Boycott Safeway Supermarket

Off Topic
501

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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…
[/quote]

just because you think that its ineffective doesnt mean that the stores “arent going anything to try and stop it” because they are.

502

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The part about procedures was to lay out context for people who were reading but were unaware of what happens, not directed specifically at you (I managed a store for a while BTW. Never again -LOL)

But…in a situation where you know policy and a first-time suspect doesn’t, chances are they will submit to whatever you say purely by not knowing any better. Nobody is ever told they are being detained: it’s usually words to the effect of “we’ll wait here for the police to arrive”.

Factor in the police response time, having to explain the situation to the cops and making sure the little one is taken care of for the night, four hours isn’t so mystifying.

503

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The part about procedures was to lay out context for people who were reading but were unaware of what happens, not directed specifically at you (I managed a store for a while BTW. Never again -LOL)

But…in a situation where you know policy and a first-time suspect doesn’t, chances are they will submit to whatever you say purely by not knowing any better. Nobody is ever told they are being detained: it’s usually words to the effect of “we’ll wait here for the police to arrive”.

Factor in the police response time, having to explain the situation to the cops and making sure the little one is taken care of for the night, four hours isn’t so mystifying.[/quote]

No. 4 hours at the store IS mystifying. 4 hours at the station while they sort out child services and such is not mystifying. As Push said, “I’ll be on my way now”.

504

absolutely.
They probably weren’t imprisonned at all.
Chances are the horrible gang of thieves complied, and waited peacefully, patiently, anxiously, with their terrified child.
For hours.
while some store manager called the police about charges he already knew he would have to drop.

which is the very definition of “abusing 911”.

505

[quote]kamui wrote:

absolutely.
They probably weren’t imprisonned at all.
Chances are the horrible gang of thieves complied, and waited peacefully, patiently, anxiously, with their terrified child.
For hours.
while some store manager called the police about charges he already knew he would have to drop.

which is the very definition of “abusing 911”.

[/quote]

While I tend to agree with you…we have absolutely no idea what went on in that office, only one side of the story.

Not saying you are wrong, but basing an argument on “chances are” does not hold water.

We also don’t know how this couple treated the cops…maybe they were perfectly calm and rational…maybe they were raving nutbags operating on too little sleep and delicious sammiches.

We don’t know.

506

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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…
[/quote]

just because you think that its ineffective doesnt mean that the stores “arent going anything to try and stop it” because they are.
[/quote]

I “think”? I’ve just explained why it is ineffective. Pages on this and you’re still hanging onto a single quote. I’ve remained on topic every step of the way because it all links in.

I managed a small store that was part of a franchise. I was given a target to reach by the end of the year and a budget to stay within. I hit my target - job done. That’s how supermarkets work; they operate on projections. They don’t look to break records for arresting thieves.

They are probably watching the cashiers closer than the customers. I’d stake money on that.

507

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

absolutely.
They probably weren’t imprisonned at all.
Chances are the horrible gang of thieves complied, and waited peacefully, patiently, anxiously, with their terrified child.
For hours.
while some store manager called the police about charges he already knew he would have to drop.

which is the very definition of “abusing 911”.

[/quote]

While I tend to agree with you…we have absolutely no idea what went on in that office, only one side of the story.

Not saying you are wrong, but basing an argument on “chances are” does not hold water.

We also don’t know how this couple treated the cops…maybe they were perfectly calm and rational…maybe they were raving nutbags operating on too little sleep and delicious sammiches.

We don’t know.[/quote]

Sure we do. Safeway dropped the charges and the police aren’t pressing any :wink:

508

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

absolutely.
They probably weren’t imprisonned at all.
Chances are the horrible gang of thieves complied, and waited peacefully, patiently, anxiously, with their terrified child.
For hours.
while some store manager called the police about charges he already knew he would have to drop.

which is the very definition of “abusing 911”.

[/quote]

While I tend to agree with you…we have absolutely no idea what went on in that office, only one side of the story.

Not saying you are wrong, but basing an argument on “chances are” does not hold water.

We also don’t know how this couple treated the cops…maybe they were perfectly calm and rational…maybe they were raving nutbags operating on too little sleep and delicious sammiches.

We don’t know.[/quote]

Sure we do. Safeway dropped the charges and the police aren’t pressing any ;)[/quote]

This.

And if “what went on in that office” is that they were actually kept by force, against their will, then, well, that’s only worse.

