Jump to content
Voice of Reason

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

 Share

13 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by laylalex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
5 hours ago, laylalex said:

people arguing about misdemeanors and felonies

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

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...