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.
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by FortAnthem
You have to remember; every time this guy applies for a job, he's gonna have to check off "yes" in the box asking if he's ever been arrested.
There's no box for "arrested", only "convicted"
It won't even show up on a background check. He'll be fine as far as that goes.
Originally posted by FortAnthem
Originally posted by Advantage
Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by neo96
Shouldnt he be suing the police as well?
I realize that most police are high school flunkies or GED graduates but how difficult would it be to understand that the man bought a car and was given another one in exchange?
edit on 5-10-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)
The police are the ones who sorted it out for the guy. The police should charge the idiots for filing a false police report.
Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by phroziac
You have to remember; every time this guy applies for a job, he's gonna have to check off "yes" in the box asking if he's ever been arrested. A lot of employers won't bother to look any further than that on a job application, especially when the arrest was for Grand theft auto.
Originally posted by phroziac
First of all, wtf? i already had plenty of reasons of never buying a car from a dealer again, but i never figured id get arrested for getting a hell of a deal. Lol one time i came home with a nice car, told my then gf...hey i just stole a car! Lets go for a ride! lol....
This guy has a fine reason for suing. But not for 2 million. Thats just as stupid as what the dealer did to him. Car should be free, thats it, no cash. Was he tazed? Then he should get enough noney to buy a couple more cars.
There is no provision in the Constitution that prohibits convicted felons from seeking and holding national level public office. However, each house of Congress is allowed to take a vote to expel any member deemed unfit or unqualified to serve. This provision is often used to remove senators and representatives whose involvement in unsavory or illegal activities has been exposed, as well as those members who have actually been convicted of felonies. State laws vary, but many states bar convicted felons (and even some individuals convicted of misdemeanors) from seeking or holding elective office. Officials convicted of felonies while in office may be removed under the same laws.
Contrary to what many people believe, convicted felons are not barred from obtaining a passport in the United States. A passport is intended to be a document that establishes a person's identity and status as a citizen of the country which issued the passport. However, convicted felons often face severe restrictions in traveling abroad because many countries impose visa requirements on individuals with criminal records. Unlike a passport, a visa is seen as a privilege, and the issuing country has the right to refuse entry to any person seen as a threat or as unsuitable, including convicted felons.
The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men, creating a class of citizens defined and punished by the criminal justice system but unable to impact its function. Felon jury exclusion is less visible than felony disenfranchisement, and few socio-legal scholars have challenged the statutes that withhold a convicted felon’s opportunity to sit on a jury.
Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Zarniwoop
A lot of places I've applied to do have that question. Some follow up by asking if you were convicted, others do not.
I guess it all depends on what company you are applying at.
Still, whenever cops run his criminal record, they will see that he has that arrest on his record. It may mean the difference between him getting off with a warning for a traffice violation and the officer issuing a citiation.
A criminal record, even without a conviction, can hurt a person in numerous ways.
Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
The main crime here is the fact that they reported the car stolen. They obviously did that because they felt there was nothing else they could do. The truth seems that they screwed up, and they wanted this guy to make it right for them, when he was under no obligation to do so. I hope he wins his lawsuit, because these people are obviously crooks, if they would get someone arrested for something they did not even do.
Originally posted by brice
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by FortAnthem
You have to remember; every time this guy applies for a job, he's gonna have to check off "yes" in the box asking if he's ever been arrested.
There's no box for "arrested", only "convicted"
It won't even show up on a background check. He'll be fine as far as that goes.
Wanna Bet, try crossing international borders, they always ask if you have been arrested....not if you have a criminal record or been convicted of anything.
Originally posted by Mayson
Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
The main crime here is the fact that they reported the car stolen. They obviously did that because they felt there was nothing else they could do. The truth seems that they screwed up, and they wanted this guy to make it right for them, when he was under no obligation to do so. I hope he wins his lawsuit, because these people are obviously crooks, if they would get someone arrested for something they did not even do.
I think there is legal precedent that shows that he is obligated to do so. I've heard of cases where the bank accidentally gave someone money; it doesn't make it their money.
As much as I think the "little guy" should benefit when a rich corporation screws up in their favor, the only ones who agree with me are the Parker Brothers.
Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by brice
Does going from USA into Canada or Mexico count. I've crossed both boarders and wasnt even asked to show ID. They only asked what I was going to do while in their country. How's that for security folks? I didnt even have to show ID to get back into the states. Amazing HUH?
Since June 2009, everyone from every country arriving in Canada by air, land and sea has needed a passport or equivalent travel document. (Some exceptions apply to children's passport requirements). Besides an up-to-date passport, visitors may instead have an equivalent travel document, such as a NEXUS Card.
Passport requirements have been a complicated and ever changing issue for U.S. travellers to Canada for the past few years due to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which was introduced in 2004 by the U.S. government to strengthen U.S. border security and standardize travel documentation.
Visitors from any country other than the U.S. have always needed a passport to enter Canada. On the other hand, because of a friendly border crossing agreement between Canada and the United States, Canada Border Services did not require U.S. citizens to present a passport to enter Canada. This friendly border crossing agreement used to be mutual; however, now the WHTI requires that U.S. citizens have a passport to return home. In this way, passport requirements for Canada and U.S. borders are different on paper, but, are in practice, the same. Canada will not allow a U.S. citizen into the country who does not have the proper documentation to return home.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by FortAnthem
When he got home he found a stack of mail and a ton of missed phone calls from the dealership. They said the car he drove off with was worth $5600 more than the one he originally bought and they wanted him to come in and pay the difference. He told them to stuff it.
The buyer is in the wrong.
This is "wrong price tag" theft. If a shop accidentally puts a wrong price tag on an object, you do not have the right to have it at that price.
Same as if a bank puts 2 million dollars into your account by mistake.
It is not yours.
The Theft Act 1968 says...
Where a person gets property by another’s mistake... an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.
Having said that, the way the dealership went about fixing their mistake is rather horrible.
edit on 5-10-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)