>You don't know that. Neither do I. That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. Yeah we know that. Presumption of innocence, it's called. >That's the poin

>You don't know that. Neither do I. That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. Yeah we know that. Presumption of innocence, it's called. >That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. No, it wasn't. It was a 0-day-long-trial: "The shoplifting charge was dropped in March 2017 when the store’s asset protection specialist failed to show up to court." (quote). >I agree this was a civil case, Ms. Nurse is not on trial for criminal activity You seem to be missing the point that Ms. Nurse is not on trial for anything, and never has been. In this case, Walmart is on trial for criminal activity. >But private individuals and companies do not have the right to detain you, the fact that the jury did sided for Wal-Mart on that part of the suit suggests they may have had some cause to do so. Well that's exactly victim-blaming: lack of a court decision on the side of the victim to insinuate that there was "some" victim's fault in it. Since Ms. Nurse was the plaintiff, and we have this concept of presumption of innocence, all we know is that her team didn't present a compelling enough case to prove that she was falsely arrested. Example: if she was "held" in a back room because a store rep told her "you have to stay here until the police arrives", closed the door, but didn't lock it - it's not false arrest, because technically she could have walked out. Proving false arrest is a pretty high bar. Since Ms. Nurse is the plaintiff, the jury is obligated to side with Walmart by default, unless Ms. Nurse and her teams persuades them to take her side. You seem to be misled by the language of "jury sided with Walmart". Let me make it better: > on this charge, the jury didn't find the evidence presented by Ms. Nurse to be compelling enough to conclude that Walmart has committed a criminal act. Do you have any further questions, or does the above makes things clear?