Anonymous wrote:VA § 18.2-103. prohibits use of good before paying for them.

Actually, it defines shoplifting as taking something without the intention of paying for it. Intent is the key - if you intend to pay for it, and in fact you do, it is not shoplifting.

"Whoever, without authority, with the intention of converting goods or
merchandise to his own or another's use without having paid the full purchase
price thereof, or of defrauding the owner of the value of the goods or
merchandise..."

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

When I was a kid we lived in 29 palms California on a military base. They had only one commissary and every there used it. From start to finish you could be there for 5 hours. We often ate sandwiches from the deli they made them for that purpose and when you checked out you had a sticker to scan.

No I don't think it was shoplifting but an error. I think they should have been given a chance to pay.

I do how ever think people who eat foods sold by weight and sit there and eat them such as produce is stealing and they know it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:emotional distress

Ha! This is a good one. Using your logic, any person who is arrested (rightfully, which is the case considering these people did in fact shoplift) have grounds for suing the police department for emotion distress.

Have fun with that one!

Trust me, I have seen dumber lawsuits make it to court.

Anonymous wrote:It depends, if the couple could find cases where other customers were let off with a warning, then they might have a case.

You do realize that these people left the store without paying for the sandwiches, right? This isn't the case of people giving their kids a snack from a snack box before checkout, but then paying for it.

Anonymous wrote:emotional distress

Ha! This is a good one. Using your logic, any person who is arrested (rightfully, which is the case considering these people did in fact shoplift) have grounds for suing the police department for emotion distress.

Have fun with that one!

I spaced once and forgot to give the wrapper. I turned around and paid for the item. After that, I NEVER finished an item, so I couldn't be accused of shoplifting.

The thing is, we can't know. If they're telling the truth, it was not intentional. If it was intentional, if they wanted to save a few dollars, then it was shoplifting.

Anonymous wrote:sued for what?
catching a customer walking away with goods they did not pay?
calling the police?

Are you serious? Surely you realize people have trivial, baseless, frivolous lawsuits all the time. It still costs companies/cities money.

So yeah, I could see someone acting out of emotion if there three year old was taken from them. I'm not saying they would win, or it's right, but clearly this case has gotten people riled up and I could picture something like this going to court and Safeway just wanting to make it go away. Maybe they would sue the city though, not sure whose genius idea it was to have the child taken away.

Anonymous wrote:It depends, if the couple could find cases where other customers were let off with a warning, then they might have a case.

even if this is true, can the change its policy?

From reading the article, it seems clear that it was a mistake. The couple had just moved to town, they got lost trying to find a grocery store (on foot, which is a very important factor bc if they had been driving they likely would have stopped for fast food), when they finally got there they were hungry, so they ate a sandwich while they were grocery shopping. The clerk didn't see the wrappers, the couple probably didn't even realize that the clerk didn't scan them, and some dumbass in management made a really stupid decision to escalate the situation. I could totally see this happening to me under the same circumstances. I have never consumed an entire food item and paid using an empty wrapper before, but I don't think it's beyond the pale to do so and I could see doing it in these specific circumstances. Having read this, I would be sure to pay first, but the sanctimonious folks on this thread really need to lighten up.

but should they not sue the police then instead of the store?

It depends, if the couple could find cases where other customers were let off with a warning, then they might have a case.

The parents have not grounds for a lawsuit. The broke the law as it is on the books. They suffered the consequences.

emotional distress

sued for what?
catching a customer walking away with goods they did not pay?
calling the police?