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

[Canarr]

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

Yeah, and Safeway is selling their groceries *inside* their store. Not outside in the parking lot. They missed their chance to pay for it --> stealing.

Also, it's their right to refuse service to anyone they please, and apparently, they please to refuse service to people they believe are stealing from them. So, now they're refusing service to you for something you've already eaten; sucks to be you.

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.

That statement from you is a bit ironic, considering they *did* do what they wanted to the couple in question, and you're among the people condemning them for it. Or planning to sic a drug dealer on their manager, at least.

Where might a discrimination suit come from? Well... if they gave this nice, white couple with the pregnant woman a pass for the sandwiches she forgot to pay for, and the next guy to get caught is a kid with different ethnic heritage, who just forgot those DVDs he shoved down his pants... I'd bet that he or his lawyer would scream "DISCRIMINATION!!!!" if he were then brought up on charges.

[bainsidhe]

Where might a discrimination suit come from? Well... if they gave this nice, white couple with the pregnant woman a pass for the sandwiches she forgot to pay for, and the next guy to get caught is a kid with different ethnic heritage, who just forgot those DVDs he shoved down his pants... I'd bet that he or his lawyer would scream "DISCRIMINATION!!!!" if he were then brought up on charges.

Hmm, this is a good point. For better or worse, big companies tend to have blanket policies because picking and choosing who to treat a certain way opens the door to lawsuits and bad PR. Kinda ironic if a zero-tolerance policy is what led to this PR fiasco.

[DrFaroohk]

Also, it's their right to refuse service to anyone they please, and apparently, they please to refuse service to people they believe are stealing from them. So, now they're refusing service to you for something you've already eaten; sucks to be you.

Refusing service =/= falsely accusing someone of stealing.

That statement from you is a bit ironic, considering they *did* do what they wanted to the couple in question, and you're among the people condemning them for it. Or planning to sic a drug dealer on their manager, at least.

And that's fine, but upon doing that they also don't get to cry "I HAD TO!" they made a choice to falsely accuse someone and have them arrested.

Besides that its just a bunch of crap. They use the discrimination thing as an excuse so they can pretend they have no responsibility. And you can only pick one. You can say "This is my property and I'm doing what I want." or you can say "I have no choice in the matter but therefore I must actually implement it universally."

You don't get to pick and choose unless you want some well deserved retribution.

[Andara Bledin]

Refusing service =/= falsely accusing someone of stealing.

Walking out with product that has not been paid for is stealing, and no about of weasel-wording and hand-waving on your part is going to change that.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

they made a choice to falsely accuse someone and have them arrested.

Who decides it's a false accusation? Did the couple give management reason to be suspicious? If management honestly believed the couple were intentionally stealing, then why shouldn't they press charges? We can go back and forth about what we believe to be true, but we still weren't there. We don't know what went through management's mind, we're only hearing one side of the story.

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that there were some odd details provided by the couple and the fact that the nobody on behalf of the store in question has contradicted a single statement given, I am willing to believe that the couple didn't really give them any reason to believe they were intentionally shoplifting as opposed to just having an unfortunate brainfart.

Considering that the store was already watching them, they could have chosen to go, "Oh, hey, are those yours?" and given the couple a chance to either claim them and pay (a win/win all around) or a chance to deny ownership (the store has proof of intent to shoplift and undercuts any possible claim otherwise). The fact that it appears that the store personnel knew of the wrappers and pointedly didn't say anything while the couple was checking out is an indication they were more interested in going after shoplifters as opposed to actually preventing the act. And while the appearance of being tough on shoplifters is important, this was absolutely not the correct incident with which to make such a demonstration.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Walking out with product that has not been paid for is stealing, and no about of weasel-wording and hand-waving on your part is going to change that.

^-.-^

What she said.

The fact that it appears that the store personnel knew of the wrappers and pointedly didn't say anything while the couple was checking out is an indication they were more interested in going after shoplifters as opposed to actually preventing the act. And while the appearance of being tough on shoplifters is important, this was absolutely not the correct incident with which to make such a demonstration.

^-.-^

And what she said, again.

@Andara: well said. Your eloquence fills me with awe.

[Eisa]

^Yep, I also agree with Andara.

I do think that if the store employees SAW the wrappers and deliberately chose not to alert the couple to their existence, that they were too focused on "let's catch us some shoplifters!" which is ridiculous.

But it's also a fact that technically, they shoplifted. Whether or not they meant to is another question, but they ate the sandwiches, did not pay for them, and left the store.

[Gravekeeper]

Walking out with product that has not been paid for is stealing, and no about of weasel-wording and hand-waving on your part is going to change that.

I'm not actually stealing this sandwich <waves hand>

As for the Trap(tm), again though, the way the law works is what leads to this tactic. They can't prove intent to shoplift until you walk out the door and LP likely either told the cashiers to ignore it or they have a policy of "Wait and see" to see if someone will offer to pay for it before walking out with it. The real mistakes were made after they got stopped outside. Before that seems like pretty standard loss prevention operating procedure + corporate ass riding about shrink.

