Go to 4:26 and watch the security footage
She didn’t leave the store all the way because she got caught and stopped after passing the first set of double doors.
read minds brehs.
they need to prove
intent.
before leaving the shop intent is typically signalled by actions such as concealing items, changing price tags/bar codes etc.
she did none of those.
defense lawyer needs to argue that she had no intention to leave the premises and that the security acted precipitously.
That’s the point of no return and attempted theft
the point of no return is leaving the premises where she comes from.
theft requires
intent.
the law:
"Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property"
www.law.cornell.edu
lawyer needs to argue that she was not familiar with american systems and was busy with an emergency on the phone.
she moved to the doors to get a better signal but did not leave.
-
someone visited us from denmark last weekend. they walked past the auto tills with an item in their hand due to confusion and imperative (to prevent someone taking stuff from their trolley which they had left alone by the exit). we called them back.
thievery in denmark is much rarer so it didn't occur to them that someone might steal from their trolley. similarly they didn't think that they could be accused of something just for passing a line. high suspicion and criminal hyper vigilance is just not a thing there.
stupid? check. fish-out-of-water? check. dangerous? check. theft? no, as there was no intent.
now if i had done it, intent would be more likely because i know the local systems.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
never coming back...
That’s a damn work shift. Could’ve been at work making that money. And she talking about she wants to pay after getting caught 
too late.
