Pregnant woman arrested for eating sandwich @ store, not paying for it

[DrFaroohk]

DrF, how about changing your argument when new facts are presented or in different situations? Because what GK believes about this particular case might not be what he believes about other cases, with different players (like the husband and wife team, or the dickhole store manager), or different situations (if she weren't pregnant, didn't have kids to be taken away by CPS) or in different locations (not being in America, or not being somewhere they haven't lived for too long). Trying to go for the black and white doesn't usually work well, but it allows one to think they've won an argument, and isn't that just so fulfilling?

The basis for your argument should never change.

For a better example: Let's say you are arguing gay marriage with someone. You think it's a bad idea, and your entire argument hinges on "well the bible says so."

Ok, fine, but that's your argument - the bible says so. So guess what - when it turns out there's another passage in their that says "Thou must give thy neighbor anal sex", tough shit. You yourself claimed the bible was almighty truth, and now you're backing out cuz it doesn't suit you?

That's pretty much the definition of "full of shit" and makes everything the person says pretty much worthless.

[the_std]

No, for true intelligence, I believe that the basis for your argument should ALWAYS change - for the right reasons. The base of all logic and science is considering new information and adding or subtracting to your theories as you're presented with said information that fits into your idea. Never changing the basis for your argument is what is called being really, really stubborn.

Also, your biblical example is crap because the basis of most religions, especially the ones who have the ideas you quoted, is FAITH - the opposite of logic. Faith requires blind belief in something that is unchanging and unprovable.

[DrFaroohk]

So the politicians have it right then? Flip flop around and people think you're smart?

[the_std]

Who said that? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Going from one extreme to another with no evidence to back it up is just as bad as being a stubborn bull-headed jackass. However, the inclusion of new facts and evidence into a continuing theory is the smartest way to apply yourself to an intellectual discussion or idea. It's very rare that anyone is going to go from one major, conflicting idea to another overnight. That usually only happens with gigantic, paradigm-shifting discoveries or brainstorms. What politicians do is merely pandering to their voters and voting populace. In an intellectual discussion, like this one here, that practice is generally frowned upon. Which is exactly why GK is NOT doing it. He is simply saying that his thoughts on this particular situation might not be universally applicable to any forgetful shoplifting scenario. There are a lot of variables to take into account.

The demand that he apply his thoughts to this particular scenario be applied to EVERY scenario that shares even passing similarities with this scenario is exactly what is wrong with the American justice system. Societies simply do not WORK in black and white.

[Gravekeeper]

So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable to change up your argument depending on whatever is convenient for you at the time?

Dude, you've demonstrated you don't even know what the Hell my argument is to the point where I have no idea what you're trying to argue with. Its like you're talking to someone else but directing all your responses at me.

Ok, fine, but that's your argument - the bible says so. So guess what - when it turns out there's another passage in their that says "Thou must give thy neighbor anal sex", tough shit. You yourself claimed the bible was almighty truth, and now you're backing out cuz it doesn't suit you?

What? Seriously, what the Hell does that have to do with anything I said? Why do you not understand the statement "Mistakes can be crimes"? That is a true statement. The operative word is can, as in it is a possibility. That's not my opinion, thats the way the friggan legal system already works. Not every mistake is a crime, but some mistakes are a crime. It is not black and white, its reality. Why is that so hard to grasp? ><

I seriously don't know what you're on about or what you're trying to prove here.

However, the inclusion of new facts and evidence into a continuing theory is the smartest way to apply yourself to an intellectual discussion or idea.

^ That right there. Only a moron doesn't reconsider their opinion when presented with new information or a new scenario. If you think the Bible is the word of God, and all of a sudden it tells you its time for some anal, a sane person would reconsider their original position and probably their faith overall if anal wasn't their thing. Blindly doing whatever it tells you too just to maintain your original position would be idiotic and the world at large would still be in the dark ages if we all thought that way.

[Hyena Dandy]

The basis for your argument should never change.

Well, maybe the basis of your argument stays the same, but you would change it depending on the situation. Like my friend has a very strong, philosophical belief, and it goes like this. "Don't be a dick."

All moral, political, etc. opinions are derived from "Don't be a dick."

So, he could argue to different things in similar cases because, in one case, he thinks its being a dick, and in another, he thinks it isn't.

You're not demanding GK keep to the same basis of argument. You're demanding that he stick to what you THINK the basis of his argument is. You don't seem to be talking to GK at all. You seem to be talking to some other mysterious person who has the same name and a similar argument, but completely different reasoning.

