Gonzalez arrested on shoplifting charge

[Camron Rust]

After reading the story, I'm wondering how the decided it was him....

He had discarded the satchel in another store where it was found by an employee who returned it to the original store.

Did it have his fingerprints? Did the person who saw him leave it recognized him? Video? There is a lot not in that story.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is a lot not in that story.

That is nothing new or special. That is the case anytime there is a story like this on a public figure. I bet if the charges are changed or thrown out, we will not hear anything about it.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Here in Oregon, he'd be convicted under what we call the "TN" statute.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

After reading the story, I'm wondering how the decided it was him....

He had discarded the satchel in another store where it was found by an employee who returned it to the original store.

Did it have his fingerprints? Did the person who saw him leave it recognized him? Video? There is a lot not in that story.

Camron - the CIA black helicopters captured him on video. You know, the same ones Phil Knight sends over the practices of Pac-10 teams and then has them download their data to the U of O. BTW - did you see the big contribution Knight made to Chris Dudley's campaign? Of course for Knight, it's just pocket change.

[Texas Aggie]

I don't think they would have arrested (or charged) him without SOME evidence -- more than likely a video. But a video from where is the question. The statement of the attorney, though, is puzzling. He said something like "he didn't INTEND to steal anything." That's a highly legal statement since intent is a required element of most crimes. If the video evidence showed the coach with the briefcase at the bar, he could say he found it, and the statement from his attorney should be "he didn't steal anything."

My guess is that the store video showed him walking out with it. Of course, his attorney knew he took it.

The video, from either source, is purely investigative. It won't be admissible in court unless someone can testify that it depicts what actually happened at that point and time. Unless they have other evidence, this case won't go further.