Pregnant mom arrested for forgetting to pay for sandwich

[Dakini]

Yes they do. It's store policy. As stated in the numerous articles on the subject.


Yes they do. It's store policy.


No it wasn't. Go try it at your local Safeway. Pay for $50 in merchandise and openly eat and then not pay for $5 in merchandise. See what happens.


The manager was following store policy. The only unfortunate thing (and the only thing that Safeway has expressed regret about) is that arresting both parents when neither parent has friends or family to watch a child results in the child being taken to child services. However, this is standard police policy and has nothing to do with the store. Probably store policy will be revised when arresting both parents of a minor child, but they'll still go after people who steal $5 in merchandise even if they bought $50 in groceries. The $50 in groceries doesn't come close to covering their loss on the $5 in merchandise.

Policies? They are more like guidelines. Well bad movie reference.

Policy has to be measured in it's use.

Sure there is a policy on shoplifting.

If the couple went in with trench coats lined with pockets and left. Story wouldn't even make the news even if she was pregnant. We wouldn't even be arguing it.

Wanna bet? If I was a pregnant mom who went to a store with my husband and we were caught leaving with trench coats full of shit, arrested, our child was taken away by children's services, we had to post bail and wait until the morning to pick her up. If I was this woman and I went to the news reporting that I "just" stole $5 in sandwiches and this evil company "took my baby away" as a result. Do you really think that the news company would look at me twice if I looked like your typical suburban mom? Or do you think they'd run off a sob story based entirely on what I told them and a company executive going "uh... we have to look into this" for a couple of hours until I was exposed as someone who very obviously tried to steal?

...but by then the damage would be done, wouldn't it? Safeway's reputation would be in tatters anyway. They'd probably drop the charges anyway because who needs more bad press.

Problem is the world isn't zero tolerance. It's not simply yes or no.

It was $5 sandwich and they did buy stuff. Sure shoplifting could be argued.

Problem is safeway has a publicity problem over a perceived mistake of a $5 sandwich. Far too many people think it was overkill and the manager was a jackass.

People are funny that way.

Yeah, they're funny that way. If I stole the same way as this woman, nobody would give a shit because I'm not a precious snowflake who has popped out a baby.

Considering time and effort involved far more money was spent with the process of detaining them for a perceived mistake.

Actually, it probably doesn't cost the store anything. They're paying loss prevention. They don't have to pay the police or child services for their time.

I doubt their shoplifting numbers would reduce over this event but that just my opinion.......

No, but their shoplifting numbers would increase if they let people off for just stealing $5 in merchandise all the time.

[Dakini]

I assume that since they were caught in the act of leaving without paying that at the time of their departure from the store, they did not intend to pay. Whether this was because they set out to avoid payment or because they forgot is a matter for the courts to decide. The store manager's job includes following store policy, which includes arresting all shoplifters who are caught in the act.

And that's nice. Do you have any evidence that people who intended to shoplift also wouldn't offer to pay and pretend that they forgot? Or are you just assuming that thieves are honest?

FYI, $5 in store merchandise walking out the door means a grocery store has to sell $500 worth in merchandise to make up the loss. Yes, damn those evil corporations and their jackass managers for trying to earn a 1% profit margin without gouging their other customers.

Yeah and you are assuming that they never intended on paying as a fact. Because everybody who eats something in a store is a scumbag thief.

No. I'm not assuming that they never intended to pay. I'm saying that whether or not they intended to pay and forgot or whether they intended from the start to steal is a matter for the courts.

Their actions indicate that at the time of their detention, they did not intend to pay for the item before departing the store.

This doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

Tell me, how are you going to intend to pay for an item you forgot you didn't pay for?

You aren't.

[Juristonia]

"Hey, you didn't pay."
"Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot."
"Don't let it happen again."

So much effort saved.

[Dakini]

"Hey, you didn't pay."
"Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot."
"Don't let it happen again."

So much effort saved.

And if they hadn't forgotten and intended to avoid payment?

[The Black Forrest]

Policies? They are more like guidelines. Well bad movie reference.

