4 ms·

I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort

I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local prosecutors are frustrated with what is going on? How come we allow stuff like this, pulling out the stops for shoplifters, but not wage-theives? How come people argue in favor of the one but not the other?

phpisthebest 4y ago
You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered. The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government. You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Thank you!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikem170 4y ago
    I don't think that the parent understood where I was coming from when he called my position a what-about strawman. I'm sure that was in good part because I didn't do a good job of communicating what I was thinking. I attempted to fix that with additional information. Understanding what others are thinking and why is often helpful, especially in a democracy.
- mikem170 4y ago
  I agree that wage-theft specifically is a tangent here. But I do believe there is more to talk about, this isn't something to dismiss so easily. Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft. Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this. Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things. I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prosecutors-downtown-portland-wary-role-of-private-security/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards you have flipped the proposition from where it should be ethically. Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft, We create governments in order to protect our rights, persons and property when government fails in its only job it reverts back to the individual to secure themselves and their property. We do not "allow" people to defend themselves, it is inherent in their existence as humans we sometimes contract that protection out to government but never for a second believe we give up or surrender the right to do it ourselves. >>sometimes abusing law abiding citizens? I have no proof of this, and if they do they are no longer defending property and have become criminals themselves whom should be prosecuted as such >>Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? The state has the self declared monopoly on the INITIATION of violence. Meaning the state has declared that is has the authority to attack you in any circumstance with or with out needing to justify their actions under the umbrella of self defense. >>does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2? Based on the story linked to it appears these companies are paid to patrol shopping centers, malls etc. not "the streets" though they to talk about community outreach they do which seems to be different from their security patrols Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues? I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force. >>Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers I think a mix of both is the correct model. I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime. >>opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves This is a mischaracterization of what they are doing, the government is refusing to provide police protection, if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it? If the politicians say they will not punish people for theft, you believe people should just accept the theft? No that will never happen. >>but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things. yes there was, why? Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone. If you have a local DA that wants to stop prosecuting "misdemeanor" property crimes out of some altruistic or other reason I strongly encourage you to vote them out.

phpisthebest 4y ago

You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered. The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government. You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Thank you!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mikem170 4y ago
  I don't think that the parent understood where I was coming from when he called my position a what-about strawman. I'm sure that was in good part because I didn't do a good job of communicating what I was thinking. I attempted to fix that with additional information. Understanding what others are thinking and why is often helpful, especially in a democracy.
mikem170 4y ago
I agree that wage-theft specifically is a tangent here. But I do believe there is more to talk about, this isn't something to dismiss so easily. Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft. Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this. Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things. I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prosecutors-downtown-portland-wary-role-of-private-security/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards you have flipped the proposition from where it should be ethically. Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft, We create governments in order to protect our rights, persons and property when government fails in its only job it reverts back to the individual to secure themselves and their property. We do not "allow" people to defend themselves, it is inherent in their existence as humans we sometimes contract that protection out to government but never for a second believe we give up or surrender the right to do it ourselves. >>sometimes abusing law abiding citizens? I have no proof of this, and if they do they are no longer defending property and have become criminals themselves whom should be prosecuted as such >>Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? The state has the self declared monopoly on the INITIATION of violence. Meaning the state has declared that is has the authority to attack you in any circumstance with or with out needing to justify their actions under the umbrella of self defense. >>does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2? Based on the story linked to it appears these companies are paid to patrol shopping centers, malls etc. not "the streets" though they to talk about community outreach they do which seems to be different from their security patrols Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues? I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force. >>Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers I think a mix of both is the correct model. I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime. >>opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves This is a mischaracterization of what they are doing, the government is refusing to provide police protection, if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it? If the politicians say they will not punish people for theft, you believe people should just accept the theft? No that will never happen. >>but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things. yes there was, why? Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone. If you have a local DA that wants to stop prosecuting "misdemeanor" property crimes out of some altruistic or other reason I strongly encourage you to vote them out.