Why shoplifting is soaring across the US — and will only get worse

[TBoneTX 45,572]

Thoughts?

Quote

Why shoplifting is soaring across the US — and will only get worse

By Steven Malanga - January 22, 2022

 

Retail crime has been rising throughout the US for the past five years, with organized criminal rings targeting stores everywhere from Woonsocket (Rhode Island) to Greensboro (North Carolina) to Grafton (Wisconsin).  The National Retail Federation reported that store losses mounted from $453,940 per $1 billion in sales in 2015 to $719,458 in 2020.  [...]

 

https://nypost.com/2022/01/22/why-shoplifting-is-soaring-in-the-us-and-will-get-worse/  

[jg121783 3,919]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Thoughts?

Doesn't help that some leftist cities wont punish shoplifters if they steal less than $1000.

[TBoneTX 45,572]

Zero deterrence.

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

I find John Stossel's take on things very interesting and logical.

 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Yah, like those leftists in South Carolina and Texas that have set the threshold for felony theft at higher levels than California (respectively $2,000, $2,500 and $950). Clearly the commies running those states should be taken behind the woodshed for encouraging theft by making it so hard to get charged with a felony! 

[seekingthetruth 1,248]

9 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Yah, like those leftists in South Carolina and Texas that have set the threshold for felony theft at higher levels than California (respectively $2,000, $2,500 and $950). Clearly the commies running those states should be taken behind the woodshed for encouraging theft by making it so hard to get charged with a felony! 

It is about enforcement and prosecution, not the threshold.  Misdemeanor theft in San Francisco, for instance, carries a penalty, but is not enforced or prosecuted.  The shoplifters go nuts because they know the police will not even come out for under $950.  The police don't come out because the AG will not prosecute these misdemeanor thefts.

 

If Texas prosecutes and jails the misdemeanor thefts under $2500, that is a big difference in policy.

[jg121783 3,919]

2 hours ago, seekingthetruth said:

It is about enforcement and prosecution, not the threshold.  Misdemeanor theft in San Francisco, for instance, carries a penalty, but is not enforced or prosecuted.  The shoplifters go nuts because they know the police will not even come out for under $950.  The police don't come out because the AG will not prosecute these misdemeanor thefts.

 

If Texas prosecutes and jails the misdemeanor thefts under $2500, that is a big difference in policy.

Nailed it on the head. The issue is not necessarily the amount of the fine but how or even if the law is enforced. No one can deny that not prosecuting people for crimes they commit and having low or even no bail requirements is causing a spike in crime in blue cities.

[Dashinka 24,629]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Yah, like those leftists in South Carolina and Texas that have set the threshold for felony theft at higher levels than California (respectively $2,000, $2,500 and $950). Clearly the commies running those states should be taken behind the woodshed for encouraging theft by making it so hard to get charged with a felony! 

For some reason we are not see the organized crime take advantage of things in the other states.  I haven't seen any pictures of entire train cars being ransacked or high end retailers being looted in broad daylight in SC or TX.  There seems to be something different in CA.  I wonder what it is?

[jg121783 3,919]

39 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

For some reason we are not see the organized crime take advantage of things in the other states.  I haven't seen any pictures of entire train cars being ransacked or high end retailers being looted in broad daylight in SC or TX.  There seems to be something different in CA.  I wonder what it is?

Crime rates are exploding in blue cities. Some even hitting record highs. Not so much on TX or SC. You would think an attorney of all people would understand that not prosecuting crimes is gonna result in more crime.

[Dashinka 24,629]

47 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Crime rates are exploding in blue cities. Some even hitting record highs. Not so much on TX or SC. You would think an attorney of all people would understand that not prosecuting crimes is gonna result in more crime.

Well, many folks seem to ignore the root cause.  Money buys a lot.

[TBoneTX 45,572]

No one has confronted the maelstrom of tortfeasin' out there.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

19 hours ago, seekingthetruth said:

It is about enforcement and prosecution, not the threshold.  Misdemeanor theft in San Francisco, for instance, carries a penalty, but is not enforced or prosecuted.  The shoplifters go nuts because they know the police will not even come out for under $950.  The police don't come out because the AG will not prosecute these misdemeanor thefts.

 

If Texas prosecutes and jails the misdemeanor thefts under $2500, that is a big difference in policy.

Does Texas prosecute and jail people for misdemeanor thefts where the value of goods is beneath $950 more frequently than in California? 

 

PS, cops do come out where the value of goods is under $950 in California, but it very much depends on where you are located.

