Pregnant mom arrested for forgetting to pay for sandwich

[Dakini]

I also believe that taxes benefit everybody, including people who don't shop at that store (except when they're the sort of horrible regressive tax you're proposing, of course).

I don't see how it's any more regressive than any other tax, if you believe that consumers pay it all in the end.

I don't believe that customers pay it all in the end. I believe that grocery stores operate on tiny profit margins (usually 1%) so the fact that these people tried to steal $5 in merchandise means that the store has to sell $500 in merchandise in order to make up the shortfall from this one instance.

Taxes are more like operating costs and they're probably a smaller operating cost than paying employees. You don't see me advocating that employees stop getting paid either.

A flat sales tax on all items costs the poor more of their total income than the rich, thus it is regressive.

The "five fingered discount" tax only benefits the assholes who are stealing from the stores at the expense of everyone else. There's a rather large difference between the two.

Mmm. Not really. To say that the rich benefit from taxes is quite a stretch. It is mostly the poor and middle class who benefit, bailouts aside. Certainly private security for the rich folk would considerably cheaper than paying all they do for cops to bust some nigger who doesn't even live in the same neighborhood. This can probably be compared to many other services.

Anyway, the question with which I ended my previous posts still stands.

The rich have already benefited from the products of society... that's why they're rich.

[Dakini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.


In some jurisdictions of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.

No mens rea, no crime. Continued detention of myself will be viewed as unlawful detention and false imprisonment, and i will sue you if you try. Take my money and get out of the way.

Thanks and bye. Heres a tip for your good work, b*t*h.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lel9hiod7i
*pays for sammich*

^memorise and recite.

Yes, and that assumes that they meant to pay for the items they ate, a claim they only made after being caught trying to leave the store without paying. None of their actions prior to being caught indicated that they intended to pay.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.
Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.
Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.
Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware.
Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant.


In some jurisdictions of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.

No mens rea, no crime. Continued detention of myself will be viewed as unlawful detention and false imprisonment, and i will sue you if you try. Take my money and get out of the way.

Thanks and bye. Heres a tip for your good work, b*t*h.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... lel9hiod7i
*pays for sammich*

^memorise and recite.

Yes, and that assumes that they meant to pay for the items they ate, a claim they only made after being caught trying to leave the store without paying. None of their actions prior to being caught indicated that they intended to pay.

Keeping the wrapper. Paying for the other items well in excess of the others. Attempting to pay once caught.
Clear emotional distress. Apologizing.

[Dakini]

Yes, and that assumes that they meant to pay for the items they ate, a claim they only made after being caught trying to leave the store without paying. None of their actions prior to being caught indicated that they intended to pay.

Keeping the wrapper. Paying for the other items well in excess of the others. Attempting to pay once caught.
Clear emotional distress. Apologizing.

If I was caught trying to steal, I'd be showing clear emotional distress and apologize too. That doesn't make me less of a thief. Buying everything else also doesn't make them less of thieves. It just means that they realized that it would be harder to sneak out of the store with all of their other groceries than with sandwiches they already ate.

And yeah, they kept the wrappers... why didn't they turn them over to the clerk if the wrappers were in the cart? Did they manage to not see the wrappers, the only things remaining in the cart after they unloaded everything else? How did they manage this feat, exactly? I didn't see anything in the story about them being blind, I'm sure they would have played that one up for sympathy too. DId they see the wrappers and just assume they were trash even though they know they ate the sandwiches once contained therein? Were the wrappers actually in the cart?

Keeping the wrappers only tells us that they didn't feel like littering all over the store.

And unless they bought $500 in merchandise, their other purchases do not make up for the loss of the $5 sandwiches in a store with a 1% profit margin.

Also, innocent people get arrested and then have to go to court all the time to deal with charges against them. That doesn't mean they can turn around and sue for false arrest and imprisonment when a person has a reasonable suspicion that they were committing a crime. Most innocent people don't just go for a trial by media and public outrage to pressure their accusers into dropping charges.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't believe that customers pay it all in the end. I believe that grocery stores operate on tiny profit margins (usually 1%) so the fact that these people tried to steal $5 in merchandise means that the store has to sell $500 in merchandise in order to make up the shortfall from this one instance.

Taxes are more like operating costs and they're probably a smaller operating cost than paying employees. You don't see me advocating that employees stop getting paid either.

A flat sales tax on all items costs the poor more of their total income than the rich, thus it is regressive.

