Do you think the store needed to apologize?

[Cheesesteak]

@PBear42

treis, you’re right that to make an arrest the officers had to have probable cause as to each element of the offence. What you’re missing is that leaving the store without paying is (by most people’s definition) probable cause to infer intent not to pay.

Why do you say that? Theft is an offence that has 2 elements.

Taking something without paying
Intending to take something without paying

All you have established is the first element. The mere fact of the first element says nothing about the second element.

You’re taking an act (taking without paying) that can be criminal or non-criminal in nature and inferring criminality right from the start. At a minimum you have to examine both elements before deciding you have probable cause that a crime has been committed.

[Cheesesteak]

@Little_Nemo

Hopefully you will concede that Safeway might feel that the policy needs to be changed as a result of bad publicity rather than due to any actual fault in the policy.

Policies are not handed down from God, and they don’t exist to promote a Utopian lifestyle or enforce property rights. Policies exist to effectively manage the company and improve profitability.

A policy that results in horrible publicity, that makes your store look like a bunch of heartless bastards, and chases away customers nationwide is a policy that is inherently bad. That is an “actual fault in the policy”, not just a spineless executive bending to the will of bad PR.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@x-ray_vision

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.

I think you’re moving the goal posts a bit here. You refuted my claim that Safeway admitted the couple did not intentionally steal. Now you’re saying, yeah but they only admitted that for PR reasons. If we can’t take the evidence at hand, in this case Safeway’s public statements, at face value, then there’s no sense continuing a discussion of this case.

@Little_Nemo

If making these decisions on a case-by-case basis is so easy, demonstrate it for us. I provided the scenario. You tell us what decision you would make in that case.

I also said there will be shades of gray. There will, however, be cases that fall on one extreme or the other.
Extreme 1) People hiding items under their shirt sure looks like shoplifting.
Extreme 2) People eating sandwiches and neglecting to pay for them when they check out their other $50 worth of groceries sure looks like an honest mistake.

[MsWhatsit]

I would just like to digress for a moment to say that this thread makes me hungry for sandwiches.

Carry on.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@Little_Nemo

Hopefully you will concede that Safeway might feel that the policy needs to be changed as a result of bad publicity rather than due to any actual fault in the policy.

Not only would I not concede that, but I would point out that the policy may not even require a change. The quote from the Safeway rep implies that the store manager failed to follow policy.

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.

This sounds like a lack of training led to a misunderstanding. And the policy you put forth, of detaining all shoplifters no matter what, is bad for business because eventually you end up with the case at hand.

[x-ray_vision]

@tomndebb

The various news stories reported that the wrappers were in the cart as they prepared to leave the store.

The stories I read said “wrapper.” Other stories never mentioned the other sandwich. Stories that did mention both sandwiches never mention if that one was eaten or not or who ate it. All of them say the wife ate one sandwich but never mention who if anyone ate the other sandwich. There are a lot of facts we’re not getting here because we’re not getting Safeway’s side of the story or any statements from the police.

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.

Right, the “customers’ versions” of events. We don’t have anyone else’s. You may think it’s bad policy to wait until alleged shoplifters are out of the store with unpaid items, but that policy is very common.

Safeway has not merely offered an apology, but also noted that they need to address changes to their policies.

Yeah, we know. It’s a smart public relations statement after all of the outrage over a mother being without her kid. Saying that is a no-brainer. Are the police going to change 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.

Please. No one is attempting to turn this into a serious crime and it only makes sense to tell the people in this thread that claim it was handled wrong “what if” this or that happened when we have such little details of what actually happened. I don’t think anyone is saying it was handled appropriately, only that it may have been depending on what actually happened.

[x-ray_vision]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Not only would I not concede that, but I would point out that the policy may not even require a change. The quote from the Safeway rep implies that the store manager failed to follow policy.

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.

Wrong. The statement implies that it wants to change the policy on how managers are trained because Houghton says the manner in which it was no appropriate. She comes right out and says that the policy was correctly followed:

Houghton said management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police, but Safeway regrets not foreseeing that doing so would cause a child to be separated from her parents.

In other words, policy was followed but she regrets that employees didn’t use better judgement and know when to not follow policy to the letter of the law. Not acknowledging that a spokesperson making statements regarding policy to the press after getting a bunch of bad publicity because the police kept a child away from its parents may be because of that bad publicity rather than due to any actual fault in the policy is naive and/or plain stubborn.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

You infer too much. Following routine shoplifting procedure does not mean that the store’s policy is to identify any and all takers of unpaid items as shoplifters, intentional or otherwise. There may be a policy regarding the identification of intentional theft that was ignored by store management due to poor training in this case. Hence, they need to review their training methods.

[x-ray_vision]

@Barkis_is_Willin

You infer too much.

…

There may be a policy…

Who’s the one inferring too much?

There may be a policy regarding the identification of intentional theft that was ignored by store management due to poor training in this case.

Then one would not say “management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police.” One would instead say that routine shoplifting procedure was not followed since identification of intentional theft was ignored and the police should never have been called. But you can infer otherwise all you like.

