I changed my LOL to a WTF cause that is a ridiculous analogy you provided in your edit. A traffic infraction v. felony theft.
My point was that a law being broken is a law being broken. Stealing a dime is still stealing do you consider it as severe is stealing $20,000?
Intent….
Stealing is stealing.
It’s a mindset I don’t understand or care to understand, no matter the amount.
Not debating you but I can’t get past the act of stealing. I cannot justify an acceptable limit.
If you caught your son stealing, apply any amount of value, I think you would handle it the same, regardless, of the amount. Does that make sense?
And that's where I think the confusion lies on my part because I agree with you on that. And I'm looking at it as well from the point of both the local government and the corporation where they may think at what point is it worth it to us to go after these criminals? I'm also thinking how much does going after every single criminal who steals anything cost state to prosecute? The cops are paid by taxpayer money, the prosecutors are paid by taxpayer dollars, the clerks, the judges,…… I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line that makes business sense for both corporation and government… Am I wrong and thinking that correctly?
Agree and not wrong. I agree with your overall sentiment. However, my sticking point remains the same as I don’t understand where we have to delineate a ‘line’. If the fear of punishment outweigh the act, then I think the law(s) has accomplished its goal. And, before you go there, the punishment should fit the crime…. I still stand to reckon, if taught properly or consequences are severe enough, problems solved… perhaps, debatable.
You’re right. All of that is at taxpayer expense, however so is the theft. Even at small minute amounts. What happens to a town when stores shut down because they can’t afford the loss of “petty” theft that has accumulated? Jobs are lost, people have to shop in different areas, and tax revenue is lost. Not spending the tax dollars on one end to remedy a situation only cause a bigger problem on the back end. So what you end up with is higher retail prices to cover theft, and politicians raising taxes in other areas to make up for the loss of tax revenue from businesses closing.
I changed my LOL to a WTF cause that is a ridiculous analogy you provided in your edit. A traffic infraction v. felony theft.
My point was that a law being broken is a law being broken. Stealing a dime is still stealing do you consider it as severe is stealing $20,000?
Intent….
Stealing is stealing.
It’s a mindset I don’t understand or care to understand, no matter the amount.
Not debating you but I can’t get past the act of stealing. I cannot justify an acceptable limit.
If you caught your son stealing, apply any amount of value, I think you would handle it the same, regardless, of the amount. Does that make sense?
And that's where I think the confusion lies on my part because I agree with you on that. And I'm looking at it as well from the point of both the local government and the corporation where they may think at what point is it worth it to us to go after these criminals? I'm also thinking how much does going after every single criminal who steals anything cost state to prosecute? The cops are paid by taxpayer money, the prosecutors are paid by taxpayer dollars, the clerks, the judges,…… I guess I'm just thinking there has to be a line that makes business sense for both corporation and government… Am I wrong and thinking that correctly?
So I get your point here. If we call the police because someone throws their gum on the sidewalk and litters, then police officers become overworked and can't spend the time needed on more serious crimes. If police officers actually went and investigated every single instance of reported littering, they'd have no time to do anything else.
First of all, small $4 retail thefts aren't currently investigated 100% of the time, same as littering. Even in small towns with adequate police forces, there's only so much they can do. The way to think about it is like being audited by the IRS. Sure, you're probably not going to get audited and you're probably not going to get prosecuted for shoplifting a $4 item, but the threat of it is enough to stop most reasonable people from stealing or lying on their taxes.
If you tell companies or citizens that they're not allowed to call the police for the $4 thefts, you're waving a giant green flag for the people who don't have moral compasses. There are plenty of laws that I obey because they're illegal, but not because I think they're morally wrong. It's illegal for me to go throw eggs at the house of a politician who I think is corrupt. Morals aren't holding me back from doing that, the law is. For many people, especially people my age and younger, stealing from giant corporations isn't morally wrong.
If we take the law away, and let all those people know that there's 0 chance they get prosecuted for stealing stuff that's below a certain dollar amount, then those small dollar thefts are going to drastically increase. People who were being held back from stealing exclusively because of the law are now to do it.
