# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/101 "2011-11-02T22:58:58Z")
> [@shijinn](#): > > again, this does not appear to be the case here. it seems to me that if there had been an intent to steal, the wrapper would have been discarded or pocketed/hidden instead. Where did you see that it wasn’t pocketed/hidden? All I saw in the article was that she kept the wrapper. It didn’t say where. I suppose she could have kept it in her hand during the whole trip and still forgotten to have it scanned, but I doubt it. If she was holding in her hand where it was visible to the cashier, I might think she wasn’t trying to shoplift - like a person with a bottle of detergent on the try under the cart . If the wrapper’s in a pocket, well, then she’s like the person with the detergent in the laundry hamper- maybe it was unintentional, most likely it wasn’t ---
**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 2, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/102 "2011-11-02T22:59:30Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > People make mistakes. So what if someone didn’t eat anything at all and they accidentally left something in their cart? > > You think other Dopers should be arrested and their children taken away?! > > Also…FOUR HOURS? The store kept them in that room for FOUR HOURS before the police came? Good grief. Let them pay and go! These people were observed eating the sandwiches. If they were shoplifting which they clearly were they should be arrested. And FOUR HOURS is nothing. I use to sleep through holds longers than that when I was eleven. Seriously, if these people didn’t want to get arrested, they should have paid for the food before eating it. Their lack of common sense is not the store’s problem. ---
**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 2, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/103 "2011-11-02T23:03:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I don’t see any way to make this situation more “reasonable” without substantially changing the facts. Change their ethnicity and plenty of people would consider it “reasonable” for them to be arrested. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/104 "2011-11-02T23:10:32Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Change their ethnicity and plenty of people would consider it “reasonable” for them to be arrested. Change the ethnicity and plenty of people would consider it reasonable to prohibit them from entering the store, (thankfully, far fewer people than years ago). Since I am not a person who cares about the ethnicity of the couple, the store security guy, the store management, the police, or the various commentators, changing their ethnicity would have no bearing on the views I set forth and I would consider any views based on ethnicity to fall outside the realm of “reasonable.” ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/105 "2011-11-02T23:14:08Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Change their ethnicity and plenty of people would consider it “reasonable” for them to be arrested. Yeah, plenty of people are dicks. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/106 "2011-11-02T23:16:07Z")
> [@pinqy](#): > > But this couple did NOT pay, so any talk of intent is irrelevant. What? That’s absurd. All the statutes talk about intent to take without paying. Unless you can prove they did not intend to pay, no crime was committed. And it’s up to you and the police to do so. Y’Know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. > [@pinqy](#): > > Your link is also for Illinois laws. Looking at [Hawaii law](http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/shoplifting-laws/hawaii-shoplifting-laws.html) it reads She was not authorized to eat the sandwich, so that’s unauthorized control. Eating the sandwich necessarily deprives the other of the property and is also exerting control. > > Specifically for shoplifting: She took the merchandise into her possession, and as for intent, well that would be a dispute in court, not at time of arrest, but she did defraud, so it’s hard to claim she didn’t mean to. In my state of Virginia, concealment itself is considered evidence of intent to defraud. No, intent is relevant at all points. If the police found no reasonable cause to believe she intended to steal, then they should not have arrested her. The laws are very clear on this. No intent means no crime. ---
**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 2, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/107 "2011-11-02T23:22:20Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Yeah, plenty of people are dicks. What’s your point? 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. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/108 "2011-11-02T23:30:25Z")
> [@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. I think it’s very possible they are telling the truth because I’ve done things somewhat similar by accident. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/109 "2011-11-03T00:22:06Z")
Its possible, but we dont know what the security guards saw, which could change ones take on how ‘accidental’ it all was. If the story is taken as read, it seems ridiculous to have a family end up in custody over such a minor offense. We dont do it for speeding or any number of other issues that in my view are far more serious. Otara ---
**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 3, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/110 "2011-11-03T00:38:31Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > If the story is taken as read, it seems ridiculous to have a family end up in custody over such a minor offense. We dont do it for speeding or any number of other issues that in my view are far more serious. Routine speeding is going to be a violation in most jurisdictions. Shoplifting is generally going to be a misdemeanor. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/111 "2011-11-03T00:46:55Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What? That’s absurd. All the statutes talk about intent to take without paying. Unless you can prove they did not intend to pay, no crime was committed. And it’s up to you and the police to do so. Y’Know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. I’m fairly certain you’re misinterpreting what “intent” means, but I’m no legal expert, and so I’d be satisfied with a citation for what you claim. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/112 "2011-11-03T00:54:56Z")
> [@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 would be your projection. My reason for believing the story is that I frquently see similar sorts of things happen in the store where I work. Any number of customers–often regular customers who spends hundreds of dollars a week–have begun to wander out of the store with food they had forgotten they had put in their pocket, (a sandwich or a box of cookies or crackers that they used to keep their child placid), or something that they had let their child hold and had forgotten about, or any number of other items and methods of “absconding.” In the vast majority of cases, simply calling attention to the item brings out a cry of dismay and embarrassment accompanied by profuse apologies and an insistence that they pay for the item. Now I suppose that these could all be exceedingly crafty, (if somewhat incompetent), shoplifters, but it seems that a more plausible explanation is that they simply got distracted and forgot to get the item onto the register counter. The times that I have actually encountered shoplifters, they have rarely been embarrassed and they have often declared that they had simply forgotten to return the item to the shelf rather than insisting that they pay for it. (I am sure that there are some shoplifters who have the embarrassment schtick rehearsed, but the notion that a mother who has just spent $189 on groceries was desperate to steal the $1.89 box of Animal Crackers seems a bit forced.) So, no, I do not base my guess that the incident occurred as described by the mother on her perceived ethnicity or economic status. (For that matter, I do not even know the mother’s ethnicity. By her name, I would guess that her husband is of Polish descent, but I have not checked around to be sure that she is not a member of a suspect class.) ---
**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, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/113 "2011-11-03T01:00:02Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > I’m fairly certain you’re misinterpreting what “intent” means, but I’m no legal expert, and so I’d be satisfied with a citation for what you claim. Are you really asking for a cite for what “intent” means? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/114 "2011-11-03T01:11:37Z")
I’m wondering…if this had happened to a poor single black mother who stole because she was really poor and hungry and was thrown in jail for days…would you have different blowups over it? Would it be, “She shouldn’t have stole, but we shouldn’t live in a world where people are hungry” ? I’m saying this mother didn’t have intent to defraud anyone, as what she did was a mistake that is repeated across all ages, cultures, races and genders. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/115 "2011-11-03T01:12:22Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No, intent is relevant at all points. If the police found no reasonable cause to believe she intended to steal, then they should not have arrested her. The laws are very clear on this. No intent means no crime. Except that the police only need probable cause to arrest someone- and that’s a _very_ low standard.At the point of arrest ,there certainly was probable cause to believe that she intended to steal. There may or may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt- but that standard comes into play at the trial, not at the time of arrest. ---
**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, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/116 "2011-11-03T01:33:08Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Except that the police only need probable cause to arrest someone- and that’s a _very_ low standard.At the point of arrest ,there certainly was probable cause to believe that she intended to steal. There may or may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt- but that standard comes into play at the trial, not at the time of arrest. The standard for probable cause is a reasonable belief someone has committed a crime. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that this lady intended to steal the sandwich. > [@straightman](#): > > I’m fairly certain you’re misinterpreting what “intent” means, but I’m no legal expert, and so I’d be satisfied with a citation for what you claim. Intent doesn’t have any special meaning in this case. It simply means that the action someone undertook is the one they wanted to, and the result was what they expected. ---
**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, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/117 "2011-11-03T01:46:33Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The standard for probable cause is a reasonable belief someone has committed a crime. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that this lady intended to steal the sandwich. Huh? There was a shopkeeper calling in a theft and a sandwich unpaid for. Any officer coming into that situation should have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. I’m not sure if you are aware of this but people who steal things have reason to lie about the circumstances in which they acquired stolen goods. Intent is something they can argue in court. ---
**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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/118 "2011-11-03T02:16:06Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Huh? There was a shopkeeper calling in a theft and a sandwich unpaid for. Any officer coming into that situation should have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. > > I’m not sure if you are aware of this but people who steal things have reason to lie about the circumstances in which they acquired stolen goods. > > Intent is something they can argue in court. They can argue it to the cop too. He’s not some mindless automaton that must arrest anyone accused of a crime. He should have looked at the situation and surmised that it is far more likely that this woman simply forgot to pay. The idea that she goes around with a husband and toddler in tow, and shoplifts $5 sandwiches while shopping for groceries is a bit far fetched. Again, she is presumed innocent and there has to be evidence showing that she committed a crime. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/119 "2011-11-03T02:18:01Z")
Okay, I’ll live with that. It does strike me as odd that the prosecution would have to demonstrate something so plainly indemonstrable, though. ---
**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 3, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599/120 "2011-11-03T02:46:34Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > I’m fairly certain you’re misinterpreting what “intent” means, but I’m no legal expert, and so I’d be satisfied with a citation for what you claim. I was going to argue this same point. But I found that Hawaiian law has a quirk that makes this a valid issue. If you were to look in the New York Penal Code, for example (the one I’m most familiar with) there is nothing about intent. The law simply states “A person is guilty of petit larceny when he steals property.” And Nicole Leszczynski did indisputably commit the act of stealing property - she took something that did not belong to her. But the Hawaiian Penal Code is different. It states that in order for a theft to have occurred a person must intend to deprive somebody else of their property or to defraud them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-the-store-needed-to-apologize/601599.md?page=7)