It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mom Accused Of Being Grinch: Returns Shop With A Cop Merchandise For Cash

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It WAS theft by deception. If there were certain rules on what could and couldn't be bought, and she just bought whatever she could for the sake of turning the items back in for cash, it's manipulating the system. TBH I could care less either way, but I think what she did was wrong and the cop had every right to arrest her.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
We don't know all the details, for all we know, she needed the cash to pay the electric bill or rent.. But if she did just want the money for other "crap" then I can see how she is a bi*ch, but not a criminal.. Also, wouldn't the cop keep the receipts? I don't know of a single store, anywhere, that will give you cash without it, just store credit.



Deebo



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Sad, but not surprised in the least, that my original thoughts on this topic and mama's intent, panned out. I will agree with whomever pointed out that her case will be used to send a message, price one pays when you mess with charities at Christmas/or other Holiday events. Personally, I do think she deserves whatever she gets (from a personal point of view and my disgust for those who do things like this) but I will admit that Jail time is probably over-board. I would love to see her raked through the coals of public opinion and humiliation, though...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
First of all, the cop is wrong in arresting this woman. She did not break the law, she only stepped on his ego and heart strings.

Secondly, the ONLY way to end the HUGE PROBLEM of a growing number of people such as this mother (a history of food stamp abuse, etc.) is to STOP FREAKING GIVING HAND OUTS! Can't you see that THIS is the type of monster you create?

You say "oh but what about the helpless people who really need it" - what I have to say to that is: people who really NEED something are NOT helpless! They go out and WORK for whatever it is they may need. The MAJORITY of people collecting from the gov't or charities in some way DO NOT NEED THE MONEY, since they are perfectly capable of working. The FEW people who really are helpless and have no way of making it on their own - they would be helped much more easily if the gov't didn't mandate everyone to be 'charitable', and steal from the rich to give to the 'helpless' - and quite frankly 'waste' true charitability on people who don't need it. In fact, if we did away with all welfare and gov't run 'charities', I bet it would be MUCH easier for people to give out of the KINDNESS OF THEIR OWN HEARTS without fear that some b*tch is going to return their gifts for a drug fix or the charity is just going to pocket the money anyhow. I know I'd be much more inclined to help under those circumstances. My philosophy as of late is to just not get involved in charity unless I am personally involved and know where the money is going - which truly is a shame.

The point is, how about we stop putting band aids on gaping wounds and hoping they will just clear up? We have to eradicate the problem at it's core - and that core is welfare and all such programs! Get rid of that and you get rid of stupid problems and --- attitudes such as THIS.

And more importantly, I cannot BELIEVE how many of you condone a cop arresting someone based truly on emotion. I thought you guys liked freedom? Well keep supporting this type of behavior and soon you will be in jail because the --- that is your next door neighbor saw the Xmas card he sent you in your garbage can.
edit on 21-12-2010 by alien because: ...derogatory term removed...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Oh my god. Please tell me you are joking with your outrage at these cops? She tricked the program. The program is meant to be a charity. A way for people to get gifts for their CHILDREN!!! Not for themselves....

She agreed to a set of rules and she broke those rules. She not only stole that police officers money, but she stole a Christmas from her children.

Yes, she stole money from a police officer. She never had any intent to give her children a good Christmas. She was greedy and wanted the money. That money could have been spent on another family. Some one who wants their children to have a good Christmas... Some one who wants their children to be happy.

And you are defending this woman? This woman who stole money and who USED her children and their neediness as a means of stealing cash!?!? And yes that is a crime. Stop trying to say no law was broken... STEALING IS AGAINST THE LAW. USING HER CHILDREN TO DO SO IS JUST PLAIN DISGUSTING!!!

Miss Tater.... You make me sick. Shame on you! Shame on you and anyone else who thinks it is okay to steal from the police. To steal money and to use children to do so! Quite frankly she is lucky that she was not charged with a lot more!

