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

[Duelist925]

I see a few people jumping quickly to the "The woman was obviously stealing and is just backtracking to avoid legal issues" bandwagon.....why? I read the article, and its never mentioned wether she has a previous history with theft. Nor her husband, though it does mention he's a former Air Force staff seargent. I can understand jumping to that conclusion if she'd had any previous issues with theft, or if he had, or if she'd been a bitch about the whole thing. From what I've read, she deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least for such a minor infraction.

Look, I know the vast majority of us come from CS, and therefore expect the worst out of the customer automatically, but...come on. The store overreacted. It's 5 bucks. They lost more money than that in the sheer time the manager spent contacting the cops, and now, reviewing the tapes to see wether they'll be pressing charges....over 5 dollars worth of sandwhiches.

5 dollars does not warrant police involvement. 5 dollars warrants a stern talking to, or maybe being banned for a week or two. The store grossly overreacted. Calling the cops over a matter of 5 dollars is like calling the cops because your neighbors dog dug a hole into your yard.

[DrFaroohk]

Wow there are some hardasses out there! You would seriously call the cops and have someone ARRESTED because they forgot to pay for something, and then comparing it to murdering someone? Shit, it happens!

How about if someone came back in on their own and said "Whoops, you guys forgot to scan this and it didn't get paid for." Technically, that falls under some peoples definition of stealing.

I wonder just how perfect some of these hardasses really are.

[Greenday]

Wow there are some hardasses out there! You would seriously call the cops and have someone ARRESTED because they forgot to pay for something, and then comparing it to murdering someone?

It's not murder, it'd be manslaughter. Murder as a comparison for the same idea would be like saying, "I shot at that guy, but missed and by mistake hit that little girl over there. Since I didn't mean to shoot her, it's okay." (And for the record, that'd net you a Murder I)

Maybe she DIDN'T forget to pay. Maybe the people at the store know more than we do since we weren't there and it was their judgement that she intentionally stole.

[Gravekeeper]

I imagine the store policy is in place specifically because of "Oopsy I forgot, tee hee!" incidents. Personally though, I can't stand people that openly munch on shit they haven't paid for in a store. Its straight up rude and disrespectful towards the business. "Oh but I was famished" is not an excuse. Grow up, act like an adult and have some respect.

That said, allow us to examine the facts of the case:

1) Ate sandwich. Didn't pay for it. Left store. Thus committing a crime. That is fact.

2) Store policy dictates police are called. Likely because of "Oopsy, teehee!" incidents where people get caught then feign forgetfullness. This isn't some little mom and pop store, its a Safeway, I imagine they deal with a painfully high volume of theft both through shoplifting and people munching on shit in store and hiding the wrapper.

3) They get arrested.

Thats quite literally all that matters here as far as the store is concerned. She has no case whatsoever for sueing them and the fact she's going for public sympathy causes me to lose a lot of respect for her. The fact she is pregnant and that her kid was taken away is completely irrelevant here. The kid being taken was State policy, not store policy. She cannot blame the store for the actions of the State, and the only reason this is a newstory at all is because she was pregnant and had a kid with her.

If she wasn't pregnant and shopping by herself, public opinion would be against her. This wouldn't even register a news blip. She's being charged with 4th Degree Theft, that's a fine. In her case its only a $20 fine for fuck sakes because the fine for theft under $100 cannot exceed double the value of the item stolen. So if not for the kid, no one would be talking about this.

Thus the entire problem is between her and the State, frankly. You can't hold the victim of a crime responsible for the penalties of the crime. If she wants to throw a big shit fit, she can do it at the State. But I have no sympathy as long as she's doing it at Safeway. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe she DIDN'T forget to pay. Maybe the people at the store know more than we do since we weren't there and it was their judgement that she intentionally stole.

They kept the wrappers for the sandwiches. If they had intended to not pay for them, it would have been more likely that they would have discarded the wrappers and claimed ignorance of any sandwich-eating.

I also like how the store representative is all, "OMG, we didn't mean to have their kid taken away overnight, that totally wasn't our intention." I do have to wonder what the hell they expected to happen to a 3-year-old girl when the store was having both of her parents arrested for shoplifting for $5 worth of food after they'd checked out and paid for what was likely over $100 worth of groceries (which they picked up after being released on bail).

The whole thing stinks of a manager on a power trip out to stick it to thieves and not giving a rat's ass who else he might catch in his net. This is the sort of zero tolerance bullshit that does far more damage than it could ever prevent.

^-.-^

[Andara Bledin]

1) Ate sandwich. Didn't pay for it. Left store. Thus committing a crime. That is fact.

