Ok then. I’m going to agree to disagree and end the hijack here. Sorry about that.
I have to wait hours for a cop to show up around here for any non-emergency issue; I’m starting to suspect it’s because they have their time wasted by people calling the cops to harangue six year olds who haven’t actually done anything illegal.
The PARENT should have done her job here. She deserves contempt for not doing so. Wasting tax money on something like this is so absurd that I can’t believe anyone would suggest it. Do we really need police officers to storm in for everything that ever happens now?
Although I agree with most of the thread, are you certain the kid didn’t get yelled at after they left? My mom would NEVER berate me in a store when I was little, she’d keep a happy face on, or try business as usual and then go off on me in private when driving home. If you were the manager or cashier it would’ve looked exactly like what was described except I would’ve been crying my eyes in the car from the lecture I’d get, also the other person probably wouldn’t have bought me the candy bar…
As far as stealing goes though I’ve only stolen once, when I was seven or eight. It was an accident, I picked up the candy bar in my hand and meant to give it to my mom but got distracted walked out of the store with her, realized what I did started hyper-ventilating and crying, sprinted into the store and demanded from the store security that they arrest me and throw me in jail for the rest of my life (to my 7/8 year old brain that was the worst I’ve ever done and was about equivilent with mass murder in my file of actions and required punishment). The guard had this “what the hell” look on his face and just escorted me to the front of the checkout to pay for it and told me I was obviously sorry and not to do it again. On the way home I kept going on and on about what a horrible person I was and it took my mom ages (well… hours at least) to convince what I did wasn’t bad enough to warrant life in jail, especially since I didn’t mean to do it in the first place.
I was weird.
Go fuck yourself you stupid cunt.
Wow, what a douchebag you can be. And you had the gall to berate me for considerably less caustic remarks? Next time you feel like expressing an opinion about me, get bent.
That was my thought too, until I got to the part where she gave him the candy back.
Well, it’s not like the DPD drops everything and rushes over whenever a Walgreens manager calls to report a kid has stolen a candy bar; I think you’re exaggerating the case there just a tad. As a matter of fact, they are legendary for the length of time it can take to get any action if (a) the theft in question isn’t a really huge amount, and (b) it’s a busy Friday or Saturday night.
But they do eventually show up, if the Walgreens manager insists, because we are basically the only store (aside from a couple of small specialty storefronts) in our low-income neighborhood, and thus occupy a large and crucial part of the social dynamic. Keeping order in our store helps to keep order in the larger neighborhood, and so we get a little better service than the Nice Store gets when a kid steals a candy bar and we’d like a cop to come put the fear of God into him. They know as well as we do that you gotta catch 'em young, that today’s candy bar thief is tomorrow’s parking lot purse snatcher (and we have recurrent problems with those, too.)
True, now that I think about it that’s the nail, why give him the candy if they were going to yell at him later?
Well, yeah, I suppose it’s possible that after they got home, she whupped his ass. However, she was so completely blase at the time that it was obvious that she was not much exercised by the whole thing. And, as pointed out, she did allow her woman friend to give him the Kit-Kat bar. If she had intended to punish him later, it’s doubtful whether she would let him have the candy.
However, it’s quite possible that he did get yelled at later–for what amounts to “getting caught”. It might have gone something like, “You stupid, you nearly got us all in trouble”. Which amounts to, “You were clumsy”, with the subtext of, “Don’t do it again”, but not as in “Don’t steal a candy bar again”, but rather as in, “Don’t get caught again.” I am quite certain that when he comes back (“when”, not if), he will demonstrate much more finesse.
YMMV, of course, but my experience with our local police department is exactly what DDG has indicated. Given they are not too busy with higher priority calls, our PD would likely be inclined to show up and give the kid a talking to (maybe the parent as well if it appeared she didn’t much care about showing parental guidance). Consider it community service. For example, we also have a neighborhood block watch and an officer will sometimes come out and walk the neighborhood just to show their presence and involvement with the community, even when nothing illegal is going on. Proactive policing doesn’t seem like a waste of taxpayer money to me. It doesn’t always have to be responding after the fact, does it?
I totally agree with this. 
Here are some links with information on legal presumptions. Read them and you will see that you are wrong.
For instance, a child born to a married couple living together is presumed to be the natural child of the husband. Do you honestly think that if the couple does not live together the child cannot be the natural child of the husband? After all, that case would not satisfy the requirements of the legal presumptions related to paternity.
Why do I keep allowing myself to be sucked back into this argument? I read your links, but I still disagree with you. The presumptions were spelled out in the text of the statute, were they not?
Perhaps, you are wrong. 
Cubsfan is exactly right. The kid is six. Even considering calling the police is an asinine over-reaction.
Whether the mother should have used it as a teaching opportunity, and/or expressed regret or concern is a different matter.
You too, huh?
The presumption is in the statute, but it is not an element of the crime.
The presumption is to help establish intent. Let’s say a person puts a can of soup in his pocket. He then walks out the store. He is caught, and the police are called. He is arrested and put on trial. At the trial, the prosecution has to establish two things beyond a reasonable doubt: that he took the can of soup and that he intended to permanently deprive the store owner of the soup.* The taking of the soup is the actus reas and is easy to establish—he put it into his pocket. The intent part is hard. The man can claim that he just forgot it was there. So unless the prosecution can secure a confession or find someone to testify the man said he planned to steal the soup, there is no way to establish intent. How can the prosecution show what was in his mind? The legal presumption allows for the prosecution to establish intent by merely showing that the man took the soup and that he left the store. It is just a procedural rule that allows for the intent to be established by related facts. Once the prosecution establishes those facts, the man is presumed to have had the requisite intent and if he wants to contest that element he has to bring froth evidence to rebut the presumption. But the important part is that the prosecution does not have to use the presumption. They can establish intent in another manner—confession, testimony of a witness who knew what the man was planning, copies of plans of the crime.
- That is a simplification.
I’m willing to hear other ideas. What, as the store manager, would you have done? Would you have just let it go and shaken your head about “some people”? I’m not saying that’s the wrong answer or anything, I’m just not sure that washing our hands of a 6 year is fair. Not his fault he got a shitty mother. And if I am a store manager in his neighborhood, I’m going to be the one who’s going to most directly bear the brunt of his misbehavior if it doesn’t stop. I really am coming at this from the (perhaps intrusive and unwelcome) perspective of a community member who wants to see the kid learn his lesson - not in a punishment sense, but in an honest for his own good sense.
I think we all agree the mother deserves Pitting. But threads where everyone agrees are très boring, so let’s explore the part where we disagree! 
*Gah. I hate that all these terms have been co-opted by abusive assholes.
Definitely bad mothering. I agree that a six-year-old is definitely well above the minimum age to learn that (1) stealing is bad and (2) you must take the consequences of your actions. I was about that age when I picked some flowers from a neighbor’s garden and brought them home to mother. She asked me where I got them and I told her. She explained why that was wrong, and then told me I had to now pick flowers from our garden, and present them to the neighbor with a confession and an apology. Oh, the humiliation!
Similarly, when my daughter was about that age and we had just arrived home from the store, I noticed her trying to conceal a pack of gum that I knew I had not bought. I packed her and her younger sister back into the car. We went to the manager’s desk, and she was required to return the gum and apologize. Of course, she was an adorably sweet little girl, and all teary-eyed, and the young manager said “Oh, that’s all right. Do you just want to pay for it now?” “No!” I insisted. I don’t want her rewarded for doing something wrong!"
I would never have considered calling the police on a 6 y/o for that. Mom on the other hand needs an ass kicking. Don’t punish the kid yourself/call cops, that is futile and gives mom an excuse to go medieval and be seen as a victim defending her widdle pwecious.
Directing it at mom = taking her to task for the actions of her minor children as it should be.
In my amusement park days, we did take a certain perverse delight in this.
Yes. That is what the store manager should do with a 6 year old. Ideally the employee who saw the kid stick the bar in his pocket should have walked him to his mom and let her know what he did (Maybe by saying something like “You may want to keep an eye on him ma’am. He was stuffing candy in his pockets over here” and then walked away. It is up to her to decide (right or wrong) what punishment he should have. You are not his mother and it’s not of your concern whether she goes hardcore on him and makes-an-example or just carries on with her day.
IMHO even going to get the manager on a 6 year old is a huge over reaction. In the old days you would have just dealt with the kid with a stern look and took him to his mom but in the new millenium everything has to be some big scene. Some of you are just so hardcore.
I just want to comment on this part of the OP really quick. What exactly do you think the mother owed you? Was she under some obligation to discipline her child in front of you to get approval? Once the mgr said he wasn’t calling the cops (laughable but still…) what else is she expected to say/do? I certainly don’t discipline my kids in the middle of a public forum. That is too young to be subjected to humilation as a form of punishment.