Boycott Safeway Supermarket

Off Topic
482

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t know if this has been addressed or not as I’ve skipped the past 2 - 3 pages but how is it that Safeway can detain someone for four hours? Do they have the right to physically restrain someone(s) from leaving the store?

I’m talking when the family was in the manager’s office. What if they simply had gotten up and walked away, say after 15 - 20 minutes or so of questioning and after they had given them their identity and such? Would a security officer have tackled them? Handcuffed them to a chair? A shopping cart? A bathroom stall?

Would a 30 week pregnant woman literally and forcibly been held against her will if she walked out the door after handing a five dollar bill to the manager in his office (whether he accepted it or not)?

I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

Dunno.

If you do that in Austria, you get charged with something a tad more serious than shoplifting.
[/quote]

See, the reason I ask is, whether I knew I had innocently or not shoplifted the sandwich, after I had been grilled for a few minutes, given them my identity, tried to pay them, whatever…I’m going to pack my wife and three year old out of the store, head home and on the way out of his office tell the Safeway manager, “I’ve given you all my contact information. If the police need to see me they can do so at my home. Good bye and I’m sorry for the trouble.” [/quote]

I got to agree push, I slap down a 10 spot and walk out the door.

483

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t know if this has been addressed or not as I’ve skipped the past 2 - 3 pages but how is it that Safeway can detain someone for four hours? Do they have the right to physically restrain someone(s) from leaving the store?

I’m talking when the family was in the manager’s office. What if they simply had gotten up and walked away, say after 15 - 20 minutes or so of questioning and after they had given them their identity and such? Would a security officer have tackled them? Handcuffed them to a chair? A shopping cart? A bathroom stall?

Would a 30 week pregnant woman literally and forcibly been held against her will if she walked out the door after handing a five dollar bill to the manager in his office (whether he accepted it or not)?

I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

This is the most curious thing I’d like to know. I can’t think of a single rational reason for this.

484

Boycotting all of Safeway for the actions of one manager seems a bit of an overreaction. This moron should have received a citation for shoplifting and sent on her way unless of course she has a history of “forgetting” to pay for shit. Unless she wadded up the wrapper into a tiny ball which then fell out of the cart how did she forget it in the first place? Unless she was shopping for several hours, how do you forget you ate a sandwich while in the store? Where was the wrapper? In the bottom of her cart? In her purse? Was she so hungry she ate that too? The security guy at Wal-Mart told me the two stores here lose around $750,000/yr to shoplifters. People walk out at 2 a.m. with tv’s and computers and often there is no one around to stop them. Damn thieves.

485

As this thread got so big so quickly, I missed a couple things skimming through the pages. Bodyguard did indeed post a link a few pages back to an article that was written more clearly than the first one, where the lady said she placed the wrapper in her cart.

If this is true (we’ve still only heard one side, but it’s the only info we have to go on), then I have a hard time seeing this situation as anything other than very poor judgment from the Safeway folks to kick off this mess. We’ll never hear the other side, and they’ve quickly moved to try to mitigate the damage, but what a fuck up!

The other direction this thread took is the practices if loss prevention in general, and the principles of whether or not it’s kosher to eat or open packages in stores. Where I work, we have to ride the line between being too overbearing with customers and protecting all of our assets. I think most stores would look down upon people eating product in the store before paying for it, and I certainly discourage it, but to crack down on everyone for it would be a poor move. The point with the kids and parents mentioned earlier being a good example.

I also have authorization to bust someone for excessively sampling bulk foods, grapes, peanuts, etc, but the store also likes people to take small samples if they are legitimately considering a purchase. We are urged to exercise judgment on those situations, but it has to be pretty excessive to actually cite them for shoplifting (i.e. multiple returns to the bulk bin for handfuls of product). I’ve had store managers give a friendly warning to customers for sampling (simply letting them know that it is not a free buffet), but I have never actually taken someone in for the official shoplifting process because of that sampling. I have on a couple of occasions approached them at the register and made them pay for what they took, with the option of discussing it in my office if they want to argue, but they always concede. Opening an actual package, and ditching it is a different story.

