When chicks do it, no big deal. But men??

[Viper1j]

Provide examples. It's your contention & your obligation to back it up.

Try reading my second post.

I agree that a guy buying does not entitle him to anything more. But I am saying, there are women that go on dates for the specific propose of getting a free nice meal. So "dating in bad faith," which I don't see how it is any different.

Of course, if the women goes in expecting to have a good date and it just isn't, that is completely different.

Don't forget the many women that agree to a "meet and greet", where it's understood by both parties that the guy may be paying for cocktails, and that's it.

But when she arrives, she comes up with something along the lines of "I'm so sorry, I missed lunch today, do you mind if I order something to eat?" With a nice smile, and a strategic flash of thigh, the guy says something along the lines of "sure why not?"

And when the waitress brings over the appetizer menu, she says "oh, I won't need that, I'll have the steak and lobster, medium well, with a Caesar salad.".

But she's a girl, so it's okay. NOT

Maybe she should be charged with a crime.

 

[woolfe9998]

Try reading my second post.

Don't forget the many women that agree to a "meet and greet", where it's understood by both parties that the guy may be paying for cocktails, and that's it.

But when she arrives, she comes up with something along the lines of "I'm so sorry, I missed lunch today, do you mind if I order something to eat?" With a nice smile, and a strategic flash of thigh, the guy says something along the lines of "sure why not?"

And when the waitress brings over the appetizer menu, she says "oh, I won't need that, I'll have the steak and lobster, medium well, with a Caesar salad.".

But she's a girl, so it's okay. NOT

Maybe she should be charged with a crime.

Ordering a steak "medium well" ought to be the first thing she's charged with. Wasting perfectly good USDA prime ought to be federal offense.

 

[Viper1j]

Just advise her that the steak comes with dick for dessert.

 

[sdifox]

That seems excessive punishment. Payback ten times should be punishment enough. It's property crime.

 

[Viper1j]

That seems excessive punishment. Payback ten times should be punishment enough. It's property crime.

It's only a crime if a man does it.

 

[sdifox]

It's only a crime if a man does it.

It's a crime if a woman does it too. You just have to catch her.

 

[Sunburn74]

Jesus fucking Christ!
This isn't complicated. The guy ran out on restaurants without paying his bill.
Whether you think that he should have paid all of it or half is irrelevant. He ran without paying any of it.
Fuck him. He's a dick.

No doubt. He's a dick. But jail time? If he did that once, would he go jail? Zero chance. It would be taken up in a small claims court if the lady ever had a problem. There is no way it would end up in a criminal court.
Why does that change if he does that a few times?

Basically because the women paid, they've eliminated the crime. A business can report theft. These women however didn't get robbed or tricked into paying or anything (they could have said "i'm not paying for him. File a police report"). Once they paid, I think it now becomes a small claims issue, no different than say trying to get money back you loaned to a lousy roommate or something.

At this point honestly the best thing to do is to financially destroy the guy by just saying "hey here is his identity, why don't all of you ladies lump your complaints into one big civil suit" and then take the guy to court where he'll obviously lose and have to pay them, probably pay some punitive fees and have to cover legal costs as well. That makes sense to me. Jail time seems ridiculous.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, but so do women, which is what I think the OP's point was. They just don't have to skip to get it paid.

If a women leads on a guy, gets a free meal, then never talks to him again should she be charged as well?

I am not claiming men are oppressed, I just think they are charging him for being a bad date. Or if he really does this all the time, then a petty crime.

Our society has roles. When a man asks a woman out to dinner, part of that role is the unstated offer to pay. He's taking a chance on winning her affections. Well, except this guy. He knows that leaving her sitting at the table covers his getaway.

 

[conehead433]

This should come under protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe restitution to the offended and possibly a short jail term, but this sentence borders on the absurd,

 

[Zorba]

Our society has roles. When a man asks a woman out to dinner, part of that role is the unstated offer to pay. He's taking a chance on winning her affections. Well, except this guy. He knows that leaving her sitting at the table covers his getaway.

