is this shoplifting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People for the last time under the laws of Hawaii it is shoplifting. It doesn't matter what you think!

Many people are not debating that they shoplifted. The larger issue is that a child was put in protective custody and there was simply no reason.

That is why laws have different consequences. The store and the police acted with little common sense. As someone said before, the punishment did not fit the crime.

A similar thing happened a few years ago when a mom took her two kids and a child's friend in the car and stopped by the recycle center. She parked, and got out and hauled her bag about 10 feet away, to the bin. A police man came by and questioned her for technically breaking the law, since she was not supposed to leave children alone in the car. Apparently he was pretty rough with her, she got very scared and he when he was questioning her, she called her husband, a lawyer, who told her not to answer any questions until he got there.

The cop promptly arrested her and the kids were taken from her. I believe she spent at least a night in jail, and for over a year there was a constant threat that she'd go back to jail and kids taken from her until the case was finally settled. Another example of things escalating when they should not have. I just hate stories like that. They don't happen often, but when they do, you realize that at any time you could be in that situation and have someone threatening to take your child. It sounds like a nightmare.

No, I wouldn't eat a sandwich in the grocery store but it's scary that something like that could escalate to your kid being taken from you.

[Anonymous]

Wow this thread is full of sociopathic robots. Are you all so rigid and obtuse shouting its the laaaaaaw that you cannot see beyond blindly applying rules? Exhibit 237 of what is wrong with this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People for the last time under the laws of Hawaii it is shoplifting. It doesn't matter what you think!

Actually, under the laws of the state of Hawaii, what they did is not shoplifting since their actions lack the element of intent to defraud. They conspicuously consumed their sandwiches in plain sight while shopping for food. They made no attempt to conceal the wrappers. If this went to trial, the prosecutor would not be able to establish intent to defraud, and they would be acquitted.

I think we should all boycott Safeway until they fire the cashier, security guard, manager, and any other employee involved in the decision to call the police or who had the authority to intervene but decided not to do so.

For those who want the text of the statute, here it is copied from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/5/37/708/IV/708-830:

( 8 ) Shoplifting.

(a) A person conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, with intent to defraud.

(b) A person alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment, with intent to defraud.

(c) A person transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment from one container to another, with intent to defraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Whole Foods with my 5 year old this afternoon. On our way to the store, he polished off an entire bag of pretzels. My goal was to take him in with a full tummy. In the store, he asked for a poppy seed bagel and milk (one of those Horizon boxes) and I let him eat and drink as we shopped because it made the shopping "experience" much easier. I told the cashier (she scanned his milk) and she could also see him chowing on the bagel and all was good.

So, no, I don't think it's shoplifting.

My problem here is that you are indulging your FIVE year old kid. Two year olds throw tantrums when they are hungry in the grocery store. If your kindergartener needs to be appeased by a bagel and milk in the store so that you can shop, there are larger issues here.

I'm the poster who allowed my 5 year old to eat a bagel and drink some milk- the larger issue was that I shouldn't have taken him to the store at 4:30 in the afternoon. That was my "bad."