Public School Education System Thread

[doc_loliday]

Cites NYTimes, SF Chronicle, CBS etc that shows this has been occurring since the law took effect. Discusses how SF has non-enforcement of misdemeanours and how these policies have made SF unique in California, and are now leading the nation in property crime.

Hannah: Breitbart! 11 years ago!! Expecting the state is enforce property rights is a nanny state!!!

[DBTrek]

Someone has to take up Doc Strangelove's/Speaker to Animal's role of ascribing strawman positions to me so they can tilt at windmills I guess.


Just a reminder, his diatribe was a response to this:

Same in the Communist Bay Area. Some of those independent beers can get expensive, tho.

The government should provide them for free.

They do ... when they decide any shoplifting under a $900 amount isn't really a crime.

If you can see me citing Breitbart, calling for additional felonies, or any of that other stuff in there, you've got better eyes than me, I guess.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

How many times do you get to ignore the fact that the argument is NOT about felony vs. misdemeanor (it's the NON-enforcement that encourages shoplifting) before I ban you for straw-manning?

I am not the one that brought up the 950$ Grand Theft threshold. Nor did I try to tie that law to store closures. That is the position I am arguing against.

You say I am straw-manning, I say y'all trying to motte-and-bailey me by pretending nobody was actually arguing that the Grand Theft threshold was the problem.

Anyone arguing that lack of enforcement in SF is the problem has no argument from me.

I will accept this as an admission that I effectively made my case, and the Grand Theft threshold isn't the reason SF Walgreens are closing.

Another stunning victory for Hanarchy!

I agree that changing from felony to misdemeanor has no impact. R U saying that was DB’s position?

That was the position I read in the originally linked article, and it seemed like it was the position being argued here. It is certainly possible that nobody really thinks that, and I was being trolled - but I don't like to start from that assumption.

There also seemed to be some non-enforcement arguments, but I didn't address them since I don't disagree with them and they were buried in criticisms of the Grand Theft threshold.

I was, frankly, a bit surprised that the argument that expanding felonies was a part of the nanny-state COVID psy-op didn't gain more purchase.

[doc_loliday]

Is a return to felony status really an expansion of felonies, when the discussion is regarding criminal rings that have targeted business as a result of a reduction of penalties?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Someone has to take up Doc Strangelove's/Speaker to Animal's role of ascribing strawman positions to me so they can tilt at windmills I guess.


Just a reminder, his diatribe was a response to this:

Same in the Communist Bay Area. Some of those independent beers can get expensive, tho.

The government should provide them for free.

They do ... when they decide any shoplifting under a $900 amount isn't really a crime.

If you can see me citing Breitbart, calling for additional felonies, or any of that other stuff in there, you've got better eyes than me, I guess.

I assumed that was related to the citation in another thread - which seemed a fair assumption since it is one of the first articles that comes up when one searches Walgreens closing in SF and was the only recent citation at the time on this board about shoplifting, the Grand Theft threshold, and the Bay Area.

If it is not your position that the Grand Theft threshold is the problem, then we don't have a disagreement - but it did seem like you were arguing that position. *shrug*

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Is a return to felony status really an expansion of felonies, when the discussion is regarding criminal rings that have targeted business as a result of a reduction of penalties?

The old threshold was 400$ (I think). You got to boost a lot of bobby pins, coloring books, and monster energy drinks to hit even that threshold. I guess it would be a pretty low rent criminal ring that stole 400$ worth of crap - but 950$? Fuuuuuuuuck, it is open season on private property in CA.

[doc_loliday]

Assuming were on board with a single monopoly on violence, is there any greater duty of the state than to protect property rights? What's the point of having the state anyway?

[doc_loliday]

Fuuuuuuuuck, it is open season on private property in CA.

Out of the top 20 largest cities, SF ranks number 1 in the nation for property crimes.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Assuming were on board with a single monopoly on violence, is there any greater duty of the state than to protect property rights? What's the point of having the state anyway?

Like I said earlier - I think 1000$ fine and up to 6 months in prison is a reasonable penalty for misdemeanor theft.

If you want to criticize the SF DA for not pursuing those penalties, or the SFPD for not doing their job effectively, I'll get on board.
Fortunately, different municipalities get to approach enforcement the way they want - one of the miracles of Federalism. SF residents elected a punk-ass bitch of a DA. They are allowed to do that. I don't think a more procrustean view of the monopoly on violence will make the state better - that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a state.

(h/t Fife's bomb throwing anarchism)

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Fuuuuuuuuck, it is open season on private property in CA.

Out of the top 20 largest cities, SF ranks number 1 in the nation for property crimes.

Hence my contention that SFs short-bus policy makers are responsible for SFs problems, not the CA Grand Theft threshold.

Well, that and the fact that brick and mortar retailers are on the way out already. It is unlikely that whatever BIPOC owned business selling bespoke sweatshirts for lap-dogs that fills the empty Walgreens retail space will thrive, regardless of the law or the enforcement there of.