The lady at the supermarket was too intrusive
-
Carlos_Nikos — 10 years ago(November 30, 2015 06:07 AM)
I reckon the most plausible explanation is that she moonlights as a 'groomer' for a massive child smuggling/ pedophile ring in Illinois. I think she saw an opportunity to get paid for passing on some vital information and Kevin was her target.
-
EightiesKid — 9 years ago(April 04, 2016 01:31 PM)
Coming from a different angle, I wonder if Kevin buying a cartful of stuff could've been what set off her suspicion more than him being alone? Like if he was just getting 1 or 2 things, I'm sure she wouldn't have batted an eye at him saying "My mom's in the car."
It was a supermarket in an upscale neighborhood in 1989/1990, so it probably wasn't as unusual at the time. I'm Kevin's age, and I didn't regularly start grocery shopping on my own until like 1995 at 12-13, but if I had five years earlier just using real world logic, I'm sure somebody would've definitely said something. -
!!!deleted!!! (14209231) — 9 years ago(September 26, 2016 01:48 AM)
Oh for goodness sake! It's only a movie. Why do people take these kinda things so seriously all the time?! Enough analyzing and more enjoying. This film is a great holiday film, and so is the second one. ?
-
stevenackerman69 — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 07:59 PM)
Just because Kevin gave an answer to it doesn't mean it was the truth. It wasn't, right? I think I'd be a little suspicious myself seeing an 8 year old kid buying stuff at the supermarket himself. Kids don't do that.
-
Blizzard_Beasts — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 09:32 AM)
What about the fact that she held up the army men toys and Kevin said "For the kids," then later on she asked "Where's your brothers and sisters?" and Kevin said "I'm an only child."
So what "kids" were those army men toys for? lol -
Utpe — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 07:34 PM)
So what "kids" were those army men toys for? lol
Oh, I'm sure Kevin was simply implying that the "kids" were merely disadvantaged children that receive presents around the holidays via donation. It is plausible.
Though, I do want to give my input on the original topic: Kevin was a kid in an upscale neighborhood. Even though there is Tort Law, she had every right to ask, even if it seemed a bit intrusive. Back then, nobody thought about children being sold into slavery. More than likely, they were concerned about Kevin falling and breaking his neck on company property.
When I was 10 years old, I walked down the street to the local supermarket and bought a bag of popcorn and some candy with my allowance. The cashier never grilled me about any information concerning my relatives. I simply purchased it, walked out, and went home. This was in the early '90s, as well.
Nowadays, in a Big Brother society, it's easier to track your children with smartphones and the like.
BTW, I went ahead and viewed the original trailer. They should have kept the scene with the manager of the establishment asking Kevin the questions. It just makes more sense. -
sexykitten0814 — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 03:07 PM)
An 8 year old is capable of being alone for short periods of time in a familiar place, especially if a parent is not that far away. I was the same age as Kevin when this movie came out, and while I certainly never had the freedom my parents generation did, people did not hover over kids as much as they do now. I remember MANY times at that age, going into stores alone to grab a few items for my parents while they waited in the car and so did just about every other kid I knew. No one ever questioned it or saw it as a big deal. It was helpful to my parents and fun for me as it made me feel grown up. They'd give me their money and a short list and tell me to grab some candy or a toy for myself with whatever cash was left over, it was fun.
There was no reason for the cashier to make such a big deal about it. It would have been different had Kevin been only four years old or appeared to be scared or in some kind of trouble, but when she asked where his mom was, and he said she was in the car, that was a perfectly logical explanation. The cashiers tone was rather rude and accusatory as if she was more suspicious of him, than concerned about his safety. She acted like he was doing something wrong. There was no reason to be grilling him like that, it was none of her business. -
sexykitten0814 — 9 years ago(January 08, 2017 12:02 PM)
As I said in my earlier post, it was simply common back then. Kids actually enjoyed it because it made them feel grown up. I, and other kids I knew, often asked to do it, just for that reason. People didn't feel it was bad or dangerous to give kids just a little independence. Plus it could be a nice favor for the parent if he/she is tired, not feeling well, disabled and has a hard time getting around, or watching a sleeping baby they don't want to wake.
-
Meganium — 9 years ago(January 08, 2017 12:17 PM)
Thanks for replying. I know kids can handle it, that's why I said would not have problems when the parents are at home.
But if you already drove to the supermarket? Staying inside and looking outside while your kid is inside? That's just stupid. At least to me, if I'm already there I can walk a bit. I just never heard of this before. I guess it is a step in between letting your child walk all the way to the store, too.
I found it intrusive when the woman looked at this bag, some say it was toy soldiers, I thought it was candy. She looked so accusing. Why?
A friend told me "Kids always buy candy for themselves" as if that was something the cashiers had to prevent and I said, no way, every parent I know always controls if the kid brought everything, how much it cost, if they got the correct change. Buying stuff for yourself would get you in big trouble.
I mean I would think Kevin was told to buy this for the family, or was allowed to buy for himself, WTF does this woman think she is doing, it's not like he only bought candy and ice cream.