Pregnant woman arrested for eating sandwich @ store, not paying for it

[linguist]

Not quite. With the burglary it's still a violation. Someone came into your home uninvited. You can't undo that.

and with shoplifting someone still took your property without your permission. whether they pay or not after getting caught doesn't undo that.

[DrFaroohk]

Except it fulfills the function of the store. People are SUPPOSED to take things, pay and leave. She got the order a little mixed up, but it's a #*#$_@#*($ MISTAKE!!! You know that if this was your grandmother you'd be on the phone to some people making a stink.

[Panacea]

It has to be a pregnant woman with a kid, both her and her husband need be arrested, she can't have anyone to call who can pick the kid up, the police have to have a policy of contacting CPS immediately ( Which the article says is a Honolulu police policy ) and the arresting officers have to make the judgement call that the storemanager can't or won't do.

In all fairness to the cops, also, if the manager says he wants to press charges the cops likely are not in the position of refusing to make the arrest.

If they're losing money to shoplifting, it would be in their best interests to tell people, "Oh, hey, did you forget something?" and give them a chance to pay rather than wait for it to be absolutely too late and then have to waste the manpower, time, effort and all that that goes into prosecuting shoplifters (whether intentional or not) and still not getting their money.

This would have prevented the problem. Really, when it comes to food, it is best to have the customer pay right then and there.

Seriously, waiting until they're out the door, going "A-ha! Got you now!" and having them arrested is the worst way to save money. Talk about throwing good money after bad.

I doubt that was the store's intent, even if it was the effect.

My brother's girlfriend is pregnant and developing hypoglycemia during it and when she doesn't watch her levels, she goes absolutely batshit with full on paranoid delusions and destructive rants.

And my ex (a type 1 diabetic) described having dangerously low blood sugar as all the worst parts of being drunk coupled with a physical inability (no sugar, nothing to power the brain) to think coherently.

Medical situations can lead a DA to drop charges later, the police to refuse to arrest (after an evaluation by paramedics on the scene or docs at the ER), or can be mitigating factors at sentencing.

However, there is no evidence that there was a medical condition at fault here. The woman arrested didn't claim it.

[Andara Bledin]

However, there is no evidence that there was a medical condition at fault here. The woman arrested didn't claim it.

I don't think it was a factor in the forgetting to pay for the sandwiches portion of the story, but it was likely to have been a factor in the eating of them in the fist place, as the news report mentions that she was feeling a bit weak after the ordeal with getting lost on the bus before finding their way to a store.

Also, I'd like to question some posters' unfounded assumption about the whole going to the media thing: How on earth can you possibly know that the couple involved is playing up the part about her being pregnant?

Last I checked there were really only a few stories about this. The first, linked in the OP and re-broadcast by nearly everyone as written, and a couple of others that have a few more details that weren't in the first along with some reaction comments form the store.

Why would anyone think that given a story about a couple, the media wouldn't latch onto the fact that she was pregnant and that the state took their kid away. It makes for a great story and any reporter wanting eyeballs on their piece is going to play it up because it really makes the story sympathetic to the people reading and feeds into the "evil corporate machine" sentiment.

We sure do have a whole lot of psychics on this forum, to know that it was the couple pushing the pregnancy agenda, after having deliberately stolen $5 worth of food while paying for $50 worth of groceries.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

One thing that we do not know is WHY that policy is in place in the first place.

Like I mentioned before, I'm going to guess its because of stuff like the pair in Portland who hit an alleged grand total of 5 million shoplifting from Safeway.

They'd drive around to a couple of Safeways a day, load up on thousands of dollars worth of shit and then go pawn it. Even brought a shopping list. -.-

I don't think it's a strawman to ask if someone will apply their argument universally or not. It's a valid question.

Its a strawman to extrapolate an argument that is not being made and then defeat that argument as if it means anything.

They disagree with the story because of the lady flaunting her pregnant status so their convince themselves it's all ok.

She played the sympathy card on her lawyers advice and was considering a lawsuit. Between Safeway and the State, Safeway was blamed for the actions of the State. As I repeat for the third time, my issue is how and where she assigned blame here while playing up the Woe Is Me while pondering legal action. We would not be talking about this at all had she not been pregnant with a kid in tow. It would be a total non-story then. Just a random rage fart on the the Consumerist.

So yeah, i call bullshit. We've all had our witchhunt and put this dangerous criminal in her place. Come on. You guys are like the store owner who decides he's going to destroy a perfectly good couch rather than just give it away. Sure it's technically his right, just like it's my right to put a big 'FUCK NATIVE AMERICANS!" sign on my front lawn, but that doesn't make it a-ok peachy keen for me to do so.

