Pregnant Woman Arrested for "Stealing" Sandwich

This Sir, is ridiculous.
Arresting her, and then putting her Child in strangers care. Because of a sandwich...wow.

Reading such really ruins the day...and any faith in mankind.

A politician or banker that embezzles 70k will receive a better treatment than that!

 

As usual, there are some pieces missing. Why two sandwiches? Was one not enough for her? Or did the husband eat one? And if he did, why, if she was the one who was hungry? Presumably there are surveillance cameras; was the couple acting suspicious? What did they do with the wrappers?

I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, stores (rightly, IMO) take a pretty hard line when it comes to shoplifting. It’s easy enough to say “Oh, I forgot to pay, so I’ll just pay now” when you’re caught stealing.

On the other hand, regardless of whether they intentionally didn’t pay, the store’s handling of it seems a bit over the top under the circumstances.

 

Wow - talk about over the top. At least they said that they got their daughter back after about 18 hours - but that still means she was in foster care overnight. I'm with BTA on this one. If their intent was to shoplift, it seems more likely that they wouldn't have paid for the $50 worth of groceries, rather than the $10 worth of sandwiches. I also agree with BTA that they probably both ate a sandwich. When your wife is pregnant, it's pretty much a given that you're putting on 5-10 sympathy pounds, just because she eats so much more frequently than she used to.

All told, it seems far more likely that they forgot to pay than they were intentionally not paying. And arresting them for theft and having their daughter being taken away from them is an extreme, unnecessary over-reaction.

Yeah - what's up with that?

 

I had a teacher once who came into work after being on maternity leave for three weeks... Because she forgot she wasn't supposed to be coming in to work.

Forgetting to pay for a sandwhich is hardly beyond the realms of plausibility, pregnancy is a very delicate time, it's a body alterring process that affects all aspects of a persons being, there do need to be considerations in place, including accounting for a stressed out partner who gets sent out at all hours of the day for bizarre combinations of ingredients

 

You guys just must have lived a sheltered life. I've know people who would buy a stereo and then steal the music for it in the same store. I've also seen people decide to have a meal while shopping by sampling from the fruit, candy, and basically anything they can eat quickly. Theft is not about whether or not your going to buy something, it's about what you can get away with (you is metaphorical here and not targeted at anyone -- it's really a shame I actually feel the need to say that). I'm with Splunge on this. If the wrappers were left in the cart and either the couple or cashier just missed it at checkout then shame on Safeway. If instead the couple cast furtive glances about in the canned aisle and slipped the empty packages behind the beets -- well, now it's a different issue and Safeway was right to hammer them ... the police may have overreacted though.

Edit: Just read an article where the woman claims to have kept the wrapper in her cart ... Safeway is reviewing store tapes.

 

+1 to Splunge and T2.

 

It's just like my great grandfather always said.

"Sometimes, b!tches be comin' up in here gettin' they sammiches on."

Paraphrasing.

 

T2 said everything that I was going to say. And if in fact the wrappers were still in the cart, then I'm more inclined to give the couple the benefit of the doubt.

I plead temporary sanity.

 

I saw a video of this woman's account of things, and interestingly, she betrays a pretty clear 'tell' on a lie when describing that she put the sandwich wrappers in the cart and her intention to pay for them.

Anyway, who eats food at the grocery store? I think I'd have to be going into diabetic shock before I did that for fear of becoming "that tacky guy eating coco puffs in aisle five." You're certainly inviting scrutiny that way if nothing else.

 

I admit to probably being amount the last group of people one would ask about a "tell".

However I'm not sure how much I would buy into claiming a facial movement or something noticed when she was speaking on the video (which is about all we have at the moment-correct me if I'm wrong).

She could have put the wrappers in her cart figuring that would be an easy way out of a lie if she was caught but she may have simply forgotten.

Eating in the store is tacky. But at this point it is hard to avoid reasonable doubt on if she intended to shoplift.

For me anyway.

Now this doesn't mean she couldn't have attempted to deceive her way out of paying for everything (some people may pay some in order to avoid paying for all that they owe) but at this point it is unproven.

 

Kids do so all the time. There has been many times that my wife has gone shopping, my son gets hungry, and she opens up a box of crackers or something and he munches on them while she shops. (Of course, she buys the crackers.)

But generally speaking, most people don't eat while shopping. Having allowed that, it does depend on what type of grocery store you're talking about. Have you ever been to a Wegman's?

 

No ... they must not be in my area as I've never heard of them. Is it a restaurant/store type thing like Cracker Barrel?

I've seen parents give kids juice boxes and stuff like that that they brought with them, but not stuff off the shelves. I'd be very reluctant to do that myself because basically you don't own anything you haven't paid for yet.

You never make a determination based on a single indicator (or two), but its existence is enough to arouse suspicion. If she were being interviewed in that context (which clearly she wasn't on TV news), the interviewer would likely pursue that a bit further and see where it went.

Technically what's proven is that she left the store without paying for something she consumed, and that's all that matters in the legal sense. She was in the wrong. Intent is rather immaterial at that point, but the store of course is at liberty to handle it more delicately if they choose.

 

In the UK we have to physically take the items out of our trolley and place them on the conveyor for the till, is that the same in the US?

likewise, it is actually illegal to consume an item you have not yet purchased as you cannot return the good to its original state, unless an agreement is assumed before hand (a restaurant where you are billed for your meal as opposed to a restaurant where you pay at the till before consuming food) a supermarket has no such agreement, you pay then you consume. On the PR side, I dont think Safeway will be bothered much in the scheme of things, people will not suddenly change the store they shop at because of something which happened to someone else.

 

Pretty much, although if you've got something heavy in there you can just point it out rather than drag it onto the conveyor. But just because something was in the cart doesn't mean you get to keep it for free if they didn't see it (like the nebulous wrappers).

I don't know that it's strictly illegal to eat food from and at the grocery store before you buy it (though that may vary from state to state), but stores can prohibit that if they want. If they don't they're sort of doing you a favor - letting you borrow the food for a while first.

It became a PR issue with the news coverage, sure. I suspect that's why Safeway has suddenly gone to the "Oh my GOD we're sorry!" tack. Before that it was simply a matter of loss prevention, which goes on every day everywhere. If they didn't protect themselves, people would rob them blind.

I think the gal already hinted she was thinking about that. No doubt she's got attorneys whispering dollar signs in her ear.