[El Chinito loco]

Which demographic stands to benefit the most from getting a free pass to steal shit?

Keep in most publicly released stats about crime only divides up the total proportion of overall crime pie chart by ethnicity to make it look like every ethnicity commits the same amount of crime.

It doesn't give the specific percentage of overall crime committed by each ethnicity for obvious reasons. The overall population size and per capita crime stats based on ethnicity matters a lot but good luck finding accurate stats like that in CA.

[Rhyme or Reason]

(05-18-2016 12:46 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Which demographic stands to benefit the most from getting a free pass to steal shit?

God damned white people...

[El Chinito loco]

(05-18-2016 01:10 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 12:46 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Which demographic stands to benefit the most from getting a free pass to steal shit?

God damned white people...

That's certainly the conclusion most people would draw from just looking at the pie chart and not looking at proportion of overall crime committed based on population of ethnicity.

Stats like this are created for the non discerning public.

[weambulance]

Employees get fired for resisting criminals because the lawyers who write policy don't want the company exposed to liability.

Shoplifting doesn't hurt most stores, because there is an allowance for some shoplifting built right into the business model. They all know they have to worry about shrinkage, and they price their wares accordingly. I'm sure that doesn't apply to many small businesses, Mom and Pop type stores, etc though.

That doesn't mean the big stores don't try to stop shoplifting, of course. If they can cheaply reduce shrinkage, they improve their profit margins.

Regarding something earlier in the thread about stores threatening civil suits far in excess of what was stolen (and likely recovered anyway if the shoplifter was caught) if someone doesn't pay them, I don't like that at all. It's white collar extortion. Civil suits are about recovering damages and establishing liability, not vehicles for punishing people. That's what the criminal courts are for.

Of course I think it's fucking retarded when police and the courts basically ignore crimes. What are they going to tolerate next? It reminds me of Michael Z Williamson's book Freehold, where Earth is so degenerate that even assault and rape are not prosecuted because everyone just needs to be understanding of why the criminals do those things. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you?

[They Call Me Mister Tony]

How in God's name does someone get FIRED for stopping a shoplifter?

I'm not surprised that this is happening in California.

[weambulance]

Because if the employee hurts the shoplifter, or if the shoplifter even pretends to be hurt, and then sues the store, now the store has a legal headache to deal with. Why? Because our civil courts are ate the fuck up and allow such abuses of the system.

People get fired for self defense at work too. Pizza delivery guys get fired for just carrying guns, let alone defending themselves, despite the fact that they are at a much higher risk of mugging than most people. No store employing mostly low wage workers values its employees enough to tolerate any action that might result in a lawsuit.

[bigrich]

The bill promised to save the state 150 million a year, however in reality, the state only saved $40 million.

However the far left LA Times editorial staff claim Jerry Brown is lowballing these figures...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorial...story.html

[Phoenix]

This stuff would be fine if private prosecution was still available. Anything you steal you have to pay back 9 times over, and the victim can go to the judge himself to get it done. The whole 'only the DA can prosecute' is an affront to law and order itself.

[infowarrior1]

(05-18-2016 05:29 AM)Snowplow Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 08:35 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 10:44 PM)Snowplow Wrote:  

Gone are the days of chopping off hands. What a shame.

Chopping off hands? Nah man. The person who got stolen needs to have restitution. So that he can have his stuff back and more.

The stuff plus 10% of its value back to the owner. +Legal fees for the cost he gives the state in prosecuting him

If the thief don't have the stuff. He must be required to pay the full value+ 10% to the owner. And the above

If he cannot pay he must work and have his wages garnished until debt is repaid.

If he is unwilling to work. He is to be put to forced labor until debt is repaid. But this time pay for accommodation and amenities as well as his debt to the owner. As well as legal fees for what he cost the state.

The restitution will be their hand displayed for all to see on the wall with a sign to ward off other potential shoplifters.

But in all seriousness, I can back your idea of the item back or full price plus 10% and legal fees. In an ideal world that would be fair and just. The part I do not agree with is your forced labor idea. Who is going to take on that responsibility of forcing the work? If they can't pay with money, they pay with blood.

If I was a store owner I'd gladly front the cost of a machete. It's cheap, easy, and won't cost the tax payers a single dime if the criminal can't actually pay up. Forced labor would be an additional tax burden, unless the criminal is also paying for his gaurd, warden, housing, food, etc. They would never get free.

The criminal is also paying for his guard,warden,housing,food,etc. And he may have the option of opting for higher-skilled labor and craftsmanship creating high-value products and thereby paying off his debt faster.

He doesn't have to work digging up coal or breaking stone just is.

[Phoenix]

Lol what? +10%? That's actually beyond a lack of deterrence, that's strong encouragement. You'd still break even if you got caught 9 out of 10 times.

Ghenghis Kahn's law on theft was: return 900% of the loot or die. It was said that a virgin could cross the length of the Mongol Empire with a pot of gold on her head untouched. We should just replace the death bit with involuntary servitude with a time ceiling, the only way to get out early being working off the 900%.

[Leonard D Neubache]

You seriously want to stop shoplifting in a first world country? It's not that hard. If you get prosecuted (or fined in this instance) then the penalty should be to wear an ankle bracelet for a year like a parolee or someone on bail, only in this instance a shopkeeper can apply to buy a unit that sits by their store entrance.

Upon passing by the unit, the ankle bracelet emits a constant and audible voice that repeats "shoplifter... shoplifter... shoplifter" until the bracelet ceases to be within wifi range of the door unit.

Tampering with the ankle bracelet would be an imprisonable offence.

Of course, some dickheads would make noise about "cruel and unusual punishment" but it's not like California gives a shit about the Constitution anyway.

I can't say I'd go back to shoplifting if I had to suffer something like that for a year.

[infowarrior1]

(05-21-2016 02:08 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Lol what? +10%? That's actually beyond a lack of deterrence, that's strong encouragement. You'd still break even if you got caught 9 out of 10 times.

Ghenghis Kahn's law on theft was: return 900% of the loot or die. It was said that a virgin could cross the length of the Mongol Empire with a pot of gold on her head untouched. We should just replace the death bit with involuntary servitude with a time ceiling, the only way to get out early being working off the 900%.

10% of the value stolen is only the 1st offence. Of course that can escalate doubling every time the offence is commited or multiplied 7-fold every iteration.

Who says the penalty cannot be exponential?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-21-2016 04:45 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

10% of the value stolen is only the 1st offence. Of course that can escalate doubling every time the offence is commited or multiplied 7-fold every iteration.

Who says the penalty cannot be exponential?

We're not talking about middle-class guys getting bored and stealing stuff. Shoplifters are the lowest of the low. No job, possibly ever. No skills. No assets. No prospects whatsoever.

You can fine them 10 dollars or ten thousand dollars. It makes no difference. And you know what happens when people repeatedly fail to pay a fine? They go to jail. So the only difference between a fine and jail for these people is the amount of time they're still kicking around the neighbourhood stealing stuff from honest people.

I think you're a tad far removed from the borderline animal nature of the average shoplifter. Watch a dozen episodes of Cops. You'll start to get the idea.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

(05-17-2016 02:10 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

I work in retail on the weekends, any mother fucker that tries pulling that shit will get a beat down. I don't give a fuck about the liabilities.

You scare them half to death saying you conceal carry, you film everything and shame the fuck out of them.

We've had a cunt and her fat friend pull that shit on us, recorded everything, had one of my employees follow them as we got the cops involved.

Cops finally came, picked one of them up down the street and went to jail, the other one got let go, fat fuck blamed the tweaker cunt.

Shit like this pisses me off.

Counter argument: The retail store does not give one fuck about you. The people who shoplift can be complete weirdos who'll either try to savagely beat you down, some tweaker junky trying to shoplift for his next fix you'll stab you, infect you with some disease or whatever.

I understand the point of principle of not letting shitheads get away with it. I understand it even more if it's actually your store/restaurant. But just being an employee at a store... yeah I'm not paid enough to deal with stuff like that, not worth risking injury for me to protect some faceless disloyal big corp. Especially if you want to physically restrain them/beat them up, you'll be the one catching charges, the corporation will save their ass and cover up the bases by pointing to compliance guidelines and saying you didn't have the security authority.

[infowarrior1]

(05-21-2016 05:01 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 04:45 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

10% of the value stolen is only the 1st offence. Of course that can escalate doubling every time the offence is commited or multiplied 7-fold every iteration.

Who says the penalty cannot be exponential?

We're not talking about middle-class guys getting bored and stealing stuff. Shoplifters are the lowest of the low. No job, possibly ever. No skills. No assets. No prospects whatsoever.

You can fine them 10 dollars or ten thousand dollars. It makes no difference. And you know what happens when people repeatedly fail to pay a fine? They go to jail. So the only difference between a fine and jail for these people is the amount of time they're still kicking around the neighbourhood stealing stuff from honest people.

I think you're a tad far removed from the borderline animal nature of the average shoplifter. Watch a dozen episodes of Cops. You'll start to get the idea.

Alright. If that's the case its forced labor in jail. If that still does not change them and they prove to be incorrigible then they should be executed.