[FArchivist]

I did use Google, it yielded nothing of the sort at the time. Cite your claims or don't make them please, otherwise you're just blowing smoke. That said, you're a bit late to the party now.

It's pretty easy to find: The incident at the store near downtown Honolulu is prompting Safeway to examine how managers and employees are trained. "In this case, it was not handled in the appropriate manner and we wanted to correct that," Houghton said.

My statement was that mistakes can be crimes. I don't understand what argument you're trying to make. Not all mistakes are crimes, but some mistakes are crimes. Universally applying it would be quite stupid from a legal perspective, as would universally ignoring it. So what exactly were you trying to argue?

Well first, there is no such thing as an accidental crime. An accident is one thing in law; a crime is another. You can make mistakes in the committing of a crime, but you don't accidentally a crime. That is why ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

(Yes, yes, the vernacular says otherwise, but legal terminology says differently and when dealing with legal matters, the language of law is the standard thereby.)

Intent is irrelevant except in deciding the degree of the crime. So if you are going to say "They were breaking the law and there is zero tolerance." then that should be applied to all zero tolerance cases.

In both original articles, Houghton stated that they could not foresee what happened. As in "Oh shit, we didn't mean for your kid to get taken away".

This is not a mutually exclusive statement to your point. She can and has said both.

Bullshit they couldn't foresee it. The law is clear on the matter. If both parents are arrested in the commission of a crime in Hawaii jurisdiction, the child will automatically be remanded to CPS/DFCS. This, in fact, should be on the books of every one of the 50 states as the relevant procedure due to ongoing standardization of criminal law across the country (and I believe it is at this time). So yes, they did foresee it. Safeway Legal Department would absolutely know.

I have no problems with her getting a lawyer. My position to begin with was, for the fourth bloody time, that blame was being disproportionally assigned entirely to Safeway instead of the police procedures that lead to the biggest problem she had to begin with, and that in the original articles rumblings of a lawsuit were being made in conjuction. Please catch up on the thread.

Except that the police procedures are not the problem here. The police procedures are standard.

Safeway's policy of ULTIMATE ZERO TOLERANCE PRISON GANGBAG, though, yeah it seems pretty far out of line from the standard. Their policy does not seem to be in line with the standard for other stores of their size and market area. So yes, they would be the targets in a lawsuit, following under the standard "but-for" liability standard. "But for the actions of the Safeway zero tolerance policy, this issue would have never occurred." And regardless of what one thinks of that, it's a perfectly good reason to issue suit.

I don't go for the advice of making a public outcry because your lawyer tells you to. A lot of lawyers are expensive idiots.

I've seen a lot of people disregard the advice of their lawyers. I've never seen anything successful coming of it, unless what was being proposed was blatantly illegal.

[FArchivist]

Just because in one case, I have formed an opinion, I need to have the same opinion in every other case that is kind of similar in nature? Completely disregarding any different circumstances? Like in your first example?

That would be consistent, yes. If situation A + action B is wrong prima facie, then all A + B formulas should have the same conclusion, regardless of anything else.

Someone leaving a bank with incorrect change (I assume you mean, more than he was entitled to)? The fault there lies with the teller who gave him the wrong sum in the first place - which would be difficult to do in the first place, since normally, they count the money out in front of you. So, yeah: dumb example. Not the same thing.

I can't agree with that. If it is incumbent on the pregnant woman to notice the sandwich wrappers were not charged, then it is incumbent on the bank customer to notice that he was given the incorrect change. The situation is the same, no matter the details:

Person A left Business B without paying for Product C, therefore, Product C has been stolen.

That's it. It doesn't matter if Person A was spacey and forgot or if Teller D was spacey and forgot, or if the register/computer was incorrect, or anything. A + B without paying for C = Crime, guilty.

Ding! The formula of justice is now complete.

[FArchivist]

No, for true intelligence, I believe that the basis for your argument should ALWAYS change - for the right reasons. The base of all logic and science is considering new information and adding or subtracting to your theories as you're presented with said information that fits into your idea. Never changing the basis for your argument is what is called being really, really stubborn.

Except that the whole point of science to absolutely define the universe. The only reason things keep changing is because we haven't finished discovering everything yet. Once we do, then the set will be complete and will not require further changing.

Not every mistake is a crime, but some mistakes are a crime. It is not black and white, its reality. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Because you miss the entirety. You're leaving off the end.

Not every mistake is a crime, but some mistakes are crimes. And if a mistake is a crime, it is no longer a mistake.

Although it is more accurate to say "accident" instead of "mistake".

[HYHYBT]

And if a mistake is a crime, it is no longer a mistake.

Simply and completely false.

