Look, it's clearly a minor offense at most. And maybe his actions were sufficiently reasonable that he could have defended himself in court, if it had absurdly come to that.
The point is, he took someone else's money, and all that ultimately happened was that he received a stern talking to. Seems pretty contrary to your narrative that "Even the smallest break in the only code they have must be met with extreme measures."
He didnt actually break the code. It only looked like he did. So cops were summoned and he was placed in handcuffs all over $3 dollars. Had he actually stole the money (in the criminal sense) he might have faced the full force of the law. To me the word "extreme" fits when a reaction to an event is in significant excess of the infraction.
I see. I have some sympathy for the view that this sort of intimidating interaction with the police and possible arrest is disproportionate when the offense is the theft of a mere $3. Then again:
1. It's not my $3. For some, the theft of $3 would be significant. How should law enforcement handle this?
2. I wonder if it really is true that if you steal $3, you're likely to face the "full force of the law." I would think that many people would just look the other way rather than involving the police. A lot would depend, I suspect, on their prior disposition towards you (which, of course, can be problematic insofar as it provides a vector for racism, etc. to influence policing).
I think thats kinda the point, law enforcement likely wouldnt be involved in this situation in a civil society. The manager might have taken the loss or he might have spoken to scott directly. Living in a civil society is about deescalation and assuming good intentions of those around you. Again the main mistake Scott is making is not his absent minded stumblings (note his bomb squad story) BUT his lack of recognition that he is living in a society where many minor errors are considered criminally hostile behavior.
Does it make a difference to you if (as seems like might be the case) smoothie bar employees did attempt to speak to him directly (though not in especially calm or lucid ways, as Aaronson describes it) but, at least from their perspective, he just walked away mid-interaction?
Yes it does improve the situation and maybe if scott was less absent minded he would have snapped out of it and realized wtf was happening. However at the end of the day you have scott misunderstanding this as demanding a tip and the employee then misunderstanding this as brazen petty theft. Both reach these rather hostile assumptions quite quickly which causes escalation of a rather ridiculously silly situation.
The point is, he took someone else's money, and all that ultimately happened was that he received a stern talking to. Seems pretty contrary to your narrative that "Even the smallest break in the only code they have must be met with extreme measures."