I thought we were supposed to be moving past stereotypical gender roles nowadays though?

Even in the stereotypical role though, it is expected that the woman shares interest in the guy as well. So again, people could commit the fraud either direction, it's just much more obvious when a guy does it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I thought we were supposed to be moving past stereotypical gender roles nowadays though?

Even in the stereotypical role though, it is expected that the woman shares interest in the guy as well. So again, people could commit the fraud either direction, it's just much more obvious when a guy does it.

No. It's not the same thing.The obligation to pay is implicit in the offer of dinner. I always said "Let me buy you dinner." Sometimes women would insist on going Dutch. I suspect the same rules apply for gay people.

 

[Aegeon]

No doubt. He's a dick. But jail time? If he did that once, would he go jail? Zero chance. It would be taken up in a small claims court if the lady ever had a problem. There is no way it would end up in a criminal court.
Why does that change if he does that a few times?

Basically because the women paid, they've eliminated the crime. A business can report theft. These women however didn't get robbed or tricked into paying or anything (they could have said "i'm not paying for him. File a police report"). Once they paid, I think it now becomes a small claims issue, no different than say trying to get money back you loaned to a lousy roommate or something..

This is an unreadable position, and ignores how extremely dramatically differently the fact he did this at least 13 times makes this, which was key to establishing his degree of fraudulent intent. There is no plausible argument that he intended to legitimately have a normal date and pay for at least his share of the dinner and the experience was just so awful this one time he felt he had to skip out part way through the dinner. (Whatever you think about it, this is very different than any sort of arguable fraud that might be argued in some other situations involving dates.)

The key argument is he tricked the women into believing it was a valid date and left them with the impression they may have done something to cause their date to suddenly skip out on them. They also paid in a situation where they were suddenly presented with this situation and effectively had to decide on the spot and certainly did not know he was someone who had done this allot. The women were also facing a situation where if they refused to pay, the restaurant could actually decide to just call the police on them and seek to seek charges, which is probably how the extortion charges fit into this since he deliberately engineered such a situation. After all its presumably just the woman's word at that point (without independent witnesses with the same story at that point) as far as establishing the man even specifically asked her out, with the restaurant possibly deciding she must have been in on any scam.

By the way, in two cases the restaurant ended up eating the bill, so your basic legal argument does not apply in those cases. It appears in those cases the employee/ or owner concluded the woman impacted was so distraught and they were so taken aback that they decided to eat the bill, but of course this was done without knowing the man was a serial offender. (It should be noted he is very unlikely to get something like the theoretical max sentence.)

It should be noted that if someone accumulated enough loans from people he knew for fraudulent claimed reasons before defaulting on all of them, that actually is something he could potentially face fraud charges for as well if authorities felt the case was blatant enough to pursue them.

 

[Viper1j]

He tricked them before they could trick him. Bottom line, that's what the fuss is all about. If they managed to get him to blow $200 by flashing some thigh and batting an eye, and tried to end the evening with a handshake, everybody would be cheering the bitch on.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Damn wimmins! Always trying to scam something from the poor mens. Poor, poor mens.

This guy is a fucking hero. Build a statue and give him a parade.

 

[Aegeon]

He tricked them before they could trick him. Bottom line, that's what the fuss is all about. If they managed to get him to blow $200 by flashing some thigh and batting an eye, and tried to end the evening with a handshake, everybody would be cheering the bitch on.

Its a bogus argument because the law does not try to get involved in those situations because it clearly would get too messy at that point. In the situation you are talking about, the man at least theoretically could simply pay for his dinner or his half of the dinner and that's it. By law there is no contractual obligation for the woman to sleep with him or continue the relationship simply because he paid. At the point you are taking about, it also gets vastly harder to prove intent and for instance establish the woman was giving as many signs as you are suggesting and he didn't simply see things. The idea everyone would approve of the behavior you're talking about today is also obviously untrue.

