Utopia Talk / Politics / 'women need to calm down a bit'

delude Member	Wed Aug 22 05:17:08 A California woman has become the latest victim of alleged dine-and-dash-dater, who is accused of repeatedly skipping out on dates before the bill arrives. The woman, who does not want to be named, said she unwittingly joined LA's most exclusive - and miserable - club on Sunday, when Paul Gonzales fled after eating a small feast at BJ's in Pasadena. The woman met the handsome Gonzales on the dating app Bumble, and said he sent flattering texts before inviting her to dinner. Perhaps she should have been wary when he ordered around $50 of food for himself alone: 'A glass of Pinot, a Caesar salad with a side of shrimp, a steak, and a baked potato.' That's $50 of food - not including tax and tip. With just half a potato left to go, Gonzales excused himself to take a call on his cell phone - and never returned. 'The waiter came back and said, "He's not out there, is this a first date?" she told CBS Los Angeles. 'And I said, "Yes, this is a first blind date," and he said, "He's gone."' BJ's paid for his meal, she said, only asking her to pay for his wine. But that doesn't make up for becoming the latest in a string of victims. In August last year another woman who did not wish to be named told CBS that Gonzales fled during their first date at a restaurant in Long Beach. 'This guy is obnoxious,' she thought, as he ordered $100 of food just for himself. 'First of all, who orders two entrees? But he excused it by saying he was a bodybuilder.' He then went to the bathroom and, apparently flushed with success, left. His first known alleged victim to approach the media, Diane Guilmette, had a similar experience at a Morton's Steakhouse in Burbank in August last year. 'He ordered a lot of food,' she told CBS 2. 'He had an appetizer. He ordered a steak. This restaurant is all al la carte. 'He even ordered a couple sides, a glass of wine. So he was looked like he was really enjoying himself,' Guilmette said. Then he went for a phone call and left her with a $163 bill. She tried to message him on Plenty of Fish, the dating app they met on, but he blocked her. When she took to social media to share her story, along with pictures of her date, Guilmette said several other women came forward to say that he had done the same thing to him. Each time he had chosen a high-end restaurant and sneaked out, leaving them with the bill. […] http://www...omes-claims-latest-victim.html What say you posters! Assholery or 'women need to calm down a bit.'
jergul large member	Wed Aug 22 05:38:52 I think restaurant's need to calm down a bit. There is no reason to think people are collectively responsible for any bill. The fellows made runners on the restaurants, not the women dining with them. But this must have been tried in court. So if anyone wants to dig up legal precedent, we can test this argument.
delude Member	Wed Aug 22 05:41:29 No, to my knowledge. Only the part about theft from a hair salon.
delude Member	Wed Aug 22 05:44:39 "not the women dining with them. " Also, it is the 'parties' responsibility for the bill. The other person, regardless if the other bails, is responsible for any bill.
Paramount Member	Wed Aug 22 05:48:52 I think the woman should pay for her food and the restaurant should call the cops on the man.
American Democrat Member	Wed Aug 22 05:51:15 It's called "joint and several liability", jergul. And this happened like in 2017, and it is "Assholery" unless I am missing a bigger picture of the situation of this post?
delude Member	Wed Aug 22 05:58:06 "unless I am missing a bigger picture of the situation of this post? " Seb.
jergul large member	Wed Aug 22 07:16:12 It is not at all clear-cut. Simply asking for a seperate bill and refusing to pay the other party's bill is completely acceptable. Leave name and adress and the restaurant can take the matter to small claims court if it wishes.
American Democrat Member	Wed Aug 22 07:26:44 It doesn't necessarily exclude the other from that. And the individual may file a tort against the fleeing party member.
hood Member	Wed Aug 22 07:33:44 It's pretty harmless, isn't it?
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 22 07:43:14 Look, turns out the guy was filming a performance piece about how contemporary American males have become unable to live up to the standards of their romantic partners. It was a worthwhile inconvenience.
jergul large member	Wed Aug 22 10:21:45 AD Assuming the small claim ruling went against the person, then sure. Hood Yepp, pretty harmless, though an inconvenience to the restaurant and date of course. Dine and Dash is not really a big deal. Ruggy I could see the artistic merit in that. If intentional. Otherwise its just a monkey taking a picture of itself.
