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

[Hyena Dandy]

What I think people are objecting to, Andy, is that you seem to be saying that the manager should have known what would happen if they called the cops. They obviously didn't know either.

It seems to have turned out alright, though, yes?

[Andara Bledin]

It baffles me that anyone would think that having both parents arrested would result in anything other than what happened.

It's bizarre.

On one hand you have everybody going, "OMG, she meant to steal those sandwiches, so she's getting what she deserves. Rawr!" and then, in the very next breath, "Oh, my, how could the store owner have possibly known that having both parents of a very young child would result in CPS being called. What a horrible thing that nobody could have possibly expected to happen."

What the hell is wrong with people?

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

Since she was willing to pay, this could have been easily resolved, but because of strict adhearance to stupid useless rules, she ended up in jail and the kids almost got taken away from her.

many shoplifters are "willing to pay" to avoid the criminal charges, probably why the policy was enacted in the first place. But I guess in this case bending the rules would be ok, being as how being pregnant and having a kid makes her a speshil sneauxflayke and all. Remember that next time you complain about a manager caving to an SC about policy.

[Andara Bledin]

"Bending the rules" in this case is ok because she didn't go in, get some trifle from the back, and try to steal something while she was at it.

She went for a full shopping trip. Anyone who would take the time to actually think about the situation would come to the conclusion that this is a frazzled couple who honestly forgot and not, say, the 20-something banger kid who stuffed a whole bag of cooked chicken into the side pocket of his cargo pants and then strolled up to purchase a bottle of energy drink.

Seriously, critical thinking should not be this difficult.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

It baffles me that anyone would think that having both parents arrested would result in anything other than what happened.

It's bizarre.

On one hand you have everybody going, "OMG, she meant to steal those sandwiches, so she's getting what she deserves. Rawr!" and then, in the very next breath, "Oh, my, how could the store owner have possibly known that having both parents of a very young child would result in CPS being called. What a horrible thing that nobody could have possibly expected to happen."

What the hell is wrong with people?

^-.-^

As someone pointed out, its possible that that they anticipated she'd be taken to a friend or relative. Or maybe she was just following guidelines. I don't know, but sometimes policies are policies, even when they're stupid, and some people would rather follow policy than go off-script even if they think it'd make sense.

On the other hand, I don't get why you had to arrest BOTH of them.

[Gravekeeper]

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.

My issue is her Woe Is Me laying this on Safeway and rumbling for a lawsuit, when her major issue is due to State policies. She has no case against the store. Determining any possible criminal intent is not up to the store. They caught someone outside of their store with unpaid property. They called the police to sort it out. Police policy made it spiral out into absurdity.

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?

The consequence of a $20 fine? Sounds like a pretty good deal for shoplifting $10 worth of sandwichs. Even if you have a history of shoplifting in Hawaii that just doubles the fine again to $40. Pretty good odds. ;p

And to be bluntly honest, considering how many people use their children as tools or sympathy shields for shoplifting. Basically her entire proof is her word, which was only recieved upon catching her. Thus I repeat, there would be no problem whatsoever had this been a lone unpregnant woman and the thing that turned this into a major issue was police procedure, not store policy. It was police procedure that escalated a simple situation into this shitstorm.

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?

Honestly, a corporate admission means nothing. Much like its call the police first, sort it out later. It's also apologize first, figure out what happened later. They're in a PR shitstorm because people are essentially blaming them for something the police did. What choice do they have? The entire problem with this, or any other large store, is that its impossible to monitor every employee and every customer so the safe response to a problem is placate it then look into it and figure out what happened.

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.

Because it doesn't belong to you yet and you have no right to use it in any manner you see fit. I fail to see why that is so difficult to comprehend. Its a pretty basic concept of ownership. Why does it change because something is edible? If she had torn open a $10 pack of batteries and stuffed them into her CD player because she "Just couldn't wait" for her music. Then walked out forgetting she had stuck them in her player and with the open packaging stuffed in her purse how lenient do you think the store or the public opinion would have been? =p

Or the disrespect. I think a lot of people don't know what respect really means.

