California's Prop 47 leads to rise in shoplifting, thefts, criminal activity across state

California'''s Prop 47 leads to rise in shoplifting, thefts, criminal activity across state | Fox News

In 2014, Prop 47 was passed to reduce certain non-violent felonies to misdemeanors in order to free up resources for cops and prosecutors to go after serious, violent offenders. Data shows that after Prop 47 passed, shoplifting and thefts increased.

SNIP

The incident wasn't a one-off. These brazen acts of petty theft and shoplifting are a dangerous and all-too-common consequence of Proposition 47, a referendum passed five years ago that critics say effectively gives shoplifters and addicts the green light to commit crimes as long as the merchandise they steal or the drugs they take are less than $950 in value. The decision to downgrade theft of property valued below the arbitrary figure from felony to misdemeanor, together with selective enforcement that focuses on more “serious” crimes, has resulted in thieves knowing they can brazenly shoplift and merchants knowing the police will not respond to their complaints, say critics.

Click to expand...

The idea of dropping the petty theft bar to $950 was to relieve police from petty calls to be fee for big things, and to unburden the jails from short time offenders. The reasons are many from not enough money to hire enough police, no money to build additional jails for offenders, so why bother arresting them in the first place?

The result: people can walk into you store and steal with impunity and you can’t do squat. If you try to hold them, then what? Cops won’t show up. So now you have little tent shops in the homeless community selling stoled goods.

So you can rip off hundreds of dollars of merchandise and the city you pay your taxes to doesn’t hive a damn.

chuckiechan said:

California'''s Prop 47 leads to rise in shoplifting, thefts, criminal activity across state | Fox News



The idea of dropping the petty theft bar to $950 was to relieve police from petty calls to be fee for big things, and to unburden the jails from short time offenders. The reasons are many from not enough money to hire enough police, no money to build additional jails for offenders, so why bother arresting them in the first place?

The result: people can walk into you store and steal with impunity and you can’t do squat. If you try to hold them, then what? Cops won’t show up. So now you have little tent shops in the homeless community selling stoled goods.

So you can rip off hundreds of dollars of merchandise and the city you pay your taxes to doesn’t hive a damn.

Click to expand...

Well if I was ripping of hundreds of dollars of merchandise I would be rather happy the city that I would pay my taxes too did not care. I can go and rip off more merch

Lord Tammerlain said:

Well if I was ripping of hundreds of dollars of merchandise I would be rather happy the city that I would pay my taxes too did not care. I can go and rip off more merch

Click to expand...

And look there you go, American communists right here ^^^

Good honest business owner gets targetted by thugs and they don’t care.

EMNofSeattle said:

And look there you go, American communists right here ^^^

Good honest business owner gets targetted by thugs and they don’t care.

Click to expand...

Please
I was pointing out the poorly worded sentence in which it seemed like Chuckie was complaining that you could rip off hundreds of dollars in merchandise and the city would not care. If the city did not respond shoplifters would be happy. He should have put in "You can have hundreds of dollars of your merchandise ripped off and the city wont care" for it to make sense (for business owners and operators at least)

chuckiechan said:

California'''s Prop 47 leads to rise in shoplifting, thefts, criminal activity across state | Fox News



The idea of dropping the petty theft bar to $950 was to relieve police from petty calls to be fee for big things, and to unburden the jails from short time offenders. The reasons are many from not enough money to hire enough police, no money to build additional jails for offenders, so why bother arresting them in the first place?

The result: people can walk into you store and steal with impunity and you can’t do squat. If you try to hold them, then what? Cops won’t show up. So now you have little tent shops in the homeless community selling stoled goods.

So you can rip off hundreds of dollars of merchandise and the city you pay your taxes to doesn’t hive a damn.

Click to expand...

I've said it once, and i'll say it again: California is the perfect example of what NOT to do with a state.

Roadvirus said:

I've said it once, and i'll say it again: California is the perfect example of what NOT to do with a state.

Click to expand...

California economy ranks 5th in the world, beating the UK - Business Insider

:shrug:

Mr Person said:

California economy ranks 5th in the world, beating the UK - Business Insider

:shrug:

Click to expand...

If it has such a large economy, while are there so many poor people and garbage all over the streets in major cities? And why do they have such a ****ty electrical grid?

Roadvirus said:

If it has such a large economy, while are there so many poor people and garbage all over the streets in major cities? And why do they have such a ****ty electrical grid?

Click to expand...

Why is every large city in the country experiencing some visible signs of massive income inequality?
Simply pointing out that LA has the worst doesn't change the fact that most of our major cities, nay...ALL of them, have a similar issue.
Now add near perfect weather, now add other cities DUMPING their homeless here, now add good safety nets.

As for the grid, we may see some major changes coming, and guess what? Those changes will also impact every other city in the world.

Mr Person said:

California economy ranks 5th in the world, beating the UK - Business Insider

:shrug:

Click to expand...

That’s not an argument. Even that, the infrastructure is crap in this state, and only really benefits the 1%. I don’t see a 5th-largest economy very much if the infrastructure sucks.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Why is every large city in the country experiencing some visible signs of massive income inequality?
Simply pointing out that LA has the worst doesn't change the fact that most of our major cities, nay...ALL of them, have a similar issue.
Now add near perfect weather, now add other cities DUMPING their homeless here, now add good safety nets.

As for the grid, we may see some major changes coming, and guess what? Those changes will also impact every other city in the world.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. California govt is notorious for ****ing us over, and doing what they want with the money.

enderpotato00 said:

I doubt it. California govt is notorious for ****ing us over, and doing what they want with the money.

Click to expand...

Interesting seeing as how it's investor owned Pacific Gas & Electric that seems to be way out ahead in terms of equipment related fires.
That's because too much maintenance eats into investor profit.

I am not letting government off the hook but it is important to note perspective.
By the way, when California's Insurance Commissioner screwed a ton of people over in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge Quake, it was a Republican, Charles Quackenbush. He missed going to prison by the skin of his teeth.

Quack engineered a sweet deal with ALL of the major insurers and forced a lot of people, myself included, to take a bath.
For me it was a $350K bath.

I was talking about technological advances to the grid. California is where most technological advances get their start.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Interesting seeing as how it's investor owned Pacific Gas & Electric that seems to be way out ahead in terms of equipment related fires.
That's because too much maintenance eats into investor profit.

I am not letting government off the hook but it is important to note perspective.
By the way, when California's Insurance Commissioner screwed a ton of people over in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge Quake, it was a Republican, Charles Quackenbush. He missed going to prison by the skin of his teeth.

Quack engineered a sweet deal with ALL of the major insurers and forced a lot of people, myself included, to take a bath.
For me it was a $350K bath.

I was talking about technological advances to the grid. California is where most technological advances get their start.

Click to expand...

Ok, good point. But let me mention fires for a moment, you know what would help? Maybe burning all of the dead underbrush. Also I never said republicans were the savior of California, but I feel democrats have ruined this state in many ways.

enderpotato00 said:

Ok, good point. But let me mention fires for a moment, you know what would help? Maybe burning all of the dead underbrush. Also I never said republicans were the savior of California, but I feel democrats have ruined this state in many ways.

Click to expand...

Try and calculate the cost of doing anything with the underbrush that resembles burning and you're just adding to more of the same conditions that are screwing with our climate right now, and you will seriously screw the air quality here.
The real question is, why are we allowing dense real estate development in SO DAMN MANY known high risk areas?

It's not much different than crazy Southerners who simply refuse to stop developments in known high risk flood plains.
Housing developments keep getting wiped out and rebuilt on the spot, and taxpayers are partly on the hook for all that FEMA help.
So, do they build outside the major flood plain?
Nope.

Look, California has always had fires, it's part of life in brush country out West.
We're having more of them, oftentimes they are a bit worse than they used to be but more important, areas which used to burn before did not have high density suburban development all over the place.

enderpotato00 said:

Ok, good point. But let me mention fires for a moment, you know what would help? Maybe burning all of the dead underbrush. Also I never said republicans were the savior of California, but I feel democrats have ruined this state in many ways.

Click to expand...