Good day to you. I am out of this disgusting thread.
edit on 21-12-2010 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
This article weren't specific enough to understand what laws were broken and why the mother did what she did. Yes, it could be seen as tacky for the mom to return gifts from a charity event for cash but then I don't know her reasoning which by the way could be totally legit. Maybe she objected to the gifts her children picked out for themselves, they may have been inappropriate or unnecessary from her perspective. After all she is the parent. To participate in this "Shop with a Cop" program was there a rule that stated parents couldn't return items? From my perspective it don't sound as if any laws had been broken especially since she obviously had a receipt so she could return the gifts. This story just reeks of strangeness all around, so much for good holiday cheer.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 


How do you not know the kids are freezing because the mom can't pay power to heat there beds? you have no idea what her situation is. Neither does the OP. You both assume way to much here and bet your feelings on this assumptions

IF she needs the money for something more important for those kids then some toys, then it is wrong. If she didn't and returned them to feed a drug or materialistic obsession, then maybe going to jail for a day will wake her up, and frankly I don't want to defend her right to be a bad mother.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 
There are a lot of things wrong with this story. Basically, we're not given enough facts to even form an opinion about this. The article doesn't give any info about the woman other than she returned the gifts for cash, her name, age, and where she is from. Nothing about what reason she gave for returning the gifts or where the money went. Did she have a previous record of similar offenses(fraud)? Not much to base a defence on.

I'm not taking sides in this as there is just to much that isn't known about the situation to form an opinion or build a case for or against. And I do agree with you on one thing, once the gift is given, its out of the giver's hands. I mean, who hasn't returned a gift at least once?

I just wonder what she told her children. Right or wrong, it couldn't have been easy for them to understand why mommy was returning the stuff they had picked out.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
One aspect of this situation that I don't recall seeing brought up yet (my apology if it has), is that the arrest & resulting charges may be in place for a reason other than the original offense as described.
If, during the course of the investigation, the mother was found to be a serious drug abuser, the dropping of charges against her could be being used as a "carrot on a stick" to get her into treatment or a rehab program for substance abuse.

This is often done within the legal system if it's recognized that an individual has a problem with potentially drastic consequences, such as a debilitating mental illness, or heavy drug abuse, & that nothing chargeable in that area has been discovered.

Under these circumstances, a person can't legally be compelled to undergo treatment, so it is decided to use existing charges in order to get a person to submit (more or less) "voluntarily" to treatment, as a preventive measure, hopefully to head off anything of a tragic nature that could occur without intervention.

If there were no other compelling circumstances in this person's background, I see this situation as the result of ill-thought out actions on the part of both sides of the issue. The mother, if her intention was to scam, should not have decided to use a police-based charity for purposes other than that which it is intended; the police could have taken into account the time of year & her single parentage, & been a bit less hidebound in their reaction, simply blacklisting her from any future charitable assistance from their organization.

While I'm aware that she allegedly committed a chargeable offense, I've never agreed with that whole "the law has been broken so our hands are tied" approach, as it's been my experience that it's not applied equally across all socioeconomic strata of our society.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 
I can see a lot more paperwork being involved in next years "Shop With A Cop" program. If they still have one that is.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


I feel really sorry for this woman and her family, because the REAL grinch is as usual the --- who tore this family apart because they got angry she returned a few GIFTS.



This "---" had their money STOLEN. The gifts were not hers to do with as she pleased. She did not buy them. The cops had some money and it was up to THEM to decide what to do with that money. They took their hard earned money and decided to buy some Christmas presents for her children. Not for her... Her children.

She agreed, knowing full well that she was never going to let her children have those gifts. She wanted money. Money that could have gone towards gifts for other children. She got greedy and she stole that money from the police and from her children.

Lady, she used her own children to steal from the police. If you are of the mind set that you can defend such a disgusting action as using children to steal money from police, then quite frankly. I want nothing to do with you.

Think real long and hard... Think about the children that now get no presents because she stole them and turned them in for money. Think long and hard about the other children that could have gotten gifts for christmas but don't because of her despicable greed.

You think long and hard about those children. About that woman who stole from children, police AND a charity and if after thinking hard. You still wish to defend that woman... Well, then I say to you. You are no better than her. A disgsuting thief. Capable of stealing Christmas from Children.

