Thread: FBI Agent Cleared of Shoplifting Charges

A veteran FBI agent has been cleared of shoplifting charges in Fairfax County, authorities said yesterday.

Tracy Fortin, 44, an agent in the anti-obscenity unit in Northern Virginia, was charged with shoplifting a blouse from the Lord & Taylor department store at Fair Oaks Mall on Nov. 10. Fairfax County General District Court Judge Donald P. McDonough acquitted her during a bench trial Dec. 22.

During the trial, the prosecution alleged that Fortin took three blouses into the dressing room, tried one on and tore off its price tag, according to Robert McClain, Fairfax assistant commonwealth's attorney.

Fortin left the price tag and her keys in the dressing room and exited the store wearing the blouse, McClain said. She then returned to the store and told a security officer who confronted her that she realized she had forgotten to pay for the blouse.

Fortin did not respond to a phone call seeking comment.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Every agency has theirs...
Nice story. Usually, the "I accidentally ripped off the tags, left the shirt on, and departed the store without paying on accident" line does not work (well, in this case it did). Nice...

-OT

Originally Posted by outlawturtle

Every agency has theirs...
Nice story. Usually, the "I accidentally ripped off the tags, left the shirt on, and departed the store without paying on accident" line does not work (well, in this case it did). Nice...

-OT

Especially since you don't know what the other issues were.

I'm sure you won't be bothered if it ever happens to you and someone voices their opinion.

And don't forget that the agency may not have had its pound of flesh at this point in time.

I still shake when I remember the time I picked up a gallon of milk at the grocery store, got a critical cell phone call, and walked out of the store to get a better signal, still holding onto the gallon of milk. I hung up, realized what I had done, and then walked back in, got in line and paid for it without incident.

If I had been jacked up and charged by store security, I'm sure everyone would have been saying, "Sure,... he didn't mean to walk out with it, he was just talking on his cell phone."

The keys thing is certainly an indicator of being preoccupied with something else.

Originally Posted by rzaruba

I'm sure you won't be bothered if it ever happens to you and someone voices their opinion.

You are exactly right, that is what we have the 1st amendment for. People judge everyday...they are entitled to it. We have all judged, and we are all judged. It is a fact of life.
-OT

[QUOTE=Jose Canusi]Well, if you think she's a shop lifter then

Leaving the car keys in the dressing room seems to be a minor flaw in her getaway plan.

Could it be possible that leaving the car keys wasnt part of the plan so she had to change her story in order to make it look like she didn't try to steal the blouse >

Going back into the store, also not a good plan.

Could it be that she realized that she needed to go get her car keys in order to leave the scene ?

Maybe she had a brain fart, maybe she has stress issues, who knows. But I think you glossed over two very important facts.

Could it be that he was just kidding with his original comment just as I am right now?

Before you rip me a new one I just want to say that I'm not at all serious and I do not believe that she was intentionally trying to steal the blouse. I do think what she did wasn't the brightest thing to do but, hey, it happens.

People judge everyday...they are entitled to it. We have all judged, and we are all judged. It is a fact of life.

Well, it's not a "fact of life" because we don't "all judge"...Personally, I go out of my way to keep an open mind and I know a lot of others who do as well. By my tally, there are at least 3 people in this thread, alone, who did NOT "judge" this person. I think that shows quite well that it is NOT a "fact of life."

It's certainly your perogative to read the opening news blurb, ignore the parts of it that argue against your own opinion, and then jump to a conclusion, but please don't lump the rest of us in with you and claim that we ALL do it - we don't.

k

krellum, you are right, not EVERYONE judges...I should have not made the statement so all encompassing. You got me, and I'll take the hit on that one.

Now, I did not make my response to the original posting after just reading that single news blurp. I read a few other versions of it written by a few other other organizations, in an effort to make an informed posting of my opinion. We all came to different conclusions from the information we gathered. In this case, my conclusions differ from some other posters, maybe because I gathered and read other material regarding the original allegation, and the results of the case, and did not simply rely on one story from one organization.

-OT

Originally Posted by Jose Canusi

And we KNOW that news organizations report fairly and accurately, because, after all, how many shoplifting cases make the local newspaper, let alone national news.

I never stated news organizations report fairly and accurately. We can only form opinions based on what we have access to...and based on what I had access to, that is what I came up with. Again, we all come to different conclusions. Just as I do not know the FULL story, neither does anyone else on this board...unless someone here worked this case. So, if anyone is making the argument that no one can state their opinion without ALL the facts, we are all in the wrong.
-OT

Originally Posted by Jose Canusi

. . . except that you glossed over a few of the more important facts that were actually published. That was what I originally pointed out.

It's probably the "every agency has theirs . . ." comment too. So, despite being found not guilty by the judge who heard all the facts, you've decided to label this agent as a liar because you didn't buy the explanation.

Putting aside the fact that the judge did find her credible and you overlooked a few of the facts that were actually given, I'd say that this smacks more of an axe to grind with the FBI than an actual opinion based on the mere published facts.

This is getting old, so this will be my last post regarding this...

Seeing as these are simply news reports and not case files, I would hesitate to call anything listed a fact. There were also things published elsewhere that I DID take into account. Things such as her identifying herself as an FBI agent once confronted by the loss prevention officer. Now, did she indicate this fact because she was armed and did not want to scare anybody, maybe. Did she say this because she was trying to get out of it, just as equally, maybe. No one here knows.

Every agency has theirs: means we all know people (a VERY small minority) within our agencies that could be responsible for something like this scenario (whether actually shoplifting, or just plain forgetful). I know some in mine, and I am sure you know some in yours. All agencies are made up of a slice of society. 99.9% are good, but it is always the .01% that make the news.

Nope, no axe to grind here..as a matter of fact, I had lunch with 2 of your guys (FBI) yesterday...something we do about every 2 weeks to get out of our respective offices and shoot the s**t. And yes, we did discuss this topic.

-OT

This is just about a dead horse.................but I can't help but responding here. Taking a gallon of milk from a convenience store while your phone is ringing is one thing. To go into a dressing room and take the tags off of a shirt, and then leave the store is an entire other story. Makes me think of my loss prevention days from college and this is definately a suspicious and abnormal practice. But again who knows for sure (I try not to cast the first stones as well). Maybe some some brass from Quantico or HQ took the judge out for a round of golf, and then got his grandson a Bureau application.

Well I would say that this is a dead horse and with people making accusations that are unsubstantiated this will effectively close this thread.