01-07-2006
Hmmm, odd choice of words for sure, but I would count that as probable cause. I mean who carries around a set of pliers in front of a mall?
When tools are outlawed... - SwissMercenary - 01-07-2006
Urza-DSF,Jan 7 2006, 08:59 PM Wrote:Hmmm, odd choice of words for sure, but I would count that as probable cause. I mean who carries around a set of pliers in front of a mall?
[right][snapback]98877[/snapback][/right]
What if he used his teeth to remove the anti-theft thingies?
Or a house key?
Besides, I always carry needle-nose pliers around to apply minor tweaks to my lockpicks! :ph34r: :shuriken:
When tools are outlawed... - Doc - 01-08-2006
Crap. I carry around a leatherman tool everyplace I go. Pliers, screwdrivers, a blade, can opener, etc.
Sounds dangerous!
When tools are outlawed... - DeeBye - 01-08-2006
Doc,Jan 7 2006, 09:39 PM Wrote:Crap. I carry around a leatherman tool everyplace I go. Pliers, screwdrivers, a blade, can opener, etc.
Sounds dangerous!
[right][snapback]98883[/snapback][/right]
She was found with the stolen goods in her vehicle. She would never have been charged with the "possession of an anti-theft detection device remover" otherwise.
Go ahead and carry pliers with you into stores. That's perfectly fine. Just don't use them to help you steal stuff.
When tools are outlawed... - SwissMercenary - 01-08-2006
DeeBye,Jan 8 2006, 02:51 AM Wrote:She was found with the stolen goods in her vehicle. She would never have been charged with the "possession of an anti-theft detection device remover" otherwise.
Go ahead and carry pliers with you into stores. That's perfectly fine. Just don't use them to help you steal stuff.
[right][snapback]98885[/snapback][/right]
So charge her with something sensible. If I go and strangle someone to death with my bare hands/shoelaces, I'd probably be charged with murder/manslaughter, rather then murder/manslaughter and "Possession with the intent of use of a deadly weapon."
When tools are outlawed... - DeeBye - 01-08-2006
SwissMercenary,Jan 8 2006, 02:32 AM Wrote:So charge her with something sensible.
[right][snapback]98898[/snapback][/right]
She is being charged multiple times with something sensible.
Quote:[...] 43, of [...], was arrested outside the [...] Mall Dec. 17 on four counts of retail theft after officers found stolen clothing in her vehicle.
The possession of pliers charge is an add-on. It will be used to help prove that she had intent to shoplift stuff if this ever goes to court, just in case the stolen goods in her car isn't enough evidence.
When tools are outlawed... - kandrathe - 01-09-2006
DeeBye,Jan 8 2006, 02:12 AM Wrote:She is being charged multiple times with something sensible.
The possession of pliers charge is an add-on. It will be used to help prove that she had intent to shoplift stuff if this ever goes to court, just in case the stolen goods in her car isn't enough evidence.
[right][snapback]98900[/snapback][/right]
Quote:A person commits unlawful possession of a theft detection device
remover when he knowingly possesses any tool or device designed to allow the
removal of any theft detection device from any merchandise without the
permission of the merchant or person owning or holding the merchandise.
That's one problem today with criminal justice, when they toss on all kinds of additional silly charges just to make life more difficult for the perpetrator. She must have resisted arrest or PO'd the arresting officers. Like the arsonist who gets cited for not having a burning permit, or the murderer who gets cited for discharging a weapon within city limits.
I've mellowed with age, but I used to despise cops when I was young. Out in the sticks where I grew up they would harass any juvenile not under parental supervision. Nine times out of ten the kids they saw were probably up to no good, so they probably deserved watching. But it sure sent us the wrong message. When I was 15, a friend was walking home one night and got arrested for not having identification on him. After that, whenever I was out after curfew I would head for the woods, or swamps whenever I saw a cop around. Anyway, most of the kids I grew up with felt like criminals by the way we were treated.
When tools are outlawed... - Ashock - 01-09-2006
kandrathe,Jan 9 2006, 06:00 AM Wrote:I've mellowed with age, but I used to despise cops when I was young.
[right][snapback]98953[/snapback][/right]
I used to like and respect cops when I was a teenager. I started despising them with age.
-A
When tools are outlawed... - wakim - 01-09-2006
A quick sample of laws regarding possession of devices for removing anti-theft devices.
New Hampshire
Mississippi
Idaho
New Hampshire's, Mississippi's, and Idaho's language is such that for a tool to be an anti-theft device remover it must have been "designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device...." Pliers are not theft detection device removers as they were not designed to remove theft detection devices - pliers were designed prior to the advent of anti-theft devices, so they couldn't have been made for that purpose. So in this case, the woman in question clearly would not have been guilty of possession of a device designed to remove theft detection devices.
In an example of legislative lucidity, Mississippi's language for what constitutes punishable possession of the device in question is such that one doesn't illegally possess such a device unless he also has intent to employ the device for theft detection device removal.