Pregnant mom arrested for forgetting to pay for sandwich

[Bottle]

Is it easy to tell? Really?

I have a friend who worked as a professional shopper. Her job was to catch shoplifters. There are people for whom shoplifting is their profession. If they're really good, they don't get caught. If they're really good, they can probably put on some sob story about how they forgot if they ever are caught. How are you going to tell the difference, exactly?

Does it even matter? $5 isn't worth arresting for, even if you can, just for the bad publicity you get, which is more harmful.

If it's the first time someone's doing it, then you can give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're doing it every week then you can have them arrested.

Even the friggin police officer attending the call must have burst out laughing in the middle.

Exactly.

The cost is relevant here. If she had, I dunno, eaten half a pound of truffles or some shit, fine, get bitchy at her for eating a week's pay while she shopped. But it's a $5 sandwich for pity's sake.

"Oh, no, those $500 shoes must've just fallen into my bag on accident" is something you can question. "Oh shit, I totally meant to pay for that sandwich, I was just hella hungry and wanted to eat while I shopped and pay at the end, HERE IS YOUR MONEY, very sorry about this" is something that you can question if you really want, but...why the fuck do you want to?

[The Rich Port]

Does it even matter? $5 isn't worth arresting for, even if you can, just for the bad publicity you get, which is more harmful.

If it's the first time someone's doing it, then you can give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're doing it every week then you can have them arrested.

Even the friggin police officer attending the call must have burst out laughing in the middle.

What if your business is selling newspapers on the high street? If people can just take what they want and assume immunity from prosecution, then you won't survive very long.

So, the question is not whether it was taken without paying.

It's whether someone is willing to pay the store.

This woman is.

A shoplifter would not be.

Why the store doesn't just take the $5 is what baffles me.

[Unslavery]

What if your business is selling newspapers on the high street? If people can just take what they want and assume immunity from prosecution, then you won't survive very long.

Except people can't just take what they want. Someone taking a newspaper and leaving is very clearly stealing, not forgetting to pay.

OK, I pick up the newspaper, have a quick little read (equivalent to eating before buying) and then I absent-mindedly slip it into my bag. WHOOPS! It's only £1, who cares?

[Arkinesia]

*thinks this must be some kind of retarded bullshit*

*reads story*

Oh. I thought it would be OH MY GOD THEY ARRESTED THE MOM FOR STEALING A SANDWICH OH MY GOD SHE COULDN'T PAY FOR IT SO THEY ARRESTED HER OH MY GOD. But okay, yeah, that's pretty fucked up. You're supposed to get a mea culpa on shoplifting.

[Celritannia]

I find it stupid how such a petty crime as forgetting to pay for a sandwich can lead into such a great ordeal. Being handcuffed and separated from her child is stupid. Yet in reality she not guilty of theft:

'A person is guilty of theft, if he (or she) dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.'

[Keronians]

Except people can't just take what they want. Someone taking a newspaper and leaving is very clearly stealing, not forgetting to pay.

OK, I pick up the newspaper, have a quick little read (equivalent to eating before buying) and then I absent-mindedly slip it into my bag. WHOOPS! It's only £1, who cares?

Slipping it into your bag is what's the problem here.

Now, if you had a little read, and put it down and then were arrested for it, then the firm would get a lot of bad publicity, and lose both customer loyalty, and revenue, as word of mouth would pass around.

Having police coming to your store itself also produces psychological impact on people passing by, and will make them avoid the store from then on.

Which is why newspaper firms don't arrest people for reading before paying, but tell them to stop reading.

[Portieria]

If one always payed before before one ate none of this sort of thing would happen. No forgetting, no mistakes, and no problems.

[Unslavery]

OK, I pick up the newspaper, have a quick little read (equivalent to eating before buying) and then I absent-mindedly slip it into my bag. WHOOPS! It's only £1, who cares?

Slipping it into your bag is what's the problem here.

Now, if you had a little read, and put it down and then were arrested for it, then the firm would get a lot of bad publicity, and lose both customer loyalty, and revenue, as word of mouth would pass around.

Which is why newspaper firms don't arrest people for reading before paying, but tell them to stop reading.

Shoving the stolen sandwiches into her greedy face and down her ravenous gullet, then neglecting to mention it when she paid for the rest of her shopping, is the problem here.

[Keronians]

Slipping it into your bag is what's the problem here.

Now, if you had a little read, and put it down and then were arrested for it, then the firm would get a lot of bad publicity, and lose both customer loyalty, and revenue, as word of mouth would pass around.

Which is why newspaper firms don't arrest people for reading before paying, but tell them to stop reading.

Shoving the stolen sandwiches into her greedy face and down her ravenous gullet, then neglecting to mention it when she paid for the rest of her shopping, is the problem here.

No, the store being a dick is the problem here.

But if they think that $5 is worth the lost publicity and negative consumer feedback such events produce, then all the more power to them.

[Nadkor]

I find it stupid how such a petty crime as forgetting to pay for a sandwich can lead into such a great ordeal. Being handcuffed and separated from her child is stupid. Yet in reality she not guilty of theft:

'A person is guilty of theft, if he (or she) dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.'

Well, yes, that's the English definition of theft. The first problem here is that the store has absolutely no way of ascertaining her intention.

The second problem is the legal technicality that even if she intends to financially reimburse the store for her consumption of their property it is still theft; the store's property is the sandwich she ate, unless she intends to return to them the very same sandwich she ate she has the intention to permanently deprive the store of that property.

Consider the case of an employee taking a £20 note from a till, intending to replace the £20 the next day. The next day comes, and the employee puts £20 in the till, but it is a different note. The employee is arrested, charged, and convicted of theft because he did not replace the same paper and had no intention to do so.