[SmellMyWort]

“Safeway accepts her assurance that she simply forgot to pay.”

They did not have to include that sentence in the rest of their PR save-face statement. The rest of the stuff about regretting what happened, we’ll look at policy, train people better, etc. is all pretty standard “shit we didn’t do anything wrong but this is making us look bad” stuff, but if they really believed the couple intended to shoplift I don’t think they would have included that part. The store fucked up by not fixing the situation in the easiest way possible and instead escalated it. Screw any business that won’t give the customer the benefit of the doubt for such a small offence. Repeat offences are another matter, however.

CPS needs to examine their policy, too. In a situation when the parent is arrested but will be released immediately, CPS should just sit with the kid at the station.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@x-ray_vision

Who’s the one inferring too much?

There is a difference between inferring and speculating.

Then one would not say “management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police.” One would instead say that routine shoplifting procedure was not followed since identification of intentional theft was ignored and the police should never have been called. But you can infer otherwise all you like.

No. Shoplifting procedure = call the cops. Clearly, that happened. Thus, the procedure was followed.

What is *not *stated is whether store policy is to follow shoplifting procedure even in the obvious case of an honest mistake, which they acknowledge happened.

I’m not sure what you’re asserting here. Do you think the couple was not owed an apology because everyone was just following orders?

[x-ray_vision]

@Barkis_is_Willin

even in the obvious case of an honest mistake, which they acknowledge happened.

“Safeway accepts her assurance that she simply forgot to pay.” This is much different than acknowledging that it was obvious that a mistake was made. You see the difference, don’t you?

I’m not sure what you’re asserting here. Do you think the couple was not owed an apology because everyone was just following orders?

I think I’ve been pretty clear on this. I don’t know if they were owed an apology because I know very, very few facts about what actually happened. I don’t even know the couple’s full account of what happened not to mention the Safeway employees involved and the police.

[MsWhatsit]

@SmellMyWort

CPS needs to examine their policy, too. In a situation when the parent is arrested but will be released immediately, CPS should just sit with the kid at the station.

This sounds eminently reasonable. One of the most ridiculous things about this entire situation is that after the parents were released from the station, they went home and had to wait an entire night and most of the next morning before getting their kid back. The kid was removed because they weren’t available to take care of her for a few hours, and not because their parenting was a problem. The overnight removal seems totally unnecessary.

[x-ray_vision]

I meant to include the following in my last post:

After this part of the sentence:

"Houghton said management followed routine shoplifting procedure by contacting police,

is this:

*but Safeway regrets not foreseeing that doing so would cause a child to be separated from her parents.

“We want to do the right thing here,” Houghton said. “Families are important to us.”*

Am I still inferring too much if I claim that the spokesperson is saying people that may have shoplifted should be treated differently by the store based on whether or not kids are with them? Maybe that’s part of the policy she’s claiming she thinks should be changed after all of the bad publicity? Maybe spokespersons spout off bullshit to try to negate bad publicity? Nah, couldn’t be.

[straight_man]

@Cheesesteak

Why do you say that? Theft is an offence that has 2 elements.

Taking something without paying
Intending to take something without paying

All you have established is the first element. The mere fact of the first element says nothing about the second element.

You’re taking an act (taking without paying) that can be criminal or non-criminal in nature and inferring criminality right from the start. At a minimum you have to examine both elements before deciding you have probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Reasonable suspicion means suspicion that is reasonable. It is entirely reasonable to suspect that when someone does something, they intended to do so. You don’t know it, but it’s fairly likely.

[Little_Nemo]

@Cheesesteak

Why do you say that? Theft is an offence that has 2 elements.

Taking something without paying
Intending to take something without paying

All you have established is the first element. The mere fact of the first element says nothing about the second element.

You’re taking an act (taking without paying) that can be criminal or non-criminal in nature and inferring criminality right from the start. At a minimum you have to examine both elements before deciding you have probable cause that a crime has been committed.

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.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

I do think the store needed to apologize, and the store did apologize.

There is this thing called discretion.

Not exactly the same, but related, is when you get caught on the train without your pass. Technically, the bus cops have the right to issue you a $50 ticket, even if you say you have a pass but you forgot it. What they usually do is offer the opportunity to buy a ticket right then and get back on the train, which makes a little more sense.

But sometimes they write the ticket and don’t let the perpetrator get back on the train. So this happened to my kid once (I don’t know why they didn’t do their alternative scenario–probably he talked back, was snide, or they just didn’t like his looks). At first I was going to just mail in the $50, but when I looked at the ticket it said you had to sign it and admit you were stealing services from RTD.

Well, he didn’t have his bus pass on him because he forgot to switch to his new one, but he did HAVE one, and I had the receipt from when I bought it, which was a few days before he got the ticket (Sept. 1, since they like to do this around the 1st of the month when a lot more people have forgotten to switch their passes). So I had to make a note of when I had to show up, go down there, show up, present all my evidence, have the judge (or magistrate, or whatever he was) tell me, “But he has to have the pass on him,” and then reiterate that no, he did not have the pass on him, but he wasn’t STEALING the service, as he actually did have a pass, and I was not going to let him plead guilty to STEALING when he wasn’t.

