Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Store Customer Arrested for Shoplifting Says He Was Trying to Use EasyPay Self-Checkout
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be the only way. It seems like easy pay self check out is a recipe for disaster.
Well, I don't blame you for doing what you do as part of your duty, but as a paying customer, it just infuriates me that I would be suspected in the first place for what could just be my way of shopping. I do act differently with people around when I am shopping and staring at the said item because it embarrasses the crap out of me to be not able to choose between one product or the other, but that is just the way I shop when it is something very important. Like the shower caddy.
Next time someone comes and asks me if I need help, I will make it a point to ask them why they thought I needed help.
It just the way society is going. It is sad. I would never talk to someone multiple times. I just come up and ask how you are and if you need any help once and be done. That usually deters people that are on the fence about taking something. I bet no one asked the kid if he needed help...which is a fail on Apple and the stores ICS and BOH team...
I would have been more intrusive if I had seen you in the same section doing that week after week. I would be like "How many Shower Caddy's does one need?"
Until he successfully paid for the item in question, he wasn't a customer.
Seriously, though. There's quite a bit of room for misunderstandings with the EasyPay system. If you've gotten used to using it, and you think you've pressed that final button, you could walk out without paying, and have it be entirely by accident.
If he was given a bag for his purchase by an Apple employee, that was a failed bit of procedure (which is intended to stop/minimize these sorts of incidents).
Regardless, with the information available in this article, there's no way to actually *know* whether he was attempting to shoplift, or not. For all we know, he could have a history, or it could have been an honest mistake. Depending on a *lot* of unmentioned details, calling the police may have been overreacting or justified.
----------
If there's a failure to convict (either charges are dropped, or he's found innocent), then Apple should compensate him for the expenses he'll incur defending himself. And apologize for the incident.
If they stopped him *inside* the store, then he didn't shoplift.
If he actually made it out of the store with the item without paying, then he shoplifted.
He may not have *meant* to shoplift, and may have honestly thought he'd completed the EasyPay process, but he didn't actually do so. That's what makes the whole situation awkward and unclear.
Until he successfully paid for the item in question, he wasn't a customer.
Seriously, though. There's quite a bit of room for misunderstandings with the EasyPay system. If you've gotten used to using it, and you think you've pressed that final button, you could walk out without paying, and have it be entirely by accident.
If he was given a bag for his purchase by an Apple employee, that was a failed bit of procedure (which is intended to stop/minimize these sorts of incidents).
Yes, to this.
Problem is, in this story, NOWHERE does he claim he tried to hit the button. Nowhere does he state he had any issue using the app, entering his Apple ID, or his credit card verification. He NEVER got to that point, he admittedly "scanned the item, and put my iPhone away".
If you truly were familiar with using the app, then I don't think there is any question that you know you receive a confirmation right there on the phone within seconds of making the purchase. You can also request an email receipt, as well as have one printed right there at the store.
If your NOT familiar with using it, I don't see how any sane thinking person would think that merely by scanning an item that you somehow paid for it. He claims to have watched others use it, if thats the case, I would think even in the vaguest terms he would know that at some point you would actually have to purchase the item. The app itself is very clear in its use, in fact it pops up an instructional screen prior to doing anything...
I've never seen someone try so hard to sound educated and informed, yet fail so miserably.
If he left the store without completing the transaction, then he shoplifted. This is true regardless of intent, and it becomes a criminal matter at that point.
If they stopped him before he left the store, they should have let him pay and go on his way, because he had not (yet) shoplifted.
The in store LPs have authority to citizens arrest you, cuff you etc at most stores. So he likely couldn't just leave.
I've never seen someone try so hard to sound educated and informed, yet fail so miserably.
If he left the store without completing the transaction, then he shoplifted. This is true regardless of intent, and it becomes a criminal matter at that point.
If they stopped him before he left the store, they should have let him pay and go on his way, because he had not (yet) shoplifted.
