No it doesn’t simply ‘go both ways’. In my area the laws are very favorable to shop keepers. A shop keeper accusing a person of a crime carries much more weight then the average person because that’s the way the law works. Feel free to petition the government to change the laws, instead of wildly stating your ignorance of the law as if it were wisdom from the heavens.
It seems awkward to eat something you paid for in the same store, but it doesn’t seem at all awkward to eat something that you haven’t paid for in the store? 
As to confusing store security, I would think presenting a receipt for said consumed item should suffice and work out a lot better in the long run than trying to explain that you really *meant *to pay for that sandwich.
Having been pregnant and having gotten into situations where I was unable to keep my blood sugar at a functional level, I can understand the need to eat while at the store. I have done this on occasion, myself. What I can’t understand is why Dad didn’t go directly to the register with packaging and pay for the sandwiches while Mom shopped. That’s what my husband has done. It seems a minor inconvenience to ensure their honesty and integrity is not questioned. I can understand honest mistakes as I’ve made them, but I can also understand consistently following policies regarding theft to alleviate accusations of discrimination.
In the other thread, dopers argued that the couple did not show intent to steal because they were willing to pay for the items. Granted that’s possible and perhaps likely in this case…who knows? But it’s also not inconceivable that shoplifters attempt to mitigate arrest by offering to pay once they’ve been caught. I’ve seen that happen, too. It’s for the court or prosecutor to determine intent, not the police or store management. One of the ways in which shoplifters identify retailers having weak loss prevention policies is to lift minor items and pay cash restitution on the spot feigning innocent error when they are caught. Another way to deflect suspicion is for the shoplifter to present themselves as an unlikely profile for shoplifting, i.e., a pregnant mother with family in tow. Using these methods, they identify stores with lax security as well as store employees with weak skills in detecting deception resulting in a lower risk of apprehension and prosecution.
Who, on this board, really knows what that couple was up to? Maybe they did make an innocent mistake wrapped in a lack of good judgment. Maybe they didn’t. There’s nothing wrong with Safeway’s policy. They owed the couple no apology.
And I can’t help but scoff at the woman’s comment about how she felt abused by the experience. I’ll give her props for trying desperately to save face. I’d be embarrassed, too, for all the media attention. Shrug it off and move on having learned a valuable social lesson.
Seriously. Actions after the fact do not reflect in any way upon her intent.
I vividly remember an uncident (an almost-incident that nothing came of) when I was bagging groceries one day. A food stamper had unloaded her groceries onto the belt and was reading a newspaper while the cashier rung them up. She had her purse in the baby-seat area of the cart, with some more newspaper folded under it. To the casual eye, there was nothing shady going on. But the cashier had a very good eye, and said, “Ma’am, I think you forgot to put something on the belt.” The customer looked under her cart and said, “No I didn’t.” The cashier reached over and lifted a corner of the newspaper, revealing two packages of *very *expensive filet mignon. The customer claimed she “forgot” they were under there, and decided she didn’t want them. So I had to put them back on the shelf. :rolleyes:
All I am saying is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If they get to assume criminal intent, why can’t I?
the GD thread was apparently inconclusive; all i wanted to know was when it came down to it, did people think the couple deserved to go through their ordeal.
with the poll currently standing at 27 vs 51, i gather that most people here falls on the side of blindly following procedures in the face of absurdity in order to protect their own ass. that, or they’re unwilling to accept that there is a culture different from theirs where it is mundane to use first and pay later. (a restaurant perhaps?) even had there been intent, there was no reason to hold them for four hours for such a minor infraction.
anyway, that’s how i read the current poll. what would have been better poll options?
Yup. Not for their policy, which is daft but I can see the reasoning behind it at least, but for keeping the family sitting crying in the staff room for so long. After an hour of that - a pregnant woman, a toddler, and all that was taken was a sandwich - surely most people would give up?
When I worked retail, we would have given the customer the benefit of the doubt - at least the first time it happened, with something that small - simply because it was a lot less hassle for us.
Depends on the shop. If the queue’s really long, understandably people don’t want to queue just to buy one item and then queue again for the rest.
Rachel, there are stores which don’t accept cash but do sell food? What kind of stores are they?
I think that calling the police over such a petty amount, from people with a plausible, understandable story who made a mistake, and were willing to rectify it, seems like a dick move. Now, maybe there were other circumstances that justify it (like the response of the couple at the time) but it just comes across as being horrible for no reason. The reason for the outrage is that most people could see themselves making the same mistake, and would be horrified to be treated that way.
An example: I try to be a decent sort of person, and I definitely don’t shoplift or try to take advantage of businesses. I’ve always been the kind of person who hates being in trouble or even conflict – hell, even gentle correction from a supervisor at work will ruin my whole day, because I’ll be kicking myself over it over and over. On one occasion, though, I accidentally drove away without paying for my gas. Because of the circumstances, it was probably pretty clear that this was a mistake; I went in to buy coffee and food and I just forgot to tell them to add the charge for the gas. I browsed the store in full light of the cameras, I drove away slowly and carefully, nothing indicated ill intent. Now, they called the police (in that situation, not a dick move, since they had no other way of getting back the loss) but the police just called me and, when I was horrified and apologized profusely, and had no record, they just let me come back to the store to pay for it. He gave me the mildest of warnings to be more careful in future, and that was it. I apologized to the employee at the store, too, for all of the trouble, and I felt terrible about it. Nobody was horrible to me, nobody tried to throw the book at me, they just wanted their money and I was happy to pay it. No hard feelings. Hell, I even offered to come over right away, and the officer said that’s ok, when do you get off work? When I told him, he said he’d call the store and let them know I was coming then and not to worry about it.
Now, if I had priors for theft, or problems at the store, or I didn’t want to pay or lied about what happened, whatever, I can see the police hassling me about it or the store wanting to prosecute to the full extent of the law. Maybe that’s what happened here, for all we know. However, I promised I’d be super careful in the future, and apologized and made up the damage – and that was enough for the store. It was also enough for me to get a receipt every time I got gas thereafter to try to avoid repeating being such an idiot. If I had been treated like this couple, especially in front of a kid, I would have been utterly humiliated and I can see why the couple is so angry about it. Legal action seems a bit much but I could see writing an angry letter to my social circle, that sort of thing.
People make mistakes. It’s easy to sit back on a message board and say that it should never happen, but they do. It’s one thing to sneak out with steaks hidden in your jacket, it’s quite another to forget paying for one item. We wouldn’t think it necessary to file legal action if a cashier accidentally double-charged an item in the grocery order – a simple refund would be enough – so why wouldn’t the store just accept the money? It seems nice to apologize to acknowledge that the nuclear option probably wasn’t needed in this situation.
As y’all say:
This!
Thanks!
Quasi
Because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander is a terrible legal argument and a terrible way to implement our laws.