Indeed.

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.

Precisely, or more specifically, its up to the police to investigate. All the store manager has is her word on the matter.

Third, what is really so bad about "Ooops, I forgot, here you go." People make MISTAKES.

People do indeed make mistakes, and guess what? Mistakes can be crimes.

[Gravekeeper]

On the other hand, I don't get why you had to arrest BOTH of them.

It says she picked up two sandwiches but only ate one. Thus sandwich number two was hidden somewhere, perhaps on the husband? Or he ate it. If not though, that does indeed stick another one on how the police handled this.

[Greenday]

Gravekeeper has pretty much summed up everything I was planning on saying. Someone stole from Safeway and Safeway called the cops. I don't get why this has been blown up into such a huge issue.

Corporate's statement means nothing. It's just a PR statement to make themselves look better. In all reality, they should give everyone involved at that Safeway a pat on the back for following a fair policy.

[Andara Bledin]

My issue is her Woe Is Me laying this on Safeway and rumbling for a lawsuit, when her major issue is due to State policies. She has no case against the store. Determining any possible criminal intent is not up to the store. They caught someone outside of their store with unpaid property. They called the police to sort it out. Police policy made it spiral out into absurdity.

Both the store and police policy are at issue. But the store could have used the brains god gave small dogs and used a little judgement and not gotten the ball rolling in the first place.

The consequence of a $20 fine? Sounds like a pretty good deal for shoplifting $10 worth of sandwichs. Even if you have a history of shoplifting in Hawaii that just doubles the fine again to $40. Pretty good odds. ;p

Don't forget however much it cost to go back to the store at midnight to get the food they'd already paid for (they have no car), plus the non-refundable fees for the bail (which may be up to 100% of the $100 depending on too many variables to go into), plus the court fees beyond the fine (what, you think a fine is just a fine? Obviously, you do not live in the US - in some cases the fees are more than the fine and the item combined... times 2 for 2 people). And that's before you even begin to think about things relating to health or the kid.

Oh, and don't forget the record as a thief.

Because it doesn't belong to you yet and you have no right to use it in any manner you see fit. I fail to see why that is so difficult to comprehend.

This part, as I said in my first post, I agree with. If they were really that hungry, they should have bought some food, eaten it outside, then gone back in and done their shopping.

People do indeed make mistakes, and guess what? Mistakes can be crimes.

But the response to this mistake was completely and utterly beyond the scope of the initial action. These aren't career criminals. They didn't do anything that could not have been made right by the exchange of about 1/10th of what they'd already spent with the store.

Hell, go ahead and ban their asses for a year, too. But to call down this sort of circus over the issue at hand was too much.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

The parents are out $100 for bail and lost custody of their daughter for a night.

Sort of. They'll get the bail money back when they go to court and the case is resolved one way or another. The custody issue is a done deal, though.

If they cannot prove that she intended to take the sandwich and not pay for it, then she actually has a case against them and not the other way around.

The legal definition of intent varies from state to state, and from what regular people would call intent.

Basically, by leaving the store with merchandise and not paying for it, or for getting a service and not paying for it, that's intent in the eyes of the law.

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.

No, if you get arrested you get held unless you pay bail or unless you are released on your own recognizance (basically, a promise to appear in court). If the jail is full, you sleep on the floor, in the gym, or in the cafeteria, or where ever the overflow goes.

And you'd be amazed how many pregnant women are in jail.

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

I agree totally with this.

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.

I'm not inclined to let her use pregnancy for an excuse. Vomiting in pregnancy is common. Not impressed. So is stress . . . again not impressed. If she miscarried, it would have had nothing to do with the arrest unless someone kicked her in the stomach.

Cops can't take a prisoner in medical stress directly to jail, though. The jail won't take them unless they are medically cleared in the ER first.

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?

I do think shoplifting is worth consequences. Stores turned a blind eye to minor infractions and are getting robbed blind by the scam artists. Which in turn raises our prices.

