• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Louisiana Food Stamp Abusers Will Lose Benefits Over Wal-Mart Free For All

right, and the ebt moops are already losing their benefits ...
But also knowingly committed wire fraud, willfully committed wire fraud. The retailer shouldn't have gone without a verification or followed the minimum, but facilitation would require that they absolutely knew these people didn't have backing funds in their balances which can't be proven.




They knowingly facilitated these fraudulant sales. To use your bank analogy, if someone used their position at the bank to facilitate you passing bogus checks, they would fall under legal scrutiny as well
You don't know that for sure. For the people who went hundreds over limit, it's provable.


depends on the circumstance: if the business owner knew it was fraud and took it with the intent to pass it on to a third party, as to personally benefit from the sale, then yes, indeed....
Okay, but you do not know that the retailers here knowingly facilitated a crime and for all we do know they felt the honor system was preferable to the near riots that happened earlier.
 
Not likely if it was an error with the system and instead of stopping you from using it, the retailer went ahead and accepted the card, despite you not having funds. It would be seen as a joint error. Now, you might be expected to pay back the amount, but it would depend. Let's say it was a gift card. If the retailer accepted the card showing no limit on it (something no gift card, like EBT cards should ever show), then that is on them and you have a legitimate defense against fraud unless you manipulated the card to show something different (which is not what these people did).
Possibly, but the laws on wire fraud are written so broadly as to be a catchall which is why I think it would be possible to pursue those charges. It would depend on the ability to prove that the initial party(the EBT client) intentionally committed a fraudulent act by using the card knowing they didn't have the funds to cover it. It could also fall under defrauding government services even though the taxpayers didn't lose out on this.
 
But also knowingly committed wire fraud, willfully committed wire fraud. The retailer shouldn't have gone without a verification or followed the minimum, but facilitation would require that they absolutely knew these people didn't have backing funds in their balances which can't be proven.

No, they clearly knew the system was not working properly, which is why they contacted corporate




You don't know that for sure. For the people who went hundreds over limit, it's provable.

No, it was absolutely known the system was not working properly and they ignored the proper safety precautions put into place. As I said, it's obvious you want to excuse one party here based on your view of state assistance. Shame on you for being so blatantly partisan


Okay, but you do not know that the retailers here knowingly facilitated a crime and for all we do know they felt the honor system was preferable to the near riots that happened earlier.

lol @ being back to walmart of potential victim of mass riots. So predictable and shameful
 
No, they clearly knew the system was not working properly, which is why they contacted corporate






No, it was absolutely known the system was not working properly and they ignored the proper safety precautions put into place. As I said, it's obvious you want to excuse one party here based on your view of state assistance. Shame on you for being so blatantly partisan




lol @ being back to walmart of potential victim of mass riots. So predictable and shameful
1) There was already a public incident prior to this story, same timeframe 2) You are speculating about the rest.
 
1) There was already a public incident prior to this story, same timeframe 2) You are speculating about the rest.

1) there was? offer a citation.

2) No, they contacted corporate because they knew the system wasn't working properly; other stores, including walmarts, either stopped accepting ebt cards or limited purchases; and there were clearly established safeguards in place to specifically deal with such situations. No speculation on any of these points and they have all been widely reported on
 
1) there was? offer a citation.

2) No, they contacted corporate because they knew the system wasn't working properly; other stores, including walmarts, either stopped accepting ebt cards or limited purchases; and there were clearly established safeguards in place to specifically deal with such situations. No speculation on any of these points and they have all been widely reported on
Wal-Mart scene 'chaotic' but no food was stolen - The Neshoba Democrat - Philadelphia, Mississippi
There you go. No theft, but an unruly mini riot, I would have made the same call as a business owner during that situation to avoid a worse situation.
 
all they had to do to deal with the situation is close the store. This hardly works to justify your argument that WM was basically held hostage
Yeah, sure, shut down business to all customers, sure, great business decision. :lol:
 
Yeah, sure, shut down business to all customers, sure, great business decision. :lol:

1) out of the number of stors that stopped or limited purchases you had one store that shut down for a few hours

2) Again, i'm not seeing how this fits your claim that they were compelled to go through with the EBT sales. Closing for a few hours, though i am sure it's something they rather not do, is hardly the threat of mass riots you originally characterized it as.

I mean, the situation was even so chaotic no one even stole anything ...
 
1) out of the number of stors that stopped or limited purchases you had one store that shut down for a few hours

2) Again, i'm not seeing how this fits your claim that they were compelled to go through with the EBT sales. Closing for a few hours, though i am sure it's something they rather not do, is hardly the threat of mass riots you originally characterized it as.

I mean, the situation was even so chaotic no one even stole anything ...
I'm giving you a reason why they have benefit of the doubt, you're giving speculation.
 
Just because there was a system glitch doesn't give a person the right to abuse the privilege they were given. If a person was driving a car and their friends decided to rob a bank and they drove off with the thieves in tow, they are still responsible even though they didn't rob the bank.

So here are some words on common sense here...just because someone else does it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
 
Here's a more realistic comparison for the people who don't get it. If you have $10 left in your bank account, your order comes out to $11 and it still processes, you don't go back and fill up a grocery cart thinking there is no repercussion for over spending. The bank will come back and bite your behind.
 
I'm giving you a reason why they have benefit of the doubt, you're giving speculation.

1) you're "benefit of the doubt" seems nothing more than political

2) where did I speculate?
 
