:golf clap:
Looking at a map of Sr. Martin it does not seem possible to get lost. 
Heh. I had no map. Leaving Grand Case I had to first figure out how to get to the main road and then which way to turn. One way I’d travel 1/4 way around the island, the other was 3/4 of the way. When I reached Marigot I had to deal with a roundabout and pick the correct arm to exit. In Cole Bay a wrong turn would have spun me around. Right before Simpson Bay another roundabout with three exit choices, two of which go into the interior of the island, one of those was the one I wanted.
I made all the right choices, then drove by our hotel’s ramp. Reaching Phillipsburg, I realized what I’d done and turned around. I’d had a bucket of Caribs on the beach, several Ti’ Ponch (high proof rum) on the beach, and six Presidentes at the lolo.
It was as near a thing to a miracle as I’ve ever experienced. A beautiful sunrise pales in comparison. 
ETA: add in that the speed limit on most of these roads is 25-35 mph (signed in kph) and some of the roads are closer to goat paths.
In other words there wasn’t an actual agreement. Still covered by the 2x2 box.
Since we’re using the language of contract, remember that a contract requires knowledgeable acceptance. It’s a pretty good argument to say that I didn’t assent to pay for a meal that I had no idea took place hours before I arrived and eaten by a person I have just met for the first time.
Making all the right choices would not involve driving under the influence. I love Lolos. Might have been there when you were doing this. Maybe I’m lucky you didn’t hit me. The locals sure are. Local max BAC is 0.05 IIRC, and the gendarmes do in fact have sobriety check points. The lucky thing is not you finding your way around. It is you not irrevocably altering someone’s life.
If a pissed off woman shoots him in the crotch, then he’d be one.
I think this makes all the difference. IANAL, but if they sat a a table and dined together, they entered an implicit contract with the restaurant to pay for the services they were receiving. The exact nature of that contract is what’s under discussion.
But if a guest shows up after the meal, I don’t see how she (or he) could conceivably be charged with theft of service, because she didn’t receive any service. Which is not to say they couldn’t try but I don’t think they’d have a case.
This guy also has a history of dashing out of hair salons without paying.
He’s also apparently a hero to the intel/red-pill/MRA crowd, if you read the comments on almost any news article about him.
So it was a case of cut and run?
:shakes fist at running coach:
Incel or Intel? Because when I worked at Intel I knew no one this obnoxious.
Not even my boss.
I agree with all the other people who are “missing the point”. False pretenses is not extortion.
IANAL, but that’s how the DA in California sees it. I’ve messaged an attorney friend to ask for clarification because I can see how it might amount to embezzlement instead. This guy found a way of scamming people. Maybe he thought he could get away with it for the same reason some folks here think he’s done nothing illegal. It’ll be interesting to see how a judge views it, especially as the guy has pled not guilty to all counts.
I heard back from my attorney friend re: extortion. I asked her how this guy’s actions could constitute extortion and whether they might be embezzlement instead. Here’s her answer:
I realize this is just one attorney’s opinion, and I’m asking you to take my word for it she’s an attorney; however, I’m using it only to clarify the DA’s decision to prosecute it as extortion. Again, we’ll see what the judge decides.
Dining and dashing is a criminal offence in Canada, under the federal Criminal Code
That is similar to the law is most U.S. states in that there must be an intent to defraud, typically making up one’s mind prior to eating that he or she is not going to pay for the meal. If the meal is cold, has hair in it, etc. and you have a genuine dispute with the owner over the bill and refuse to pay part or all of it, then that is a civil matter and not a crime.
Much like shoplifting in that if you accidentally walk out of the store with an item, it is not a crime. Such intent is sometimes difficult to prove, and that is a good provision in the Canadian law that allows an assumption that if you just sneak out at the end of the meal, then that was your intention all along: not a dispute with the owner.
This case is more complicated as, although the guy intended to defraud (theft by deception) it is unclear who. As others have mentioned, in this day and time, the woman cannot simply assume that the man has agreed to pay. I think that under social customs, she could reasonably assume that either: 1) he would pay, or 2) they would split the bill. However, social custom would also imply that he sticks around and they sort out the bill before they leave which makes this case interesting. Without a prior discussion, and if it turns out to be #2, I think that the law would say that she is responsible for her portion.
So, it is possible that if she refuses to pay, she is contractually obligated to the restaurant for her share of the bill, but if she refuses that, then she is still not guilty of a crime. However, there is the possibility that the police aren’t as versed in the law as they should be and she spends the night in jail. In that sense, IMHO the elements of extortion are met, but I think that the prosecutor is really grasping there.
I was at a restaurant with my girl once and behind me was another young couple. It soon became apparent they were having some kind of argument – I couldn’t hear the words but the tones sure carried through. A few minutes after that our waitress did a double take an said something, “Wait! Where did…?” I turned around and there were two half-eaten dinners and nobody around. I told her what I’d sensed and also that I’d been trying not to pay attention. When we left a half-hour later, nobody had made it back to that table.
It appears like it, at the very least they went in jointly to pay with a agreement between the 2. Because this was premeditated it seems beyond the jointly, one person has a emergency and has to leave type thing and into some sort of theft.
Sure. Theft. Larceny. “or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property”
I’m not familiar with law, or with that law, so I assume that the penalty they can reasonably expect for the series of thefts is less than what they are hoping to get for extortion.