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

[FArchivist]

They have no reason (nor any legal capacity considering it's evidence at that point) to release a video of the incident to people who want to make believe that they know the law better than the court system does just to sedate them.

Any marketing or advertising exec will tell you that the court of public opinion is who you need to convince, not a court of law. It's why insurance companies hate to actually reach trial; they know that a jury will 95% of the time find them to be at fault, even if evidence clearly states otherwise.

2. Evidence like this in similar situations HAS been released in the past. You want to know what the response was? "Its a fake! They staged it!" and other such rubbish.

In my experience, I have more often seen the public turn against the so-called victim rather than claim conspiracy.

I haven't seen a single article with witness statements you claim are all over the place. Link?

Like I usually tell people, Google is your friend. I've had enough political arguments online that I don't bother to cite unless it's not available on the web.

Nice strawman. -.-

It's not a strawman. It's an application of "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander." Either something can be universally applied or it has no value.

....What? Houghton said nothing of the sort. In fact she says they couldn't foresee what would happen in both articles.

Strange, I seem to have read that Houghton said that procedures were followed incorrectly and that retraining and corporate investigation would be occurring. Right after they dropped the charges.

To be clear I don't think she deliberately stole anything, but I'm sorry you can't tell me that her lawyer didn't have a gameplan here. That's what the lawyer is for and this PR shitstorm is the end game he was looking for from the media. It immediately put Safeway on the defensive and rendered anything Safeway says or does moot because a poor pregnant woman with a toddler was involved. The husband is totally invisible in this.

You keep harping on this and I don't see why. If you are charged with an actual crime, not an ordnance violation?

Step One: LAWYER UP. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, LAWYER UP. Invoke your right to remain silent until said attorney arrives. Even if it's just a $5 dollar sandwich, a $1 pack of gum, trespassing on someone's lawn - LAWYER UP. Otherwise, next thing you know you're doing 5 years for that $5 and you never see your kid again, having had your parental rights severed.

Step Two: DO WHAT THE LAWYER SAYS. If the attorney says "Go to the press and wail."? You go to the press and WAIL YOUR HEART OUT. If the attorney says to do the Hokey Pokey, you damn well do it. OBEY THE LAWYER. THE LAWYER IS YOUR LAW GOD.

You seem to have a personal problem with her getting an attorney and following the attorney's advice. I don't understand this as this is the FIRST thing you should do, unlike how they show on Law & Order.

Jaw droppingly stupid on the store's part. Still no grounds for a lawsuit.

And furthermore, I really hate that. Yes, it IS grounds for a lawsuit.

Why?

Because ANYTHING can be grounds for a civil lawsuit. I can sue you for saying things I don't like on a forum. I might even win. Doesn't mean I'll get anything, but unless a judge considers it to be frivolous, anyone can put in a lawsuit for whatever the fuck they feel like.

[Gravekeeper]

Like I usually tell people, Google is your friend. I've had enough political arguments online that I don't bother to cite unless it's not available on the web.

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 not a strawman. It's an application of "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander." Either something can be universally applied or it has no value.

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?

Strange, I seem to have read that Houghton said that procedures were followed incorrectly and that retraining and corporate investigation would be occurring. Right after they dropped the charges.

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.

You seem to have a personal problem with her getting an attorney and following the attorney's advice. I don't understand this as this is the FIRST thing you should do, unlike how they show on Law & Order.

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.

[blas87]

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.

[DrFaroohk]

So I'm guessing this thread is wrapping up soon and it seems that the general feelings are that safeway didn't really do anything wrong. Some say they overreacted but were within their rights....

So my question is will all of you who condone this woman being arrested going to hold your arguments up later? This is also was FArchivist is getting at. Good for the goose and good for the gander.

So far we've argued that A) It's safeway's property, safeway's rules, they were following policy. That's fine, but will you hold that up in the next debate about whether a store has the right to do something you don't like?

B) The woman broke the rules and that's that. Fine, but again, will you be sticking to this argument later on when there's a set of rules you don't like?

We don't get to pick and choose our arguments for convenience. Gotta stick to your guns folks! That's why I hope in threads like this we'll see consistency. Especially when the next debate comes up, and it might show us on opposite sides - say the store does something that's only technically legal by the loosest interpretation of the law, but morally disgusting - are you still going to side with them and say "Well it's the rules and policy so they have every right to do that."

[Eisa]

I forget things constantly. I have a dissociative disorder. D'you know how easy it is to forget things when you're spacey as all hell? I haven't forgotten to pay for anything yet, but I worry. :/

I do think it's an overreaction. But I would feel that way if it was a perfectly healthy 20-year-old man, as well.

When I shoplifted when I was 9, they didn't call the cops on me.

[Rageaholic]

Mom gave me a stern talking to when I was 8. I wasn't steeling, but I was putting the candy in my pockets, so it could have looked that way. Luckly, the store clerk was pretty nice about it and didn't jump the gun like those in this story did.