1) you're "benefit of the doubt" seems nothing more than political

2) where did I speculate?
How the hell is it political, you are actively accusing merchants of fraud without any evidence. Fact is people can be given a break for being a little over what their limit should be, but anyone ringing up 700+ dollars and being hundreds off did it intentionally, and that's how it would look to a court. You can speculate as to the "facilitation" but that is a harder case, just be happy the retailers lost money for making the call and that should be corrective to them.
 
How the hell is it political, you are actively accusing merchants of fraud without any evidence.

they put through transactions while they knew the system wasn't working properly in the context of people clearing the shelves of every eligible item. It rather hard to claim this was just seen as business as usual. In fact, it's impossible


Fact is people can be given a break for being a little over what their limit should be, but anyone ringing up 700+ dollars and being hundreds off did it intentionally, and that's how it would look to a court.

I agree, but we would still fall back to your selective prosecution seemingly based on nothing more than politics

You can speculate as to the "facilitation" but that is a harder case

How 1) they knew the system was down 2) they knew there was a run on available products.

just be happy the retailers lost money for making the call and that should be corrective to them.

the current solution of people losing benefits and the store eating costs seems more than a reasonable and balanced solution. But if you're calling for prosecution, it's clear there were two parties exploiting the glitch, but you only want to target one. hence, your solution is to make the balanced solution imbalanced ...
 
they put through transactions while they knew the system wasn't working properly in the context of people clearing the shelves of every eligible item. It rather hard to claim this was just seen as business as usual. In fact, it's impossible




I agree, but we would still fall back to your selective prosecution seemingly based on nothing more than politics



How 1) they knew the system was down 2) they knew there was a run on available products.



the current solution of people losing benefits and the store eating costs seems more than a reasonable and balanced solution. But if you're calling for prosecution, it's clear there were two parties exploiting the glitch, but you only want to target one. hence, your solution is to make the balanced solution imbalanced ...
Dude, I stopped reading after your first point, you are repeating speculation. EBT is an electronics benefit transfer, meaning an account is created, like a bank account for one's personal money. If a store takes a bad check they are not complicit in a crime, in this case they were trying to keep commerce going, if you have actual evidence that they willfully committed a fraud then by all means present it, otherwise you are speculating.

Now, and this is where it is important. If someone overdrafts their checking account by triple digits it costs the bank, the person, and sometimes the retailer money which is why it is a crime. In this case, the stores will not get a refund, and the tax payers dodged a bullet, but the fact remains that no one with half a brain cell will overdraft by that wide of a margin by accident.
 
Dude, I stopped reading after your first point, you are repeating speculation.

No, they absolutely knew the system was down. They even contacted corporate over the issue. I suggest reading up on the topic
 
No, they absolutely knew the system was down. They even contacted corporate over the issue. I suggest reading up on the topic
Dude, I LIVE IN THE STATE, it was all over the news here, I read it. The system was down and they didn't use the safeguards, that's the ONLY thing they did and they lost money, you are accusing them of facilitation which is a crime. So instead of arguing the point YET AGAIN without proving your point, show the evidence you have, because, as I've been telling you, your case is based on s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n which is another way of saying it sucks. The LAW, states that at certain dollar amounts or frequencies a wire fraud, or government fraud has occurred.
 
Dude, I LIVE IN THE STATE, it was all over the news here, I read it. The system was down and they didn't use the safeguards, that's the ONLY thing they did and they lost money, you are accusing them of facilitation which is a crime.

they knew the system was done and there was a clear run on EBT products. To claim that they were unaware that this was out of the ordinary is what is absurd
 
they knew the system was done and there was a clear run on EBT products. To claim that they were unaware that this was out of the ordinary is what is absurd
:roll: Whatever man, really you haven't made a case in the least. Maybe they should have turned everyone who had EBT away and told them to go starve in the street, then they wouldn't have you accusing them of a facilitation crime.
 
:roll: Whatever man, really you haven't made a case in the least. Maybe they should have turned everyone who had EBT away and told them to go starve in the street, then they wouldn't have you accusing them of a facilitation crime.

lol @ the walmart as hostage meme

1) when did walmart ever have issue turning someone away?

2) the issue lasted a few hours.

3) many stores, including walmarts, did exactly that.
 
lol @ the walmart as hostage meme

1) when did walmart ever have issue turning someone away?

2) the issue lasted a few hours.

3) many stores, including walmarts, did exactly that.
The issue didn't "last a few hours", people were making multiple runs, in my city that would be over an hour a piece. You can laugh all you want but your case is weak. You are speculating while accusing retailers of a crime, when the real crime is right in front of you. Anyway, I'm done with you, you keep repackaging the same BS and not even entertaining the counter.
 
It is absolutely theft and fraud and a damn shame that people would do this. If I wrote a large check that returned NSF or a continuing series of such in full knowledge that would be a felony, so this should be considered one too.

This is what I was thinking.

I see this as writing a bad check.

Only the purchaser knew how much was in their account and they still decided to "buy" much more than they had money for.

I would like to hear some reaction to this decisión from the people that "bought" the overages.
 
Why do you seem so lenient in your view with those who facilitated the sales? personally, you can hardly justify pursuing criminal action and not seeking remedy from the party that facilitated such actions.

Is that like pursuing criminal charges against somebody that leaves their front door open when they are robbed?
 
all they had to do to deal with the situation is close the store. This hardly works to justify your argument that WM was basically held hostage

What? What about the people that were shopping that actually worked for what they have?

They should be thrown out of the store because of some theives?
 
Back
Top Bottom