Hum, so the anti-shoplifting patrol sees the woman eat the sandwich, doesn’t say anything to her, and then waits for her to forget to pay for it so they can nab for shoplifting. Sounds like we got a real crime-fighter on our hands here.:rolleyes: I think eating food in the store before paying is trashy, but why not instruct security to tell people not to and remind them to make sure they pay for it.
The article isn’t clear on whether both of them ate a sandwich or if it was just her. If it was only her then it’s rediculous that they were both arrested, which then required calling child services.
Do you have a cite for this outside of your own personal experience? When someone shouts Gypsy most Americans think of the stereotypical old fortune teller warning Mr. Talbot that he’s cursed rather than anything resembling a real Roma. Heck, say “Roma” to most Americans and you’ll probably get a “huh?” in return.
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.
Well, I might, but that’s because when I moved to my current residence the house next door was occupied by a Roma family. We do have them in the US, you know, they just blend in more in what with all the other minorities we have running around the place.
How do you know this couple aren’t regular shoplifters? Do you think “regular shoplifters” have something like THIEF branded across their foreheads or something?
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.
That’s the bottom line for me, too. Actions have consequences; in this case, they were big consequences for a small thing forgotten, but no one is at fault here except the couple who forgot to pay.
My mother-in-law works at Wal-Mart, and she tells me that self-check-outs are taken out of stores (or not put in stores) because of the incredibly high level of theft with them. People are stealing from stores like Safeway all the friggin’ time - I have zero problem with them prosecuting shoplifters who get caught like this couple.
They could be. People do dumb things, and shoplifters aren’t exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.
People also do dumb things completely innocently, like me forgetting that I have a pineapple, right in front of my dopey face, while checking out $150 worth of other stuff.
I take from my own experience, forgetting something that was right in my shopping cart, while out with my wife and child, and feel horrified that folks here think I and my wife should have been arrested and my child taken away by strangers for shoplifting a $2.99 pineapple.
Yeah, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the “HOLD THE LINE AGAINST SHOPLIFTERS NO MATTER WHAT TO KEEP MY PRICES LOW!” brigade here. You know what? Even if these people really were serial $5 shoplifters, inflicting their sandwich thievery on supermarkets up and down the Pacific coast, I still think that taking their kid away from them overnight for what could very plausibly be an oversight is a ridiculous overreaction.
I’d rather the supermarkets I shop in employ managers and security staff that are capable of using common sense, rather than ones that are going to arrest me and remove my child from my custody if we accidentally miss paying for one small item out of a large grocery shopping trip.
Weighing in from multiple small towns and small cities across SC - eating in stores is pretty damn common around here.
It’s considered a little trashy or low-class, but it’s not discouraged anywhere I’ve ever shopped.
Personally, I have grabbed anything from a coke or a candy bar at the check-out “impulse racks” to an actual deli cheese tray or pre-cut apple slices from the deli section when I’ve needed something to keep my stomach from trying to throttle me while I get my shopping done.
Before all the sanctimonious people get bent out of shape, I will repeat that there has never been any store which suggested that I needed to pay first, or to refrain from snacking while I shopped. (I ask before I take, always.)
I would also like to point out that while shopping and eating at the same time (especially eating junk) isn’t optimal, sometimes the day progresses in such a way that you get to choose whether you’re going shopping or you’re eating a meal, and when the shopping is important, the meal falls by the wayside, and you still gotta eat something.
I would say that the store does not OWE the family an apology. They did shoplift, even if I do believe it was unintentional. I do think that this was a total clusterfuck caused by reliance (justified or not, I don’t know enough about that area to judge) on zero-tolerance policies. I really don’t think the family should sue, because there isn’t anything to sue for - everything was done according to Hoyle. It just ended up that doing things by rote policy created a serious trauma to that one family.
exactly - and my comment was meant to show that - clearly I’m not being very clear today.
I have no idea what the sandwich couple’s intent or history is.
I do know some of the many techniques employed by shoplifters are.
The actions of the store and police are exactly what they should have been, given our ‘zero tolerance’ mindset these days - they all acted appropriately given what facts we know.
what we do not know is if the couple were given an opportunity to correct their actions before leaving the store - back when i worked retail*, one of our instructions in seeing something like this was to give the suspect every opportunity to correct - “sir, were you going to pay for that item you stored in your coat pocket while browsing” - and only if after refusal or they left the premises were we to call anyone else about it. (which, of course, was way to late to do much, but the point was to assume innocence, not guilt).
I do have an issue with the current ‘zero tolerance’ mindset - but thats something for a different thread.
*mid 80s, so a long freaking time ago, things have changed, I know - now get off my lawn!
The store blew it and management recognizes that. Whether or not they have a policy of prosecuting shoplifters, this sort of event cannot be THAT rare and their policy needs to be changed. To avoid charges of prejudiced behavior, they need only make the rules fit the events: Customer expresses remorse and immediately offers to pay, no further action; customer denies having taken item, call the cops.
(If the couple goes ahead with a lawsuit, of course, as the retailer, I would be tempted to go forward with the shoplifting charge. Otherwise, an apology and a bouquet or a nominal gift certificate should be sufficient–along with serious changes in current procedures.)
I agree, but just like they thought it was in their corporate best interest to have a zero-tolerance policy, they thought it was in their corporate best interest to apologize.
As others have pointed out, some stores allow people to eat stuff in the store. So until they began walking out without paying for the sandwiches no crime had occurred.
Does that indicate the store was wrong or does it just mean they don’t want any negative publicity and figure the losses through shoplifting aren’t worth it?
Maybe a nice card saying “Thanks for stealing from us”.
Let me adjust this situation just a touch. Suppose the couple had been arrested and they freely admitted they had eaten those sandwiches with no intention of paying for them. They were planning on doing some shoplifting when they got out of bed that morning and they had the whole plan worked out.
But they still had their daughter with them. Would people still feel the couple shouldn’t be arrested? In this case, the only issue is CWS taking the child while they’re being booked.
It means that the store initiated a policy without thinking it through and management realizes, now, that their policy needs to be adjusted.
In the unlikely event that a middle class couple actually plans their day around stealing a pair of two-and-a-half dollar sandwiches, the store has every right to go after them, (in some manner). Since that is unlikely in the extreme, it really has no bearing on the event under discussion.
I am not sure that “arrest” for a five dollar theft is in anyone’s interest, but I would have to see the appropriate statutes or odinances in the jurisdiction in qustion before I decided how any specific event should be handled. If they were attempting an actual felony, (stealing a TV, for example), I doubt that there would have been any outrage at their arreest or their daughter’s removal. I don’t see any way to make this situation more “reasonable” without substantially changing the facts.
More likely a “fuck you, I’m sensitive about my weight and I’m working on it” comment in return.