North Charleston man facing federal charges over $.89 drink refill

Live5 WCSC ^ | 04/17/2014 | Sujata Jain

[tioga]

And the soda police couldn’t just aim him at the cashier and let him pay for the drink? Why the heck not? It didn’t just cost him $500, it cost him his job as well. Nothing like ruining a man for $.89.

[chaosagent]

Think about a typical cafeteria, you walk into the food service area, get a tray, pick up your entrée and fill a cup. You go to the register and pay. If you want to refill you have to go back into the food service area. I don’t understand why he would think that is a free refill. And knowing the way a lot of people act towards service folks these days, I could imagine the customer making a scene

---

Don’t know about your ‘typical’ cafeteria, but in the last week, I’ve been at two different hospital cafeterias.

Both had the drink dispenser right before the cash register and both have free drink refills. Plus the local Luby’s chain is exactly the same way.

[varyouga]

That's nothing. Here's the USC which would take a lifetime to read. This doesn't include all the various codes, regulations, etc set by the alphabet agencies.

"There are conflicting opinions on the number of federal crimes, but many have argued that there has been explosive growth and it has become overwhelming. In 1982, the U.S. Justice Department could not come up with a number, but estimated 3,000 crimes in the United States Code. In 1998, the American Bar Association (ABA) said that it was likely much higher than 3,000, but didn't give a specific estimate. In 2008, the Heritage Foundation published a report that put the number at a minimum of 4,450. When staff for a task force of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update its 2008 calculation of criminal offenses in the U.S.C. in 2013, the CRS responded that they lack the manpower and resources to accomplish the task." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code

[GladesGuru]

**** It says he got aggressive. If he had been pleasant and low key there would have been no problem. ****

The nice GubmentPerson said he got aggressive.

Details are significant.

;-)

[Pelham]

“I read through the posting. It says he got aggressive. If he had been pleasant and low key there would have been no problem.”

Oh please. There is no direct evidence in the article that Lewis got aggressive. There is only this bit of hearsay:

“A hospital spokesperson says it was her understanding that Lewis was aggressive during the confrontation.”

If you watched the video you can see that Lewis comes across as a polite young man. It’s very likely that Lewis was defensive when he was grabbed by the arm and accused of stealing- and that gets spun as “aggressive” by the VA in order to divert attention from their own kafkaesque behavior.

If you have ever worked in a government agency you would know the petty bureaucrat who thrives on power and loves the chance to punish minor infractions as if they were major crimes. The more punishment the better. These fools could easily have let the guy pay for his drink. But then they would have missed the chance to punish him as if he were a felon.

[Irenic]

Boy, you’re spreading the cheer. :p

It’s all so sad, isn’t it? Sad some days but mostly infuriating. We’re all ridin’ in the same boat but it seems most of the government employees only scramble for the best seat for the ride to the bottom of the lake.

[cquiggy]

Back in the early eighties I hired a lady that previously worked in the shopette (food mart) on a military base. Two years after she had come to work for me she was approached by investigators because an coworker from her time there had been arrested for stealing some cash. During their investigation she was asked if she had ever stolen anything from the store. She answered no and was then asked if she had ever carried home an ink pen. The cheap kind you see all over a military base with property of U.S. Government stamped on it. At that point she answered yes that she had carried those home in her pockets by accident but that she had returned them. Investigators then placed her under arrest and charged her with theft of government property. She had to pay enormous fines and was placed on probation she was also barred from going on the military base for three years.

[Rusty0604]

OMG

[BlueDragon]

What gives the officer 'authority' to ban the man from the property?

A citation or ticket can be written up, but the man is still allowed his day in court as to those charges (or should be, by law, if we are still following 'the law' here).

So what's up with banning him from the property, which equates with loss of his employment? By order or the "wanting to" of a policeman?

According to the news article, the po-leece said that "he", the (the chief policeman) "wanted" the construction worker "off of the property". According to "a hospital spokesperson" the construction worker was termed "aggressive".

What does that mean? Aggressive how? Was it when the worker was as insistent upon paying the 89 cents-- after it was brought more closely to his attention that he was required to do so at the otherwise self-serve soda fountain? The fact that the man did attempt to then rectify the situation but was not allowed to cannot but be included in wider considerations.

For that so-called aggression (if that be what that part is about) he loses his job? Or did the construction worker dare voice further complaint to the ticket itself, including something unspecified beyond speaking of how he was not allowed to pay for the drink once brought to his immediate attention? For something along those lines, just speaking words or expressing irritation -- or possibly for perceived "disrespect of officer' none of which are themselves crime, per se) the man is forever prohibited from the entire area (far beyond just the canteen itself) of public property? Really?

The policeman should be losing his job. Or perhaps -- forced to pay double the fine which he imposed, while whoever it is that trained the LEO should pay quadruple and lose in the very least -- their own government pension (gasp -- i'm such an aggressive "terrorist" for suggesting goobermint employees be held responsible for their own actions). But that's a matter left up to legislatures to yet enact...

If LEO's wages or pensions were nicked for causing harm to the public purse by inducing lawsuits, would that help curb this overreaching we keep seeing?

Or would that just serve to lead judges to deny justice to even more persons than "they" do now?

The construction worker may have been better off taking the ticket to court -first, from a purely legal standpoint. Now a judge may have further consequences to consider, beyond merely adjudicating a citation.

As to the citation ---- was it actual theft when the man was still in the same room as the soda machine? Did the sign say "must pay" (the 89 cents) or must pay BEFORE refilling?

How can it be theft -- if he did not leave the premises?

The LEO may have jumped the gun so to speak, and figuratively shot himself in the foot. The ticket indicates "theft", correct? I take it that it does not indicate intent to steal but instead a fait accompli.

It seems to me that it could be (and should be, if possible?) argued that the item (the soda pop in the cup) was not in any unusual manner concealed, like -- he put it in a pocket or otherwise hid or attempted to concealed the "item" in or under his clothing.

Having not left the premises of the canteen (if that is how it went down) then where is the theft?

But if he was outside the door of the canteen, the construction worker has less solid grounds for objection.

But what the hey -- the goobermint frequently tries (puts on trial) people in the press, before a case ever goes to trial. They can stand to have a taste of their own medicine now and then...

I do hope the young man can find a good attorney, and has thousands of $$$, or can find a good one willing to take the case on contingency.

At arraignment or preliminary hearing for the citation, while entering plea of "not guilty", at that point hand the judge then also directly, properly formatted request (plea or prayer) for injunctive relief, or declaratory relief as towards the issue of the construction worker being barred from the premises (thus equating that the young man be barred from the premises of 'job site', thus in effect losing his job) --- before determination of guilt or innocence as to allegation of theft of 89 cents worth of fountain service beverage has been formally determined.

Even then -- a finding of guilt does not empower LEO's to function as administrative overseers in regards to employees of contractors. To effectively and legally ban the man from the premises entirely, does there not need be more than just the expressed desire of a LEO for that final outcome?

The unspecified charge of "aggressiveness" exists only in the media thus far -- unless there be some notation on the citation.

If it boils down to "attitude" not to the tastes of LEO -- where and how does that equate with being barred from the entire premises? By what authority --by law does the LEO have to give order for the man to not be present on that piece of "government property" (the hospital ground themselves) even if he did walk entirely out of the door of the 'canteen' at the hospital, with a refill of soda pop in the same cup he previously purchased at the same facility?

[Rusty0604]

“Lewis and his fiancé have contacted the Internal Affairs Office in Columbia. He says he will contest the fine in federal court.”

Even if he won, it wouldn’t get his job back. I doubt if he wins since the gov’t is involved.

Did you see this?

“Cop beats up model Air Force captain in his own home, issues arrest weeks later”

An Air Force captain discovered he was banned from Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California, due to pending charges against him from a previous encounter with a cop who had tried to arrest him for entering his own home.
Apparently, a neighbor had seen a man entering Aquino’s home, and reported a possible burglary to the authorities.

The charges — resisting arrest and obstructing an officer...“At that moment I’m like, ‘Excuse me sir, but who are you? And why are you here?’” said Aquino in a statement.

Aquino, who is well aware of his Constitutional rights, asked the officer if he was being detained. The officer said that he was. Aquino showed the officer — a deputy with the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department — his military ID, but did not hand over the card. The officer interpreted this move as a hostile act, and proceeded to tackle Aquino, slam his head into the ground and put him in a choke hold.

The police report described the officer’s actions more favorably.

“The male then pulled his hand away from me, thereby moving the card away from my hand,” said the report. “I decided at that point I would detain him physically and place him into handcuffs.”

The report does mention, however, that the officer considered drawing his weapon on Aquino, even as he sat on top of him.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/17/cop-beats-up-model-air-force-captain-in-his-own-home-issues-arrest-weeks-later/#ixzz2zC32sKrR

[deport]

Question—why in tarnation isn’t that dispenser behind a counter then?!

*****************

Sounds like $525 rather than $0.89. Big income increase.

[Labyrinthos]

Why do we even need a VA police department? Seriously?

[BlueDragon]

Did you see this?

Now that you mention it, I did, but it had slipped my mind.

Coming back to me now, is on a thread here on FR where that was given a bit of a going-over, one made mention of a related issue in all of this, which is nationwide; we are seeing more & more former "military" LEO's turn to civilian law enforcement roles.

Part of the ever-increasing, badge-heavy "respect MY authoritah' " phenom with it's attendant less-than desirable fruit, is coming from the training LEO receives, with more of the "us" versus "them" mindset being implanted there, then further nourished in LEO environs which these same 'officers of the law' then spend their careers in.

I don't know what it's going to take to pluck the weedy growth out from among the righteous and needful wheat -- but law enforcement of many stripe seems to be growing less than accountable for their own actions -- since many or most are not only trained to tell lies and manipulate persons as acceptable part of their day-to-day duty, but then apparently tell lies formally in court document and testimony also to cover their own unlawful misdeeds.

From the principles "to whom much is given, much is required" and "priests are doubly accountable" --under Hebrew 'religious' law, anyway, which is part of our Judeo-Christian cultural roots, along with "judgement begins in the House of the Lord", we do need to find better ways to bring these persons who would be our rulers into better & more full account.

If prosecutors & judges will not even much attempt to do so, but are themselves (as they have always been?) part of the problem -- then what is it going to take?

Interestingly enough, though it may not appear directly effective upon it's surface, what comes to mind as I am certain has and does with many others here, is 2 Chronicles 7:14

if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Along with

You have not because you ask not

which could possibly also include legal "prayer" to courts and legislature, which is what FreeRepublic was rather about from it's own inception?

We can organize for action here, yet I am led to believe that the best and most positive effects thus far achieved through the efforts of a great many -- have also included prayer to even God. Where else can one go for best instruction, which when once understood, then be followed by hoped for response from Him, even for Him to led us in all our ways.

Yet that response, that leading if it can be found --- does require action on our own part, if it be only knowing when best to sit on our own hands (so to speak) and when to pick up a megaphone and start screaming "bloody murder!"

Vote, organize, agitate and irritate? Yes, we can do that. Do like the lefty-leaners do, and use the legal system, the media, and the electoral process too (what's left of these?) to best advantage. So far--what else? -- short of that which we would prefer to avoid.

And pray, without ceasing. I hear rumor that Jim Thompson guy does so. We must do also

So please, let us continue -- and do better yet than we have, is my prayer. Lead us, oh God. not to be confused with Yoda, of course ;^')

[johngrace]

Terrible.

[Sequoyah101]

And things like THIS my FRiends is why it takes a damned army to enforce the freaking laws.

They are UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, UNEQUALLY ENFORCED, PUNISHMENT NOT PROPORTIONAL TO THE OFFENSE AND ON AND ON AND ON.

Somebody needs to follow the fool around who turned this guy in and the other fool who made this an offense that can be persecuted.