[The Rich Port]

Shoving the stolen sandwiches into her greedy face and down her ravenous gullet, then neglecting to mention it when she paid for the rest of her shopping, is the problem here.

Lovely ad hominem you have there, sir.

No, the store being a dick is the problem here.

But if they think that $5 is worth the lost publicity and negative consumer feedback such events produce, then all the more power to them.

Honestly? Let 'em rot.

This could do wonders for the anti-store movement if a store goes after a customer.

... If there is an actual anti-store... Movement... Whatever.

[Unslavery]

Shoving the stolen sandwiches into her greedy face and down her ravenous gullet, then neglecting to mention it when she paid for the rest of her shopping, is the problem here.

No, the store being a dick is the problem here.

But if they think that $5 is worth the lost publicity and negative consumer feedback such events produce, then all the more power to them.

Or maybe thieves who thought the store was a soft touch will try somewhere else instead.

[Unslavery]

Lovely ad hominem you have there, sir.

The negative words had no bearing on the substance of my argument. Not an ad hominem.

[Keronians]

No, the store being a dick is the problem here.

But if they think that $5 is worth the lost publicity and negative consumer feedback such events produce, then all the more power to them.

Or maybe thieves who thought the store was a soft touch will try somewhere else instead.

And so will customers who were previously loyal to the store, and consumers who hear about this will also avoid the store from now on.

[Unslavery]

Or maybe thieves who thought the store was a soft touch will try somewhere else instead.

And so will customers who were previously loyal to the store, and consumers who hear about this will also avoid the store from now on.

In an ideal World, but I doubt it will have much impact on their bottom line.

[Keronians]

And so will customers who were previously loyal to the store, and consumers who hear about this will also avoid the store from now on.

In an ideal World, but I doubt it will have much impact on their bottom line.

People don't generally like jerks.

People who like to eat while they shop will also avoid the store because they could end up in this same position.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of other grocery stores with similar competitive pricing, so there is not much impact on the bottom line. The bonus being that the other stores are offering better service (by not being complete dicks).

[Celritannia]

I find it stupid how such a petty crime as forgetting to pay for a sandwich can lead into such a great ordeal. Being handcuffed and separated from her child is stupid. Yet in reality she not guilty of theft:

'A person is guilty of theft, if he (or she) dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.'

Well, yes, that's the English definition of theft. The first problem here is that the store has absolutely no way of ascertaining her intention.

The second problem is the legal technicality that even if she intends to financially reimburse the store for her consumption of their property it is still theft; the store's property is the sandwich she ate, unless she intends to return to them the very same sandwich she ate she has the intention to permanently deprive the store of that property.

Consider the case of an employee taking a £20 note from a till, intending to replace the £20 the next day. The next day comes, and the employee puts £20 in the till, but it is a different note. The employee is arrested, charged, and convicted of theft because he did not replace the same paper and had no intention to do so.

Yes, but lets apply the Ghosh test for dishonesty to the situation:

"Were the person's actions honest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people?" Well, she simply forgot to pay, thats all, I'll say that her actions were honest as she was intending to pay, not stealing it, lots of people sometimes forget to pay for something, yet go back and pay for it.

"Did the person concerned believe that what he did was dishonest at the time?" She herself at the time did not believe she was going to take it without paying for it.

Your example, R v Velumyl [1989], the defendant had no intention of paying the exact money back, which is different from this women, who had the intention of paying for the sandwich; its just the store has a pathetic policy.

If I only kept all my laws notes instead of throwing them in the recycling bin, ah well.

[The Rich Port]

Lovely ad hominem you have there, sir.

The negative words had no bearing on the substance of my argument. Not an ad hominem.

I think you misappropriate the blame unto the woman and have no way to back it up other than to claim the woman has some sort of defect (that is, she's a glutton).

Really, this situation could have been easily diffused by having the woman pay up.

Instead, Safeway had her arrested and now they're "reviewing" the incident because, you know, it didn't happen the way it was supposed to happen.

[Divine Unity]

So she's got no record of Shop Lifting, she openly admitted that she meant to pay for it, paid $50 for the rest of the stuff she was buying, but made an honest mistake.

If she'd had a record, or was stealing something more than a sandwich, criminal charges might make sense. As it is though, this store just made an ass of itself and isn't going to make many friends in doing so.

They took her child away from her. For an honest mistake she was more than willing to pay for when she realized she'd made it.
That's just wrong.

[Unslavery]

*wrong*

[-St George]

Consider the case of an employee taking a £20 note from a till, intending to replace the £20 the next day. The next day comes, and the employee puts £20 in the till, but it is a different note. The employee is arrested, charged, and convicted of theft because he did not replace the same paper and had no intention to do so.

Not convinced by this. It's still legal tender. Unless the employer can demonstrate that the stolen note differed materially from the replacement, I can't see the case going anyway. If the stolen note was noteworthy (of sentimental value or historical interest), then maybe.

Nope, under UK law at least, not sure how it is in the US or elsewhere, it's theft.

[UCUMAY]

That is why I am glad Safeway stores closed in Texas and Oklahoma.

Safeway owns Tom Thumb... So no Safeway is still in Texas.

[Divine Unity]

*wrong*

What's wrong?

[Unslavery]

Nope, under UK law at least, not sure how it is in the US or elsewhere, it's theft.

DELETE MY SHAME

[Keronians]

Nope, under UK law at least, not sure how it is in the US or elsewhere, it's theft.

DELETE MY SHAME

Well, he can't now that you've quoted it.