---
As for changing grounds for argument... why is this automatically a bad thing? There may be more than one reason to hold a position, and negating one would not necessarily affect others. Speaking generally, of course.

[Gravekeeper]

It's pretty easy to find:

Ok, seriously. First of all your article is dated the day after your original post claiming its existence. Second of all, your article says nothing about the witnesses you claimed in your original post. Thirdly, Houghton says right in the damn article you just linked that they did not foresee the police taking her kid a way. Just as I originally said she did to begin with.

So, thanks for proving me correct on all counts I guess.

Well first, there is no such thing as an accidental crime.

Then what, pray tell, is the entire thread about?

(Yes, yes, the vernacular says otherwise, but legal terminology says differently and when dealing with legal matters, the language of law is the standard thereby.)

So you're going to try to move the goal posts into a playing field none of us were even on to begin with? -.-

So if you are going to say "They were breaking the law and there is zero tolerance." then that should be applied to all zero tolerance cases.

But I wasn't. See this is kind of the entire bloody problem here with you and Dr. You're arguing against something I didn't even say, making assumptions about my intentions in saying it and then patting yourselves on the back for defeating those assumptions.

Bullshit they couldn't foresee it. The law is clear on the matter. If both parents are arrested in the commission of a crime in Hawaii jurisdiction, the child will automatically be remanded to CPS/DFCS.

Who are you arguing with? All I said was that Houghton herself said that. Go tell her that, not me.

Safeway's policy of ULTIMATE ZERO TOLERANCE PRISON GANGBAG, though, yeah it seems pretty far out of line from the standard.

Safeway's policy is to contact the police, there's no mention that their policy is to press charges. That appears to have been LP and the manager wanting to go all hard ass. That's also not far out of line from the standard. Walmart had the same policy up till 2006 when they eased up on it slightly only because prosecuting petty theft was costing too much money and the police were complaining about all the calls. They stopped prosecuting first time offenders of under $25, zero tolerence for over $25, second time offenders was zero tolerance period.

But it seems they have resumed said zero tolerence policy in 2010. In fact many large retailers use zero tolerence shoplifting policies: Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Staples, Best Buy, Circuit City, Home Depot, Lowe's, Costco, Whole Foods, etc. Partly because of shrink loss and partly to reduce lawsuits from claims of discrimination, etc by not picking and choosing.

[Canarr]

That would be consistent, yes. If situation A + action B is wrong prima facie, then all A + B formulas should have the same conclusion, regardless of anything else.

In theory, yes. However, situation A1 may not be exactly the same as situation A2, or A3. See below.

I can't agree with that. If it is incumbent on the pregnant woman to notice the sandwich wrappers were not charged, then it is incumbent on the bank customer to notice that he was given the incorrect change. The situation is the same, no matter the details:

Person A left Business B without paying for Product C, therefore, Product C has been stolen.

That's it. It doesn't matter if Person A was spacey and forgot or if Teller D was spacey and forgot, or if the register/computer was incorrect, or anything. A + B without paying for C = Crime, guilty.

Ding! The formula of justice is now complete.

You're wrong.

Situation A1: the couple took the sandwiches themselves and consumed them before checking out. They knew they'd consumed the goods, and were therefore responsible to ensure that payment to the original owner of the goods was made. They were active in procuring the goods, they cannot argue that they did not know - they may have forgotten, but they knew originally.

Situation A2: a bank teller gives customer the incorrect change. Still an unlikely example, because bank tellers always count out the money they hand over, but whatever. The customer was passive in procuring the goods, as he accepted the money he was handed by the cashier. Therefore, the customer can claim that he was acting in good faith when leaving the bank with the money - as in, truly believing he had only received the sum he was entitled to.

I don't know US law too well, but German Civil Law contains a law concerning "unjustified enrichtment" - meaning, any transfer of money, goods or titles without contractual basis. That can happen, either because there never was a contract in the first place (classic example: bank transfer into the wrong account), or because the contract became retroactively void. In any case, it requires acting in good faith on behalf of the enrichted party, and can therefore never be applied for shoplifting - or accidental non-payment of consumed goods.

[kibbles]

Would Safeway still be condemned if this wasn't a pregnant mother? That's what I'd like to know.

[bainsidhe]

Would Safeway still be condemned if this wasn't a pregnant mother? That's what I'd like to know.

Maybe, but only if it still made a headline. Which it wouldn't.

[DrFaroohk]

Would Safeway still be condemned if this wasn't a pregnant mother? That's what I'd like to know.

To me the pregnant part doesn't matter. I dunno how the rest of the world feels about it tho. The only part that pisses me off is someone being falsely accused of shoplifting.