American Democrat Member	Wed Aug 22 15:20:34 "Assuming the small claim ruling went against the person, then sure." You're ignoring many factors; Once again 'joint and several liability'; If an individual came in and bailed on the bill. Theft of services. It is a crime. If two or more, it is expected that all parties are responsible for the bill, despite if it is separate or not. If one leaves and others still remain, it is expected for him to cover it. It isn't a civil matter anymore, it is a crime. You're playing this as it is a simple civil wrong (tort) when someone bails when in reality it is a crime. Sorry, the other person is still a responsible for the bill. Unless on the good graces of the management of that establishment considering the totality of the circumstances wishes to give a break. You're also neglecting this could also be a scam to get out of a dinner which is not unheard of this practice occurring. For example; Couple enters and instead of paying full tab one leaves, other plays the victim of a bail out date, and they are only responsible for a portion of the bill and paying a significantly less. So you may feel, or have the opinion that it is 'completely acceptable' establishments generally don't feel that way.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Aug 22 20:44:36 my guess is the woman is liable to the restaurant, but she could sue the guy later otherwise restaurants would need to lock down on people leaving the table early
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 01:56:09 AD I am simply outlining how a person should deal with the legality of an issue if dumped at a dinner table. 1. Pay for own food. 2. Leave name and address. 3. Await small claims court meeting. You are completely right that it is possible to not pay for a meal in a manner that would be illegal in some jurisdictions, just as you are also completely correct that many establishments would be unhappy if you paid only for your own consumption after a person left without paying. The establishment's recourse would be the small claims court.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 01:58:56 Have you people never disputed a bill before? Its a good skill to have. Just because someone wants your money does not mean they should always get it.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 05:57:35 who the fuck is gonna take anyone to court over 50 bucks? he acted like a dick, she got screwed, move on.
Paramount Member	Thu Aug 23 06:27:49 "Gonzales" So this is another one of those peaceful Mexicans who are coming across the border?
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 08:00:00 Obam No one. Hence the point of not paying the other person's bill.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 09:12:03 i love that mountme's ideology will literally change on a dime. he stands for nothing. literally is a human equivalent of shit. he is worthless and this thread proves he, once again, has no standards. he is straight trash.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 09:13:07 i would love to see someone say they dont think mountme is worthless.
hood Member	Thu Aug 23 09:17:27 Someone's getting rowdy, eh? Unhappy that mountme is calling you out, Mr dineanddash? Also, jergul. You're suggesting that people who get ditched should risk arrest over the same $50 that you call inconsequential? Seems like a paultry sum to make a stand over.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 09:23:20 Hood Well, in banana republics you might indeed risk getting arrested for disputing a bill. I would suggest relocating to a country that practices the rule of law. So my basic assumption is that you live in a civilized country.
hood Member	Thu Aug 23 09:30:47 Your problem is that you're boiling it down to disputing a bill. It isn't like the victims are being charged for items/services not delivered. The food was clearly delivered and consumed. As a party at the table served, they are responsible for that bill. It would be absolutely laughable for someone to try and claim they didn't receive the items. Taking things without paying is stealing. People get arrested for single digit dollars worth of merchandise, and you think a $50 meal would be ridiculous to arrest someone over? No, the proper course of action would be for the victim to pay the full bill (if the restaurant is not sympathetic) and then attempt to recuperate their loss (see: your suggestion of small claims court) from the dine & dasher. That is rule of law.
Forwyn Member	Thu Aug 23 10:49:18 Call a beat cop, give the suspect's info, and continue on. No need for drawn out discussions of civil liability. Recompense will be hashed out in criminal court. Also eliminates risk of "this could also be a scam to get out of a dinner which is not unheard of this practice occurring."
Jack Cafferty Member	Thu Aug 23 10:57:14 Oh lordy here comes forwyn with his knowledge of anything legal related. Turned out great for him last time.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 11:21:56 Hood The correct course of action is to dispute the bill and make payment for what you ordered in addition to providing your contact information. The restaurant can seek recourse in small claims court if it wishes to do so. Which I seriously doubt many do. The rule of law varies by jurisdiction and not any of them would find a bill dispute to be criminal. The criminal aspect is linked to intent. A person never intended to pay for what she ordered. This would not be true at all in the method I described. But all steps need to be followed. The person must pay her part of the bill and she must leave her contact information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dine_and_dash
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 11:23:41 Calling a beat cop is incidentally not a horrible idea.
hood Member	Thu Aug 23 11:27:39 You seem to be unable to understand the basic concept of liability. Diners are liable for table. The restaurant will break up bills for your convenience, but nonetheless any and every member of the party at a table is responsible for paying it. She is still responsible for paying his portion. I know you like ignoring things you don't agree with, but that doesn't make you correct, it makes your retarded.
hood Member	Thu Aug 23 11:28:24 Swear I deleted that r in your.
