Arrest Warrant for Chargeback

[quincy]

I missed the part where he was convicted of a crime.

Here is a link to the law that Jomo1 was said to have violated: https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2022/title-18/chapter-39/section-3927/

Jomo1 was not convicted of the crime because the prosecutor told him if he paid the store owner what was owed ($750), the charge would be dismissed. Had Jomo1 not paid the store owner, it is possible he could have been found guilty (although Jomo1 did have a defense to the charge that perhaps could have been successful).

But you don’t have to be arrested, charged or convicted of a crime to still be in violation of a law. Examples of this abound.

 

[westside]

Here is a link to the law that Jomo1 was said to have violated: https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2022/title-18/chapter-39/section-3927/

Jomo1 was not convicted of the crime because the prosecutor told him if he paid the store owner what was owed ($750), the charge would be dismissed. Had Jomo1 not paid the store owner, it is possible he could have been found guilty (although Jomo1 did have a defense to the charge that perhaps could have been successful).

But you don’t have to be arrested, charged or convicted of a crime to still be in violation of a law. Examples of this abound.

If not convicted, isn't whether or not one broke the law a matter of opinion?

 

[quincy]

If not convicted, isn't whether or not one broke the law a matter of opinion?

Say the speed limit is 50 mph. You drive at 70 mph. It is not opinion that says you violated the law. It is the law that says you violated the law. This is true whether you are stopped by the police or not.

 

[LdiJ]

If not convicted, isn't whether or not one broke the law a matter of opinion?

No, as Quincy said it is not a matter of opinion. However, if someone breaks the law and is never arrested or convicted, then it is not officially on the record that they broke the law. That doesn't make it a matter of opinion, it just makes it unrecorded.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Say the speed limit is 50 mph. You drive at 70 mph. It is not opinion that says you violated the law. It is the law that says you violated the law. This is true whether you are stopped by the police or not.

This is hardly as clear-cut as 70 in a 50.

 

[quincy]

The charge against Jomo1 that was dismissed was a conditional discharge - conditioned on Jomo1 making good on the contract to purchase the equipment from the store by paying what he originally agreed to pay.

That Jomo1 failed to pay as agreed, by taking control of the equipment and then reversing the charge, seems to qualify as “theft” under the theft statute section 3927.

PayrollHRGuy, as I said in my other post, examples abound. The speeding example was just that - an example, provided because it is easy to understand. And it is not to say that with any example that there might not be defenses available.

 

[adjusterjack]

The reason that I feel that court did not go well for me is because I committed no crime and I should not have been forced to pay the store owner any money because the case should not have been dealt with by the DA.

You weren't forced. You were given a choice. You could have refused and gone to trial.

Why didn't you?

 

[quincy]

You weren't forced. You were given a choice. You could have refused and gone to trial.

Why didn't you?

Because he was smart?

It is generally far better to lose a civil case than risk losing a criminal case.

 

[westside]

Say the speed limit is 50 mph. You drive at 70 mph. It is not opinion that says you violated the law. It is the law that says you violated the law. This is true whether you are stopped by the police or not.

True, but there is a ton of doubt whether what the OP did here did in fact violate the law.

 

[Jomo1]

You weren't forced. You were given a choice. You could have refused and gone to trial.

Why didn't you?

One, my lawyer advised me to accept the deal and 2ndly I did not want to spends thousands of dollars on legal costs.
I assure you that if I did not have to pay for legal costs I would have gone to trial.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

One, my lawyer advised me to accept the deal and 2ndly I did not want to spends thousands of dollars on legal costs.
I assure you that if I did not have to pay for legal costs I would have gone to trial.

Smart move. With your luck so far in this matter the jury would have probably been comprised of 12 local store owners.

 

[Ohiogal]

True, but there is a ton of doubt whether what the OP did here did in fact violate the law.

He accepted a plea deal. So yes, he broke the law. He admitted it by actually paying the money.

 

[quincy]

One, my lawyer advised me to accept the deal and 2ndly I did not want to spends thousands of dollars on legal costs.
I assure you that if I did not have to pay for legal costs I would have gone to trial.

I think you had a smart attorney and that you were smart to listen to your attorney.

 

[Jomo1]

He accepted a plea deal. So yes, he broke the law. He admitted it by actually paying the money.

Just because one accepts a plea deal doesn't mean they are guilty. Even the federal government agrees with this.
The charges against me were dropped so how did I admit any guilt.
Besides, only a judge/jury can find you guilty or if you plead guilty. Neither happened to me.

 

[Zigner]

Just because one accepts a plea deal doesn't mean they are guilty. Even the federal government agrees with this.

Irrelevant. You didn't accept a plea deal.

The charges against me were dropped so how did I admit any guilt.

By paying instead of fighting the charge. I don't agree with this statement, but it's what is being said.

Besides, only a judge/jury can find you guilty or if you plead guilty. Neither happened to me.

That doesn't mean you aren't guilty, just that you weren't found guilty in a court of law. See the above example of someone who speeds but isn't caught. Another possibly more appropriate example might be one who shoplifts but isn't caught.