He is being charged with larceny.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one, but reading NYC definition of Larceny, nowhere does it describe anything remotely about location (in store, out of store) being a necessity to prove larceny.
They may have a hard time proving intent to steal, but (depending on what they have on their security tapes) it certainly could be possible.
if it works for a few it's not worth it.
In who's opinion?
Certainly not Apple's. If that were true, why would they bother in the first place. Quite a few people use the system, and the vast majority without issues at all. This includes some, who for whatever reason, might not make a purchase at all without the ability to use this app. How does that serve Apple, even for the minority? It results in a lost sale. Apple is a business and operates to make a profit. If it can provide a simple system to help boost profits, even at the expense of something for the minority, they will do that if it makes sense for them.
Best case for you is to simply not use it.
I've never seen someone try so hard to sound educated and informed, yet fail so miserably.
If he left the store without completing the transaction, then he shoplifted. This is true regardless of intent, and it becomes a criminal matter at that point.
If they stopped him before he left the store, they should have let him pay and go on his way, because he had not (yet) shoplifted.
You don't exactly sound informed yourself.
Intent is typically a necessary element in these types of crimes.
(Leaving the shop is not typically a necessary element, though in practice it is a great way to prove intent.)
Possible. They could have a way to know what zone has activated Easy Pay function and then the LPs watch to see if the person finishes etc.
Anyone that has used the app knows the number of taps etc to pay. This kids 'accident' claim is very weak. You know when you have finished or not
I've used EasyPay five or six times. For everything from a $25 case, to a $100 Apple TV. I have never had any issues.
I don't know if employees are watching me as I make the transaction and catch a glimpse of the receipt on my iPhone or not, but I have never once been asked to show my receipt. I've never asked for a bag, either. If they are watching, then they're being very subtle about it. The whole reason I use EasyPay is because no one is available to help me.
Regardless, I love the system and will continue to use it. But these situations are bound to come up...
I don't know if employees are watching me as I make the transaction and catch a glimpse of the receipt on my iPhone or not, but I have never once been asked to show my receipt. I've never asked for a bag, either. If they are watching, then they're being very subtle about it. The whole reason I use EasyPay is because no one is available to help me.
Regardless, I love the system and will continue to use it. But these situations are bound to come up...
I don't think it matters whether or not it's the app's fault. People just assume you're a thief if you don't have a bag.
I bought PUMAs at the mall. They need to be broken in, so I put them on after I purchased them and put my old shoes in the box and put the box in the awesome red PUMA bag. FootLocker offered me a plastic bag. I told them that it's pointless to put a bag in a bag. (I do this at Target all the time..why do I need a bag for ONE item? A bag for TOILET PAPER? Come on...)
Anyway, onward to a different shoe store to find some VibramFiveFingers. On my way out, this chick stopped me and asked me if I paid. I said...yes...I'm wearing my new shoes. Wanna see my receipt? She looked then I asked if I was free to go. "Why didn't you get a FootLocker bag? You look suspicious." "No, you think I look suspicious, and I know I paid, and I don't need a bag for a bag."
then he clearly didn't pay. It's up to the court system to decide if they buy his 'I meant to' story.
Lots of false information being stated by the bystanders here.
Assumptions on laws, etc.
In Maryland the store can pretty much decide when they feel you are attempting to steal. It could be as early as when he asked for the bag from the clerk, once he put the item in the bag, once he headed for the door, or once he left the store. You can also follow them out of the store as far as you like. Some stores have very strict policies on their LPs, the store I worked for had very easy policies. I once rode with the police to the guy's house because he dropped a reciept with his address on it on the way out of the store.
In most cases we prefer not to stop you until you leave the store. But if it looks like you caught on, we would stop you anyways.
In the end, these things go to court for them to decide. The store does its thing, the theif does theirs. The courts decide. If the store is absolutely wrong, a civil suit can be made against the store. Which is why some stores have different policies. We would often talk to other LPs in the mall which work for other stores and compare rules. Some have rules like the value must be a over a certain amount before they can stop you. Others have rules that they must have clear visible sight of them actually hiding the item. Some have a rule that once they step off the side walk you can't chase.
I don't know if NY has different laws, but at least this may help some realize that some people quoting "laws" are confusing them with store policies and rumors.
Assumptions on laws, etc.
In Maryland the store can pretty much decide when they feel you are attempting to steal. It could be as early as when he asked for the bag from the clerk, once he put the item in the bag, once he headed for the door, or once he left the store. You can also follow them out of the store as far as you like. Some stores have very strict policies on their LPs, the store I worked for had very easy policies. I once rode with the police to the guy's house because he dropped a reciept with his address on it on the way out of the store.
In most cases we prefer not to stop you until you leave the store. But if it looks like you caught on, we would stop you anyways.
In the end, these things go to court for them to decide. The store does its thing, the theif does theirs. The courts decide. If the store is absolutely wrong, a civil suit can be made against the store. Which is why some stores have different policies. We would often talk to other LPs in the mall which work for other stores and compare rules. Some have rules like the value must be a over a certain amount before they can stop you. Others have rules that they must have clear visible sight of them actually hiding the item. Some have a rule that once they step off the side walk you can't chase.
I don't know if NY has different laws, but at least this may help some realize that some people quoting "laws" are confusing them with store policies and rumors.
That was *exactly* VF's point. You follow that procedure (set up an EasyPay session, but don't complete it), and try walking out of the store with the merch. If you get caught, you say 'oops', and finish the transaction. If you don't get caught, you got the stuff without paying.
In that scenario, where Apple says, "Hey, you didn't pay for that! Finish the transaction and then go.", the *worst* case scenario for the shoplifter is that they have to pay for the stuff they tried to take. The *best* case scenario is that they succeed in their shoplifting attempt.
I'm a pretty computer-savvy consumer, and I couldn't get the system to work the last time I tried it. I wrote up a complaint, and they called me up to ask about my problem. I described the problem very clearly; perhaps they've improved it by now.
They absolutely do not know. They only thing they know is that he followed the same pattern as other people who were trying to steal.
In my opinion, without some sort of direct evidence that he intended to steal, such as an exchange of emails stating that he was going to try to steal from an Apple store today, he should be found innocent. If it comes down to Apple saying we think he was stealing, and him saying I had no intent to steal, it should default to him being innocent.
This system they have for checking stuff out also leads to these kinds of mistakes so that should also give the kid some benefit of the doubt.
Please define "Looking like a criminal" - this is a matter of opinion and is not to be used for the basis of guilt. If people could simply be arrested for looking like a criminal, there would be thousands of arrests a day. Besides the fact that this violates the basic freedoms. Just because someone looks like a criminal does not make them a criminal. And you have every right to look like a criminal without being accused of a crime.
The fact of the matter is, in our judicial system you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are accused of a crime, you have to prove that you are innocent, when it should be the other way around. Just look at the fact that they offered the kid a plea bargain - this is the court saying we know you are guilty so take this lesser charge now and avoid having to prove your innocence. They would not offer him a plea if they though he was innocent.
The problem here is with EasyPay, if you are going to allow a system like this, you have to account for errors like this and instead of assuming someone is trying to steal, you need to assume they had difficulty with EasyPay. If you Apple thinks too many people are claiming they had difficulties as an excuse to steal then they should stop offering the EasyPay Service. If they want to allow it then they should trust their customers more.
Besides, they caught him, nothing was stolen, and he had a legitimate excuse backed by the evidence of the payment screen still on his iPhone, and was still willing to pay for the merchandise. If he was actually trying to steal and he pays for the merchandise and you dont arrest him and he does try to steal again, odds are he will get caught again, and that is when you can start to speculate that he is a thief. but even then you need to have proof that his intent was to steal.