# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/341 "2011-11-09T22:08:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d split the offense into three elements. > > 1. Was the item taken? > 2. Was the item paid for? > 3. Was there intent to steal? > > The reason I split the first of your elements was a minor factor in this situation. The woman took the sandwich (by eating it) while she was shopping. But that wasn’t necessarily a crime. Some stores allow people to pay for food they eat in the store when they leave. So it wasn’t until she was leaving the store without paying that she checked off the second element on the list. > > I’m assuming nobody is disputing that the first and second elements occurred. So it comes down to an issue of intent. And we cannot know what her intent was. She may have intended to pay and forgot. Or she may have intended to steal the sandwich and lied about intending to pay when she was caught. Hopefully everyone will concede that both of these are possible. > > In order for her to be arrested, the police have to conclude that there is a “fair probability” that she committed a crime. The elements were there: she did take the sandwich, she did not pay for it, and it is possible that she intended to steal it. So the fair possibility that she committed a crime existed. > > The police aren’t assuming she did commit a crime. They’re only assuming it’s possible she committed a crime. Which is all they are supposed to do. It’s the court’s role to determine whether or not she did commit a crime. The standard is PROBABLE cause, not POSSIBLE cause. Considering the apparent evidence of wrapper in shopping cart, why would you think it was probable that there was an intent to shoplift? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/342 "2011-11-09T22:15:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > More than you apparently understand the difference between probability and certainty. Where does treis say certainty is required? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/343 "2011-11-09T22:17:44Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > No, he can’t- but that’s not all the information he (or she) had. There’s plenty of information that we don’t have which was available to that police officer- what kind of wrapper was it , where was it found, what did the woman say and when, did she change her story , etc . Even if it was in the shopping cart there’s a difference between a plastic container the size of a Big Mac box and a piece of plastic wrapped rolled up 'till its the size of a gumball. Just like the cop can’t say "She took a sandwich, didn’t pay for it… intent! , we can’t say " She says she meant to pay for it- no intent and the cop was wrong ". You’re right, we are making some assumptions about the wrapper. If it turns out that the wrapper was crumpled into the size of a gumball then the presence of the wrapper in the shopping cart is not exculpatory but don’t we have to admit that if teh wrapper was in plain sight then the presence of the wrapper is in fact indicative of an intent to pay for the sandwich? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/344 "2011-11-09T22:21:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I understand that. And do you understand that a statement like _“there’s only a weak probability of snow tomorrow”_ is not the same as _“it will not snow tomorrow”_? And saying _“there’s a strong probability she told the truth”_ is not the same as _“she told the truth”_? As I posted above, there is a difference between probability and certainty. Once again you seem to be conflating probability with possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/345 "2011-11-09T22:23:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > He’s saying that you can only arrest somebody is you’ve proven intent - if the probability of intent is 100%. That’s the standard for a conviction. But the Supreme Court rulings I’ve quoted say that there is a lesser standard for arrest - a probability of less than 100% certainty. I don’t think they’ve ever tried to give a precise figure (and how would you determine the percentages?) but the terms that have been used include a “fair probability” and a “substantial chance”. The decision in Illinois v. Gates said that the probability could be less than fifty-fifty. So I don’t know where a theoretical line would be drawn - a ten percent chance? a one percent chance? one in a million? - the lower limit of what is considered reasonable hasn’t been defined. But the court has been clear that a one hundred percent chance is not required. He is in no way saying taht the police have to “prove” ANYTHING before arrest. he is saying that you cannot ignore one element of a crime with three elements and say “well two out of three is good enough” You have to have some reason to believe that there was intent otherwise you have no probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed at all. ---
