Gonzalez arrested on shoplifting charge
 

"allegedly removing the sensor device from the satchel and walking out of the store". Sounds like a "miscommunication and a series of misunderstandings" to me.

Could you post the whole story please. :D

"According to a police report, the store manager reported that the manager of a restaurant in the mall returned a men's satchel. The restaurant manager said someone had come into the eatery, left the satchel with the hostess and never returned."

I guess he discovered the restaurant provides its own bags for take-out.

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.

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

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

Fire, Let Me Intoduce You To ...
 

... Gasoline.

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.

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.