[Gravekeeper]

So my question is will all of you who condone this woman being arrested going to hold your arguments up later? This is also was FArchivist is getting at. Good for the goose and good for the gander.

If that's what FArchivist is getting at, they could have worded it much much better. That aside:

A) Why would change our arguments if the same scenario occurred again? That could only happen if it was personally one of us in the news next time. In which case I'm not sure we'd be discussing it at all due to anonymity issues.

B) Why even discuss that? There's no point in arguing that we might change our minds next time nor trying to blame anyone for what they might hypothetically do in a seperate hypothetical argument.

I don't see any point in going "Well, next time we talk about this I hope you aren't hypocrites!"? -.-

[DrFaroohk]

If that's what FArchivist is getting at, they could have worded it much much better.
I don't see any point in going "Well, next time we talk about this I hope you aren't hypocrites!"? -.-

Actually it was worded pretty much like that. I got it just fine. What were you reading?

And if you don't see the point, well, it's to see how full of shit one is. You've made pretty compelling "rules are rules and that's that" arguments. Will you stick with them? What about whenwe read about another person's activities that while technically legal and within the bounds of "the rules", but they are also being a ginormous douche about it. What then?

[Gravekeeper]

And if you don't see the point, well, it's to see how full of shit one is. You've made pretty compelling "rules are rules and that's that" arguments. Will you stick with them? What about whenwe read about another person's activities that while technically legal and within the bounds of "the rules", but they are also being a ginormous douche about it. What then?

So, your argument basically is rather than discuss the topic, lets litmus test other forum members integrity using something that hasn't even happened? For no reason other than hypothetical future reference? I'm really trying to understand the point behind your argument. How does anyone's hypothetical future opinion on a hypothetical possible scenario have any bearing on the current discussion whatsoever? All I'm getting from this is "Yeah, well maybe you'll be wrong next time, Gadget. Next time!". Which is silly.

I'm also not even 100% who you're speaking too, or if I just have the honour because I've been the only one replying thus becoming the representative for whatever you're arguing against. In which case are you really going to make me explain my position for the fifth time here? -.-

[bainsidhe]

You've made pretty compelling "rules are rules and that's that" arguments. Will you stick with them?

*shrugs* I've added to the "rules are rules" commentary, but I've also stated I thought the store's actions went too far. And so have others. Just because someone offers a reason why a store may enforce a policy doesn't mean they'll agree with it 100% of the time. I'm sure each one of us would raise holy hell if we were the one who made a mistake and got arrested.

We weren't there and we don't know what was really going on with the store. Was management having a bad day? Has corporate been harping about shrinkage? Had the owners made it clear they wanted everyone caught leaving the store with unpaid merchandise arrested? We have the pregnant woman crying foul, but was she acting suspiciously while in store?

This topic is emotional and it preys on our sympathies because we can see ourselves being in a similar situation. And as a former cashier, I've grown to resent shoplifting and would want to see shoplifters punished. Thus I also appreciate the store's side.

[DrFaroohk]

That's why I try to strip the situation down to its basics. "Pregant", "woman", "safeway", "sandwich"...these are just words and have no real substance in the situation. It could just as easily be a gay man who received incorrect change at the bank was arrested outside the doors for a bank robbery since he technically took money that wasn't his. Or, it's just a person is busted on a technicality by an overzealous enforcer. The rest of the details are fairly irrelevant.

So, your argument basically is rather than discuss the topic, lets litmus test other forum members integrity using something that hasn't even happened? For no reason other than hypothetical future reference? I'm really trying to understand the point behind your argument. How does anyone's hypothetical future opinion on a hypothetical possible scenario have any bearing on the current discussion whatsoever? All I'm getting from this is "Yeah, well maybe you'll be wrong next time, Gadget. Next time!". Which is silly.

I'm also not even 100% who you're speaking too, or if I just have the honour because I've been the only one replying thus becoming the representative for whatever you're arguing against. In which case are you really going to make me explain my position for the fifth time here? -.-

Nice dodge. Doesn't change anything and I still got my answer.

[Canarr]

So, you want to know if everybody here is pro Zero Tolerance, is that it? 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?

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.

Your second example is just too vague to compare to the current topic, which makes it, well, another dumb example:

Some generic person busted on a technicality by some generic enforcer? You mean, like getting a ticket for a busted taillight? Or being towed for unlawful parking? Yeah, I'm in favor of that; if I go to the trouble of keeping my car in operable condition, and only parking it where I'm supposed to, then I damn well expect everybody else to do the same. And if they don't, I expect the law to penalize them for it.

[Gravekeeper]

Nice dodge. Doesn't change anything and I still got my answer.

Ah, another assumption based illusionary victory on the Internet is it? Well, good for you I guess.

[DrFaroohk]

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

[the_std]

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?