All that was a hassle (and if they’d worded it differently, they would have been $50 ahead), which is why they usually give the option of buying a ticket instead.

Every single person I heard while waiting had the same story, with or without supporting documents. Those who had the supporting documents, which was most of them, got off. They could pretty much have canceled the whole dog & pony show and saved even more money. I’m guessing the guilty and plenty of the innocent just mail the $$ in.

[SciFiSam]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

I do think the store needed to apologize, and the store did apologize.

There is this thing called discretion.

Not exactly the same, but related, is when you get caught on the train without your pass. Technically, the bus cops have the right to issue you a $50 ticket, even if you say you have a pass but you forgot it. What they usually do is offer the opportunity to buy a ticket right then and get back on the train, which makes a little more sense.

But sometimes they write the ticket and don’t let the perpetrator get back on the train. So this happened to my kid once (I don’t know why they didn’t do their alternative scenario–probably he talked back, was snide, or they just didn’t like his looks). At first I was going to just mail in the $50, but when I looked at the ticket it said you had to sign it and admit you were stealing services from RTD.

Well, he didn’t have his bus pass on him because he forgot to switch to his new one, but he did HAVE one, and I had the receipt from when I bought it, which was a few days before he got the ticket (Sept. 1, since they like to do this around the 1st of the month when a lot more people have forgotten to switch their passes). So I had to make a note of when I had to show up, go down there, show up, present all my evidence, have the judge (or magistrate, or whatever he was) tell me, “But he has to have the pass on him,” and then reiterate that no, he did not have the pass on him, but he wasn’t STEALING the service, as he actually did have a pass, and I was not going to let him plead guilty to STEALING when he wasn’t.

All that was a hassle (and if they’d worded it differently, they would have been $50 ahead), which is why they usually give the option of buying a ticket instead.

Every single person I heard while waiting had the same story, with or without supporting documents. Those who had the supporting documents, which was most of them, got off. They could pretty much have canceled the whole dog & pony show and saved even more money. I’m guessing the guilty and plenty of the innocent just mail the $$ in.

A friend of mine recently lost his whole wallet at the train station, so couldn’t show his train ticket. The inspector assured him that he’d be OK, because he’d bought the train ticket online, so had proof of it. Turns out it’s a ‘strict liability offence’ and he’s got to go to court and pay a £350 fine. The offence is not showing the ticket, not having failed to pay for it, because they reckon someone else could have bought it, collected it at the station using his card, and used it to travel while he decided to chance it.

@Broomstick

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.

I said that it’s impossible for them to have been regular shoplifters there. It’s a small word, so you probably missed it when reading my post. Perhaps I should have written ‘at that store.’ They simply hadn’t been there long enough to be regularly trooping out with uneaten sandwiches and plausible excuses.

[Cheesesteak]

@Little_Nemo

I’m assuming nobody is disputing that the first and second elements occurred. So it comes down to an issue of intent.

No argument with the 3 way split, no argument with this assessment of the elements

And we cannot know what her intent was.

This is a problem. Intent is an essential element of theft, and many other crimes. When it comes to a trial, it’s not acceptable to say we “cannot know”, the prosecution is responsible for proving intent (and the other two elements) beyond a reasonable doubt. We would not accept “I don’t know” to either of the other two elements, why accept it for the third?

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.

This is incorrect, the police do not arrest based on fair probability, they arrest based on probable cause. Here’s a link

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause

Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed … a crime.”

You cannot throw your hands up at intent, call it unknowable, and claim that a prudent person would conclude that the suspect has committed a crime.

[doreen]

@Cheesesteak

Here’s a link You cannot throw your hands up at intent, call it unknowable, and claim that a prudent person would conclude that the suspect has committed a crime.

You don’t need to actually know the intent to have probable cause. First off, intent can be inferred from behavior - if I fire a gun at you, I can be arrested for attempted murder. Maybe I only intended to cause serious injury- the attempted murder charge can be dropped later and replaced with attempted manslaughter. Doesn’t mean the police didn’t have probable cause. Secondly - no one can ever know another person’s intent. Neither you nor or I can know what the woman’s intent was - we can only have a belief. The police apparently believed she intended to steal it . Were they correct ? I don’t know, but they don’t need to be correct to have probable cause. Based on the information in the articles, there is no way to tell. She says she saved the wrapper , it was in the cart, she didn’t notice it at the checkout and neither did the cashier. We don’t have the cashier’s version, nor the police officer’s. Maybe the wrapper only came out of her pocket after she was caught and taken to the break room. Maybe she denied eating the sandwich until the wrapper was found when she was searched upon arrest. The irony is that you are willing to conclude that the store and the police were wrong to believe she was shoplifting when there is actually less evidence for that conclusion (only her self-serving statements)

Your own link says

Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances *within the arresting officer’s knowledge *are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” (emphasis added)

and

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been.* And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears* (emphasis added).