The money order pink slip receipt was given after the transaction either so that leads me to believe that the LP pocketed it the 150$ "Civil demand". And yes papers were signed for the civil demand and for being banned from the store.
The receipt was kept as proof, for the items I paid for. So therefore there is no way they should press charges right? It just wouldn't make sense. It would cost the store money to press charges right? But something tells me that the LP just pocketed the civil demand money order. Because they...
A money order was bought along with items being rung up at the cash register. A receipt was given with the items that were paid for and the 150$ money order. Technically the items weren't stolen
No. The cost of the items were 15$ and some change. And the civil demand was 150$ so total it was 165$ and change. The civil demand was paid with a money bought right the store. Everything was paid for at the customers service desk, items and civil demand.
So what does this mean? Would they still pursue charges? Even though they didn't lose a penny because the items were paid for (so technically the items were not stolen in the end) and the civil demand was paid on the spot with a money order straight from the stores customer service desk. Money...
The items and the civil demand was paid right on the spot. With a money order right from the grocery stores customer service desk. The money order was given to the LP.
If someone gets caught shoplifting grocery items from a grocery store with a total cost 15$ and some change. But ends up paying for the civil demand on the spot at the store for 150$ (Instead of sending it in the mail) plus still purchased the items that were shoplifted. Cops were called and ran...