I still think their child should have been raped.

To deter future crimes of this magnitude.

There needs to be a "Oops, my bad" clause in law.

APNewsBreak. Really?

FastJeff: There needs to be a "Oops, my bad" clause in law.

Once upon a time, there was a concept in the core (sorry, corps) of American law called mens rea.

From Wiki: Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

The concept of mens rea would be the "Oops, my bad" clause. Unfortunately, this concept has been all but eliminated.

Given that the parents are considering suing the chain over the incident, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that their stupid was probably a major contributor to this getting out of hand.

Also, CPS taking your kid for a day because both parents were arrested and there are no local relatives isn't exactly a giant outrage. Oh, no, not a single night of free baby-sitting to prevent a child getting lost entirely. The horror.

FastJeff: There needs to be a "Oops, my bad" clause in law.

Generally, without intent, a court will dismiss something this small if it can't be kicked down to the civil courts. You do have to have a trial to establish lack of intent, though, which still means the jail, bail, CPS taking care of resulting unattended kids, etc. So, basically, it's there, but your expectation that everyone will magically be on the same page instantly via telepathy or whatever may not be entirely reasonable.

Paging Cruisertwelve, you are wanted in this thread.

Now that's done. The couple are still dumb asses for eating a couple of unpaid sandwiches while shopping. Also there are reasons why you shouldn't shop while hungry and this is one of them.

If they honestly forgot to pay for the sandwhiches, this is the appropriate outcome. If they thought they'd have a meal on the house just because the chick was pregnant and they had a two year old with them, fark them.

Freschel: Paging Cruisertwelve, you are wanted in this thread.

Now that's done. The couple are still dumb asses for eating a couple of unpaid sandwiches while shopping. Also there are reasons why you shouldn't shop while hungry and this is one of them.

Here's another one. (new window)

I've always disliked finding empty food wrappers in stores. Why can't people eat at home or a restaurant?

They are not just accused of stealing sammiches, they DID steal the sammiches

JRoo: I still think their child should have been raped.

To deter future crimes of this magnitude.

Nah, just sold to some Arab oil baron for enough cash to cover the parent's legal fees.

Generally speaking, if you consume a product that does not belong to you and you subsequently "forget" to pay for it, you should be arrested. Seriously people, is it that hard to wait until you get past the cashier? If you do decide to consume something you don't own you'd better be 100% sure you subsequently pay for it. It's just basic manners.

Two sammies for $5? I skeptical. Always been told Hawaii is costly living. Maybe coconut sammies.

log_jammin: BackAssward: I never said I didn't care about your comments...

I didn't say you didn't care, you big lug you.

Trolls have no perceptible defense against log_jammin's weirding way.

log_jammin: BackAssward: It's awesome how you go out of your way to post a comment about something you don't care about.

thanks. But it's not near as awesome as you commenting about how I commented on something I don't care about.

Who's awesome? YOU are awesome!

You two dipshiats are so meta.

ArkAngel [TotalFark]
Shopkeeper's privilege allows them to detain shoplifters. After that, it's the job of the police, who also did nothing illega

It seem to me that I read somewhere that a business owner has to immediately call police when detaining someone and I think I read the security at Safeway held them 4 hours. If the facts I presented are correct they might have grounds to sue even if they were guilty for illegal detention. Security could have taken their information and had them served later.
I;m also unclear why the police felt arrest necessary verses personal citation.
If they were a flight risk, a danger to themselves, to society, had a history of such crimes, were on probation, were uncooperative, or had outstanding warrants I could see arrest.
If the store video of them showed they took any action to conceal the goods container as a juror I would vote for conviction. If I thought they lacked the mens rea I would not vote for conviction.

JRoo: I still think their child should have been raped.

To deter future crimes of this magnitude.

What action at all could they take against Safeway?

That's easy. You see, stores do not have the right to detain you. You can willingly agree to stay, but the store cannot force you to stay, that's called kidnapping. And the fact that they made these people wait in their offices for 4 hours............................

There should be prizes for the Farkers that predicted this.

HoneyDog: What action at all could they take against Safeway?

That's easy. You see, stores do not have the right to detain you. You can willingly agree to stay, but the store cannot force you to stay, that's called kidnapping. And the fact that they made these people wait in their offices for 4 hours............................

I thought there was something called 'citizen's arrest' in the US ?

But how is it false imprisonment?

Again, a no brainer. The store employees do not have the legal authority to detain somebody, even for a few minutes. They forced these people to wait for 4 hours.

Shopkeeper's privilege allows them to detain shoplifters

Shopkeeper's privilege? LOL there is no such privilege in the US.

the damage is already done... to safeway.

this is a PR nightmare, $5 vs $100,000 to repair the damage... next time, they will give the customer the benefit of doubt, i mean, its a farking $5 samwich.