I don't see how it's any more regressive than an income or business tax, at least not if that tax is passed down to the poor in the form of prices.

The rich have already benefited from the products of society... that's why they're rich.

Federal Reserve, maybe, since the rich suck at printing secure money, as history shows. Bank insurance too, I guess. Otherwise, nah. If anything, taxes and government have curbed the rich's prosperity. Without rule of law, rule of wealth or aristocracy would undoubtedly take its place. Surely, Pinkertons are better for the rich than the FBI--the FBI won't even bust up strikes.

Anyway, the question with which I ended my previous post still stands.

[Dakini]

I don't believe that customers pay it all in the end. I believe that grocery stores operate on tiny profit margins (usually 1%) so the fact that these people tried to steal $5 in merchandise means that the store has to sell $500 in merchandise in order to make up the shortfall from this one instance.

Taxes are more like operating costs and they're probably a smaller operating cost than paying employees. You don't see me advocating that employees stop getting paid either.

A flat sales tax on all items costs the poor more of their total income than the rich, thus it is regressive.

I don't see how it's any more regressive than an income or business tax, at least not if that tax is passed down to the poor in the form of prices.

It isn't just passed down to the poor in the form of prices.

I don't know how business taxes work, I would imagine though that a business that doesn't make money above operating costs doesn't pay much or any taxes. If they're only paying taxes on their profits, then there's no reason for them to raise prices because they're taxes.

Additionally, there are a lot of businesses that make ridiculous amounts of money and pay relatively little tax.

The rich have already benefited from the products of society... that's why they're rich.

Federal Reserve, maybe, since the rich suck at printing secure money, as history shows. Bank insurance, too, I guess. Otherwise, nah. If anything, taxes and government have curbed the rich's prosperity. Without rule of law, rule of wealth or aristocracy would undoubtedly take its place. Surely, Pinkertons are better for the rich than the FBI--the FBI won't even bust up strikes.

Anyway, the question with which I ended my previous post still stands.

How about the free education obtained by them, or their parents, grandparents, whoever first made the money. The free education obtained by their employees, or the people who are able to get jobs at the gas station instead of mugging them for cash. There are the roads they drive on, the relative safety of their country, the existence of a police force (you're joking if you think that having body guards follow you around is cheaper than a police force). etc...

And which question? You can't just post wall of text and go with "there's a question". And I'm going to work anyway. I won't be back all day.

[Fascist Dominion]

EDIT: Oh, and I'm not an overly sympathetic woman who eats while shopping. In fact, I find it deplorable.

How the hell could it be deplorable?

I'm compulsively weird about eating. For me, there are designated areas where it is normal, and inside a grocery store isn't one of them, unless it's a sample offered.

[The Parkus Empire]

It isn't just passed down to the poor in the form of prices.

I don't know how business taxes work, I would imagine though that a business that doesn't make money above operating costs doesn't pay much or any taxes. If they're only paying taxes on their profits, then there's no reason for them to raise prices because they're taxes.

Erm, d'ya think they would therefore be unlikely to raises prices if a robber held up their payroll and only took a part of the profit?

Additionally, there are a lot of businesses that make ridiculous amounts of money and pay relatively little tax.

Does that mean that shoplifting from them isn't passed on to the consumer?

How about the free education obtained by them,

Private schools are free, now? This "free" education is supplied in the form of property tax. Even the rich who send their kids to public school, pay far more to schools in property taxes than it would cost to put that kid through a private school. Things the government does cost money, and the bill is not footed equally.

or their parents, grandparents, whoever first made the money.

Uh, they're paying taxes for their ancestor's education?

The free education obtained by their employees,

Uh, great? Doesn't really help the business too much, this "free" stuff you're so big on. The amount of money it costs to send those workers through school, is far more than those workers make for the business.

or the people who are able to get jobs at the gas station instead of mugging them for cash.

People who get to work at the gas station in preference of those who haven't graduated. The gas station wouldn't hire everyone, even if they all graduated.

And the rich don't get mugged, the poor do. Muggers do not drive all the way to Beverly Hills looking for a victim, nor do the rich tend to stroll through Compton. Even if they did (which doesn't seem likely, looking at the statistics for the incomes of mugging victims), even if they got mugged twice a month, it would cost much less than the police do.

There are the roads they drive on,

Indeed. If the government didn't build roads, the rich would, and charge for them. Instead of paying for roads, the wealthy would be making shitloads of money off them.

the relative safety of their country,

Military?

the existence of a police force (you're joking if you think that having body guards follow you around is cheaper than a police force). etc...