Word of mouth spreads amongst thieves as well. It would make sense that if the store was having trouble with shrink they went into hard ass mode to send a message saying it wouldn't be so easy anymore. Truly a bad subject with which to set an example though, yes.

Well, actually, maybe not. "We'll bust your ass over a $5 sandwich even if you're pregnant with your kids in tow" is a pretty powerful message to send to those with sticky fingers. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Well, actually, maybe not. "We'll bust your ass over a $5 sandwich even if you're pregnant with your kids in tow" is a pretty powerful message to send to those with sticky fingers. >.>

Except for the fact that after this whole fiasco, the store is likely going to be even less strict about it in the near future, what with how badly this incident blew up in their faces.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, they had a very easy way, in this instance, to determine intent. All they had to do is ask the couple if those wrappers were theirs. If they had intended to steal they would most likely have said 'no' and the store would have had firm footing to avoid the type of press they ended up having.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Except for the fact that after this whole fiasco, the store is likely going to be even less strict about it in the near future, what with how badly this incident blew up in their faces.

Until the monthly shrink report comes in and it swings back to the other extreme.

Running a store sucks. ;P

Also, as I mentioned earlier, they had a very easy way, in this instance, to determine intent. All they had to do is ask the couple if those wrappers were theirs. If they had intended to steal they would most likely have said 'no' and the store would have had firm footing to avoid the type of press they ended up having.

I wonder, oddly enough, that if LP wasn't involved, if thats what would have happened when they hit the cashier. But because LP was involved and already tailing them, the cashiers were told to say nothing. She did mention the cashier was acting oddly. Which would seem to indicate he was given a heads up so to speak.

But because LP was involved, and either a hard ass or in hard ass mode because of orders from on high, it went this way instead.

[FArchivist]

Situation A1: the couple took the sandwiches themselves and consumed them before checking out. They knew they'd consumed the goods, and were therefore responsible to ensure that payment to the original owner of the goods was made. They were active in procuring the goods, they cannot argue that they did not know - they may have forgotten, but they knew originally.

Situation A2: a bank teller gives customer the incorrect change. Still an unlikely example, because bank tellers always count out the money they hand over, but whatever. The customer was passive in procuring the goods, as he accepted the money he was handed by the cashier. Therefore, the customer can claim that he was acting in good faith when leaving the bank with the money - as in, truly believing he had only received the sum he was entitled to.

I've been in situation A2. Took out $600 in cash from a bank and the teller gave me $2600. If I hadn't stopped half way to the door and realized that, oh, hey, there's too much cash in this envelope, it would have been my ass charged with felony theft. Not the teller's. My intent was irrelevant; only the mechanics were applicable.

This brings us to the crux of the matter: except in determining degree of crime and motive thereof, intent is not magical. It is irrelevant. Thus A1 = A2 as the mechanics remain the same.

I don't know US law too well, but German Civil Law contains a law concerning "unjustified enrichtment" - meaning, any transfer of money, goods or titles without contractual basis. That can happen, either because there never was a contract in the first place (classic example: bank transfer into the wrong account), or because the contract became retroactively void. In any case, it requires acting in good faith on behalf of the enrichted party, and can therefore never be applied for shoplifting - or accidental non-payment of consumed goods.

Unjustified enrichment in the USA is on a state-by-state basis and only applies to civil cases, not criminal ones. It also requires the claimant to point to one of a number of factors recognized by the law as rendering the defendant's enrichment unjust. Thus in either A1 or A2, it would be inapplicable as both describe criminal endeavors rather than civil ones and contain no unjust factors.

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

I would say yes.

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

No, offering to pay for something after the fact does not negate theft of any kind according to criminal statute. If you stole a TV and later paid for it after being caught, you would still be liable for criminal charges resulting from stealing the TV.

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.

Yeah, that was just a blatant lie. It is common knowledge as to what the regulations are currently regarding those situations (and really, ignorance of them is not an excuse). I can't imagine any retail manager not being cognizant as to what occurs.

[FArchivist]

Ok, seriously. First of all your article is dated the day after your original post claiming its existence. Second of all, your article says nothing about the witnesses you claimed in your original post. Thirdly, Houghton says right in the damn article you just linked that they did not foresee the police taking her kid a way. Just as I originally said she did to begin with.

First, I redid my search and picked the first link off of Google. I have no doubt that, between the time of my original post and the time of my reply, the rankings on the Google search changed. Since I was searching for the exact same quote, which source provided proves to be immaterial.

Second, you asked for sources on Houghton. Not on witnesses.

Third, we've already determined that when Houghton is saying that "they did not foresee", she is lying. After all, as an executive her every statement would be vetted by the Safeway Legal Department and there is no possible way that the corporate lawyers would not have known of that automatic result, since it's that way by statute in every state of the Union.