You're a mean one... Miss Grinch.

edit on 21-12-2010 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


edit on 21-12-2010 by alien because: ...derogatory term removed...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
@Freewomen...

First you say not to give handouts -

"Secondly, the ONLY way to end the HUGE PROBLEM of a growing number of people such as this mother (a history of food stamp abuse, etc.) is to STOP FREAKING GIVING HAND OUTS! Can't you see that THIS is the type of monster you create?"

...then you say this -

"people who really NEED something are NOT helpless! They go out and WORK for whatever it is they may need"

...aren't these people who are "working" really just talking handouts? When people say "work", they always refer to some corporate pawn to get fed minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour till they're so old they get deceases from the carcinogens in whatever product their employer produces. 10 bucks an hour till you die. Everytime I go to krogers I see the same old lady that the young guys make round up the carts in the cold cause they're complete douches. I guess that's not really my point, my point is that no one I KNOW, including myself, really does anything for themselves. Now I 'm not talking about anyone owning thier own business or working for themselves, since I have known one construction guy who owned his own business, and he has now went out of business. But to me, it seems like you labor for the smallest wage they can pay you usually for the benefit of your employer. You eat out of his hand. Without him, what would you do? Without you, what would he do? See what I mean? Without you, could he feed himself? Of course he could. Due to so many poor people, he has an unending supply of potential labor. Most chains always have a certain amount of people hired at a location to make sure that people can work overtime in case of an employee randomly quitting or more than often being fired. He would be fine. But the typical living day to day person, who doesn't have much to fall back on (refering to myself and most people I know, don't know about the rest of you so I'm not talking about yall) would be hurting without my employer. I know my bills would be hurting if I quit. I know his bills wouldn't if I quit. Aren't I just taking handouts? Whatever they legally have to pay me? Ain't no such thing as a tacobell union...

Anyway, back on topic. I think everyone should think of it this way, due the factor of who's interpreting the law being more essential than the law itself. Lets say I gave some presents to my neighbors kids. Then my neighbor returned em. Then I called the cops. What do you think that cop would say? I bet you anything he'd say the same thing yall are saying, it's a crappy thing but no law was broke because it was a gift. The lady went to jail because the people that can use the legal system to whatever avail the feel like were the ones that gave em the gift.

And @ gimmetruth:

"You think long and hard about those children. About that woman who stole from children"

Come on, the very people that are supposed to enforce the law abuse it by charging someone with a crime they didn't commit (how can I charge you with theft if I gave you something? really?) and you use morale and emotion to try to push a point, apparently, that law enforcement should be allowed to charge someone with a crime who has not commited one due to the fact that they are a crappy person? I take the douche bag who returned the gitfs as a common douche bag being a douche bag. They're everywhere and IMO not very note worthy. But the abuse of the legal system I take serious...
edit on 21-12-2010 by poopmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Wow... the cop is the bad one? I don't understand the thought process that makes any of you come up with that idea.

No, I don't agree with police officers most of the time... like the one who killed the Native American in Seattle, WA the other day, HE was a bad guy.

But a police officer who bought a poor families kids presents and clothes for a charity event, when he didn't even have to... where none of the police officers had to. But they did... and when he gets offended and has her arrested for returning it, he's the bad guy? Don't take anything for granted... if they really were going to buy anything more important than the gifts for Christmas, it would be food. There is no other reason for her to cash those clothes in, unless she wanted food or her own Christmas money for drugs or different gifts. I'm almost positive if they needed food, the police officer would have gladly bought Christmas food instead of gifts.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by poopmaster


Come on, the very people that are supposed to enforce the law abuse it by charging someone with a crime they didn't commit (how can I charge you with theft if I gave you something? really?) and you use morale and emotion to try to push a point, apparently, that law enforcement should be allowed to charge someone with a crime who has not commited one due to the fact that they are a crappy person? I take the douche bag who returned the gitfs as a common douche bag being a douche bag. They're everywhere and IMO not very note worthy. But the abuse of the legal system I take serious...
edit on 21-12-2010 by poopmaster because: (no reason given)


Stealing is against the law....Poopmaster..... A crime was commited. The gifts were NOT hers. The money was NOT hers. The money belonged to that police officer who decided to buy gifts for her CHILDREN. It was up to the cop to decide what they did with their money. No one else...

