store yes if you have d n a i don't understand your question if i decide i'm going to go to home depot and shop with a chain saw because i needed a chainsaw to clear guess for sale and then attempted to exit do in business hours the same thing occurred here the undisputed facts is that mr burlington entered the manor store doing business hours selected in video recording system and then attempted to wea when he was stopped he attempted to return there for cash value i have no time did mr pearl intend went into areas not open to the general public at no time did he enter no time was he under a prohibition from being entering into the s house or how are you barkway what would be if somebody would see you and say you're not welcome to saphir or when they get a letter in the mail what would it be well if if he is known to be a kleptomaniac and he entered  intervene with the express purpose having already formed in ten minutes trial judge i've seen such a gentleman prosecutor who did nothing but go from indicator  he could be tried with a class two felony or if the prosecutor is feeling graceful he could be charged with a class a misdemeanor and a retail test act or it is that isn't that the case with many charges that versus the forty two year old man who's already served three terms in prison for retail theft and he has nothing in the shopping cart but i was going to say v c r s but i guess nobody steals those anymore maybe three small after we were it would strain logic and this is the language from bradford it would strain logic to presume that the legislature intended circumstances a retail tax to fall under the  yes it used to be called berkeley found hill were found guilty and they use there to show why burglary by remaining in the building was inconsistent with the not change the supreme court's holding that a person enters a retail establishment without pursuant to a burglary statute when he enters with a purpose inconsistent with the reason the building is open graph or should not be respectfully bradford rejected in bradford the court rejected the state's attempt to extend the analysis of weaver to burn where he by remaining but it did not offer a weaker in fact the weaver remains good long after breakfast first the court in bradford said it's not clear what evidence would be sufficient to establish that defendant remains within a public place in order to commit in fact in contrast case law has made who shoplifts more than one item or readers inside the store before leaving in contrast under burglary by ensuring there are no arbitrary distinctions if one enters a store with intent to still that sufficient third are two separate statutes two separate statutes with different elements and the legislature has not even in burglary the weaver concept of burglary could only be convicted he'd have either burglary or retail theft where they are based on conduct that occurred during the same criminal transaction it clearly could have done so but it did  form the intent to take it after using there because he found out he didn't have enough money that would be a class a misdemeanor retail theft right the next person comes by and he sees he's said he wants a candy bar  is the way the law is and i think it's up to prosecutorial discretion and trying to be fair to individual defendants what they are charged with but i do think that they could be charged under the second person could be charged form of repeal of all not always saying element not all the same element you are not however when it is being prosecuted in the context of a retail establishment do it ordinary business