Law School Discussion

College Football

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #870 on: November 16, 2005, 11:06:51 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.


oops, nm. that wasn't you.  sorry.

either way.  i don't really see what the problem is with what i said. 

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #871 on: November 16, 2005, 11:09:07 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.

Im pretty sure I didnt say that...

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #872 on: November 16, 2005, 11:11:09 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.

Im pretty sure I didnt say that...

sorry, got confused by responding to two different posters.  see edit above.

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #873 on: November 16, 2005, 11:11:47 AM »
The probable cause that the security personnel had was that the clerk had a suspicion.  The security guard was acting on that suspicion.  Now, was it a faulty judgement of the clerk to immediately call security when she suspected something?  After all, she could have just gone into the dressing room herself to see if the skirt was still in there.  However, time was of the essence because Ruskie was walking out of the store; she wasn't staying to browse any further.  The clerk called security in the best interests of time.  The security guard did just what he should have done, which is to politely ask Ruskie to come back in until it was cleared up.  Her rights were not infringed upon at all.  It's understandable that she may have been miffed, no one is questioning that (at least I'm not).  It was the follow-up saying that she was "wrongly accused" for shoplifting after the occurence that the security personnel let her go once the item was discovered that highlights her character as an alarmist and a hand-out seeker.

1) probable cause is more than someone's gut suspicion.  there's a whole body of case law on the topic, so you might wanna check it out before spouting off legal terms like you know what they mean.  but to give you a quick rule of thumb, it has to be a 50%+ chance for the suspicion to be probable cause.  observing someone walk into a dressing room wearing a black top (short sleeve) while carrying a black top (long sleeve) and observing the same person leave in a short sleeve black top hardly gives us an assurance of 50% or greater that they are shoplifting.

2) if they were actually polite to me, i would not have been as mortified and as alarmed by the situation.

3) my dad makes more an hour than the entire staff of dillard's combined.  i don't need hand-outs.

I forgot what type of person you were...I was actually on your side on that issue so you can go ahead and suck it ruskie

how exactly do you claim to be on my side when you call me an alarmist and a hand-out seeker?  i was with you all up until that part.

Im pretty sure I didnt say that...

sorry, got confused by responding to two different posters.  see edit above.

noted.  I retract my comment :)

tegra8

Re: College Football
« Reply #874 on: November 16, 2005, 11:39:09 AM »
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #875 on: November 16, 2005, 11:40:49 AM »
man I hate having to say that texas will win the title, but alas, Im afraid it is true

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #876 on: November 16, 2005, 12:53:22 PM »
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

vandy wants blood, but i say ut...by no more than 5.

usf should and will make it to a bowl.  taking out louisville is no joke.  big ups to them for that.

re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.

re spurrier: ah @#!* him. he's not as good as he used to be and not quite as much  fun to hate.  if we get chow, spurrier will become a non-issue.

young for heisman? yeah i could  dig it.

arkansas does suck more than ut...they might be one of the two or three teams in the SEC that suck worse.

be10dwn

Re: College Football
« Reply #877 on: November 16, 2005, 12:55:56 PM »
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

vandy wants blood, but i say ut...by no more than 5.

usf should and will make it to a bowl.  taking out louisville is no joke.  big ups to them for that.

re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.

re spurrier: ah @#!* him. he's not as good as he used to be and not quite as much  fun to hate.  if we get chow, spurrier will become a non-issue.

young for heisman? yeah i could  dig it.

arkansas does suck more than ut...they might be one of the two or three teams in the SEC that suck worse.

chill with the arkansas sucking, at least we have an excuse, Tennesee was in the top five at the beginning of the season

matts720

  • ****
  • 832
  • Let's Go Nova!!!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football
« Reply #878 on: November 16, 2005, 12:56:39 PM »
man I hate having to say that texas will win the title, but alas, Im afraid it is true

I could so see Mack Brown blowing one of the last 2 games on the schedule and turning the BCS into a mess again...

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #879 on: November 16, 2005, 01:02:51 PM »
WTF!?!?  All this stemming out of a damn sorostitute joke... sheesh


Football people

Does UT have a chance in hell vs. Vandy? toss up/doubtful
Can USF win out and go to a BCS bowl? hope not, SEC champ would destroy us
When will Spurrier stop being such a prick? never
SC will not be national champions this year
Vince YOung deserves the Heisman
Oh and Arkansas sucks more than UT


there, that should piss off enough people to get back on topic

vandy wants blood, but i say ut...by no more than 5.

usf should and will make it to a bowl.  taking out louisville is no joke.  big ups to them for that.

re: usc's national championship....well, kinda not.  but a related question.  a couple years back usc was undefeated, didn't play in the title game and still whined its way to a split title.  why was the same not true of auburn last year.  oh, and since i don't consider the split title validly obtained, at best, they have a shot at a second title this year.  i take texas over usc, but my guess is either miami or vtech could handle them mightily.

re spurrier: ah @#!* him. he's not as good as he used to be and not quite as much  fun to hate.  if we get chow, spurrier will become a non-issue.

young for heisman? yeah i could  dig it.

arkansas does suck more than ut...they might be one of the two or three teams in the SEC that suck worse.

chill with the arkansas sucking, at least we have an excuse, Tennesee was in the top five at the beginning of the season

this IS very true.