How many of you drank alcohol underaged?
Let’s just arrest every college student and give them slave jobs in jail.
Fuck the law when it makes no moral sense.
So many replies…I will read them later, first I write what I think.
Sometimes I don’t understand people. Where’s the empathy? Where is the common sense?
It seems that the one who should be under fire was the security guard, who handled the entire “case”.
Also, the police for taking such an overexaggerated action like handcuffing a pregnant woman because she had “taken” (can’t even call that stealing) a sandwhich…while they were paying 50$ in the rest of stuff.
The bad publicity is going to be worth more than all those…5$.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
Consider this scenario…
You use a shopping cart.
You put a package of toilet paper on the bottom.
You forgot to pull it out to have it rang up on your bill.
Clerk does not notice.
You walk out of the store.
You realize it when you get to the car.
Did you steal it? Was that your intent?
Things happen.[/quote]
This thread got long quick, but I presented that exact scenario earlier.
It was a bottle of fish oil.
I went back and paid for it.
[/quote]
Yeah, but once again, I would see these scenarios differently IF THE ITEM IN QUESTION HAD BEEN OPENED AND MANIPULATED before NOT buying it.
One is forgetting.
The other is saying “fuck it”.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I have never consumed an item in a store before paying and have always thought it was strange when other shoppers did.
I think the minute you decide to consume a product before paying you take on the responsibility to let the store know what you did. At that point even forgetting is no longer an excuse.
She could very well have forgotten but “playing dumb” has been done by many who DID intend to steal.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
Consider this scenario…
You use a shopping cart.
You put a package of toilet paper on the bottom.
You forgot to pull it out to have it rang up on your bill.
Clerk does not notice.
You walk out of the store.
You realize it when you get to the car.
Did you steal it? Was that your intent?
Things happen.[/quote]
This thread got long quick, but I presented that exact scenario earlier.
It was a bottle of fish oil.
I went back and paid for it.
[/quote]
Yeah, but once again, I would see these scenarios differently IF THE ITEM IN QUESTION HAD BEEN OPENED AND MANIPULATED before NOT buying it.
One is forgetting.
The other is saying “fuck it”.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I have never consumed an item in a store before paying and have always thought it was strange when other shoppers did.
I think the minute you decide to consume a product before paying you take on the responsibility to let the store know what you did. At that point even forgetting is no longer an excuse.
She could very well have forgotten but “playing dumb” has been done by many who DID intend to steal.[/quote]
50$ worth of groceries were being paid. She forgot, it’s not an excuse, but an explanation. What’s the point of “stealing” 5$ when you’re paying 50$?
I don’t like when people eat before paying, but it’s mostly mothers giving stuff to little kids.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
Consider this scenario…
You use a shopping cart.
You put a package of toilet paper on the bottom.
You forgot to pull it out to have it rang up on your bill.
Clerk does not notice.
You walk out of the store.
You realize it when you get to the car.
Did you steal it? Was that your intent?
Things happen.[/quote]
This thread got long quick, but I presented that exact scenario earlier.
It was a bottle of fish oil.
I went back and paid for it.
[/quote]
Yeah, but once again, I would see these scenarios differently IF THE ITEM IN QUESTION HAD BEEN OPENED AND MANIPULATED before NOT buying it.
One is forgetting.
The other is saying “fuck it”.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I have never consumed an item in a store before paying and have always thought it was strange when other shoppers did.
I think the minute you decide to consume a product before paying you take on the responsibility to let the store know what you did. At that point even forgetting is no longer an excuse.
She could very well have forgotten but “playing dumb” has been done by many who DID intend to steal.[/quote]
50$ worth of groceries were being paid. She forgot, it’s not an excuse, but an explanation. What’s the point of “stealing” 5$ when you’re paying 50$?
I don’t like when people eat before paying, but it’s mostly mothers giving stuff to little kids. [/quote]
Maybe this is the best argument of why it should not be allowed to eat food before you pay. Just to make sure this type of situation doesn’t happen. It puts the store and shopper in a compromised position.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
Consider this scenario…
You use a shopping cart.
You put a package of toilet paper on the bottom.
You forgot to pull it out to have it rang up on your bill.
Clerk does not notice.
You walk out of the store.
You realize it when you get to the car.
Did you steal it? Was that your intent?
Things happen.[/quote]
This thread got long quick, but I presented that exact scenario earlier.
It was a bottle of fish oil.
I went back and paid for it.
[/quote]
Yeah, but once again, I would see these scenarios differently IF THE ITEM IN QUESTION HAD BEEN OPENED AND MANIPULATED before NOT buying it.
One is forgetting.
The other is saying “fuck it”.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I have never consumed an item in a store before paying and have always thought it was strange when other shoppers did.
I think the minute you decide to consume a product before paying you take on the responsibility to let the store know what you did. At that point even forgetting is no longer an excuse.
She could very well have forgotten but “playing dumb” has been done by many who DID intend to steal.[/quote]
Yep. It is one of those things where once you USE the product, the store can no longer sell the item. This isn’t like leaving a CLOSED bag of Pampers under the basket and forgetting to pay yet remembering in the parking lot. Most of those people would not be targeted by loss prevention BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T USE THE PRODUCT IN THE STORE.
Once you USE the product, you had better make sure you pay for it or else of course you freaking stole it.
These people didn’t just leave a sandwich in the cart. They ate the damn sandwich and had turned it largely to poop before NOT paying for it.
Yeah, the response is over the top…but it is also justifiable and legal.
I bet more people quit doing that after this.