Look, I'm sure this lady didn't mean to steal. I believe her story that it was a brain fart. But it doesn't change the facts, which means she has to suck it up and go through the legal system. Hopefully it will teach her to pay attention.

Both the store and police policy are at issue. But the store could have used the brains god gave small dogs and used a little judgement and not gotten the ball rolling in the first place.

I don't like zero tolerance policies for this reason. It is a shame the manager didn't have a choice in the matter. Hopefully, Safeway will wake up and fix that because of this issue.

Don't forget however much it cost to go back to the store at midnight to get the food they'd already paid for (they have no car), plus the non-refundable fees for the bail (which may be up to 100% of the $100 depending on too many variables to go into), plus the court fees beyond the fine (what, you think a fine is just a fine? Obviously, you do not live in the US - in some cases the fees are more than the fine and the item combined... times 2 for 2 people). And that's before you even begin to think about things relating to health or the kid.

Oh, and don't forget the record as a thief.

Given that the woman DID break the law, why should I feel sorry for any of this?

Again, you get bail money back once you've finished with the legal process. If the woman is acquitted or the charges dropped, she'll get all of it back. She'll only pay fees if she used a bail bondsman, which typically costs 10% (10 bucks).

There's no evidence of a permanent health issue. The kid isn't hurt . . . just had to spend the night away from mom and dad. Normally, CPS will release kids to a relative or family friend . . . just their bad luck they didn't have anyone in the area for CPS to release them TO. Which is not CPS's problem.

I'm not seeing anything to make me cry a river here. If anything, she's learned a valuable lesson that could have been a lot harder.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Just to say, when I worked at the garden centre, it had a zero tolerance policy on shoplifting. This policy was stuck up on the doors and also in several places around the store. Said policy was that shoplifters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law... meaning that, on quite a few occasions, the police were called on a kid for palming something small.

Or on an elderly person, or a pregnant woman, or a man with two heads. Doesn't matter. If you take something, the police will be called and after that, it's in THEIR hands what happens to the thief. So this woman's beef is with the police, not the store and she's only suing the store cuz she probably thinks she'll get more money from them if she wins.

I also don't like the fact she ran to the media; yeah sure, the lawyer suggested it but doesn't mean she has to do it. It just means that a small issue ends up a large one with her playing the sympathy card for all she's worth.

[Gravekeeper]

Both the store and police policy are at issue. But the store could have used the brains god gave small dogs and used a little judgement and not gotten the ball rolling in the first place.

Unless he can't because, as I said, mayhaps he has a DA breathing down on him from above. Regardless, the series of factors required to make the store policy perform this particular feat are quite unlikely: It has to be a pregnant woman with a kid, both her and her husband need be arrested, she can't have anyone to call who can pick the kid up, the police have to have a policy of contacting CPS immediately ( Which the article says is a Honolulu police policy ) and the arresting officers have to make the judgement call that the storemanager can't or won't do.

Conversely, the store policy must have a measurable effect on lose prevention else it would likely not be in place. Seeing as Safeway loses millions and millions to shoplifting a year, its not really that unreasonable. Out of 1725 stores who have probably had this policy for quite some time over thousands and thousands of shoplifting cases, this is the 1 time things went so badly askew.

Don't forget however much it cost to go back to the store at midnight to get the food they'd already paid for (they have no car), plus the non-refundable fees for the bail (which may be up to 100% of the $100 depending on too many variables to go into), plus the court fees beyond the fine <snip>

But still, these are not things the store manager could be expected to know. You cannot hold the victim of a crime responsible for the consequences. Once the boys in blue arrive, its on their heads. Sorting it out is their job.

Oh, and don't forget the record as a thief.

Well, honestly, I don't think the average shoplifter cares about that part. -.-

But the response to this mistake was completely and utterly beyond the scope of the initial action. These aren't career criminals. They didn't do anything that could not have been made right by the exchange of about 1/10th of what they'd already spent with the store.

