Is this shop lifting?

Captain Chaos · 27 Jul 2011 at 21:18

bitslice said:
I read the magazines on the racks and then leave

sometimes I eat the loose grapes if an assistant isn't hovering

You need to go to a library lol and stop eating the grapes unwashed lol

sunama · 27 Jul 2011 at 21:24

Raymond Lin said:
Actually, since it is not yours, you shouldn't even be touching it.

Hence appropriation.

Technically, you are correct, UNLESS the supermarket allow/encourage you do pick up items, inspect them, etc. This is implied and any employee will permit a customer to touch and inspect items before payment.

Now, if a supermarket explicitly states that customers may consume items before paying for them...then its fine. I used to work in a supermarket and at no stage have I ever seen a sign stating that customers are permitted to eat the food, before payment.

What the lady did by treating the supermarket as a buffet was not right. She is 100% in the wrong.

I can well understand if parents need to feed their brats before paying for the food, as some brats can cause chaos in a supermarket, but adults should know better and should show some will power.

Never in my life have I gone in to a sweet shop and started eating a chocolate bar before paying for it. Same goes for the supermarket.

sunama · 27 Jul 2011 at 21:26

colthillary said:
You need to go to a library lol and stop eating the grapes unwashed lol

Unwashed grapes - I've never understood why people are happy to eat unwashed fruit. Pesticides, fertilisers and insecticides tend to worry me.

Raymond Lin · 27 Jul 2011 at 21:27

sunama said:
Technically, you are correct, UNLESS the supermarket allow/encourage you do pick up items, inspect them, etc. This is implied and any employee will permit a customer to touch and inspect items before payment.

Now, if a supermarket explicitly states that customers may consume items before paying for them...then its fine. I used to work in a supermarket and at no stage have I ever seen a sign stating that customers are permitted to eat the food, before payment.

What the lady did by treating the supermarket as a buffet was not right. She is 100% in the wrong.

I can well understand if parents need to feed their brats before paying for the food, as some brats can cause chaos in a supermarket, but adults should know better and should show some will power.

Never in my life have I gone in to a sweet shop and started eating a chocolate bar before paying for it. Same goes for the supermarket.

Again, you are confusing your opinion against decades of case laws!

The whole thing comes down to Dishonesty.

Period.

sunama · 27 Jul 2011 at 21:31

Nitefly said:
Technically not true, you could have committed the act of theft before you have left the shop. Proving it is of course another matter, but if you have a jam jar shoved down your pants it's not hard to allege dishonest intentions.

But Nitefly, if the shop owners were thinking of taking you to Court, they would definitely have to think twice if the person hadn't yet left the store (with the items in his pockets).

In shoplifting cases, prosecutors prefer open and shut cases. The moment you have a case where the customer didnt actually leave the store or attempt to leave the store without paying for the items, the prosecutor is going to have a tough time winning the case.

Why take on a "iffy" case, when there are so many cases which are open and shut?

flibbage0 · 27 Jul 2011 at 21:34

The reason why they have these rules is to make shopping a better experience.

They have to consider everyone, its ok if the decent people of overclockers would pay for what they've already eaten, but there are lots of people out there that won't!

Also if it was a common practice then people would be exaggerating what they've eaten before, and abuse it, like any other system/law.

If you're so thirsty/hungry when you enter a supermarket, grab a drink, go straight to the self checkout and then continue shopping.

yhack · 28 Jul 2011 at 14:29

Breaking news

Sunbed · 28 Jul 2011 at 14:37

Does anyone ever rearrage things on supermarket shelves just for the lulz?

Keep the shelf stackers on their toes etc.

Sinny · 28 Jul 2011 at 14:38

It's not theft, if she left the shop without paying for it then it's theft. I used to do it all the time.

However I know people who do it and don't pay so I can agree with pulling people over.

El_Watcher · 28 Jul 2011 at 14:49

yhack said:
Breaking news

So what, you can buy single bananas, but how would a security guard know that is what she was going to do?

I could walk into Tesco, put a bunch in the trolley, and pick up a single banana as well. If I then ate the single banana, how would Tesco know that it didn't come from the bunch, and therefore I wouldn't pay for it? It would also be very difficult to prove what did without getting CSI involved to check the banana skins for broken stems.

(N.B. I realise I am only talking about stealing 18p worth, but it is the point not the amount).

Basher · 28 Jul 2011 at 14:53

El_Watcher said:
So what, you can buy single bananas, but how would a security guard know that is what she was going to do?

I presume you've read the thread? Specifically the stuff around the issues if it was weight based?

El_Watcher · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:16

Basher said:
I presume you've read the thread? Specifically the stuff around the issues if it was weight based?