Then what, pray tell, is the entire thread about?

The thread is about whether Safeway's zero tolerance policies are appropriate.

So you're going to try to move the goal posts into a playing field none of us were even on to begin with? -.-

Nope. When you talk about the law, all definitions are in the terminology of the law. Just as when you talk about computer programming, all definitions are in the terminology of the IT industry.

But I wasn't. See this is kind of the entire bloody problem here with you and Dr. You're arguing against something I didn't even say, making assumptions about my intentions in saying it and then patting yourselves on the back for defeating those assumptions.

OK. Then was Safeway's practice in this case, and thus in every similar case, justified? Or was it not? And if so, then we can assume you would find it justified in every zero tolerance case, as all zero tolerance issues are equivalent, regardless of cosmetic difference.

Who are you arguing with? All I said was that Houghton herself said that. Go tell her that, not me.

It shouldn't even need to be mentioned. You know she's lying, I know she's lying, we all know she's lying, therefore there is no reason for you to mention what she said in the first place. The only reason for you to use it as backing is if you support her statement.

Safeway's policy is to contact the police, there's no mention that their policy is to press charges.

I find this to be ingenuous because we both know that the only reason to contact the police is to prefer charges. There is no other reason to involve the police in the matter.

But it seems they have resumed said zero tolerence policy in 2010. In fact many large retailers use zero tolerence shoplifting policies: Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Staples, Best Buy, Circuit City, Home Depot, Lowe's, Costco, Whole Foods, etc. Partly because of shrink loss and partly to reduce lawsuits from claims of discrimination, etc by not picking and choosing.

So is it justified or not?
If it is, then Safeway was absolutely correct in everything they did, as zero tolerance is the correct way to go.
If not, then they weren't because zero tolerance policies are not correct.
Pick a side! It's really that simple!

[Gravekeeper]

First, I redid my search and picked the first link off of Google.

This thread is dealing with a timeline of information though. A timeline you don't seem to be keeping up with and its affecting your argument and perception of other people's positions.

Second, you asked for sources on Houghton. Not on witnesses.

Wrong. My exact quote was:

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

Third, we've already determined that when Houghton is saying that "they did not foresee", she is lying.

Thats, yet again, not what we're talking about. The point of contention was simply what she had and had not said in the articles. Not whether or not she was lying. You're in the midst of an argument that doesn't exist. This is the entire problem I've been trying to point out to you. -.-

If you think she's lying, great, good for you.

The thread is about whether Safeway's zero tolerance policies are appropriate.

Well, I'm glad you've decided that for all of us. Thanks?

And if so, then we can assume you would find it justified in every zero tolerance case, as all zero tolerance issues are equivalent, regardless of cosmetic difference.

So you're taking a zero tolerence approach to zero tolerence? That's very meta. Also, your assumptions about other people's positions are what's getting you in trouble here.

The only reason for you to use it as backing is if you support her statement.

My reason for using it is because you claimed she said the store manager should be expected to know about police procedures. I said I hadn't see any such statement and I pointed out she said they couldn't foresee what would happen in both articles. Opposite to what you claimed she had said. It was a simple contention of the facts of her statements. Not whether or not she was being truthful.

Pick a side! It's really that simple!

Actually read the thread before you reply to it! It's really that simple! =p

[Canarr]

I've been in situation A2. Took out $600 in cash from a bank and the teller gave me $2600. If I hadn't stopped half way to the door and realized that, oh, hey, there's too much cash in this envelope, it would have been my ass charged with felony theft. Not the teller's. My intent was irrelevant; only the mechanics were applicable.

This brings us to the crux of the matter: except in determining degree of crime and motive thereof, intent is not magical. It is irrelevant. Thus A1 = A2 as the mechanics remain the same.

I still doubt that. The basic situation is still different, as it cannot be proven that you knowingly took too much money.

And, how the hell did that happen, anyway? In every bank I've ever been to, they count the money out bill by bill in front of you, then put it straight into an envelope while you watch - all that *precisely* in order to avoid any later claim of shortchanging. I've never, ever seen a bank teller just hand over an envelope, and the customer just walk off without counting the contents.

Unjustified enrichment in the USA is on a state-by-state basis and only applies to civil cases, not criminal ones. It also requires the claimant to point to one of a number of factors recognized by the law as rendering the defendant's enrichment unjust. Thus in either A1 or A2, it would be inapplicable as both describe criminal endeavors rather than civil ones and contain no unjust factors.

Yes, I realize that is it a civil matter; hence, my reference to German CIVIL Law. However, my entire point is that the defence against a theft charge in situation A2 could be that it is merely a civil case of Unjustified Enrichment, not a criminal case of Theft. In situation A1, that defence could not be used, since the couple themselves took possession of the items they did not pay for.