Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft I got caught shoplifting a $53 shirt from Urban Outfitters and got a civil demand not

[jacquwil]

I am 19 years old, first and last time shoplifting, and the censors went off at the front of the store so they took me to the back room and i confessed to it. They took down my adress/name/info but no police were called or anything. But they gave me a civil demand notice.
Will they send me a fine? If so, how much approximatly?
Will I have to go to court or anything, or can i just pay the fine?
Will it go on my record?
Please help, thank you very much.

 

[jacksgal]

Will they send me a fine? If so, how much approximatly?
That depends on value of items stolen and TX law
Will I have to go to court or anything, or can i just pay the fine?
Was a criminal complaint filed?
Will it go on my record?
See last answer

 

[army judge]

I am 19 years old, first and last time shoplifting, and the censors went off at the front of the store so they took me to the back room and i confessed to it. They took down my adress/name/info but no police were called or anything. But they gave me a civil demand notice.
Will they send me a fine? If so, how much approximatly?
Will I have to go to court or anything, or can i just pay the fine?
Will it go on my record?
Please help, thank you very much.

Only a judge can deprive you of your property or freedom, and only after due process has occurred (that would be a trial).

Only a clown (not a criminal defense lawyer) would advise you, a client and potential criminal defendant, to pay one of these absurd civil demand letters.

Don't throw away your money, as it could be used show an admission of your guilt (if this becomes a criminal prosecution) at a later date.

Get an attorney to defend you in this theft case (or wait and see what happens) and don't pay the silly, civil demand letter.

Hold on to your money.

By the way, I'll pay the demand for you, if you can show me in the criminal law where this practice is legalized?

Don't waste your time, it isn't.

This is a creature of modern times and way to pacify greedy merchants who arent satisfied with prosecuting people.

They also want to extort and persecute them.

And, lawmakers who are bought and paid for by lobbyists, create these circus like "illegal-legalities".

You have the right to remain silent, fortunately the alleged "confession" extracted from you via duress and stress, isn't normally admissible at trial.

Don't assist someone in cutting your throat.

Now is the time to remain silent and wait.

I doubt that the firm will retain an attorney to go after you because you wised up and are ignoring their toothless demand to give them money.

By the way, if you're in a mood to give away money, where can I write to demand you pay me $2,500?

See, I can demand, but you would ignore.

That is what you should with this silly letter trying to extort money from you.

Now wise up and never attempt to take anything you don't purchase.

 

[jacksgal]

TEXAS CIVIL RECOVERY LAW

Section 134

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 134. TEXAS THEFT LIABILITY ACT

The state of Texas has a law permitting retailers to recover civil

damages from you as a result of this incident. Section 134 of the

Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code provides that a merchant

who sustains damages resulting from theft may recover from the

person who commits theft the amount of actual damages found by

the trier of fact and additional damages awarded by the trier of

fact up to $1000. This claim is separate from any criminal

punishment or penalties that may arise from your shoplifting

incident

 

[CdwJava]

AJ, many states - perhaps all - have these civil demands built into the law. In my state I have known such refusals to go to collections and then end up costing nearly $800 from the original $300.

Ignore a civil demand at your own risk.

 

[mightymoose]

Jacquwil-
Unless you find yourself under criminal investigation, meaning you have been contacted by law enforcement about this, you can ignore any silly demand letters. If you opt to pay the demand then you can be assured there will be no further action, but why pay it until you are in a position where you have to?
You will receive a demand for MUCH more than what you took. If you think it is unreasonable then wait and see if they are willing to take you to court for it. If they do then you can either pay or try to convince a judge the amount was unreasonable... and if it is determined to be unreasonable you won't be on the hook for their costs.
These stores would be better off to make a criminal report AND make a civil demand, as the criminal proceeding may be enough to get you to pay up. Without the criminal action it seems there is little to motivate you to pay.

I don't know about your jurisdiction, but in my area if the store contacted law enforcement at a later date to make a theft report after having already made a civil agreement with you at the time of the incident, the DA would never file the charge. The store's only option at this point is to try and scare you into paying.

They could push all the way to obtain a civil judgment for whatever amount... but that still doesn't take money out of your pocket without more effort on their part. It is a large expense for them over a petty matter in which the property was recovered. They are unlikely to pursue you, but could.

Suggestion: Keep your money in your pocket and stop stealing stuff. I doubt it was your first time, just your first time getting caught. Knock it off.

 

[mightymoose]

AJ, many states - perhaps all - have these civil demands built into the law. In my state I have known such refusals to go to collections and then end up costing nearly $800 from the original $300.

Ignore a civil demand at your own risk.

I think his point was that it is not written into criminal law, just civil.

 

[CdwJava]

Assuming they might take the matter to small claims court could be a mistake. The issue could go straight to collections and can effect one's credit rating and risk a lien on property in the extreme.

