There is evidence. A shop keeper is stating that she stole from them. That is all the evidence needed to arrest someone in almost any jurisdiction.
Please stop claiming there is no evidence, because there is. It may not be the evidence you personally need to convict but it is evidence of a crime and usable in a court.
I’ve been involved in many cases of shop lifting. People showing up with children and shoplifting is hardly far fetched. People stealing items of lesser value while purchasing other items happens all the time.
It seems to me this ladies story wasn’t that believable at first. We’ve covered that both store employees and police officers are not mindless automatons. In both cases the loss prevention and the responding officer chose not to exercise discretion on her part. They chose to pursue this incident at the time it occurred. I think a more plausible scenario is this lady was either hostile or did not appear genuine, so they chose to treat it as a crime. After the fact she had more time to compose the story in a way that presents her as a poor misunderstood victim. Safeway just looking to get it out of the press issues an apology so it can get on with there business.
Should she have paid for the sandwich. Yes
Could the LP have used more discretion and come to a better outcome. I tend to think so.
Could the arresting officer have used more discretion and come to a better outcome. Yes I think an arrest over a 5 dollar outcome is a bit ridiculous.
Of those three things however, the only one required of anybody is she pay for her fucking sandwich. So shame on all three but more shame for her.
You are correct that the cop is not some mindless automation that must arrest anyone accused of a crime. He looked at the situation and surmissed that this woman and her husband may have been overentitled brats that committed a pretty crime possible out of laziness or maybe just for a cheap thrill. He arrested them based on his or her experience with shoplifters.
I thinking the police officer probably didn’t do a lot of pondering on the couple’s ethnic background or socio-economic class. I’m guessing the investigation went more like this:
“Did you eat a couple of sandwiches while you were in the store?”
“Yes.”
“And did you pay for them before you left the store?”
“No.”
“Well, at this point I have reasonable grounds to say you stole those sandwiches.”
Traffic infractions are misdemeanors here and in several other states. There is absolutely no reason that a citation cannot be issued for a $5 shoplifting charge, even if the shit for brains manager wanted to push it. There is no reason the police couldn’t have investigated and forwarded their findings to the DA for further action. Pretty much anything but a full custodial arrest with the result being a child sent to CPS for 18 hours. This is the height of law enforcement stupidity.
I can’t believe that so many posters are defending the actions of those involved. I’m sure that good citizens of Hawaii, Safeway, the child, and the justice system are all better off that these scofflaws have been caught in their heinous crime.
What difference does this make? I’m sure plenty of people have no problem stealing a sandwich on top of the groceries they paid for. This probably was an honest mistake, but I have no doubt that this sort of theft isn’t uncommon.
I tend to think that the store should’ve given them the benefit of the doubt here, but this is hardly in “insane overreaction”. Their story is plausible, but I’m sure the store has had losses from similar instances where the theft was intentional…because:
This.
Or a couple thinking “Hey, we’ve paid for fifty, they won’t notice the sandwich.” The “they paid for $50 worth of groceries” defense sucks.
Or, the “anti-shoplifting patrol” sees them eat a sandwich, assumes they will pay, but notices they didn’t and thinks that just maybe they never intended to. Why should they assume otherwise?
People eat in the store AND pay for it all the time.
I’m sure people eat in the store and DON’T pay for it plenty too.
It’s entirely plausible that the couple just plain forgot.
If it’s my call, I give them the opportunity to pay, but…
I bet stores have plenty of loss because of people who do this intentionally, so reacting the way they did is not unreasonable.
Unless they’re incredibly naive, a customer doing this really should realize that #2 happens enough that they risk being accused of the same (unless you get permission as villa has). And if you really can’t wait to eat until paying, you’re really going to look suspicious when you go through checkout and forget to pay for what you’ve already consumed.
The kid being taken away is a distraction and a play on emotions. The cops had no choice (the next person who brings this up as an attack on the store/manger/cops deserves a pitting).
I think the manager overreacted a bit. But I have no sympathy for the couple. What they did was stupid. And if they’re seriously going to sue, fuck 'em. They brought this on themselves.
That isn’t evidence proving all aspects of the crime. You need to prove that she intended to leave without paying for the sandwich. She is innocent until proven guilty, and the default presumption must be that she simply forgot to pay. Evidence must be presented to support that. The fact that she didn’t pay isn’t evidence. Well, at least it isn’t good evidence. If you ask your wife to pick up milk on the way home, and she comes home without it. Would you point to that as evidence that she intended to not get milk? No, the far more likely conclusion is that she forgot.