Policy has to be measured in it's use.

Sure there is a policy on shoplifting.

If the couple went in with trench coats lined with pockets and left. Story wouldn't even make the news even if she was pregnant. We wouldn't even be arguing it.

Wanna bet? If I was a pregnant mom who went to a store with my husband and we were caught leaving with trench coats full of shit, arrested, our child was taken away by children's services, we had to post bail and wait until the morning to pick her up. If I was this woman and I went to the news reporting that I "just" stole $5 in sandwiches and this evil company "took my baby away" as a result. Do you really think that the news company would look at me twice if I looked like your typical suburban mom? Or do you think they'd run off a sob story based entirely on what I told them and a company executive going "uh... we have to look into this" for a couple of hours until I was exposed as someone who very obviously tried to steal?

...but by then the damage would be done, wouldn't it? Safeway's reputation would be in tatters anyway. They'd probably drop the charges anyway because who needs more bad press.

Problem is the world isn't zero tolerance. It's not simply yes or no.

It was $5 sandwich and they did buy stuff. Sure shoplifting could be argued.

Problem is safeway has a publicity problem over a perceived mistake of a $5 sandwich. Far too many people think it was overkill and the manager was a jackass.

People are funny that way.

Yeah, they're funny that way. If I stole the same way as this woman, nobody would give a shit because I'm not a precious snowflake who has popped out a baby.

Considering time and effort involved far more money was spent with the process of detaining them for a perceived mistake.

Actually, it probably doesn't cost the store anything. They're paying loss prevention. They don't have to pay the police or child services for their time.

I doubt their shoplifting numbers would reduce over this event but that just my opinion.......

No, but their shoplifting numbers would increase if they let people off for just stealing $5 in merchandise all the time.

You are assuming everybody want's to do this and they would let everybody do this.

You also assume that simply making them pay the $5 is a fog horn alarm the store is an easy mark.

Depending on how long they were kept at the store, they spent more money simply by having somebody watch them. Most likely one of the guards. How much shoplifting was missed by him not out looking?


So what did the store gain by this action? What about the chain?

What would they have lost by letting them pay $5 and given them a lecture?

If they were truly shoplifters, would they want to try it again since they were caught? Even if they were let go after paying?

[Juristonia]

And if they hadn't forgotten and intended to avoid payment?

Then they obviously didn't get away with it and no one was hurt.

[Dakini]

And if they hadn't forgotten and intended to avoid payment?

Then they obviously didn't get away with it and no one was hurt.

So next time when they "forget" to pay, do they get another gentle reminder if caught and get away with $5 in merchandise if not? The store has to sell $500 in merchandise to make up for the $5 they lost if the store operates on a 1% profit margin.

[Dakini]

Wanna bet? If I was a pregnant mom who went to a store with my husband and we were caught leaving with trench coats full of shit, arrested, our child was taken away by children's services, we had to post bail and wait until the morning to pick her up. If I was this woman and I went to the news reporting that I "just" stole $5 in sandwiches and this evil company "took my baby away" as a result. Do you really think that the news company would look at me twice if I looked like your typical suburban mom? Or do you think they'd run off a sob story based entirely on what I told them and a company executive going "uh... we have to look into this" for a couple of hours until I was exposed as someone who very obviously tried to steal?

...but by then the damage would be done, wouldn't it? Safeway's reputation would be in tatters anyway. They'd probably drop the charges anyway because who needs more bad press.


Yeah, they're funny that way. If I stole the same way as this woman, nobody would give a shit because I'm not a precious snowflake who has popped out a baby.


Actually, it probably doesn't cost the store anything. They're paying loss prevention. They don't have to pay the police or child services for their time.


No, but their shoplifting numbers would increase if they let people off for just stealing $5 in merchandise all the time.

You are assuming everybody want's to do this and they would let everybody do this.

You also assume that simply making them pay the $5 is a fog horn alarm the store is an easy mark.

Depending on how long they were kept at the store, they spent more money simply by having somebody watch them. Most likely one of the guards. How much shoplifting was missed by him not out looking?