The Democrats have also done some pretty good things too...like put us back in the black.
By the way, at the same time Republican insurance commissioners were letting insurers screw over tens of thousands and even millions, the Republican Pete Wilson administration also saw to it that damaged roads and damaged vital infrastructure were repaired in astonishingly short timeframes. Downed freeway overpasses were rebuilt and completed as much as four months ahead of schedule.
It was the last time California would ever see a conservative administration do anything except try to starve and/or sell off as much "perceived" ancillary as possible.

The point is, both the Dems and Repubs have had their ups and downs in California and both the Dems and Repubs are different parties than they were decades ago. The growth of independents who refuse to openly endorse either major party points to the fact that the credibility of the current establishments of both parties are being called into question by a record number of voters.

To the left of center, independents view the Dem establishment as corporatists, neoliberals, co-conspirators in the Two Santas trick, and basically slaves to big party donors. Other left indies view Dem progressives as too radical. But the Dem progressives are a crucial voting block and without their support even the establishment cannot win without some cheating.

Now, flip that to the indies who are right of center. The GOP establishment is, to them, Donald J. Trump.
And they can't stand him, or what he has done to debase every institution that ever did make America great.
And they hate what he has made of conservative values, a mockery, and openly done at that.

Trump is Lonesome Rhodes from "A Face in the Crowd"

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Try and calculate the cost of doing anything with the underbrush that resembles burning and you're just adding to more of the same conditions that are screwing with our climate right now, and you will seriously screw the air quality here.
The real question is, why are we allowing dense real estate development in SO DAMN MANY known high risk areas?

It's not much different than crazy Southerners who simply refuse to stop developments in known high risk flood plains.
Housing developments keep getting wiped out and rebuilt on the spot, and taxpayers are partly on the hook for all that FEMA help.
So, do they build outside the major flood plain?
Nope.

Look, California has always had fires, it's part of life in brush country out West.
We're having more of them, oftentimes they are a bit worse than they used to be but more important, areas which used to burn before did not have high density suburban development all over the place.

Click to expand...

So the let the underbrush that’s not cleared out, burn themselves and still contribute to the bad climate? No one is denying that fires have been part of California, but they happen way too often now.

Or here’ s a solution, move half of the people out of the state. There’s too many people here anyway.

enderpotato00 said:

So the let the underbrush that’s not cleared out, burn themselves and still contribute to the bad climate? No one is denying that fires have been part of California, but they happen way too often now.

Or here’ s a solution, move half of the people out of the state. There’s too many people here anyway.

Click to expand...

The key to good fire prevention in suburban and urban areas is indeed to clear flammable brush away from living areas but these wildfires create their own local weather patterns and the fact is, even if you do clear out the entire residential areas of brush, EMBERS from as far as a mile or two away can still set off monster conflagrations.
And they do, and they have. The Getty Fire happened in the part of Brentwood (North Bundy Drive) where my parents had their retirement dream home for fifteen years. These super well kept upper class homes are all meticulously manicured and landscaped to the hilt.
It did not prevent the embers from the Getty Fire from dropping all over the place and setting everything on fire anyway.



If my parents had still lived up there on that mountain, they would have lost everything.
The Getty Museum was designed to be fire-resistant and they STILL almost lost the Getty had it not been for a huge intervention from an entire BRIGADE of firefighters ringing the entire premises with hoses and water dropping choppers.

So, what are you really suggesting? Are you suggesting that all California buildings be mandatory cinder block and metal roof construction and to tear down everything else not built that way?
Sure, just as soon as all buildings get torn down in Tornado Alley and replaced by ROUNDED concrete structures with domed roofs, which would make them largely tornado proof.
Sure, just as soon as EVERY single building in the flood prone South is put up on twenty-five foot high STILTS above ground.
That would make them flood proof.

Ready, set, GO!!

Now, calculate what that would cost, what it would cost the State of California and what it would cost the flooded and tornado plagued South.
Sorry but I don't believe most people are taking into account the cost and logistics of such ideas.
You cannot just "rake the forest", which is such a ridiculous statement that the Finns, Swedes and Norwegians now wear tee shirts poking fun at the quip, and they DO LIVE "IN THE FOREST", so to speak.