The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Mountain said:
This is a bit off-topic, but it raises an interesting question of who owns things discarded into a labelled trash bin. Does the store still own it, even though they're discarding it? Has ownership been transferred to the company whose name appears on the bin? In both these cases, removing items from the bin can be considered theft. Or is it now considered unowned and available for use by the public at large?

Different jurisdictions probably have different rules.
Click to expand...

That's actually more important than you'd think on the surface.

Listen I agree that throwing out still safe to eat food instead of giving to hungry people is some crap.

But I am realistic and I also know that the first dumpster diver that winds up with salmonella is a lawsuit wanting to happen.

If I was store owner I'm sorry but I would make damn sure that a "After the food is outside my normal chain of custody I no longer assume risk" has been established before I'm be completely open to letting people eat from my trash.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
retailers in the UK have started donating unsold stock to food banks.
Click to expand...
That would seem like the ideal solution here. If the store had a power failure and food was still edible for a limited time, they should immediately have called some food shelf, mission, or other charitable organization of which I'm sure there are plenty, and said "you can pick up these specific items within this limited time, and otherwise we're throwing them out."

I bet there would have been plenty of takers. After that, then I agree with others that, liability and the like applying, they should destroy the rest or make it inedible, or at worst hire guardians to prevent people from taking it anyway. But just throwing good food away is at least poor PR, if not just a plain old sin in these parlous times.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's actually more important than you'd think on the surface.

Listen I agree that throwing out still safe to eat food instead of giving to hungry people is some crap.

But I am realistic and I also know that the first dumpster diver that winds up with salmonella is a lawsuit wanting to happen.

If I was store owner I'm sorry but I would make damn sure that a "After the food is outside my normal chain of custody I no longer assume risk" has been established before I'm be completely open to letting people eat from my trash.
Click to expand...

Except that the answer to this issue, especially during a crisis situation where your store and neighborhood is without power, is not to see it. You're simply not going to be held liable for people eating your garbage unless it can be proven that you knew about it and approved of it. If you do see it happening, tell the people to stop then walk away.

The answer is not to send your employees out as guards and then call the cops.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If I was store owner I'm sorry but I would make damn sure that a "After the food is outside my normal chain of custody I no longer assume risk" has been established before I'm be completely open to letting people eat from my trash.
Click to expand...

ETA: sorry missed some of the posts above somehow.

I don't see any possible legal issue with just letting them take it from the trash and pretending not to notice. We don't require people or businesses to lock and guard their trash if it contains spoiled food.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
Except that the answer to this issue, especially during a crisis situation where your store and neighborhood is without power, is not to see it. You're simply not going to be held liable for people eating your garbage unless it can be proven that you knew about it and approved of it. If you do see it happening, tell the people to stop then walk away.

The answer is not to send your employees out as guards and then call the cops.
Click to expand...

I mean, they can call the cops, but I don't see why cops would actually show up to guard a dumpster.

On the list of priorities, people stealing from the trash is probably lower than jaywalking on a deserted street. Seems like the perfect opportunity for some discretion.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I mean, they can call the cops, but I don't see why cops would actually show up to guard a dumpster.

On the list of priorities, people stealing from the trash is probably lower than jaywalking on a deserted street. Seems like the perfect opportunity for some discretion.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, police exist to protect the privileged, and big grocery stores are in that category (Fred Meyer is a big deal around these parts).
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I mean, they can call the cops, but I don't see why cops would actually show up to guard a dumpster.

On the list of priorities, people stealing from the trash is probably lower than jaywalking on a deserted street. Seems like the perfect opportunity for some discretion.
Click to expand...

The dumpster divers are lucky they weren't shot.

There's the discretion.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I mean, they can call the cops, but I don't see why cops would actually show up to guard a dumpster.
.
Click to expand...

Often these cops are off duty, moonlighting as security, and happen to have their uniforms on.

Which is wrong on a whole ton of levels. Legal in some places, and where it isn't who exactly can be called to stop it?
 