Usually these stores have more than one security guard. And what does it matter if shoplifters are caught, you don't want to punish them anyway. You want them to be allowed to be given the opportunity to pay for their merchandise. You know, the same kind of opportunity they had at the cash registers before they tried to leave the store.

So what did the store gain by this action? What about the chain?

They enforced their policy against shoplifters. If everyone who considers shoplifting is aware that they will be arrested and charged no matter what their personal circumstances are, they might think again about committing the crime. As a result, the store may lose less money through theft, which means that the store can charge its customers who don't steal anything fair prices.

What would they have lost by letting them pay $5 and given them a lecture?

What are these people? 10 year olds? I thought they were parent to a small child with one on the way. I thought they already should have known that stealing is against the law.

If they were truly shoplifters, would they want to try it again since they were caught? Even if they were let go after paying?

Why wouldn't they? They got away with it once and the only thing they had to do was pay the same full price that everyone else pays when they honestly go through the system. Maybe next time, nobody will notice the theft.

[The Black Forrest]

Then they obviously didn't get away with it and no one was hurt.

So next time when they "forget" to pay, do they get another gentle reminder if caught and get away with $5 in merchandise if not? The store has to sell $500 in merchandise to make up for the $5 they lost if the store operates on a 1% profit margin.

So is Canadian law based on guilt until proven innocent? Genuine question as I don't know your law system.

You assume they would "forget" the next time. What's to say the embarrassment would remind them?

[Tekania]

I really wish Safeway would have stuck to their guns and pressed charges, rather than bowing to the pressure of an idiotic public.

[Crystalcliff Point]

So is Canadian law based on guilt until proven innocent? Genuine question as I don't know your law system.

You assume they would "forget" the next time. What's to say the embarrassment would remind them?

Nope, it's built on the same "innocent until proven guilty" concept too. Then again, the way our system is structured... We'd rather see a hundred guilty people walk free than a single innocent one thrown behind bars.

[The Black Forrest]

So is Canadian law based on guilt until proven innocent? Genuine question as I don't know your law system.

You assume they would "forget" the next time. What's to say the embarrassment would remind them?

Nope, it's built on the same "innocent until proven guilty" concept too. Then again, the way our system is structured... We'd rather see a hundred guilty people walk free than a single innocent one thrown behind bars.

Ok. Thanks.

Whoops now all the shoplifters are heading your way

[Juristonia]

So next time when they "forget" to pay, do they get another gentle reminder if caught and get away with $5 in merchandise if not? The store has to sell $500 in merchandise to make up for the $5 they lost if the store operates on a 1% profit margin.

I didn't realise we enforced laws based on imaginary possible future repeats of scenarios that may or may not have been malicious now.

[Dakini]

So next time when they "forget" to pay, do they get another gentle reminder if caught and get away with $5 in merchandise if not? The store has to sell $500 in merchandise to make up for the $5 they lost if the store operates on a 1% profit margin.

So is Canadian law based on guilt until proven innocent? Genuine question as I don't know your law system.

You assume they would "forget" the next time. What's to say the embarrassment would remind them?

No. Canadian law involves arresting people who appear to be committing crimes and then the crown has the task of proving their guilt in a trial.

In principle, two people in the same circumstances should also be treated the same. Not differently just because one of them is a precious snowflake who can't be bothered to deal with the fact that they made a mistake.

[Dakini]

Nope, it's built on the same "innocent until proven guilty" concept too. Then again, the way our system is structured... We'd rather see a hundred guilty people walk free than a single innocent one thrown behind bars.

Ok. Thanks.

Whoops now all the shoplifters are heading your way

No. Here the shoplifters are arrested and charged with theft under $5000. If it's their first offense, they can get let off the hook entirely for the crime or can have to do as little as pay for the items they took, but that's up to the court to decide. It's also up to the courts to decide their guilt or innocence. It's not up to the media or public outrage.

[Dakini]

So next time when they "forget" to pay, do they get another gentle reminder if caught and get away with $5 in merchandise if not? The store has to sell $500 in merchandise to make up for the $5 they lost if the store operates on a 1% profit margin.

