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.
Man arrested for eating [10] jelly beans in store
- Thread starter nbs2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would only do this if the product is paid for by the box or package and not by weight. For example, I may go into Wal-Mart to buy a pack of Strepsils to soothe a sore throat, and open the package and start eating the first lozenge before I've finished the rest of my shopping. Or when I was younger my mother might have bought a box of Oreos, and let me have one from the package before we were done shopping. We would definitely still pay for the items.
These are fine since they are not sold by weight (except maybe the sandwich meat but that is usually weighed and tagged in the deli before you get it). With things like Grapes and nuts, and the bag-your-own candy areas the items are not weighed until you get to the cash register. Every item you eat is taking away from the weight total and therefore an item you are not paying for, yet you are consuming.
True, $2 might be excessive, but as mentioned, it's hard to get a clear picture of how many he ate via security tapes, but why not charge an exorbitant amount to discourage people from doing this in the future?
If you're going to tolerate this where do you draw the line? Can someone come in, eat an apple, and only pay the per-pound price on what they leave left of the apple core?
Well, of course, there wasn't a problem for YOU or YOUR MOM. But it can be a problem for the cashier. When I worked for Wal-Mart as a supervisor, I would have customers tell the cashier they ate "a bag of green grapes." Well, how are we supposed to know how much to charge? This required a physical person to walk back to the produce aisle, bring a similar-sized bag of grapes back up to the front of the store and then return the bag once the weighing is done. Meanwhile, you have a group of angry customers having to wait in line.
All I'm saying is a little politeness, tact and understanding can go a long way. Now, I know the customer didn't mean any harm, but you should be somewhat considerate of others. If you want to pay super-chain grocery prices, you should respect the store's policies.
Otherwise shop at your local mom and pop grocery, pay their higher prices and enjoy the more relaxed atmosphere.
Now, that would be understandable as long as you didn't leave an Oreo trail
Not to mention, your items weren't weighable.Also, we've had several customers that had no cash or checks, yet opened and/or used a specific item only to find out that their credit, debit or EBT (Food Stamps) card was declined. I had one customer in particular use deodorant. Now, what's a store to do?
It's all about loss prevention.
Don't know how the laws vary from place to place, but at least here in Indiana, concealing an item is good enough to get you for shoplifting. You don't have to leave with it, just secret it on your person or in another item. There was quite a bit of news about it when the law changed... probably 20 years ago. I assume it still reads that way.. haven't heard any different.
Obviously, consumables are "stolen" the moment one consumes them... and while I don't think it is worth pursuing, I think it is amazingly gauche to graze in a grocery.
Then I feel bad for you, because I think that's a bad law. Actually, I think it's a good law because lets face it.....someone hiding an item in their pocket is likely to try and steal it. So this law is better at protecting shops from idiots.
However, from a customer's standpoint, you have to wonder about a law that says you can be punished before even stealing the item. If a product is still within the store, it's shouldn't be considered stealing. Otherwise, grocery stores would be doomed. You should only be considered a thief after you have tried to steal it. Otherwise, they're accusing you of stealing when you haven't technically done it yet.
I believe that generally, customers have it pretty good, while the law doesn't protect shop owners enough. This is why I feel a bit of sympathy towards shop owners. However, this may be due to the fact that I haven't been a victim of a store policy-related stupidity yet.
You make a really good point. Most folks that try and steal stuff from stores try to conceal their acts, and most folks that conceal stuff are trying to steal it.
The concern I have is that by secreting the item possible without the intent to walk out the store with it, you have committed theft. By removing the intent (as far as I can tell from the above poster), you make it rather difficult. My daughter can only crawl thus far, but I've had trips to the store where pushing her stroller or carrying the carseat has taken half of my hands and I end up putting stuff inside of stuff for carrying ease. Under what the law sounds like, I'm stealing, even though I plan on unpiling and paying for everything in the checkout lane. Sure the enforcement mechanisms will balance with PR needs to avoid that interpretation, but I would have expected the same from Albertsons...