so she sayes she kept the wrapper - in the cart - emptied the cart but left the wapper - you saying she forgot the wrapper she put in the cart was hers and that she had to pay for it. if she took everything out but the wrapper then why did she leave it if she intended to pay?
Because she overlooked it? How many anecdotes do you need of people doing essentially the same thing before you at least acknowledge the possibility?
Let’s take a look:
We don’t know the facts of the case. Evidence may have suggested they were both involved in the theft(s) and the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest both of them. The article linked to in the OP that the mother ate one sandwich, but that there were two sandwiches that went unpaid for. Was the other sandwich uneaten? Did dad eat one too? Is there a witness that said it appeared they tried to hide the wrappers? We don’t know. The officer could choose to not arrest one of them because they have a child, but with evident probable cause and a manager that doesn’t want to let a crime go, that won’t be a wise decision for the police officer.
Sounds great, but you’re only assuming the police had a choice in that decision. More likely that they have to call CPS when both guardians are under arrest.
Again, we don’t know the facts of the case. If the police officer believed there was probable cause, letting them go after store employees have detained them is not going to be good for the officer’s career. What habitual shoplifters usually do is irrelevant (and it’s naive to think people that buy groceries never try to get away with stealing any of their items).
In the UK, speeding is a strict liability offence - in other words, you commit the crime when you exceed the relevant speed limit, whether you intended to or not. The same is true of drunk driving: you can’t show up in court and argue that yes, you were over the legal limit but that you didn’t realise this and so should be found not guilty.
Things like theft, murder etc are not strict liability - intent is part of the crime. You do not commit theft if you don’t intend to do so.
In the example you give here, you formed the intent when you decided (it’s not relevant whether or not the decision was “on the spur of the moment” or one you made last Tuesday after supper) to take someone else’s property and not pay for it.
But if you left the store with an item you missed when unloading your trolley onto the belt, or that the cashier didn’t scan correctly, there is no intent and thus no theft.
How many ancedotes do you need of people shoplifting doing essentially the same thing befor you at least acknowledge the possibility? Seriously, if this women did not want to risk being arrested for shoplifting all she had to do is pay for the sandwich before eating it. It’s very simple. It’s what I’ve done all my life except on those occasions (childhood) when I was shoplifting.
At this point, some of the arguments seem to be “Trust me! I’m a shoplifter and I know!”
Are you saying it’s not a good possibility that the woman unintentionally took something from the store without paying for it? If so, then you are not acknowledging the other possibility. Or are you saying that if the woman didn’t want to be arrested for shoplifting, she should have paid for a sandwich that she forgot to pay for? The latter is what it sounds like you’re saying and it’s pretty obvious that that doesn’t make any sense.
I’m saying if she didn’t want to run the risk of being accused of shoplifting she would have paid for the sandwich before eating it.
^ Okay, got ya. I don’t believe that’s even a part of the reason she was arrested. I’d bet that the store didn’t have much of a problem with her eating it first, but with leaving the store without paying for it. Unless you’re thinking that she would have been less likely to forget to pay had she not eaten it first. There’s also the matter of second unpaid sandwich which may or may not have been eaten.
Slice it and dice it any which way you like. The point is, everyone was “just following procedure” without questioning what’s actually going on until the whole chain of events became so damn ridiculous that their child was taken from them for 18 hours. I can’t understand what facts are missing that could justify this outcome for $5 in “stolen” sandwiches.
^ I and others went over that already. If you don’t understand what facts could be missing you could read this thread again.
I don’t think anyone’s answered the question I posted earlier. Suppose a person was caught shoplifting and openly admitted they were a shoplifter - their plan had been to go to the store and steal stuff. But they took their kid with them.
What would you do at this point? Is it still “damn ridiculous” to arrest somebody if it involves taking their child away for eighteen hours? Do you decide that you have no choice other than to release any shoplifters who bring a kid along?
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. You’re the one claiming that there is no possibility that she lied.
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.
What’s the point of this? Why not just answer the question Little Nemo asked? What if the couple admitted to stealing the sandwiches?
“What would you do at this point? Is it still “damn ridiculous” to arrest somebody if it involves taking their child away for eighteen hours? Do you decide that you have no choice other than to release any shoplifters who bring a kid along?”
You are posing a completely unrelated hypothetical. This case is not relavent to “any shoplifters.” It’s relavent only to the couple who ate $5 worth of sandwiches. We’re not talking about peope stuffing items down their pants. You seem to be looking at this like, hey, shoplifters are shoplifters. Period. I’m saying that cops and store managers are adults who can apply their best judgment on a case by case basis. Now, I grant you, there are cases that will fall into a gray area. But I do not think this is one of them. It seems pretty cut and dried, and Safeway has pretty much admited, that the couple did not intentionally steal from them.
It’s not cut and dried. We have very few facts relating to what occurred. Safeway “pretty much admitted” no such thing.
From the article:
So Houghton says that “management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police.” I’m pretty sure part of that routine procedure includes only contacting police when there is reasonable evidence that shoplifting has occurred, not when it hasn’t. She regrets that they didn’t decide to ignore procedure because someone at Safeway should have known what would happen to the child. This is obviously just a good public relations statement, but even then Houghton never stated that acts of shoplifting never occurred.
I’ve never denied the possibility. 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.
Agreed. There are few facts about Safeway’s internal procedures or exactly what was witnessed by Safeway.
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.
The store employees have more than likely been told they have NO discretion in the matter of shoplifters. I know when I worked in retail I had no discretion at all - if someone left the store without paying if I did not attempt to detain them, call the police and press charges I would be fired. I don’t care if they had their child with them or not.
I’m not going to say accidents don’t happen. I have a problem with saying “oh, she just left the wrapper in the cart thinking it was someone else’s trash” - she conveniently forgot about the sandwich she had just eaten? Yeah, right.
And as for there being two wrappers but no one knows if dad ate a sandwich, I guess they just unwrapped the sandwich and left it in the store while putting the wrapper in their cart.
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).
If mom was so ill (although she kept calm for her baby while balling* her eyes out) why didn’t she stay home with the child and let dad do the shopping?
No one will ever know the intent in this situation. It’s easy to say “oh I meant to pay for it” after you get caught.
*I think that’s supposed to be spelled “bawling”.