s/o - do you let your kids eat in the grocery store before you pay?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's a big deal, but I guess I find it a little tacky. It's something I might do if I felt like the reason for doing it was more pressing than my wish to avoid doing something tacky. And, as someone who in the last 2 years has filled a cart with groceries and gotten to the register only to realize I'd forgotten my wallet, I think I've saved myself extra embarrassment (or possibly having been accused of shoplifting.) It'd be really awkward to realize I'd forgotten my wallet when we'd already eaten stuff.

by the way, one time recently I was at Whole Foods and realized I forgot my wallet at checkout. They (as usual when this happens) offered to put the cart at customer service til I come back with my wallet. I found $20 in my pocket and took out a few things I wanted to take with me because the kids were starving and had had no lunch and it was almost 2:00 PM. I wanted to pay for those few items (bagels and something else) so they could eat them in the car on the way back to the house. The cashier said "oh, that's okay, just take them." I was rather astounded. I got to take food out of the store without paying for it, and they just trusted I'd pay for it when I came back. (granted, they already had everything rung up, and the customer service desk had the bill with the cart.) I thought it was really nice. Of course, if I wanted to get away without paying for them, I'd have to not return to get my cart, and I guess they knew that no one wants to go through the hassle of searching the aisles for everything all over again. And of course, they'd probably recognize me. Still, it was nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will admit that I am somewhat amazed at the tone of this thread. I am on the parent advisory board at DC's private school and I frequently deal with folks who do not want to follow the rules or believe that the rules should not apply to them. What amazes me is that this mentality seems to reflect how folks lead their lives. This thread reinforces that. First and foremost, people will do whatever is most convienent for them personally.

And how is that bad when there is no intention of wrongdoing and no actual wrongdoing (since there wasn't any intention and therefore no shoplifting occurred according to the code)? This is not a rules or legal issue, but a moral one. Some people think it's wrong and others see no problem with it. Of course people will do what is most convienent for them personally. When it's not hurting anyone or breaking the law, why shouldn't they?

exactly. it is NOT against the rules if you intend to pay for it and you do pay for it. I see nothing wrong with it and find it funny that others care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I call BS to all those who say they never let there kids eat before you pay and especially to those that say I did it "once". We all do this from time to time, your mom did this and so did her mom. I let me son eat his way through the grocery store everytime I shop--and yes I pay for what he eats.

I think this may be cultural. I am biracial who was allowed to do this with my white side of the family but never did my AA family allow me to.

[Anonymous]

We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

Much of criminal law turns on intent. It's hardly a nuance.

Look, it's wrong if the store cares that you do it. If they don't, and many don't, then it's fine.

The store owns the food until I buy it. Why does some third person care if the store is fine with my buying it before or after my child has a bite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

so people in restaurants are all shoplifting? that is stupid. the cash registers are at the door. what if I put on shoes at the shoestore to wear out, or put on a new shirt at the clothing store? I do that all the time too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

No it's not. The factual bottom line is all about intent if we're talking about the law here. It's not about spinning, it's about reading a statute. End of story. If we're talking about what is right or wrong in a larger sense, than we have something to argue about. Just because intent does not matter to YOU doesn't mean you get to make up the law. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, for the people who are anti-grocery store eating, just making sure I understand correctly. Are you against:

1) opening up packages before buying them and digging in AND

2) bringing food from home to snack on AND

3) accepting the samples of food offered at the store and allowing a child to try them ?

Although (3) is, to me, the most acceptable, I have to say I am far more grossed out by the number of adults who push and shove for free samples than the occasional toddler I see with a cookie or roll.

I give my toddler a snack on occasion. No one seems to mind, because I pay for it, and I clean up after her.

PP, I completely agree with you about adults foaming at the mouth over free samples. Christ. It's like they've never tasted juice before. I see this all the time at Social Safeway and Whole Foods. Hell, I even saw one old bag, dripping in diamonds, pick up an obviously under-ripe peach, take a bite, and then put it back on the pile in the produce section. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

so people in restaurants are all shoplifting? that is stupid. the cash registers are at the door. what if I put on shoes at the shoestore to wear out, or put on a new shirt at the clothing store? I do that all the time too.

