That's a good point, but there could be a lot of reasons why he didn't return the purse immediately. He was inebriated to the point of blacking out. Maybe he did not remember taking the purse, or did not remember from where he stole the purse. Maybe the purse did not contain anything (i.e. phone, driver's license, etc.) identifying the owner. There are many things to consider.
And around and around and around we go..
He claimed to be with it enough to state (according to the OP) that it 'maybe had $30.00 in it'.
The primary thing of importance to consider, is that he had someone elses property in his possession, obtained by theft, as captured on camera.
He's a thief, he's been caught, and when it goes to court, he's done. The balance of evidence will likely demonstrate that. There is no defending theft, whether drunk, high or sober. Throwing in the 'diminshed responsibility' / shared responsibility defence that the bar serving him somehow made him drink an intoxicating 'theft potion' to make him do the deed, is a red-herring. As i've stated, and as others have also - this isn't a random act of someone out of their head on booze - he had it in him to be a thief before he got a snoot-full. All the booze did was remove any inhibitions to committing an act, while rendering him too stupid to notice the surveillance cameras.
Oh, and where do you live, can i sit on your bike (and knock it over) drunk off my arse? And walk away scot-free without any revenge-lumps or retaliation because i was supposedly too drunk to be responsible for my own actions? Can i not then counter-sue you for not making sure that i didn't injure myself when you failed to insure that the bike was not chained to the ground so that it wouldn't tip over while i was doing the nasty to it?
I thought not.
It's up to the courts to decide what was or was not in the purse, and who is the more believable party that was victimized here. The thief will be at a significant disadvantage in proving what was or was not in that purse, and rightfully so.
I really wonder how some of you can come to the defence of a thief, convicted or otherwise - especially when the evidence points so solidly to him having his mitts upon something that he shouldn't have even thought about having in the first place - someone elses property. It's a pretty basic right vs wrong lesson in morals, that most people have learned by the time they are 4-5 years old.
