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

[Lace Neil Singer]

They weren't falsely accused; they did eat the sandwiches and didn't pay for them. The only problem is the police being overly heavy handed. Kinda like if you walked on the grass at Buckingham Palace and were immediately thrown in the Tower of London. You walked on the grass, sure, but you'd expect only minimal punishment.

Would Safeway still be condemned if this wasn't a pregnant mother? That's what I'd like to know.

Unlikely. Were this a teenage boy, most of the people now condeming Safeway would probably be saying, "Serves him right."

[DrFaroohk]

They weren't falsely accused

I'm pretty sure that by definition offering to pay for something negates shoplifting.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Not really; most stores won't allow shoplifters to pay for items if they get caught. It's a question of policy set by corporate and they're not allowed to make judgement calls.

[DrFaroohk]

Not really; most stores won't allow shoplifters to pay for items if they get caught. It's a question of policy set by corporate and they're not allowed to make judgement calls.

But just because some suit put it on paper doesn't make it universal law. Trying to pay =/= shoplifting. It's no different than if the manage planted the sandwiches on them and lied about it.

See how unreasonable that sounds? Just because I wrote it down doesn't make it law. Same with their policy - just because they wrote it down and said "This is how it is!" doesn't make it so.

They were falsely accused.

[Canarr]

I'm pretty sure that by definition offering to pay for something negates shoplifting.

Can you back that up with a quote from the law? From what I know, offering to pay *after* having been caught with unpaid (stolen) goods does not negate the crime in itself.

[Panacea]

They weren't falsely accused; they did eat the sandwiches and didn't pay for them. The only problem is the police being overly heavy handed.

Not really; most stores won't allow shoplifters to pay for items if they get caught. It's a question of policy set by corporate and they're not allowed to make judgement calls.

The police may not have had a choice in the matter; if the store pressed charges then the police have to make the arrest. And if you have a kid with you when you're arrested, and there's no one to come get them, CPS gets called.

Can you back that up with a quote from the law? From what I know, offering to pay *after* having been caught with unpaid (stolen) goods does not negate the crime in itself.

You're right. It doesn't negate the crime. However, the police have a lot of discretion. If the store is willing to let the person pay, the cops will let them. They may take a report, so if dumbass pulls another stunt like that he may not get a break next time.

[DrFaroohk]

Plus there's the fact that paying does not equal stealing. No matter how many times you slice it, that's how it is. Just because some corporate bigwig wrote down on a piece of paper that it's stealing, it's still not. Refusal to accept payment = gift.

[Canarr]

I'll assume that you meant to write, "not-paying" does not equal stealing. Still, that doesn't really make any sense to me.

Look, going to the grocery store isn't exactly rocket science. You go in, you fill your cart to your heart's desire, you wait in line at the cashier's station until it's your turn, and there you pay for everything you intend to keep. Then, you leave. Not, you leave, and when they catch you with unpaid merchandise outside of the store, you offer to pay.

If you take, without paying, anything from the store past the point where you're supposed to pay for it, then you're stealing. Because everybody knows that you were supposed to pay for it there! You may, of course, claim that you just forgot; and the store may choose not to believe you, and call the proper authorities to deal with the situation, which they did.

Where would you suggest they draw the line? When does it become stealing, in your learned opinion? At your car? Outside the parking lot? At your house? Where?

You're right. It doesn't negate the crime. However, the police have a lot of discretion. If the store is willing to let the person pay, the cops will let them. They may take a report, so if dumbass pulls another stunt like that he may not get a break next time.

Sure, you're right. But, my guess is, if they were willing to let the couple pay for the sandwiches, the police wouldn't have been called in the first place. However, I'm further guessing that a lot of shoplifters, when caught, will claim to have just "forgotten" to pay for that particular item - which is the reason why large stores have a lot of loss.

[Andara Bledin]

The only problem is the police being overly heavy handed.

The police may not have had a choice in the matter; if the store pressed charges then the police have to make the arrest. And if you have a kid with you when you're arrested, and there's no one to come get them, CPS gets called.

The police didn't have a choice. When they arrived, 4 hours later, the store insisted that they were going to press charges. The manager claimed that she didn't know the kid would be picked up by CPS, but I have to wonder what the hell she (?) thought would happen to a small child when they've just had both of her parents arrested.

Plus there's the fact that paying does not equal stealing.

Paying before leaving does not equal stealing. No matter how you try to re-write the law, it won't change the fact that once you leave the premises with unpaid-for merchandise, it is usually reasonable to assume that you are a shoplifter.

Not so much with the circumstances in this case, but that's only due to the other details. Sans those types of details, it is not out of line to at least question the individual.

An offer to pay being used to say that the incident was not shoplifting is simplistic at best, and in most cases will be wrong.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

Well, if someone refused money from me, and then accused me of stealing, then they are lying. Someone lying to try and get me in trouble deserves whatever I feel like doing them later. Maybe the health inspector will get a complaint from me. Maybe someone will accidently put gasoline in their heating oil tank. Maybe CPS will get an anonymous tip about that manager's children. Maybe that angry drug dealer who just got busted will find out that manager is the one who ratted him out (that one is my favorite!).

