Mom Arrested;Two year old taken by state for $5 sandwhich

[waggy]

Safeway knew what would happen. Cops + kid involved = DCFS. Safeway knew these were paying customers and could have simply accepted their apology and more of their money but decided to treat them the same as a punk hiding a candy bar in his coat.

...wow. that is fucking idiotic.

The sole blame on this happening is the parents. Not safeway, not the cops (i do think the cops could have handled it better) and not dcfs.

only person to blame was the parents for walking out of the store.


Safeway did the right thing. they called in a shoplifter. the parents may have forgotten (but again that is a excuse by nearly all shoplifters). But they can't allow them to pay after the fact. It is bad for safeway to do that.

only issue i have again is with the cops. they could have(should have) just issued the women a ticket instead of arrest.

 

[tydas]

lol what makes you think they have even the slightest case against Safeway? they stole items. safeway called the cops.

ANYTHING after that is on the cops and the thiefs. In no way is safeway to blame for DCFS takeing the kids.

I do think the cops fucked up and went overboard. But safeway did no wrong.

I'll agree there is no real case against Safeway but they were wrong...cops were not needed in this case...

however, we may be missing certain details like...did the couple say F-U when confronted? were they obnoxious, abrasive?

 

[Lithium381]

The activity is only criminal if it was intentional. If in fact they forgot to pay for the sandwiches, they aren't guilty of a crime. Stupid? Sure, I guess.

negligence is no excuse for breaking the law

 

[thegimp03]

Parents were in the wrong, they should have paid for the items before eating them. Anyways, the store's management and the cops could have saved themselves a PR nightmare by just allowing the couple to pay for the groceries and leave. $5 sandwiches. Big effing deal.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If you walk out of a retail establishment with an item that you didn't pay for, you have clearly demonstrated intent to steal in every single US jurisdiction that I know of.

Many statutes only create the presumption of intent when a person intentionally conceals merchandise. In this case sure consumption could be argued as an act of concealment but it isn't black and white on the subject of intent.

 

[woolfe9999]

negligence is no excuse for breaking the law

What are you even talking about here? Are you arguing with my explanation of what the prosecution must establish to prove the crime of larceny? Proof of "negligence" is insufficient to establish the crime of larceny, period.

 

[Perknose]

Many statutes only create the presumption of intent when a person intentionally conceals merchandise. In this case sure consumption could be argued as an act of concealment but it isn't black and white on the subject of intent.

I understand that "with intent" is written into just about every shoplifting statute, for the very good reason of allowing for possible leeway when other relevant evidence could strongly establish that a mere mistake ocurred.

However, I am unaware of those statutes the mandate concealment as a prerequisite to proving intent. Could you link us to some examples? (Note I'm not saying there aren't some.)

In my experience, absent STRONGLY countervailing evidence, walking out of the store w/o paying for something is considered prima facie evidence of intent to steal. In fact, it is sufficient but not even necessary to walk out of the store in some jurisdictions. Concealment of an item WITHIN the store and BEFORE the check-out line, or switching or removing price tags alone, can alone be considered sufficient evidence of intent in some places.

Another little known caveat still extant in some jurisdictions dates back to the Great Depression and before. In these instances, it is written into the code that if it can be shown that the a would-be stealer of food has no money to pay for said comestible, he or she cannot be convicted of the theft of that food item.

 

[Darwin333]

And who is to say that their original intent wasn't to simple eat the food and then try and walk out hoping they wouldn't be noticed?

I mean if you think that all you are going to get is a warning and asked to pay for it, the risk/reward is pretty low for that type of crime.

They are learning all about risk/reward today with this uber bad press.

Who does the majority of shopping, especially grocery shopping? Women do.

What do you think the average woman, who are very likely to believe that they simply forgot to pay for it and did not intentionally attempt to steal it, is going to think about these peoples child being taken away over what they will likely see as an honest mistake.

I guarantee you that a significant number of them are going to be pissed. Safeway will lose way more business from this event then from the "risk/reward" you are talking about.

Hell, the loss of revenue from that couple alone (who will very likely never shop there again) is far greater than the cost of the sandwiches.

PS Ask your circle of friends if they have ever stuck a case of beer (or whatever) on the bottom shelf thingy of there shopping cart and both they and the clerk missed it in the checkout only to realize that they didn't pay for it when they were loading their car. At least twice I have had to go back in a store to pay for something that was simply an honest error. I would have been absurdly pissed if they would have pressed charges over an honest mistake like that.

 

[Dari]

Sometimes we need to step away from our rules-based society and use discretion before making these decisions. We're not robots and the store clearly overreacted.

 

[Perknose]

What are you even talking about here? Are you arguing with my explanation of what the prosecution must establish to prove the crime of larceny? Proof of "negligence" is insufficient to establish the crime of larceny, period.

Strictly speaking, larceny, even petty larceny, is often a differently enumerated "crime" from shoplifting. As such, different rules can and do apply.

No one (at least not I) is arguing that intent need not be proved, just that what establishes intent in the case of shoplifting can be as simple as leaving the damn store without paying for an item.

 

[mect]

I can't believe there are people that think appropriate actions were taken here.

 

[D1gger]

I wonder what the woman did with the sandwich wrapper? Did she hide it on her person or leave it on a shelf somewhere, or did she put it in her shopping cart to ensure that it was scanned and paid for?

Certainly some indication of her intent could be concluded from her actions.

 

[mect]

I wonder what the woman did with the sandwich wrapper? Did she hide it on her person or leave it on a shelf somewhere, or did she put it in her shopping cart to ensure that it was scanned and paid for?

