# 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:** 20
**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 10, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/381 "2011-11-10T06:50:36Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I’m not talking about the presumption of innocence- of course , there must be evidence to prove her guilt and even to establish probable cause , which is much easier than proving guilt. (And it seems to me the police officer is entitled to that same presumption before people accuse him or her of unlawfully arresting someone- that presumption doesn’t only apply in criminal cases, you know) Probable cause have no real application outside of criminal cases. Or are you saying that there is a presumption of innocence in civil cases? > [@](#): > > You are assuming that the evidence to show her guilt doesn’t exist, when in fact it might. So might unicorns. There is nothing that you can point to that supports the notion that she intended to steal that sandwich. I on the other hand can point to the fact that they left the wrapper in the cart. > [@](#): > > At the same time, you criticize those who assume it does exist. There is a factual answer to what type of wrapping it was, but we don’t know it. There is a factual answer to where,when and in what condition the wrapper was found- we don’t know the answer to that either. There’s a factual answer to how she reacted when she was confronted - don’t have any answer to that either. Yes, if the police officer somehow had no knowledge of anything other than the fact that she ate the sandwich and didn’t pay , then he didn’t have probable cause and he shouldn’t have arrested her. But you aren’t justified in assuming the officer didn’t have additional information just because you don’t. The officer certainly had more information than we do - if nothing else , he or she observed Nicole’s demeanor. We just don’t know whether that information tended to be evidence that she intended to pay or that she didn’t intend to pay. Yes we have statements from both Nicole and Safeway. They both contradict you and you were nowhere near the supermarket or had an opportunity to talk to people that were there. Nicole and Safeway have. > [@](#): > > ( and what I find amusing is that I am almost certainly the only person in this thread who routinely decides whether there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant) I really hope you are making this up because you don’t seem to give way too much deference to cops. ---
**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 10, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/382 "2011-11-10T06:53:10Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > It’s a story almost entirely based on the women’s recollection of events. Until I see a police report, I’m not going to take her word on it even if you find a newspaper so lacking in journalistic standards they will. They are also taking the supermarket’s word for it. And when it comes to determining whether the cop did something wrong the police report is simply the cop’s recollection of events taken on the cop’s word. ---
**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 10, 2011, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/383 "2011-11-10T06:54:33Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > And the people who are saying that a crime wasn’t committed and the officer unlawfully arrested her are making at least as many assumptions. Based on what we have before us, they are not assuming anything, you are. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/384 "2011-11-10T12:07:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Probable cause have no real application outside of criminal cases. Or are you saying that there is a presumption of innocence in civil cases? In any case where one side has to prove something , there is essentially a presumption of innocence. When Nicole wants to sue the store. police department etc, for false arrest she has to prove that the arrest was unlawful , not just that she didn’t commit a crime. When the police department wants to take disciplinary action against the officer, they have to prove the allegations. > [@](#): > > Yes we have statements from both Nicole and Safeway. They both contradict you and you were nowhere near the supermarket or had an opportunity to talk to people that were there. Nicole and Safeway have. And what statement did the supermarket make that I contradict? That they “accept” her story? No, I accept their story that they accept her story.Doesn’t tell me anything about the facts, nor about whether the officer had probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/385 "2011-11-10T12:16:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Based on what we have before us, they are not assuming anything, you are. I am assuming nothing except that the people who were present know more than we do. Believe it or not, sometimes the evidence you have before you isn’t enough to make a decision and this is one of those cases. As I said before , a judge who only knew that the ate the sandwich, didn’t pay and said she saved the wrapper would not find probable cause because there’s not enough evidence. You can’t make that determination because the police officer/prosecution had no obligation to come before you with all of the evidence. ---
**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 10, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/386 "2011-11-10T12:58:21Z")
> [@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? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think teh wrapper in teh shopping cart has been pointed out before The fact that there was a wrapper somewhere in the cart is not enough to determine that there was not enough probable cause for detainment by the store or arrest by the police. There are many ways in which Safeway employees and police acted appropriately with a wrapper in the cart. There’s also another sandwich involved. We’ve gone over this multiple times. > [@](#): > > and the supermarket admitted it fucked up and apologized. This has also been rebutted multiple times. The supermarket spokesperson says that proper procedure was followed , “but Safeway regrets not foreseeing that doing so would cause a child to be separated from her parents.” That’s not the admission of a fuck up that you claim. > [@](#): > > 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” I never said that. False dichotomies will get you nowhere on this board. > [@](#): > > we know that the supermarket has said that they do not believe she intended to steal the sandwich. This has also been rebutted. The spokesperson for the supermarket said they accept her assurance that she simply forgot to pay. That’s the right thing to say after a bunch of negative press and dropping charges. The spokesperson was doing her job to negate the bad press. This is still different than coming out and saying they don’t believe there was intent to steal. > [@](#): > > you are saying that not only is Nicole lying about her intent I never said that. Knock off the bullshit. > [@](#): > > 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? So, you’re going to ignore my question and throw it back on me when I never said anyone was lying? YOU are the one that said “proof is entirely lacking” without knowing much at all about what Safeway employees witnessed, what the two people that were arrested did, and what evidence the police were presented with and what was said to the police. > [@](#): > > 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. No, they argue against you, since you are the one claiming police should never have arrested them, the store should never have called the cops, and that proof is “entirely” lacking. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/387 "2011-11-11T01:41:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The people who believe that a crime was committed don’t appear to have a full grasp on the law. We are now on page 8, and as far as I can tell no one has offered any evidence of intent. It is all based on assumptions, which isn’t a legally sound argument. I’m a little confused here. Is your argument that she did indeed shoplift by eating the sandwich {or two?} but it can’t be proved she didn’t intend to pay, and just forgot to. What is it you’d expect anyone to say if they were caught leaving the store without paying? Of course they’re going to say they forgot. They can eat something every time they go in the store and only pay for the times they get caught. It’s seems like a bad call for the store to push it, but I think once the act has been committed then technically a crime is there, and “oops I didn’t mean to” is not much of a defense. IOW, you don’t have to prove she intended to shoplift , after she actually did it. You have to decide whether to believe her and how to handle it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/388 "2011-11-11T02:00:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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). Maybe yes, maybe no. Someone intending to skip might eat and then hide the wrapper in an aisle. I’ve found plenty of empty boxes from shoplifters. However, it might also be her/their , out in case she’s spotted eating something. That’s what I mean about chronic behavior that stores have to react to and create policies about. Do you think a store employee is going to ask, “what’s that loose plastic in your cart?” Not likely, although they may need to start. A friend of mine is a McD’s manager. You’d be amazed at the petty scams people run over a freakin burger and fries. Latest one. Someone comes in and places an order. He takes his receipt and drink cup and wanders away. When the order comes up his partner picks it up. Then he comes back with the receipt and drink cup and asks where his order is and insists on a refund. As strange as it seems I’ve seen a lot of bizarre behavior in retail. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover people eat stuff in the store all the time and only pay when specifically asked about it. I’d be willing to bet this store had an issue with just such a thing and that’s why they reacted the way they did. I remember a thread here a while back about people trimming the stalks off of broccoli and asparagus in store and still expecting the lower price. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/389 "2011-11-11T02:05:08Z")
> [@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). True but you’re talking about pressing charges. sadly most of the time it cost way more than the merchandise to press charges. Most stores try to just discourage shoplifting rather than prosecute. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/390 "2011-11-11T02:10:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The various news stories reported that the wrappers were in the cart as they prepared to leave the store. If anyone had seen the sandwiches being concealed prior to the arrival of the customers at the register, it should have been addressed when the concealment took place or at the register. > It is just bad policy to try to play “gotcha” regarding potential shoplifting, especially when the payment for the item is so easily obtained and the (cutomers’ versions of) the events are actually fairly common events in stores, today. > > Safeway has not merely offered an apology, but also noted that they need to address changes to their policies. > > As a retailer, I find remarkable the amount of speculation and “what if” scenarios I’ve seen in this thread and the lengths to which some folks are going to turn this into some sort of serious crime. I’m with you on this. My policy has always been to give the customer the benefit of the doubt unless it’s blatant and/or provable. I can also make a note of who potential petty thieves are and deal with them in the future if the behavior is repetitive. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/391 "2011-11-11T02:23:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > However I’m not sure what you’re saying the policy should be. > > Based on your post above, you seem to feel that if a person eats food in the store and then forgets to pay for it when they check out, you feel that’s credible as long as the person still has the wrapper as evidence that they planned on paying for it and they offer to pay for the food without argument. > > Wouldn’t this just encourage people to eat food in the store? They hang on to the wrapper. If somebody notices they claim it was an honest mistake and pay for what they ate. If nobody notices the empty wrapper in their cart, they walk away without paying for the food they ate. Yep, that’s a possibility, but you combat that by training employees to look in the cart for wrappers and politely asking a question, rather than calling the police. If, over time, you recognize a chronic offender, you deal with it then. Personally , I think the big super stores with policies set by people who may never have worked at the eyeball to eyeball with customers level, encourage bad behavior among customers. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/392 "2011-11-11T19:55:53Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m a little confused here. Is your argument that she did indeed shoplift by eating the sandwich {or two?} but it can’t be proved she didn’t intend to pay, and just forgot to. I am saying she didn’t shoplift because she simply forgot ot pay. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > What is it you’d expect anyone to say if they were caught leaving the store without paying? Of course they’re going to say they forgot. They can eat something every time they go in the store and only pay for the times they get caught. This isn’t a legally sound argument. You need to prove intent. You can’t just assume it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s seems like a bad call for the store to push it, but I think once the act has been committed then technically a crime is there, and “oops I didn’t mean to” is not much of a defense. > IOW, you don’t have to prove she intended to shoplift , after she actually did it. You have to decide whether to believe her and how to handle it. Yes you do. I quoted the statutes, and part of the crime is intent to deprive. No intent, no crime. ---
**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 11, 2011, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/393 "2011-11-11T20:40:08Z")
> [@treis](#): > > This isn’t a legally sound argument. You need to prove intent. You can’t just assume it. To convict, or to arrest? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/394 "2011-11-11T20:51:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > To convict, or to arrest? Both. The only difference is to what standard you need to prove it. For conviction it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and for arrest that it is probably true. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/395 "2011-11-11T20:55:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > To convict, or to arrest? You don’t need to prove anything to arrest. How 'bout this? You should have confidence in their intent to a similar extent that you have confidence in the guilt of a generic suspect arrested for a generic crime. Which, I hope, is somewhat greater than “I don’t have to investigate or gather any evidence towards their guilt/intent, because I don’t have to prove their guilt/intent to arrest.” ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/396 "2011-11-11T22:15:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > This isn’t a legally sound argument. You need to prove intent. You can’t just assume it. **treis** , I think part of this may be a semantic problem. You keep saying the police need to “prove” intent to arrest. Proving intent implies that it is being proven to another person- you certainly don’t mean the officer has to prove to himself that he has probable cause to arrest someone and there’s no one else to prove it to at the time of arrest . The officer (or really the prosecution) _might_ need to establish that there is probable cause at a hearing a few days later, but it’s common for the defendant to waive the probable cause hearing, in which case probable cause need never be proven. Generally, a probable cause hearing is held within a few days of arrest (in Hawaii, it’s as soon as practicable and no later than 48 hours after arrest for a defendant held in custody). Since the articles report that this couple returns to court Nov 28, a month after the arrest, my guess is that they either waived the probable cause hearing or it was held at the same time their bail was set. None of which means the officer doesn’t need to have evidence establishing intent at the time of arrest- just that he’s not proving it to someone at or before the time of arrest. > [@](#): > > The only difference is to what standard you need to prove it. For conviction it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and for arrest that it is probably true If by “probably true”, you mean “more likely than not” , that’s “preponderance of the evidence” , a higher standard than probable cause. The Supreme Court decision in _Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)_ states > [@](#): > > This is perfectly reasonable. As discussed previously, probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. (snip) In making a determination of probable cause, the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is “innocent” or “guilty,” but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/397 "2011-11-11T22:45:06Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I am saying she didn’t shoplift because she simply forgot ot pay. I see your point, but I’m saying that when she walked out without paying that’s shoplifting. The fact that she left the building without paying implies intent or at least the strong possibility. She , or anyone, can say, oops I just forgot, and at THAT point, the store and the police make a judgement call on how to handle it. In many states concealing an item in the store is intent. Certainly by eating something in store it was concealed. I had the wrapper in my cart , that proves I intended to pay for it. No it doesn’t. It only proves you were prepared in case you were called on it. It seems obvious no store should call the cops over a sandwich or two unless some dumb upper management insists. The store may have had reason to believe it was habitual behavior and only backed down because of unforeseen bad PR. Let’s assume the store had some ongoing issue with people helping themselves in the store and then “forgetting” to pay. How many times would they