Brickbats

Brickbat: Dog Gone

|

hot dogs
Credit: stu_spivack / photo on flickr

Walnetta Reid and Tristan Ellis insisted they did not eat two hot dogs at an Iberia, Louisiana, convenience store without paying. They asked the officer who had been called about the incident to look at the security video, claiming it would show they were innocent. Instead, he released the women with a summons. They drove 400 miles from their homes in Texas for their court date, certain that someone would finally look at the video and throw out the charge. Instead, they found they were only there for a plea hearing. They pleaded not guilty, but when they could not pay $1,740 each for bond, the judge tossed them in jail, where they remained for five days until a local attorney heard about the case and put up the bond.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sorry—Economic Conservatives are Nothing Like Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So who was pressing charges and where was his\her proof? You’d think they’d need the video seeing they were not in the store when arrested and the ‘evidence’ is gone. Then again ,this is LA.,

    1. Oh, I imagine the surveillance video will have been automatically written over by the time the trial comes around. That could be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on which dirtbag Louisiana judge they get.

      1. Why do I think the cops and the DA and judge may all be cousins?

        1. Cousins *and* in-laws!

          1. You just repeated yourself.

  2. If they’re innocent and the security video proves it, I would think that arresting them without bothering to look at the security video might be construed as false arrest.

    1. I’ve said it before. If you can’t do the time, don’t be accused by lazy law enforcement of doing the crime.

  3. I was going to say the bond amount was excessive but then I read the HuffPo article and it says the two women are also accused of drinking milkshakes and an Icee. TWO HOTDOGS, MILKSHAKES AND AN ICEE! That may very well exceed $10 in total goods!

    Shame on you, Mr. Oliver, for omitting such pertinent information!

    1. +1 wheezing the juice

  4. The prosecutor, when asked if she had any second thoughts about how the way Iberia City Court behaved towards the women, said no. “There is nothing out of the ordinary in the way these women were treated.”

    “I always kick the dog when I get home, so I don’t know why everyone is making a big deal about this one time.”

    1. No,this women’s a cat person. Cats are evil and love to play with their prey,

    2. How much does this prosecutor know about woodchippers? Is it possible she could learn more? I’m just asking; I don’t mean anything by that. (And I would deplore in the most emphatic manner anyone who should wish or bring violence upon that fine public servant.)

    3. How much does this prosecutor know about woodchippers? Is it possible she could learn more? I’m just asking; I don’t mean anything by that. (And I would deplore in the most emphatic manner anyone who should wish or bring violence upon that fine public servant.)

  5. Could’ve just frisked their lips and assholes for lips and assholes.

  6. I shot the clerk?

    1. I SHOT THE CLERK?!

      1. Somebody needs to call cousin Vinny.

  7. It gets better:

    They planned to show the court their receipt for the soup and explain to the judge that Ms. Ellis is a vegan and never eats meat of any kind, much less a hot dog… “I was praying and praying because I could not figure out why God put me in this situation. I finally decided God put me here to help other people and to tell what happened so it doesn’t happen again.”

    God, prosecutor, whatever

    1. If more people know that God does this to people then God will stop doing this to people. Do I have that right?

      1. God is Great and Merciful, but moves in mysterious ways.

        1. God is great
          God is good
          Let us thank him
          for our hotdog.

      2. As St. Theresa of Avila said, after she was tossed into a stream by the donkey she was riding across it, “Lord, if this is how you treat your friends, it’s no wonder you have so few of them.”

    2. They planned to show the court their receipt for the soup and explain to the judge that Ms. Ellis is a vegan and never eats meat of any kind, much less a hot dog… “I was praying and praying because I could not figure out why God put me in this situation.

      It’s simple. You’re an omnivore who’s rejected a staple of their diet.

  8. “The prosecutor, when asked if she had any second thoughts about how the way Iberia City Court behaved towards the women, said no. “There is nothing out of the ordinary in the way these women were treated.”

    Again, not to bring Canada into this, but these sort of stories are next to rare. I’m glad we don’t have a prison industrial complex!

    I read the story and all that came to mind is this is a neat way to extort money from people.

    1. No, Canukistan merely puts people on trial for disagreeing with feminists online. We at least pretend an actual crime has taken place.

      1. Yeh, there’s the odd stupidity but not stories like this. Trial but the system doesn’t put people in prison for such inane situations and impose heavy bonds on them.

        Throw two people in prison for hot dogs? Nah. Unless I missed one in the past.

        Murphy’s Law. Watch it happen.

        1. I’d like to add re free speech, yes, the Human Rights Commission is bull shit but on the other hand, we don’t have what’s going on with, for example, Title IX. I worry this may find its way into our universities – as we’re apt to import each others bad ideas.

        2. Are you not familiar with the case I referenced? As a pre-trial condition the accused was barred from using any device which could be used to access the internet. This lasted for over a year, costing his job and a significant amount of money before the jury acquitted him.

          1. Yeah, I am. It was deplorable as it was embarrassing.

            But are we mixing things up a little? I don’t doubt where free speech and other expressions are concerned, the U.S. is more vigilant and respectful than Canada.

            My point is stories like THIS one simply don’t happen here. I’m not suggesting more than an observation on my part.

            Sure, once in a blue moon they decide to suddenly enforce the numerous stupid bylaws but for the most part it’s tame.

            1. Are you sure? Because it sounds like your fellow nationals wouldn’t be allowed to talk about it 😛

              1. I know.

                http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/…..ee-speech/

                1. The fact that people in many western countries are legally forbidden from disparaging Islam or feminism or the occasional Turkish dictator, to name a few examples, tells you a lot about how worthy those things are of ridicule.

  9. I am following a local case closely and can’t wait to relate it here, but I have to wait until it is finished going through the courts. It’s taking place not far from where this one did.

    1. Give us a teaser.

  10. they did go into the store but only to use the store microwave to heat up some soup they had bought at another store

    Well, *there’s* your mistake.

    1. They stole the electricity and wear on the microwave!

      1. Exactly! At least top off the tank!

  11. Just pay for the damn hot dog, whether you ate it or not. It’s not worth fighting over in court.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.