I think private security is, yeah, at least if you only have to cover the cost for yourself, and you're paying the massive percentage for the police. Police don't follow you around like bodyguards anyway (they don't even have to enforce restraining orders), so this is a ridiculous notion. Besides that, crime is really the problem of lower class neighborhoods, not upper class ones. That said, even a private police station is no stretch at all. Homicide, the most expensive of investigations, is hardly mentionable in rich areas, whereas it's an epidemic in poor ones.

And which question? You can't just post wall of text and go with "there's a question".

The last one of the post I referenced. That is, do you think prices would drop (not necessarily immediately) if shoplifting totally disappeared tomorrow?

And I'm going to work anyway. I won't be back all day.

I know that feel, bro.

[Wiztopia]

Prove it.

I don't have to. I can make the very reasonable suggestion and all you can do is claim that in an entirely empty cart (we're both assuming they paid for everything else, correct?) they didn't see the wrappers or they were too stupid to realize that the "garbage" left over in their cart was actually the wrappers for the sandwiches they ate already and the cashier didn't give the garbage a second look. Have you ever missed an item in a shopping cart that wasn't too heavy to lift so you get the cashier to scan it in place instead of moving it onto the conveyor? I haven't. Things are pretty clearly visible in a cart.

So the cart would have been empty save for the child sitting safely in the children's seat. ...unless they brought the stroller with them which they might have because they walked to the place and 2 year olds don't really walk very far very well (granted, they could have folded up the stroller and put it under their shopping cart).

Look, how often have you purchased a week's worth of groceries? If they genuinely forgot to pay, it doesn't make sense for them to have left the wrappers in the cart because there's no way you could honestly miss the wrappers when the rest of the cart was loaded onto the conveyor without being entirely daft.

So this leaves us with a few options:
1. These people are really, really stupid and didn't associate the trash in the bottom of their cart with the food they ate while in the store.
2. These people intended to steal the items and as such, ignored the wrappers they knew belonged to the sandwiches they ate figuring they'd be allowed to pay if they were caught stealing.
3. These people put the wrappers in a pocket or in her purse while getting the rest of the groceries, intending to bring them out when they got to the cash register.
4. These people put the wrappers in a pocket or her purse while getting the rest of the groceries, not actually intending to pay for the items, but not wanting to litter/leave evidence behind etc.

So yeah. If they didn't catch the wrappers in their cart, they'd have to be stupid or attempting to steal.

Again I can't argue about following policy. Its in the job description to be a dick if you want to be a Safeway manager.

You're also quick to call a person a dick when he's just trying to deal with shoplifters in the most appropriate way for his store.

Actually yes you do. You just stated for a fact that they didn't put the wrappers in the cart. Again if a kid is acting up they would possibly see the wrapper and not think anything of it because they are embarrassed by the kid so they are only focusing on that while unloading. That definitely wasn't the most appropriate way to deal with them.

The thing is she "stole" what a sandwich if she forgot to pay for it but got caught and gave you the money would you call the police and detain her for 4 hours seriously, to me that just sounds like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

She didn't give them the money. She offered to pay them the money, but she only did that when confronted with the fact that they hadn't paid for the items they were trying to steal. They had ample time to pay for these items, but they neglected to do so. They were given the same opportunities to pay as everybody else. Instead, they walked out the store without paying for the items and were caught. Therefore, they get arrested.


Seriously, did nobody else have to deal with assemblies at school when they were teenagers from police officers about how much it sucks to be caught for shoplifting and why you shouldn't do it from an "it will be a giant pain in your ass and give you a criminal record" standpoint as well as an "it forces businesses to raise their prices to break even" standpoint?

There you go again. You don't have proof they intended on stealing them. Go ahead and read their minds to see if they intended on doing so.

The thing is she "stole" what a sandwich if she forgot to pay for it but got caught and gave you the money would you call the police and detain her for 4 hours seriously, to me that just sounds like a tremendous waste of time and energy.

She didn't give them the money. She offered to pay them the money, but she only did that when confronted with the fact that they hadn't paid for the items they were trying to steal. They had ample time to pay for these items, but they neglected to do so. They were given the same opportunities to pay as everybody else. Instead, they walked out the store without paying for the items and were caught. Therefore, they get arrested.

Seriously, did nobody else have to deal with assemblies at school when they were teenagers from police officers about how much it sucks to be caught for shoplifting and why you shouldn't do it from an "it will be a giant pain in your ass and give you a criminal record" standpoint as well as an "it forces businesses to raise their prices to break even" standpoint?

There you go again. You don't have proof they intended on stealing them. Go ahead and read their minds to see if they intended on doing so.

I also believe that taxes benefit everybody, including people who don't shop at that store (except when they're the sort of horrible regressive tax you're proposing, of course). The "five fingered discount" tax only benefits the assholes who are stealing from the stores at the expense of everyone else. There's a rather large difference between the two.

You're going to have to prove that everybody who steals something is an asshole.

[Dakini]

<snip>

You know, fuck this shit. I point out an entirely logical chain of events that could even nicely fit into the "they did it by accident" explanation better than your idea and I even suggest alternatives and you just sit there going "proof?" "proof?" "can I have some proof for that hypothetical statement you offered up as a possibility?" "you can't call them assholes for stealing, not everyone who steals is an asshole. Obviously everyone who tries to enforce laws and rules is either a dick or a retard, but not everyone who steals is an asshole" "I've obviously never done my own grocery shopping so I don't know how easy it is to see something in an otherwise empty cart" "I'm the only person who is allowed to make assumptions and absolute statements about a person's character".

So you know what, see if I ever respond to anything you say ever again. I'm done with this thread. If you want to declare a victory, fine, enjoy joining the three other people on my ignore list.

[Seangoli]

Keeping the wrapper. Paying for the other items well in excess of the others. Attempting to pay once caught.
Clear emotional distress. Apologizing.

If I was caught trying to steal, I'd be showing clear emotional distress and apologize too. That doesn't make me less of a thief. Buying everything else also doesn't make them less of thieves. It just means that they realized that it would be harder to sneak out of the store with all of their other groceries than with sandwiches they already ate.

And yeah, they kept the wrappers... why didn't they turn them over to the clerk if the wrappers were in the cart? Did they manage to not see the wrappers, the only things remaining in the cart after they unloaded everything else? How did they manage this feat, exactly? I didn't see anything in the story about them being blind, I'm sure they would have played that one up for sympathy too. DId they see the wrappers and just assume they were trash even though they know they ate the sandwiches once contained therein? Were the wrappers actually in the cart?

Keeping the wrappers only tells us that they didn't feel like littering all over the store.

And unless they bought $500 in merchandise, their other purchases do not make up for the loss of the $5 sandwiches in a store with a 1% profit margin.

Also, innocent people get arrested and then have to go to court all the time to deal with charges against them. That doesn't mean they can turn around and sue for false arrest and imprisonment when a person has a reasonable suspicion that they were committing a crime. Most innocent people don't just go for a trial by media and public outrage to pressure their accusers into dropping charges.

Actually, not quite. The grocery store I worked at was running around 4-5%-ish profit margins, and we were pretty average in the area. Granted, it's still not a huge margin.

And in Minnesota, at the very least, legally they cannot be detained until after they have left the store. Intent to steal can't be assumed, basically.

[Dakini]

And in Minnesota, at the very least, legally they cannot be detained until after they have left the store. Intent to steal can't be assumed, basically.

Actually, if you read the article they left the store without paying. They didn't offer to pay until they were confronted with the fact that they had done so, the parents don't deny this. Please read the story before you try correcting people on it. Thanks.

And now I'm done with this thread.

[Keronians]

1) They probably would be less sympathetic, but sympathetic nevertheless.

2) No, I'm not. I'm not referring to a massive increase in market share. I'm referring to small increases in demand.

3) Even the working classes generally shop for items worth around $50 at grocery stores.

1. Doubtful. Given the talk about "punk teenagers" earlier in the thread, teenagers suspected of shoplifting aren't exactly given a fair shake or nearly as much sympathy as these people have received (hint: it's because people assumed they did it on purpose). Unless it's a "good (aka rich) teenager" hanging out with a "bad influence (aka poor teenager)".

2. Small increases in demand won't cover your increased costs due to extra losses.

Theft of a $2.00 item from a store operating on a 10% profit margin requires the sale of $20.00 in merchandise to make up for the loss. Supermarkets and others operating on low margins of 1% must sell $300.00 in merchandise, just to cover the cost of a $3.00 item.

So for every $5 sandwich set a person steals from you, you have to sell an extra $500 to make up for the loss. You might have to raise your prices to maintain your 1% profit margin.

3. Fine. Then you're penalizing single people again.

Sorry it's taken so long.

1) I still think that their would be a negative reaction from the public, even if it is true that the extent of sympathy would be lesser.

2) Several things about the source:

· Is it talking about a gross profit margin or a net profit margin? Because I refuse to buy that a firm like Safeway has a gross profit margin of 10%.

· Again, I'm not sure why you're assuming that only I'm going to be having that problem. Most firms, like I think Tekania said earlier, have people go through their cashiers without paying for certain items.

· I also doubt that being let off would attract shoplifters. Carrefour and Alcampo often even encourage shoppers to eat in their stores. Regularly, at their cashiers, you find that someone's forgotten to pay for a baguette they ate, or something like that. They are made to pay and that's it.

Carrefour and Alcampo have not gone out of business.

3) How?

[Keronians]

And in Minnesota, at the very least, legally they cannot be detained until after they have left the store. Intent to steal can't be assumed, basically.

Actually, if you read the article they left the store without paying. They didn't offer to pay until they were confronted with the fact that they had done so, the parents don't deny this. Please read the story before you try correcting people on it. Thanks.

And now I'm done with this thread.

Oh, come on, I just answered your post. -.-

[Dakini]

Actually, if you read the article they left the store without paying. They didn't offer to pay until they were confronted with the fact that they had done so, the parents don't deny this. Please read the story before you try correcting people on it. Thanks.

And now I'm done with this thread.

Oh, come on, I just answered your post. -.-

Ugh, fine. One more, but that's all. I stopped caring enough about this to put up with some of the shit in this thread, but you haven't been the problem.

1. Doubtful. Given the talk about "punk teenagers" earlier in the thread, teenagers suspected of shoplifting aren't exactly given a fair shake or nearly as much sympathy as these people have received (hint: it's because people assumed they did it on purpose). Unless it's a "good (aka rich) teenager" hanging out with a "bad influence (aka poor teenager)".

2. Small increases in demand won't cover your increased costs due to extra losses.

Theft of a $2.00 item from a store operating on a 10% profit margin requires the sale of $20.00 in merchandise to make up for the loss. Supermarkets and others operating on low margins of 1% must sell $300.00 in merchandise, just to cover the cost of a $3.00 item.

So for every $5 sandwich set a person steals from you, you have to sell an extra $500 to make up for the loss. You might have to raise your prices to maintain your 1% profit margin.

3. Fine. Then you're penalizing single people again.

Sorry it's taken so long.

1) I still think that their would be a negative reaction from the public, even if it is true that the extent of sympathy would be lesser.

2) Several things about the source:

· Is it talking about a gross profit margin or a net profit margin? Because I refuse to buy that a firm like Safeway has a gross profit margin of 10%.

· Again, I'm not sure why you're assuming that only I'm going to be having that problem. Most firms, like I think Tekania said earlier, have people go through their cashiers without paying for certain items.

· I also doubt that being let off would attract shoplifters. Carrefour and Alcampo often even encourage shoppers to eat in their stores. Regularly, at their cashiers, you find that someone's forgotten to pay for a baguette they ate, or something like that. They are made to pay and that's it.

Carrefour and Alcampo have not gone out of business.

3) How?

1. I doubt it. I suspect that if this woman had been coloured or poor (or a pregnant teenager!), wealthy suburbanite bloggers would have less sympathy for her too.
2. Read the part that I quoted again. Grocery stores tend to have lower profit margins (in the 1% range or as high as 4%, as suggested by another poster). The profit margins are probably different on different items (so they probably make relatively little on produce, but much more on the deli sandwiches that were stolen by the couple).
Most firms have people going through cashiers without paying for items? If you're referring to theft, then yes, probably. If someone is going to buy some items and steal some small stuff though, do you think they're more likely to shop at my store that penalizes everyone for theft, even if they steal a $1 chocolate bar or do you think they're going to shop at your store, that lets people off the hook for this. At your store they face no risk and for each person who steals without being caught, that's $100 more you have to sell to make up for the loss of that one $1 chocolate bar assuming a 1% profit margin. If you're running with a higher profit margin, your stuff is going to cost more than mine so I'll get more shoppers due to my better prices.
3. Single people are less likely to spend $50 on their weekly groceries. While I'm not single, I'm in a long-distance marriage so I buy food just for myself and I spend a little less than $20 a week. So if I was caught stealing $5 in merchandise, but was prosecuted for it compared to someone shopping for more than one person who steals the same merchandise but spends $50 on groceries because they don't live by themselves, how is that fair? In your scheme, you'd be penalizing single people more.

