You Should Definitely Return To The Scene Of The Crime If You Left Your Baby Behind

You’re not supposed to come back after you’ve done a wrongful deed, but if you happen to leave behind something you might need later, say, your baby, it’s a good idea to return to the scene of the crime. A shoplifting couple in Catalonia, Spain, were busted when they stopped by to pick up their precious cargo.

LifeInCatalonia.com says the were at a bookstore near Barcelona slipping items into their bags and clothing. They ran off when they realized they’d been caught with sticky fingers, but forgot that they’d left a stroller with their baby inside at the store.

You know the feeling, when you rush out of your home and feel like you totally forgot something. Except in this case, it was a tiny human of their own making.

When they returned later in the day (why not take your time, eh?) to pick up the little one, cops arrested them on the spot. Employees had called the police after the alleged shoplifting, and they were in custody of the baby.

Shoplifters leave baby behind after fleeing Police [LifeInCatalonia.com]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. AcctbyDay says:

    I may get attacked for this, but there are some people that no matter what the laws of our society say should be sterilized and have their children taken from them.

    • Blueskylaw says:

      Is that you Herr Hitler?

      • Costner says:

        I hope you’re joking and can recognize the difference between selecting people simply due to their genetic traits (race, skin color etc) versus people who have shown they are incapable of being qualified parents.

        Raise your hand if you think Octomom should be allowed to have another ten kids that have to survive off of government handouts, or if the people who put their infant in a microwave should be allowed to breed in the future?

        There comes a point where people prove they don’t have the mental capacity to care for children, so they shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Seems to be a lot cheaper to sterilize them as opposed to locking them up long term where they can’t come into contact with the opposite sex.

        • Blueskylaw says:

          Hitlers policy of “Lebensunwertes Leben”, meaning “life unworthy of life”, under the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring sterilized over 400,000 people against their will that were thought to be unworthy of propagating.

          This is what Hitler did and what AcctbyDay is proposing.

          • Costner says:

            I took AcctbyDay’s statement as more along the lines of once someone has done something that proves they are unfit parents… they shouldn’t be allowed to have more children.

            I wouldn’t condone just randomly sterilizing people because I didn’t think they were “worthy” or prior to them doing something to warrant it. That seems a bit too Minority Report for me.

          • AcctbyDay says:

            Costner hit it on the head.

            Only people who have shown unequivocally that they are monsters should have their kids taken away and be sterilized.

            Hitler was a monster and I in no way condone his policies.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              One thing I will give you on this is that CPS seems to have some serious issues. They will leave children with terrible abusive parents, then harass people who didn’t really do anything serious. Our child protection system is seriously broken.

            • Blueskylaw says:

              Okay, now I get your point. Actually wait for them to do things that make them unfit and not just sterilize people because they attend NASCAR events.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          I get what you are saying, but then who decides who’s worthy of bearing children and who is not? Politicians? The top 1%? Doctors?What would be the criteria? Is there an income cutoff? Is there a maximum number of children you are allowed to have? Can you have a mental disorder and have kids? If so, which ones? While I would love to see octomom sterilized, overall, ideas like that don’t work. And while I know that you were kidding, don’t many things that are said in jest have a kernel of truth to them?

          • Costner says:

            I get what you are saying, but then who decides who’s worthy of bearing children and who is not? Politicians? The top 1%? Doctors?”

            The same people who determine if someone is a fit parent or not or whether someone should be in prison or not. So yes… it ends up being the government. I know they make mistakes, but we are talking hypotheticals here that we all know won’t happen. Bottom line is there are many people that we as a society could clearly deem unfit to parent. Pull a jury of peers together and let them rule.

            “What would be the criteria? Is there an income cutoff? Is there a maximum number of children you are allowed to have? Can you have a mental disorder and have kids? If so, which ones?

            Critera would basically come down to whether someone has the intelligence and resources available to care for a child. If CPS has to come in and take your existing kids away… pretty sure you shouldn’t be able to have more.

            As to the income cutoff – I’m of the belief if you cannot provide for your existing children, you should have any more, but I could see a waiver for a family to have two kids before we even so much as look at income. I don’t want to deprive people from the joy of having kids… but seriously if you are forced to collect welfare because you had too many kids and you cannot possible feed them – that is a problem. Yes I’m a coldhearted bastard, but that is how I feel.

            The whole mental disorder thing seems obvious – if you are able to control yourself whether on or off meds then so be it, but if someone is developmentally to the point of a six year old they clearly cannot raise a child nor will they even realize the child is theirs. Also if someone is suffering from a severe mental condition and is required to be hospitalized, they can’t take care of a child so it should be a non issue.

            We have all heard cases of two mentally challenged people having a child, and in many cases that child becomes a ward of the state because the parents lack the ability of raising him or her. I can’t make this sound PC even if I try, but I think the world would be better without people having kids they can’t – or won’t – take care of.

            “While I would love to see octomom sterilized, overall, ideas like that don’t work. And while I know that you were kidding, don’t many things that are said in jest have a kernel of truth to them?”

            I’d say a lot more than a kernel of truth… hell if someone gave me a ray gun that sterilizes people the first visit I would make would be to the Octomom’s house, and then I’d find that guy who fathered 30 kids but makes minimum wage. I’d probably spent a fair amount of time outside of welfare offices too.

            Oh yea and pretty much anyone above the age of 17 rolling out of a Justin Bieber concert would be in my crosshairs. Hahaha.

    • Costner says:

      I have said that for years. I wish I had a ray gun that could sterilize people… if so I’d stay pretty busy at trailer parks, the welfare office, and NASCAR races.

      I kid, I kid!!!!!

  2. Costner says:

    Obviously the only thing left to do in this case….

    *sunglasses*

    Is to book ‘em.

    • Vox Republica says:

      ( •_•)

      ( •_•)>⌐■-â–

      (⌐■_■)

      • Princess Beech loves a warm cup of treason every morning says:

        YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH

        • HogwartsProfessor says:

          LOL I know this meme is old but I still love the hell out of it. And I still look for the “yeaaaahh” every time.

  3. Blueskylaw says:

    Police: Have you learned your lesson?

    Shoplifters: Yes, if you leave your baby behind, don’t ever try to get them back.

  4. RandomLetters says:

    Seems to me that leaving the kid with a babysitter while you commit a crime would be somewhere in the Stealing for Dummies handbook.

  5. Moniker Preferred says:

    Another stellar story about consumerism.

  6. Cat says:

    So, were the police or the employees in custody of the baby?

    Or – did the police, or employees, have custody of the baby?

    • nicless says:

      That’s my question. I believe the employees called the police while the baby had custody of them.

  7. Auron says:

    Are we sure the guy was the kid’s father? Cuz ya know, males hanging out in bookstores is not a good thing……..

  8. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    No point coming back. CPS (or equivalent) is gonna end up with the kid no matter what. Time to work on making another.

  9. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    2nd paragraph makes my brain hurt.

  10. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    Evelle: Promise we ain’t never gonna leave him again, Gale. Promise me we ain’t never gonna give him up.

    Gale: We ain’t never gonna give him up again, Evelle. He’s our little Gale Jr. now.

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      GIMME THAT BABY YOU WARTHOG FROM HELL!

  11. rdclark says:

    So if Consumerist is now reporting stuff like this from Spain, but didn’t report this from Philadelphia…

    “CENTER CITY – February 27, 2010 (WPVI) — Philadelphia police are searching for a couple of thieves who got away with a big haul and left a little boy behind.” http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=7301996

    …don’t try to tell us that this blog hasn’t changed its slant over the last couple of years.