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

[Andara Bledin]

Both of those cases were deliberate shoplifters. Maybe not planned, but they both knew exactly what they were doing when they left without paying for the product they consumed.

Also, I'm not claiming that a thief wouldn't be obvious. We've all read stories about people walking right out the door with large and expensive items that were never paid for, some even going so far as to get employees to help them with them.

But this is $5 on top of a $50 bill, not an item eaten and then brazenly not paid for because the thief is criminally stupid. Plus, since it appears that the store knew about the wrappers and the eaten food, it would have been in everybody's (especially the store's) best interests to jut mention it at the register.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

....I have to ask, is this a colloquialism where you live? Because I have never heard it before.

it's amazingly apt, however, and I may wind up stealing it.

It is just another product of my diseased mind. Nothing to worry about. >.>

[Sleepwalker]

I'm going to surmise at this point that a lawsuit was plan B and would have come out had they not dropped the charges or if CPS had not given the kid back right away. Groundwork at the lawyer's behest if you will. There would be no way for Safeway to get public opinion back on their side with the PR shitstorm already out there and a lawsuit, trivial or not, would be even worse PR regardless of outcome.

Her lawyer's smart, gotta give he/she that.

See, now that makes sense. The OP made it sound like the kid was given back as soon as she got out of jail. Threatening to sue everyone if you don't get your kid back is fully justifiable.

[DrFaroohk]

Its a strawman to extrapolate an argument that is not being made and then defeat that argument as if it means anything.

Maybe we're talking about a different post in the thread. You were asked if you would apply your argument about zero-tolerance universally or not. It's a perfectly valid question and relevant to the argument. That's the part I was talking about.

You appear to be reading an entirely different thread than the rest of us are.

Bravo on a bizzarre rage filled off the rails hyperbolic rant though. >.>

lol what? Nice job on the random blurting of verbal syphilis when you know you're beaten.

her lawyer told her to go to the media ( You can't tell me he did that without being fully aware of how her pregnancy would be a clear sympathy advantage. )

Hasn't it been brought up in this thread that we can't blame one person because of the actions of another? For instance, you can't blame the safeway for what the state did. And you can't blame her for what her lawyer or the media did.

Anyone who is really going to go to all that trouble over a few sandwiches on top of another grocery bill from someone who obviously just made a mistake really needs to take stock in his life and figure out if all that backlash is worth it to him.

This girl just went to a lawyer. What do you think some less ethical people are going to do to him? I would tell you what I would do if someone falsely accused me of theft and had me arrested, but I'm afraid I'd get another infraction.

[Gravekeeper]

Maybe we're talking about a different post in the thread. You were asked if you would apply your argument about zero-tolerance universally or not. It's a perfectly valid question and relevant to the argument. That's the part I was talking about.

It is one thing to ask that question ( Despite the operative world "can" in the original statement not "is" ) it is another to then argue decisively argue against the hypothetical answer.

lol what? Nice job on the random blurting of verbal syphilis when you know you're beaten.

That was.....surprisingly childish. But if thats what floats your boat, feel free to go celebrate your illusionary, assumption based "victory" on the Internet. You posted a oddly vehement diatribe full of exaggerations, extreme conclusions and assumptions of others in the middle of an engaging yet fairly civil discussion. Which you directed at extreme positions supposedly being taken by a large group of people in the thread. When in reality, no such group exists.

[Andara Bledin]

I would tell you what I would do if someone falsely accused me of theft and had me arrested, but I'm afraid I'd get another infraction.

If the actions you would take against a company that took actions that were their right to take (even if they were extreme) would get you an infraction, you seriously need to take a step back and reconsider whether what you would do is sane and reasonable.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Where does that "falsely accused" part come from? According to the letter of the law, the couple in question were guilty of theft, nothing to say about it.

Whether or not that extreme reaction was appropriate - especially in light of the last article - is another matter entirely. But the company did nothing illegal.

[Rageaholic]

Where does that "falsely accused" part come from? According to the letter of the law, the couple in question were guilty of theft, nothing to say about it.

Whether or not that extreme reaction was appropriate - especially in light of the last article - is another matter entirely. But the company did nothing illegal.

Just because the stroe didn't do anything illegal, doesn't mean they weren't being stupid. It looks like they set up the trap, taking advantage of her mistake and only alerting her when they knew it would be too late for her to do anything. I'm sorry, but that's just being a dick, hiding behind "laws" and "policy" to justify such an overreaction.

The only arguements I'm hearing are based on the assumption that everyone is a criminal, waiting for just the right time to shoplift. They should have just let her pay, especially for a five dollar difference among 50 dollars in groceries. Since it was her first time making this mistake, they didn't need to jump to the "OMG SHOPLIFTER!!!1" conclusion even if she did technically shoplift. Just because some shoplifters might be more sneaky doesn't mean employees should turn off their brains and assume the worst.

Besides, aren't there better security meassures in place to prevent this kind of thing? (security footage, detecter things at the doors, ect).

[Canarr]

Sure it was stupid - and yes, it was an overreaction, IMO. I've no idea what would possess the store manager and the LP people to go through with this kind of... well, entrapment, instead of just pointing out the empty wrappers in the cart.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Maybe orders from corporate? -.-

[HYHYBT]

It could be very simple, and even rational so far as it goes.

Your chain has a huge shoplifting problem. There are a couple ways to cut down on that. One is to stop the big shoplifters... but they're clever. That's hard work. A far easier way is to gain a reputation for being tough, in order to discourage people from trying. And *that* looks easy: this really falls into the same category as forgetting something on the bottom rack of the buggy, which I'm sure happens fairly often in a busy store; I've *almost* done it a few times, though thus far have not needed reminding, simply because I so rarely put anything there. Just tell your employees to stop pointing out that sort of thing. Instantly, you've created pre-identified "shoplifters" out of honest customers. And it's technically legitimate, as you didn't plant anything on them or make them do anything. Only in this case, an individual story (and one involving CPS no less) came to the media's attention instead of just the statistics. Oops.

[Gravekeeper]

Just because the stroe didn't do anything illegal, doesn't mean they weren't being stupid. It looks like they set up the trap, taking advantage of her mistake and only alerting her when they knew it would be too late for her to do anything. I'm sorry, but that's just being a dick, hiding behind "laws" and "policy" to justify such an overreaction.

But again, this is how LP works because of how the law works. Sure they took it to DickCon 5 in this case. But that is their right, like it or not. You can't do anything about a shoplifter until they exit the door and if you legitimately believe you have a shoplifter on your hands walking up and going "Hey, did you forget that CD you stuffed in your pants" is going to net you denial and/or "OMFG HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME" then they'll just come back later and be more careful about it.

So while LP certainly made the wrong call on this woman's intentions, the trap technique itself is directly because of the law.

Besides, aren't there better security meassures in place to prevent this kind of thing? (security footage, detecter things at the doors, ect).

No, actually. This is a grocery store the size of a warehouse. Tagging every product would be insane and can you imagine how much longer checking out would be if the cashier had to demagnetize or cut the tags on every single item? Security footage does you no good as it doesn't prevent the crime, it just shows you that the crime occured. Then you're trying to identify the person from a low resolution black and white image after the fact.

For all we know they spotted her munching on the security cameras to begin with before they headed down to shadow her.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Not to mention the fact that the husband also chowed down on a sandwich; everyone talking about pregnancy brain and how the woman needed to eat cuz of her being pregnant seem to have forgotten that little fact. He wasn't pregnant; so what was his excuse for forgetting?

[DrFaroohk]

Not to mention the fact that the husband also chowed down on a sandwich; everyone talking about pregnancy brain and how the woman needed to eat cuz of her being pregnant seem to have forgotten that little fact. He wasn't pregnant; so what was his excuse for forgetting?

The shopping cart full of groceries?

[Rageaholic]

No, actually. This is a grocery store the size of a warehouse. Tagging every product would be insane and can you imagine how much longer checking out would be if the cashier had to demagnetize or cut the tags on every single item? Security footage does you no good as it doesn't prevent the crime, it just shows you that the crime occured. Then you're trying to identify the person from a low resolution black and white image after the fact.

For all we know they spotted her munching on the security cameras to begin with before they headed down to shadow her.

Really? I could have sworn I've seen those security devices at other big box stores. I've remember several instances of waiting in the checkout and then hearing the alarms go off that someone was leaving without paying. It's almost always a mistake and the police are never called.