There are also a number of chain reactions that I could see coming if that actually becomes policy. What would stop someone from getting a bunch of homeless people to go in and steal $949 worth of stuff and paying them each $100 to do it, and then going and selling everything for 50% of the price that Target is listing it for? Maybe there's 2 businesses that compete with each other, and one business just hires a bunch of kids to go in and steal stuff from the rival business? If that person doesn't think it's unethical to steal, the threat of the law is the only thing stopping them.
Like I said though I get your point about wasting the time of police officers, but if you remove the threat of prosecution altogether, then you're going to have a worse society. (In my opinion)
Another aspect of the shoplifting problem that needs to be addressed is a retailer's ability to engage thieves. There's too much legal rigamarole involved. Let a security guard be allowed to break a few knees and bust some skulls w/o him or the store being sued.
@peter4jc said:
Another aspect of the shoplifting problem that needs to be addressed is a retailer's ability to engage thieves. There's too much legal rigamarole involved. Let a security guard be allowed to break a few knees and bust some skulls w/o him or the store being sued.
@peter4jc said:
Another aspect of the shoplifting problem that needs to be addressed is a retailer's ability to engage thieves. There's too much legal rigamarole involved. Let a security guard be allowed to break a few knees and bust some skulls w/o him or the store being sued.
Actually, here in commiefornia, a private citizen that engages a shoplifter can be charged with minimum a misdemeanor and higher depending the outcome of the interaction. No more good citizens to the rescue.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
LMAO… about damn time took you long enough. 🙄🤔😜
Some of us WORK during the day, ya know!
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
LMAO… about damn time took you long enough. 🙄🤔😜
Some of us WORK during the day, ya know!
Cmon dude…work, what work?
I know you man… You’re probably listening to Nickelback right now trying to come up with your witty responses to all this nonsense
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
LMAO… about damn time took you long enough. 🙄🤔😜
Some of us WORK during the day, ya know!
Cmon dude…work, what work?
I know you man… You’re probably listening to Nickelback right now trying to come up with your witty responses to all this nonsense
You are correct about the nonsense part.
All of you are right and most of you are talking past each other. That's just my non-stirring the pot observation (Who is going to man up about the T-shirt?)
My general observations are as follows.
No, the cops are not going to respond to a $4 theft. But the store can trespass them, and then once they trespass, they get a trespass warrant. I know this from experience.
Everyone's putting up the line drawing fallacy when we're talking about these Petty theft. Where's the line? Is it $4? Is it five? Is it 6? Is it 949? All of that nonsense is missing the point. Point remains that you can't put every $4 thief in prison or you wouldn't have enough prisons for the murderers. You can't let any million dollar thieves walk, or everybody would try to steal something worth a million dollars.
And like it or not, it's up to states to decide for themselves. I understand why some people don't love California's law. The only thing I can say to that is that California has U-Haul and Penske truck rentals. Put your destiny into your own hands.
It seems to me that the magats value what they think are free market forces and what they think are state rights. That is, until they disagree with a state's right or until the cost of something goes up for everybody Because a small group of people stole, which is one of the basic tenants of free market (shrinkage that increases COGS) .
Meanwhile, the liblabs crave equality and inclusion and all of the other kumbaya bullshït, until The petty thieves reach their suburbs.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
LMAO… about damn time took you long enough. 🙄🤔😜
Some of us WORK during the day, ya know!
Cmon dude…work, what work?
I know you man… You’re probably listening to Nickelback right now trying to come up with your witty responses to all this nonsense
You are correct about the nonsense part.
All of you are right and most of you are talking past each other. That's just my non-stirring the pot observation (Who is going to man up about the T-shirt?)
My general observations are as follows.
No, the cops are not going to respond to a $4 theft. But the store can trespass them, and then once they trespass, they get a trespass warrant. I know this from experience.
Everyone's putting up the line drawing fallacy when we're talking about these Petty theft. Where's the line? Is it $4? Is it five? Is it 6? Is it 949? All of that nonsense is missing the point. Point remains that you can't put every $4 thief in prison or you wouldn't have enough prisons for the murderers. You can't let any million dollar thieves walk, or everybody would try to steal something worth a million dollars.
And like it or not, it's up to states to decide for themselves. I understand why some people don't love California's law. The only thing I can say to that is that California has U-Haul and Penske truck rentals. Put your destiny into your own hands.
It seems to me that the magats value what they think are free market forces and what they think are state rights. That is, until they disagree with a state's right or until the cost of something goes up for everybody Because a small group of people stole, which is one of the basic tenants of free market (shrinkage that increases COGS) .
Meanwhile, the liblabs crave equality and inclusion and all of the other kumbaya bullshït, until The petty thieves reach their suburbs.
Agree with most of what you said. However, I don’t think it’s one group that feels that way. Most people don’t like being taken advantage of by laws or enforcement of laws that do next to nothing. I believe we would all like to have a fair and equitable system to follow.
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said: @Vision …long winded analogies as usual, my friend. I do see where you’re going. However, I find you to be a very intelligent person (I’m gonna hear it from the forum on that note 😂😂). In the grand scheme…You know as well as anyone, laws are in place as general public deterrence from acting or engaging in breaking those laws. Much like parenting, you put in place laws for your child to shape and mold him into a responsible and contributing person and citizen within the community. Instead, perhaps, we should hold our elected officials accountable and responsible for enacting laws that makes sense to the community populous they represent…AND…then back the enforcement of said laws. Exceptions, sure. Exceptions then need to be reevaluated and amendments made to existing laws that reflect what people deem acceptable or appropriate in said society.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
LMAO… about damn time took you long enough. 🙄🤔😜
Some of us WORK during the day, ya know!
Cmon dude…work, what work?
I know you man… You’re probably listening to Nickelback right now trying to come up with your witty responses to all this nonsense
You are correct about the nonsense part.
All of you are right and most of you are talking past each other. That's just my non-stirring the pot observation (Who is going to man up about the T-shirt?)
My general observations are as follows.
No, the cops are not going to respond to a $4 theft. But the store can trespass them, and then once they trespass, they get a trespass warrant. I know this from experience.
Everyone's putting up the line drawing fallacy when we're talking about these Petty theft. Where's the line? Is it $4? Is it five? Is it 6? Is it 949? All of that nonsense is missing the point. Point remains that you can't put every $4 thief in prison or you wouldn't have enough prisons for the murderers. You can't let any million dollar thieves walk, or everybody would try to steal something worth a million dollars.
And like it or not, it's up to states to decide for themselves. I understand why some people don't love California's law. The only thing I can say to that is that California has U-Haul and Penske truck rentals. Put your destiny into your own hands.
It seems to me that the magats value what they think are free market forces and what they think are state rights. That is, until they disagree with a state's right or until the cost of something goes up for everybody Because a small group of people stole, which is one of the basic tenants of free market (shrinkage that increases COGS) .
Meanwhile, the liblabs crave equality and inclusion and all of the other kumbaya bullshït, until The petty thieves reach their suburbs.
Agree with most of what you said. However, I don’t think it’s one group that feels that way. Most people don’t like being taken advantage of by laws or enforcement of laws that do next to nothing. I believe we would all like to have a fair and equitable system to follow.
maybe. If the law was 2 lashes for EVERYONE who spray paints subway cars, that's fair and equitable but 80 percent (hopefully more) of people would be against it, and that's the rub.
Even if we agree that it should be fair and equitable, we won't agree on what that MEANS for copping 5 bucks of jellybeans: 2 years in the slammer or a 20 dollar fine, or something in between.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@ShawnOL said:
Someone mentioned not enough prison space. Very true. The solution is very simple. Double or triple the number of prisons.
