This is a perfect example of the system running amok. I think the store is very sorry this ever happened, but it did.

http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-mom-says-sandwich-arrest-horrifying-214407004.html

That's absolutely crazy. I would sue the balls off that store's manager and security gaurd.

Safeway should fire the manager and security guard and then give this lady free groceries. Common sense should have prevailed on SOOOO many levels here.

Unfortunately, I've been told by folks from OK that have lived in HI, that "offlanders" are often treated like dirt by the islanders....to the point it's almost a racism issue. Get out of the tourist area and try to live there, and barriers are placed in front of you every day. Crap like this is a good example of it.

I heard about this on Bob & Tom this morning. The manager said he was following policy... I'm thinking Safeway will be changing either their policy or their manager.

"Oops I forgot to pay" is a very common excuse in retail stops. Most big box stores have a cut-off for pressing charges, however and $5 is not much...
How could they change their policy without losing face, losing customers or losing legitimate stops?

"How could they change their policy without losing face, losing customers or losing legitimate stops?"

Obviously, they already have a very effective policy vis-a-vis public relations, but it could be better: The scofflaws could be put in stocks outside the store for about a week as a lesson to other potential thieves and have their foreheads branded with an "S" (for "Shoplifter") . . . (or Sandwich).

Cruel and unusual...

Yeah . . . Sort of like being arrested, taken downtown, and having your beloved child ripped from your arms over an empty sandwich wrapper. Or even two of them.

"Book 'em Danno . . . Here's a real heavy book to use that doesn't leave bruises."

The store manager should have some discretion in cases such as this that were honest mistakes vs. obvious shoplifting attempts. Apparently, Safeway is now dropping the charges, but it never should have gotten as far as it did.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/safeway-drops-theft-charges-against-pregnant-mom-27132589.html

I'm not really sure what you guys think this family would gain by a lawsuit, as the company and the state were solely enforcing the law. I'm sure the manager did not have discretion under company policy to decide whether or not to press charges. Obviously, from a public relations perspective, Safeway would have been better served letting the woman go, but I'd imagine the company does not want to give its managers free rein to determine whether or not to press charges in instances of shoplifting. The story relates that they were only charged with a petty misdemeanor, basically the equivalent of a speeding ticket. Intent is a difficult matter to prove, I'd say lesson learned and move on and not try to make a media event out of enforcement of the law.

I'm curious where you guys would draw a bright-line store policy. Would it be intent based? Based on the value of the item stolen?

What exactly is a manager if not someone of authority entrusted to use common sense and make decisions based on individual circumstances? I don't for a second believe store managers do not have the ability to interpret policy as needed in the best interests of all involved.

It amazes me how people take policies and authority to the extreme. As the person in charge in any business you have to be able to know when to apply strict policy enforcement and when you can go around it. All that matters is that you can articulate why you did it. I see issues with the store manager, the security guard and the arresting officer. I can't believe none of them suggested that she pay for the sandwich. If she refused to pay, they should have obtained her information and told her not to return. Many businesses will ban a customer when the item taken is recovered or the item is inexpensive. It saves the business time and money. If the person comes back to the business. They have them arrested for trespassing.

What exactly is a manager if not someone of authority entrusted to use common sense and make decisions based on individual circumstances? I don't for a second believe store managers do not have the ability to interpret policy as needed in the best interests of all involved.

What individual circumstances? She stole...Saying she did it by accident doesn't change that.

What individual circumstances? She stole...Saying she did it by accident doesn't change that.

If you buy $50 worth of groceries why would you go ahead and steal $5's worth of sandwichs? As others mentioned, common sense should come into play here, not acting like a robot who listens to only one command. It's called "being reasonable."

What individual circumstances? She stole...Saying she did it by accident doesn't change that.

The ones that cause most of us to live within reality. There also appears to be no intent to steal. And the same circumstances that allow law enforcement to decide when to arrest, write tickets or leave well enough alone. Not to mention circumstances that allow judges and juries a wide latitude in many circumstances when it comes to punishment.

I'm not understanding the "accidental" argument. People speed by accident everyday and get cited for it; intent is irrelevant. She was charged with a petty misdemeanor which is the same category as a traffic ticket. If she were facing a true-blue misdemeanor which might carry a stout fine or jail time then perhaps intent would be a meaningful consideration. Can you explain how is someone who accidentally drives slightly over the speed limit is deserving of a fine when someone who accidentally takes from a store is not?