Bottom line: if you are starving and need to eat right away, do what you gotta do, but just make sure you keep the packaging and pay for it (and get a receipt). If you forget to pay for it and I bust you, I’m not the bad guy.

486

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t know if this has been addressed or not as I’ve skipped the past 2 - 3 pages but how is it that Safeway can detain someone for four hours? Do they have the right to physically restrain someone(s) from leaving the store?

I’m talking when the family was in the manager’s office. What if they simply had gotten up and walked away, say after 15 - 20 minutes or so of questioning and after they had given them their identity and such? Would a security officer have tackled them? Handcuffed them to a chair? A shopping cart? A bathroom stall?

Would a 30 week pregnant woman literally and forcibly been held against her will if she walked out the door after handing a five dollar bill to the manager in his office (whether he accepted it or not)?

I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

it depends on the state. some states allow security guards to physically come in contact with shoplifters and some do not.

487

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The bottom line is that supermarkets can afford to lose whatever is eaten on the premises (and just as a customer I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen empty wrappers, soda cans etc. left on shelves - casual “theft” of food and drink is far more common than most people think, when all you have do to get rid of the evidence is to consume it and dump the wrapper ), just as they can afford to throw out vast amounts of expired, but perfectly good food on a daily basis.

[/quote]
I can afford a new TV but if I ever see someone trying to steal mine I will shoot them. Even if clean up costs more than a new tv.

Lets not make this thread “Occupy T-Nation”.[/quote]

You’re not a supermarket. Again, I never said it was right; I’m explaining why supermarkets don’t do anything about it. It’s their prerogative.

[/quote]
We are both private entities. Just because supermarkets don’t have faces doesn’t change anything.

I can afford to give away some money. If someone tried to steal from my business I would, in a perfect world, shoot them. Would definitely prosecute.

I feel for the corporations and not the people in this scenario, I will be honest. It’s not like they just exist. Somebody puts up collateral on all those products, be it a single guy or a whole bunch of shareholders.

In the original argument of when to pay, I still say stores are not credit cards. Here I say stealing is stealing. [/quote]

I urge you to do some research on how much supermarkets throw away. They can do it because they are huge businesses that buy vast amounts of stock dirt cheap and the huge mark-up offsets any losses they make (including consumption of unpurchased foodstuffs).

How much do you think that $2.50 sandwich in the OP cost them to make? Nowhere near $2.50…

I’m not saying supermarkets deserve to be robbed, which seems to be what people think I’m saying judging by some of the responses I’ve read; I agree that theft is theft, in which case the supermarkets should ban in-store eating, certainly eating from sealed containers. At the very least it would cut out the confusion over whether someone “forgets” to pay for an item.

[/quote]
Production loss (overhead) is common to all businesses in one form or another.

Stealing is stealing.

If someone wants to dumpster dive the old shit have at it.[/quote]

I meant to urge you to do some research on how much supermarkets throw away. Must’ve slipped my mind. Next thing you know I’ll be forgetting to pay for sammiches at the supermarket…

Did I urge you to do some research on how much supermarkets throw away?[/quote]
Overhead vs. theft, tie it together for me.[/quote]

I already did. Supermarkets (and I’m not talking independently owned-stores; I’m talking national / international chains like Safeway) don’t catch every single shoplifter, due to the sheer volume of people moving through the premises on a daily basis. There are thousands of people passing through per day, so it’s mission impossible for security to monitor every single person (they can’t anyway due to “policy”; the policy being that they have to follow a procedure to detain a suspected shoplifter legally. They safeguard their legal rights first).

Any unseen thefts can’t be considered thefts (because they weren’t seen), and I daresay more thefts go unpunished than punished. So…they can only estimate how many thefts have occurred in a single store, let alone worldwide ('coz they weren’t seen), so the unofficial thefts (which account for the majority of losses) come under overheads.

They guesstimate under the radar thefts, lump them in with overheads, account for them in retail prices (as Ulty said), then people like the couple in the OP become part of the official stats because they were caught.

The point I’ve been making all along is that the stores have the power to do something about this, but they won’t because they are golden either way. Spoiled stock or not, they can afford to conduct business in this manner because we, the consumers, have to foot the bill for the “overheads”.

