Do you think the store needed to apologize?

[Waenara]

@treis

You’re begging the question.

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.

[treis]

@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.

This is a complete non sequitur.

[boytyperanma]

@treis

What? That’s absurd. All the statutes talk about intent to take without paying. Unless you can prove they did not intend to pay, no crime was committed. And it’s up to you and the police to do so. Y’Know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

No, intent is relevant at all points. If the police found no reasonable cause to believe she intended to steal, then they should not have arrested her. The laws are very clear on this. No intent means no crime.

Innocent until proven guilty yet the police officer is guilty of unlawfully arresting them?

[treis]

@boytyperanma

Innocent until proven guilty yet the police officer is guilty of unlawfully arresting them?

Yeah, cause that’s exactly what I said…

[Banquet_Bear]

@treis

What, precisely, is your objection to that statement?

…his problem is this statement:

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

Police did not need to prove intent, what on earth makes you think that they do?

[treis]

@Banquet_Bear

…his problem is this statement:

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

Police did not need to prove intent, what on earth makes you think that they do?

Because it’s part of the statute:

(1) Obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property. A person obtains, or exerts control over, the property of another with **intent to deprive the other of the property. **

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/shoplifting-laws/hawaii-shoplifting-laws.html

In order for the police to arrest someone, they need to have probable cause. That means they have to reasonably believe that all parts of the crime are satisfied, and intent is part of the crime.

[Little_Nemo]

@treis

You’re begging the question.

No, I’m not. I’d be begging the question if I was establishing my own rule and then applying it. But I’m not. I’m applying the rules that have been set by the courts.

[Little_Nemo]

@treis

Because it’s part of the statute:

In order for the police to arrest someone, they need to have probable cause. That means they have to reasonably believe that all parts of the crime are satisfied, and intent is part of the crime.

Proving intent is necessary for a conviction (in Hawaii). But proving intent is not necessary for an arrest.

All the police need to do for an arrest is establish that it was reasonably possible that the woman intended to steal the sandwich.

[Farmer_Jane]

@shijinn

according to http://www.hawaiireporter.com/safeway-apologizes-drops-shoplifting-charges-against-couple-but-sting-still-lingers-and-media-attention-is-on-the-rise/123, it was in the cart.

and for what possible reasons did the store detain them for four hours?!

Agreed. That story makes the situation much worse imho. They were treated HORRIBLY.

Once Nicole, Marcin and Zofia were three feet out the door, they stopped to organize the groceries so they could get on the bus and go home. It was around 7 p.m. But the security guard stopped them and asked if they had a receipt for the sandwiches. Once they realized they had paid for everything but the sandwiches, they asked to go back into the store and pay the $2.5o for each. But instead, they were escorted upstairs with their toddler to the employee break room where they waited for another 4 hours for police to arrive. During that time, employees milled in and out of the break room and sat at a table with the family, eating their dinner without ever looking up, even though Nicole was “balling her eyes out.”

She said she kept calm for her daughter’s sake - and tried to keep her daughter entertained - until the police told the couple that the store was pressing charges, that they were going to be arrested and that their daughter would be picked up by Child Protective Services until the situation was resolved. When Zofia was escorted down the stairs and out of the store by a child welfare representative, Nicole says she “lost it.”

During that time, and as the situation kept escalating, two police, two security guards and the manager just stood there and looked at her saying nothing, Nicole said. She wondered how far it would go. They found out soon enough.

Nicole and Marcin were arrested, spent about an hour in jail, and were released around midnight on $50 bail. They had signed a 2-page form that Safeway gave them promising not to return to any Safeway for a year, so they could not pick up their groceries without a police escort.

Then the article goes on to say how she kept calling child protective services for hours and went down to the office and got no help. It was because of a reporter they got their daughter back.

[Banquet_Bear]

@treis

Because it’s part of the statute:

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/shoplifting-laws/hawaii-shoplifting-laws.html

In order for the police to arrest someone, they need to have probable cause. That means they have to reasonably believe that all parts of the crime are satisfied, and intent is part of the crime.

…I just searched the document and couldn’t find the words probable cause, can you point out where it says that? Assuming that what you say is true, what evidence do you have that the police didn’t have probable cause before making an arrest? Have you read the arrest report?

Can you point out where it says police need to prove intent before making an arrest?

[Cheesesteak]

@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.

Sigh… New York Penal Code

@New York Penal Code

S 155.05 Larceny; defined.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
   deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
   a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
   from an owner thereof.

Notice the word intent? Right there in the first definition of larceny. Intent. It’s not some weird quirk of hawaiian law, it’s the basic concept of mens rea which has been around forever.

Can we put away this idiotic concept that intent doesn’t matter in regards to theft/larceny/stealing/shoplifting? It does matter, it has always mattered. A person who walks out of a store not realizing they didn’t pay for something is NOT a thief in the eyes of the law, and did not commit any crime. The police shouldn’t arrest people if a crime hasn’t been committed, and intent is a necessary component of the crime.

[not_what_you_d_expect]

@CitizenPained

Agreed. That story makes the situation much worse imho. They were treated HORRIBLY.

Then the article goes on to say how she kept calling child protective services for hours and went down to the office and got no help. It was because of a reporter they got their daughter back.

This story seems to say both that Nicole was balling (bawling) her eyes out and that she kept calm and entertained her daughter. It is not a well written article IMO. No offense, but I don’t think it is helping your case.

[doreen]

@shijinn

according to http://www.hawaiireporter.com/safeway-apologizes-drops-shoplifting-charges-against-couple-but-sting-still-lingers-and-media-attention-is-on-the-rise/123, it was in the cart.

OK, now we know she says in was in the cart. Still unlikely that it was as obvious as a pineapple, and I suspect the store personnel have a different version.

[Acsenray]

@CaveMike

I doubt that the stores have these cup holders for outside drinks only.

They’re for beverages that have already been paid for. Many supermarkets these days have coffee vending machines and other things near the door.

[Broomstick]

@MsWhatsit

Does Home Depot sell a lot of $2.50 sandwiches?

My local Home Depot actually does sell food - snack type stuff, and hot dogs near the entrance. Hell, yes, occasionally people take without paying.

[pinqy]

@treis

The standard for probable cause is a reasonable belief someone has committed a crime. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that this lady intended to steal the sandwich.

That the sandwich was stolen is probable cause. Whether or not there was intent to steal is an issue for the courts, not the arresting officer. Pretty much every shoplifter claims s/he just forgot to pay.

[MsWhatsit]

@Broomstick

My local Home Depot actually does sell food - snack type stuff, and hot dogs near the entrance. Hell, yes, occasionally people take without paying.

Do you work there? Have you seen this happen? How do you know this? What are the circumstances under which this theft happens? Do people tend to leave the food wrappers in their carts and then walk out without paying?

[Cheesesteak]

@pinqy

Whether or not there was intent to steal is an issue for the courts, not the arresting officer.

No. Whether or not there was intent is a key point in determining whether or not a crime occurred in the first place. It’s in the definition of the crime, every bit as much as the actual taking of a thing. If there was no intent to take the sandwiches without paying, then the sandwiches (by definition) were not stolen.

Police officers are not required to make an arrest every time someone alleges a crime, they should use their discretion in first determining whether or not a crime has been committed in the first place.

[Hogfather65]

@MsWhatsit

It just seemed to me that perhaps the type of item a customer would tend to try to steal from Home Depot would probably be quite a bit larger and more difficult to conceal than, say, a sandwich wrapper.

I think that the problem of employees taking soda that they didn’t pay for is a lot different from store customers failing to pay for one item out of an entire cart full of groceries. Particularly considering that, as has now been pointed out, the wrapper was right there in the cart. I feel like you are really bending over backwards to make it seem plausible that these two people could have been deliberately intending to shoplift $5 of sandwiches from the store. They ate the sandwiches, they put the wrapper in the cart, it was a hectic day (they got lost on the bus, they had their toddler with them, the wife was pregnant and feeling light-headed anyway), they forgot to pay. I find this a lot more plausible than “they intended to steal the sandwiches and craftily hid the wrappers in plain view in their shopping cart so that later on when prosecuted for this $5 crime they could claim plausible deniability and get away with their master scheme.”

i agree - I stated earlier that they empty the cart and must have seen the only thing left - the rapper - they ignored it and that is intent - they may have intended to pay but at the point they ignored the only thing in the cart the intent changed - Thieft.

If they had a full pack of sandwichs in the cart and took everything else out of the cart and left the sandwichs in and walked out would that be different from leaving a rapper they put in the cart knowing full well it could be mistaken for rubbish - sorry someone else left it in there - I never noticed it before I started to use the cart would work just as well.

Also - Hate how people say what if they where black or such - sorry every colour of person should be treated the same - and same for pregnant women or ones with kids or you will suddenly have shoplifters and other thieves with kids in toe or pregnant knowing that its a ‘get out of jail free’ option

[Hogfather65]

[QUOTE]
No, intent is relevant at all points. If the police found no reasonable cause to believe she intended to steal, then they should not have arrested her. The laws are very clear on this. No intent means no crime.[\QUOTE]

Bull shit. Sorry officer I did not intend to speen - it just sort of happened, I was not paing attention to my speed I am so sorry…