People accidently speed and get tickets, she accidently stole, she was arrested and seperated from her 3 year old daughter for 18 hours. Her punishment sounds a bit more severe than being cited a couple hundred dollar fine depending on how fast the person was going over. When I speed, it's not on accident, I intentionally hit the gas to go faster; I know what I'm doing. And normally cops will give you a 5-10 miles over before they really consider pulling you over, depending on the cop, and a lot of times they will just cite you a warning and let you go depending on the circumstance.

Brian: What exactly is a manager if not someone of authority entrusted to use common sense and make decisions based on individual circumstances? I don't for a second believe store managers do not have the ability to interpret policy as needed in the best interests of all involved.

As truthful as that statement may be, obviously, you do not glean a living within The Corporate Structure of The New Millennium.


HeWent: What individual circumstances? She stole...Saying she did it by accident doesn't change that.

Could you please post a graph to prove the veracity of that conjecture?
And how does the cutting off of a hand--or hands--move the line on the graph?
and where does "cruel and unusual" enter the picture?

All joking aside . . .
I would imagine that a simple: "Go . . . And sin no more. At least not at this location."
Would have been more than sufficient.
Especially when combined with CCTV.

The ones that cause most of us to live within reality. There also appears to be no intent to steal. And the same circumstances that allow law enforcement to decide when to arrest, write tickets or leave well enough alone. Not to mention circumstances that allow judges and juries a wide latitude in many circumstances when it comes to punishment.

Appears to be no intent based on what? Her saying she didnt mean to do it? They really do all say that. I agree that the separation was uncalled for, but that was up to the police. The store probably did exactly what any store around here would have done. The story is missing some key details that make it hard to say for sure.

If you buy $50 worth of groceries why would you go ahead and steal $5's worth of sandwichs? As others mentioned, common sense should come into play here, not acting like a robot who listens to only one command. It's called "being reasonable."

I would not steal with cash in my pocket, but I can assure you people do.

People accidently speed and get tickets, she accidently stole, she was arrested and seperated from her 3 year old daughter for 18 hours. Her punishment sounds a bit more severe than being cited a couple hundred dollar fine depending on how fast the person was going over.

You're conflating punishment with the accompanying circumstances of the arrest. Her punishment will be a fine, just like the speeding ticket.

All joking aside . . .
I would imagine that a simple: "Go . . . And sin no more. At least not at this location."
Would have been more than sufficient.
Especially when combined with CCTV.

Retail loss prevention policies are very detailed for a reason. When you start cutting loose everyone who says they didn't mean to, or everyone that has cash then all the regulars start carrying cash and saying they didn't mean to. Shrink skyrockets.

Who said anything about "cutting loose everyone"?
(I think it was you.)

And that ain't swell, Amigo.

Not to mention the confusion caused if "They" can't speak English--or Hawaiian--and are carrying pesos.
For necessities.

I think you need to revise your graph.

(While both you and I--if you will excuse the redundancy of "both" in the previous phrase =)--evolve into accepting BDK's simple, honest, workable, pragmatic and realistic suggestion.)

You're conflating punishment with the accompanying circumstances of the arrest. Her punishment will be a fine, just like the speeding ticket.

Not all speeding tickets are fines though. That's my main point, they will let you off with a warning under certain circumstances.

Not all speeding tickets are fines though. That's my main point, they will let you off with a warning under certain circumstances.

I don't understand that argument. The police have the discretion in the instance of a traffic ticket, they do not have that discretion in the case where an aggrieved party wants to press charges. I agree that the smart, though not necessarily "right," thing to do would be to not press charges. Law enforcement is not at fault in this instance. Also, can you imagine the potential for abuse if the police had complete discretion regarding the pressing of charges?

I'm not upset with the police, I'm upset with the way the Manager and Security Gaurd handled it, even if it was within the store's bogus policy if that is infact the case. I'm using the comparison that you first used, I'm not arguing anything about the way the police handled it.

External/Civic "Law Enforcement" actually has very little to do with this particular incident because they--The Police--would have to be called by immediate--non civic/lesser authorities--in order to enforce "Store Policy."

This, in itself, makes the retail situation different than a traffic violation--such as running red lights or sitting at green left turn signals talking on a cell phone, a violation of the privilege of driving--for which all of us (as taxpayers and ad hoc/prima fascia signers of The Social Contract as we know it (on account of being schooled in the past)--pay police officers in order to avoid.

I think that a fair settlement for this imaginary proposed lawsuit would be for The Store Manager/Asset Protection Officer to make a donation to The Customer Benelovence Fund that could be handed to the Police Officers involved in the initial response, to the bogus call, and returned to the falsely charged "Shoplifter" (with much pomp and circumstance on behalf of the mayor, the governor . . . perhaps with a cameo appearance by Jessie and Al who could be flown out there to Hawaii) with apologies.

