Walmart Raided by Dole Customers During "Glitch."

[Coito ergo sum]

one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700.00 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Walmart said they wouldn't press charges if she left the food.

Whut? What could they possibly have charged her with? Being poor? Your card not working at the checkout wasn't a crime last time I looked.

Attempting to defraud the government. If you try to get benefits to which you're not entitled, it can be a misdemeanor or even a felony.

Read the second sentence again and rethink your answer

It's a directly responsive answer.

1st sentence -- Whut?

2nd sentence: What could they possibly be charged with? Answer: Attempting to defraud the government. In the US it's governed my state law, but one thing that they could be charged with is Public Assistance Fraud -- in Florida, there is a statute which criminalizes public assistance fraud.

3rd sentence: your card not working at the checkout wasn't a crime last I looked. No, that's true, but it also isn't what happened. What happened here was people with say, 49 cents left on their EBT accounts learned that a glitch in the system made it "seem" like they had unlimited benefits, so they rant to the store to ring up carts of stuff so they could take advantage of the glitch.

[Coito ergo sum]

@Coit... Typical. Walking away from your own words. Either you can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. It's simple.

One, I left yesterday to go to a meeting. I only just got back here now.

Two, you still have not presented evidence of your claim. I have been quite clear on this, I will give you the courtesy of an answer if and only if you give me the courtesy of an answer. You did not. You claim to have provided a "reason" for your belief -- what you provided was a hypothesis -- you say that you figure poor people commit more crimes cuz they's poor and need more stuff. That's nice question begging, and interesting hypothesis, but it is not evidence. If you have any evidence, then present it. If you do not, then I want you to have the common courtesy to come right out and say so. "I do not have any evidence for my claim that being poor makes one more prone to crime" or "I do not have any evidence that poverty causes crime." Or, words to that effect, which accurately reflect the assertion you're making. If those two iterations don't accurately reflect your intent, then don't come at me with your usual attacks and slurs, just state it clearly the way you intend.

Three, yes, either YOU can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. You haven't so far, so before I take my turn, I want you to be clear and unequivocal on this -- state that "you can't" produce evidence for your positive claim.

Until then, Revolutionist, I'm not giving you the time of day. You can try to twist this into me "walking away" and such, but it plainly isn't. I've been very clear about this, so do as you will. If you aren't going to meet my condition, then I'm done with it. Fair enough?

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, produce the evidence or shut the fuck up.

If you would only live by your own standard. This, of course, is your basic problem. You think you can impose one standard on others, and live by a different one.

I don't see why he would present a shred of evidence for you. He knows he can't expect the same courtesy from you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Poor?

Also stupid, given most of the extra food is going to spoil before it is eaten.

So, you know for sure that the trolleys were mainly full of perishables?

I know for sure that food stamps are sufficient to provide their users' grocery needs, so "stocking up" is pointless. Even crackers and such go stale eventually.

.

They can be resold. If you got a bunch of free food, you can sell it for 1/2 the list price, and make money. Some stuff can be frozen for long periods.

[pErvinalia]

edit: dupe.

[pErvinalia]

@Coit... Typical. Walking away from your own words. Either you can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. It's simple.

One, I left yesterday to go to a meeting. I only just got back here now.

Two, you still have not presented evidence of your claim. I have been quite clear on this, I will give you the courtesy of an answer if and only if you give me the courtesy of an answer. You did not. You claim to have provided a "reason" for your belief -- what you provided was a hypothesis -- you say that you figure poor people commit more crimes cuz they's poor and need more stuff. That's nice question begging, and interesting hypothesis, but it is not evidence. If you have any evidence, then present it. If you do not, then I want you to have the common courtesy to come right out and say so. "I do not have any evidence for my claim that being poor makes one more prone to crime" or "I do not have any evidence that poverty causes crime." Or, words to that effect, which accurately reflect the assertion you're making. If those two iterations don't accurately reflect your intent, then don't come at me with your usual attacks and slurs, just state it clearly the way you intend.

What is your malfunction? It's eminently clear that I was not making a factual assertion. How many fucking times do I have to state that? Own your fucking words, and provide the evidence for your positive assertion.

Three, yes, either YOU can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. You haven't so far, so before I take my turn, I want you to be clear and unequivocal on this -- state that "you can't" produce evidence for your positive claim.

Are you on drugs?

Until then, Revolutionist, I'm not giving you the time of day. You can try to twist this into me "walking away" and such, but it plainly isn't. I've been very clear about this, so do as you will. If you aren't going to meet my condition, then I'm done with it. Fair enough?

I've met your condition about 48 fucking times already. I've also clearly stated why your condition is idiotic, given I was never claiming to be making a factual statement. For the nth fucking time, I was positing a possible answer to your question. Can you get this into your thick skull?

You are without doubt the most dishonest debater I have ever come across on the net.

[Coito ergo sum]

The selfish conservative rant of "fuck the poor" continues in all its ugliness...

How so?

You think discussing a newsworthy event and suggesting that it is somehow unacceptable to steal from the food assistance system is "fuck the poor?"

Arresting or condemning a poor person for stealing is not "fuck the poor."

[pErvinalia]

Once again, produce the evidence or shut the fuck up.

If you would only live by your own standard. This, of course, is your basic problem. You think you can impose one standard on others, and live by a different one.

I don't see why he would present a shred of evidence for you. He knows he can't expect the same courtesy from you.

Says the guy who has steadfastly refused to provide evidence for HIS OWN BLOODY ASSERTION.

[Coito ergo sum]

Some poor people spent more than was on their card? The American economy has been running that way for years.....stuffing extra aircraft carriers and drones into their basket and hoping the Chinese wouldn't notice....

And, many of us find that to be suspect and unacceptable as well, and have said so in other threads regarding the national debt. In those cases, we have heard that running up deficits is good, from a Keynesian economic perspective because that is how you fix a floundering economy and that the debt really is not that high because as a percentage of stimulated GDP it's really not too bad.

[Coito ergo sum]

The selfish conservative rant of "fuck the poor" continues in all its ugliness...

'Cause the poor deserve credit cards with no spending limits, unlike the people who actually work, eh?

No, because whatever the poor do, there will always be an apologist from the ruling hegemony ready to stick the boots in, usually after taking the high moral ground...

Try grinding poverty for a while, then pontificate about the moral niceties...

How does this relate to the current thread, which deals with theft? Theft by the poor is a "moral nicety?" And, if one opposes theft by the poor one is sticking a boot in against the poor?

Is the proper view of this issue that the poor ought not be bothered about their thievery? When a person robs your house, be sure to have him fill out a financial statement so you can assess whether to call the police on him.

[pErvinalia]

Some poor people spent more than was on their card? The American economy has been running that way for years.....stuffing extra aircraft carriers and drones into their basket and hoping the Chinese wouldn't notice....

And, many of us find that to be suspect and unacceptable as well, and have said so in other threads regarding the national debt. In those cases, we have heard that running up deficits is good, from a Keynesian economic perspective because that is how you fix a floundering economy and that the debt really is not that high because as a percentage of stimulated GDP it's really not too bad.

If debt is used for investment, then it can (and usually is) a good thing. But wasting bazillions of dollars on foreign military misadventures is not good investment.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the "raiders" were Walmart's own employees, given that they pay such low wages that their staff are on food stamps.

You really think that people of limited means are more apt to be thieves than the public at-large?

[Coito ergo sum]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the "raiders" were Walmart's own employees, given that they pay such low wages that their staff are on food stamps.

You really think that people of limited means are more apt to be thieves than the public at-large?

[Clinton Huxley]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the "raiders" were Walmart's own employees, given that they pay such low wages that their staff are on food stamps.

You really think that people of limited means are more apt to be thieves than the public at-large?

No but the more precarious and hand-to-mouth one's existence, the greater the temptation. If youv'e already got a pantry full of soup, youv'e probably no need for free soup.

[pErvinalia]

He doesn't entertain reasoning. Only cold hard facts. The same cold hard facts that he claims to know, yet won't present.