1/5th. But "$5 Sandwich" makes for a snappier media headline then "Sandwiches totalling $10". Though I'm still curious where uneaten sandwich #2 was in all this. The articles in question don't seem to care too much about the facts and more so about the THIS IS AN OUTRAGE angle.

Hell, go ahead and ban their asses for a year, too. But to call down this sort of circus over the issue at hand was too much.

But again, this is my whole problem here. The news narrative is "OMFG LOOK WHAT SAFEWAY DID TO THIS POOR WOMAN" not "OMFG LOOK WHAT THE POLICE DID TO THIS POOR WOMAN". When the latter holds much much more blame here. When you combine that with the fact she's obviously considering legal action it smells like the lawyer went "Go after Safeway, they've got more money and are easier to leverage with public pressure".

Its easier to make a case against a mean, nasty corporation then it is against the local police force which were just following their procedure, regardless of how absurd it turned out to be. Also, CPS returned the kid first thing in the morning without incident. Which is contrary to most of the horror stories I hear about CPS down there. >.>

[bainsidhe]

"Bending the rules" in this case is ok because she didn't go in, get some trifle from the back, and try to steal something while she was at it.

She went for a full shopping trip.

The fact they made other purchases means squat-all to me. I've seen many SCs try to sneak a loaf of bread or bottle of detergent past me, just so they could save a few bucks. Hard to convince me they "accidentally forgot" when I see them carefully rearranging their groceries so I don't notice or they give me the stinkeye when I ask to scan something they've quickly moved out of view.

In point of fact, in Hawaii, larceny is defined as "the intentional taking of another person's property without legal permission."

If they cannot prove that she intended to take the sandwich and not pay for it, then she actually has a case against them and not the other way around.

Except she intentionally ate the sandwich without first paying for it. She may have intended to pay for it afterwards, but her initial actions were already breaking the law.

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?".

Totally agree.

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.

Which is why I wonder what else was going on. Was management having a bad day? Were they utterly unconvinced by the woman's excuses? Or have they been having a slew of thefts and are therefore cracking down?

I personally think it was silly to make such a big issue over 5 bucks. If this was supposed to be a deterrent, getting caught and talked to by LP & management works pretty well. At the same time, it burns me to see customers hide food containers, or hand me an opened package and tell me they don't like it and don't want to buy it after all.

[HYHYBT]

Except she intentionally ate the sandwich without first paying for it. She may have intended to pay for it afterwards, but her initial actions were already breaking the law.

What law, exactly, bars people from eating food and then paying for it? Yes, I know that's not what happened, but it's what you're claiming, so what law would she have been breaking by eating food and then paying for it? None I've ever heard of, or non-fast-food restaurants would have to operate very differently than they do. Yes, I know this was a grocery store. But unless you have an actual law saying otherwise, that's only a difference of *custom.* Not illegal, and only wrong in any sense if the store objects. And if the store objected, they'd have said something when she was walking around eating the sandwich.

I'm wondering more, though, about the groceries they bought. What happened to them? If the store put them back, then *they're* stealing. If they left them out to spoil (assuming anything in there was refrigerated or frozen) then it would be ruined by the time they got back. Which, if you insist that they deserve arrest for a simple, should-be-easily-corrected error, should be OK with you... but it at least should then be considered in the cost some here are trying to downplay.

[Andara Bledin]

1/5th. But "$5 Sandwich" makes for a snappier media headline then "Sandwiches totalling $10".

No. 1/10th. Both sandwiches together total $5. It's not very clear, but from the various things stated in multiple articles, there were two sandwiches for $2.50 each, and she and her husband each had one, which would make the fact that both were charged make a bit more sense.

Except she intentionally ate the sandwich without first paying for it. She may have intended to pay for it afterwards, but her initial actions were already breaking the law.

Not based on everything that has ever been said in regards to shops and the law. You have to leave the shop while depriving the shop of the goods it was otherwise meant to sell. So, until someone who has eaten product exits the facility, they haven't actually broken the law.

Sure, they're displaying a lack of class and a lack of clear thought and are very likely being disrespectful, but until they attempt to leave they aren't actually criminals.

^-.-^