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

[Rageaholic]

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.

Bending the rules would have been the logical thing to do in that case (for reasons Andara pointed out). The policy itself was stupid anyway and this could have easily been resolved WITHOUT the policy. My main issue is the strict adhearance to this policy, which will result in a situation in which doing things by the book would be the illogical thing. Zero tolerance = zero intellegence.

It appears that most of the suck was with the police. With such a small bail, why wouldn't they just let her pay and go? Probably more beaurcracy and brainless "policy" which half of the time leads to stupid wallbanger inducing decisions.

I will say this, I'm glad her visit to jail was only less than a day. At least this wasn't that big of an injustice. But to have her even go to jail for such a silly mistake was unnecessary and idiotic.

[Gravekeeper]

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?

It might be Hawaii law again. I don't think every State has a 4th Degree Theft law on the books specifically for the pettiest of thefts? Also, 2 people shoplifted over 5 million dollars worth of shit from Safeways in Portland over a couple of years and were just caught back in Feb. So the policy in question may be reflective of immense shoplifting loss from the last couple years. >.>

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.

I'm really wondering what went down with the officers myself. Store policy may denote calling the cops, sure. But why didn't an officer go "Yeah, this isn't worth the time, just pay the store and lets be done with it"? Did the manager insist? Did the officer insist? I don't think the policy itself is really flawed all things considered, but who ordered the clusterfuck when the police arrived? I doubt the policy insists on pressing charges, just that the cops are called.

So who in the meeting in the store's office was the hard ass?

What law, exactly, bars people from eating food and then paying for it?

No specific law does so outright, its up to the store or any possible local laws. Most grocery stores have to budget for a certain amount of shrink loss due to "grazing" customers and its the manager's ass on the line if that particular metric gets too high on his watch. Its really up to the store whether or not they want to allow it, if they don't, its your ass. A grocery store is not a buffet and some stores have specific policies against grazing where they will warn you once, then call the cops on you if you do it again.

Essentially it is their property until its paid for and while it may not technically be shoplifting until it leaves the store unpaid for, it is still their right to decree how you use or do not use their property while in the store. So its up to the store whether or not they want to allow it.

I'm wondering more, though, about the groceries they bought. What happened to them? If the store put them back, then *they're* stealing.

That is a silly thought, frankly. Obviously the store kept their groceries for them if they were able to wander back and get them. The store properly offered too or she asked them to do so.

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.

That makes a bit more sense, most the articles I could find were basically a copypasta of this one. Explains why both were arrested, yar. Though its also a double durr on them if they both forgot. Plus it reflects worse on her if they both had one, seeing as her sympathy card was that she was feeling "faint" and "dizzy" and really needed to eat something. Takes away some of the impact if the husband munched one as well just because.

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.

This is the trick and why its a bad idea all around. Not only is it disrepectful, classless, unhygenic and if you're eating something sold by weight then likely is theft. But if the store says you can't do it, and you do, you're getting arrested. If you intend to pay for it, and can't ( Card is declined, paycheque didn't clear yet, etc ) then you're in shit too. Its just a stupid thing to do. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

But if the store says you can't do it, and you do, you're getting arrested. If you intend to pay for it, and can't ( Card is declined, paycheque didn't clear yet, etc ) then you're in shit too. Its just a stupid thing to do. -.-

Merely breaking a store rule is not grounds for arrest. They can turf you or ban you for breaking the rules, but you'd have to do (or at least appear to do) something that was actually against the law to be arrested. Eating food sold by package prior to paying for it is still not against any statutes.

Still no argument on the rest, although if it's paid for with cash, then the argument about declining cards is irrelevant.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

I'd also like to know how the sandwich issue was discovered. If LP was RIGHT THERE to catch them in the act of leaving the store, was this family being followed? Were they acting in a way to cause LP to be suspicious? If it was the cashier who noticed the unpaid sandwiches, why didn't he/she say anything? Just another reason I wonder what else was in play. Regardless, I'm still shocked it went so far.

[Gravekeeper]

Merely breaking a store rule is not grounds for arrest.

Hence the warning first. You can't do what you want with someone else's property on someone else's property.

Still no argument on the rest, although if it's paid for with cash, then the argument about declining cards is irrelevant.

Was mentioning it because of an example I found whilst Google trawlin'. Woman drank a coke or some such intending to pay for it and her debit card ended up declined because a cheque wasn't in yet.

I'd also like to know how the sandwich issue was discovered. If LP was RIGHT THERE to catch them in the act of leaving the store, was this family being followed? Were they acting in a way to cause LP to be suspicious? If it was the cashier who noticed the unpaid sandwiches, why didn't he/she say anything? Just another reason I wonder what else was in play. Regardless, I'm still shocked it went so far.

Likely being followed. LP probably saw her open the sandwichs and stuff the wrappers somewhere then followed them to see if they'd pay for it or not. That's usually how it works with shoplifting LP. Its not shoplifting till you leave the store so they shadow you till you do so.

Grocery stores lost a shitload of money to grazing over the last few years apparently, so I imagine they take this pretty serious these days.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, when you're pregnant, your brain is sometimes not firing on all pistons. It happens.

I've had to interrupt shopping trips to grab something quick to eat. I always go up and pay the moment I do it, but I'd hate to think I'd be jailed and my kid taken away if I had a brain fart.

I have chronically low blood sugar. And sometimes (not often, but it's happened) it will hit me instantly. Like "one moment I'm fine and the next moment I'm fighting to stay upright" instantly. Which is why I carry candy with me in my car.

Unfortunately, one side effect of this is that if it's bad enough, my thought processes are affected. I've never reached that level of danger while in a store while shopping, but I've had a few close calls when I didn't have anything with me I knew I had very little time before I did. I just stop what I'm doing, leave the cart, get something, pay, eat it and sit down till I'm okay enough to finish my shopping. This stuff can and does happen to you while you're pregnant. Even if normally you don't have sugar problems. And you might not be making the best judgement calls if it does.

[FArchivist]

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)

1) You're still comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing manslaughter, a FELONY with a $10 total MISDEMEANOR. Apples. Oranges. Compare the misdemeanor to another misdemeanor and you might have something.

2) No, in GA that wouldn't net you a Murder 1st Degree. Nor in any jurisdiction that I can think of, either. The best you could get with the scenario you describe is Murder in the 2nd Degree. 1st requires that you kill the victim in cold blood with intent and planning. Hitting the little girl by mistake doesn't qualify as that.

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.

If they know better, then why are they backing off? All they have to do is release the security footage and BOOM, the public opinion is with them against the Evil Moo. Instead you've got witnesses all over the place offering to testify on her behalf and claiming that security was doing the Arrogant Security Strut and practically tol-chocking the woman and child upside the head with a stun baton if they so much as blinked. And Safeway says:


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.

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

Are you prepared to apply this philosophy universally?
Because if not, then I don't see that you have any reason to complain about ANY zero tolerance situation, as by your opinion they're all justified.

Unless he can't because, as I said, mayhaps he has a DA breathing down on him from above.

What charges? They've all been dropped.

But still, these are not things the store manager could be expected to know.

Safeway Division Manager Houghton claims otherwise, so this is a moot point.

. 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. >.>

So they say. Me, I bet that CPS has garnered a file and is looking for an excuse to grab the kid. Putting the kid in foster or up for adoption is very lucrative for the state and looks good on the social worker's personnel record.

[Andara Bledin]

Grocery stores lost a shitload of money to grazing over the last few years apparently, so I imagine they take this pretty serious these days.

If they're losing money to shoplifting, it would be in their best interests to tell people, "Oh, hey, did you forget something?" and give them a chance to pay rather than wait for it to be absolutely too late and then have to waste the manpower, time, effort and all that that goes into prosecuting shoplifters (whether intentional or not) and still not getting their money.

Seriously, waiting until they're out the door, going "A-ha! Got you now!" and having them arrested is the worst way to save money. Talk about throwing good money after bad.

This stuff can and does happen to you while you're pregnant. Even if normally you don't have sugar problems. And you might not be making the best judgement calls if it does.

My brother's girlfriend is pregnant and developing hypoglycemia during it and when she doesn't watch her levels, she goes absolutely batshit with full on paranoid delusions and destructive rants.

And my ex (a type 1 diabetic) described having dangerously low blood sugar as all the worst parts of being drunk coupled with a physical inability (no sugar, nothing to power the brain) to think coherently.

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

If they know better, then why are they backing off? All they have to do is release the security footage and BOOM, the public opinion is with them against the Evil Moo.

I see this argument ALL the time. "Public opinion is against them so if they just pander to public opinion, then all's good!"

Bullshit.

1. 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.

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.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, when you're pregnant, your brain is sometimes not firing on all pistons. It happens.

True, but its a double brainfart here. Her and her husband.

If they know better, then why are they backing off?

Because its a PR shit storm thats not worth the hassle? Exactly like her lawyer intended by telling her to run to the media and play up being a pregnant mother from the air force? Its the perfect Evil Corporation story. At this point they could have footage of her setting the store on fire and still end up coming out of this with bad PR. The public doesn't give a shit if the store produces evidence after the fact. The damage is done, the media narrative has been established. Public opinion would not turn around and its not in the media's interest to turn it around. The current narrative is more lucrative and interesting for the news.

Instead you've got witnesses all over the place offering to testify on her behalf and claiming that security was doing the Arrogant Security Strut and practically tol-chocking the woman and child upside the head with a stun baton if they so much as blinked.

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

Are you prepared to apply this philosophy universally?
Because if not, then I don't see that you have any reason to complain about ANY zero tolerance situation, as by your opinion they're all justified.

Nice strawman. -.-

What charges? They've all been dropped.

I actually meant DM there, my bad. Didn't catch that. As in the store manager could have a DM breathing down on him about shrink loss and enforcing policy.

Safeway Division Manager Houghton claims otherwise, so this is a moot point.

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

Seriously, waiting until they're out the door, going "A-ha! Got you now!" and having them arrested is the worst way to save money. Talk about throwing good money after bad.

