Do you think the store needed to apologize?

[bengangmo]

@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.

Here’s a question for you - does the “required probability” for arrest change with the nature / seriousness of the crime?

i.e - is the probability needed to arrest somebody for murder different to that for shop lifting?

[NikkiPH725]

If it is terrible neccessary to arrest somebody over such a small amount… then why not arrest just the mother, the one eating the sandwich, so the father can take the child home.

Seems like severe overkill and unless the store will appologize for sheer stupidity, I don’t think it matters much.

[cosmosdan]

@shijinn

except it isn’t in this case. treating your customers like criminals doesn’t make good business sense. yes, you want to eat in the store, you’re responsible for remembering to pay. still, draconian measures are

And if it is the case what do you expect shoplifters to say?

“Oh shoot, I do this all the time and this time you caught me”

Stores usually have policies in place for a reason. A problem has gotten to the point that it needs to be addressed and unfortunately that makes for inconvenience for honest customers.

{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}

I think it’s unfortunate that the couple got arrested for it and what happened to the little girl but believe me, people will use kids for cover when shoplifting and they cry how mean people are.

I think if the store had no evidence of them being repeat offenders then allow them to pay for it and warn them to be more careful without apologizing. As the OP said, intentional or not, they did shop lift.

I’ve forgotten before and walked out holding a small item in plain view in my hand without anyone noticing. I walked back in and paid for it. I drove off from my regular gas station without paying before but they recognized me and just had me pay.

No need to assume the worst of everyone but let’s not be naive either. There are a lot of petty thieves out there.

[cosmosdan]

@Little_Nemo

Keep in mind they had already checked out and were leaving the store.

And I’m very surprised that the stores you worked in took such a casual attitude towards shoplifting. What was your store’s policy? Did they pretty much just accept shoplifting as a cost of doing business? Did they establish a ceiling on how much could be taken before it the police were called? Or did the managers decide on a case-by-case basis whether the people involved looked “shifty” or not?

My question is when did the store realize they had a sandwich they hadn’t paid for. Who rang them up without asking about a wrapper, or who pointed it out after they left the store.

We had an issue with parents giving their kids things to play with and then laying them down with no intention of paying for them after the kid had broken it or opened a package etc. It still amazes me that so many parents now don’t realize that store merchandise is not there to amuse and entertain your kids. It’s for sale, and if your kids make it unsellable , you bought it.

[cosmosdan]

@treis

Because she overlooked it? How many anecdotes do you need of people doing essentially the same thing before you at least acknowledge the possibility?

Sure, that’s entirely possible. It’s also possible she does that sort of thing all the time , and this time she got caught. Of course she said she forgot and intended to pay for it.

The problem is stores deal with chronic behavior that costs them money and have to address it with policy, but I do agree that any smart business would have to allow for an honest mistake.

[boytyperanma]

@NikkiPH725

then why not arrest just the mother, the one eating the sandwich, so the father can take the child home.

Two sandwiches went unpaid for. It’s unclear what happened to the second one. The assumption is the husband also ate a sandwich.

[Little_Nemo]

@cosmosdan

My question is when did the store realize they had a sandwich they hadn’t paid for. Who rang them up without asking about a wrapper, or who pointed it out after they left the store.

I don’t know. I’ve read several different accounts of this story and none of them describe specifically where the wrappers were - in the cart, in somebody’s hand, in somebody’s pocket, or somewhere else.

I also don’t know what happened to the second sandwich. I have read that two sandwiches were eaten. And I have read that Nicole Leszczynski ate a sandwich. But none of the stories I’ve read specify who ate the second sandwich. I’m speculating that Marcin Leszczynski ate it but I’m basing that mostly on the fact that both of them were originally charged.

[cosmosdan]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t know. I’ve read several different accounts of this story and none of them describe specifically where the wrappers were - in the cart, in somebody’s hand, in somebody’s pocket, or somewhere else.

I also don’t know what happened to the second sandwich. I have read that two sandwiches were eaten. And I have read that Nicole Leszczynski ate a sandwich. But none of the stories I’ve read specify who ate the second sandwich. I’m speculating that Marcin Leszczynski ate it but I’m basing that mostly on the fact that both of them were originally charged.

It’s relatively easy to write the story to make the store look stupid but we need more details. There was a known shoplifter at Sears that was clever enough to get herself arrested when she wasn’t shoplifting and then sued the store.

OTOH, a bad manager at a Wal MArt detained a young man and his parent because he thought the adolescent boy was on their “not allowed in the store” list of habitual shoplifters. Turns out he had the wrong boy and they got sued.

IMO, based on years in retail, unless you recognize the customer as a habitual offender you give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to pay. You make a note, or maybe print their picture from security cameras you might have and date it.Most stores can’t afford full time security and shop lifters , even petty ones are very frustrating. I guess the wisest thing is to do what you are able to do and let the rest go as part of doing business. Sometimes it’s hard not to take it a little personal when you work there.
One thing I like about working for a small independent store is you have a little more leeway in dealing with people. No Corporate office for them to lie to when they complain. You can look them in the eye and tell them not to come back.

