If he did it alone, it would definitely be a crime. It’s considered petty theft in California & in Mississippi it’s a felony if the bill is over $25. He did it with a date, so that technically it wouldn’t be a crime for him since she was there stuck with the bill.
I’m guessing it’s a grey area of the law because there are very few people who are this creatively dickish, so it hasn’t been tested.
Since this happened multiple times, each time initiated by him, it would seem pretty simple to demonstrate intent here. Perhaps that is why he is getting charged.
I wonder if this guy also considers himself an incel.
Well, the police would make a determination of whether the restaurant should have the full bill paid. If the police think that is the case you can either pay the bill or they can arrest you for theft and let you sort it out in court.
Which would you choose?
(Note: It may well happen the police tell the merchant they do not get paid and let you go.)
I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t have the full bill paid. I’m saying I’m not personally responsible for the entire tables bill. Anyways, it’s highly unlikely I would wait around for the police in the first place. If I did they could try probably try and make me but I doubt they would, especially since I’m volunteering to pay for my share. If they pushed the issue I’d refuse and post a cash bond, then file against the establishment in civil court.
I heard/read elsewhere that he would get there first, order and eat, then leave as soon as she’d show up and she’d get an enormous bill. I don’t know why the restaurant would make her pay for something she wasn’t even on the premises for, but maybe they figured she was in on it, part of an elaborate scheme.
To each their own.
I think if you speak to the manager chances are they’d either comp the whole thing or at most make you pay for your dinner (which is fair from their perspective).
That said I have been in some restaurants and seen where the manager (usually also the owner) demands full payment, will call the police, and not budged when there is some fuss over the bill (I do not know what the circumstances have been). These have usually been relatively inexpensive restaurants though and perhaps the owner/manager has been scammed too many times to be lenient.
In those cases I think the simplest route is to just pay the whole bill and be done with it. It will probably cost you less money and less time and less stress than making a fuss about it.
YMMV
I was also surprised to hear he was being charged with a crime. But I read that not only did he ditch “dates”, he also walked out of hair salons without paying, once, still wearing their towel. I bet there were solo dinners as well as “dates”. And i bet a lot merchants in the area were gunning to get him.
While this addresses the most diplomatic approach, as well as possible results at different establishments, it still doesn’t address my original concern.
That concern is whether the person left behind actually owes money. Not whether the restaurant would like to be paid regardless of who does the paying, nor how to address the situation if it arises, nor the easiest way out, but if a person is actually obliged to pay for another person’s order if they get skipped out on.
Seems to me like he’d have a much better chance of getting away with it if he had a date. For one thing, he’d be less likely to be stopped on his way out, because servers might assume he was called away but the person at the table would take care of the bill. Second, since the date almost certainly would pay the bill, the restaurant wouldn’t call the police or try to track him down.
I haven’t seen any actual legal analysis on this issue, but my instinct would be that no, a person who showed up after the other guy had finished eating an entire meal and left wouldn’t ultimately be legally responsible for the bill just because she sat at the table with him for a few minutes.
Where does “a few minutes” come from? I’m not sure what this guy actually did in detail, but I thought the premise of the legal question was that they did eat together before one person skipped.
I don’t see how it could be in any sense involuntary considering his actions.
Maybe it was just a dollop of gratuitous virulent misogyny? Some woman ditched him in his past now all future “dates” will bear the brunt of his scorn. Free shit with a bonus of ‘estrogenicide’, win-win. (Extreme hyperbole, yes, but I just had to use that made up word). 
Post #26 suggested this was the case but with no backup or link.
Just gotta take their word for it.
And if they had sat down together for the duration and one had skipped on the other?
Not true. You need boxes for “one person thought there was an agreement but the other didn’t”. Of core relevance to this situation.
I’m glad law enforcement is looking at the bigger picture. From the article, and all bolding mine:
Paul Guadalupe Gonzales, 45, is accused of 11 counts of extortion and two counts of attempted extortion for allegedly luring women to nice restaurants, ordering food and vanishing – sticking his victims with the bill.
Psychologist Lisa Strohman, who specializes in treating patients suffering from social media and technology-related problems, says the internet allows dating predators to cast a wide net.
The explosion of dating sites “puts it on overdrive,” Strohman explains. “Predators can use technology now to manipulate, groom, lure and get people where they want them without any risk to themselves.”
“In short, the defendant’s wrongful conduct induced innocent third parties to pay for his meal, using the implied threat of public humiliation or being viewed as an accomplice,” a criminal complaint says
Too many people are missing the point. This isn’t a guy who met a woman he hated and stuck her with the bill; this is a pattern of behavior he repeated 11 times: lure a woman into meeting him at a pricey restaurant, order an expensive meal, and stick her with the bill. He obtained a free meal at expensive restaurants through false pretenses. That’s extortion. The pattern of behavior is key here.
The possible punishment isn’t as relevant as the amount of bail: $315,000. The court apparently sees him as a dash risk.
On the first afternoon of my first visit to St Martin, we stopped at a lolo (a little roadside restaurant) in Grand Case on our way home from the beach. We each had five or six beers and some appetizers. I realized I’d spent most of my cash at the beach when I noticed the “NO C.C.” Sign.
I freaked out. I told my gf I had to run back to the room for cash. It was about a twenty minute drive and I had no idea how to get there. Somehow, I made it to the room. Then I realized my room key was in the beach bag at the restaurant. I dealt with that. Driving back, I picked up a hitchhiker (hoping he could help me find Grand Case). He asked if I wanted to share a joint he had. I did.
When I finally got back to the restaurant, my gf was relieved. She didn’t realize till I’d actually left that I might never find my way. And the waitresses all gave me HELL. The entire time I’d been gone they had sat with my gf commiserating with her about men. Our bill came to €18, which I’d had all along. I thought it would be €100 or so.
I’ve been to that lolo each year since. A few longtime waitresses retell the story to new girls each time, adding crazy details they’ve created but believe.
I noticed that.
Even if nothing else has come of this it has cost him $31,500 to get bail (unless he could pay for it himself which I somehow doubt). That or he is sitting in prison awaiting trial. Assuming he could not write that check himself his actions have already cost him far more than he ever saved on meals by ditching these women.
Karma can be a bitch.