**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 9, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/346 "2011-11-09T22:24:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You’re right, we are making some assumptions about the wrapper. If it turns out that the wrapper was crumpled into the size of a gumball then the presence of the wrapper in the shopping cart is not exculpatory but don’t we have to admit that if teh wrapper was in plain sight then the presence of the wrapper is in fact indicative of an intent to pay for the sandwich? I dunno. Wouldn’t you say that going through a checkout line without paying and leaving a store is in fact indicative of an intent not to pay for the sandwich? I mean if we’re hypothesizing on what people are thinking from their actions and all. ---
**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 9, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/347 "2011-11-09T22:30:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Once again you seem to be conflating probability with possibility. How about this. I’ve cited three Supreme Court decisions that agree with what I’ve been saying. If you and treis want to keep arguing the point, how about you two start providing some cites. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/348 "2011-11-09T22:47:22Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan;14443451{btw; do we have any good reason to believe this lady intended to pay for it and doesn’t do this on a regular basis} [/quote] Well, to me the presence of teh wrapper in the shopping cart is pretty convincing (unless it was wadded up into the size of a gumball). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/349 "2011-11-09T22:50:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t have a problem with the store banning them. I have a problem with the cops arresting them. They need to have enough proof to prove that a reasonable person would believe a crime has been committed. Despite what others say, the mere possibility isn’t enough. I’ve not seen any indication of intent, and the fact that many people are willing to simply assume it is troubling. Do you have a problem with the store holding them and their child for four hours? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/350 "2011-11-09T22:53:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You can’t ignore the liability issue though. If you start picking and choosing who you will press charges against, you open yourself up to a discrimination lawsuit (or at the least public claims that you are discriminatory). Of COURSE you can pick and choose. There is a difference between someone who is trying to leave the store with meat shoved down his pants and someone who didn’t ring up that empty sandwich wrapper in their cart. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/351 "2011-11-09T22:58:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about this. I’ve cited three Supreme Court decisions that agree with what I’ve been saying. If you and treis want to keep arguing the point, how about you two start providing some cites. I told you what to google, but if you are too lazy to do that: > [@](#): > > The phrase [probable cause] means more than a mere possibility [link](http://books.google.com/books?id=xZ-61GFZE1kC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=%22mere+possibility%22+probable+cause&source=bl&ots=nXSdpaXcK2&sig=hnGJF2GgWvbD_BjxWTCq-oirzR0&hl=en&ei=nQS7TsPlJYzmggfHsP3dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22mere%20possibility%22%20probable%20cause&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xZ-61GFZE1kC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=%22mere+possibility%22+probable+cause&source=bl&ots=nXSdpaXcK2&sig=hnGJF2GgWvbD_BjxWTCq-oirzR0&hl=en&ei=nQS7TsPlJYzmggfHsP3dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22mere%20possibility%22%20probable%20cause&f=false) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/352 "2011-11-09T23:03:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you have a problem with the store holding them and their child for four hours? Unless I am mistaken, the store had no legal right to hold them. So it was a voluntary situation, even if it really wasn’t. Depending on exactly what the store said or did, I might or might not have a problem with that. But really, I have to assume that their intention wasn’t that this family hung around there store for hours. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/353 "2011-11-09T23:11:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What are they going to sue them for? Rightful arrest? > > The worst thing you can say about the store is they overreacted to what was a very minor incident. But they didn’t invent the incident. Nicole Leszczynski did take a sandwich and left without paying for it. > > If the police stop me and give me a ticket when I’m driving fifty-eight miles per hour in a 55 MPH zone, I’m going to be pissed off. I’ll complain like hell about how they ticketed me when I was only driving three miles an hour over the limit. But I’m not going to be stupid enough to sue the town with the claim that I should be allowed to break the law a little bit. But you were in fact breaking teh law by going over the speed limit. We have been arguing for pages about whether or not Nicole broke the law. Actually we have beena rguing about whether or not there was enough evidence to make a reasonable person believe that Nicole broke the law. The store held them for four hours despite the fact that there was a wrapper in their shopping cart. I’m not saying that the store was wrong because Nicole was only stealing a little bit, I’m saying the store was wrong because Nicole was not stealing and a I think a jury will agree that a reasonable person would not believe that she was stealing. That would make the detention unlawful as well as the arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/354 "2011-11-09T23:19:09Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You have enough facts regarding this case that there was not probable cause for detainment by store employees or arrest by the police? Can you share? I think teh wrapper in teh shopping cart has been pointed out before and the supermarket admitted it fucked up and apologized. While not conclusive its a lot better than “well she ate teh sandwich and then didn’t pay for it so we can ignore the intent requirement” > [@](#): > > There’s no evidence that she tried to hide the wrapper? What about the second sandwich? Was it concealed in any way? Can you tell us why her husband was arrested also? Were any self incriminating remarks made after detainment and before arrest? Nope, there is no evidence that we have been presented with that indicates that she tried to hide the wrapper. You can conjecture all you want, heck i can conjecture that the supermarket acted with amlice aforethought,you can’t prove otherwise but its not supported by what we know. What we know so far is taht there was a wrapper in the cart, we know that the supermarket has said that they do not believe she intended to steal the sandwich. So you are saying that not only is Nicole lying about her intent, the supermarket is also lying about their belief of her intent. On second thought I think that their mea culpa probably would move me to settle with them for all the food the family (that includes the baby in the belly) can eat while shopping at any safeway anywhere in the world (in a very seinfeld sort of way). ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/355 "2011-11-09T23:20:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You’re right, we are making some assumptions about the wrapper. If it turns out that the wrapper was crumpled into the size of a gumball then the presence of the wrapper in the shopping cart is not exculpatory but don’t we have to admit that if teh wrapper was in plain sight then the presence of the wrapper is in fact indicative of an intent to pay for the sandwich? Maybe ,depending on what else happened. Maybe when the wrapper was pointed out she claimed that it must have been in the cart when she grabbed the cart on her way in , which would indicate that she didn’t intend to pay for the sandwich . Neither you nor I have any idea, because the store’s statement was conclusory - they regret what happened, and they accept her story but never do they say anything about the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/356 "2011-11-09T23:22:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > We’re talking about detainment and arrest here- “proof” isn’t needed. I Since you say proof is lacking, I guess you do have more facts of what transpired that you can share with the rest of us? Fine, you need to establish probable cause, if you want to nit pick. I have the same facts as you, you simply choose to ignore the intent requirement of shoplifting and you choose to ignore the wrapper in teh cart and the supermarket’s admission that there probably wasn’t intent. Is there anything you know that the rest of us don’t know that does establish taht there is reason to believe that both Nicole and Safeway are lying and that intent probably was present? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/357 "2011-11-09T23:23:32Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t have a problem with the store banning them. I have a problem with the cops arresting them. They need to have enough proof to prove that a reasonable person would believe a crime has been committed. Despite what others say, the mere possibility isn’t enough. I’ve not seen any indication of intent, and the fact that many people are willing to simply assume it is troubling. The fact that so many reasonable people on this board believe they may have committed a crime, myself included, is very strong evidence that the standard has been met. Strong enough that it should be assumed, and people should move on. On another point, **IF** there was probable cause to arrest, then of course the child should have been taken from them, Firstly for the immediate protection of the child - I assume people don’t think it should have been put in jail with the parents. And secondly, bcause **IF** they did commit a crime with the child in tow, they are pretty poor parents, and endangering their child. This is a general point, not specific to this incident, and remains the case no matter how petty the crime. For that matter, someone incapable of remembering they’ve eaten a sandwich probably shouldn’t be left in charge of a child either. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/358 "2011-11-09T23:24:27Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > We don’t know that both sandwiches were eaten, do we? There are many possible answers to your question. One obvious one is that ditching wrappers makes it obvious one has shoplifted if one gets caught. Leaving it in your cart and claiming “whoops, I must have mistakenly left the wrappers under my purse; I meant to pay for them” is something one may get away with if found out. But I’m just giving you one possibility out of many. I don’t have nearly enough details of what went down to surmise anything. If your answer is that we can’t reach a conclusion without full exposition of facts then you are basically admitting taht the facts we do have argue against you. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/359 "2011-11-09T23:26:38Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > Hmm, could they just say “banned for life?” Because I have seen a grocery store do exactly what I suggested for exactly the same reason, that is, presumed shoplifting. Yeah, I think they could do that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/360 "2011-11-09T23:28:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I dunno. Wouldn’t you say that going through a checkout line without paying and leaving a store is in fact indicative of an intent not to pay for the sandwich? I mean if we’re hypothesizing on what people are thinking from their actions and all. Nope, not if the wrapper is in the cart. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=19)