 

PPS, misdemeanor thefts are prosecuted, even in San Francisco. And what precisely do you think a criminal penalty is? Hint: if you have to pay one, you committed a crime and the state is enforcing what is essentially a sentence against you. A speeding ticket is a summons; paying the fine is admitting you committed the crime of speeding, and the fine itself is your punishment. Ta-da!

 

17 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Nailed it on the head. The issue is not necessarily the amount of the fine but how or even if the law is enforced. No one can deny that not prosecuting people for crimes they commit and having low or even no bail requirements is causing a spike in crime in blue cities.

Do you have facts to support these propositions? That is to say verifiable statements backed by hard data and not, say, from opinion pieces.

 

From my understanding, property crime -- and we should stay focused here on the discussion of property crimes before the goalposts are moved yards down the field -- is higher in the states I mentioned than in California. I come from a state even bluer than California and property crime rates there are low. My home state also has half as many people in it as Los Angeles. Big cities tend to have higher crime rates for all sorts of reasons that I don't really have the inclination to discuss, except to say that it ever has been thus, across geographies and generations.

 

The jury is out on the effectiveness of eliminating bail requirements for non-violent crimes. I tend not to trust cops and DAs on this topic -- when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. My understanding is that some studies have shown a decrease in crime, some a negligible increase. It is important to note that recent increases in crime are felt in red and blue states alike, and in places with and without bail reform. There is no straight correlation. Again, if you have facts to rebut this proposition, I remain open to being corrected. 

 

15 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Crime rates are exploding in blue cities. Some even hitting record highs. Not so much on TX or SC. You would think an attorney of all people would understand that not prosecuting crimes is gonna result in more crime.

Incorrect. It does help to check stats before making sweeping propositions. I have. Here's a fun infographic:

https://wallethub.com/edu/cities-homicide-rate/94070

 

Also fun for those who are interested in California-specific data! (I admit to goalpost-shifting here, but it's a fun graphic.)

 

http://www.cjcj.org/news/13186

 

Resist the temptation to embrace a theory because you feel it must be correct. Bring receipts. Maybe your receipts are better than my 40 minutes of noodling around on the innerwebz. Show 'em! 

 

(PS: I'm not a criminal attorney, no money in it for most people, and I like money.)

5 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

No one has confronted the maelstrom of tortfeasin' out there.

Dude, I was postin'! 

[TBoneTX 45,572]

46 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

A speeding ticket is a summons; paying the fine is admitting you committed the crime of speeding, and the fine itself is your punishment. Ta-da!

Is this your idea of explainin' tortfeasin', huh ma'am?

47 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Dude, I was postin'! 

You ain't postin' enough, no Maven ma'am!     Maybe you're out indictin' a ham sandwich.  Got it, first try.

 

To fill this appalling gap in the legal discussion, I shall idly say, to no one in particular, that the tortfeasor takes his victim where he finds him.

[Dashinka 24,629]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Does Texas prosecute and jail people for misdemeanor thefts where the value of goods is beneath $950 more frequently than in California? 

 

PS, cops do come out where the value of goods is under $950 in California, but it very much depends on where you are located.

 

PPS, misdemeanor thefts are prosecuted, even in San Francisco. And what precisely do you think a criminal penalty is? Hint: if you have to pay one, you committed a crime and the state is enforcing what is essentially a sentence against you. A speeding ticket is a summons; paying the fine is admitting you committed the crime of speeding, and the fine itself is your punishment. Ta-da!

 

Do you have facts to support these propositions? That is to say verifiable statements backed by hard data and not, say, from opinion pieces.

 

From my understanding, property crime -- and we should stay focused here on the discussion of property crimes before the goalposts are moved yards down the field -- is higher in the states I mentioned than in California. I come from a state even bluer than California and property crime rates there are low. My home state also has half as many people in it as Los Angeles. Big cities tend to have higher crime rates for all sorts of reasons that I don't really have the inclination to discuss, except to say that it ever has been thus, across geographies and generations.

 

The jury is out on the effectiveness of eliminating bail requirements for non-violent crimes. I tend not to trust cops and DAs on this topic -- when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. My understanding is that some studies have shown a decrease in crime, some a negligible increase. It is important to note that recent increases in crime are felt in red and blue states alike, and in places with and without bail reform. There is no straight correlation. Again, if you have facts to rebut this proposition, I remain open to being corrected. 

 

Incorrect. It does help to check stats before making sweeping propositions. I have. Here's a fun infographic:

https://wallethub.com/edu/cities-homicide-rate/94070

 

Also fun for those who are interested in California-specific data! (I admit to goalpost-shifting here, but it's a fun graphic.)

