The article I have chosen is on the SFgate.com website. The article is “Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi on Neiman Marcus radar” by Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnist (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/27/BA9T1M3IAH.DTL). The article is about the assembly woman; Mary Hayashi was arrested for shoplifting in a Niemen Marcus store in the Union Square area, Downtown San Francisco. It was reported that Hayashi had stole more the $2,450 worth of merchandise. The sales clerk of Neiman Marcus had thought to have seen Hayashi before and had alerted officials to keep radar on her in case she had returned to the store to steal more merchandise. The authors also include how the surveillance tapes showed Hayashi walking into a dressing room carrying several items with her and about 20 minutes later comes out of the dressing room carrying a shopping bag. When she tried to leave the store, security had stopped her before she escaped. The article also says that prior to Hayashi’s arrest, her attorney who is Douglas Rappaport, refuses to comment on the report of her arrest and a PR man for Mary Hayashi said “it was all a big mistake, that the assemblywoman was distracted by phone calls and text messages and was just about to return to the store when she was stopped.” This results to her pleading not guilty to grand theft and is free on bail. After reading this article, I think that it is ridiculous that Mary Hayashi is found not guilty for shoplifting. I don’t see how you can be pleaded not guilty when you have hard evidence that this woman has clearly been stealing merchandise from Neiman Marcus.
No comments:
Post a Comment