Clear?

488

[quote]roybot wrote:
The point I’ve been making all along is that the stores have the power to do something about this, but they won’t…

Clear?[/quote]

How are they not trying to prevent theft when they hire security and secret shoppers FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of reporting or detering shoplifters?

Please explain how stores are not attempting to do something about shoplifting when they are already hiring the people I just mentioned?

489

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t know if this has been addressed or not as I’ve skipped the past 2 - 3 pages but how is it that Safeway can detain someone for four hours? Do they have the right to physically restrain someone(s) from leaving the store?

I’m talking when the family was in the manager’s office. What if they simply had gotten up and walked away, say after 15 - 20 minutes or so of questioning and after they had given them their identity and such? Would a security officer have tackled them? Handcuffed them to a chair? A shopping cart? A bathroom stall?

Would a 30 week pregnant woman literally and forcibly been held against her will if she walked out the door after handing a five dollar bill to the manager in his office (whether he accepted it or not)?

I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

This is the most curious thing I’d like to know. I can’t think of a single rational reason for this.[/quote]

They have to follow a procedure in order to detain a shoplifter. Visual contact has to be maintained at all times and the witness has to see the suspect pick up an item, otherwise they can’t make the bust (this was probably the policy the manager referred to in the OP).

However, they can’t manhandle a suspect; I’d say that most people effectively detain themselves by not being aware of their rights (it would explain why seasoned shoplifters are more brazen)…sort of like having to deal with bailiffs.

You believe they have more power than they really do…

490

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
The point I’ve been making all along is that the stores have the power to do something about this, but they won’t…

Clear?[/quote]

How are they not trying to prevent theft when they hire security and secret shoppers FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of reporting or detering shoplifters?

Please explain how stores are not attempting to do something about shoplifting when they are already hiring the people I just mentioned?
[/quote]

It doesn’t work. The majority of people slip through the net: a moderately sized store can have up to 10,000 visitors a day. I told you earlier security and secret shoppers are primarily a visual deterrent - they are actively discouraged from tackling a potentially violent thief because they can claim on the store for personal injury.

Stores have limited powers over potential thieves. The experienced ones know what their rights are and actually don’t care if they get caught - there was a thread about store security leaving thieves go…

491

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t know if this has been addressed or not as I’ve skipped the past 2 - 3 pages but how is it that Safeway can detain someone for four hours? Do they have the right to physically restrain someone(s) from leaving the store?

I’m talking when the family was in the manager’s office. What if they simply had gotten up and walked away, say after 15 - 20 minutes or so of questioning and after they had given them their identity and such? Would a security officer have tackled them? Handcuffed them to a chair? A shopping cart? A bathroom stall?

Would a 30 week pregnant woman literally and forcibly been held against her will if she walked out the door after handing a five dollar bill to the manager in his office (whether he accepted it or not)?

I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

This is the most curious thing I’d like to know. I can’t think of a single rational reason for this.[/quote]

They have to follow a procedure in order to detain a shoplifter. Visual contact has to be maintained at all times and the witness has to see the suspect pick up an item, otherwise they can’t make the bust (this was probably the policy the manager referred to in the OP).

However, they can’t manhandle a suspect; I’d say that most people effectively detain themselves by not being aware of their rights (it would explain why seasoned shoplifters are more brazen)…sort of like having to deal with bailiffs.

You believe they have more power than they really do…[/quote]

Thanks, man. I know the procedures, it’s my job.

That’s why I wondered about this. We can’t imprison someone for hours. That part of the story baffles me.

And yes, we are technically supposed to be hands-off, mostly for liability reasons, but also because I’m not going to jeopardize my life for a food item and a part-time job. However, sometimes shit happens and you have to defend yourself or instinct takes over and things get a little rough.

492

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
But they ARE doing something about it. Theyre hiring security guards and “secret shoppers” to watch for it and report it so that they can have these people arrested for shop lifting.
[/quote]
If what you said was true, and it isn’t…
[/quote]

What part of what I just wrote isn’t true?

Why would security reprimand you? Didn’t I say that their job is to watch out for and report shop lifters?