[LurkerInNJ]

@villa

I do it all the time - with a soda. I shop pretty much always on Sundays with a hangover usually. I find the caffeine in my Diet Dew makes me a much less cranky person. The first time I did it I asked a store employee if there was a problem and he said there wasn’t. So now I do it most of the times I am in the store.

I do it all the time too. The only policy my store has on this is that you not eat salad bar items before paying for them because the cost is by the pound, and if you already ate it, obviously they can’t weigh it. Anything else, as long as you pay for it, no problem.

[perfectparanoia]

@boytyperanma

Two sandwiches went unpaid for. It’s unclear what happened to the second one. The assumption is the husband also ate a sandwich.

So what? I am sorry but if your idea of a fair and just society means taking a child away overnight if their parents stole and item who’s worth is under 10 dollars, I am scared for the future.

Legal or not the actions were immoral and unjust.

[treis]

@cosmosdan

Sure, that’s entirely possible. It’s also possible she does that sort of thing all the time , and this time she got caught. Of course she said she forgot and intended to pay for it.

The problem is stores deal with chronic behavior that costs them money and have to address it with policy, but I do agree that any smart business would have to allow for an honest mistake.

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.

[Little_Nemo]

@cosmosdan

IMO, based on years in retail, unless you recognize the customer as a habitual offender you give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to pay. You make a note, or maybe print their picture from security cameras you might have and date it. Most stores can’t afford full time security and shop lifters , even petty ones are very frustrating. I guess the wisest thing is to do what you are able to do and let the rest go as part of doing business. Sometimes it’s hard not to take it a little personal when you work there.

One thing I like about working for a small independent store is you have a little more leeway in dealing with people. No Corporate office for them to lie to when they complain. You can look them in the eye and tell them not to come back.

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).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

Story here.
…
Obviously it was unfortunate that the girl had to be separated from her parents. But do we want to say that anyone who brings a child along is immune from being arrested?

In cases like this, yes.

I have on occasion started to walk away from the register before paying for the groceries or gotten to the parking lot before I realized that my kid was holding a pack of gum that I didn’t pay for.

The police should never have arrested them and the store should never have called the cops.

I hope they own the honolulu safeway after the lawsuit.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@not_what_you_d_expect

I think it’s unfortunate that it escalated to the point that the child was taken away, but I don’t think Safeway did anything wrong. At least from the little we know.

I’m sure that “oops, we meant to pay” is a pretty common excuse they must hear all the time.

And its probably true almost all the time.

[Little_Nemo]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The police should never have arrested them and the store should never have called the cops.

I hope they own the honolulu safeway after the lawsuit.

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.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@The_Man_In_Black

If she left without paying, she shoplifted. I do not understand how she hopes to have any standing to file a suit against the store.

Because leaving without paying is not necessarily shoplifting.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t see how an “offer to pay if you get caught” policy is going to work to discourage shoplifting. A shoplifter will just try to steal as much as he thinks he can get away with. If he succeeds, he got the stuff free. If he fails, he just pays what he should have paid in the first place and then tries again tomorrow.

I also understand why a store is going to set a universal policy on how all shoplifters will be treated. If you allow the manager to use his discretion you’re going to have complaints about who he decides to let go and who he decides to press charges against. It’s better to treat every shoplifter who’s caught equally.

Oh fer crissake, this is a sandwich you ate while shopping, not a bunch of steaks you shoved down your pants. The intent is MUCH MUCH clearer in one case than in the other.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@simster

Problem here (and reality of the 5$ sandwich aside) - a common tactic of shoplifters is to pay for a few small/normal/cheap items and ‘forget’ about the expensive doodad in the pocket or purse (that they only put there because they ran out of hands).

I think the cops went overboard - but they too have procedures to follow - thats the problem in a ‘zero tolerance’ society that we have built these days - no one thinks - they all follow the ‘rule’ to prevent any kind of potential suit, and we end up with this kind of crap taking up resources.

Its a frikking sandwich, not an LED lightbulb.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@pinqy

But this couple did NOT pay, so any talk of intent is irrelevant. And since only one sandwich was eaten, why wasn’t the other sandwich paid for?

Your link is also for Illinois laws. Looking at Hawaii law 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.

You would make a horrible lawyer. You don’t get to meet a few elements of a crime and call someone a crimnial. the intent requirement in both cases is soemthing you must prove. in this case I think the proof is entirely lacking.

[x-ray_vision]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Because leaving without paying is not necessarily shoplifting.

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?

Oh fer crissake, this is a sandwich you ate while shopping, not a bunch of steaks you shoved down your pants. The intent is MUCH MUCH clearer in one case than in the other.

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?