Oh, I'm sorry. It's my "policy" that I royally fuck over anyone who lies to get me in trouble. I "have to".

[linguist]

Plus there's the fact that paying does not equal stealing. No matter how many times you slice it, that's how it is. Just because some corporate bigwig wrote down on a piece of paper that it's stealing, it's still not. Refusal to accept payment = gift.

where's your legal citation for this?

the laws regarding shoplifting generally state that taking anything past the point of sale (and some stores will extend this to out the door) without paying constitutes shoplifiting. there are no concessions made for offering to pay after getting caught. if someone stole from you, but then offered to pay for what they took, does that mean they didn't steal from you after all?

allowing shoplifters to pay for stolen items after getting caught is a bad idea for multiple reasons. for one, it opens the store up to discrimination claims if they allow some to pay and not others. for another, it opens the store up to extortion claims if the shoplifter claims that the store forced them to pay more than the item was worth in order to avoid calling the police.

the third (and biggest) reason is that it's like putting a big neon sign over the store that says "come steal from us!" word gets around that as long as you can afford to pay for what you've stolen, you're good to go, and the shoplifters come in in droves. i've seen this first hand at the store i used to work at. we enacted a policy of allowing shoplifters to pay for their stolen items, and saw our unknown shrink (which is primarily shrink from theft) go from around 15% of our total shrink to over 50%. new management was brought in and they decided to get tough on shoplifters: police were called and criminal trespass warnings were issued to all shoplifters regardless of the amount they stole, and we took advantage of a law that allowed to take shoplifters to civil court for damages of up to $2500 (and really, is that $10 12-pack you're stealing worth $2500?). word got around, and within 3 months our unknown shrink went from 50%+ to less than 5% of total shrink.

[Canarr]

Well, if someone refused money from me, and then accused me of stealing, then they are lying.

Okay, this is beginning to get more than a little surreal... would you still say that if the roles were reversed?

Say, you have a few friends at your house, and one of them takes a liking to your laptop, or your TV, or your XBox, or whatever. Picks it up, walks out the door with it. You stop him, and he offers you money for it - bam! Now he's not stealing anymore!

And you can't just deny him, because, what was it? Ah:

Refusal to accept payment = gift.

So... now what? You can't call the cops on him, because that'd be lying to get him in trouble, since he's not stealing. If you refuse the money he's offering, he can just take it for free!

Is that *seriously* your position?

[bainsidhe]

Trying to pay =/= shoplifting. It's no different than if the manage planted the sandwiches on them and lied about it.

Huh? How did leaving without paying for sandwich they ate lead to managers planting evidence to get someone arrested? Not the same thing. At all.

I get it. It sucks that you might make a mistake and get arrested. But where should companies draw the line? When the "mistake" is worth $5, or maybe worth $50 or $500? Truth is, we don't know WHY the store pressed charges. Perhaps they were just assholes. Perhaps the couple was behaving suspiciously and management didn't believe their sob story. If I honestly believed someone was stealing from me, I'd want them arrested. Granted 5 bucks doesn't seem worth the hassle, but still I'd be pissed about it. And yes, if I truly believed you were stealing from me, I wouldn't give a damn that you ponied up the money after the fact.

I've seen so many customers "forget" to scan the items in the bottom of their cart. When I point out the unpaid merchandise and ask if they want it, the answer is always no with a "aw shucks she saw it" look. Yes people make mistakes, but there sure as hell are a lot of thieves out there too, who aren't accidentally leaving without paying for shit.

[Gravekeeper]

A policy of allowing people to pay after the fact is basically just creating a win/win scenario for actual shoplifters. They literally have nothing to lose. If they succeed, great, if they fail, oh well they just have to pay for it and thats that. You've basically removed the deterrant to the crime. People would treat the store like a casino. -.-

This is why store's have a zero tolerance policy to begin with. If they give an inch, a mile will be taken. If they pick and choose, they get sued for discrimination.

[DrFaroohk]

So... now what? You can't call the cops on him, because that'd be lying to get him in trouble, since he's not stealing. If you refuse the money he's offering, he can just take it for free!

Is that *seriously* your position?

That is stupid. I'm not selling my xbox or tv. They're not even close to the same.

Huh? How did leaving without paying for sandwich they ate lead to managers planting evidence to get someone arrested? Not the same thing. At all.

True, but others seem to have no problem lumping activities into broader groups. For example, eating while shopping and forgetting to pay for one tiny thing amidst the sea of legitimately bought groceries = intentionally shoplifting. At least to some people.

How come they get to do that and not me? It's the same thing. Mistakenly accusing me = intentionally falsely accusing me. Oh but it's so "unreasonable" when I do that, but when grocery store manager does that, "he's well within his rights!"

And I'd love to know where these discrimination lawsuits are going to be coming from. Last I checked, a store is technically still private property and they can pretty much do what they want. They don't even need a legitimate reason to ban someone from shopping there. "I don't like his red shirt" is enough of a reason. At least it was when I was working retail, but things may have changed. It seems these things are rules of convenience for them.