Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feed your damn kids before you shop! Then you won't have this problem.

Perhaps you should have paid better attention to the article. It was the parents who ate the sandwiches. If you brushed up your reading comprehension, you wouldn't have this problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feed your damn kids before you shop! Then you won't have this problem.

Perhaps you should have paid better attention to the article. It was the parents who ate the sandwiches. If you brushed up your reading comprehension, you wouldn't have this problem.

I didn't waste my time with the article, so my bad. But eating something without paying for it is shoplifting, whether you did it or let your kids do it. And without reading it again, now I can see why the authorities got involved, but it does sound like overkill. I hope we all learned a lesson.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is shoplifting. You don't eat the food until you pay for it. Self-restraint is a good lesson to teach your little ones.

[§663A-2] Damages and penalties. (a) Any person who takes possession of any merchandise displayed or offered for sale by any mercantile establishment without the consent of the owner and with the intention of converting such merchandise to the individual's own use without having paid the purchase price thereof, who alters the price indicia of such merchandise, or who takes any other action that constitutes the offense of shoplifting, shall be civilly liable to the owner of the mercantile establishment for either:
(1) Actual damages and a civil penalty of $75, if a written demand is made pursuant to subsection (e), for the actual damages and this civil penalty; or

(2) Actual damages, a civil penalty of $75, and an additional civil penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $500, to recover the costs and expenses of bringing a civil suit, as determined by the court.

(b) A conviction for theft under section 708-830 to 708-833 is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of a civil action under this section.
(c) A civil liability under this section is not limited by another law that limits liability of parents or minor children.
(d) An action for recovery of damages and the assessment of the civil penalties under this section may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction, including the small claims division of a district court.
(e) The fact that an owner of a mercantile establishment may bring an action against an individual for damages as provided in this section shall not limit the right of the owner of a mercantile establishment to demand, in writing, prior to the commencement of any legal action, that a person who is liable for damages under this section remit said damages and the amount of civil penalty allowed in section 663A-2.
(f) Judgments, but not claims, arising under this section may be assigned. [L 1985, c 275, pt of §1]

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.

Anonymous wrote:Walking out with an item that you intended to purchase, but forgot to, is simply not shoplifting