It doesn't seem unreasonable for a business owner to desire that people not be allowed to trespass on their property in order to do something with an inherent risk of injury (dumpster diving) for which the property owner could be held liable.

My S/O is a paralegal, and has participated in lawsuits (successful ones-from the point of view of the litigants) wherein dumpster divers sued property owners for injuries incurred while diving.
 
Distracted1 said:
It doesn't seem unreasonable for a business owner to desire that people not be allowed to trespass on their property in order to do something with an inherent risk of injury (dumpster diving) for which the property owner could be held liable.

My S/O is a paralegal, and has participated in lawsuits (successful ones-from the point of view of the litigants) wherein dumpster divers sued property owners for injuries incurred while diving.
Click to expand...

Well, yes.

The unreasonable part is that people need to dive into dumpsters in the first place. Once that part is taken as at all acceptable then the stores are going to look bad no matter what they do.

The stores get scapegoated because they are an easy target and whining about corporations acting like they are legally supposed to is a way to score points for being compassionate without the political risks of advocating the kinds of social programs aimed at a world where no one needs to dive into a dumpster.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
Well, yes.

The unreasonable part is that people need to dive into dumpsters in the first place. Once that part is taken as at all acceptable then the stores are going to look bad no matter what they do.

The stores get scapegoated because they are an easy target and whining about corporations acting like they are legally supposed to is a way to score points for being compassionate without the political risks of advocating the kinds of social programs aimed at a world where no one needs to dive into a dumpster.
Click to expand...
Then what is the beef with the cops?
That they showed up to perform a necessary, if unpleasant, duty?
They should be doing nothing instead?
 
Distracted1 said:
Then what is the beef with the cops?
That they showed up to perform a necessary, if unpleasant, duty?
They should be doing nothing instead?
Click to expand...
In a rare occasion here, I think I agree, though I would suggest that sending 5 cops to do the job seems excessive. The cops, while not looking very good in this, are in a double bind, since neither guarding the dumpster nor failing to do so has a really good result.

The real beef should be with the store for its social irresponsibility.
 
Suddenly said:
Well, yes.

The unreasonable part is that people need to dive into dumpsters in the first place. Once that part is taken as at all acceptable then the stores are going to look bad no matter what they do.

The stores get scapegoated because they are an easy target and whining about corporations acting like they are legally supposed to is a way to score points for being compassionate without the political risks of advocating the kinds of social programs aimed at a world where no one needs to dive into a dumpster.
Click to expand...


I used to dumpster dive for furniture when I was a nearly broke grad student. I didn't "need" to as such, but if I wanted furniture I did (this was pre-Craigslist). Normally the stuff I would get would be set beside the dumpster, but I did reach in once for deck chairs and once for an exercise bike.
 
Distracted1 said:
Then what is the beef with the cops?
That they showed up to perform a necessary, if unpleasant, duty?
They should be doing nothing instead?
Click to expand...

It’s an issue of proportionality.

How does 5 cops guarding 1 dumpster compare to the police presence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th? How does that anemic deployment and response compare to how the protests over the summer were policed?

It seems like the cops only come out in force when poor people and minorities need to be reminded of their place.
 
Distracted1 said:
Then what is the beef with the cops?
That they showed up to perform a necessary, if unpleasant, duty?
They should be doing nothing instead?
Click to expand...

Besides the whole priorities thing, there is that often (not sure about this specific episode) these cops are being paid as private security while still wearing a uniform.


That practice is IMO just abhorrent, but so it goes.
 
Modified said:
I used to dumpster dive for furniture when I was a nearly broke grad student. I didn't "need" to as such, but if I wanted furniture I did (this was pre-Craigslist). Normally the stuff I would get would be set beside the dumpster, but I did reach in once for deck chairs and once for an exercise bike.
Click to expand...

Sure, but at that point the moral case for letting you go at it is not as strong as when hungry people are doing it for food.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom