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

[HYHYBT]

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.

Really? You've *never* had someone who forgot rather than "forgot," and *never* had one (whether they intended to steal or not) go ahead and pay for what was under the cart? I ask only because I've *almost* forgotten the stuff under there far too many times for it never to happen that people really do.

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.

"We're just waiting for a legal excuse to bust your ass" is also a powerful message to send customers. And is there really any advantage in driving away the sticky-fingered if you drive the honest customers (those whose concentration doesn't slip, anyway) off too?

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.

I find this very hard to believe. Can you point to a case where that actually happened, please. Generally all that happens when a bank accidentally gives you too much money is you have to return it, and I find your claim especially hard to believe given drive-thru banks, where unlike the kind you go inside, you do not see the teller count the money and you're expected to move up and let the next person have their turn.

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.

That depends on what you mean by "justified" and "correct."

[FArchivist]

I find this very hard to believe. Can you point to a case where that actually happened, please. Generally all that happens when a bank accidentally gives you too much money is you have to return it, and I find your claim especially hard to believe given drive-thru banks, where unlike the kind you go inside, you do not see the teller count the money and you're expected to move up and let the next person have their turn.

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.

Christ, you people are skeptical. It happened to me at the IBM Federal Credit Union, at the Wildwood branch located in Marietta, GA, and it was in the week before the first Gothcruise in 2004.

I have no idea how the teller put $2600 in the envelope instead of $600, as I wasn't paying any attention. I never do. I tell the teller what I want, pull out my book, and read until they need me for something. That branch isn't drive-thru at all - it's located inside an IBM facility - and at the time I was refusing to use ATMs. As for checking amounts or whatnot, I never do that either; I don't consider it my job to do so. I only noticed the amount was incorrect because I thought the envelope felt pretty weighty as I was walking to the door and bothered to check. Never would have showed up, either, as there were no cameras on the teller's station and no automatic dispensary (at the time, they just pulled cash out of locked drawer that was like a cash register drawer). The teller had put down that I had withdrawn $600; when I walked back up to her station and told her she had given me too much and saw the money, she went white as a sheet. If I had gotten out the door, that would have made her an accomplice to my theft.

As for why I would be liable for the theft, that is because GA has very draconian "theft by taking" laws. Me walking out the door with the overage counts as "deception" on the books.

[Andara Bledin]

Being skeptical is not bad.

And, considering that the state has such "draconian laws," one would wonder why you don't pay attention all the time.

Hell, my state doesn't have such laws and I still check every single time when dealing with money because people are human, mistakes get made, and it's easier to correct as it happens than have to go back after the fact.

^-.-^

[Pedersen]

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.

Actually, bluntly put, you're wrong, in both cases. In the US legal system, in order for a criminal act to occur, you must have intent. The concept is known as mens rea, and is described quite well on Wikipedia.

Intent matters a great deal, and is a fundamental component, not just something used to "determine degree of crime".

Come back to make one post, and find such glaring errors in just a few minutes of reading. No wonder I don't visit here anymore.

[Canarr]

Being skeptical is not bad.

And, considering that the state has such "draconian laws," one would wonder why you don't pay attention all the time.

+1 to that.

I mean, I *always* check to make sure I get the right amount of money back, even if it's just a few Euros of change in a store. The idea of just blindly accepting an envelope with 600 $ or € without checking that I'm not shortchanged seems... stupid. And, FArchivist: you don't seem stupid to me, so what's the deal with that?

[siead_lietrathua]

just wanted to ask this in here since this article sparked discussion in our house too lol.
what if the couple had picked up a type of consumable done by weight, like grapes. and had eaten more than half the bag while walking around. on their way out they pays (by weight) for the remainder of the bag. then they are arrested after leaving for the other grapes they ate but did not pay for. would people still be siding with the couple?
this is something i've seen grumped about alot on cs, that people steal little bits of weight-pay food all the time, it drives people nuts, they are stealing, etc.

[HYHYBT]

The teller had put down that I had withdrawn $600; when I walked back up to her station and told her she had given me too much and saw the money, she went white as a sheet. If I had gotten out the door, that
would have made her an accomplice to my theft.

All right. How you managed to think it was the teller's giving too much money and your catching it that was hard to believe beats me, but let me re-ask the question to make the only relevant point more obvious: do you have any proof of *the arrest and conviction of someone in the same situation who did not catch it before leaving*?

[Gravekeeper]

what if the couple had picked up a type of consumable done by weight, like grapes. and had eaten more than half the bag while walking around. on their way out they pays (by weight) for the remainder of the bag. then they are arrested after leaving for the other grapes they ate but did not pay for. would people still be siding with the couple?