Doesn't seem like that would be a burden on Taxpayers whatsoever. Taxpayers would fund the building of those prison and the staffing of those prison.
Odd as it may seem to some, I'm with Pete on this one. There must be a better solution in The Land of The Free, which now incarcerates a greater percentage of its population than any other country. My reasons are not restricted to tax burden, but rather on moral obligation.
Just my opinion, not always worth the air expelled.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@OutdoorsSmoke_21191 said:
Someday, I will come to possess the intellect to debate @Vision and @VegasFrank Until then, I will hide behind my keyboard and lob pot shots.
Two very different proposals. Frank drops anchor around his facts and then mounts a logical defense of the facts as he believes them to be. If one can prove his facts to be untrue, or if one demonstrates that his logic is faulty he will retreat, re-evaluate, and possibly concede.
Vision believes that the narrative is controlled by emotion, see last page. This is a position which usually wins the day in public opinion, so, there's that.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@ShawnOL said:
Someone mentioned not enough prison space. Very true. The solution is very simple. Double or triple the number of prisons.
Doesn't seem like that would be a burden on Taxpayers whatsoever. Taxpayers would fund the building of those prison and the staffing of those prison.
Cut 10% of the billions were sending overseas and we could pay for it all. Also, I'd be happy to foot the bill if it meant keeping criminals behind bars instead of running the streets, preying on the law abiding.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
I think reform rather than retribution is more effective. One gives people a chance the other makes mean and angry worse. In the 60s states closed mental hospitals and outsourced prisons to for-profit corporations. Cost cutting to increase net $$ for shareholders resulted.
And how do you propose to "reform" career criminals? Tax breaks, a free paycheck, slaps on the wrist? We have a criminal problem. Too many criminals and not enough cells. That is the excuse they give for the revolving door our criminal justice system has become. What has resulted is emboldened criminals knowing the are little to no repercussions for their actions. Plea bargaining, probation, and charges just being dropped is the new norm in the system. Ankle monitors? Doesn't stop them? Probation? Doesn't stop them. Nothing works to prevent these prolific offenders except fear of a LONG time behind bars. More prisons= more criminals off the streets, fewer crimes being committed, safer communities.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
I blame a lot of current social problems on the disruption of family. Hard to be a good citizen when you didn't learn early to have respect for other's, other's property and the basics of personal responsibility.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
@d_blades said:
I blame a lot of current social problems on the disruption of family. Hard to be a good citizen when you didn't learn early to have respect for other's, other's property and the basics of personal responsibility.
Yes! Yes! This addresses my point, and @silvermouse as well if I understand him correctly. We need a sea-change in expectations from the family. Also, at least one problem with more prisons is that our prison system is like a University / Social Networking platform for the criminals. "How to be a better criminal, just attend our local state facility. If you weren't an effective criminal before, think how much better you'll be once you meet the gang."
I don't know what the answers are, but I think that effective parenting skills and another approach to small-time crime are in order. Perhaps a much greater emphasis on restitution to the victims. In fact, any effort at all would be an improvement.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@ShawnOL said:
Someone mentioned not enough prison space. Very true. The solution is very simple. Double or triple the number of prisons.
Doesn't seem like that would be a burden on Taxpayers whatsoever. Taxpayers would fund the building of those prison and the staffing of those prison.
Cut 10% of the billions were sending overseas and we could pay for it all. Also, I'd be happy to foot the bill if it meant keeping criminals behind bars instead of running the streets, preying on the law abiding.
On my way home today I listened to Merle Haggard's "America First". I think old Merle was on to something. I wonder if any of "our" representatives have heard it?
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Comments
Agree and not wrong. I agree with your overall sentiment. However, my sticking point remains the same as I don’t understand where we have to delineate a ‘line’. If the fear of punishment outweigh the act, then I think the law(s) has accomplished its goal. And, before you go there, the punishment should fit the crime…. I still stand to reckon, if taught properly or consequences are severe enough, problems solved… perhaps, debatable.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
You’re right. All of that is at taxpayer expense, however so is the theft. Even at small minute amounts. What happens to a town when stores shut down because they can’t afford the loss of “petty” theft that has accumulated? Jobs are lost, people have to shop in different areas, and tax revenue is lost. Not spending the tax dollars on one end to remedy a situation only cause a bigger problem on the back end. So what you end up with is higher retail prices to cover theft, and politicians raising taxes in other areas to make up for the loss of tax revenue from businesses closing.