As I mentioned earlier, not according to the state of Hawaii. To be guilty of theft, you have to intend to steal something.

And, regardless of whether or not she intended to do so or not (which seems really unlikely, considering that $5 on top of actual grocery shopping is a really stupid thing to even think about trying), it's up to the store and/or state to prove intent, which is pretty much impossible, particularly since they did buy other items during their shopping trip and made no attempt to hide that they were eating the sandwiches, nor did they attempt to discard the evidence.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

I do agree that the pregnant card is very annoying. What does have to do with anything? Same thing with her being in the air force, what does it matter?

[Gravekeeper]

I also like how the store representative is all, "OMG, we didn't mean to have their kid taken away overnight, that totally wasn't our intention." I do have to wonder what the hell they expected to happen to a 3-year-old girl when the store was having both of her parents arrested for shoplifting for $5 worth of food after they'd checked out and paid for what was likely over $100 worth of groceries

Objection. What the Hell would you expect to happen to a 3 year old girl when both her parents are arrested for what amounts to a fine? I would expect that'd get brought in for processing then released with an order to appear in court. I'd also expect the cops to allow mom to call a friend or family to come pick the girl up and babysit her for the night. That's what the cops did with me when my jackhole of a father got arrested when I was a kid and he got arrested for assaulting an officer. Multiple officers really. But they just babysat me till my mom got me. =p

So again, the way the State reacts is not the store's responsibility nor should the store be expected to be aware of exactly how an arrest is processed and what police policy is.

The whole thing stinks of a manager on a power trip out to stick it to thieves and not giving a rat's ass who else he might catch in his net. This is the sort of zero tolerance bullshit that does far more damage than it could ever prevent.

It also stinks of a sympathy ploy towards a lawsuit. I also imagine given the size of the stores and the size of the business, it probably has prevented quite a bit of damage. Seeing as I imagine they have had the policy for years and only through a perfect storm of freak occurences did this happen.

[Andara Bledin]

What the Hell would you expect to happen to a 3 year old girl when both her parents are arrested for what amounts to a fine? I would expect that'd get brought in for processing then released with an order to appear in court.

Yes, but you have to remember that in the US, if you get arrested, you get held unless the jail is full. Any holding without another adult present to take care of the kid equals having the kid go into state custody. Pretty much the only time the police keep ahold of a kid is if they plan to harass some form of confession or testimony out of them.

I'd also expect the cops to allow mom to call a friend or family to come pick the girl up and babysit her for the night.

As would I, but since the couple had just moved to the state, there's a very good chance that they don't have anybody on the island that could help them like that.

So again, the way the State reacts is not the store's responsibility nor should the store be expected to be aware of exactly how an arrest is processed and what police policy is.

If it's their policy to have everybody who takes anything outside the doors without paying first arrested, I'd be shocked to learn this sort of thing had never happened before.

It also stinks of a sympathy ploy towards a lawsuit. I also imagine given the size of the stores and the size of the business, it probably has prevented quite a bit of damage.

The media thing was the lawyer's idea, and considering what he gets paid to do, it's a good one from his side of things.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Personally though, I can't stand people that openly munch on shit they haven't paid for in a store.

Why? I mean, it's not like there are no situations where it's not only allowed, but *expected,* that you eat before paying, and bringing something you've bought right back into the store opens the door for suspicion too. For example, you could eat the item, hide the wrapper, and pick up another like it. Or you could be in a situation like I had one day... I went in to pay for my gas and picked up an ice cream bar to eat in the car. Someone ahead of me in line was buying 400 lottery tickets for out of state friends and taking forever about it, and my snack was melting. The choices at that point were limited to 1) swap it for a still-frozen one, putting me back at the end of the now-long line and probably sticking another customer with ruined ice cream; 2) eating it in line and buying the wrapper; 3) buy it and throw it away on the way out the door because it would be inedible by then; and 4) explain to the cashier and hand him the bar to throw away. (No trash cans in the customer area of the store, of course, and using the ones outside would involve leaving with something I hadn't bought *and* losing my place in line.)

Zero Tolerance is never an excusable policy. It's just a way of barring people from using their brains when borderline cases come along.

[CaptainJaneway]

The only thing i can see with the woman's pregancy playing a part is the stress on the baby.

She did throw up due to the stress they were putting her under. God only knows what would have had happen if she miscarried or some other complication.

One could chalk it up to pregancy brain where you forget things too. I know my sister suffered from it.