Another practical point is whatever you think about it, due to social standards having someone run out of this midway through a dinner is vastly more humiliating than a handshake at the end and that's it. As far as witnesses are generally concerned she may just be taking it slow and the man could end up having wild sex with her on a future date. (Or at least unless they were closely following their conversation they could have misunderstood and it was not actually a date at all.) Actually walking out in the middle of the date is also seen as a much worse rebuke and basically put those women in a position of wondering they were oblivious and did something awful enough to cause their date to behave in such a way without them realizing it.

One other notable point is that after giving clear indications he was paying for dinner, he proceeded to at least in most cases order way more and way more expensive stuff than the women did, with them in effectively no position to question this since they had every reason to believe they were not paying for his food. At least when the expectations are the other way around the man could theoretically question what she orders, or at least by the end of the date decide her tastes are so expensive this relationship is not going to work so he takes the position they should split the check. The woman obviously did not have the option in this case.

 

[Sunburn74]

This is an unreadable position, and ignores how extremely dramatically differently the fact he did this at least 13 times makes this, which was key to establishing his degree of fraudulent intent. There is no plausible argument that he intended to legitimately have a normal date and pay for at least his share of the dinner and the experience was just so awful this one time he felt he had to skip out part way through the dinner. (Whatever you think about it, this is very different than any sort of arguable fraud that might be argued in some other situations involving dates.)

The key argument is he tricked the women into believing it was a valid date and left them with the impression they may have done something to cause their date to suddenly skip out on them. They also paid in a situation where they were suddenly presented with this situation and effectively had to decide on the spot and certainly did not know he was someone who had done this allot. The women were also facing a situation where if they refused to pay, the restaurant could actually decide to just call the police on them and seek to seek charges, which is probably how the extortion charges fit into this since he deliberately engineered such a situation. After all its presumably just the woman's word at that point (without independent witnesses with the same story at that point) as far as establishing the man even specifically asked her out, with the restaurant possibly deciding she must have been in on any scam.

By the way, in two cases the restaurant ended up eating the bill, so your basic legal argument does not apply in those cases. It appears in those cases the employee/ or owner concluded the woman impacted was so distraught and they were so taken aback that they decided to eat the bill, but of course this was done without knowing the man was a serial offender. (It should be noted he is very unlikely to get something like the theoretical max sentence.)

It should be noted that if someone accumulated enough loans from people he knew for fraudulent claimed reasons before defaulting on all of them, that actually is something he could potentially face fraud charges for as well if authorities felt the case was blatant enough to pursue them.

The number of times doesn't matter. If i do something that warrants a small civil claim and repeat it x10, its still just x10 small civil claims. In example, if I tell 10 of my neighbors I will cut their lawns and then stiff them all by not cutting the lawn (maybe I was on a bender, or maybe my equipment broke, or whatever) and taking the money, that's 10 civil claims. It's not a criminal claim. You take the person to court and you get your money back with damages. Promises that involve money are broken all the time and they get resolved in court.

Tricking women into a date isn't a crime. The crime is leaving a restaurant bill unpaid. That is a crime. But the bill was not unpaid. It was paid by the women. Once the women pay the bill, it now becomes a civil claim. It's like having a room-mate that supposed to pay 1/2 the rent. The landlord comes and says "where's the rent". Your roommate is nowhere to be found and so you pay it all so you don't get kicked out of the apt. When your roommate comes back 1 week later does he go to jail? No! You take him to court. And even if he has a history of doing this over and over (ie he does it every single month of the year to you), he still is NOT going to jail. You take him to court.


Now I did not know that there were two cases where he left the bill unpaid. That is a crime, but probably at best a misdemeanor I would say.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

He tricked them before they could trick him. Bottom line, that's what the fuss is all about. If they managed to get him to blow $200 by flashing some thigh and batting an eye, and tried to end the evening with a handshake, everybody would be cheering the bitch on.

