Shoplifting laws in Australia

No we aren't - Muriel should have told the detective to "sod off".... :)

I guarantee you worse has happened in America... people getting shot for stealing candy bars, etc. And store owners are "in the right?"

So, I guess that means that it was just a movie type plot point. Not really true to life. I mean, so what if she can't find a receipt. That doesn't prove she stole the dress.



Sedagive?!!!

I don't know. The store would have to prove that she took the dress and I'm sure Muriel didn't have any tell tale tags, etc. to prove that she stole it without paying. So, unless she was on film being seen taking the dress, that case would have been thrown out and I'm sure Muriel's father should have known that. Two words would have sufficed: Prove it.

And as for the mother The Detective clearly had seen that Betty was in Fartland when she exchanged shoes, so she should have cut her some slack. Betty's mistake was leaving her shoes at the shelf, but again, she was in Fartland. But The Detective should have given her the chance to pay. All Betty had to say was "Oh, I meant to pay and here's the money..." while going into her bag. Crikey, it was a damn pair of resin flip flops, not the end of the world.

But I think that being Muriel got off on the stolen dress caper by Bill bribing the two coppies, Miss Store Detective was pi**ed off and decided to take it out on poor, hapless, Biscuit Head Betty!

But this is in America. So, I don't know the Australian laws.

Someone fill me in!

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

I think the store detective liked her job a little too much.

It was obvious from the snooty expression she always had on her face.


-Amanda


"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"

The presumption of innocence, as prescribed in the Bill of Rights is a myth. If it ever really existed in America it sure doesn't now, UNLESS you're rich.

Witnesses, jurors, and the general public tend to assume that if someone was charged, or arrested, they must be guilty. Cops don't just go around arresting innocent people, fabricating police reports, lying on the witness stand, do they?
You bet your ass they do, in every court house in America.

If you're rich you can hire a good lawyer. If you can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you. BUT that public pretended is paid from the same source that pays the prosecutor who's trying to send you to jail. So how good is his defense going to be?

It is just a film.

In reality no, Australia takes after America in many ways including the law.

In the movie purely as a plot device she can get away with that accusation, as it is a movie and they take creative license.

In real life in Australia, in the shoes situation the store dectective would've politely stopped Mureil's mother and reminded her to pay. After all, they were only a cheap pair of plastic shoes worth like $5, hardly a pair of Louboutins. IRL, she would've been stopped and asked to pay.
As for the dress, same deal, Muriel would've been asked to pay if she was caught at the store shoplifting. Otherwise, unless she was caught on camera stealing the dress, there was no proof. Depending on how long ago Muriel took the dress to how long the wedding was,it's entirely plausible that, if Muriel had no intention of returning the dress (if she did really buy it), then she would have just thrown out the reciept. It would have been an innocent until proven guilty and things like that are hard to prove unless she was caught on camera or a gazillion eye witnesses came forward. However, if the dress was an expensive, boutique $200+ dress then the cops would've tried a bit harder to prove her guilt.