A law in San Francisco that legalizes shoplifting up to $950 has caused the closure of stores all across downtown

[GhostofDempsey]

Proposition 47 was brought in by ballot, man, in 2014. The 'taxpayers and average citizens' actually voted for it.

They voted in support again last November when proposition 20 which would have rolled back some of the reforms was voted down.

They'd had 6 years to see how it went. I'd guess the Cali voters are either flat crazy or there's a little more nuance to the situation than the story suggests.

And it didn't legalise anything, it just reclassified some felonies as misdemeanors, nor did it strip law enforcement of any powers of arrest or stopping.

just a heads up.

And you should probably credit the author and link a source when you copy paste full stories btw. People might think it was you that was responsible for the glaring errors in the article otherwise.

You're splitting hairs by saying they didn't legalize it, in essence, that is exactly what they did since there are no consequences to shoplifting below $950. There are no glaring errors, the law is in place and it is a horrible law, no matter how much you try to sugar-coat it or make excuses for very bad ******** policies.

[_Rexy_]

Keep the stuff behind the counter and let them ask for it?

The entire ****ing store? You ever been to a Wallgreens?

[_Rexy_]

Tru! I remember San Fran Jack In the box after hours.... both sides gates rolled down with the huge plexiglass we rotated the money and food between...

Jesus, i San Fran? A chicken place in Detroit I used to go to had three inch glass, but that was Detroit and the chicken was damn good.

[Willy Wanker]

How to prevent rioting ??? Mike she’s and shirts air lifted to starving ppl

asian Americans stay in school and work hard

that’s racist!

out hustling blacks is racist

black people from Africa make money... that’s racist.
taking government hand outs is racist??? We was ******

mental slavery MENTALSLAVERY...

I'm gonna visit my aunt in San Francisco in two weeks, her husband just passed last year. He was an alcoholic, drank all day. He drank himself to death eventually, too much tequila.

I'm gonna my bring my knife when I visit, I always carry one anyways. SF, Stockton, Modesto, Oakland, better not get caught slipping. In Cali, the closer you are to Mexico the safer you are. I'm 20 minutes from the border.

[billeau2]

Have you told your parents yet or are you waiting for the right time?

Is that an attempt at a joke?

[_Rexy_]

So whats reallllllly going on here then? Is OP bsing or is this law creating problems for businesses that result in some going out of business?

It's not new. I remember before the pandemic someone posted a video of people inside of a walgreens with garbage bags just filling them up with cosmetics. You could hear someone shout "YOURE BEING ROBBED" and an employee walked away lol

[Citizen Koba]

You're splitting hairs by saying they didn't legalize it, in essence, that is exactly what they did since there are no consequences to shoplifting below $950. There are no glaring errors, the law is in place and it is a horrible law, no matter how much you try to sugar-coat it or make excuses for very bad ******** policies.

No, it's become a misdemeanor punishable by fines and up to 6 months in prison. Repeat offenders can face tougher penalties. That's largely in line with the sentencing in many other countries for those kinds of crimes. There is no way you can make any argument that theft has been 'legalised'. That's not 'splitting hairs' it's a simple matter of fact. Where do you dig up this nonsense?

And once again if the people of California were balloted and voted for this law and they got to live there I ain't seeing the problem.

Now if they had actually decriminalised or legalised theft as your article tries to make out then I'd be thinking it was a crazy idea, and that's the sentiment I started posting in this thread with, but the more I've looked into it the more entirely I see the article misrepresented the situation.

I still ain't saying I support it particularly - I think it's down to the inhabitants of a jurisdiction (be it a city, state or country) to decide how to deal with law and order - but I can at least make some sort of sense out of it now I've read around it a little.

Did you even make any effort to understannd what's happened here and why the people of California voted for this proposal, what it's pros and cons might be? Ain't saying you have to agree with it but surely you owe it to yourself to at least to attempt to understand why your fellow citiizens behave as they do... and at least try to get real facts instead of the plain misinformation that you posted in the OP.

Or maybe you don't want to try to understand the world you live in? Maybe it's just more comfortable for you to assume that folk who don't share your worldview must be incurably ****** or brainwashed.

[Citizen Koba]

It's not new. I remember before the pandemic someone posted a video of people inside of a walgreens with garbage bags just filling them up with cosmetics. You could hear someone shout "YOURE BEING ROBBED" and an employee walked away lol

Propposal 47 was voted in by the people of California in 2014, it's like near 7 years old now. I ain't even saying I think it's good idea but apparently it still has the support of the most Californians.

[_Rexy_]

Propposal 47 was voted in by the people of California in 2014, it's like near 7 years old now. I ain't even saying I think it's good idea but apparently it still has the support of the most Californians.

Californians are ******ed then. I’m guessing it has no support from business owners lol

[GhostofDempsey]

No, it's become a misdemeanor punishable by fines and up to 6 months in prison. Repeat offenders can face tougher penalties. That's largely in line with the sentencing in many other countries for those kinds of crimes. There is no way you can make any argument that theft has been 'legalised'. That's not 'splitting hairs' is a simple matter of fact.

And once again if the people of California were balloted and voted for this law and they got to live there I ain't seeing the problem.

Now if they had actually decriminalised or legalised theft as your article tries to make out then I'd be thinking it was a crazy idea, and that's the sentiment I start posting in this thread with, but the more I've looked into it the more entirely I see the article misrepresented the situation.

I still ain't saying I support it particularly - I think it's down to the inhabitants of a jurisdiction (be it a city, state or country) to decide how to deal with law and order - but I can at least make some sort of sense out of it now I've read around it a little.

Did you even make any effort to understannd what's happened here and why the people of California voted for this proposal, what it's pros and cons might be? Ain't saying you have to agree with it but surely you owe it to yourself to at least to attempt to understand why your fellow citicizens behave as they do... and at least try to get real facts instead of the plain misinformation that you posted in the OP.

Yet it's not enforced, otherwise the law would be a deterrent and business' would not be folding up due to mass shoplifting. Repeat offenders are right back on the street, they aren't doing 6 months in prison or paying any fines. Again, splitting hairs, when you "decriminalize" something you basically legalized it, and you have removed any deterrent from committing that crime.

Saying that a state that is majority ******** and votes accordingly doesn't make this any less of a problem. The facts are still the facts--business' are closing at increased rates in SF due to this law. There are plenty of videos online of shoplifters hauling away stolen merchandise in these stores and nothing done about it. There is no misinformation, you are a communist who embraces anarchy.