Do you think the store needed to apologize?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@spooje

Intent is impossible to determine after that fact. As has been pointed out, a lot of shoplifters have used the ‘I just forgot to pay’ technique, and will continue. Accomplished liars can make you think they are sincere.

The store’s actions were appropriate. I don’t think an arrest needed to be made, but the store did nothing wrong. If you are going to do the ‘eat it now, pay for it later’ bit, it falls on you to follow up.

then why would they keep the wrappers instead of getting rid of any evidence they ate teh frikkign sandwiches.

[x-ray_vision]

@Damuri_Ajashi

in this case I think the proof is entirely lacking.

We’re talking about detainment and arrest here- “proof” isn’t needed. I Since you say proof is lacking, I guess you do have more facts of what transpired that you can share with the rest of us?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Let’s say that’s exactly the case. Collect $5, take their picture and post it up at the entrance with a caption that says “Banned For Life for Shoplifting.” Don’t arrest them. Or do arrest them but have the sense of mind to realize you don’t need to take their kid for 18 hours.

That’s defamation. You still have to establish intent and thats pretty hard to establish if thyey kept the sandwich wrappers in teh cart.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@SnakesCatLady

Ok, if they’re arrested, what do you want the police to do with the kid? Let it hang out in the drunk tank?

Once the parents were arrested the police had no choice other than to call CPS.

The fact of the matter is, whether they intended to pay for the sandwiches or not, they did not pay for them. It doesn’t matter if it’s $5 in sandwiches or $500 in jewelry. If you take something without paying for it it is theft.

The fact of the amtter is that intent is an absolutely necessary element of theft.

[x-ray_vision]

@Damuri_Ajashi

then why would they keep the wrappers instead of getting rid of any evidence they ate teh frikkign sandwiches.

We don’t know that both sandwiches were eaten, do we? There are many possible answers to your question. One obvious one is that ditching wrappers makes it obvious one has shoplifted if one gets caught. Leaving it in your cart and claiming “whoops, I must have mistakenly left the wrappers under my purse; I meant to pay for them” is something one may get away with if found out. But I’m just giving you one possibility out of many. I don’t have nearly enough details of what went down to surmise anything.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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!

To be fair to the cops, if you were a cop and you got a call about someone stealing $5 worth of sandwiches, you might take your time getting there too.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@straight_man

Okay, I’ll live with that. It does strike me as odd that the prosecution would have to demonstrate something so plainly indemonstrable, though.

My dad used to own a supermarket in a rough aprt of town. Folks would shove stuff down tehir pants. Intent was pretty fucking easy to prove. If the facts and circumstances surrounding this case were different (the alleged shoplifter threw away the sandwich wrapper), then I could see how you could get to intent.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

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.

Stealing has an intent requirement. Its not a quirky Hawaii thing.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

The police officer doesn’t have to prove anything to the judge.

When he’s sued for wrongful arrest he might have to.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@doreen

You know , I’m not willing to say that either the store or the officer should have used more discretion and arrived at a better outcome. Maybe they should have or maybe they shouldn’t have- there’s just no way to know. We have a one-sided story, and she is surely painting herself in the best light possible.

We are getting both sides of the story. the supermarket’s side is that they fucked up and they are sorry.

[x-ray_vision]

@Damuri_Ajashi

When he’s sued for wrongful arrest he might have to.

Okay, you just found this thread and you’re excited to post replies. How about skipping some posts that have already been addressed, especially when you’re just going to post a non-sequitor?

We are getting both sides of the story. the supermarket’s side is that they fucked up and they are sorry.

The reason for their sorrow (according to one spokesperson) has also been addressed.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@x-ray_vision

I read it. I’m not playing any semantics game. I directly quoted you. Twice. I’ll do it a third time. In regard to being arrested you said:

“You need to prove that she intended to leave without paying for the sandwich.”

A police officer does not need to do that in order to arrest.

Do I really need to keep going over the conversation I’m having with you?

He still needs to reasonably believe that there was intent. I suppose he could ignore the wrapper in the shopping cart or he could have issued a summons or he could have arrested one parent so the other parent could go home with the child but no he believed it was necessary to arrest both parents and send the child to CPS.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

Let’s just call it the legal thing-a-ma-bob for conviction and the legal thing-a-ma-bob for arrest so we don’t have to debate whether grounds or standards is the correct term. That set, we apparently both agree that arrest and conviction have differing legal thing-a-ma-bobs.
That depends on what you mean by establishes. Do you mean establishes with a fair probability (which is all that is required for an arrest)? If so, then I’d say the fact that she stole the sandwich establishes with a fair probability that she intended to steal the sandwich. It doesn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but that’s a decision for a judge and/or jury to make.

The "fact taht she stole teh sandwiches establishes a fair probability taht the intended to steal the sandwiches? Stealing has an intent requirement. The ONLY facts in evidence are:

She ate the sandwiches,
She left the wrapper in the cart,
She left the store without paying for the sandwiches.

From that you gather that there is a reasonable cause to believe that she intended to steal those sandwiches? What other damning facts exist here?

[x-ray_vision]

@Damuri_Ajashi

He still needs to reasonably believe that there was intent. I suppose he could ignore the wrapper in the shopping cart or he could have issued a summons or he could have arrested one parent so the other parent could go home with the child but no he believed it was necessary to arrest both parents and send the child to CPS.

Damuri Ajashi, I’m not going to rehash arguments that I and others already made because you decided to get involved and apparently plan on respond to a substantial number of posts that have thoroughly been discussed.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Waenara

Why is this such a strange concept for you? The amount of evidence required for police make an arrest is lower than the amount of evidence required to get a criminal conviction. In what way is that difficult to understand?

The police can arrest someone based on probable cause. Probable cause just means that, looking at the information available to them, it’s probable that shoplifting occurred. A criminal conviction needs to pass a higher hurdle - beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because any particular case fails to get a conviction does not mean that the police were wrong to arrest them in the first place.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding that even this low threshhold of probable cause has not been met.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

I think that is the correct policy. If they have a wrapper in the cart then you assume they intended to pay for it. If they shove the wrapper behind the Cheerios in the cereal aisle, you assume they did not.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Little_Nemo

And repeating the question I’ve asked already, suppose the person who had the sirloin hidden in their coat pocket also had their kid with them. What do you do then? If you call the police, they’ll call CPS to take the kid while they book the parent. So do you let the steaklifter go in order to avoid separating parent and child?

If you change the facts then you can reach different results. The intent of a person who shoves meat in their pocket is a lot clearer.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

Folks seem to be saying that cops can ignore the intent requirement in establishing probable cause.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Barkis_is_Willin

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.

The argument seems to be not only that the couple is lying when they say is was a mistake, the argument is also that Safeway is lying when they say their policy is fucked up and when they try to blame the police.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That’s defamation. You still have to establish intent and thats pretty hard to establish if thyey kept the sandwich wrappers in teh cart.

Hmm, could they just say “banned for life?” Because I have seen a grocery store do exactly what I suggested for exactly the same reason, that is, presumed shoplifting.