[Gravekeeper]

Pretty much the only time the police keep ahold of a kid is if they plan to harass some form of confession or testimony out of them.

Lovely. >.> That aside though, they weren't held. They were released on bail for $100. But kid was still gone for the night. That's the State there, not Safeway.

As would I, but since the couple had just moved to the state, there's a very good chance that they don't have anybody on the island that could help them like that.

But how is the store manager suppose to know that? Or any of this for that matter. Your point was that the store manager would expect this to happen. Plus she had 4 hours before the cops arrived at the store wherein she could have called someone if she knew someone. I highly doubt the store manager would have prevented it.

If it's their policy to have everybody who takes anything outside the doors without paying first arrested, I'd be shocked to learn this sort of thing had never happened before.

With a store of this size, I can understand the policy. Put it this way: You manage this big warehouse of a store. Your security guard hauls someone in to your office for shoplifting.

Guard tells you: "Hey, I just caught Person shoplifting"
Person tells you: "I totally meant to pay for that, I just forgot, really. I can pay for it now!"

Do you:

A) Go "Oh! Well then, by all means feel free to pay for it now! Just don't do it next time!"

or

B) Call the police down because they could really be shoplifters, or serial shoplifters or what have you and you don't want to make a judgement call on it till you can review security footage, etc. Because your DA will have your ass if it turns out you guessed wrong and the police will have the added annoyance of trying to ID the people and track them down afterwards. Better safe than sorry, ironically.

After that point though, everything is the State's fault. Period. If anything, its the police here that followed a questionable escalation of policies that caused the real problem.

The media thing was the lawyer's idea, and considering what he gets paid to do, it's a good one from his side of things.

Exactly, a lawyer's idea, and she's playing the sympathy card right to specifications. She's making it sound like she was going to collapse if she didn't eat that sandwich right now and all these mean people are ganging up on her and taking her children because she ate a sandwich to save her life. Totally ignoring the fact her husband ate one too and yet they both forgot. Also totally ignoring that they could have taken a couple minutes run to the front and buy the sandwichs than resume shopping. Hell, she could have kept shopping and dad could have run up and rung it through.

If they aren't shoplifters, they're definately either entitled or complete idiots or both. Regardless, I find it very hard to have sympathy for them.

[Gravekeeper]

Why? I mean, it's not like there are no situations where it's not only allowed, but *expected,* that you eat before paying

A grocery store is not one of those situations. Until you pay for it, it is not yours to do with as you will. Respect for the property of others should not end at "Is it edible?".

As for your rather unique scenario, it has no bearing on a Safeway. Your correct option is 4) Explain to the cashier. 3) Might work if you're at a gas station and the cashier can clearly see you and is chill with you munching on his shit ( But this is taking a risk. I've seen 7/11 clerks swat people for this numerous times before. ) But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a Safeway. If you're munching openly in line, you're allowing the cashier to see what you've got. If you're munching at the back of a store the size of a dock warehouse, not so much. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

I'm actually quite amazed at how many people here have never forgotten anything and who are so gung-ho to go after a family that rather obviously had intended to pay for the items in question to begin with.

Occam's razor, folks. They stopped and paid for $50 worth of groceries at a shop they'd never visited before after getting lost while taking the bus in a place they've only lived for two weeks. Do you truly and honestly believe a $5 sandwich would be worth the potential consequences?

Even Safeway admits that they, "may not have handled the matter in the best possible way," and "are taking the situation seriously." Gee, really? You mean there could have been a better way to handle that?

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

I imagine the store policy is in place specifically because of "Oopsy I forgot, tee hee!" incidents. Personally though, I can't stand people that openly munch on shit they haven't paid for in a store. Its straight up rude and disrespectful towards the business. "Oh but I was famished" is not an excuse. Grow up, act like an adult and have some respect.

First, how is it rude and disrespectful to open something up and eat it while I'm shopping? This sounds like made up bullshit to prove a point. It's NOT rude and disrespectful. Leaving with the intent to steal is rude and disrespectful.

I go shopping with my kids a lot and they usually get hungry halfway through. I always open them up something to eat and I always pay for it and the store is always fine with it. Not seeing where the rude part fits in. Or the disrespect. I think a lot of people don't know what respect really means.

Secondly, we do not know whether she forgot or didn't. It's not on us to just assume the worst - she forgot because she said she forgot. It's up to us to prove she didn't forget.

Third, what is really so bad about "Ooops, I forgot, here you go." People make MISTAKES. Get the fuck over it. We're acting like she had gotten home with the sandwiches, listed them on the black market and then got caught and offered to pay.