At least when they got out they weren't told that the child had been in a temporary foster home long enough to have formed and emotional bond with it's new guardians, and that it was in the best interest of the child to stay.

F*ck the Security Guards (NSFW) (new window)

Meanwhile, about ten people who saw this going on shoplifted at least five times how much the sandwiches cost while the LP was busy with these two heathen thieves.

\cousin worked LP for a while for Stop & Shop, and he'd read this and say about the exact same thing as I just did
\\you'd be amazed what people will do for free food

The authoritarians wanted zero tolerance and got it.

2wolves: The authoritarians wanted zero tolerance and got it.

I wonder what authoritarians will think when something like this happens to them?

Weaver95: 2wolves: The authoritarians wanted zero tolerance and got it.

I wonder what authoritarians will think when something like this happens to them?

"but I'm not a terrorist!"

Weaver95: 2wolves: The authoritarians wanted zero tolerance and got it.

I wonder what authoritarians will think when something like this happens to them?

Isn't that exactly what happened when the DOJ started noticing the nutty right-wing groups?

What are we supposed to be angry about here? Is "we forgot to pay" supposed to be a legitimate defense to a theft charge? Or should we be mad because the parents didn't get to take their three year old to jail with them?

CruiserTwelve: What are we supposed to be angry about here? Is "we forgot to pay" supposed to be a legitimate defense to a theft charge? Or should we be mad because the parents didn't get to take their three year old to jail with them?

Seems like an over-reaction to not paying for a couple sandwiches. They bought other stuff, so it's not like they were on a shop-lifting spree.

St_Francis_P: They bought other stuff, so it's not like they were on a shop-lifting spree.

I do most of my shoplifting while actually shopping. Your argument is invalid.

jaylectricity: St_Francis_P: They bought other stuff, so it's not like they were on a shop-lifting spree.

I do most of my shoplifting while actually shopping. Your argument is invalid.

I bow to your greater experience with these things.

Big Cheese Make Hair Go Boom: This sounds like a massive overreaction by LP and Mgmt. I am gonna guess that Safeway is going to request that the charges get dropped and they are gonna give this couple a ton of gift cards for their inconvenience. Honestly, this is much more embarrassing for Safeway than the couple.

The embarrassment and the ensuing loss of business is the only reason that Safeway will back away from this. Let's say this was two high school kids that went in and ate sandwiches and left without paying, then claimed they "forgot" to pay. Should we be equally angry at Safeway for pressing charges?

I know it sounds cold-hearted on the surface, but this type of theft nickels and dimes businesses to death. I understand the initial reaction to the "they took my baby away!" issue, but the fact is, you eat food in the store, you pay for it. If you don't it's theft. And if you happen to have your three year old with you, she goes to child protective services while you're in jail.

CruiserTwelve: Big Cheese Make Hair Go Boom: This sounds like a massive overreaction by LP and Mgmt. I am gonna guess that Safeway is going to request that the charges get dropped and they are gonna give this couple a ton of gift cards for their inconvenience. Honestly, this is much more embarrassing for Safeway than the couple.

The embarrassment and the ensuing loss of business is the only reason that Safeway will back away from this. Let's say this was two high school kids that went in and ate sandwiches and left without paying, then claimed they "forgot" to pay. Should we be equally angry at Safeway for pressing charges?

I know it sounds cold-hearted on the surface, but this type of theft nickels and dimes businesses to death. I understand the initial reaction to the "they took my baby away!" issue, but the fact is, you eat food in the store, you pay for it. If you don't it's theft. And if you happen to have your three year old with you, she goes to child protective services while you're in jail.

So, what color are the skies on your planet?

CruiserTwelve: Let's say this was two high school kids that went in and ate sandwiches and left without paying, then claimed they "forgot" to pay a completely different set of facts

I used to work at walmart and witnessed almost countless incidents of shoppers eating food while innthe store then leaving the empty packages laying around, feeding children bananas while shopping, eating grapes from the bag while walking around the store. My hunch is this isn't the first time they've done this, but instead the first time they were busted for it.

What is "LP"?