No. The term is grazing and it will get you arrested even before you make it out the door if you're in a particularly touchy store. It's basically theft by deception and thus has intent. There is no way for you to pay for what you consumed after the fact and you'd be fully aware of that before hand.

[DrFaroohk]

There is no way for you to pay for what you consumed after the fact and you'd be fully aware of that before hand.

"Oh no I just ate ten grapes and now there's absolutely no way to know how much it weighed! Oh, wait...the store is full of grapes!"

I'm sure there's another way to figure it out.

[Gravekeeper]

"Oh no I just ate ten grapes and now there's absolutely no way to know how much it weighed! Oh, wait...the store is full of grapes!"

I'm sure there's another way to figure it out.

You think the store should go out of its way to come up with a rough estimate for your own god damn stupidity in eating something priced by weight? Let alone trust you when you say how many you ate. Even though you would know exactly how stupid what you're doing is while you're doing it? But the store should be the one to take on the responsibility of your irresponsibility?

At what point, if ever, do you take responsibility for your own actions?

[HYHYBT]

I don't graze, but I think there ought to be an exception specifically for grapes because there is *no way* to know whether they are sweet or sour until you taste one. They look the same; they feel the same; they smell the same. And much as I love them when they're good, I usually won't take the risk. If stores explicitly allowed sampling of grapes (no more than a couple per variety) they'd sell more of them, to me at least.

[FArchivist]

And, considering that the state has such "draconian laws," one would wonder why you don't pay attention all the time.

Primarily because I operate under the premise of "This is what I pay YOU for." I hire an attorney to do law for me; I hire an accountant to take care of my finances, and so forth. If I have to pay attention to what the teller is doing, the teller needs to be fired and I need to do the teller's job from now on.

Actually, bluntly put, you're wrong, in both cases. In the US legal system, in order for a criminal act to occur, you must have intent. The concept is known as mens rea, and is described quite well on Wikipedia.

Intent matters a great deal, and is a fundamental component, not just something used to "determine degree of crime".

Come back to make one post, and find such glaring errors in just a few minutes of reading. No wonder I don't visit here anymore.

Except that the United States handles mens rea very differently from other countries that have an English-based law system, due to our primary derivation from common law. As the Wikipedia article states quite succinctly, the specific version we go by is as follows:

* Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.
* Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
* Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
* Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
* Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.

Unlike England or Scotland, under items like "Strict Liability" you can still have no intent whatsoever, and yet still be convicted of a crime. So yes, in the USA, intent DOES become irrelevant in terms of whether you have committed a crime or not, and it merely determines the degree of the crime. It doesn't matter whether you did not intend to kill the other person; that's still involuntary manslaughter and is described as a type of murder on the books.

This mechanistic viewpoint, as per the Wikipedia article, still operates under the general rule of common law: "Ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution." It does not matter if I was not cognizant that I was walking from the bank with $2000 more than I should have or if I was cognizant that it was a crime; it's still theft by taking, even if the penalty will be lessened under the doctrine of Strict Liability.

FArchivist: you don't seem stupid to me, so what's the deal with that?

Think of it as being similar to coming home and giving your briefcase, coat, and hat over to a servant and expecting them to be taken care of. When you've grown up and lived in that environment, you don't typically think to take care of such items for yourself.

but let me re-ask the question to make the only relevant point more obvious: do you have any proof of *the arrest and conviction of someone in the same situation who did not catch it before leaving*?

No, I have no arrest or conviction record of such for that crime and I don't intend to go looking. It's enough for me that the law is on the books here in GA and has a criminal penalty prescribed for it. If a law is on the books and it is broken, that is crime, regardless if anyone has been arrested or convicted of it previously, now, or in the future.

[Andara Bledin]

Primarily because I operate under the premise of "This is what I pay YOU for."

If you were paying other people to do it for you, then you wouldn't be the guy in line at the bank.

Also, you never check up on the people you pay to do stuff for you? Where can I sign up?

Think of it as being similar to coming home and giving your briefcase, coat, and hat over to a servant and expecting them to be taken care of.

Except a servant like that works for you. A teller works for the bank and while they might suffer if it's found that they make a mistake like that, you can't fire them. A servant, on the other hand, has to keep you happy.

It's a broken analogy. Again, if that's your situation, then the servant would be the one at the teller window, not you. Once you got your "hands dirty" by doing your own work, you became responsible for looking out for your own best interests.

And, back on topic, anyone who grazes a by-weight item before paying is just asking for trouble. Plus, it's pretty tacky, too.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

]There is no way[/I] for you to pay for what you consumed after the fact and you'd be fully aware of that before hand.

Is what you said...I was merely commenting on that.

[Gravekeeper]

Is what you said...I was merely commenting on that.

Ah, so you're nitpicking. Well, I can do that too then if you want. Not all grapes are the same size and weight. See?