Anonymous wrote:Bay Area resident here.

These are organized crime rings. They utilize luxury online resale sites, Amazon and other Internet options to sell the stolen goods. It appears that online shopping has made organized shoplifting much more lucrative than selling stolen goods from the trunk of a car in an alley. The misdemeanor law has been in place for years but the large scale shoplifting is relatively recent but has corresponded to a growing market in people searching for deals on luxury items online. Crime rings small and large get prosecuted when caught.

Police have not been defunded in the Bay Area.

CVS is shutting down stores because no one buys things there. They are closing stores across the country. In fact many businesses that have been declining will start closing. They have higher debt from the pandemic and if interest rates rise they don’t have access to cheap money to keep going.

Homelessness is a problem in the Bay Area. The biggest problem is meth. When pot became legal the drug cartels moved to meth and found it was cheaper and faster to produce and easier to smuggle the product around so they flooded the streets. Meth changes the brain over time and makes psychosis permanent so now there is a segment of people who will never truly function independently again.

No offense but you’re an utter imbecile. Walgreens closed 18 stores explicitly because of shoplifting.

Anonymous wrote:Bay Area resident here.

These are organized crime rings. They utilize luxury online resale sites, Amazon and other Internet options to sell the stolen goods. It appears that online shopping has made organized shoplifting much more lucrative than selling stolen goods from the trunk of a car in an alley. The misdemeanor law has been in place for years but the large scale shoplifting is relatively recent but has corresponded to a growing market in people searching for deals on luxury items online. Crime rings small and large get prosecuted when caught.

Police have not been defunded in the Bay Area.

CVS is shutting down stores because no one buys things there. They are closing stores across the country. In fact many businesses that have been declining will start closing. They have higher debt from the pandemic and if interest rates rise they don’t have access to cheap money to keep going.

Homelessness is a problem in the Bay Area. The biggest problem is meth. When pot became legal the drug cartels moved to meth and found it was cheaper and faster to produce and easier to smuggle the product around so they flooded the streets. Meth changes the brain over time and makes psychosis permanent so now there is a segment of people who will never truly function independently again.

That’s not true. Oakland (where the majority of crime is happening) police have absolutely been partially defunded. A lot resigned and they weren’t allowed to replace them due to a hiring freeze on officers, despite the crime spikes. That’s the reason why one council member in Oakland is begging for them to hire new officers, and the Oakland chamber of commerce was begging for the highway patrol to be stationed in Oakland temporarily, because they don’t have enough police officers to keep the city safe.

And in SF, there just aren’t enough officers to be able to respond to the shoplifting (no spare officers for the foot patrols they would need to have) and why would the police bother working hard to arrest these people anyway when they will just be released straight away. Maybe after the recall the crime will start to go down as criminals will hopefully start to be taken off the streets.

And Safeway is not closing their doors at 6pm in the city because “nobody bus things there”. Rampant shoplifting is driving the store closures. Saying otherwise is just not being honest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people can't say that Antifa had devastating/violent riots, Rittenhouse killed those guys and shouldn't have been there and allowing shoplifting/petty crimes is bad for a community. Can't all of these things be true? Or do we just only root for our side?? Why do people justify one and not the other?

To me...they are all dumb, stupid acts carried out by idiots. I could care less about the politics. Now as far as offering up a solution, I would start by electing officials that don't believe these types of acts are acceptable or given excuses. If safety isn't at the top of the officials list of priorities, you have the wrong candidate.

On DCUM, the only rooting is for the left, for liberal causes, and for the democratic party, whether those things are good for the country or not.

Really? Because I keep seeing tons of right-wing circle jerk threads here on DCUM.

Bay Area resident here.

These are organized crime rings. They utilize luxury online resale sites, Amazon and other Internet options to sell the stolen goods. It appears that online shopping has made organized shoplifting much more lucrative than selling stolen goods from the trunk of a car in an alley. The misdemeanor law has been in place for years but the large scale shoplifting is relatively recent but has corresponded to a growing market in people searching for deals on luxury items online. Crime rings small and large get prosecuted when caught.

Police have not been defunded in the Bay Area.

CVS is shutting down stores because no one buys things there. They are closing stores across the country. In fact many businesses that have been declining will start closing. They have higher debt from the pandemic and if interest rates rise they don’t have access to cheap money to keep going.

Homelessness is a problem in the Bay Area. The biggest problem is meth. When pot became legal the drug cartels moved to meth and found it was cheaper and faster to produce and easier to smuggle the product around so they flooded the streets. Meth changes the brain over time and makes psychosis permanent so now there is a segment of people who will never truly function independently again.

