4 ms·
What I think is that the burden should be shouldered by the state, and not small business owners. What this ruling does, is place the burden of caring for the
by notsotrue 10y ago
What I think is that the burden should be shouldered by the state, and not small business owners. What this ruling does, is place the burden of caring for the 'hungry' on grocers, which is an unfair burden. Unless the courts decision came with a way to compensate the grocer, this ruling is idiotically naieve.
- dragonwriter 10y agoUsually, compensation is the subject of civil lawsuits, not criminal process (though some systems allow restitution to also be addressed as part of a criminal action, but even there civil action is also available.)
- notsotrue 10y agoSo the grocer is going to sue 1000 insolvent hungry people? For what exactly?
- emodendroket 10y agoOK, but how do you think the actors in this story should behave, given that that is not the case? Should the homeless man starve to death? Or perhaps the judge should sentence him to years in prison for stealing less than ten dollars' worth of food?