.
A difference in terminology here but they were shoplifters and met all of the legal definitions of being a shoplifter. I think they probably were not intentional shoplifters and there was a serious overreaction but they did break the law.
You might think so, but you might be wrong:
Definition of shoplifting
(1) willfully taking possession of or concealing unpurchased goods that are offered for sale;
(2) with the intention of converting the merchandise to the taker's personal use without paying the purchase price. Possession or concealment of goods typically encompasses actions both on and outside the premises.
I'd say they'd have a hard time proving intent, given:
1. The small amount of money ($2.50 per person);
2. The lack of true intent;
3. Lack of obvious 'concealment' (keeping the wrappers).
There was actually two incidents, each a $2.50 purloining of sandwiches by a woman and her spouse.
Note they put 'willfully' and 'intention' in there both, which tells me that intent is a big part of the definition. Having the money to pay and offering to do so with good intent belies the need to arrest anyone.
----
As the manager, here's what I would have done. I'd have confronted them and when they showed it was a mistake, I'd have given them the sandwiches as a treat and reward for being honest and forthright and her being a vet. That would have gotten Safeway's name in the paper and in a good way. 'Store donates food to vets', or something. Win-win.