I think you may have quoted the wrong post because your little rant doesn’t apply to what I wrote. You actually agreed with what I said.[/quote]

No I didn’t.

The original premise to which you offered your reply was that the stores do nothing to prohibit “grazing”. You said they DO by hiring security, etc. You implied that such hiring was in fact a reaction to the common practice of grazing. It’s not. Get it?

We said it’s a common practice.
We said they could deter it if they chose.
You retorted that they DO deter it (they don’t).
You claimed (or at least implied) that the mere act of hiring security was to deter grazing.

Since no one made an argument for grazing and not paying, the above is the only logical discourse from these idiot replies.

493

I know Deb touched on this back on page fuck all…but maybe these people were belligerent, and disrespectful.

That would have been the reason the LEO’s took things to the next level.

If you get pulled over for speeding and are polite, you get your ticket and you go. If you are an asshole who disrespects the LEO and does not comply with his requests you get arrested…right or not.

Maybe these “innocents” took shit to the next level and got smoked for it.

Rightly or wrongly.

494

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The bottom line is that supermarkets can afford to lose whatever is eaten on the premises (and just as a customer I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen empty wrappers, soda cans etc. left on shelves - casual “theft” of food and drink is far more common than most people think, when all you have do to get rid of the evidence is to consume it and dump the wrapper ), just as they can afford to throw out vast amounts of expired, but perfectly good food on a daily basis.

[/quote]

?

OK, then I can assume the guy driving a new Corvette has the money and insurance to buy a new stereo system if I take his.[/quote]

I never said it was “right”. In fact, people grazing in-store annoys the hell out of me, but I digress. My point is that if their profits were affected by people literally eating them, they would do something about it. The profit margins are so high on what they do sell, they don’t even factor in losses from unseen theft of the type I described.

The amount of food supermarkets throw out due to expiry/ sell by/ best before dates is shameful (I won’t get into why this happens). They can do this and still make massive profits, because those margins are so high to begin with. It’s like Corvette guy throwing out his new stereo system and replacing it with a new one every day.

[/quote]

Of course their profits are affected by this stuff. In fact, a full third to half of retail prices are attributed to account for theft and shrinkage on its own. This is a common fact in retail.

Stores don’t throw out expired food because they want to. That would be stupid. It’s a matter of quality and safety (although I don’t think it’s actually a legal issue). [/quote]

Uh oh…more realness.[/quote]
Next time I see a whiney brat jacking up my Cinnoman Toast Crunch prices I’m spanking him myself. His mom and dad too for giving in to a little baby. Right there in the aisle.[/quote]

LOL. The truth is, these jackasses are one reason the price of Cinnamon Toast Crunch is so freaking high to start with.
[/quote]

Ding ding ding. Wrong AGAIN!

It’s the people STEALING that account for shrinkage/loss - not anyone grazing and paying.

Don’t let facts (or common sense) get in your way though; you’ve been on a roll.

495

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The bottom line is that supermarkets can afford to lose whatever is eaten on the premises (and just as a customer I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen empty wrappers, soda cans etc. left on shelves - casual “theft” of food and drink is far more common than most people think, when all you have do to get rid of the evidence is to consume it and dump the wrapper ), just as they can afford to throw out vast amounts of expired, but perfectly good food on a daily basis.

[/quote]

?

OK, then I can assume the guy driving a new Corvette has the money and insurance to buy a new stereo system if I take his.[/quote]

I never said it was “right”. In fact, people grazing in-store annoys the hell out of me, but I digress. My point is that if their profits were affected by people literally eating them, they would do something about it. The profit margins are so high on what they do sell, they don’t even factor in losses from unseen theft of the type I described.

The amount of food supermarkets throw out due to expiry/ sell by/ best before dates is shameful (I won’t get into why this happens). They can do this and still make massive profits, because those margins are so high to begin with. It’s like Corvette guy throwing out his new stereo system and replacing it with a new one every day.

[/quote]

Of course their profits are affected by this stuff. In fact, a full third to half of retail prices are attributed to account for theft and shrinkage on its own. This is a common fact in retail.