Three Crooked Squirrels: What is "LP"?

that would be loss prevention

CruiserTwelve: I know it sounds cold-hearted on the surface, but this type of theft nickels and dimes businesses to death. I understand the initial reaction to the "they took my baby away!" issue, but the fact is, you eat food in the store, you pay for it. If you don't it's theft. And if you happen to have your three year old with you, she goes to child protective services while you're in jail.

so your solution is to smash everyone down with the hammer of justice - no excuses, no grey areas...just smash the f*ckers in the face until they learn?

I don't think I want to live in a society like that.

okay, or anal bum

Three Crooked Squirrels: What is "LP"?

LAST POST!

kronicfeld: CruiserTwelve: Let's say this was two high school kids that went in and ate sandwiches and left without paying, then claimed they "forgot" to pay a completely different set of facts

What are the factors that would cause you to not press charges against the folks with the kid, and are they legitimate factors or are you just allowing emotions to effect your decision?

Weaver95: so your solution is to smash everyone down with the hammer of justice - no excuses, no grey areas...just smash the f*ckers in the face until they learn?

Where did you get that idea? That's not what I said by any means.

My point is this: Should these people be allowed to get away with theft simply because they had a small child with them? If so, why?

CruiserTwelve: What are the factors that would cause you to not press charges against the folks with the kid, and are they legitimate factors or are you just allowing emotions to effect your decision?

you're right - lets smash everyone down. zero tolerance! DEATH TO JAYWALKERS! BLOOD! BLOOD AND SKULLS! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

yeesh.

CruiserTwelve: Weaver95: so your solution is to smash everyone down with the hammer of justice - no excuses, no grey areas...just smash the f*ckers in the face until they learn?

Where did you get that idea? That's not what I said by any means.

My point is this: Should these people be allowed to get away with theft simply because they had a small child with them? If so, why?

OK, say instead of forgetting to pay for a sandwich, they ate a grape from the bunch. Should they still be arrested for theft and have their child taken away?

CruiserTwelve: My point is this: Should these people be allowed to get away with theft simply because they had a small child with them? If so, why?

1. can you prove it was theft?
2. they offered to make immediate reparations/payment - why would you assume malfeasance when none apparently existed?
3. the store will lose FAR more in negative publicity and pissed off customers than they'll gain by prosecuting someone for a mistake over 2 sandwiches.
4. the COUNTY will spend a couple thousand dollars filing charges, processing paperwork and processing this family over the 'theft' of two sandwiches which probacly cost less than $20. is this an effective use of limited resources? especially when the whole mess could have been easily avoided...?

propasaurus: OK, say instead of forgetting to pay for a sandwich, they ate a grape from the bunch. Should they still be arrested for theft and have their child taken away?

I see. It's not the presence of the child, it's the amount of the theft. So what should be the cutoff amount?

remember - limited resources and budgets are thin. why in the hell would someone want to spend resources filing charges and seizing kids over a couple of $20 sandwiches when time/money/manpower can be better spent chasing after actual criminals?

answer me that question, if you would Mr. CruiserTwelve.

CruiserTwelve: I see. It's not the presence of the child, it's the amount of the theft. So what should be the cutoff amount?

depends on the circumstances. in this case, I'd say it's a wash. they DID offer to pay for the items in quesiton.

Weaver95: remember - limited resources and budgets are thin. why in the hell would someone want to spend resources filing charges and seizing kids over a couple of $20 sandwiches when time/money/manpower can be better spent chasing after actual criminals?

answer me that question, if you would Mr. CruiserTwelve.

See, I thought that was the worst argument you made in your list... Are you suggesting people should be allowed to steal if it's less than $20?

Weaver95: CruiserTwelve: I see. It's not the presence of the child, it's the amount of the theft. So what should be the cutoff amount?

depends on the circumstances. in this case, I'd say it's a wash. they DID offer to pay for the items in quesiton.

Back to my walmart experience: shoplifters almost always offer to pay for the stuff when they get caught. I've seen several shoplifters get busted with their children. I think the cops let them call a family member to come get the kids if one was available.

Ryan2065:
See, I thought that was the worst argument you made in your list... Are you suggesting people should be allowed to steal if it's less than $20?

I'm suggesting that chopping off their hands is a tad excessive. How about expelling them from the store and telling them they can never come back?

Weaver95: 1. can you prove it was theft?