Why . . . Maybe even a ceremonial burning of the citation (paperwork) could be performed!
As a sort of peace offering to the ancient Hawaiian volcano gods of common sense.

Just to get all parties to the agreement on board.
Rather than running amok.
And, by so doing (allegedly), being part of the problem rather than the solution.

The ones that cause most of us to live within reality. There also appears to be no intent to steal. And the same circumstances that allow law enforcement to decide when to arrest, write tickets or leave well enough alone. Not to mention circumstances that allow judges and juries a wide latitude in many circumstances when it comes to punishment.

Without question, there's probable cause to arrest here. That doesn't mean that there's enough evidence for a conviction though. I don't see any evidence of anything that doesn't happen all the time. She says it's an accident. People lie.

--and the article mentioning that she's pregnant? So?

Yeah, I found it funny that they just had to mention that too cause not one time did I see anything that put her unborn baby in danger. But they did it so oh, well.

I guess maybe the stress from the situation could of hurt the baby? Who knows.

That was the easiest $100 for legal advice I ever made/didn't have to spend.
(Not to mention dealing with downtown parking. Oy vey!).
Thank you.

Insane. To put a child through that separation over a couple of sandwiches is outrageous. Ticket them, charge them, throw the book at them if they have to, but placing that child in state custody over this, for even an hour, is just wrong. I don't have high blood pressure but it just sky rocketed at the thought.

I'm not upset with the police, I'm upset with the way the Manager and Security Gaurd handled it, even if it was within the store's bogus policy if that is infact the case. I'm using the comparison that you first used, I'm not arguing anything about the way the police handled it.

You should get a job in loss prevention. You will feel different about this entire scenario.

You should get a job in loss prevention. You will feel different about this entire scenario.

Thanks, just what I needed, a job solution to change my opinion on something. Lol

Ask HWTJ to graph the effectiveness of the proposed and revised solution.
Then ask HWTJ if HWTJ knows what a job is . . .

(Or don't. =)

HWTJ... Do as RM says please. Lol

Ask HWTJ to graph the effectiveness of the proposed and revised solution.
Then ask HWTJ if HWTJ knows what a job is . . .

(Or don't. =)
Since I managed shrink control for several years I have a pretty solid grasp on this. If you let her go then on what basis do you keep the other 200+ people that say the same thing every year? What do you do when your regulars start bringing their kids because they know you won't call the police if they do? What about the ones who have their kids do the stealing(OOPS DID HE REALLY TAKE THAT???) I guarantee if he spent a year or so actually making stops he would no longer see the store as at fault here. I'm pretty sure this woman didn't mean to steal but if the store makes that judgment they will have to defend other choices to go ahead with charges. And then you start realizing how litigious we really are in this country.

I've worked full time(often more than full time) since I was 15 and a half. Yourself?

Ya know Safeway admitted they were wrong. I gotta figure they are in the best position to know. Enuf said.

Ya know Safeway admitted they were wrong. I gotta figure they are in the best position to know. Enuf said.

Stewie's got a point y'all.

"I've worked full time(often more than full time) since I was 15 and a half. Yourself?"

So, that statement may account for the most recent year and a half . . .
And then . . . ?

Without question, there's probable cause to arrest here. That doesn't mean that there's enough evidence for a conviction though. I don't see any evidence of anything that doesn't happen all the time. She says it's an accident. People lie.

--and the article mentioning that she's pregnant? So?

And you and I both know that 'probably cause to arrest' is not a high standard. If a cop wants to arrest someone, they can, with virtually no effort or foundation.

People lie - and people make honest mistakes. I remember several years ago I was with someone and we stopped at a c-store and ran inside for some snacks. The person with me picked up some car classified magazine and left without paying - thinking it was a free publication. A few minutes later he realized the $1.00 (?) price on the cover. We turned around and went back and paid. The clerk said he thought he saw us walk out with it without paying, but admitted it wasn't worth any effort on his part (he was the store owner). He thanked us for coming back. If he wanted to be a real jerk he could have called the cops and caused us lots of problems.

I also worked for WalMart in the late 80's or so. On more than one occasion the Village PD showed up for a shoplifting call and would let the offender go with a ticket if they had fully identified the person and the amount was insignificant. This, even though loss prevention wanted an arrest and prosecution. The cop would explain that technically the alleged shoplifter was 'arrested' and released in the field with either a court date or that detectives would decide whether or not to request charges in the near future.

I have no idea if the law allowed for that where this occurred, but I know it does here. This even happens with my prostitution citizen arrests. SOmetimes they are taken to jail for processing and sometimes they are released in the field.

That is what should have happened in this case, IMO.

"I've worked full time(often more than full time) since I was 15 and a half. Yourself?"

So, that statement may account for the most recent year and a half . . .
And then . . . ?
I worked some more.

Two more recent unrelated events about how the system can sometimes go crazy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/terri-weissinger-trapped-in-airport-for-week_n_1072608.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/york-city-cop-imprisons-college-student-without-id-151221707.html

This situation reminds me (at least in a tangential sense) of something that happened to me at Best Buy once.

I walked out the wrong door.

At the time of this incident, they intended to route all inbound traffic through one door, and outbound through the other, presumably to go through their loss prevention scanner. I bought nothing, walked out the "wrong" door, and was several feet into the parking lot toward my car when their security guard told me to come back in the door and go through the exit. I politely but emphatically told him I had absolutely no intention of doing so, and left.

I can't help but wonder how one security guard kept them from leaving, particularly if he was unarmed. I'd have scooped up the child and kept right on walking.

I know by the time I left WalMart the policy at the Village store was not to physically detain a shoplifting suspect in any way. Basically, if they didn't agree to come back into the store with you, all you were to do was get their description and tag number and call police.

That store had incidence where thugs would come in, conceal something and right before leaving they'd discard it in the store - all in the hopes of getting detained so they could make some claim against the store.

Also had thugs come in, spill some slippery liquid on the floor and then a buddy would come in 2 minutes later and fake a slip and fall.

I worked at a major retail clothing store a few years ago, and that was their policy, too. I think that's the law in most states--you don't have the right to detain someone, even if you have evidence of them stealing. I wasn't in loss prevention, but the loss prevention person would pull me aside and have me 'stall' someone they knew was shoplifting until the cops got there. If someone went through the door and the alarm went off, and they didn't stop and come back inside, there wasn't anything that the employees could do.

I will also point out that my roommate in college was a klepto, and her method of stealing often entailed purchasing a significant amount of clothing/food, but also concealing a lot of product under her clothing. If the alarm happened to go off, she would dutifully go back to the clerk and they would let her go through the door. Their logic was probably the same as what you guys have pointed out--"she bought 50 bucks worth of stuff, so she's not stealing." But then she'd return the items she purchased at a later time. This is a pretty common technique used by people who steal. Maybe not so prevalent in grocery stores.

Policy is policy...I might not have done the same thing as the manager, but I'm not going to criticize them. And yes, people steal right in front of their kids all the time. What did you expect them to do, take the kid to jail with the mother??

Yeah, I'm still not really convinced it was a "simple mistake." She didn't offer to pay until caught. Some folks get off on stealing.

Actually, Oklahoma law will allow you to detain someone under certain circumstances. Most companies just choose a path of less liability though and let them go. In my work, if a felony was committed in my presence I would likely detain the person with reasonable force if police dispatch told me an officer was in route and nearby.

I'm not sure what some of you think taking the parents to jail accomplished that simply giving them a ticket/summons would not have. Taking a person to jail in these cases is simply to process them and do some paperwork and then you walk out. Maybe put up a small bond and maybe you don't. There is no reason why if the parents could prove who they were that they couldn't have been identified, ticketed, given a court date and leave.

Like it or not, when you get a traffic ticket, you have technically been arrested.

I agree they may have committed misdemeanor shoplifting. Regardless, the gravity of the crime did not rise to the level of the reactions by the store and the police, IMO, based on the story as presented.

Mortifying..

Utterly distasteful that that scenerio blew WAY out of proportion like it did.

Mortifying..

Utterly distasteful that that scenerio blew WAY out of proportion like it did.

As they say hindsight is 20/20. We all talk like we may have done something diffrent but, we don't know the circumstances because we weren't there. I am just glad to here Safeway agreeded that mistakes were made. I am sure Safeway sent the family some free groceries and a little apology cash to make the story go away.

The moral of this story is: Pay for your stuff before you consume it or use it. If you need the item right this minute, go pay for it. Keep the reciept out in the open so nobody bothers you about it.

If I may beg to differ? . . .
The "moral" of the story is that there are a bunch of radio-controlled half-wits managing the proper flow of commerce.

The suggestion is: Don't steal.
But that goes without saying.

(May I apologize for adding Old School Ethics to a discussion such as this?
Thank you.)

P.S.: The only time that "hindsight is 20/20" is if one is a Procto-Opthamologist looking up his or her own ass.
Except on those rare occasions when that is actually the case . . . That particular cliché should probably be avoided.