John Adams Member	Thu Aug 23 11:41:48 I will throw this in as food for thought, That some have neglected to mentioned. Employer holding the server liable and request the server to compensate from their wages.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 12:23:23 Hood If such a contract was entered, then sure, a person would be liable. But restaurants do not often have you sign a contract prior to dining. Though a verbal agreement would of course be equally binding. A restaurant could try to make your point in a small claims court of course. But as you can see from your use of the term "liable", this is contract law. At least for as long as a person pays for what she ate and leaves her contact information. Adams Yah, but that is illegal most places. It does show that liability is something restaurants like to assign at a whim.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 23 12:28:34 Random post on the net: "If you pay for your food only, or offer to pay for your food only and your offer to pay is refused, you have committed no crime. (Note this also presumes that there is no collusion between you and the person who flees… and assumes also that the person fleeing is not refusing to pay due to poor food quality, etc… I’ll cover this latter situation at the end.) Theft of ordered products or services is when you take without intending to pay. If you do not take with the intention of depriving the rightful owner of his property or services, the elements of the crime are not present. If you can articulate that you entered the restaurant with the intention of ordering and paying for services, and you attempt to pay for what you ordered and consumed, then you are not criminally liable for the criminal actions of your companion (assuming, again, that there is not any collusion or agreement on your part to abet the theft, etc…). In the case of the woman who entered the restaurant and was left “holding the bag” there is not any attempt to take without paying. If the restaurant owner arrests you (private person / Citizens Arrest) and a uniformed police officer were to respond, the uniformed officer would take you into custody (as is required by law.) If the officer is knowledgable and competent, he should take the restaurant owner aside and advise him that the arrest was not lawful. that the person he arrested did not commit a crime if he in fact did offer to pay for his food. If the officer’s advice is not heeded, and if the restaurant owner persisted, he would be liable for false arrest/imprisonment. If the restaurant owner insisted on pressing charges, the officer would then most likely likely release you on your own recognizance (i.e. give you a ticket), write up a report with the restaurant being the arresting party and you being the co-defendant (along with the person(s) who fled, and submit his report to the City Attorney (Or, if the amount of theft constituted a felony, the District Attorney). The City Attorney will more than likely refuse to prosecute, as you, the arrestee who offered to pay for the food you consumed, committed no crime. THEN you would have the opportunity to sue the person who arrested you for false imprisonment, as you have committed no crime. Note: A crime may or may not have occurred, but the person remaining and offering to pay is not the criminal. And, depending on the circumstances, the person who left without paying, may or may not have committed a crime and the person remaining may be simply a party to a civil contract. Simply being present when the food is ordered and consenting for the order to be placed does not constitute a contract unless she orders her food from the waiter. If the waiter comes up to the table and says, “What can I get you?” and the woman simply orders for her self, then she is only making a contract for the food she has ordered. If, on the other hand, one person orders for both persons at the table expecting his dinner partner to pay, and then the quiet dinner partner skips out without paying, it doesn’t matter what the person ordering expected to happen, the one doing the ordering is the party to the spoken contract with the restaurant. incidentally, the dinner partner remaining may not be criminally or civilly liable for the restaurant’s loss, but they are morally obligated to cooperate with the police investigation into the theft and should provide as much information as they have as to the identity and whereabouts of the thief…"
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 15:10:28 "Unhappy that mountme is calling you out, Mr dineanddash? " Look, what happened between me and your mom is between me and your mom. also, please remind her, she owes me a handy, at minimum.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 15:21:11 just to be clear, i am not claiming that mountme is Hood's mom. i am, instead, implying Hood is upset because i took his mother out on a date and ditched her, leaving her to foot the bill, and that he is upset about that.
mexicantardnado Member	Thu Aug 23 15:22:32 duuuuuur mom joke alert duuuuuuur mom joke alert duuuuuuur!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 23 15:30:18 *tardnado alert* Weeeeee wooooo weeeeeee woooooo
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 15:36:21 shit, even while doing jokes i got this guy stalking me.
hood Member	Thu Aug 23 16:08:43 I think we all understood what you were implying, mt. What's less obvious is why you're going on dates and getting handys from senior citizens.
obaminated Member	Thu Aug 23 17:27:45 Niggah gotta find a nut.
Delude Member	Fri Aug 24 12:50:40 Seb slipped this.
Delude Member	Mon Aug 27 10:07:35 This has been avoided by seb
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Sep 10 14:10:40 well... he's facing charges, apparently it's extortion according to prosecutors: " The defendant now faces a total of 11 felony counts of extortion, two felony counts of attempted extortion, two misdemeanor counts of defrauding an innkeeper by non-payment and one misdemeanor count of petty theft, according to the amended criminal complaint in case GA103750. " http://da....gainst_Dine_and_Dash_Dater.pdf
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: