Mom Arrested;Two year old taken by state for $5 sandwhich

[Lithium381]

What are you even talking about here? Are you arguing with my explanation of what the prosecution must establish to prove the crime of larceny? Proof of "negligence" is insufficient to establish the crime of larceny, period.

They broke a law, intentional or not intentionally. I'm not arguing with you, simply stating a fact.

 

[Ichigo]

I hope all of you are treated with the same amount of compassion and lack of discretion that you have advocated.

 

[woolfe9999]

And that's why intent is written into most all, if not all, statutes, for situations just like the one above. It's worth noting, however, that her use of the glasses to read the labels, and then her understandable forgetting of them on the top of her head, combined with all the other factors, likely carried the day here.

I say this because, in and of themselves, being wealthy or being elderly or the glasses only costing $7 while she spent $80 would not in most cases provide sufficient countervailing proof of lack of intent to steal at all. It was ALL of these ancillary factors combined with the most convincing idea of her legitimate use of the glasses and her understandable forgetting that they were on top of her head that persuaded the DA, no?

This is because the wealthy shoplift, the elderly shoplift, and as has been noted, people can and do pay for most of their items while simultaneously and intentionally shoplifting but one minor item, either out of lax foolishness or execrably low cunning.

Shoplifting has been shown to be often as much of an emotional act as anything else. Absolute need or logic, specifically the calculus of great monetary gain, need not apply. This does not make it any less of a crime and a modern day pestilence upon our land, for which the rest of us pay hidden billions.

It it brutally unfortunate that those folks were separated from their daughter for 18 hours, exponentially more so if theirs was indeed a mistake of omission and not a calculated theft.

But it is because shoplifting is ridiculously out of control in our society that I at least understand many stores' zero-tolerance responses.

Yes, I agree, but we're discussing two different things here which should be carefully delineated. One is the notion that proof of theft generally requires proof of intent. The other is whether, in a given case, the DA/judge/jury will make an actual finding of intent. My point is that under the law, her allegation of mistake, if believed, would be a complete bar to conviction.

You're right that it was the totality of the circumstances. The issue of her being wealthy was a strong part of it, however. With that much wealth, kleptomania or compuslive stealing (what you call "emotion") is essentially the only explanation, and kleptomania isn't actually all that common. Most people who steal, do so because they want something they cannot afford or don't want to pay for. So there is still a possible motive. It's just a lot less likely.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

They broke a law, intentional or not intentionally. I'm not arguing with you, simply stating a fact.

No, they only broke the law if they had the required intent. You aren't stating a fact. You're offering a legal opinion, and unless the law in Hawaii is different than California or most other states, it's a faulty one.

 

[Darwin333]

...wow. that is fucking idiotic.

The sole blame on this happening is the parents. Not safeway, not the cops (i do think the cops could have handled it better) and not dcfs.

only person to blame was the parents for walking out of the store.


Safeway did the right thing. they called in a shoplifter. the parents may have forgotten (but again that is a excuse by nearly all shoplifters). But they can't allow them to pay after the fact. It is bad for safeway to do that.

only issue i have again is with the cops. they could have(should have) just issued the women a ticket instead of arrest.

It is MUCH worse for Safeway now....

The fact that the news made it to P&N is proof positive of that.

 

[Darwin333]

This story amazes my wife and I because we just had our house stripped and stolen including the light bulbs.

We know who did it, know where they live, know where they put a lot of our stuff and the police said they don't arrest anyone in Oklahoma for theft anymore.

There must be more to this story than that. No way in hell that you can prove where your stolen property is and you are told that "we don't do that anymore" unless they think the person in possession has a claim to the property. In that case they leave it up to the courts.

 

[Munky]

Its not even that. She tried to walk out without paying for it! that is why she was arrested.

i do thinks the cops calling dcfs was idiotic. i do not blame safeway at all. you steal you get arrested.

I can also see why safeway wouldn't let them pay for it. if they did then anyone who got caught would be doing it.

The irony being that when a big bank gets caught defrauding people of millions of dollars, the worst they get is a slap-on-the-wrist settlement fine.

 

[waggy]

The irony being that when a big bank gets caught defrauding people of millions of dollars, the worst they get is a slap-on-the-wrist settlement fine.

i agree tis fucking nuts. white color crime is considered "victimless" so its not punished as badly. fuck that. they need to rot in jail.

It is MUCH worse for Safeway now....

The fact that the news made it to P&N is proof positive of that.

yeah and safeway shouldn't get any negative publicity out of. the ones the news should going after are the parents and perhaps the police.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree the case is stupid. However I also think that eating something before paying for it in a store is equally stupid.

Why?

Do you prepay for your expected bill when you sit down and eat in a restaurant too? Plenty of times I have snacked on some beef jerky or something while shopping. A football field area of food tends to make me hungry...

The funny part is I have always paid for what I have eaten/partially eaten. Its the crap I stick on the bottom of the buggy (unopened and uneaten) that I have forgotten about a few times. The REALLY funny thing is, I go back in and pay for it. And get this, I then leave with my purchased goods. No harm no foul, everyone is happy.


Look, shit happens sometimes. People forget, people do dumb shit, whatever. We, as a society, need to remember that at times. Everything isn't black and white and everyone isn't guilty and no one should have had their child taken away from them over $5 worth of sandwiches. Unfortunately (for Safeway) no one will blame the cops for this couples child being taken away, they will blame Safeway.

I would be happy to take bets that Safeway drops the charges (if they have the legal ability to do so). Hell, I bet they have already gotten their lawyers involved to drop the charges and minimize the damage by now.

 

[Lithium381]

No, they only broke the law if they had the required intent. You aren't stating a fact. You're offering a legal opinion, and unless the law in Hawaii is different than California or most other states, it's a faulty one.

so if i get caught going 95mph in a 55 zone, i haven't broken the law if i didn't INTEND to speed? If i just had my radio blasting my favorite rock song and was negligent in watching my speed i'm off the hook? I'll have to remember that next time i get pulled over.

 

[Darwin333]

yeah and safeway shouldn't get any negative publicity out of. the ones the news should going after are the parents and perhaps the police.

Perception is reality.

Wanna bet me that Safeway drops the charges if they are legally able to?

BTW, lets give the parents the benefit of the doubt for just a moment, why should anyone be "going after them"?

Or is everyone just fucking guilty, burn the bastards!

 

[woolfe9999]

so if i get caught going 95mph in a 55 zone, i haven't broken the law if i didn't INTEND to speed? If i just had my radio blasting my favorite rock song and was negligent in watching my speed i'm off the hook? I'll have to remember that next time i get pulled over.

No, every crime has a different mental state requirement. Speeding, and all traffic laws, are crimes of strict liability, meaning there is no mental state requirement. Being mistaken about your speed is not a defense. Not even if your speedometer is broken. If your accelerator locks, that would be a defense because the act itself wasn't voluntary. Generally infractions have no intent requirement. A major felony that has no intent requirement is statutory rape. Doesn't matter how old she looked, or even if she showed you a fake ID. But for theft, there's an intent requirement.

 

[waggy]

Perception is reality.

Wanna bet me that Safeway drops the charges if they are legally able to?

BTW, lets give the parents the benefit of the doubt for just a moment, why should anyone be "going after them"?

Or is everyone just fucking guilty, burn the bastards!

Oh i agree Safeway will drop the charges + give them a gift card.


Why should a company go after them. They lose millions from shoplifters and get the excuse "i forgot" a lot. I don't blame them for calling the cops. Good for them for doing it. Shoplifters make everything cost more. The people have the chance to fight it in court. The store needs to protect the property. Pitty this is makeign safeway look bad when it was 2 idiotic parents that caused the mess.

As i said i do think the cops could have handled it better. give them a citation instead of taking them in and calling DCFS.

 

[Perknose]

You're right that it was the totality of the circumstances. The issue of her being wealthy was a strong part of it, however. With that much wealth, kleptomania or compuslive stealing (what you call "emotion") is essentially the only explanation, and kleptomania isn't actually all that common

Not so. Kleptomania is far from the only explanation. Not only that, but kleptomania itself has now been found to be more common than once thought.

Furthermore, the deep seated compulsion of kleptomania is absolutely not the same as the often transient pressers of "what I call emotion."

It has been found out that people who are not kleptomaniacs steal for what they reveal as emotional reasons all the time, as opposed to need. They will convince themselves to shoplift because they are pissed at something else entirely, or because they felt dissed by the store or its staff, or for any number of emotional reasons short of stark monetary need.

They are not kleptomaniacs, but they do steal for transient emotional reasons.

Most people who steal, do so because they want something they cannot afford or don't want to pay for.

And the latter bolded is, of course, an emotional reason. People who are wealthy, elderly, and/or of every other stripe, regularly shoplift for emotional reasons well short of the compulsion of kleptomania.

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/whatnaspoffers/nrc/psychologicalstudies.htm

Shoplifting is clearly a psychological issue for many people. Shoplifting for most individuals is rarely about greed or poverty. It’s about people struggling with their own personal conflicts and needs.

The single largest psychological factor found in approximately 1/3 of shoplifters studied is “depression”. This helps to explain why so many individuals steal from stores on their birthday and/or around holiday times.

And yet, these psychological factors often fall far short of the diagnosis of full blown kleptomania:

The more intense form of shoplifting is classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as an “Impulse Disorder” known as Kleptomania. For this classification, the patient must meet the following five criteria to justify this diagnosis.

Recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal objects that are not needed for personal use or their monetary value.
Increasing sense of tension immediately before committing the theft.
Pleasure or relief at the time of committing the theft.
Stealing is not committed to express anger or vengeance and is not in response to a delusion or hallucination.
The stealing is not better accounted for by Conduct Disorder, a Manic Episode, or Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Today, kleptomania is considered far more prevalent than originally believed.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not so. Kleptomania is far from the only explanation. Not only that, but kleptomania itself has now been found to be more common than once thought.

Furthermore, the deep seated compulsion of kleptomania is absolutely not the same as the often transient pressers of "what I call emotion."

It has been found out that people who are not kleptomaniacs steal for what they reveal as emotional reasons all the time, as opposed to need. They will convince themselves to shoplift because they are pissed at something else entirely, or because they felt dissed by the store or its staff, or for any number of emotional reasons short of stark monetary need.

They are not kleptomaniacs, but they do steal for transient emotional reasons.



And the latter bolded is, of course, an emotional reason. People who are wealthy, elderly, and/or of every other stripe, regularly shoplift for emotional reasons well short of the compulsion of kleptomania.

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/whatnaspoffers/nrc/psychologicalstudies.htm



And yet, these psychological factors often fall far short of the diagnosis of full blown kleptomania:

Interesting stuff, Perknose.

 

[Wreckem]

Child Protective Services should have never been involed in this case or any case that involves a minor misdemeanor.

Detaining them for 4 hours is also unacceptable. If the police cannot arrive in a reasonable time the store should let them go and file a criminal complaint when/if the police actually arrive.

 

[dmcowen674]

Update to the story:

11-2-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-safeway-drops-sandwich-theft-charges-022842086.html

Safeway drops sandwich theft charges

The Safeway supermarket chain is declining to press charges against a Honolulu couple whose arrests over stolen sandwiches led state workers to take their 2-year-old daughter and sparked nationwide outrage.

Karl Schroeder, a Safeway division president, called Nicole Leszczynski on Tuesday, and, "He apologized for what she's been through," Houghton said.

The family had moved to an apartment near downtown Honolulu from Monterey, California, two weeks ago. Still settling in, they ventured out Wednesday to stock up on groceries, took the bus, got lost, and ended up at a Safeway supermarket, Nicole said.


Famished, the former Air Force staff sergeant openly munched on one while she shopped, saving the wrapper to be scanned at the register later.



But she said they forgot to pay for the sandwiches as they checked out with about $50 worth of groceries.


"When the security guard questioned us, I was really embarrassed, I was horrified," Nicole told AP on Monday. They were led upstairs, where the couple expected to get a lecture, pay for the sandwiches, and be allowed on their way.


But store managers wouldn't allow them to simply pay, she said.


Four hours later, a police officer arrived and read them their rights. A woman from the Child Welfare Services arrived to take Zofia away.


Leszczynski called the incident "so horrifying. It seemed to escalate and no one could say, 'this is too much.'"