forget before you called it intent? Chronic bad , even petty behavior by enough people translates into loss for the store. That said, based on limited information, if this woman and her So were not pegged as habitual offenders it was an incredibly bad call by the staff and possibly the police, although I think technically the police had just cause to arrest. > [@](#): > > This isn’t a legally sound argument. You need to prove intent. You can’t just assume it. It would be a crazy circumstance to go to court over unless you had evidence they pulled that scam on a regular basis, but as I said, actually eating the item and then leaving without paying implies enough intent. From my experience in retail, you make allowances for people and eventually enough people go to far and take advantage that it becomes an issue and has to be addressed. My guess is that people eating food in the store has become an issue for that store. Technically, eating the food before you pay for it could be considered stealing. > [@](#): > > Yes you do. I quoted the statutes, and part of the crime is intent to deprive. No intent, no crime. right, and when she walked out without paying that certainly implies intent. That’s why concealing merchandise is considered intent to shoplift even before you leave the store. “Oh, I still had the tag in my pocket, I meant to pay for it” I think eating food you haven’t paid for , and then leaving without telling the cashier implies intent to deprive. ---
**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 14, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/398 "2011-11-14T16:28:39Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > In any case where one side has to prove something , there is essentially a presumption of innocence. When Nicole wants to sue the store. police department etc, for false arrest she has to prove that the arrest was unlawful , not just that she didn’t commit a crime. When the police department wants to take disciplinary action against the officer, they have to prove the allegations. OK, I get it. The mere fact that Nicole ate the sandwich is a primae facie case for shoplifting but the mere fact that she didn’t commit a crime would not be a primae facie case for unlawful arrest. Is that what you are saying? > [@](#): > > And what statement did the supermarket make that I contradict? That they “accept” her story? No, I accept their story that they accept her story.Doesn’t tell me anything about the facts, nor about whether the officer had probable cause. The supermarket said more than “we accept her story” they said they do not believe she was shoplifting not simply that they choose to believe Nicole. Probable cause does not exist in the mind of the officer, it is a subjective standard. Based on all evidence available to us, he didn’t have it. ---
**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 14, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/399 "2011-11-14T16:30:36Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I am assuming nothing except that the people who were present know more than we do. Believe it or not, sometimes the evidence you have before you isn’t enough to make a decision and this is one of those cases. > > As I said before , a judge who only knew that the ate the sandwich, didn’t pay and said she saved the wrapper would not find probable cause because there’s not enough evidence. You can’t make that determination because the police officer/prosecution had no obligation to come before you with all of the evidence. No, you are assuming that the police officer is infallible. Based on the evidence we have before us, the officer did not have probable cause. Perhaps more evidence will surface later that will move the dial one way or the other but right now, this is where we are. You are presuming facts not in evidence to conclude that the officer must have been correct and everyone involved in the situation has decided to keep it quiet. ---
**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 14, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/400 "2011-11-14T16:34:26Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > The fact that there was a wrapper somewhere in the cart is not enough to determine that there was not enough probable cause for detainment by the store or arrest by the police. There are many ways in which Safeway employees and police acted appropriately with a wrapper in the cart. There’s also another sandwich involved. We’ve gone over this multiple times. > > This has also been rebutted multiple times. The supermarket spokesperson says that proper procedure was followed , “but Safeway regrets not foreseeing that doing so would cause a child to be separated from her parents.” That’s not the admission of a fuck up that you claim. > I never said that. False dichotomies will get you nowhere on this board. > This has also been rebutted. The spokesperson for the supermarket said they accept her assurance that she simply forgot to pay. That’s the right thing to say after a bunch of negative press and dropping charges. The spokesperson was doing her job to negate the bad press. This is still different than coming out and saying they don’t believe there was intent to steal. > I never said that. Knock off the bullshit. > So, you’re going to ignore my question and throw it back on me when I never said anyone was lying? YOU are the one that said “proof is entirely lacking” without knowing much at all about what Safeway employees witnessed, what the two people that were arrested did, and what evidence the police were presented with and what was said to the police. > > No, they argue against you, since you are the one claiming police should never have arrested them, the store should never have called the cops, and that proof is “entirely” lacking. In all of this you are going on assumed facts that NOONE is presenting. I am going on facts presented. Sure there are ways the facts presented can be modified to make you right but as they stand, you are simply looking for reasons to justify arresting two parents for forgetting to pay for a sandwich which resulted in thier child being separated from them and living with strangers for a day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=21)