Certainly some indication of her intent could be concluded from her actions.

According to a news interview, she put it in the shopping cart.

 

[Engineer]

Did the husband eat one too? Did he have a wrapper in his pocket? I'm curious as to why he was arrested too? (not saying he should or should not have been....just curious if he did the same as her)...

 

[mect]

Did the husband eat one too? Did he have a wrapper in his pocket? I'm curious as to why he was arrested too? (not saying he should or should not have been....just curious if he did the same as her)...

He did the same as her. They both ate a sandwich ($2.50 each) and she claims they put both wrappers in the shopping cart.

 

[Engineer]

He did the same as her. They both ate a sandwich ($2.50 each) and she claims they put both wrappers in the shopping cart.

OK. Maybe I missed that in the news story but I assumed the same thing.

 

[woolfe9999]

Strictly speaking, larceny, even petty larceny, is often a differently enumerated "crime" from shoplifting. As such, different rules can and do apply.

No one (at least not I) is arguing that intent need not be proved, just that what establishes intent in the case of shoplifting can be as simple as leaving the damn store without paying for an item.

In California, shoplifting is just petty theft, and petty theft is distiniughable from ordinary theft only in dollar value and penalty, not in its elements. There may be some states that have separate shoplifting statutes that losen up intent requirements.

I represented someone who left a store with a pair of the store's reading glasses on her head. She had used them to read the labels on cosmetic bottles, and had bought $80 worth of cosmetics. She claimed she forgot to take the glasses off her head when she left. Turns out she was wealthy (high 8 figures) and elderly. No motive to steal a $7 pair of glasses, and being elderly it's plausible she forgot she had the glasses on top of her head. This was a non-starter for the DA - no proof of intent.

- wolf

 

[pcgeek11]

This happens all the time in grocery stores. Someone munches while they walk. Mom/dad open a box/bag of something to quiet down a child. Maybe you also need a cookie to calm down a bit.

This case is quite ridiculous in its scope if these people have no prior history.

I agree the case is stupid. However I also think that eating something before paying for it in a store is equally stupid.

 

[monovillage]

The worst part of this was the involvement of child protective services, probably from police policy. The actual shoplifting should have been a citation from responding officers and then let the courts handle it. No child services, no kid being hustled away, just a judge deciding at a later date what penalty, if any, this infraction deserved.

 

[waggy]

The worst part of this was the involvement of child protective services, probably from police policy. The actual shoplifting should have been a citation from responding officers and then let the courts handle it. No child services, no kid being hustled away, just a judge deciding at a later date what penalty, if any, this infraction deserved.

i agree. thats where i think the outrage should be. Not with safeway.

Teh officers should have just given them a citation and sent them on there way.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

There's another story today of someone who forgot to pay. Guess which one will probably get convicted, the sandwich couple, or her?
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/29/4015232/california-assemblywoman-mary.html

 

[waggy]

There's another story today of someone who forgot to pay. Guess which one will probably get convicted, the sandwich couple, or her?
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/29/4015232/california-assemblywoman-mary.html

hmm one is a felony one is not. so gee i wonder if they are the same?

 

[dmcowen674]

Mom Arrested;Two year old taken by state for $5 sandwhich

This story amazes my wife and I because we just had our house stripped and stolen including the light bulbs.

We know who did it, know where they live, know where they put a lot of our stuff and the police said they don't arrest anyone in Oklahoma for theft anymore.

 

[Perknose]

I represented someone who left a store with a pair of the store's reading glasses on her head. She had used them to read the labels on cosmetic bottles, and had bought $80 worth of cosmetics. She claimed she forgot to take the glasses off her head when she left. Turns out she was wealthy (high 8 figures) and elderly. No motive to steal a $7 pair of glasses, and being elderly it's plausible she forgot she had the glasses on top of her head. This was a non-starter for the DA - no proof of intent.

- wolf

And that's why intent is written into most all, if not all, statutes, for situations just like the one above. It's worth noting, however, that her use of the glasses to read the labels, and then her understandable forgetting of them on the top of her head, combined with all the other factors, likely carried the day here.

I say this because, in and of themselves, being wealthy or being elderly or the glasses only costing $7 while she spent $80 would not in most cases provide sufficient countervailing proof of lack of intent to steal at all. It was ALL of these ancillary factors combined with the most convincing idea of her legitimate use of the glasses and her understandable forgetting that they were on top of her head that persuaded the DA, no?

This is because the wealthy shoplift, the elderly shoplift, and as has been noted, people can and do pay for most of their items while simultaneously and intentionally shoplifting but one minor item, either out of lax foolishness or execrably low cunning.

Shoplifting has been shown to be often as much of an emotional act as anything else. Absolute need or logic, specifically the calculus of great monetary gain, need not apply. This does not make it any less of a crime and a modern day pestilence upon our land, for which the rest of us pay hidden billions.

It it brutally unfortunate that those folks were separated from their daughter for 18 hours, exponentially more so if theirs was indeed a mistake of omission and not a calculated theft.

But it is because shoplifting is ridiculously out of control in our society that I at least understand many stores' zero-tolerance responses.

 

[Perknose]

The worst part of this was the involvement of child protective services, probably from police policy. The actual shoplifting should have been a citation from responding officers and then let the courts handle it. No child services, no kid being hustled away, just a judge deciding at a later date what penalty, if any, this infraction deserved.

Have to 100% agree with you here. :thumbsup: