>>>Another fine example of complete stupidity.
>>>
>>>http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=21802556
>>>
>>>Now I understand that the cops were just dong their job - but ya know at some point you have to think that the part of their job where they're supposed to help people takes more importance than being sure good food ends up in the trash.
>>
>>Doing what you suggest would have violated the law, thus giving the owner (bank) legal cause to sue the city. The officers would've at a minimum been reprimanded or likely worse suspended, demoted, fired, etc as the police dept felt the brunt of the city's legal team attempting to stem the financial damage while seeking heads to roll. That decision would've adversely affected their jobs, their families, their fellow officers & their city.
>>
>>I come to the same conclusion as the officers, the cost of handing out a temporary band aid amount of food is not justified...for them. Now, if I were the Chois and I REALLY wanted to give the food away, I would not have stopped at one church. In addition, if I were an executive with the bank, I'd have strongly considered the positive PR a public food giveaway would generate. Banks could certainly use some these days.
>
>I think if it was me I would of taken the chance on being sued by the bank. I seriously doubt they would of attempted to sue, due to the bad PR it would of caused.

Just limiting a Google search to "News" returns 12,000 results for "Bank sues city". At this point what's a little more bad PR for banks? A bit of good PR would actually be news. ;)

I've also thought of another reason against the giveaway, liability. The supermarket would've had an insurance policy in place in case of tainted food or injury on property. The bank nor the police would not.