Coming on a Bicycle: HoneyDog: What action at all could they take against Safeway?

That's easy. You see, stores do not have the right to detain you. You can willingly agree to stay, but the store cannot force you to stay, that's called kidnapping. And the fact that they made these people wait in their offices for 4 hours............................

I thought there was something called 'citizen's arrest' in the US ?

There is, but it is only for felonies, which petty theft is not. (yet)

If they were simply asked to stay (and they complied), I'm not sure whether that would qualify as being "detained".

Let's put it this way, would you willingly stay for 4 hours waiting for police? I sure wouldn't. I seriously doubt anybody who have a 2 year old with them would willingly wait that long either.

I thought there was something called 'citizen's arrest' in the US ?

This goes to business law. A business cannot legally detain somebody. Period.

HoneyDog: But how is it false imprisonment?

Again, a no brainer. The store employees do not have the legal authority to detain somebody, even for a few minutes. They forced these people to wait for 4 hours.

Unless they physically forced them to stay, there is no case. The most important question in the English language: "Am I being legally detained? No? K, Bye!"

Having said that, some people eat a bunch of food inside grocery stores like it's nobody's business and all I can say is fark them in the ass.

Hey how about not eating the farking sandwich until you pay for it. I realize in bizzaro world it's ok but it would never even cross my mind to do this. If I went to my dealers house and shot up a gram before paying then "forgot" to pay him I'd have much more of a problem.

I think consuming goods before paying in the store is completely trashy but if you do it and then "forget" to pay it's your own damn fault when you get busted for shop lifting.

Corporate compassion! It's getting kinda dusty in here...

bestie1: Hey how about not eating the farking sandwich until you pay for it. I realize in bizzaro world it's ok but it would never even cross my mind to do this. If I went to my dealers house and shot up a gram before paying then "forgot" to pay him I'd have much more of a problem.

I think consuming goods before paying in the store is completely trashy but if you do it and then "forget" to pay it's your own damn fault when you get busted for shop lifting.

Woah dude, that's hardcore. I totally went to my dealer's house, smoked a bunch of weed, and he forgot by the time I got my next batch. I guess the moral of the story is don't shoot up. But the even bigger lesson is "DON'T FARKING CONSUME PRODUCTS THAT DO NOT BELONG TO YOU".

I can hardly believe this is news. One of my brothers is a real piece of work. Let's just say he can't keep his hands to himself. I was actually thrilled when Winn-Dixie charged him and he was forced to pay a $250 fine for stealing a $0.25 packet of kool-aid years ago.

/skeletons, what are they again?
//hate that farkhole anyway

phrawgh: Corporate compassion! It's getting kinda dusty in here...

Jee willickers let me come over to your house sometime now that I know the rules. I am sure I can find a lot of shiat there that I intend to pay for but forget at the last moment.

It's not "Corporate compassion" it's more obnoxious behavior by the couple. Since the original articles didn't mention the whole "ate a samich" angle I question the whole "we offered to pay for it" angle now.

Hmm does anyone else think that the cops had better things to do then this? Maybe the rest of the story is that they were douches?

I think, like all things, the bible could have informed Safeway and the police on this situation.

Restitution also had to be made if it was accidental and not deliberate:-

Exo 22:5 "If a man grazes his livestock in a field or a vineyard, and he lets the livestock loose and they graze in the field of another man, he must make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

Exo 22:6 "If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or standing grain or the whole field is consumed, the one who started the fire must surely make restitution.

If he couldn't make restitution he was to be sold :-

Exo 22:3 ... A thief must surely make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft.

...and finally:

There was no penalty if a thief was caught breaking in at night and was killed:-

Exo 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guilt for him.

log_jammin: o out of your way to post a comment about something you don't care about.

thanks. But it's not near as awesome as you commenting about how I commented on something I don't care about.

Who's awesome? YOU are awesome!


So by your philosophy since I don't care about politics I should go in the Politics Tab and post on every thread "Didn't really give a shiat before, don't give a shiat now"? Should I do the same in Sports? Why is it only ok to do this in the general News section?

Unless they physically forced them to stay, there is no case. The most important question in the English language: "Am I being legally detained? No? K, Bye!"

Well, the article doesn't cover a lot. However, the article does state they were led to a room. My business law book says that this: One of the most common and most litigate false arrest situation is that of the retail merchang who detains a customer suspected of shoplifting. The store would have to prove the person willingly accompanied them to the room and willingly remained there.

Having said that, some people eat a bunch of food inside grocery stores like it's nobody's business and all I can say is fark them in the ass.

Sure they do. I've seen it. However, I can see this situation happening too. New to the area, getting lost on the bus, woman pregnant and gets very hungry, and fully intending to pay. What I find weird is a Subway in a store? They usually have seperate paying situations because Subway is a different entity from a Safeway.