Charges dropped...

[yeah]

wheres all the cryers blaming bernstein like they used to blame jessamy

[Buford]

wheres all the cryers blaming bernstein like they used to blame jessamy

Raping the local 7-11 vs Curb-stomping someones head

Bernstein.....Jessamy

[karlydee]

Inane response since none of those scenarios are on point as to the allegations in this case. You try to steal from my store, i justifiably try to stop you from doing that and you punch me in the case. Intent easily inferred.

You hit the nail on the head for why the video is not released by 7-11.

Iqbal committed the tort of false imprisonment, when he attempted to prevent the kids from leaving the store .

Under any reading of shopkeeper's privilege, Iqbal would have had to personally witness the alleged shoplifiting, and then only attempt to detain the person he witnessed.

The article is clear that he had the wrong group.

[Omaha Beach]

You hit the nail on the head for why the video is not released by 7-11.

Iqbal committed the tort of false imprisonment, when he attempted to prevent the kids from leaving the store .

Under any reading of shopkeeper's privilege, Iqbal would have had to personally witness the alleged shoplifiting, and then only attempt to detain the person he witnessed.

The article is clear that he had the wrong group.

No so. No one knows because the tape has not been released. FI means you did actually stop someone from leaving. There is no such tort as attempted FI. Plus if heactually saw certain individuals,steal he had a right to keep them in the store till the police arived.

[Red Baron]

Then you don't belong on a news/opinion chat site, Mitch. It's what we do here, and it's what you do here, so again, that just comes off as more BS on your part.

Questioning and debating is healthy while simply accepting what happens or what is decided by government officials, even when it's clearly bogus (as it often is with government officials) is not healthy.

Well said, Pep. Of course Toxic Bob comes back with a non-sequitor response.

[CajunRaven]

Obviously, no crimes were committed. Just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so.

What? They have film.

[buzzthefuzz]

Looks like the change of the guard did little for criminal justice in the city.

I would not vote for Berstein if my, your life depended on it.

[pepper]

1. Obviously not much corroboration.

2. I see you avoid addressing the beatdown you took regarding intent and assault.

3. The Sun call Iqbal the OWNER in the linked article. Many 7-11 stores are OWNED by franchise not by 7-11 corporate.

"Salman Iqbal, the 32-year-old owner of the 7-Eleven on Light Street, a few blocks north of the Inner Harbor, could not be reached for comment Friday morning."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,2261657.story

You too can OWN a 7-11

http://franchise.7-eleven.com/

You may be right, but I wouldn't put much weight on the Sun reporter as far as the facts go. They routinly mess up neighborhoods and locations in stories.

The more common situation is franchisee, as opposed to actual owner. That theres "many" owners is subjective in a chain with thousands of outlets. The vast majority are franchises, not licensees. They buy into an existing location with a fee and a sharing of profit. It's kind of unusual to see a new location being built considering the logistics of that. Not unheard of, but much less common. Even then, you are governed by coporate.

You have never been to a 7-11 that is much different from every other 7-11. Thats because they simply don't have the freedom that a true business owner enjoys. That store name is a valuable commodity that is not left to chance.

Corporate, not to mention the franchise owner and the city, has a real vested interest in NOT releasing a video that shows their stores in a dangerous light. If any of these parties can prevent it, they will, and each has their prefectly reasonable motives for making this go away.

[pepper]

You hit the nail on the head for why the video is not released by 7-11.

Iqbal committed the tort of false imprisonment, when he attempted to prevent the kids from leaving the store .

Under any reading of shopkeeper's privilege, Iqbal would have had to personally witness the alleged shoplifiting, and then only attempt to detain the person he witnessed.

The article is clear that he had the wrong group.

If security at Best Buy thinks you've stolen something, are they commiting false imprisonment if they hold you, even though you have not been covicted, or even charged with a crime?

Honest question on my part, although I'm not really convinced you're an expert on this subject, no offense...

If a mob ransacks a Best Buy and the mob gets away before the cops come, does that mean that no crime has been commited?

[karlydee]

If security at Best Buy thinks you've stolen something, are they commiting false imprisonment if they hold you, even though you have not been covicted, or even charged with a crime?

Honest question on my part, although I'm not really convinced you're an expert on this subject, no offense...

If a mob ransacks a Best Buy and the mob gets away before the cops come, does that mean that no crime has been commited?

Unless they personally witnessed (or continually witnessed via video) you taking, concealing, and attempting to leave without paying, with "eyes-on" the entire time yes they are committing the tort of false imprisonment[/b].

The probable cause necessary to detain WRT the shopkeeper's privilege is steep.

If you don't have anything on you -- you are getting paid, handsomely.

As far as the mob, I never said no crime was committed, what I said was that proving a crime was committed
by any specific person

can be very difficult

[pepper]

Unless they personally witnessed (or continually witnessed via video) you taking, concealing, and attempting to leave without paying, with "eyes-on" the entire time yes they are committing the tort of false imprisonment[/b].

The probable cause necessary to detain WRT the shopkeeper's privilege is steep.

If you don't have anything on you -- you are getting paid, handsomely.

As far as the mob, I never said no crime was committed, what I said was that proving a crime was committed
by any specific person

can be very difficult

For starters, you don't have to use the word "tort" when you mean crime. Even if tort is the technical term, we're all pretty much laymen here, so thats just fancy talk. This is a chat site, not the bar exam, lol.

And of course, proving a crime is sometimes difficult. I guess what I'm saying (and your opinion in disagreement is fine) is that for obvious reasons, the city would rather not invest in that effort.

If you are saying that PR has nothing to do with that decision, I'd say you're wrong. You simply can't toss out perception as a motivation here. If the city had not already proven itself to be willing to hide or gloss over these issues, I would agree with you 100%



Either way, I enjoy the debate, and you've made me consider a different angle..

[yuca]

Incidental contact (even injurious) while trying to get out of the store after being falsley imprisoned by Iqbal (he can't prevent them from leaving the premises -- after giving them free slurpees, regardless of the actions of others) does not meet the standard for assault.

Really? You might think that "being hit in the arms and neck, and punched once in the mouth" by an angry mob is "incidental contact" but most sane people would not.

The article is clear that he had the wrong group.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the 100% accuracy of articles in the Sun. Just last week, they claimed that a tall ship was in the harbor on Wednesday, when it was really in Norway.

[babylinux]

I wouldn't put too much faith in the 100% accuracy of articles in the Sun.

I often wonder this about some people.

I read it in the Sun = It must be true
I saw it on TV = It must be true

etc, etc