The store security, and the cops, had probable cause to believe it was theft. That's all that's needed for an arrest.

2. they offered to make immediate reparations/payment - why would you assume malfeasance when none apparently existed?

Damn near every shoplifter offers to pay for their stuff. AFTER they're caught.

3. the store will lose FAR more in negative publicity and pissed off customers than they'll gain by prosecuting someone for a mistake over 2 sandwiches.

Granted. That's a business decision to be made by store management. It has no bearing on whether or not these people committed a theft or the legitimacy of their arrest.

4. the COUNTY will spend a couple thousand dollars filing charges, processing paperwork and processing this family over the 'theft' of two sandwiches which probacly cost less than $20. is this an effective use of limited resources? especially when the whole mess could have been easily avoided...?

Again, you're making an economic argument that is outside of the scope of the issue. Did these people eat sandwiches and then fail to pay for them? If so, that's a crime. What legitimate reason is there for not prosecuting them?

Your arguments so far have been either emotional or economic. Tell me legitimately why people with small children should escape prosecution for shoplifting.

CruiserTwelve: Your arguments so far have been either emotional or economic. Tell me legitimately why people with small children should escape prosecution for shoplifting.

sure - right after you tell me why its important to spend upwards of $5k per person to prosecute someone for stealing an item worth less than $20....

keep that up long enough and you've got a society with a LOT of serious financial issues. hmm....actually, that DOES sound kinda familiar....

Weaver95: Ryan2065:
See, I thought that was the worst argument you made in your list... Are you suggesting people should be allowed to steal if it's less than $20?

I'm suggesting that chopping off their hands is a tad excessive. How about expelling them from the store and telling them they can never come back?

So how much should be stolen before law enforcement gets involved? Are you under the impression local law enforcement takes a % of the money stolen to pay for the costs of the trial?

Weaver95: I'm suggesting that chopping off their hands is a tad excessive. How about expelling them from the store and telling them they can never come back?

Beacuse theft is a major issue with retail businesses and prosecution is their only tool to combat it. Nobody suggested cutting of anyone's hands, but without consequences shoplifters will put the store out of business.

Ryan2065: Weaver95: Ryan2065:
See, I thought that was the worst argument you made in your list... Are you suggesting people should be allowed to steal if it's less than $20?

I'm suggesting that chopping off their hands is a tad excessive. How about expelling them from the store and telling them they can never come back?

So how much should be stolen before law enforcement gets involved? Are you under the impression local law enforcement takes a % of the money stolen to pay for the costs of the trial?

i'm saying that I question the sanity of a society that believes in harsh punishments for minor crimes. I also question the wisdom of allocating scarce resources tracking down minor crimes. zero tolerance is a scary, scary philosophy and its one that NOBODY can afford right now.

here's a solution that works better for all concerned - pay up for the sandwiches and banninate them from the store. nobody ends up in jail, the family in quesiton knows not to come back there, and the county doesn't end up wasting a jail cell on a non-violent crime that harmed absolutely nobody.

Weaver95: sure - right after you tell me why its important to spend upwards of $5k per person to prosecute someone for stealing an item worth less than $20....

To extend your argument to it's logical conclusion, you're suggesting that any theft in which the items stolen are less than the cost of prosecution should be legal. Since, in your estimation, it costs 5k to prosecute a theft, we should just change the law to exclude all thefts of less than 5k, right?

Weaver95: here's a solution that works better for all concerned - pay up for the sandwiches and banninate them from the store. nobody ends up in jail, the family in quesiton knows not to come back there, and the county doesn't end up wasting a jail cell on a non-violent crime that harmed absolutely nobody.

And when word gets around, it's "free sandwiches for everyone! You only pay if you get caught!"

Just coming in to see if the usual police state fascists were in here, and seeing the usual suspects, I see no reason to stay.

CruiserTwelve: Weaver95: I'm suggesting that chopping off their hands is a tad excessive. How about expelling them from the store and telling them they can never come back?

Beacuse theft is a major issue with retail businesses and prosecution is their only tool to combat it. Nobody suggested cutting of anyone's hands, but without consequences shoplifters will put the store out of business.

again - the store will lose FAR more in negative publicity over this than they'll gain by attempting to scare potential shoplifters. so the only 'consequences' here are that the store chain looks like a bunch of mindless authoritarian pricks. Great call for a retail biz that depends on good customer rep to survive in a down economy.

and its not great for the cops either - now some patrol officer gets to spend time and money locking up the family, getting child services involved, filing reports and processing everyone involved. so does child protective services too - they'll file paperwork, spend money getting the kid into a safe place for the night, then process him back home. the court will spend money setting up a court date, the prosecutor will spend money building his case, time spent on gathering evidence, dealing with the defense lawyers. and if the family is poor, the bill for the defense is on the court as well.

ALL of that for a crime where nobody got hurt and the item(s) in question total value was less than $20. At what point do we stop and admit that harsh authoritarian crackdowns on minor violations are simply not economically viable? Look - I know that authoritarians masturbate to stuff like this, and they don't want to give up their sex machine...but its killing us man. we don't have the money for shiat like this anymore.

St_Francis_P: CruiserTwelve: What are we supposed to be angry about here? Is "we forgot to pay" supposed to be a legitimate defense to a theft charge? Or should we be mad because the parents didn't get to take their three year old to jail with them?

Seems like an over-reaction to not paying for a couple sandwiches. They bought other stuff, so it's not like they were on a shop-lifting spree.

Remember, kids: If customers make an error and walk out with something they forgot to pay for, it's "shoplifting". If a store commits an error and gouges you on the listed price, it's a "pricing error".

CruiserTwelve: Weaver95: here's a solution that works better for all concerned - pay up for the sandwiches and banninate them from the store. nobody ends up in jail, the family in quesiton knows not to come back there, and the county doesn't end up wasting a jail cell on a non-violent crime that harmed absolutely nobody.

And when word gets around, it's "free sandwiches for everyone! You only pay if you get caught!"

hey, it works for wall street.

CruiserTwelve: Beacuse theft is a major issue with retail businesses and prosecution is their only tool to combat it. Nobody suggested cutting of anyone's hands, but without consequences shoplifters will put the store out of business.

ROFL

CruiserTwelve: propasaurus: OK, say instead of forgetting to pay for a sandwich, they ate a grape from the bunch. Should they still be arrested for theft and have their child taken away?

I see. It's not the presence of the child, it's the amount of the theft. So what should be the cutoff amount?

That's what I'm asking you. In a discussion over following the absolute letter of the law over the spirit of the law, you've come down on the absolutist position. So im asking you, what's too small an infraction to not warrant taking their child away?

CruiserTwelve: Weaver95: sure - right after you tell me why its important to spend upwards of $5k per person to prosecute someone for stealing an item worth less than $20....

To extend your argument to it's logical conclusion, you're suggesting that any theft in which the items stolen are less than the cost of prosecution should be legal. Since, in your estimation, it costs 5k to prosecute a theft, we should just change the law to exclude all thefts of less than 5k, right?

I'm saying that if you're spending all your budget on minor crimes, then you're f*cking stupid and deserve to go broke.

oh - and don't ask for a bailout either because i'm voting against it.

What about all the stealing the store does from its employees and customers? Should that be ignored?

They could have sold those sandwiches for a dollar less and still made a profit. Why are they overcharging for their sandwiches? Likewise, they could pay their employees an extra dollar a day and still turn a profit. Why aren't they paying their employees what they're worth?

Mike_LowELL: Remember, kids: If customers make an error and walk out with something they forgot to pay for, it's "shoplifting". If a store commits an error and gouges you on the listed price, it's a "pricing error".

Remember stores, if you catch someone shoplifting and they claim they forgot to pay (which is pretty much every shoplifter you'll ever catch) don't prosecute them because it was just an honest mistake.

Weaver95: i'm saying that I question the sanity of a society that believes in harsh punishments for minor crimes. I also question the wisdom of allocating scarce resources tracking down minor crimes. zero tolerance is a scary, scary philosophy and its one that NOBODY can afford right now.

I'm calling for some form of punishment for minor crimes, not harsh sentences and zero tolerance. If the punishment is simply pay for the item stolen and not go back to the store for a little bit (banning for life is not realistic) you'll find this happening more and more. There should be a fine and a little mark on your record if the store decides to follow through.