# Do you think the store needed to apologize? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2011, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599 "2011-11-02T08:01:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/221 "2011-11-03T19:24:00Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > It’s not cut and dried. We have very few facts relating to what occurred. Safeway “pretty much admitted” no such thing. Safeway unbanned the couple, which I doubt they would have done if they thought they were legit shoplifters. Do we know how they even got caught or why the issue wasn’t just brought up at the cash register? Like, hey what about those sandwhiches you ate? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/222 "2011-11-03T19:33:53Z")
> [@SnakesCatLady](#): > > It’s easy to sit on a message board and say they shouldn’t have been arrested. It’s an entirely different point of view when you are a store manager and look at your losses from shrinkage (shoplifting). I’m willing to cut a deal. If they make a mistake and ring up something twice, input the incorrect fruit code, or the price doesn’t ring up as labeled, I won’t have the manager and sales clerk arrested for fraud. In return, when I make a mistake and overlook something in my cart, they won’t call the cops, arrest me, and send me kid to CPS for 18 hours. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/223 "2011-11-03T19:36:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’ve never denied the possibility. The point is that she is innocent until proven guilty You keep making straw man arguments like this. NO ONE is denying that she is not guilty of a crime that she has not been found guilty of in court. “The point” is something you keep ignoring and pretending something else has been claimed (and pretending you didn’t make claims that you did). > [@](#): > > and little evidence has been proffered showing that she intended to take the sandwiches without paying. You say this as if we’re all jurors and we’ve heard all the facts of the case. We don’t know how much evidence there is. We do know that TWO wrapped sandwiches went unpaid for and store management thought there was enough evidence of a crime to detain two people, that at least one police officer thought there was probable cause to arrest them, and that a Safeway spokesperson said “management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police.” > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > This would be included in the set of “things we have few facts about.” You are dismissing other people’s assumptions on the grounds that they are not based in evidence, while making evidence-free assumptions of your own. You want me to produce evidence that a major grocery store chain’s policy for detaining someone doesn’t include detaining someone when there is reasonable evidence that shoplifting **hasn’t** occurred? > [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > Safeway unbanned the couple, which I doubt they would have done if they thought they were legit shoplifters. You’re ignoring almost everything I said and your own incorrect statements about what Safeway admitted. I guess I don’t blame you. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/224 "2011-11-03T19:40:41Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You want me to produce evidence that a major grocery store chain’s policy for detaining someone doesn’t include detaining someone when there is reasonable evidence that shoplifting **hasn’t** occurred? Sure. You’re working under the assumption that Safeway has a policy of only detaining someone when they are sure that someone has intentionally shoplifted, rather than simply forgetting to pay for a small item. I think it is equally plausible that this store has a policy of detaining anyone who walks out with unpaid goods for any reason, even when store management are reasonably certain it was an accidental oversight. But there is no solid evidence backing up either scenario. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/225 "2011-11-03T19:44:55Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > Safeway unbanned the couple, which I doubt they would have done if they thought they were legit shoplifters. At this point, surely they’ll do whatever they think makes for the best PR regardless? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/226 "2011-11-03T19:45:53Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You keep making straw man arguments like this. NO ONE is denying that she is not guilty of a crime that she has not been found guilty of in court. “The point” is something you keep ignoring and pretending something else has been claimed. What in the world are you talking about? Several people in this thread have concluded she stole, and have simply said that all shoplifters say they forget. That’s a shift in the burden of proof. It has gone from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You say this as if we’re all jurors and we’ve heard all the facts of the case. We don’t know how much evidence there is. We do know that TWO wrapped sandwiches went unpaid for and store management thought there was enough evidence of a crime to detain two people, that at least one police officer thought there was probable cause to arrest them, and that a Safeway spokesperson said “management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police.” > > You want me to produce evidence that a major grocery store chain’s policy for detaining someone doesn’t include detaining someone when there is reasonable evidence that shoplifting **hasn’t** occurred? Did you not read the posts where people who worked retail say they call the cops whenever someone doesn’t pay? There is no determination of intent allowed. Which means people not guilty of shoplifting get the cops called on them. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/227 "2011-11-03T20:12:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Which means people not guilty of shoplifting get the cops called on them. Yeah, it sucks sometimes to be a shopper in a retail culture where merchandise is openly displayed on shelves and tables for customers to examine at their leisure. But being a little more vigilant that we don’t do anything that could be perceived as shoplifting is the price we have to pay for not having things stored behind counters and only available at request. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/228 "2011-11-03T20:22:31Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Sure. You’re working under the assumption that Safeway has a policy of only detaining someone when they are sure that someone has intentionally shoplifted I said nothing about Safeway being “sure” of anything. > [@](#): > > I think it is equally plausible that this store has a policy of detaining anyone who walks out with unpaid goods for any reason, even when store management are reasonably certain it was an accidental oversight. But there is no solid evidence backing up either scenario. It’s not equally plausible. Detaining someone is a pretty big deal. Believing that store policy includes detaining someone even when they think it’s obvious that person committed no crime is not equally plausible. Employees are not going to get in trouble for exercising common sense when deciding when to detain someone. “Hello, is this the Honolulu police department? Yeah, hi, I’m a manager at Safeway. We have store employees that witnessed what they are reasonably certain was not a case of shoplifting and our security guard detained a family because of this. Can you please come and arrest these folks that we believe are innocent? Thanks.” > [@treis](#): > > Several people in this thread have concluded she stole Quote several people that have concluded that and I’ll retract my statement. > [@](#): > > Did you not read the posts where people who worked retail say they call the cops whenever someone doesn’t pay? There is no determination of intent allowed. No determination of intent is allowed? Where did you get that from? If an employee is reasonably certain that someone forgot to pay for something, an employee is going to say, Oh, excuse me miss, you forgot the sandwich." I’ve witnessed similar occurrences on multiple occasions. You’re ignoring the part about a police officer that found probable cause for arrest. Is determination of intent allowed there? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/229 "2011-11-03T20:24:41Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > It’s not equally plausible. Detaining someone is a pretty big deal. Believing that store policy includes detaining someone even when they think it’s obvious that person committed no crime is not equally plausible. Employees are not going to get in trouble for exercising common sense when deciding when to detain someone. Your opinion. Not based in evidence. My opinion is that I find it entirely plausible that a store would have a zero-tolerance policy about people leaving with unpaid items, and further that store employees (particularly lower-level ones) might be concerned about getting into trouble if they don’t follow the letter of this zero-tolerance policy. Mind you, I’m not saying I think this is definitely the case. But I find it plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/230 "2011-11-03T20:36:24Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’re ignoring almost everything I said and your own incorrect statements about what Safeway admitted. I guess I don’t blame you. From the article: > [@](#): > > Houghton said Safeway accepts her assurance that she simply forgot to pay. I don’t know, man. Sounds like they don’t believe the couple to have been shoplifting. > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Sure. You’re working under the assumption that Safeway has a policy of only detaining someone when they are sure that someone has intentionally shoplifted, rather than simply forgetting to pay for a small item. I think it is equally plausible that this store has a policy of detaining anyone who walks out with unpaid goods for any reason, even when store management are reasonably certain it was an accidental oversight. But there is no solid evidence backing up either scenario. I don’t know what the store policy was, but from the article, it appears someone at the store screwed up. > [@](#): > > The incident at the store near downtown Honolulu is prompting Safeway to examine how managers and employees are trained. “In this case, it was not handled in the appropriate manner and we wanted to correct that,” Houghton said. Whether that screw up was due to poor training or poor policy is unclear. But the store acknowledges that a mistake was made. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/231 "2011-11-03T21:00:08Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > I don’t know, man. Sounds like they don’t believe the couple to have been shoplifting. They dropped charges after headlines like these (actual headlines): \*“Couple jailed, lose custody of daughter, over stolen sandwiches” “Hawaii couple’s daughter taken away over sandwich” “Safeway calls cops on Hawaii parents over $5” “Couple jailed, lose custody of daughter, over stolen sandwiches”\* This was not good publicity for the store. Good publicity is the reason a spokesperson decides to publicize that charges were dropped. It wouldn’t make any sense to say, “however, we believe the couple really are thieves but we decided to let them go anyway.” It makes a lot of sense to claim they “accept” someone’s story. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/232 "2011-11-03T21:35:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What in the world are you talking about? Several people in this thread have concluded she stole, and have simply said that all shoplifters say they forget. That’s a shift in the burden of proof. It has gone from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. Please go ahead and quote “several people” in this thread who _concluded_ that she stole. Not that I’m holding my breath. Note: Saying that some shoplifters say they forgot is **not** the same as \*concluding \*that she stole, it’s just saying that it’s a possibility. For all that you’re repeating going on about “presumption of innocence” and accusing others of “presumption of guilt”, I think you’re just reading too much into other poster’s statements when all they’re saying is that we weren’t there, and depending on exactly what happened the police may or may not have been reasonable to arrest her. Also, presumption of innocence and the fact that the charges were dropped does not mean that she is factually innocent. And accusing someone of “presumption of guilt” is ridiculous when all they’re saying is that it’s _possible_ she’s guilty. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/233 "2011-11-03T21:36:48Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > What if they shot somebody while they had their kid with them? Or what if they burned the building down?! > > Of course, they did none of those things. They walked out of a store with two sandwich wrappers that didn’t get scanned. Very different from shooting someone, burning the building, or openly admitting to shoplifting. Actually we still don’t have a police report. The exact reason they were arrested is unclear. How do we know they weren’t arrested for an unrelated incident that involved a shooting or an act of arson? All we know is the woman’s story on why she was arrested, which may or may not be true. Rather then debating endless hypothetical about what may or may not have happened I’d rather see real journalism, which at this point we have very little of. We have an emotional human interest story that has sparked people to come to opinions based on their emotional ‘gut’ feeling. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/234 "2011-11-03T22:20:23Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Actually we still don’t have a police report. The exact reason they were arrested is unclear. How do we know they weren’t arrested for an unrelated incident that involved a shooting or an act of arson? All we know is the woman’s story on why she was arrested, which may or may not be true. I find it unlikely that Safeway would fail to mention this in their official response. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/235 "2011-11-03T22:23:40Z")
Lots of people are saying that shoplifters always use the excuse ‘I meant to pay for it.’ Isn’t this because it’s a plausible excuse, given that people often do forget to pay for things, especially small items? I mean, it wouldn’t be such a popular excuse if it didn’t have an element of truth to it. My daughter usually used to sit in the child seat eating a loaf of French bread while we shopped. IIRC, I asked the first time then just let her do it. It kept her happy and occupied while I shopped and I always had the cash to cover it. She did also twice steal things when she was a toddler in a pretty low buggy. Once it was a Cthulhu doll (heh, proto-Goth :D) and when I took it back to the shop the server was really, really annoyed with me. It still had the tags on and was unmarked, so there was no reason for it not to go straight back on the shelves, but he argued with me for ten minutes before I left mid-sentence. Because of that I didn’t go back the second time she shoplifted (a frog bath mitten from the body shop that she’d cuddled up with and I didn’t notice till we were waiting for the bus). Nor did I go back when, a couple of years ago, I arrived home and found that the hoover I’d purchased at Sainsbury’s hadn’t rung up despite me pushing it towards a manned checkout and mentioning my hoover-buying woes during the long, long time I was at the till (I tend to do a lot of shopping at once - it was a huge bill). It was the server’s mistake, but no way would I have been certain enough of them assuming my innocence, at least until I’d gone through all the hassle of a court case - no way was I going back. This was also after a friend of mine had been on a jury and told me about the case once it was resolved. My friend is a very intelligent, observant person - a medical doctor - so I’d trust her opinion on the evidence she saw. The ‘thief’ had spent a lot of money at Marks and Spencer’s and had one pair of trousers unpaid for, identical except for size to another pair of trousers she’d bought and paid for. She claimed she’d tried both on, taken both to the counter and meant to leave the wrong size aside, but had forgotten when piling up her mound of clothes on the counter; they had CCTV of her taking both pairs in and out of the changing rooms. The stolen trousers didn’t even fit her. She was found guilty, 11-1, with my friend being the only dissenter. > [@Broomstick](#): > > How do you _know_ this couple _aren’t_ regular shoplifters? Do you think “regular shoplifters” have something like THIEF branded across their foreheads or something? > > We’re only hearing one side here, you know. It would be impossible for them to regular shoplifters there given that they’d only been in the country two weeks. > [@SnakesCatLady](#): > > Ok, if they’re arrested, what do you want the police to do with the kid? Let it hang out in the drunk tank? > > Once the parents were arrested the police had no choice other than to call CPS. Or, as someone else said, have each parent look after the child while they deal with the other parent. > [@simster](#): > > exactly - and my comment was meant to show that - clearly I’m not being very clear today. > > I have no idea what the sandwich couple’s intent or history is. > > I do know some of the many techniques employed by shoplifters are. > > The actions of the store and police are exactly what they should have been, given our ‘zero tolerance’ mindset these days - they all acted appropriately given what facts we know. > > what we do not know is if the couple were given an opportunity to correct their actions before leaving the store - back when i worked retail\*, one of our instructions in seeing something like this was to give the suspect every opportunity to correct - “sir, were you going to pay for that item you stored in your coat pocket while browsing” - and only if after refusal or they left the premises were we to call anyone else about it. (which, of course, was way to late to do much, but the point was to assume innocence, not guilt). > > I do have an issue with the current ‘zero tolerance’ mindset - but thats something for a different thread. > > \*mid 80s, so a long freaking time ago, things have changed, I know - now get off my lawn! Me too, back in the nineties. It was just SO much less hassle for the store and also saved an awful lot of money (court costs and employee costs). If it was a repeat occurrence we were told not to allow it, but there never was a repeat occurrence. It is a big waste of resources for the store to hold this family in their break room, then have people deal with the arrest and potential court case, and it’s a big waste of resources for the police and CPS to go through the whole rigmarole they did go through. And once a child has been referred to CPS, that can have an enormous impact on a family - it doesn’t just go away. Hell, even if they were going through the checkout every day eating a free sandwich that’d be cheaper - but if they were doing that, then staff would quickly spot it and it’d be worthwhile prosecuting them. Holding them for four hours is the only bit that really needs an apology, however; otherwise, the staff were just following the rules to the letter, which is a bit daft, but understandable. > [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > That the main reason all their defenders are assuming these people are actually telling the truth about not intending to steal is because the couple is white and marginally lower middle-class. That might be why it made the news, but I genuinely don’t think people on here would think any differently once they heard about it. Well, most people wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/236 "2011-11-03T22:27:47Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I find it unlikely that Safeway would fail to mention this in their official response. Safeway isn’t even necessarily informed. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/237 "2011-11-03T22:47:44Z")
> [@x-ray vision](#): > > Quote several people that have concluded that and I’ll retract my statement. > [@Waenara](#): > > Please go ahead and quote “several people” in this thread who concluded that she stole. > [@SnakesCatsLady](#): > > Intentional or not, they stole the food > [@Little Nemo](#): > > I’d say the fact that she stole the sandwich > [@pinqy](#): > > That the sandwich was stolen is probable cause That was fun. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/238 "2011-11-03T23:37:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > > [@SnakesCatLady](#): > > > > Intentional or not, they stole the food. This one’s easy. That **SnakesCatLady** started with “Intentional or not” makes it evident that she’s using the word “stole” in a way that’s to be defined (however improper her usage was) as “took.” Same with **Little Nemo**. Let’s look at his statement in full: > [@](#): > > That depends on what you mean by establishes. Do you mean establishes with a fair probability (which is all that is required for an arrest)? If so, then I’d say the fact that she stole the sandwich establishes with a fair probability that she intended to steal the sandwich. It doesn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but that’s a decision for a judge and/or jury to make. As you brought up later, this could be seen as a case of begging the question, but only if you want to pretend you don’t understand what he was trying to say. He is using the word in the same way as **SnakesCatLady**. It was obvious he meant to say, _“then I’d say the fact that she didn’t pay for the sandwich establishes with a fair probability that she intended to steal the sandwich.”_ His statement wouldn’t make sense any other way. Poor phrasing on his part? Yes. But it’s also obvious what he meant when you pay attention to his other statements in this thread. From his OP: _I accept that the couple probably honestly forgot to pay for the sandwich but the fact is that they did take it without paying for it_ and after he made the statement in question: _Nobody is denying the possibility except you. We’re saying it’s possible she honestly forgot to pay for the sandwiches and it’s possible she lied about it._ And you know damn well **pinqy** was using the word to mean “took” because you conveniently left out his/her following sentence: _“That the sandwich was stolen is probable cause. Whether or not there was intent to steal is an issue for the courts, not the arresting officer.”_ Wanna try again? What you said that started this is: > [@](#): > > The point is that she is innocent until proven guilty, and little evidence has been proffered showing that she intended to take the sandwiches without paying. What you’ve claimed at least twice was that a police officer has to do the proving in order to arrest, and that is patent nonsense. Of course you tried to dodge those statements several times until I gave up playing along with you out of frustration of my failure to get you to own up to posting bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/239 "2011-11-04T00:05:23Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > It would be impossible for them to regular shoplifters there given that they’d only been in the country two weeks. 😕 It’s somehow against the laws of physics for them to have shoplifted in other locations? Not that I’m saying that is the case. Just saying, it’s _possible_. Not everyone is honest. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/240 "2011-11-04T01:33:48Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > What if they shot somebody while they had their kid with them? Or what if they burned the building down?! > > Of course, they did none of those things. They walked out of a store with two sandwich wrappers that didn’t get scanned. Very different from shooting someone, burning the building, or openly admitting to shoplifting. So you’re saying there’s a vast difference between shoplifting and shoplifting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=13)