Video - Thugs in San Fran Loot Cosmetics Store After "No Arrest" Policy

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It appears San Fran is following in NY's footsteps with the no arrest concept.  

 

 

https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/michael-berry/content/2020-03-03-video-thugs-in-san-fran-loot-cosmetics-store-after-no-arrest-policy/

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

City is just a chaotic disaster.. it's nothing like I knew and grew up in.

 

Tucker has done good segments on this as well.. here's a part of his American Dystopia series a month ago:

 

 

Glad to be gone.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And of course, you cannot defend your property with a gun in CA, right?

[laylalex 7,293]

I guess my question is this (I don't know about the property defense thing): what is the context of this video? How do we know it's saying what it seems to be saying? I just get very, very skeptical of things posted on Twitter without any reliable attribution.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

49 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I guess my question is this (I don't know about the property defense thing): what is the context of this video? How do we know it's saying what it seems to be saying? I just get very, very skeptical of things posted on Twitter without any reliable attribution.

It's saying that with the new decriminalization laws in CA (or at least SF), the cops won't arrest you for stealing less than $950 worth of merchandise.  

 

Don't focus on the video, read the link the video came from below it.

[laylalex 7,293]

24 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

It's saying that with the new decriminalization laws in CA (or at least SF), the cops won't arrest you for stealing less than $950 worth of merchandise.  

 

Don't focus on the video, read the link the video came from below it.

I read the link. The link does not provide any context of the trustworthiness of the source. It's a radio host in Houston saying "this is what's happening" without pointing to anything more than the video and making a statement that this is now the law. I looked for the video elsewhere, and everywhere I looked it was the same: this is a video, this is what I'm saying it represents. No context. Now, it could absolutely be what it claims it is! But there is little to go on beyond some pretty bald assertions. What is the law they're talking about? Links are good! I'm not asking you for links, I can do my own research.  And I know what the law is, and (1) it isn't limited to San Francisco (2) it doesn't make it not a crime to steal less than $950 worth of merchandise and (3) the law has been around for years. It's nothing that new.

 

Edit: I feel like we covered this law in a thread last summer? I am having flashbacks to people arguing about misdemeanors and felonies........

Edited March 4, 2020 by laylalex

[laylalex 7,293]

Okay, I wasn't hallucinating, about this anyway! But it was November, not last summer:

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

29 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Okay, I wasn't hallucinating, about this anyway! But it was November, not last summer:

 

So as long as it's been happening for a while now, you're ok with it?  Or is it ok because it doesn't affect you now that you have moved away?  I really hope this isn't where your tone of ambivalence is rooted...

[laylalex 7,293]

39 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

So as long as it's been happening for a while now, you're ok with it?  Or is it ok because it doesn't affect you now that you have moved away?  I really hope this isn't where your tone of ambivalence is rooted...

Oh gosh, no. Prop 47 is law down here as it is in San Francisco. Which is a point that post did not make, either in the text or in the video. A misdemeanor IS still a crime, people who steal less than $950 in goods from a store still can get charged, but it's with a misdemeanor, not a felony. That's the point I'm trying to make. Do we know that's San Francisco? I mean, it could be Bakersfield. It could be Omaha! How do we know? "San Francisco" is a trigger word (2 words really) for some people. So in order to get people fired up about this video (which could be real, could be staged), the mention of San Francisco gets people engaging. It gets clicks. Clicks mean money, whether it's real news or fake news or no news. 

 

I remain skeptical where I don't see things I think of as hallmarks of reliability -- who is the messenger? Just because it comes from a trusted source doesn't mean you should trust it, and the reverse is also true -- just because a rando posts something doesn't mean it isn't true. But when it's someone random, we need to be especially careful. There are all sorts of bad actors out there, domestic and foreign, who are trying to manipulate us, to get us fired up about particular topics. Race/immigration/crime/etc. So we should look for independent verification. 

 

I am careful in trusting sources, and my trust gets built up over time. I think there are trustworthy sources on the right and the left and in the center. Believe it or not, I think Fox News is pretty trustworthy in its news sourcing. A hard news story from Fox would be one I think I could rely on to be sourced adequately. I am open to being persuaded! But I need to know I can trust what's being said, and who's saying it. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Oh gosh, no. Prop 47 is law down here as it is in San Francisco. Which is a point that post did not make, either in the text or in the video. A misdemeanor IS still a crime, people who steal less than $950 in goods from a store still can get charged, but it's with a misdemeanor, not a felony. That's the point I'm trying to make. Do we know that's San Francisco? I mean, it could be Bakersfield. It could be Omaha! How do we know? "San Francisco" is a trigger word (2 words really) for some people. So in order to get people fired up about this video (which could be real, could be staged), the mention of San Francisco gets people engaging. It gets clicks. Clicks mean money, whether it's real news or fake news or no news. 

 

I remain skeptical where I don't see things I think of as hallmarks of reliability -- who is the messenger? Just because it comes from a trusted source doesn't mean you should trust it, and the reverse is also true -- just because a rando posts something doesn't mean it isn't true. But when it's someone random, we need to be especially careful. There are all sorts of bad actors out there, domestic and foreign, who are trying to manipulate us, to get us fired up about particular topics. Race/immigration/crime/etc. So we should look for independent verification. 

 

I am careful in trusting sources, and my trust gets built up over time. I think there are trustworthy sources on the right and the left and in the center. Believe it or not, I think Fox News is pretty trustworthy in its news sourcing. A hard news story from Fox would be one I think I could rely on to be sourced adequately. I am open to being persuaded! But I need to know I can trust what's being said, and who's saying it. 

That's all well and fair. There is FAR too much BS being peddled nowadays.  But when you combine that video with the Carlson Tucker one basically showing the same thing, and NY now letting rapists and child abusers and all sorts of people out of jail, it is becoming ridiculous.

[TBoneTX 45,536]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

people arguing about misdemeanors and felonies

[T-B. perks up ears]  Did somebody say "tortfeasin'?"

[laylalex 7,293]

11 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

That's all well and fair. There is FAR too much BS being peddled nowadays.  But when you combine that video with the Carlson Tucker one basically showing the same thing, and NY now letting rapists and child abusers and all sorts of people out of jail, it is becoming ridiculous.

Do you mean Tucker Carlson? I don't know about any video on his show -- I don't watch it. It's political commentary with a definite slant, and I don't get anything out of watching it except irritated. What is his video?

 

Also, we're talking about California's Prop 47, not about whatever's going on in New York. I was re-reading that thread from last year and it looks like the effects of Prop 47 are still unclear, with police claiming it's leading to more petty crime, and researchers saying maybe, maybe not. I just don't think it's right to get to what the video is implying -- that stealing less than $950 in merchandise from a store somehow isn't a crime. It is! It's just not a felony. 

 

I'm glad to see we agree about there being too much BS floating around out there.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

57 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Do you mean Tucker Carlson? I don't know about any video on his show -- I don't watch it. It's political commentary with a definite slant, and I don't get anything out of watching it except irritated. What is his video?

 

Also, we're talking about California's Prop 47, not about whatever's going on in New York. I was re-reading that thread from last year and it looks like the effects of Prop 47 are still unclear, with police claiming it's leading to more petty crime, and researchers saying maybe, maybe not. I just don't think it's right to get to what the video is implying -- that stealing less than $950 in merchandise from a store somehow isn't a crime. It is! It's just not a felony. 

 

I'm glad to see we agree about there being too much BS floating around out there.  

What happens in NY affects CA, and vice versa.  Best to pay attention.

 

The other video is in post #2 of this thread.