I'd say its kind of an unfortunate side effect to the way the law works and the way LP works in respose. Maybe with pressure from high above to reduce shrink. Shit rolls downhill afterall.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Is it right that the store did that? No. But they didn't do anything legally wrong that'd give the woman and her husband a lawsuit.

Actually the store was in the right to have that policy and was in the right to enforce it.

And as much as I would like to believe otherwise, there are examples of how pregnant women use the fact that they are pregnant to cover their shoplifting activities. One thing that we do not know is WHY that policy is in place in the first place. There is a very real chance that it is in place because they have heard the "Oopsie! My Bad! I really REALLY meant to pay for it" line once too many times from people who like to use that as a cover in case they get caught.

The question is not "was it right?", but in actually is "Was it the most reasonable response under the circumstances.

And yes I do agree that in this case it was a bit overblown and a significant dick move...but they are in the right to make that dick move.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

My brother's girlfriend is pregnant and developing hypoglycemia during it and when she doesn't watch her levels, she goes absolutely batshit with full on paranoid delusions and destructive rants.

And my ex (a type 1 diabetic) described having dangerously low blood sugar as all the worst parts of being drunk coupled with a physical inability (no sugar, nothing to power the brain) to think coherently.

^-.-^

Ah, yes. That scene in Steel Magnolias where Julia Roberts loses her shit at the hair dresser's place. That's a pretty accurate thing.

We had a guy at public TV who was a famous bad temper (same problem) went ape and took the front off the Coke machine with a crowbar. The scene crew found him sitting among the wreckage calmly drinking a Coke. Stuff that is completely over the top seems perfectly reasonable when your brain shuts down.

Worst it ever happened to me was at Kinko's. I was on the verge of passing out and I remember trying to tell my coworkers what was wrong and literally being unable to piece together a coherent sentence. Stuttering gibberish was coming out of my mouth. Fortunately, my "work husband" there was a type 1 diabetic, recognized what was happening, and came to my rescue with fruit juice and a breakfast bar.

So people maybe having a bad day in a store I can believe all to easily.

However, y'all are right, I don't know what the husband's excuse was. But I seriously doubt these people were trying to get one over. It sounds like they made some bad choices on how to handle their problem, simply forgot what they were doing, and screwed up.

There is malice in the world, but there is far more stupidity. And stupidity is usually the correct answer.

[DrFaroohk]

I don't think it's a strawman to ask if someone will apply their argument universally or not. It's a valid question. For instance, if YOU were in a similar situation where you made a mistake, would you so lightly shrug off the overreaction? Strawman is usually for something totally unrelated.

Honestly, I don't think anyone here would. I think there's a lot of bullshit in this thread about what hardasses people are. They disagree with the story because of the lady flaunting her pregnant status so their convince themselves it's all ok. By some of your standards, the guy in line at the circle K who has a sip of his coffee deserves to serve a year in prison.

So yeah, i call bullshit. We've all had our witchhunt and put this dangerous criminal in her place. Come on. You guys are like the store owner who decides he's going to destroy a perfectly good couch rather than just give it away. Sure it's technically his right, just like it's my right to put a big 'FUCK NATIVE AMERICANS!" sign on my front lawn, but that doesn't make it a-ok peachy keen for me to do so.

So bullshit. It's not rude of disrespectful to eat as you shop. It's rude to not pay for it. It's rude to spill it and make a mess. Other than that, it's not. Sorry, but you can pretend it is and pretend to get all mad and watch your face get red as you see these AWFUL PEOPLE bringing money into your store and spending it...but GET OVER YOUR FUCKING SELVES!!!!! "It's not yours it's MINE you can't just open that!" You know who some of you sound like? The 7 year old I bitch about in Things I Hate!

And more bullshit. No one here was doing what they "had" to do. Everyone quotes policy and procedure but guess what - the assholes in charge are allowed to pick and choose. That's why businesses can get away with shit directly going against their own corporate policies. They are allowed to pick and choose. Cops have discretion too. They're allowed to pick and choose who they arrest and don't. Most of the time anyway, and in this case, the cops and the store could've handled it better.

The interesting thing about this "Crime" is it's somewhat unique: The damage is reversible. You can't undo a murder, you can't undo a burglary, you can't undo a rape, but all you have to do is pay for the damn sandwich and it's completely undone. The sandwich has left the store, and the store has received money, just as God intended.

[linguist]

The interesting thing about this "Crime" is it's somewhat unique: The damage is reversible. You can't undo a murder, you can't undo a burglary, you can't undo a rape, but all you have to do is pay for the damn sandwich and it's completely undone. The sandwich has left the store, and the store has received money, just as God intended.

the problem with that is twofold:

1. it opens the store up to discrimination charges if they allow some to pay and let them go and not others.

2. if word got out that all you have to do is pay if you get caught and you can go on your way, it's like announcing open season for shoplifters.

and actually, by your logic, you can undo a burglary. all you have to do is pay for any damages and return and items stolen and it's like it never happened. except it did. just like shoplifting still occurred even if you pay after getting caught.

[DrFaroohk]

Not quite. With the burglary it's still a violation. Someone came into your home uninvited. You can't undo that.