You appear to be reading an entirely different thread than the rest of us are.

Bravo on a bizzarre rage filled off the rails hyperbolic rant though. >.>

In all fairness to the cops, also, if the manager says he wants to press charges the cops likely are not in the position of refusing to make the arrest.

I'm still curious on that part, the DM clearly stated in the original article that they had not yet decided whether or not to press charges. But the cops still brought them in.

I don't think it was a factor in the forgetting to pay for the sandwiches portion of the story, but it was likely to have been a factor in the eating of them in the fist place, as the news report mentions that she was feeling a bit weak after the ordeal with getting lost on the bus before finding their way to a store.

But again, its irrelevant because her husband munched down too.

Also, I'd like to question some posters' unfounded assumption about the whole going to the media thing: How on earth can you possibly know that the couple involved is playing up the part about her being pregnant?

Well aside from the fact her lawyer told her to go to the media ( You can't tell me he did that without being fully aware of how her pregnancy would be a clear sympathy advantage. ) every single article is basically "PREGNANT WOMAN ARRESTED" followed by an article that amounts to THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.

Despite all my hunting, I know shit about what actually happened beyond the cops being called and who said or did what at the store. There are barely any details at all about the actual chain of events and who did what.

On the other hand, I know she's pregnant, has a 3 year old, is from the Air Force, was feeling "Famished", "Faint" and "Dizzy" and just had to have a sandwich immediately, that she just moved there, that she got lost, that her daughter didn't have a teddy bear or a toothbrush, that she was traumatized and throwing up in the bathroom, that this was "horrifying" and an "ordeal", that she was seemingly sobbing with every reporter she talked too and that the broke story on a website for pregnant/new mothers thus immediately galvinizing mom rage behind her.

Even newer articles and interviews as the major networks get in on the action just reinforces the above facts with a few added quotes from her about how harsh, horrifying or traumatizing it was for her.

We sure do have a whole lot of psychics on this forum, to know that it was the couple pushing the pregnancy agenda, after having deliberately stolen $5 worth of food while paying for $50 worth of groceries.

Evidence For: Went to media based on lawyer's advice while considering a lawsuit. Lawyer obviously intended this and you can't tell me a lawyer that knows how to work PR didn't at least offhandly suggest what and how she should talk about. She's telling everyone who will listen how horrifying and traumatizing it is for her.

Evidence Against: ?

To be clear I don't think she deliberately stole anything, but I'm sorry you can't tell me that her lawyer didn't have a gameplan here. That's what the lawyer is for and this PR shitstorm is the end game he was looking for from the media. It immediately put Safeway on the defensive and rendered anything Safeway says or does moot because a poor pregnant woman with a toddler was involved. The husband is totally invisible in this.

Heck, if it was just the husband people would probably be laughing at him.

[Sleepwalker]

Jaw droppingly stupid on the store's part. Still no grounds for a lawsuit.

When my blood sugar drops, I have to eat immediately, but it is not that hard to rush into a grocery store, grab the first edible item that comes to hand and wait in line to pay for it. Walking around eating something you haven't paid for is =/.

*Eating it in line. If I have to eat now, I eat. I don't walk around shopping.

[Gravekeeper]

Jaw droppingly stupid on the store's part. Still no grounds for a lawsuit.

I'm going to surmise at this point that a lawsuit was plan B and would have come out had they not dropped the charges or if CPS had not given the kid back right away. Groundwork at the lawyer's behest if you will. There would be no way for Safeway to get public opinion back on their side with the PR shitstorm already out there and a lawsuit, trivial or not, would be even worse PR regardless of outcome.

Her lawyer's smart, gotta give he/she that.

[Andara Bledin]

New article at Hawaii Reporter

I'm not sure how much of what happened is taken from verifiable sources and how much was just from interviewing Nicole Leszczynski, but there are some interesting statements.

The wrappers were in the shopping cart, not tucked or hidden away (including a bone that had been in one of the sandwiches).
She claims she thought the clerks were acting weird when she checked out.
The store had told the arresting officers that they planned to press charges (the repercussions of which would likely have been discussed with the store personnel, including the fact that the daughter would be picked up by CPS).
She spoke to the family lawyer (she didn't go shopping for one) for advice on how to handle the fact that CPS was not answering or returning her calls, which she had been making from 6am until at least noon (she wasn't and still isn't looking to sue anybody).
It's likely the kid was only turned back over quickly because they had a reporter with a camera with them when they visited the office.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

New article at Hawaii Reporter

On the upside: Yay, finally some details! On the downside: Daaaaaamn.