Yes I have, and the fact is the original story only said that she was sharing a banana with the child. It does not say that:

1) she was sharing a banana taken from the 18p single shelf, or
2) she had taken a bunch and eaten one, or
3) she had just pulled one from a bunch and put the bunch back, even though that bunch may not have been valid for single sale.

knowlton · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:21

I think she was shoplifting - it's not hers until she pays for it. Plain and simple.

flibbage0 · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:22

El_Watcher said:
So what, you can buy single bananas, but how would a security guard know that is what she was going to do?

I could walk into Tesco, put a bunch in the trolley, and pick up a single banana as well. If I then ate the single banana, how would Tesco know that it didn't come from the bunch, and therefore I wouldn't pay for it? It would also be very difficult to prove what did without getting CSI involved to check the banana skins for broken stems.

(N.B. I realise I am only talking about stealing 18p worth, but it is the point not the amount).

The skin?

Basher · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:27

El_Watcher said:
Yes I have, and the fact is the original story only said that she was sharing a banana with the child. It does not say that:

1) she was sharing a banana taken from the 18p single shelf, or
2) she had taken a bunch and eaten one, or
3) she had just pulled one from a bunch and put the bunch back, even though that bunch may not have been valid for single sale.

Indeed. But I assume why the picture was posted was regarding the issues around if the only costing option was by weight. I.e. even if she had consumed it and then intended to pay for it (NOT illegal) then it would be difficult to pay for it as the weight is unknown. However, as it is a fixed price - no issue.

kylew · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:35

Nitefly said:
Technically not true, you could have committed the act of theft before you have left the shop. Proving it is of course another matter, but if you have a jam jar shoved down your pants it's not hard to allege dishonest intentions.

The point was that it is technically true. I could put a jar of jam down my pants, but it's not theft until I attempt to leave without paying, I'm not arguing against people suspecting it's dodgy and a attempt to steal, but it's not theft until you try to leave.

Andy90 · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:47

I'm still amazed at how many pages this thread has got to.

The whole crux of this issue is the dishonesty part. Sure she ate the banana so the appropriation of property belonging to another (i.e treating it as if she owned it) is proved.

Her state of mind at the time is the awkward part ie the dishonest aspect.

Standard practice is the let the individual pass through the checkout area of any shop and then stop them if they have not declared posession of the goods.

So if she goes to the checkout and pays for the items she has in her trolly, doesn't pay for the banana she has eaten and then gets stopped by the security guard beyond the checkout, then she will in all likelihood be detained.

It then depends on the store policy - some will call the Police (yes I know its only 1 banana) - some will require her name and address, ban her from the store and instigate a civil recovery process.

On the arrival of a Police Officer the matter could be dealt with in a number of methods.

1) Restorative Justice. Usually low level crimes where there is little loss to property or damage caused. Matter is recorded as a crime, offender can be asked to carry out an act such as a face to face apology to the owner of the property or a written letter of apology or even pay for the goods stolen or damaged.

2) Fixed Penalty ticket - can again be used for low level offences, such as theft etc up to a certain amount (and can really only be used if the offender hasn't been in trouble for a long time or is a first time offender)

3) Arrest - would then be taken to the Station, interviewed and dependant on a decision by CPS would then get a Caution / Repremand / Fixed Penalty Ticket / Charge (dependent on admission and/or previous convictions).

sunama · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:50

Basher said:
However, as it is a fixed price - no issue.

It is an issue, if the supermarket, want to make an issue of it.
It really is up to the discretion of the supermarket.

No customer has the right to go into a shop and start consuming items, before they have paid for them, unless the shop/restaurant explicitly or implicitly states that this is ok. Restaurants which allow you to pay for your food, after you have eaten are a good example.

Basher · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:52

sunama said:
It is an issue, if the supermarket, want to make an issue of it.

Perhaps, but in this scenario, they'd be stupid to make it an issue.

Nitefly · 28 Jul 2011 at 15:52

kylew said:
The point was that it is technically true. I could put a jar of jam down my pants, but it's not theft until I attempt to leave without paying, I'm not arguing against people suspecting it's dodgy and a attempt to steal, but it's not theft until you try to leave.

Agggggghh!

No, that's wrong. It's theft the moment you appropriate the property dishonestly with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.

Any other facts, such as trying to leave the shop, will be used to try and show dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive, but the actual moment it becomes a theft is when those criteria has been met. So I walk into a shop intending to steal an item and grab it, providing you could prove my intention and dishonesty (for example I have loudly announced to people my plans or have written my dastardly scheme out somewhere), that would be theft regardless of whether I actually tried to leave the shop.

Raymond, let me into your padded cell please, I'm outta here