Really? So its ok if I reach over the counter at McDonalds and start eating a cheeseburger before I pay? Never mind...I am afraid of the answer. You do you. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

No it's not. The factual bottom line is all about intent if we're talking about the law here. It's not about spinning, it's about reading a statute. End of story. If we're talking about what is right or wrong in a larger sense, than we have something to argue about. Just because intent does not matter to YOU doesn't mean you get to make up the law. It is what it is.

YOU cannot make up the law either! My point about intent being a nuance is that at the time you consumed the item, you are the ONLY person that knows your intent. The person who enforces the rule does not know. As I pointed out in a ealier post, your statement of intent may not matter much to an officer who is detaining you. It will matter to the person prosecuting you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

so people in restaurants are all shoplifting? that is stupid. the cash registers are at the door. what if I put on shoes at the shoestore to wear out, or put on a new shirt at the clothing store? I do that all the time too.

Really? So its ok if I reach over the counter at McDonalds and start eating a cheeseburger before I pay? Never mind...I am afraid of the answer. You do you. SMH

if McDonalds had the cash-registers at the door then I'm sure it would be ok. They do not, so I would not. At Subway, I always eat the chips and/or the cookies before I pay. Lunch takes much less time that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

No it's not. The factual bottom line is all about intent if we're talking about the law here. It's not about spinning, it's about reading a statute. End of story. If we're talking about what is right or wrong in a larger sense, than we have something to argue about. Just because intent does not matter to YOU doesn't mean you get to make up the law. It is what it is.

You cannot make up the law either. My point about intent being a nuance is that at the time you consume the item, you are the only person who KNOWS your intent. It is not clearly apparent to anyone else in the store. Your statement of intent may not matter to an officer detaining you, but it will factor into you being prosecuted for the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can argue about this until we are blue in the face and still not agree. Personally, intent does not matter to me. You consumed that product before you purchased it. Thus at the time of consumption, the item did not belong to you. Folks can spin it however they like. That’s the factual bottom line. Intent is a nuance.

No it's not. The factual bottom line is all about intent if we're talking about the law here. It's not about spinning, it's about reading a statute. End of story. If we're talking about what is right or wrong in a larger sense, than we have something to argue about. Just because intent does not matter to YOU doesn't mean you get to make up the law. It is what it is.

YOU cannot make up the law either! My point about intent being a nuance is that at the time you consumed the item, you are the ONLY person that knows your intent. The person who enforces the rule does not know. As I pointed out in a ealier post, your statement of intent may not matter much to an officer who is detaining you. It will matter to the person prosecuting you.

Are you a 1L? .00001% of people who do this get detained, so apparently intent does matter to the store and would-be detaining officer, since they can all tell people intend to pay.

[Anonymous]

So letting a toddler eat a cracker in the grocery store is "tacky," but walking around your neighborhood drinking on Halloween while accompanying your small children is perfectly acceptable?

Okay. Carry on, DCUM hall monitors.

[Anonymous]

I often have to take my two and four year old to the store with me and I shop for the entire week in one trip. Thus, the trip takes a while. I often let my children eat something more to occpy them (the two year old in particular) than because they are starving...like blueberries from a priced by the unit pint or cut up watermelon from the same type of package. This kind of started at Whole Foods....they would often want to keep eating the samples. Instead of getting them more and more samples or telling them they couldn't eat more fruit I would just decide to buy the fruit and let them eat some of it while we shop. I just have a hard time understanding why this is anyone else's business. If it is mess you are worried about...well if I brought a snack from home, or paid for the blueberries first we would still make the same mess (if there is one).

So really, this is on one else's business but mine and the store's. This is like policing your coworkers. MYOB! Worry about yourself. Go about your day and do what you think is right instead of tsk tsking the mom with two sub-five year olds letting the two year old munch on a few blueberries. If the store has an issue with it then they will say something to me and no one ever has. The four year old now helps me with shopping, picking out fruit herself and weighing it etc so she does not eat much in the store anymore other than a sample here or there.