Stores don’t throw out expired food because they want to. That would be stupid. It’s a matter of quality and safety (although I don’t think it’s actually a legal issue). [/quote]

Uh oh…more realness.[/quote]
Next time I see a whiney brat jacking up my Cinnoman Toast Crunch prices I’m spanking him myself. His mom and dad too for giving in to a little baby. Right there in the aisle.[/quote]

LOL. The truth is, these jackasses are one reason the price of Cinnamon Toast Crunch is so freaking high to start with.

[/quote]
I know. Funny how tuna fish is so cheap. It’s always the tasty stuff, I should have known whiney children were the root cause.

I might go spank some strangers tonight, just to make a point. Wanna meet at the Randalls on Voss around, say, 7? You take the cereal aisle, I’ll take candy.[/quote]

given your body composition and relative strength, you better take the candy aisle (and the kids). just don’t eat the candy there bud.

496

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t know if this has been addressed or not as I’ve skipped the past 2 - 3 pages but how is it that Safeway can detain someone for four hours? Do they have the right to physically restrain someone(s) from leaving the store?

I’m talking when the family was in the manager’s office. What if they simply had gotten up and walked away, say after 15 - 20 minutes or so of questioning and after they had given them their identity and such? Would a security officer have tackled them? Handcuffed them to a chair? A shopping cart? A bathroom stall?

Would a 30 week pregnant woman literally and forcibly been held against her will if she walked out the door after handing a five dollar bill to the manager in his office (whether he accepted it or not)?

I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

This is the most curious thing I’d like to know. I can’t think of a single rational reason for this.[/quote]

security can detain you for a crime but after a bit you’re dancing with false imprisonment. i’d say 4 hours, if true, and if not voluntary, is flirting with false imprisonment. it varies by State. Not sure what the law in Hawaii is though.

497

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I know Deb touched on this back on page fuck all…but maybe these people were belligerent, and disrespectful.

That would have been the reason the LEO’s took things to the next level.

If you get pulled over for speeding and are polite, you get your ticket and you go. If you are an asshole who disrespects the LEO and does not comply with his requests you get arrested…right or not.

Maybe these “innocents” took shit to the next level and got smoked for it.

Rightly or wrongly. [/quote]

Some of us have stated the same…but apparently this means we lack “logic”.

A lot of people just assume complete innocence for some reason.

498

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
The point I’ve been making all along is that the stores have the power to do something about this, but they won’t…

Clear?[/quote]

How are they not trying to prevent theft when they hire security and secret shoppers FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of reporting or detering shoplifters?

Please explain how stores are not attempting to do something about shoplifting when they are already hiring the people I just mentioned?
[/quote]

you are MOVING THE GOAL POST!

we are stating stores are not doing anything to DISCOURAGE GRAZERS…not shoplifters!

499

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I know Deb touched on this back on page fuck all…but maybe these people were belligerent, and disrespectful.

That would have been the reason the LEO’s took things to the next level.

If you get pulled over for speeding and are polite, you get your ticket and you go. If you are an asshole who disrespects the LEO and does not comply with his requests you get arrested…right or not.

Maybe these “innocents” took shit to the next level and got smoked for it.

Rightly or wrongly. [/quote]

Some of us have stated the same…but apparently this means we lack “logic”.

A lot of people just assume complete innocence for some reason.[/quote]

dude, you can’t even spell logic. you just plagiarized it from another post. seriously.

no one, let alone “a lot of people” here assumed “complete innocence”. no one. but fuck it, don’t let that stop you - as I said, you’re on a troll roll!

500

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I know Deb touched on this back on page fuck all…but maybe these people were belligerent, and disrespectful.

That would have been the reason the LEO’s took things to the next level.

If you get pulled over for speeding and are polite, you get your ticket and you go. If you are an asshole who disrespects the LEO and does not comply with his requests you get arrested…right or not.

Maybe these “innocents” took shit to the next level and got smoked for it.

Rightly or wrongly. [/quote]

Some of us have stated the same…but apparently this means we lack “logic”.

A lot of people just assume complete innocence for some reason.[/quote]

This does not explain why they were kept in the managers office for so long…if they offered to pay for the sammie…let them walk IMO.

But the media is gonna latch on the the pregger lady’s story like its the gods truth.

Would like to see the security tape.