Public School Education System Thread

[DBTrek]

I'd be more convinced if Seattle Businesses weren't also hauling ass because of rampant shop lifting due to relaxed enforcement and decriminalization as well.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/crim ... 5b5fc16969

Don't mind the above link. Just 160 other brick and mortar businesses that were probably failing anyway (despite decades of success) fleeing the lawlessness of Seattle.

But it's a psy-op, guys.


The failed business men are trying to turn you against the wholesome transients, rioters, addicts, and shop lifters.
Don't fall for it!

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The increased theft didn't follow the law that made 950$ thefts a misdemeanor - it followed in the wake of authoritarian lock-downs.

But, whatever - make more crimes felonies. Wallgreens in SF are still going to close down for a slew of reasons, from bad customer service to being unable to compete with online retailers.

More government and more felonies. That'll solve it.

And a for good measure.

[DBTrek]

The increased theft didn't follow the law that made 950$ thefts a misdemeanor - it followed in the wake of authoritarian lock-downs.

But, whatever - make more crimes felonies. Wallgreens in SF are still going to close down for a slew of reasons, from bad customer service to being unable to compete with online retailers.

More government and more felonies. That'll solve it.

And a for good measure.

You keep crowing about "MORE FELONIES" like some sort of dimwit chorus skipping on a broken record, but nobody has said shit about creating more felonies. Enforce crimes against private property, or stop prosecuting crimes of people defending their own property.
I cited 160 different companies fleeing Seattle, and you're talking about twelve, count 'em, twelve entirely DIFFERENT Walgreens and painting their situations with the same broad brush because they share a name.

So we're looking at 172 cases of breakdown in the social fabric where retailers are shutting their doors due to unsafe operating environments, and all you can say is "bad customer service and online retailers". Like 172 businesses are identical automatons all subject to the same factors, and the internet just suddenly sprang into existence in 2020.
Good lord, man.

[Martin Hash]

Ditto. Hanny is the epitome of disingenuous debate.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't know shit about Seattle, but in CA, changing the Grand Theft threshold to 950$ happened in 2010.

https://www.california-criminal-lawyer- ... ed_to_950/

Now - Oakland is in CA, and we've still got Wallgreens and CVS and other, similar retailers. But, in SF, they can't afford the rents, and they can't attract good employees at the wages offered, and this has been a trend for a while.

They didn't close their SF stores in 2010, when the law changed - they are closing now.

You're the one with the broad brush, brother. Seattle ain't SF, and SF ain't the rest of CA - but all of CA has had the same threshold for Grand Theft for 11 years.

1,000 dollar fine and 6 months in prison sounds like a reasonable punishment for non-violent thefts without a weapon totaling less than 950$.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Ditto. Hanny is the epitome of disingenuous debate.

Inventing a connection between SF and Seattle laws, and pegging 2021 closures on laws passed 11 years ago is disingenuous. I'm just bringing my honest, logical truth-bombs to blow up all y'all bullshit.

Why? (You might ask.) Why do I bother shining the light of truth and honesty onto your benighted souls?

Because of my love of liberty.

[Martin Hash]

Watch this.

[doc_loliday]

pegging 2021 closures on laws passed 11 years ago is disingenuous. I'm just bringing my honest, logical truth-bombs to blow up all y'all bullshit.

When the law passed and when non-enforcement of existing law is not necessarily what's most relevant. All that really matters is that thieves are targeting businesses because they know there won't be consequences now. Other towns are still using all the tools they have to prosecute thieves. But to address your claim directly, this isn't just a problem that started this week in San Francisco. Ever since the law took effect, people have noticed spikes in theft.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/s ... demic.html

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/ ... penalties/

Shortly after the law passed, the shoplifting began in earnest.

[DBTrek]

I don't know shit about Seattle, but in CA, changing the Grand Theft threshold to 950$ happened in 2010.

https://www.california-criminal-lawyer- ... ed_to_950/

Now - Oakland is in CA, and we've still got Wallgreens and CVS and other, similar retailers. But, in SF, they can't afford the rents, and they can't attract good employees at the wages offered, and this has been a trend for a while.

They didn't close their SF stores in 2010, when the law changed - they are closing now.

You're the one with the broad brush, brother. Seattle ain't SF, and SF ain't the rest of CA - but all of CA has had the same threshold for Grand Theft for 11 years.

1,000 dollar fine and 6 months in prison sounds like a reasonable punishment for non-violent thefts without a weapon totaling less than 950$.

Well, the Seattle non-enforcement and legal relaxation just began and it's already decimating local, successful, stores, chains, and long time family businesses. It looks like (as doc loliday pointed out) the SF law has been taking a toll for a while. But regardless of whether the older law in SF had as an immediate and dire of an impact of the Seattle one, let's step back and look at the larger problem.

You alluded to the government response to COVID as being the culprit for the dying Walgreens (after victim blaming the business owners of course, old habits die hard). Government COVID response is definitely a factor in killing businesses, and I fear that they're not nearly done yet. So on that count, you're absolutely right. Why do the restrictions kill businesses? Because unlike the level of customer service, online competition, or geographic location - government mandates are a factor that slapped all effected businesses equally. Twelve Walgreens didn't go under because no employee across twelve stores can offer decent customer service. That's ridiculous. Nor did the internet, which has been here for decades now, suddenly drive a stake through their heart. Government mandated restrictions surely played a factor though.

Ok - so if we can agree that government rules can impact effected businesses equally - then why can't you accept that the refusal to enforce these rules, or relaxing of the rules, ALSO play a frickin' factor, dude? It's the same thing. The exact same thing. Government says close your doors. POW! businesses lose money. Government says reduce your customer presence to 'X' number of people at a time. POW! sales decline.

Well guess what happens when the government says "Shoplifting isn't that big of a deal and is being de-prioritized"?
You think it makes internet competition more fierce and reduces customer service levels?
No, dude.
It increases shoplifting incidents.

And stores start leaving.
If not immediately, then as the problem intensifies over time.

[C-Mag]

The video game industry needs to get on this.

GTA: Walgreens
Stealing Malt Liquor an Nikes