Pregnant Woman Arrested for "Stealing" Sandwich

Only in the most cursory sense. Cracker Barrel is first a foremost a restaurant with a store attached. Wegman's is first a foremost a supermarket, with some restaurants attached. Wegman's is, simply put, the best supermarket you will ever go to. We do our food shopping at Wegman's even though there are at least two other supermarkets closer to our home. Heck, we actually drive past one of them on the way to Wegman's.

Unfortunately, most people don't have a Wegman's near them. I took a look at their webpage, and while they have a few dozen stores, all are located in the northeast or mid-Atlantic section of the country. Only Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have them. So unless you live in one of those states, you're SOL. Anyway, if you're interested, here's their homepage, and if you click on the specific stores you can see pictures from inside. Like I said, while shopping for groceries is still a chore, Wegman's is pretty freakin' cool.

I don't think anyone is arguing that what she did was OK. Obviously, if you eat food at a store you are expected to pay for it. As dmc pointed out, the complaint is how Safeway handled the problem. I still contend that the easiest solution was to just make her pay for the sandwiches and be on her way. Getting the police involved for a measly $10 worth of sandwiches is insane.

I tend to agree with that. People decide where to buy their groceries on a number of factors, but I imagine convenience, price, and the goods they offer all would be higher priorities on their list of why they chose a particular store than an incident that happened to someone else.

 

If by insane you mean wrong or stupid, maybe, maybe not. If she was (despite her story) someone who was familiar to them and had stolen stuff before, pressing charges would be the most effective course of action. Maybe they had already been through the nice routine with her. Or of course it may be that her story is true and they did overreact, but the point is there are circumstances where getting the police involved, even for $10 petty theft, is the best course of action, all things considered. They're not focused on recovering $10, they're focused on stopping the offender in the longer-term.

My take on this is: I wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened and what all the circumstances are. I'm also not as familiar with Safeway's loss prevention measures as Safeway is, so I really shouldn't comment on their applicability, effectiveness, or even the discretion they used in applying them. As usual, there are too many unknowns left after reading a simple news article to rush to judgement.

(One additional note: any time I hear a story that sounds ridiculously one-sided ['Restaurant forces patrons to eat cat poo!'] I'm immediately suspicious, because there are always at least two sides to every story, and the one-sidedness means your not hearing them all.)

btw, thanks for the Wegman's info.

 

Geaer, the couple had recently moved to Honolulu and this was their first time int he store. However, the store may experience high theft and their policy may be to call teh police for all shoplifting.

 

By insane I meant it seemed like a gross over-reaction for what may very well have been an honest mistake. I understand that Safeway likely has a shop-lifting policy that doesn't take into account the value of the item(s) stolen nor the person stealing it, but it seems like this was a case where some common sense could have been put to good use.

 

What if it wasn't an honest mistake? Just sayin' ... Value probably is taken into account, icidentally, at least inasmuch as most states assign an amount of somehwere in the neighborhood of $1000 or so to felony larceny, with different degrees of misdemeanors going to different ranges under that.

@T2, I read that too. Honest question - do you believe her account of things?

 

While you didn't specifically ask me, I find her account to be at least plausible. I'm not 100% good with it, but it seems more likely that it was an honest mistake than not. What's your take?

 

From the perspective of someone who is looking at her critically (as in trying to determine her truthfulness, not being critical), I have some concerns: the truth is usually not very complicated, and her story is kind of complicated (the bus saga et al - generally extraneous details are not part of a simple, truthful account); her 'tells;' and my own inclination (and admittedly this is my problem) to be suspicious of people who are caught doing stupid things and claim innocence.

Still I would tend to think she's generally guilty of nothing more than stupidity without significant ill-intent, mainly because this whole thing is just not that big a deal. (I strongly doubt that stealing $5 worth of sandwiches was part of some master plan, like a bank robbery.) It only became a bigger deal with the child separation part.

The likely story, imo: she did get hungry and had a sandwich (tacky or not), didn't give significant thought to paying for it (either through callous disregard or absentmindedness), got caught, realized that the consequences were more serious than she anticipated, had a gut reaction to try to avoid responsibility by shamefully deflecting attention onto the sympathetic image of her in-protective-custody kid, and threw up.

And with that I think I've dwelled on this matter long enough!

 

This story sets off my BS detector (it's going off an awful lot these days.) My father is getting old and forgetful, and has had several instances like this at the local Safeway. They've always been compassionate and understanding. My daughter once stole a stuffed animal, and when we realized it, we took her back and gave the thing back. No problem.

I think this story likely has more to it. I think this opportunistic <extremely judgemental word redacted> is trying to garner sympathy for an as-yet-unrevealed infraction on her part. It just smells suspicious to me.

Of course, she may have been unfortunate enough to run into a real hard case jerk, that is a possibility, but I find the more likey scenario to be the first.

 

It does seem odd that the store would be so incredibly heavy handed. Then again, that's the world we live in.

 

That's the one thing that keeps getting me too. While I find her story plausible, it seem inconceivable that Safeway would go to this length over a $5 sandwich. I mean, really? Even after she offered to pay for it? There isn't anything else in play here that we're not hearing?

OTOH, if there was something else, you'd think we would have heard about it by now. That's why I've been highly critical of Safeway's handling of the situation.

 

In Finland it's quite rare to see anyone eating while shopping, in fact I think it's culturally considered somewhat unconventional. I think there's a consensus that until you've gone through the cash register the stuff you have with you is owned by the store and therefore you don't have the right to consume it before you've paid. People who eat in store are usually immigrants or the children of immigrants. I suppose it's a cultural difference. If I owned a shop I'd prefer people to consume the goods only after they've paid for them. They can't be so frigging impatient that they can't finish off their shopping first.

 

Capt'n CJ, my local Morrisons prosecuted a man for shoplifting for putting a 60p apple in his pocket, he paid for the items he held in his hands but forgot about the apple. 60p = criminal record.

 

Not that we live in stupid times or anything x.x

 

they have the power, not us

 

BTA,
that's lived zero tolerance policy of the company. Some iron brain decided that, since the law was broken - they ate company property without paying - never mind trifles like the absence of intent or social harm, they thus must be arrested

Makes eminent sense. I have come to think that there is very little more monstrous and senseless as a corporate bureaucrat setting some zero tolerance policy that is then being applied mindlessly, denying staff any leeway. The relative plus is that, as long as staff applies the rules to the letter they are not responsible for anything. Also, the zero tolerance work flow just looks awesome in power point (no ambiguities, no variables - just the reflex "if -> then"). Simplicity itself! There also is the added benefit that the corporate bureaucrat can say that it is a 'tough policy', which apparently and curiously gives some Americans an instant boner.

That aside, when shopping, all I do is to perhaps have a glass of water every now and then, but that's it. When I eat while shopping I do so at some takeaway or restaurant, and preferably sit down, but I never eat inside a shop, perhaps even stuff that I just am about to buy. I think eating while shopping is somewhat creepy - getting more food while already eating - it invokes in me associations of gluttony. The only thing worse would be eating while crapping.

 

sheesh! even if that guy did steal a car on purpose, whats the point in arresting him rather then having him pay for the fuel?

she broke the law, simple as, suspected shoplifting is an arrestable offence therefore she was arrested, to allow a prompt and effective investigation of the alleged offence. It is up to (CPS in the UK) to decide whether or not to bring charges.

lots of crimes are committed without intent, and likewise lots of crimes do not entail social harm, are they less of a crime? This is becoming a serious problem especially in Europe where pu$$y groups are deciding that people shouldnt be punished for their crimes because "He's a good boy, he didn't mean to do it" or "Its her first offence she doesn't deserve to be charged" makes me sick!

One thing which is working on my mind here is - how long do people take shopping that they need a drink and/or a snack? you can't go for 30 - 40 mins with out substanance? Even if pregnant? my wife didnt need to eat when shopping when she was heavily pregnant.

 

They certainly are in the US. Intent is vital in the US, and it factors into sentencing when convicted. Some serious crimes are considered less serious without intent. Hell, sometimes we even give them different names. The most obvious example is murder vs. involuntary manslaughter. The main difference in those crimes is one is done without intent.