5 ms·
What is this article?! What's the point? It's seemingly arguing in favor of ignoring the crime by downplaying it. That's crazy, and also probably part of the pr
by proc0 5y ago
What is this article?! What's the point? It's seemingly arguing in favor of ignoring the crime by downplaying it. That's crazy, and also probably part of the problem.
Article makes no mention of the policies that explicitly prevent authorities from apprehending shoplifters, from lowering requirements of arrest for less than ~$900 value, to defunding the police. There is no mention of any of this, yet it still tries to justify this by alluding to how little impact it causes on the large corporation. Not only is that besides the point, but think about the wellbeing of the store workers, and the customers witnesses, which will certainly change their behavior adding to the losses in the long run.
TL;DR: garbage
- satronaut 5y agoLA times for ya
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
- croes 5y agoSure? "Proposition 47 did not end prosecution of thefts under $950 in California" https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-160551360299 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-160551360299
- nicolashahn 5y agoThis states that thefts under $950 are still illegal, but the actual amount of prosecution that happens is still up to the DA. I'm interested in how many of these cases (as a percentage) are actually prosecuted.
- jeffbee 5y agoAll prosecutions are at the discretion of prosecutors.
- santoshalper 5y agoProbably not many, because prosecuting a case in court is expensive, resources are finite, and doing a trial or grand-jury for $500 is difficult to justify.
- jeffbee 5y agoNot mentioned in the article: the same threshold dollar amount has long been in force in Texas and other states. California was the outlier.
- _-david-_ 5y agoTexas has far more lax gun laws. If somebody was robbing a store they could very easily be shot and the police wouldn't bat an eye. Good luck trying to do that in California.
- jeffbee 5y agoI suggest you consult the Texas Penal Code or an attorney before drawing that conclusion. In no state is there a defense against using deadly force to stop someone fleeing from the theft of a third person's property. If you used deadly force against some guy who ran out of the Walgreens with an armload of cough syrup, you'd attract a manslaughter charge, minimum.
- _-david-_ 5y agoTexas Penal Code Sec. 9.41 talks about this. https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.41 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.... There are multiple cases where people have argued they were justified in shooting a thief and won. I am only aware of people who owned the business themselves not employees, so there could be issues there. In California you almost certainly won't win in a case like that. In Texas depending on the situation you very easily could. It is of course not a guarantee and if the person is running away and you shoot them in the back you will probably lose.
- gotoeleven 5y agoThe issue is whether crimes are being prosecuted and criminals are actually prevented simply stealing some more the next day. This typifies why most of the fact checks from mainstream media organizations are worse than useless.. they're literally anti-informative. But left wingers get to keep feeling smug while they wonder why all the walgreens are leaving town...
- santoshalper 5y agoThe point is that the supposed wave of retail crime sweeping the nation is probably bullshit, or in the very least there is no data to support it, which I would expect would be important to people reading HN.
- proc0 5y agoThere are videos floating around, and many people in these cities like SF/LA can tell you of some experience. If calling out the large retail store's bullshit is the point, then I would find a breakdown of that dollar estimate interesting, but it seems the intention is to turn a blind eye, potentially making things even worse by keeping people in denial.
- mcguire 5y agoAnd viral videos make a great basis for government policy.
- sp332 5y agoEven if it's decriminalized, it's still a violation and the police can still show up and stop it (like a speeding ticket). Police have not been defunded. They don't show up because they are protesting the new district attorney and trying to make him look bad.
- nicolashahn 5y agoOr they know that the DA will not prosecute, so why bother.
- sp332 5y agoThey can still protect the business, and issue a fine or some deterrent.
- cgriswald 5y agoThe police in a nearby town were explicitly forbidden from issue citations or removing the residents of an unofficial homeless encampment that took over a city street two blocks from the police station, a county jail, and an official homeless encampment. Piles of stolen bikes. Harassment of employees and customers at local businesses. Frequent trespassing. Assaults of other homeless people, sometimes with weapons. Vandalism. All totally fine. It took years and the death of a homeless person by being burned alive for the 'compassionate' city council to do something about the problem. Their solution was to put up 2-hour parking signs—it was already illegal to park for more than 72 hours—and finally allow the police to do their job.
- gotoeleven 5y ago[flagged]
- beervirus 5y agoArticle: thisisfine.jpg But if the retailers are closing up shop, it is not fine. They wouldn’t forego the profits this article assumes exist just to make a political point.
- glasss 5y agoI think the purpose of the article is to point out that a large retail association / corporate interest group is most likely lying to push an agenda or policies of their own. I don't believe the group's claims of damages. Could you visualize stealing 3.6 Billion dollars worth of retail items in just San Francisco and Oakland a year? Making up such a figure serves no one any good, especially not your own interests because it reduces your credibility.
- proc0 5y agoMany stores have closed, and it wouldn't be a stretch to connect a bad shopping experience to lower sales, to then having to close the store, which could easily be millions of dollars that year. We can argue whether that was the only factor for these closed stores, but it's certainly a factor. It can still be an exaggerated number, but not only does the article offer no details as to how exactly this number was determined (which would have been interesting), it also fails to mention the potential intentions of why stores would report that... maybe it's the only way to get some attention to UNDO some of the legislation that has caused it.
- mcguire 5y agoArguing that perhaps you shouldn't make policy on the basis of rumors and viral videos?