So I get your point here. If we call the police because someone throws their gum on the sidewalk and litters, then police officers become overworked and can't spend the time needed on more serious crimes. If police officers actually went and investigated every single instance of reported littering, they'd have no time to do anything else.
First of all, small $4 retail thefts aren't currently investigated 100% of the time, same as littering. Even in small towns with adequate police forces, there's only so much they can do. The way to think about it is like being audited by the IRS. Sure, you're probably not going to get audited and you're probably not going to get prosecuted for shoplifting a $4 item, but the threat of it is enough to stop most reasonable people from stealing or lying on their taxes.
If you tell companies or citizens that they're not allowed to call the police for the $4 thefts, you're waving a giant green flag for the people who don't have moral compasses. There are plenty of laws that I obey because they're illegal, but not because I think they're morally wrong. It's illegal for me to go throw eggs at the house of a politician who I think is corrupt. Morals aren't holding me back from doing that, the law is. For many people, especially people my age and younger, stealing from giant corporations isn't morally wrong.
If we take the law away, and let all those people know that there's 0 chance they get prosecuted for stealing stuff that's below a certain dollar amount, then those small dollar thefts are going to drastically increase. People who were being held back from stealing exclusively because of the law are now to do it.
There are also a number of chain reactions that I could see coming if that actually becomes policy. What would stop someone from getting a bunch of homeless people to go in and steal $949 worth of stuff and paying them each $100 to do it, and then going and selling everything for 50% of the price that Target is listing it for? Maybe there's 2 businesses that compete with each other, and one business just hires a bunch of kids to go in and steal stuff from the rival business? If that person doesn't think it's unethical to steal, the threat of the law is the only thing stopping them.
Like I said though I get your point about wasting the time of police officers, but if you remove the threat of prosecution altogether, then you're going to have a worse society. (In my opinion)
Another aspect of the shoplifting problem that needs to be addressed is a retailer's ability to engage thieves. There's too much legal rigamarole involved. Let a security guard be allowed to break a few knees and bust some skulls w/o him or the store being sued.
Actually, here in commiefornia, a private citizen that engages a shoplifter can be charged with minimum a misdemeanor and higher depending the outcome of the interaction. No more good citizens to the rescue.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
....he says with a long winded explanation 😂😆😆😆
LMAO… about damn time took you long enough. 🙄🤔😜
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
Some of us WORK during the day, ya know!
Cmon dude…work, what work?
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
I know you man… You’re probably listening to Nickelback right now trying to come up with your witty responses to all this nonsense
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
You are correct about the nonsense part.
All of you are right and most of you are talking past each other. That's just my non-stirring the pot observation (Who is going to man up about the T-shirt?)
My general observations are as follows.
No, the cops are not going to respond to a $4 theft. But the store can trespass them, and then once they trespass, they get a trespass warrant. I know this from experience.
Everyone's putting up the line drawing fallacy when we're talking about these Petty theft. Where's the line? Is it $4? Is it five? Is it 6? Is it 949? All of that nonsense is missing the point. Point remains that you can't put every $4 thief in prison or you wouldn't have enough prisons for the murderers. You can't let any million dollar thieves walk, or everybody would try to steal something worth a million dollars.
And like it or not, it's up to states to decide for themselves. I understand why some people don't love California's law. The only thing I can say to that is that California has U-Haul and Penske truck rentals. Put your destiny into your own hands.
It seems to me that the magats value what they think are free market forces and what they think are state rights. That is, until they disagree with a state's right or until the cost of something goes up for everybody Because a small group of people stole, which is one of the basic tenants of free market (shrinkage that increases COGS) .
