5 ms·

Part of the issue is that articles like this one tend to conflate individual poor people shoplifting small items with these organized gangs. These gangs aren't

Part of the issue is that articles like this one tend to conflate individual poor people shoplifting small items with these organized gangs. These gangs aren't shoplifters, and calling them such is extremely misleading.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Part of the issue is that articles like this one tend to conflate individual poor people shoplifting small items with these organized gangs. I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way. I'm all for providing better services and support (not to mention a better structured economy) for those who are poor. I also believe "the punishment should fit the crime", and stealing low-dollar goods should result in commensurate punishment. I'm not for allowing the poor to steal with no consequences just because they can't afford stuff.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way. But what is the alternative? Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. You can beg and try to get enough together to buy something, but it's not really a good alternative either, especially since it's not guaranteed. So at what point would someone be in their right to steal food to survive? Is it never okay, meaning they'll have to starve in the worst case? Naturally these problems should be solved long before anyone comes to the place of having to steal - but that's not the world we live in. And I'm strictly talking about absolute necessities, nothing beyond that. But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets?
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. Can we please be real about what we're talking about? This isn't early 19th century Paris from Les Miserables. On the contrary, SF has some of the best public services for the destitute of any place in the country. There are tons of places around the city where one can get free food. > But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets? My main concern is not about "a bit of money in the store owners pockets". It's abou signaling that the rules simply do not apply, that laws can be picked and chosen based on how you feel about the perpetrator. Again, I said the punishment should fit the crime: 1. The person should be arrested, and basically be given the equivalent of "We'll show you how to access services in SF so you don't need to steal in the future. If you're not caught stealing in the next X months, your record will be cleared". 2. For further infractions, they should be given escalating warnings and escalating penalties.
SllX 3y ago
We shouldn’t tolerate shoplifters either. Theft is theft.
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  But shoplifting is different from organized smash-and-grab gangs; different causes, different solutions. Conflating all retail theft is simply misleading.
  - SllX 3y ago
    > But shoplifting is different from organized smash-and-grab gangs Correct and irrelevant: they are both forms of theft. > different causes, different solutions. Different motivations is more accurate. There also isn’t a “solution” per se, but suppression tactics do exist if you have both a PD and a DA worth a damn. > Conflating all retail theft is simply misleading. I didn’t. I pointed out the obvious: theft is theft. This is a commonality between “shoplifting” and “smash and grab”. The first term downplays the violence against the storeowners by people taking their stuff (cuz it could be worse, armed robbery is also a form of theft so as much as I detest softening euphemisms, the distinction isn’t useless) and the other paints a more violent and organized picture of people taking their stuff, but ultimately the act that both describe is theft. Either way, they are criminal activities that ought to be suppressed. We shouldn’t be tolerant to thieves.
brk 3y ago
Leaving the store with items you didn't pay for is theft on any level, and bad for business.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> Part of the issue is that articles like this one tend to conflate individual poor people shoplifting small items with these organized gangs. I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way. I'm all for providing better services and support (not to mention a better structured economy) for those who are poor. I also believe "the punishment should fit the crime", and stealing low-dollar goods should result in commensurate punishment. I'm not for allowing the poor to steal with no consequences just because they can't afford stuff.

Timon3 3y ago
> I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way. But what is the alternative? Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. You can beg and try to get enough together to buy something, but it's not really a good alternative either, especially since it's not guaranteed. So at what point would someone be in their right to steal food to survive? Is it never okay, meaning they'll have to starve in the worst case? Naturally these problems should be solved long before anyone comes to the place of having to steal - but that's not the world we live in. And I'm strictly talking about absolute necessities, nothing beyond that. But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets?
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. Can we please be real about what we're talking about? This isn't early 19th century Paris from Les Miserables. On the contrary, SF has some of the best public services for the destitute of any place in the country. There are tons of places around the city where one can get free food. > But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets? My main concern is not about "a bit of money in the store owners pockets". It's abou signaling that the rules simply do not apply, that laws can be picked and chosen based on how you feel about the perpetrator. Again, I said the punishment should fit the crime: 1. The person should be arrested, and basically be given the equivalent of "We'll show you how to access services in SF so you don't need to steal in the future. If you're not caught stealing in the next X months, your record will be cleared". 2. For further infractions, they should be given escalating warnings and escalating penalties.

SllX 3y ago

We shouldn’t tolerate shoplifters either. Theft is theft.

QuercusMax 3y ago
But shoplifting is different from organized smash-and-grab gangs; different causes, different solutions. Conflating all retail theft is simply misleading.
- SllX 3y ago
  > But shoplifting is different from organized smash-and-grab gangs Correct and irrelevant: they are both forms of theft. > different causes, different solutions. Different motivations is more accurate. There also isn’t a “solution” per se, but suppression tactics do exist if you have both a PD and a DA worth a damn. > Conflating all retail theft is simply misleading. I didn’t. I pointed out the obvious: theft is theft. This is a commonality between “shoplifting” and “smash and grab”. The first term downplays the violence against the storeowners by people taking their stuff (cuz it could be worse, armed robbery is also a form of theft so as much as I detest softening euphemisms, the distinction isn’t useless) and the other paints a more violent and organized picture of people taking their stuff, but ultimately the act that both describe is theft. Either way, they are criminal activities that ought to be suppressed. We shouldn’t be tolerant to thieves.

brk 3y ago

Leaving the store with items you didn't pay for is theft on any level, and bad for business.