The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

5th article on the Walmart Serial Murder trial. Oh wait, it was one guy who left the team and he shoplifted. Well anyway, big news, big big news.

Poor Dave Drew must be chitting his pants as this nerd patrol reporter takes over his sports beat and alienates him even more from the program.

LOL. U went on a rant and I swear they made a feature article just to pizz you off.

(09-08-2014 07:05 PM)EA3 Wrote:  LOL. U went on a rant and I swear they made a feature article just to pizz you off.

They cant go out of business soon enough for me.

If you take the first letter of each paragraph, it spells: F U C H I P D I P

Man, she hates all things WMU.

They're all hugging down at that the Mlive office.......all 3 cubicles. "Look Julie, we've got 76 comments. Taco Billy's just called and said they're going to put a banner up on all of your columns. Each click is worth .005 of a cent! We're not going out of business this week!!!"

5 articles and we come to find out they got cold feet and there was barely even a significant crime, not to mention worth reporting.

I say suspend them for the season for breaking team rules (encountering police and not telling the coaching staff) and let the team captains decide any additional punishment.

Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

Not the crime of the century. But it's news to someone.

Their editor obviously had a dog in this fight, having the final word on running those. I think we are seeing a no kidding feud here. Small potatoes sure, a dying newspaper vs a floundering football program.

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

(09-09-2014 10:46 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

That's what I was wondering... was anything actually "stolen"?

Quote:Two Western Michigan University football players charged with stealing from a Walmart store were leaving the parking lot without the items in question when stopped by sheriff deputies

Quote:While in the store, Rolle filled a shopping cart with liquor, but abandoned the cart inside the store, according to the the report.

Quote:Meanwhile, Morgan admitted to police that he left the store without paying for an "AK-style" BB gun and a car stereo charger in his shopping cart, the report said. He said when he got outside of the store, he got cold feet and left the cart in the parking lot.

What is the difference between someone getting to the check out line, and leaving something in their cart behind by mistake?

To me, it seems like Morgan (former player) is the only one who actually committed a crime.

However, Phillips, Lee, and Rolle all still broke team rules by not informing the coaching staff of the situation.

(09-09-2014 10:46 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

Taking with the intent to steal. Any movement of the item (asportation); it does not need to be removed from the store. And more than one person can share in criminal culpability if they are acting together. Only one person needs to "take", or move, the item.

These boys were stealing. It is what it is. Too bad. Poor choices.

You will all be charged a nickel for the lesson.

Nice.

(09-09-2014 12:08 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 10:46 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

Taking with the intent to steal. Any movement of the item (asportation); it does not need to be removed from the store. And more than one person can share in criminal culpability if they are acting together. Only one person needs to "take", or move, the item.

These boys were stealing. It is what it is. Too bad. Poor choices.

Pretty tough to prove that in court? Short of them grabbing an item and placing it in their pockets or under their shirt...I'm not sure you can PROVE the asportation. Now, if you can prove the young men were "working together" during the crime, then it would be cut and dry. As it sits right now, the actions of placing items into a cart and leaving them at the door is no different than what MIGHT happen during any other normal business day at Walmart when a person forgets their wallet in their car.

Note...I agree with you brovol...just playing devils advocate.

(09-09-2014 12:08 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 10:46 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

Taking with the intent to steal. Any movement of the item (asportation); it does not need to be removed from the store. And more than one person can share in criminal culpability if they are acting together. Only one person needs to "take", or move, the item.

These boys were stealing. It is what it is. Too bad. Poor choices.

Bravol, how come Darius "Wheels" Phillips was not charged as an accomplice when he was clearly the gangs get away driver, and possibly even the master mind of the crime.

In today's Gazette Julie Mack looked into Phillips background. Using a Freedom of Information Act request we found that Phillips was regularly caught chewing gum in school, and had to take drivers ed a second time. In addition, in 2011 Phillips was let go from McDonalds after over filling the ketchup dispenser and for not replacing the urinal cakes during bathroom clean up.

This is how it starts, first the little stuff, then before you know it they're driving get away cars.

(09-09-2014 12:31 PM)EA3 Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 12:08 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 10:46 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

Taking with the intent to steal. Any movement of the item (asportation); it does not need to be removed from the store. And more than one person can share in criminal culpability if they are acting together. Only one person needs to "take", or move, the item.

These boys were stealing. It is what it is. Too bad. Poor choices.

Pretty tough to prove that in court? Short of them grabbing an item and placing it in their pockets or under their shirt...I'm not sure you can PROVE the asportation. Now, if you can prove the young men were "working together" during the crime, then it would be cut and dry. As it sits right now, the actions of placing items into a cart and leaving them at the door is no different than what MIGHT happen during any other normal business day at Walmart when a person forgets their wallet in their car.

Note...I agree with you brovol...just playing devils advocate.

Sometimes the best evidence is circumstantial evidence. As a former prosecutor I would love to say in closings, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....". The three were on camera looking around, filling a cart (with alcohol among other things--even though under 21), and apparently even took stuff out the door without paying. Pretty clear had an intent to steal. But as I now say as a judge, if a jury acquits, that’s what I accept, regardless of the evidence.

And these things very frequently get resolved with one person taking the hit, either in some plea agreement, or by a jury's compromise, with the apparent accomplices getting dismissals. Or, more likely, if the players have no prior record, they may plea with a delayed sentence, or utilizing Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, where they are put on probation for a period, and if they stay out of trouble the charges are effectively dismissed. Very common. In fact, that is what I predict will happen here.

(09-09-2014 01:08 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 12:08 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 10:46 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

What is retail fraud if you don't actually take the items with you?

Taking with the intent to steal. Any movement of the item (asportation); it does not need to be removed from the store. And more than one person can share in criminal culpability if they are acting together. Only one person needs to "take", or move, the item.

These boys were stealing. It is what it is. Too bad. Poor choices.

Bravol, how come Darius "Wheels" Phillips was not charged as an accomplice when he was clearly the gangs get away driver, and possibly even the master mind of the crime.

In today's Gazette Julie Mack looked into Phillips background. Using a Freedom of Information Act request we found that Phillips was regularly caught chewing gum in school, and had to take drivers ed a second time. In addition, in 2011 Phillips was let go from McDonalds after over filling the ketchup dispenser and for not replacing the urinal cakes during bathroom clean up.

This is how it starts, first the little stuff, then before you know it they're driving get away cars.

Funny stuff!

No, but really, he was the get away driver, everybody knows it. Shouldn't he be arrested?

(09-09-2014 06:31 AM)brovol Wrote:  Looks like at least three of them are guilty, even if all three didnt leave the store with the loot. All elements of retail fraud are met. Not crime of century though. Onward.

Have you ever considered teaching at the prestigious WMU Cooley Law School?