509

nevermind… this thread was entertaining but I’ve got stuff to do now lol

510

Supermarkets have shoplifting hotspots : the meat aisle is considered the bullseye for drug addicts and alcoholics; sammiches/ snacks are the next. Both are near the entrance on the car park side and fit “customer habits”.

Walk into any supermarket and you’ll find that the basic layout is the same.

511

[quote]gregron wrote:
nevermind… this thread was entertaining but I’ve got stuff to do now lol[/quote]

Shopping? ;D

512

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
nevermind… this thread was entertaining but I’ve got stuff to do now lol[/quote]

Shopping? ;D[/quote]

Trying on his wedding dress.

513

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ulty wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The part about procedures was to lay out context for people who were reading but were unaware of what happens, not directed specifically at you (I managed a store for a while BTW. Never again -LOL)

But…in a situation where you know policy and a first-time suspect doesn’t, chances are they will submit to whatever you say purely by not knowing any better. Nobody is ever told they are being detained: it’s usually words to the effect of “we’ll wait here for the police to arrive”.

Factor in the police response time, having to explain the situation to the cops and making sure the little one is taken care of for the night, four hours isn’t so mystifying.[/quote]

No. 4 hours at the store IS mystifying. 4 hours at the station while they sort out child services and such is not mystifying. As Push said, “I’ll be on my way now”. [/quote]

30 mins to “detain/ explain”; two minute call to the police; 58 minute tea break while the cops arrive; 150 mins spent convincing the cops not to arrest the kid.

514

Thank you, Body Guard, for starting this thread; it has been VERY enlightening.

Re: the incident which the thread was about. This whole thing was just another example of the government-industry partnership training U.S. citizens that we have no rights, that they can do whatever they want to us anywhere anytime, and there’s nothing we can do about it - we just have to take it. Also, you have no way of knowing what will “set them off”; behavior that does not set them off sometime/someplace does bring their full wrath down on you some other time and/or place. That is 100% terrorism.

But the authoritarian personality types are so desperate for authority that they will support and defend the actions of the psychopathic personalities no matter how ridiculous, awful, petty, or crazy.

515

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:
I fucking hate it when people feel the need to eat WHILE they’re shopping. Technically, that makes you a thief and a pig all wrapped into one. I’ve never seen anyone that malnourished that the odds of making it to the checkout alive was in question.[/quote]

agreed, but they were famished.

I’ve eaten a grape though before, guess that’s technically stealing :D[/quote]

Wow, I’ve done it many times. Guess I’m a pig. Not a thief, tho – I always make sure the cashier scans the package so I pay for the item, however. I drank a nice coffee while shopping at IGA just the other day. They have this whole cofee/snack bar set up in the center of the store, so I think they are encouraging their customers to eat/drink while shopping.

516

So I didn’t read all 21 pages, but I did some research on the topic to further the knowledge I already contain on it.

Assuming the loss prevention played by all the rules i.e. saw her get the sandwich, eat it, then walk past the point of purchase without paying for it, and approach her outside the store, they had reasonable suspicion to detain her. However, I think since the loss prevention asked to see the receipt outside the store I don’t believe they saw everything they needed to (but that’s just speculation), which means there was no reasonable suspicion of the crime, and they could not legally detain her.

Onto to the fun parts, even if they were legally detained, statues dictate that they may only be detained for a “reasonable time, and in a reasonable manner, for the purpose recovering the stolen merchandise or for summoning the police.”. Four hours isn’t reasonable, it’s not even close. This dictates a false imprisonment case on Safeway. The only thing that might overlook this is if at no point they asked to leave, in my eyes, her asking to pay for the items was asking to leave (opinion: I’m sure in 4 hours they both asked multiple times). False imprisonment is a pretty big deal, and usually has some large payouts to the customers who were falsely imprisoned, which is why there are some fairly strict policies on how and when a merchant may detain a customer.

Furthering the false imprisonment case, the merchant is only supposed to detain the person who committed the shoplifting crime. Whether or not they wanted to decide if the woman who ate the sandwiches or (stereotypically) the man who didn’t pay is up to them. However, after doing some more hunting through the countless articles on this, I saw that SHE bought the groceries with a WIC card. So by detaining the husband and child they committed not only a felony but also violated tort law under the guise of their employer.

I think the couple could easily sue for false imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress (should be guaranteed due to pregnancy), malicious prosecution, and whatever plethora of tort law you want to hurl at them for the distress caused to the child and the parents because of the loss of their child. Safeway fucked up bad, and should the couple sue I’d expect to see a settlement well past 200k, and if it went to trial 500k + however pissed off the judge is in punitive damages (could range from 1 dollar to millions).

On a similar topic, while doing this little amount of research I came across a law in most states (maybe all) that says you don’t have to prove you own something you’ve purchased. Meaning that the couple in question in this case could have told the security to blow themselves (if they didn’t follow policy perfectly). This also means that at best buy, walmart, and any other amount of stores like this, you can walk past the person demanding you show a receipt, even in the case that you bought a TV that isn’t bagged, which sets off the alarm. Considering the door guard hadn’t seen you approach the TV, take it, walk past the point of sale, and to the door, he can’t legally detain you.

If I wasn’t such an honest person, I could a make lot of money very fast by abusing this knowledge of the policies and procedures of supermarkets versus what state law allows me to do.

517

[quote]Tyrant wrote:
So I didn’t read all 21 pages, but I did some research on the topic to further the knowledge I already contain on it.

Assuming the loss prevention played by all the rules i.e. saw her get the sandwich, eat it, then walk past the point of purchase without paying for it, and approach her outside the store, they had reasonable suspicion to detain her. However, I think since the loss prevention asked to see the receipt outside the store I don’t believe they saw everything they needed to (but that’s just speculation), which means there was no reasonable suspicion of the crime, and they could not legally detain her.

Onto to the fun parts, even if they were legally detained, statues dictate that they may only be detained for a “reasonable time, and in a reasonable manner, for the purpose recovering the stolen merchandise or for summoning the police.”. Four hours isn’t reasonable, it’s not even close. This dictates a false imprisonment case on Safeway. The only thing that might overlook this is if at no point they asked to leave, in my eyes, her asking to pay for the items was asking to leave (opinion: I’m sure in 4 hours they both asked multiple times). False imprisonment is a pretty big deal, and usually has some large payouts to the customers who were falsely imprisoned, which is why there are some fairly strict policies on how and when a merchant may detain a customer.

Furthering the false imprisonment case, the merchant is only supposed to detain the person who committed the shoplifting crime. Whether or not they wanted to decide if the woman who ate the sandwiches or (stereotypically) the man who didn’t pay is up to them. However, after doing some more hunting through the countless articles on this, I saw that SHE bought the groceries with a WIC card. So by detaining the husband and child they committed not only a felony but also violated tort law under the guise of their employer.

I think the couple could easily sue for false imprisonment, negligent infliction of emotional distress (should be guaranteed due to pregnancy), malicious prosecution, and whatever plethora of tort law you want to hurl at them for the distress caused to the child and the parents because of the loss of their child. Safeway fucked up bad, and should the couple sue I’d expect to see a settlement well past 200k, and if it went to trial 500k + however pissed off the judge is in punitive damages (could range from 1 dollar to millions).

On a similar topic, while doing this little amount of research I came across a law in most states (maybe all) that says you don’t have to prove you own something you’ve purchased. Meaning that the couple in question in this case could have told the security to blow themselves (if they didn’t follow policy perfectly). This also means that at best buy, walmart, and any other amount of stores like this, you can walk past the person demanding you show a receipt, even in the case that you bought a TV that isn’t bagged, which sets off the alarm. Considering the door guard hadn’t seen you approach the TV, take it, walk past the point of sale, and to the door, he can’t legally detain you.

If I wasn’t such an honest person, I could a make lot of money very fast by abusing this knowledge of the policies and procedures of supermarkets versus what state law allows me to do.[/quote]

You have a point in reference to the false imprisonment issue. Store security can only hold for a short “reasonable” time. But once the police arrive on the scene and they determine a crime has been committed and make an arrest they can hold for a much longer period of time and it is considered “reasonable”. As for how long the store can hold for, I would agree that if the store held the suspects for 4 hrs before the police got involved that would not be “reasonable”. What my idea of “reasonable” is and what the courts idea of “reasonable” is may be two different things and the courts are the ones that determine this. Now once the police get involved they may have up to 48 hours or longer, depending upon the state to hold someone in custody. The courts have ruled that this is “reasonable” due to issues such as weekends and holidays when the police have to obtain warrants on the charges that have been pressed against the suspects.