[Keronians]

Oh, come on, I just answered your post. -.-

Ugh, fine. One more, but that's all. I stopped caring enough about this to put up with some of the shit in this thread, but you haven't been the problem.

Sorry it's taken so long.

1) I still think that their would be a negative reaction from the public, even if it is true that the extent of sympathy would be lesser.

2) Several things about the source:

· Is it talking about a gross profit margin or a net profit margin? Because I refuse to buy that a firm like Safeway has a gross profit margin of 10%.

· Again, I'm not sure why you're assuming that only I'm going to be having that problem. Most firms, like I think Tekania said earlier, have people go through their cashiers without paying for certain items.

· I also doubt that being let off would attract shoplifters. Carrefour and Alcampo often even encourage shoppers to eat in their stores. Regularly, at their cashiers, you find that someone's forgotten to pay for a baguette they ate, or something like that. They are made to pay and that's it.

Carrefour and Alcampo have not gone out of business.

3) How?

1. I doubt it. I suspect that if this woman had been coloured or poor (or a pregnant teenager!), wealthy suburbanite bloggers would have less sympathy for her too.
2. Read the part that I quoted again. Grocery stores tend to have lower profit margins (in the 1% range or as high as 4%, as suggested by another poster). The profit margins are probably different on different items (so they probably make relatively little on produce, but much more on the deli sandwiches that were stolen by the couple).
Most firms have people going through cashiers without paying for items? If you're referring to theft, then yes, probably. If someone is going to buy some items and steal some small stuff though, do you think they're more likely to shop at my store that penalizes everyone for theft, even if they steal a $1 chocolate bar or do you think they're going to shop at your store, that lets people off the hook for this. At your store they face no risk and for each person who steals without being caught, that's $100 more you have to sell to make up for the loss of that one $1 chocolate bar assuming a 1% profit margin. If you're running with a higher profit margin, your stuff is going to cost more than mine so I'll get more shoppers due to my better prices.
3. Single people are less likely to spend $50 on their weekly groceries. While I'm not single, I'm in a long-distance marriage so I buy food just for myself and I spend a little less than $20 a week. So if I was caught stealing $5 in merchandise, but was prosecuted for it compared to someone shopping for more than one person who steals the same merchandise but spends $50 on groceries because they don't live by themselves, how is that fair? In your scheme, you'd be penalizing single people more.

Thank you for the response.

I'm not actually trying to refute since (understandably) you're leaving the thread.

And I don't want to force you into making more posts.

[Seangoli]

And in Minnesota, at the very least, legally they cannot be detained until after they have left the store. Intent to steal can't be assumed, basically.

Actually, if you read the article they left the store without paying. They didn't offer to pay until they were confronted with the fact that they had done so, the parents don't deny this. Please read the story before you try correcting people on it. Thanks.

And now I'm done with this thread.

Actually, I wasn't trying to correct you. It was a poorly placed tidbit of information.

[Kobeanare]

Irregardless has been a word for three or four years now.

It's a bullshit "word" that people use without thinking about what it means.

The word people usually want in that situation is "regardless" adding the "ir-" just makes it mean the opposite of what they want in the sentence.

I know, and it sounds awful and I hate when people use it. However, I'm apparently so outnumbered that putting it in the dictionary is justifiable, therefore making it a word.

[Pope Joan]

Don't sue, boycott.

Stores hate that.

Let them sit and watch their overpriced produce rot.

[Wiztopia]

Don't sue, boycott.

Stores hate that.

Let them sit and watch their overpriced produce rot.

Why not do both?

[Conserative Morality]

Don't sue, boycott.

Stores hate that.

Let them sit and watch their overpriced produce rot.

Yes, BOYCOTT stores that prosecute shoplifters! But only if they're pregnant shoplifters.

[Wiztopia]

Don't sue, boycott.

Stores hate that.

Let them sit and watch their overpriced produce rot.

Yes, BOYCOTT stores that prosecute shoplifters! But only if they're pregnant shoplifters.

Or boycott stores with retarded store managers.

[Conserative Morality]

Or boycott stores with retarded store managers.

Yes! How dare that damn store manager follow company policy with a possible shoplifter!

[Wiztopia]

Or boycott stores with retarded store managers.

Yes! How dare that damn store manager follow company policy with a possible shoplifter!

How dare that store manager not have any common sense!

[Conserative Morality]

How dare that store manager not have any common sense!

Yes, because common sense = "I'm going to break store policy and risk my job for a potential shoplifter because she's pregnant."