Q: What happens when you call the cops on two parents for ‘shoplifting’?
A: They are arrested.
He knew that would happen. If a manager didn’t know, he’s a couple yellows short of a full 64.
The fact that the manager couldn’t distinguish between a very likely case of absentmindedness by a pregnant mom (surprised no one brought up her military career yet) with a young child and, over the course of four hours, it didn’t occur to him he was overreacting, yeah. What a friggin’ moron. If the fact she was eating before paying was a big deal in HI, then someone should’ve said to her, Hey miss, you have to pay for that first. What she did was NO DIFFERENT than the other poster forgetting to pay for a pineapple!
No, a police officer does not need to prove that in order to arrest. Who is he supposed to prove it to?
It must be? In order to arrest? In order for a judge or jury to find her innocent? Is this the presumption that must be made every time someone attempts to casually walk out of a store with unpaid items?
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.
You’re confusing grounds for conviction with grounds for arrest. All the police have to do is show that they have probable cause that a person committed a crime in order to arrest them.
He needs to have probable cause to arrest someone. So I suppose he needs to first prove it to himself. And then prove it to the judge, and perhaps then to a jury when he is sued for wrongful arrest.
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock of our legal system. Defendants are never found innocent. They are found not guilty.
The grounds for conviction and arrest are exactly the same. Namely, that the person has committed a crime. The only difference is the standard to which those grounds must be proven. For arrest, it’s reasonableness, and for conviction it is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And even for conviction, circumstantial evidence is admissible. Otherwise no one could ever be convicted of most thefts - people rarely tell others " I intend to beat the subway fare" , or “I’m stealing this tool by hiding it in the garbage can I’m buying”
Conviction is behind a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So tell me treis, when exactly in your opinion can someone be arrested for failing to pay for items in a pocket, or consumed in a store or even a restaurant. Are store owners , restaurant owners and police required to take at face value every person who says " I forgot to pay before I walked out of the restaurant" or " I forgot that I put that item in my pocket when I was paying for the rest of my purchases." ? Why even have larceny laws on the books in that case?
“You need to prove that she intended to leave without paying for the sandwich.”
Wrong. A police officer does not need to prove that in order to arrest.
You don’t actually think someone that casually walks out of a store with unpaid items is going to successfully sue a police officer for arresting him/her because the officer did so without “proof”, do you?
You said:
“She is innocent until proven guilty, and the default presumption must be that she simply forgot to pay.”
Are you saying that the police officer must assume that and not arrest her? Are you saying that that presumption must be made by a judge every time someone attempts to casually walk out of a store with unpaid items?
(1) A shopper has a box of detergent in the bottom of her cart. She pays for the rest of her groceries, but does not place the detergent on the checkout. She walks outside without paying.
(2) A shopper has a box of perfume shoved down her pants. She pays for the rest of her groceries, but does not place the perfume on the checkout. She walks outside without paying.
The police officer needs to have reasonable cause to believe she intended to leave without paying. This is basic legal theory. All elements of a crime must be present in order for there to be a crime.
No. But I fail to see how this fact has anything to do with anything.
He must presume she is innocent of a crime until shown evidence otherwise.
I would also like to point out that it would have been much, much, much easier for this couple to simply dispose of the wrappers elsewhere in the store if they really intended to eat the sandwiches without paying.
It seems to me if the intent was to pay for the sandwiches they would have put the wrappers in their basket. At which point it would be kinda of hard to ‘forget’ about them. This couple each consumed a sandwich. it wasn’t just one ‘flighty pregnant women in pains of hunger scarfing down a need meal’ her husband also ate a sandwich and ‘forgot’ to pay for it.
I’ve tried to find a police report associated with this story and have been unsuccessful. I think the placement of the wrappers is important to determine the intent of crime.
I’ve never seen anyone arrested for petty theft. The only time I’ve seen people arrested for shoplifting it was felony theft or the police had other reasons to arrest such as outstanding warrants or failure to follow lawful orders(not cooperating with the responding officer.) Usually the police take down all necessary information to file a report and escort the person off the property. To say the manager should have known the police would arrest both and send the kid to protective services is really a leap.