The pregnant mother said she tried to keep her composure until Zofia, who turns 3 in December, left the store.


"I didn't want Zofia to be scared because she's never spent a night away from us. She didn't have her stuffed animal. She didn't have her toothbrush."


But as soon as her daughter left, "I got completely hysterical. I went to the bathroom and I threw up," she recalled.


A Honolulu police spokeswoman said it was routine procedure to call Child Welfare Services if a child is present when both parents are arrested.

Nicole said she and her husband were told they were banned from the store for one year.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why?

Do you prepay for your expected bill when you sit down and eat in a restaurant too? Plenty of times I have snacked on some beef jerky or something while shopping. A football field area of food tends to make me hungry...

The funny part is I have always paid for what I have eaten/partially eaten. Its the crap I stick on the bottom of the buggy (unopened and uneaten) that I have forgotten about a few times. The REALLY funny thing is, I go back in and pay for it. And get this, I then leave with my purchased goods. No harm no foul, everyone is happy.


Look, shit happens sometimes. People forget, people do dumb shit, whatever. We, as a society, need to remember that at times. Everything isn't black and white and everyone isn't guilty and no one should have had their child taken away from them over $5 worth of sandwiches. Unfortunately (for Safeway) no one will blame the cops for this couples child being taken away, they will blame Safeway.

I would be happy to take bets that Safeway drops the charges (if they have the legal ability to do so). Hell, I bet they have already gotten their lawyers involved to drop the charges and minimize the damage by now.

This is not a restaurant, it is a grocery store. Your comparison of the two is stupid. It just appears stupid to me that people walk up and down the isles opening food and eating it. I have seen too many of these assholes partially eat something then leave the remains laying on one of the shelves. I would imagine that Safeway is tired of the assholes that do this and have adopted a zero tolerance policy. I would do the same.

 

[Vic Vega]

I always laugh when I see people eating in grocery stores. It's not a restaurant and you haven't paid. The food is yours when you pay, not before. I have always considered this behavior to be low class.

That said, if I were the store manager I would have asked them to pay. If they refused, I would have called the police, absolutely.

 

[wirednuts]

WHO CARES. an air force staff sargent wants a $5 loan for 10 minutes. let her have it! holy fucking christ... this is not anything to worry about! say she got away with it. who's life is ruined? on a $5 sandwich that cost safeway maybe $2? do any of you realize what it is like to have your child taken from you, for any reason? and do you guys realize how much money was wasted through time and paperwork to do alllll of this stupid shit to these people? everyone arresting them and all the dcfs people are all making some 30 bucks an hour, you really think those resources were put to good use by stopping a $5 shoplifter that didnt even intend to do harm?

grow up people

 

[Darwin333]

This is not a restaurant, it is a grocery store. Your comparison of the two is stupid. It just appears stupid to me that people walk up and down the isles opening food and eating it. I have seen too many of these assholes partially eat something then leave the remains laying on one of the shelves. I would imagine that Safeway is tired of the assholes that do this and have adopted a zero tolerance policy. I would do the same.

Zero tolerance policy eh? You should have taken my bet.

My point is that common sense on both sides needs to apply instead of retarded "zero tolerance", Safeway is finding that out the hard way right now. I would be willing to wager that you yourself have unintentionally left a store without paying for something at some point in your life. If the wrapper was in the buggy the couple should have been given the benefit of the doubt and everyone is happy.

Now both parties are very unhappy and this just cost Safeway a fuckton more than the policy might save. Wanna bet that they are currently rethinking that policy at this very moment?

 

[tydas]

Well, the real victim is the poor 2 year old who I'm sure was traumatized by the incident, why wouldn’t anyone involved speak up?

When Safeway realized what was happening couldn’t they just say forget it?

When the cops realized the couple’s daughter might be taken away could they defuse the situation?

When the state worked came to take the child couldn’t they have brought some sanity?

Are they all automatons just doing their jobs with blinders?

Big fail on all involved…

 

[SammyJr]

Well, the real victim is the poor 2 year old who I'm sure was traumatized by the incident, why wouldn’t anyone involved speak up?

I'm wondering why the 2 year old was punished for her parents error. Getting involved with DCFS would be hell on Earth for such a little one.