 

http://www.cjcj.org/news/13186

 

Resist the temptation to embrace a theory because you feel it must be correct. Bring receipts. Maybe your receipts are better than my 40 minutes of noodling around on the innerwebz. Show 'em! 

 

(PS: I'm not a criminal attorney, no money in it for most people, and I like money.)

Dude, I was postin'! 

What happens when you don’t normalize the data?  Also, what explains the rise in organized property theft?  I do agree we have issues all over the place mostly in big cities, and we have a lot of Dem DAs professing the end of bail.  The simple fact is there are people out there that make a profit off chaos.

[Dashinka 24,629]

7 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Does Texas prosecute and jail people for misdemeanor thefts where the value of goods is beneath $950 more frequently than in California? 

 

PS, cops do come out where the value of goods is under $950 in California, but it very much depends on where you are located.

 

PPS, misdemeanor thefts are prosecuted, even in San Francisco. And what precisely do you think a criminal penalty is? Hint: if you have to pay one, you committed a crime and the state is enforcing what is essentially a sentence against you. A speeding ticket is a summons; paying the fine is admitting you committed the crime of speeding, and the fine itself is your punishment. Ta-da!

 

Do you have facts to support these propositions? That is to say verifiable statements backed by hard data and not, say, from opinion pieces.

 

From my understanding, property crime -- and we should stay focused here on the discussion of property crimes before the goalposts are moved yards down the field -- is higher in the states I mentioned than in California. I come from a state even bluer than California and property crime rates there are low. My home state also has half as many people in it as Los Angeles. Big cities tend to have higher crime rates for all sorts of reasons that I don't really have the inclination to discuss, except to say that it ever has been thus, across geographies and generations.

 

The jury is out on the effectiveness of eliminating bail requirements for non-violent crimes. I tend not to trust cops and DAs on this topic -- when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. My understanding is that some studies have shown a decrease in crime, some a negligible increase. It is important to note that recent increases in crime are felt in red and blue states alike, and in places with and without bail reform. There is no straight correlation. Again, if you have facts to rebut this proposition, I remain open to being corrected. 

 

Incorrect. It does help to check stats before making sweeping propositions. I have. Here's a fun infographic:

https://wallethub.com/edu/cities-homicide-rate/94070

 

Also fun for those who are interested in California-specific data! (I admit to goalpost-shifting here, but it's a fun graphic.)

 

http://www.cjcj.org/news/13186

 

Resist the temptation to embrace a theory because you feel it must be correct. Bring receipts. Maybe your receipts are better than my 40 minutes of noodling around on the innerwebz. Show 'em! 

 

(PS: I'm not a criminal attorney, no money in it for most people, and I like money.)

Dude, I was postin'! 

Looking at the wallethub site, it is very confusing as they really don't say how they determined how a city is Red vs Blue.  A much easier way to look at it would be the table above the pretty graph that shows from Q4 2019 to Q4 2021, the top ten cities with the biggest increase in homicides (New Orleans, Memphis, DC, Cincinnati, Norfolk, Louisville, Milwaukee, Las Vegas, Chicago, and Denver) are all controlled by the Dems with the exception of Las Vegas who has an Independent mayor.  The first city controlled by a Republican shows up at 19 (Garland, TX).  Digging deeper for older receipts, we see there were 37 cities that had an increase in homicides from Q4 2019 through Q4 2021 with the percentage being 78.4% run by a Democrat, 16.2% run by a Republican, and 5.4% run by an Independent.

 

Resist to temptation to believe anything related to statistics without actually digging deeper to understand how the statistics are manipulated.  I explained my reasoning which seems clearer than what wallethub used, but who knows since they really don't explain it.  Note, I chose to look at Q4 2019 to Q4 2021 vs Q4 2020 to Q4 2021 due to the fact that the pandemic, BLM, Defund Movement, war on police, etc., were not present in 2019, but they did gain big traction in Q2 2020.  Additionally, there were only 22 cities that had an increase in homicides for that period, of those 63.6% Democrat, 27.3% Republican and 9.1% Independent.

 

As to the chart on CA counties, is that based on crimes actually charged, arrests, prosecutions, etc.?  Aren't the Blue counties redefining what is a crime in several aspects which would skew the data a bit.

 

  https://wallethub.com/edu/cities-homicide-rate/94070

 

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_mayors_of_the_top_100_cities_in_the_United_States 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Dashinka