She stole that money and she stole christmas from her own children. yes, a crime was committed. This is far more than just returning gifts. and you know it. She only agreed to taking part in this charity event for CHILDREN, because she wanted cash. So yes! You to think long and hard about the kind of person who steals from police by using children to manipulate a charity! You think and if you think it is by any means acceptable to do so, then shame on you.

The only abuse of the law took place at the hands of this disgusting woman. Thank god those police stepped in to enforce the law after she STOLE money from the police, a charity, and from her children.

The only compass I am using is the TRUTH. You might want to get yours re calibrated buddy. Your needle isn't pointing to truth north. Abuse of the legal system. Bah, you are silly if you think that stealing is acceptable.

And for those who have called these cops ---... The only --- in this story, is that greedy, thoughtless, thief of a woman.

Now think to yourself... After this woman stole from the charity, I bet they end up having to put up a lot more red tape... Making it way harder for deserving children to have a good Christmas and presents under the tree... that is... if they decide to continue the program at all....They might not, if they are worried about people stealing from the program again.

Yes, think long and hard. YOU come on, "poopmaster

Now, I am out of this thread. There is nothing more I can say. I have said it all. If you disagree... Then quite frankly. That is a real shame. Simple as that.
edit on 21-12-2010 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2010 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Depends on WHY SHE DID THIS

For what reason she did this I do not know.

For her own personal spending = she is a grinch
To buy more essential stuff: food, clothing, etc for her family instead of LEGOS = she is morally just

The article only says she turned it into cash and the kids did not get toys...thus she was exploiting the Shop with a Cop thing.

But I would not be surprised if she did it to buy herself # or to drug up. Likely why the cop said he was disgusted.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


The --- voluntarily GAVE their money in the form of a gift. I am still waiting to see what exact law this woman broke. Glad you are so confident that this woman did in fact break a law, and was not the victim of an overzealous control freak cop.


edit on 21-12-2010 by alien because: ...derogatory term removed...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
This story goes into a little more detail:

Meade Co. Sheriff: Mom took Christmas away from Children

The gifts to the children through the program were extremely generous, $150 each for 4 children. She returned $100 worth of items and tried to return another $66 worth of toys.

The report says that she bonded out yesterday and has a previous juvenile record for theft.

She claimed that she was going to use the money for items that they needed more, but couldn't produce receipts for those items. No mention of when she returned the items, what she planned to purchase or if she had sufficient time to purchase the new items.

No detail was given as to any agreements made by participating in the program. The report implies that she intended to spend the money on herself.

3 days in jail does seem excessive for behavior that probably is not a crime. It would be surprising if minor children had ownership rights. More likely, ownership is given to adult parents/guardians.


This gets even more interesting.

The police report said Beard has been deceptive on prior occasions for food stamps and assisted living expenses. The father of two of the children said that the children were not needy.


Source

There is much more going on here than we realize. From these two links, I really don't think she used the money the way she said she did. I wonder where the father is in all of this? Does he live somewhere else, while she has full custody of the kids? If not, why did he let her do what she did? Did she do this behind every ones back including the dad's and kids?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I really disagree with your sick opinion. that's just realy all i have to say. Hopefully she rots in jail for a long time and someone can adopt her kids.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
@ gimmetruth

"The money belonged to that police officer who decided to buy gifts for her CHILDREN"

SO by that logic if I take my kids ps2 away because it's 4 in the morning and they have to go to school, then I could go jail? For stealing from my kid? What would a judge in a court room seriously say about that. Really. Tell me what you think. Calling me mean or something does not stress any point other than that I am mean for thinking this lady going to jail was wrong. We are not talking about me being mean. We are talking about this lady returning stuff at walmart and going to jail for it.
edit on 21-12-2010 by poopmaster because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join