Whats with the false equivalence BS youre spewing? Can't get a date or something? You sound like a bitter snowflake male. Bonus points for the mysogeny.

Grow up and shut up.

 

[Zaap]

So stupid to make this into some dumb male vs. female thing.

You can't go in a restaurant, order a bunch of stuff then skip out without settling your share of the bill.

Doing so in an obvious serial pattern SHOULD be a crime and good riddance to this dumbass.

The dumb idea that "women do this all the time" is horseshit. A man may more often foot the bill on a date but not because a woman just skipped out. In any case where this same serial situation actually happened I'd say charge a woman or a man.

As for 16 years max sentence he won't get anything near that. Whatever real sentence he does get chop it in half with time off for good behavior, etc.

 

[Aegeon]

The number of times doesn't matter. If i do something that warrants a small civil claim and repeat it x10, its still just x10 small civil claims. In example, if I tell 10 of my neighbors I will cut their lawns and then stiff them all by not cutting the lawn (maybe I was on a bender, or maybe my equipment broke, or whatever) and taking the money, that's 10 civil claims. It's not a criminal claim. You take the person to court and you get your money back with damages. Promises that involve money are broken all the time and they get resolved in court.

Tricking women into a date isn't a crime. The crime is leaving a restaurant bill unpaid. That is a crime. But the bill was not unpaid. It was paid by the women. Once the women pay the bill, it now becomes a civil claim. It's like having a room-mate that supposed to pay 1/2 the rent. The landlord comes and says "where's the rent".

To clarify some more doing it once is a crime is if you could provide definitive enough proof it was done in bad faith in the first place. (Actually it could be a crime depending on the intent regardless, but the person may get away with it given the lack of sufficient evidence.) While you probably have a strong argument to make regarding making him not paying what the woman ordered part of the fraud or extortion crime, what he ordered is a very different matter. (Which in most cases was considerably more than what she ordered.) The law can certainly take the position that by default each individual in that situation is expected to pay for their own meal and doing more than this is purely optional.

You are in fact factually mistaken about your lawn example. This following case shows failing to provide lawn care can be considered a crime if sufficient evidence exists its intentional rather than merely an issue with being unable to provide lawn-care temporarily when your equipment broke or the like. (There would be no point in contacting the police as in the story if it was purely a civil matter.)
http://xlcountry.com/beware-of-this-lawn-care-scam-in-bozeman/

Edit: Here is another example of a failure to provide lawn care services being an outright crime.
https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_deb0c1cc-993b-11e8-a298-10604b9f6eda.html

In this case the dine and run offender deliberately created a situation with social pressure and concerns about legal consequences if police got involved and she might be suspected as being part of a dine and run conspiracy which why they paid rather than say benevolently wanting to avoid their date partner facing legal consequences for not paying. The serial nature which also applied to at least "haircut and dye job and run" instance involving him also was knowledge the individuals did not have when they had agreed to pay rather than making it a police matter at that point.

Your roommate is nowhere to be found and so you pay it all so you don't get kicked out of the apt. When your roommate comes back 1 week later does he go to jail? No! You take him to court. And even if he has a history of doing this over and over (ie he does it every single month of the year to you), he still is NOT going to jail. You take him to court.

While this is basically an example as given where it would almost never lead to charges, if he say managed to evade payment almost two months or so and then secretly moved out and it turned out he had done the exact same thing to 6 other people in a row (we'll assume you did not know about that part) it would be possible for the police to decide to pursue fraud charges in that case.

Basically you're mistaking the fact police are almost never willing to pursue fraud charges and leave things as a civil matter with it being impossible to pursue criminal charges no matter how blatant. One other major practical problem with always leaving it an entirely civil matter is that if the perpetrator took precautions such as a false name and perhaps doing the calling with a false caller id number, it would be realistically almost impossible for any victim to track him down and collect money that way.