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL[/quote]
Pregnant woman who had been on her feet all day.
They were new to the place and got lost, that’s why they ended there.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL[/quote]
Pregnant woman who had been on her feet all day.
They were new to the place and got lost, that’s why they ended there.
[/quote]
Yes, I can see they are using the sympathy card heavily. Thanks for agreeing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL[/quote]
Pregnant woman who had been on her feet all day.
They were new to the place and got lost, that’s why they ended there.
[/quote]
Yes, I can see they are using the sympathy card heavily. Thanks for agreeing.[/quote]
I already said I don’t like when people eating before paying, like, that young guy eating chips and stuff, but a pregnant woman or a little kid? Empathy comes first in this case.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL[/quote]
Pregnant woman who had been on her feet all day.
They were new to the place and got lost, that’s why they ended there.
[/quote]
Yes, I can see they are using the sympathy card heavily. Thanks for agreeing.[/quote]
I already said I don’t like when people eating before paying, like, that young guy eating chips and stuff, but a pregnant woman or a little kid? Empathy comes first in this case.
[/quote]
…and what happens when the next pregnant lady actually steals it?
…also, the dad isn’t pregnant yet ate the sandwich too.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL[/quote]
Pregnant woman who had been on her feet all day.
They were new to the place and got lost, that’s why they ended there.
[/quote]
Yes, I can see they are using the sympathy card heavily. Thanks for agreeing.[/quote]
I already said I don’t like when people eating before paying, like, that young guy eating chips and stuff, but a pregnant woman or a little kid? Empathy comes first in this case.
[/quote]
…and what happens when the next pregnant lady actually steals it?
[/quote]
Then that case will be judged on its own? That’s pointless.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…also, the dad isn’t pregnant yet ate the sandwich too.[/quote]
She openly munched on one while they shopped, saving the wrapper to be scanned at the register later.
You got some additional source with more information about the case?
Giving hormonally driven women “empathy” to break the rules is a horrible idea. This is when you lock them in a cage until they come to their senses. JK. About the cage part.
Children require understanding of course as they do not fully understand how to operate in society. Offenses can be viewed as teaching opportunities, unless they become repeat offenses.
But a woman with child still knows right and wrong. [quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
More than anything, I am really interested in the way the news really seems to expand on how “tired and hungry” the couple was. Were these poor people? What, they hadn’t eaten in days?
LOL[/quote]
Pregnant woman who had been on her feet all day.
They were new to the place and got lost, that’s why they ended there.
[/quote]
Yes, I can see they are using the sympathy card heavily. Thanks for agreeing.[/quote]
I already said I don’t like when people eating before paying, like, that young guy eating chips and stuff, but a pregnant woman or a little kid? Empathy comes first in this case.
[/quote]
Do you judge the same the guy who steals because he’s hungry than the one who steals out of boredom and laziness?
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Do you judge the same the guy who steals because he’s hungry than the one who steals out of boredom and laziness?[/quote]
Dude, this is what I mean by this ridiculous approach of acting as if this couple was on death’s door before they finally found a sandwich. These were not homeless people. These weren’t starving people. She wasn’t about to give birth right there on the floor.
The chances of them being SO FREAKING HUNGRY that they can’t wait to pay for the food before eating…but somehow do have the time and money to buy 50 bucks worth of random shit is slim to none.
They should have waited. They used, consumed, and damn near excreted a store product and didn’t “remember” to pay. Who was pregnant when doesn’t even fit here.
The significant factor in this mess is the kid involved…but the parents still fucked up and my guess is, these weren’t the most humble people if they are trying this hard to throw the sympathy stone out into the media this strongly.
Listen, let’s agree that it was a very bad decision to eat the sandwhich. Let’s agree 100%.
Do you think it’s normal that for a 5$ sandwhich they were arrested and handcuffed? Mugshots included? To have the kid taken away for the night because they had to be under arrest?
The entire procedure was a mess and it deserves media attention because the guy who started this, the security guard, deserves heavy criticism for his lack of empathy and common sense.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…also, the dad isn’t pregnant yet ate the sandwich too.[/quote]
You obviously have never dealt with pregnancy empathy eating, lol.
It’s like a reality distortion field.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Raping cashiers and eating a wholesome meat sandwich are the same?[/quote]
Holy shit 14 pages already!
I thought about this some more while I was looking for shoplifters in the grocery store last night, and I actually had a similar incident! Then I read through this thread and re-read the article.
First of all, the article linked in the OP is missing some info and glossing over some important details. It doesn’t mention whether the sandwich wrapper was left in the cart and the cashier simply missed it, or if it was stashed in a pocket or purse. That makes a big difference in my mind. It also fails to mention why the wife and husband were both arrested, let alone arrested at all. As I mentioned earlier, most of these shoplifting cases result in a quick cite-and-release. It doesn’t explain why they were held for four hours before the police finally took them in. The fact that the article played up the sympathy angle so heavily but left out this important info says a lot to me. We have the couple’s side of the story as presented to the media and written to sell papers, and the police and Safeway are unlikely to publish their full side of the story because it is an ongoing investigation and legal issue.
From my experience, the only reasons they would be arrested is if they had some warrants or an egregious rap sheet, or if they caused a serious disturbance. I also doubt they would both be held accountable for one forgotten sandwich, especially to these extremes. It is unlikely that they had warrants or a long record since they had only been in Hawaii for a couple of weeks, so I suspect that they caused a major scene. For them to be detained for hours and both arrested would otherwise indicate that both the security guard and the police officer were some sort of rogue hardasses.