Anonymous wrote:I certainly do not care if anyone does it. It doesnot impact me one bit. However......

In all this talk about intent, etc, no one has reconciled one basic fact. Technically, the item does not belong to you until you pay for it. The fact that you intend to pay for it does not make it yours at the time your child is eating it. Your child is eating something that belongs to the store. Plain and simple. Once you pay for it, maybe it is all good and the store may not bother saying anything. But there is no escaping that your child is eating something you have not paid for yet.

Anonymous wrote:

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.


Well then - let me repeat myself. I have NEVER let my kids eat at the store before I pay. My mother NEVER allowed us to do it either. Does that clear it up?

Another NEVER here.

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.


Well then - let me repeat myself. I have NEVER let my kids eat at the store before I pay. My mother NEVER allowed us to do it either. Does that clear it up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as intent - the burden of proof there rests with the store. I.e. they would have to prove that your intent was shoplifting. Kind of hard to do.

Right. Which is why they would probably just watch you and detain you after you've actually failed to pay.

Anonymous wrote:As far as intent - the burden of proof there rests with the store. I.e. they would have to prove that your intent was shoplifting. Kind of hard to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

OK, but nobody ever knows your intent unless you announce it. The law is not based on anyone knowing your intent, but on the intent itself. If the store has good reason to think that you DON'T intend to pay for something, then yes they can detain you. But the point is that in most cases they don't make this calculation because they know that most people do intend to pay and do pay. Sure you technically can be detained for this, I guess, but that doesn't mean you did anything wrong.

I guess I should start shopping where the rest of you shop. At the Safeway where I shop, they will say something to you (a not so subtle reminder to pay for the item you are eating) and they may remind the cashier about it later when you get in line. Matter of fact, I saw them "detain" a teenager for eating an orange in the store when the the bag of oranges was in his carry-bakset. Maybe they "profiled" him.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

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 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.

OK, but nobody ever knows your intent unless you announce it. The law is not based on anyone knowing your intent, but on the intent itself. If the store has good reason to think that you DON'T intend to pay for something, then yes they can detain you. But the point is that in most cases they don't make this calculation because they know that most people do intend to pay and do pay. Sure you technically can be detained for this, I guess, but that doesn't mean you did anything wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote: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.

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 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 wrote:

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.