Posted on 11/01/2011 8:26:21 AM PDT by Mat_Helm
About 25 years ago, somewhere, somehow, someone said, "show them who's in charge."
Safeway will pay up, no doubt, but I hope this family takes legal action against the store employees personally.
Very sad situation, but one where the blame can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the criminals who caused the hypervigilance.
Save the drama for your mama. Pay the fine, pay for the food you stole, and shut up about it.
It’s very true that grocery stores lose an enormous amount to shoplifters. I don’t blame them for being vigilant. There’s room, however for a little common sense.
I’d say the simple evidence that they ~kept~ he wrappers to be plenty of proof that they intended to pay for them and it was merely an oversight. If they had meant to steal them they could have just ditched the wrappers.
Sounds like Safeway overreacted.
That said . . .
1. At item from the grocery store is not yours until you pay for it. Couldn’t this woman and her husband have waited a few minutes until they finished shopping to eat?
2. The fact that this woman is a “pregnant mom” has absolutely nothing to do with incident. Mentioning it is a ploy for sympathy by the author of the story.
This was an over reaction, but, she should have just went to the register and paid for the sandwich before eating it. Stores get ripped off in big ways anymore.
Imagine if everyone went in and started eating stuff before paying.
Yea,I do the same with grapes and save the pitts to be scanned!What B.S.
They probably will sue, and get a nice tidy sum, in spite of the fact that they stole the sandwiches. If they had not been caught, it is unlikely they would have ever paid for them. Intent is hard to determine, but when facts are irrefutable and admitted to, as in this case, then they should have no case whatsoever. They have no one to blame but themselves.
That said, the store manager could have shown a little discretion, but there may be some history here that we are not privy to. Perhaps he already let them off twice before?
You bring up a very good point. This is Hawaii, after all. Lot of tourists and lots of shoplifting. Where I live, we’d all laugh about it and we’d pay for the sandwich. But that is why I moved to a rural area.
I have really learned to hate cities. I’ve watched tow trucks wait on main streets until 3:00 hits and start towing cars as fast as they can. I’ve watched cops sit in broad daylight and write as many tickets as they can at extremely confusing intersections.
In seattle, during lunch break I used to watch cars on fifth avenue come up to Pine with their right blinker on, not noticing the “no right turn” sign. There were multiple motorcycle cops waiting to ticket them. When they stopped for the light, I’d knock on their window and point to the somewhat obscured sign. I didn’t tell them the cops were there so that I could remain completely above board. I did mention that they may risk a ticket because the cops patrol that quite a bit.
I hate cities.
>>I’d say the simple evidence that they ~kept~ he wrappers to be plenty of proof that they intended to pay for them and it was merely an oversight. If they had meant to steal them they could have just ditched the wrappers.<<
Where were the wrappers?
Personally, I would have just made them pay for the sandwiches, but my hubby brought up a great point, why didn’t the husband pay for the sandwiches as his wife ate one?
How long does it take to shop for 50.00 worth of groceries in Hawaii? Five minutes? Ten? Cost of living is pretty high there,
—At item from the grocery store is not yours until you pay for it. Couldn’t this woman and her husband have waited a few minutes until they finished shopping to eat?—
In a “polite” world, people do that all the time. It is actually quite common.
—That said, the store manager could have shown a little discretion, but there may be some history here that we are not privy to. Perhaps he already let them off twice before?—
That right there is the question. Is there more to this story, or do we really just have a little Safeway Nazi running the show there.
I will admit that I have fed my babies out of the groceries I was going to buy. I’ve handed a cashier a bag and stated that there used to be two dinner rolls inside. But that’s just it, I left it in my hand while I shopped and paid for what they ate.
It’s just not that hard. AND there were two people involved.
She was a staff sergeant in the AF. Forgetting the jokes about zoomies in general, I have found sergeants in general to be up front and trustworthy. Point in her favor.
Everyone is jumping on Safeway. I am wondering why the police didn't release one of them to their own recognizance - a $50 bail? - and let the other one take the child home.
If they store blamed the Mom for stealing the sandwiches, then Dad is OK to take his own daughter home. Or used to be when I was younger.
If both were charged equally, then why the $50 bail in three hours? Since when has a theft under $100 ($250?) been a felony?
I understand the Safeway policy about paying for shoplifted items after they leave the store. Everyone would suddenly offer to pay for “forgotten” items and skate. To keep the policy enforceable for other legit thieves and gypsies, everyone gets the same hammer.
Much like any Zero Tolerance policy, it is there to keep the institution from lawsuits.
So far - I have no problem with anyone but the way the police handled the child.
Unless they were looking out for their buddies at CPS.
In the long run, this is much ado about nothing. Now, she should get a FOIA request to the Hawaii CPS ready to see what they wrote in her permanent file.
2. The fact that this woman is a “pregnant mom” has absolutely nothing to do with incident. Mentioning it is a ploy for sympathy by the author of the story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And did you catch that the husband was a “former Air Force staff sergeant”?
Look. We live in a world where common sense is over and done with. It used to be a time where Safeway would NEVER have over-reacted. Now? Now, it’s expected.
That being the case, this foolish and famished young couple learned a lesson. At least I hope they did.
If they sue Subway, I hope they lose.
I can understand how this kind of thing could happen to this couple.
The point is the response was disproportionate. The only thing the store didn't do was rough the pregnant woman up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.