Why some people advise others to ignore a civil demand that is based upon state law authorizing it is beyond my comprehension. While some businesses may never pursue it, others might. I suppose if someone lives on the adrenaline rush one receives when they go to Vegas, it might be worth the risk to double down on the demand ... if it goes to collections, the cost may more than double. If it goes to small claims court, additional costs will likely accrue when the defendant loses. Maybe it is because I am not a gambler that I wouldn't want to run the risk of damage to my credit rating or paying out an extra $400-500 beyond the original demand (likely to be about $300).

 

[army judge]

I think his point was that it is not written into criminal law, just civil.

That is my point, precisely.

It also doesn't force the alleged "thief" to comply.

It simply allows the store to DEMAND the "thief" to pay up.

If the "thief" refuses (what self respecting "thief" would be scared into paying, but I digress), then the store must take them to court.

That is the proper way to settle disputes anyway.

I do agree with your wise counsel, that the "thief" should just STOP stealing.

That also applies to store who is trying to short circuit the process, by demanding, rather than suing!!!!

 

[jacksgal]

Its TX "civil" law making it a legal action to seek these funds. This also means there are legal actions the retailer can take to collect these funds or punish the accussed. In addition these laws help retailers recoup a small amount of the vast money they spend to protect them from theft. Without those funds the cost must be dealt within other ways. These methods can hurt employees and nonstealing customers. Its a crap shoot are you a gambler? are you willing to risk thousands of dollars (instead of hundreds), negative report to credit reporting agencies (all kinds of negatives from this) to name two. If you go to site I gave you you can learn more about this. Its your call and your gamble

 

[CdwJava]

The store is not trying to "short circuit" the process, they are taking advantage of the streamlined process permitted under state law. The cost of suing all those thieves would be quite extreme and unlikely to result in a collectible award that would cover even the costs of the lawsuit. Hence, the reason the states have permitted victim businesses to resort to the civil demand process.

The alternative might be a massive increase in state costs as businesses report every shoplifter to the police and request a complaint for prosecution. One way or the other we would be paying for the thieves' actions - either through increased retail prices, or increased taxes. I prefer the thief to be ordered to pay, and the thief may well prefer not to have a criminal record.

 

[jacksgal]

"Demanding" is less expensive! when the store sends its "Civil Demand" letter it generally a few hundred dollars. If they are forced to sue then it becomes thousands and carries other consequences. Like any bill you can ignore it. they will ask again. then they will add additional fees. last they will take action. That action is up to them. Again its a gamble are you a gambler? If store did not prosecute the accussed (choosing only to seek civil demand) and accussed does not pay they might also choose to file criminal complaint not filed at time. Its your call but know the options first

 

[army judge]

Its TX "civil" law making it a legal action to seek these funds. This also means there are legal actions the retailer can take to collect these funds or punish the accussed. In addition these laws help retailers recoup a small amount of the vast money they spend to protect them from theft. Without those funds the cost must be dealt within other ways. These methods can hurt employees and nonstealing customers. Its a crap shoot are you a gambler? are you willing to risk thousands of dollars (instead of hundreds), negative report to credit reporting agencies (all kinds of negatives from this) to name two. If you go to site I gave you you can learn more about this. Its your call and your gamble

I don't steal.
I don't need to steal.
I don't have any risks, associated with sociopathic or illegal behaviors.
That said, there are certain constitutional guarantees these "laws" try to circumvent.
No one should steal.
But, being accused of theft is a far cry from being adjudicated a thief.
Those demand letters are nothing but scams.
So, why don't we just agree to disagree.
I'll never change your opinion, nor will you ever change mine.
Let's just advise those that seek answers.
Once we've advised people, let those seeking answers choose what strategy they wish to pursue.


As far as credit worthiness, I don't these alleged thieves give darn about that.
I suspect many of these alleged thieves are stealing to support their illicit drug habits.
Others, I suppose are just thieves, stealing because they can.
Let's just say that stealing of any kind is wrong, even if you do it under the guise of a state supported shake down.
By the way, the tax dollars that the government takes from workers and purchasers is as bad in my mind as a thief stealing a shirt.
But, that's a topic for another forum on another day.

 

[jacksgal]

My problem is and always has been your disregard for these laws. As well as your disregard for the cost of retail theft and how these laws keep us (law abiding citizens) and the store employees from absorbing the costs. Yes I agree that paying without a conviction might seem absurd however OJ Simpson was ordered to pay millions for a crime he was found not guilty of. (I disagree with that verdict by the way). Its law and as a former or current member of the court I would think you would have some respect for "the law". Last if I recall correctly it was only a few months ago you were even aware of such laws so your expertise in this area might be limited

 

[army judge]

My problem is and always has been your disregard for these laws. As well as your disregard for the cost of retail theft and how these laws keep us (law abiding citizens) and the store employees from absorbing the costs. Yes I agree that paying without a conviction might seem absurd however OJ Simpson was ordered to pay millions for a crime he was found not guilty of. (I disagree with that verdict by the way). Its law and as a former or current member of the court I would think you would have some respect for "the law". Last if I recall correctly it was only a few months ago you were even aware of such laws so your expertise in this area might be limited

We still disagree.

Have a pleasant day.