I find it rather interesting that the cashiers were in on this or more specifically had obviously been instructed to feign ignorance ( and may not have been comfortable doing so ) in the interest of allowing the trap to be sprung so to speak. That speaks volumes about the tone of the situation/store management if the wrappers were in the shopping cart in plain view in front of the cashiers. LP had no interesting in catching a mistake, just in netting a shoplifter. Makes you wonder if they or the store manager have some sort of performance quota or target to meet.

This does indeed give us the correct light upon which everything occurred now however. Wish we'd have this information from the onset. Though I find it kind of amusing that the couple says they're dealing with the exact same two reactionary arguments that we ourselves had here.

I am dissappoint with CPS though and must revoke my original surprise that they did not act like dicks, when they did in fact act like dicks it seems.

My final opinion of this case:

The policy itself is fine, but LP and/or Store Manager certainly fucked the walrus on applying it and I imagine will be job hunting shortly for their lack of judgment. But despite being a bunch of walrus fuckers, the store was within its rights so there's no lawsuit case either. CPS are likewise a bunch of dicks. But eating shit in the store before you pay for it is still disrespectful, medical conditions not withstanding of course.

In summary this seems like: "Hi! Welcome to Hawaii! Please admire our lovingly cultivate forest of dick which you will shortly find yourself surrounded by." >.>

[Andara Bledin]

In summary this seems like: "Hi! Welcome to Hawaii! Please admire our lovingly cultivate forest of dick which you will shortly find yourself surrounded by." >.>

It seems like it might be a Honolulu or maybe "get the outsiders" thing as opposed to Hawaii, since she grew up in Hawaii and was moving back after having spent two years in California.

^-.-^

[Nyoibo]

On the upside: Yay, finally some details! On the downside: Daaaaaamn.

I find it rather interesting that the cashiers were in on this or more specifically had obviously been instructed to feign ignorance ( and may not have been comfortable doing so ) in the interest of allowing the trap to be sprung so to speak.

Not necesarily, how many of us have worked in customer service, how often does trash get left in a trolley and how often would he have had our heads bitten of and been abused had we accused the customer of said trash being theirs from something they didn't pay for.

Also, if they didn't reat the woman like this and the next person who shoplifted some minor item was arrested, then badabing, discrimination lawsuit, you have to treat everybody the same.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, if they didn't reat the woman like this and the next person who shoplifted some minor item was arrested, then badabing, discrimination lawsuit, you have to treat everybody the same.

No, you don't. It's this sort of zero tolerance bullshit that results in kids being suspended from school for a week because they brought in a 1/2" orange plastic gun keychain because "replica guns" are banned.

The likelihood of someone who has consumed product, kept the evidence of such in their cart, and gone through the checkout and paid for another $50 worth of product being a deliberate shoplifter is statistically insignificant. Hell, even someone doing this accidentally is so slim that it's not worth even dreaming up contingency plans over.

You can be "tough on crime" without being an unsympathetic, trained monkey without enough common sense to avoid the sort of media storm that this incident spawned.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

The likelihood of someone who has consumed product, kept the evidence of such in their cart, and gone through the checkout and paid for another $50 worth of product being a deliberate shoplifter is statistically insignificant. Hell, even someone doing this accidentally is so slim that it's not worth even dreaming up contingency plans over.

Yes, it's likely it was a simple mistake and I believe that's probably the case here. But I disagree that the chances are oh so slim that someone would be obvious about their thievery. Mind, I'm not referring to this specific situation, just my experiences at Mal-Mart. People being obvious in their hiding of opened packaged, Hell I've had people hand me a bag of chips they've been eating only to tell me they changed their mind about buying them. The difference? Mal-Mart considers it the cost of doing business and cashiers can't call people out on their suck. Hopefully those same SCs won't do that in Safeway unless they want to deal with the consequences.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Hell I've had people hand me a bag of chips they've been eating only to tell me they changed their mind about buying them.

I've had someone do something similar in the supermarket where I used to work as a cashier. Back in the days where you had to sign a slip instead of using chip and pin; this customer's card had no signature so I couldn't accept it. After asking a supervisor and a manager (who both said the same as me), the customer said she was leaving and snatched a half eaten packet of cheestrings from her child's hand and threw it down. Since she had no money to pay for it, she'd essentially stolen it. The manager just let her go, but could just have easily called the police on her.

[Duelist925]

....... but LP and/or Store Manager certainly fucked the walrus on applying it and I imagine will be job hunting shortly for their lack of judgment. But despite being a bunch of walrus fuckers.....

....I have to ask, is this a colloquialism where you live? Because I have never heard it before.

it's amazingly apt, however, and I may wind up stealing it.