eating a peach/collection..huh?

Responsible for what Exactly?

 

A peach has to be wieghed. Different than something in a can or a wrapper. I eat in the store a lot. LOL

I agree this is all ridiculous.

 

They are saying she is responsible for the actions of her minor son.

 

But for what act or acts

 

Well, technically a case could be made that he shoplifted, being that the peach or part of the peach had been eaten. The value of the peach could not be then determined since it was not possible to produce the missing portion of the peach. Given that, it did not matter if the boy was still inside the store or not.

It is ridiculous however.

 

What was the offical charge?

 

Technically, the store would not be able to calculate an accurate charge for the peach if they are sold by the pound. Opening and eating or drinking merchandise in a store, can be considered theft, as the item does not yet belong to you. I think the store overreacted, but most have bad experience rates with "shoplifters" and often come to a conclusion they must have a "zero tolerance" policy.

I fail to see how they were "damaged" aside from the cost of the peach and perhaps the short amount of time the security office was indisposed - no way it could amount to this high amount. If they didn't file a suit, criminal or civil, and there is no document with a signature acknowledging the debt they are blowing smoke.

This is no worse than you calling someone a name at a social function during an argument, and having them sue for "emotional distress". It just proves how greedy some people are.

 

I don't remember what he was officially arrested for. The situation was resolved that night though. It was unbelievable but true.

 

MAyBE it might depend.

 

I don't believe there was any criminal violation at the time of the arrest.
Another question is whoes peach was it.

 

After reading all the post on this subject I do not see any evidence of shoplifting.

Had to investigate yes - arrest no:

Making an arrest without evedence would be a false arrest would it not?

 

I would agree with Bill.

It does take a real A$$**** to not let a boy have a peach though. Even if it is your peach and he shouldn't have eaten it. Not to mention, he was willing to pay for it.

 

There are two sides to this - civil and criminal. You said the criminal side was not pursued for some reason. That means this "obligation" arises out of the civil side.

Now there are two possibilities here that I can see. One is that the mother was sued and either does not know it or she is not telling you that. If she was sued and there was a judgement against her, it would seem reasonable to put it on her credit report. Damages in a lawsuit might include pay for employees who had to attend court, spend time with the police, etc. If she is not aware of a lawsuit, then she needs to check the courthouse and see if some funny business was going on. There are ways to deal with that.

What if she was not sued and there is no judgement? Here is where I would have a serious problem. Following this logically, this means that someone (the store) decided that she owed them some money, did not follow proper procedures (sue for damages) and just decided to place the negative on her credit report. That would seem to me to be something she could sue over. I mean, I cannot just decide you owe me money and trash your credit report for it.

 

I dont think i would stop with the CA.I would also go after the store and print a big write up about the S****Y palce.

I'ed make D ** sure they had the most expensive peaches in the country.

 

Why not? Collection agencies do it all the time! :-(

 

I hope she just left the groceries and didn't pay for them :That is what I would have done- told them to stick them:

 

Here is something that most people never think of.
They have to own the item!!

In a nut shell YES!

 

Exactly what actions?

 

I disagree. The peaches were FOR SALE, therefore he had an opportinity to pay for the item. If he would of passed up the opportinity to pay for it, then that's theft. Passing up the opportinity to pay for it would be leaving the store. Now say he decided to go in the breakroom and saw an employee's lunch and decided to eat it. That is THEFT because the lunch was NOT for sale.