I didn't realise we enforced laws based on imaginary possible future repeats of scenarios that may or may not have been malicious now.

I didn't realise that laws only applied to some people.

[Dakini]

I really wish Safeway would have stuck to their guns and pressed charges, rather than bowing to the pressure of an idiotic public.

Me too.

Now all they've proven is that if you want to get away with shoplifting, just bring your crotch spawn in with you and claim to be a frazzled parent.

[The Black Forrest]

I really wish Safeway would have stuck to their guns and pressed charges, rather than bowing to the pressure of an idiotic public.

Me too.

Now all they've proven is that if you want to get away with shoplifting, just bring your crotch spawn in with you and claim to be a frazzled parent.

Again assumption that will happen.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Also, anyone who sits around and waits for the police because some rent a cop told them to is a fucktard. Even when citizen arrests are legal, they can't get physical. Just leave, not like they know where to find you anyway.

What surprises me is that no one has accused me of being shoplifter and a criminal yet.

Maybe it only surprises you because you're the one tossing around ad hominem attacks, so you're surprised nobody else is doing the same.

No, it surprises me because in the past when I expressed a different value system than those on NSG everyone just assumed I just failed out of college.

[Dakini]

Me too.

Now all they've proven is that if you want to get away with shoplifting, just bring your crotch spawn in with you and claim to be a frazzled parent.

Again assumption that will happen.

It's hardly an assumption. I'm just saying that this is what they demonstrated.

I don't know if anyone else will try this. I would hope that most people aren't going to set out to rob grocery stores assuming that they'll be as media-friendly as this couple.

[The Black Forrest]

Again assumption that will happen.

It's hardly an assumption. I'm just saying that this is what they demonstrated.

I don't know if anyone else will try this. I would hope that most people aren't going to set out to rob grocery stores assuming that they'll be as media-friendly as this couple.

Sorry. I made an assumption.

[Dakini]

It's hardly an assumption. I'm just saying that this is what they demonstrated.

I don't know if anyone else will try this. I would hope that most people aren't going to set out to rob grocery stores assuming that they'll be as media-friendly as this couple.

Sorry. I made an assumption.

You assumed that I was claiming we'd see rashes of this sort of behaviour?

It would be really interesting to see what happens if a poor black couple tests out the "parents can get away with shoplifting" theory though. I'm going to guess: media doesn't give a shit until the couple asserts discrimination against Safeway since they treated that well-off white couple so well by dropping the charges.

[Wiztopia]

Yeah and you are assuming that they never intended on paying as a fact. Because everybody who eats something in a store is a scumbag thief.

No. I'm not assuming that they never intended to pay. I'm saying that whether or not they intended to pay and forgot or whether they intended from the start to steal is a matter for the courts.

Their actions indicate that at the time of their detention, they did not intend to pay for the item before departing the store.

This doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

Tell me, how are you going to intend to pay for an item you forgot you didn't pay for?

You aren't.

Easily. Offer to pay like they did when confronted. The manager was being a jackass and I know for a fact that other Safeway managers would ask them to pay instead of being a jackass and getting them arrested.

[Dakini]

No. I'm not assuming that they never intended to pay. I'm saying that whether or not they intended to pay and forgot or whether they intended from the start to steal is a matter for the courts.

Their actions indicate that at the time of their detention, they did not intend to pay for the item before departing the store.

This doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

Tell me, how are you going to intend to pay for an item you forgot you didn't pay for?

You aren't.

Easily. Offer to pay like they did when confronted. The manager was being a jackass and I know for a fact that other Safeway managers would ask them to pay instead of being a jackass and getting them arrested.

Everyone would offer to pay when confronted. Even people who are otherwise very obviously shoplifting.

[The Black Forrest]

Easily. Offer to pay like they did when confronted. The manager was being a jackass and I know for a fact that other Safeway managers would ask them to pay instead of being a jackass and getting them arrested.

Everyone would offer to pay when confronted. Even people who are otherwise very obviously shoplifting.

Not really. Seen more then a few who denied having stuff and "lost" their receipts......