 

[Bitek]

Lose the misguided misogyny...he did the "dine and dash" routine.

Are you saying that women whom you date have done this to you?

This.

He just "innovated" on the scam by obfuscating the issue by bringing a third person in as a date, hoping they will just pay up out of embarrassment, rather than making it look like outright theft.
Clearly part of a pattern of pretty criminality.

It's right for the LEOs to go after him and scare the shit out if him, plea to much less, but leave the mark on his record if he tries this again.

 

[sandorski]

The moral of the story is: Don't go on a First Date to some fancy expensive place.

 

[Viper1j]

Actually walking out in the middle of the date is also seen as a much worse rebuke and basically put those women in a position of wondering they were oblivious and did something awful enough to cause their date to behave in such a way without them realizing it.

Because females just can't handle rejection. They see themselves as the givers, not the receivers..

My girlfriend has a friend, we'll call Tracy B. , that is 100% drop dead gorgeous. I've seen her use what she calls "the tools" to get men to put her (and her three kids) in a 5100 sq ft 4 bedroom house for free, use them on a different guy that owned a spa company to put a 6 person hot tub in the backyard of that same house.

Use them a on a moderately popular area Dr. for winter trips to Aruba for the last 6 years. She has more shoes than Imelda Marcos (youngsters can google) and 2 walk-in closets with clothes that still have the price tags on them. (She actually brags about that to my g/f.)

And she has yet to get a single one of these guys laid.

The second most pathetic part of this, is that they all know about each other. It's hard to believe that these men can be so successful in every other aspect of their lives, and totally lose it over this bitch. They're all like wild dogs, fighting over a particularly tasty bone.

The most pathetic part of this, is that one of her children, is a daughter, and I have no doubt that she is teaching her how to use "the tools".

Someday she's going to run into the wrong guy, and we'll read about it in the paper, or see the search for her body on the 6 o'clock news.

She might actually be safer in jail.

 

[WelshBloke]

Because females just can't handle rejection. They see themselves as the givers, not the receivers..

My girlfriend has a friend, we'll call Tracy B. , that is 100% drop dead gorgeous. I've seen her use what she calls "the tools" to get men to put her (and her three kids) in a 5100 sq ft 4 bedroom house for free, use them on a different guy that owned a spa company to put a 6 person hot tub in the backyard of that same house.

Use them a on a moderately popular area Dr. for winter trips to Aruba for the last 6 years. She has more shoes than Imelda Marcos (youngsters can google) and 2 walk-in closets with clothes that still have the price tags on them. (She actually brags about that to my g/f.)

And she has yet to get a single one of these guys laid.

The second most pathetic part of this, is that they all know about each other. It's hard to believe that these men can be so successful in every other aspect of their lives, and totally lose it over this bitch. They're all like wild dogs, fighting over a particularly tasty bone.

The most pathetic part of this, is that one of her children, is a daughter, and I have no doubt that she is teaching her how to use "the tools".

Someday she's going to run into the wrong guy, and we'll read about it in the paper, or see the search for her body on the 6 o'clock news.

She might actually be safer in jail.

Dude. You have issues.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're right to be confused. It says they charged him with "extortion" for this but that doesn't fit the facts at all. Extortion means using force or threats of force to extract money from people. Like a mob protection racket. Doesn't fit. Possible the article got something wrong.

https://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html

Something like fraud, which in the general case is a species of larceny, might fit the facts better.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-484.html

Charging as "felonies" makes no sense, however, because the dollar amount is too low. I strongly suspect there is something else going on here which isn't reported in the article.

This guy sounds like a small time grifter to me. He's probably done scads of petty stuff like this.

Sounds like this guy is going to be out a lot in lawyer fees but isn't going to be convicted or have the case thrown out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dude. You have issues.

That is pretty messed up though. Assuming he's representing the situation correctly why does he have issues?