Pregnant woman arrested for forgetting to pay for sandwiches.

Fucking. five. dollar. sandwiches.

That's absolutely ridiculous! Is it even worth it to prosecute someone and take their child from them over two goddamn five dollar sandwiches?

edited 1st Nov '11 12:22:12 PM by TropicalSnow

This part's what caused the unnecessary escalation:

IMO you don't someone for accidental minor theft if the person came back and apologized and paid before you called the police.

edited 1st Nov '11 12:26:48 PM by abstractematics

That's the policy in many stores — once you've left the building, it's shoplifting, and you can't just walk back in and say "Oh, I didn't pay for this. Sorry."

That's...really, really dumb.

...

5 dollar sandwich. What next, capital punishment for jaywalking?

edited 1st Nov '11 12:31:29 PM by Mandemo

x3 It's the store's fault for forgetting to check at the register. The couple wasn't trying to run away while the store chased after them. The store could've said "Excuse me, you forgot to pay for this item" - or it could've just let it go and saved this damage to the reputation.

It's up to the cashier to search the shopping carts? Not really. And being taken to the police station, booked, having a mug shot taken, and being held until you pay the bail is SOP for being arrested.

edited 1st Nov '11 12:39:45 PM by Madrugada

Once they offer to come back and pay, I don't see the point in enforcing the rule. I mean, if you WANT to get bad publicity for your restaurant, traumatize a couple and waste everyone's time on a completely unnecessary court meeting, sure, you can enforce your little rules blindly and it's your 'right' to do so. But I don't see why you WOULD, unless you're a complete idiot.

No one had anything to gain from this playing out the way it played out, whether that's how it's supposed to play out 'by the book' or not. And the proper response to a stupid and self-destructive rule should not be 'But it's the rules!' It should be 'so ignore the rule until you can change it.'

That's the thing: they shouldn't be arrested for something like this. So that SOP doesn't apply.

The cashier forgot to check; that's equivalent to the store accidentally losing a minor supply of merchandise somewhere along the logistics. Oh well. Why should the security have to re-check when there was no sign of malice?

What if it was reverse, that the cashier accidentally scanned an item twice and the couple paid $5 more? Either the couple forgets about it, or it comes back and gets its money back. It wouldn't lead to 4 hours of detaining and $100 worth of bail.

edited 1st Nov '11 12:45:23 PM by abstractematics

Wow, that's... yeah. Wow.

I can't imagine not just simply asking the customer to pay for the items, especially if it's clear that she just forgot to pay.

I mean, for heaven's sake, the article says she bought $50 worth of groceries along with the sandwich! Who the heck buys $50 of groceries just to shoplift $5 in sandwiches?

Sorry Maddie, speaking as a former retail worker, based on the info in the article at least, IMHO this is just idiocy on the part of the store, not a reasonable action, regardless of the letter of the rules.

Stay classy, people.

Wait up, let me get this right. Is it now okay to assume that pregnancy makes women stupid so long as we let them off on minor charges?

Now, once they offer to pay, obviously they shouldn't still be arrested; there's no point in it after that.

But I don't see the logic of the people saying "oh, they just forgot to pay". The store doesn't care if they were acting maliciously; the store loses the sandwiches either way.

My arguments didn't rely on the fact that the child got separated. I wasn't even aware of the pregnant part.

If I forgot to count an item that was plainly visible, then the store would point me to it. Just like if I forgot to take an item that I paid for and it's plainly in front of the cashier, then the store would tell me to take it.

I don't understand how the security guard was able to catch them at all.

This is just silly. Common sense would dictate that you don't require police intervention in this.

Shoplifting is a crime. You get arrested for crimes.

And wherefore comes the assumption that an empty wrapper is "plainly visible?

There was no malicious intet here, though, insofar as we can prove, and she offered to pay for her mistake on the spot.

If I were the judge, I'd throw this case out and make the shop pay for the court's time, honestly.

Eating things you haven't paid for and keeping the wrapper is asking for trouble. People do periodically get arrested for this even before they reach the checkouts. As a rule of thumb, pay first and eat later. It's like how fuel pumps have signs asking you to check your wallet before you put fuel in your car. Good intentions are fine but when they go wrong you suddenly discover you're on the wrong side of the law.

Personally I think that the store ought to have let them pay and leave, but eating something you haven't paid for is never a good idea.

@Madrugada Stealing is a crime too. I suppose the next time the cashier overcharges me for an item I should sue the store for criminal charges?

I agree on "Pay first, eat later" part. Still, if couple forgot to pay and when told about it offer to pay up, I fail to see excatly how does that justify having them separated from child, child witnessing his parents being arrest, parents being held in different blocks, hand cuffed, mugs shots taken and then told to cough up 100$.

Like article said, things just kept getting more and more ridicilous with no-one saying "uh, isn't this kinda overboard?"

@Maddie

Except that, you know, the woman wasn't actually trying to shoplift to begin with. There's such a thing as using common sense and dealing with good faith mistakes.

I mean, I generally prefer to follow the rules, but when that's not the actual right thing to do in terms of reasonable outcomes, you should be willing to use your brain and bend a little, not blindly follow procedures down the infested rabbit hole.

@OP: You realize there's not a judge in the country who's gonna actually let the case go through with this right? Once he/she hears what's going on he/she's gonna go "What are you? Stupid?" to the prosecution and dismiss the case outright.

It's United States of goddamn America. You bet there is some idiot, and trough Finagle's Law this will end up on his desk, instead on someone with brains.

My best guess is that this store has probably had problems in the past with people eating and "forgetting" to pay. So they introduce a policy to scare people out of doing this. Then along comes someone who thinks it's okay to eat something you haven't paid for and they get the brunt of it.

Sure the judge will throw it out, the punishment has already been applied by going through the system. They won't eat before they buy again.

They also will never shop there again and they've generated a lot of bad buzz.

And yet, in an alternate universe, the cashier wasn't an asshole and said "oh, no problem, I'll just ring it up. Enjoy your day!"