Meanwhile, the liblabs crave equality and inclusion and all of the other kumbaya bullshït, until The petty thieves reach their suburbs.
Agree with most of what you said. However, I don’t think it’s one group that feels that way. Most people don’t like being taken advantage of by laws or enforcement of laws that do next to nothing. I believe we would all like to have a fair and equitable system to follow.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
maybe. If the law was 2 lashes for EVERYONE who spray paints subway cars, that's fair and equitable but 80 percent (hopefully more) of people would be against it, and that's the rub.
Even if we agree that it should be fair and equitable, we won't agree on what that MEANS for copping 5 bucks of jellybeans: 2 years in the slammer or a 20 dollar fine, or something in between.
How is it determined that I only stole $949 dollars worth? Is there a stolen goods checkout line?
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
They have a sign posted, duh....
@d_blades Thank you. I did miss that important word.
Looks like I've quite a bit of reading to do to catch up.
Nolite Oblivisci Peniculus Dentes
Ok, well, I think all bases have been pretty much covered.
BLUF: stealing = bad things happen and the ripple effect is real.
Nolite Oblivisci Peniculus Dentes
Someone mentioned not enough prison space. Very true. The solution is very simple. Double or triple the number of prisons.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
Doesn't seem like that would be a burden on Taxpayers whatsoever. Taxpayers would fund the building of those prison and the staffing of those prison.
Odd as it may seem to some, I'm with Pete on this one. There must be a better solution in The Land of The Free, which now incarcerates a greater percentage of its population than any other country. My reasons are not restricted to tax burden, but rather on moral obligation.
Just my opinion, not always worth the air expelled.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Two very different proposals. Frank drops anchor around his facts and then mounts a logical defense of the facts as he believes them to be. If one can prove his facts to be untrue, or if one demonstrates that his logic is faulty he will retreat, re-evaluate, and possibly concede.
Vision believes that the narrative is controlled by emotion, see last page. This is a position which usually wins the day in public opinion, so, there's that.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Reading all this stuff is making me dizzy.
Cut 10% of the billions were sending overseas and we could pay for it all. Also, I'd be happy to foot the bill if it meant keeping criminals behind bars instead of running the streets, preying on the law abiding.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
I think reform rather than retribution is more effective. One gives people a chance the other makes mean and angry worse. In the 60s states closed mental hospitals and outsourced prisons to for-profit corporations. Cost cutting to increase net $$ for shareholders resulted.
And how do you propose to "reform" career criminals? Tax breaks, a free paycheck, slaps on the wrist? We have a criminal problem. Too many criminals and not enough cells. That is the excuse they give for the revolving door our criminal justice system has become. What has resulted is emboldened criminals knowing the are little to no repercussions for their actions. Plea bargaining, probation, and charges just being dropped is the new norm in the system. Ankle monitors? Doesn't stop them? Probation? Doesn't stop them. Nothing works to prevent these prolific offenders except fear of a LONG time behind bars. More prisons= more criminals off the streets, fewer crimes being committed, safer communities.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
I blame a lot of current social problems on the disruption of family. Hard to be a good citizen when you didn't learn early to have respect for other's, other's property and the basics of personal responsibility.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
Yes! Yes! This addresses my point, and @silvermouse as well if I understand him correctly. We need a sea-change in expectations from the family. Also, at least one problem with more prisons is that our prison system is like a University / Social Networking platform for the criminals. "How to be a better criminal, just attend our local state facility. If you weren't an effective criminal before, think how much better you'll be once you meet the gang."
I don't know what the answers are, but I think that effective parenting skills and another approach to small-time crime are in order. Perhaps a much greater emphasis on restitution to the victims. In fact, any effort at all would be an improvement.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Drug addiction motivates a lot of crime against property, even in "good" families.
On my way home today I listened to Merle Haggard's "America First". I think old Merle was on to something. I wonder if any of "our" representatives have heard it?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain