Each link in the chain of Arrest -> Charge -> Conviction, requires a different level of confidence that a crime has been committed by the accused.
Walking out of a shop with goods that are on sale in that shop, with the shopkeeper shouting that you haven't paid, looks sufficiently like a crime for an arrest, just not for a charge or conviction.
Until the police officer talks to (A) the shop owner, (B) the suspect, or (C) their named colleague who would know factually that no crime was committed.
For what you say to make sense, the arrest has to be made in complete isolation without talking to any single party involved. Seems like a stretch.
In the UK: threatening behaviour, and if any physical contact with counter staff of any kind, a push, a shove or (not sure about this) even twisting the laptop out of their hand, assault.
Not a good idea. Just either pay or go through the case and get it released after evidence use. Depends on value to you of laptop back now I suppose.
> In the UK: threatening behaviour, and if any physical contact with counter staff of any kind, a push, a shove or (not sure about this) even twisting the laptop out of their hand, assault.
> Not a good idea.
Nobody, except you, has suggesting doing any of that. So that's a rather big leap.
It requires threats of violence which nobody has suggesting using.
I find it very interesting how people cannot stay on topic. The topic is: if you walk out with it, is it legal.
But yet all people want to bring up is things outside the scope, like threats, violence, breaking things, and so fourth.
Where did these things come from? All I see people keep saying is "that isn't legal" but when did anyone in this entire discussion suggesting using such things?
Honestly it just seems trolling to bring it up at all. Why not point out that murdering the shopkeeper and emptying the cash register isn't legal either, if we're just tacking on random escalations that weren't suggested? Makes about as much sense.
I think my comment was on topic but perhaps not expressed clearly enough.
If someone did take their stolen laptop back then theft may not have been committed, but in the UK at least, a reasonably creative police officer would be able to find other grounds for an arrest, believe me. Any attempt to evade arrest would itself be a crime of course.
I accept that the situation in the USA may well be different.
"An assault takes place when the Defendant causes the victim to apprehend the use of immediate, unlawful physical violence upon them. In a common assault charge, no physical violence needs to follow the threat; just the fear experienced by the victim is inclusive of this charge. If physical violence does occur immediately after an assault, the Defendant will also be charged with a battery offence.
The Mens Rea (guilty mind) of a common assault is that the Defendant either intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to fear some degree of contact or violence. In the case R v. Ireland it was determined that a common assault can occur without verbal warning or action. Several silent phone calls made to the victim, which caused them to fear violence in the immediate future, constituted an assault offence."
What I'm trying to communicate here is the idea that even if someone where to take back their own laptop from a shop that was trying to sell it, there may be charges that could be brought if the shop wanted to push the situation and the police attending decided to act. The counter staff simply need to describe the owner's behaviour as threatening.
I do accept the point that a theft may not have been committed.