Silence from the district attorney when asked about consequences for offenders.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/exchange-with-san-francisco-district-attorney-chesa-boudin/2739905/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Honest question though. Why is it considered a massive Republican crackdown when it is literally enforcing the law and protecting property rights? This is an opportunity to stop playing partisan games and identify bad policy and do something about it.

+1

It’s disgusting that caring about our laws and not wanting a business robbed or looted or people to be assaulted is apparently a “republican” idea now.

You might not like “stop and frisk”, and I think there’s a valid discussion to be had about that. But we’d better start cracking down hard on criminals or next year there’s gonna be a red wave like we’ve never seen before.

Bring back law enforcement and policing practices that lead to inherently unequal justice outcomes? Yea keep trying to reimpose this through fear-mongering.

Dude, California is seeing mobs of people looting stores day after day after day. It’s not fear-mongering when it’s actually happening.

You know what the definition of looting is. Here is a hint. It is not organized gangs breaking in to high end stores to steal things.

Can you clarify why you see this distinction as important?

There's definitely organized crime going on, whether gangs or otherwise. I recall a video from Chicago during the height of BLM protests, where someone at 2AM filmed an entire fleet of U-Hauls and a crew of around 20 people breaking in to and cleaning out a CVS store. Clearly organized and preplanned.

+1 This was very obviously going on in midtown Manhattan as well. Not by protestors, by the mob.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people can't say that Antifa had devastating/violent riots, Rittenhouse killed those guys and shouldn't have been there and allowing shoplifting/petty crimes is bad for a community. Can't all of these things be true? Or do we just only root for our side?? Why do people justify one and not the other?

To me...they are all dumb, stupid acts carried out by idiots. I could care less about the politics. Now as far as offering up a solution, I would start by electing officials that don't believe these types of acts are acceptable or given excuses. If safety isn't at the top of the officials list of priorities, you have the wrong candidate.

On DCUM, the only rooting is for the left, for liberal causes, and for the democratic party, whether those things are good for the country or not.

I don't know why people can't say that Antifa had devastating/violent riots, Rittenhouse killed those guys and shouldn't have been there and allowing shoplifting/petty crimes is bad for a community. Can't all of these things be true? Or do we just only root for our side?? Why do people justify one and not the other?

To me...they are all dumb, stupid acts carried out by idiots. I could care less about the politics. Now as far as offering up a solution, I would start by electing officials that don't believe these types of acts are acceptable or given excuses. If safety isn't at the top of the officials list of priorities, you have the wrong candidate.

Ugh! Sorry for the site--just googled and it was the first that came up. But did not actually find a more respectable site reporting this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF is out of control and the people saying "then don't live there" are not recognizing that SF is the cradle of our tech industry. The number of people flowing in and out of SF for business make it a national problem, not a local one. Even a few years ago, things were rough but I would still take my kids. Now, absolutely not. It's a dystopian nightmare, and possibly a glimpse into our grim future if we adopt these policies nationally. I absolutely can't believe we let a city like SF fall in this manner.

So much hysteria, so few facts. The homeless/crime problem in SF is concentrated in around Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin, which were never that great to start with. There are dozens of other neighborhoods in SF that are perfectly safe.

Either you don't spend any time in SF or you do and are willfully ignoring the way it's changed. The homeless are not taking up every piece of sidewalk like they do in the Tenderloin, but even places like Nob Hill have large amounts of homeless, open air drug injections, and feces on the ground. I don't need to cite facts for you, everyone who goes to SF regularly knows it is a hellhole right now. As a woman I have to uber everywhere. I can't even walk a few blocks safely. Wake up, it's not left like Sweden, it's left like Venezuela.

You can’t walk a few blocks? I mean I wouldn’t walk through the tenderloin at night, alone, flashing a bunch of jewelry as I scroll through my new iPhone and juggle my LV shopping bags around, but I’ve not felt uncomfortable walking wherever I need to go. I mean there are homeless people, and it’s not clean, but it’s not generally scary/unsafe. Same with BART.

The coordinated thefts happening now are happening all over the Bay Area and police are making arrests. These aren’t small time thefts, it’s huge groups smashing into stores, overwhelming everyone, taking everything and leaving in getaway cars within minutes. I don’t know that professional is the best term but they’re planned, coordinated, and efficient. I honestly don’t see what’s to stop a group of people from doing this anywhere. Even if your security guard is armed, how do one or two guards stop dozens of people? We don’t know if the robbers are armed or not, but if they are, I’m sure that armed guards trying to stop them won’t end well. The local news reported they took 100k of merchandise from the union square LV store. They’re limiting traffic around union square to try to prevent easy getaways, and they’ve arrested some people already. I’m sure they’ll be arresting more people soon, and hopefully this can all come to an end.

Honestly, the idea of getting caught in the crossfire of a “good guy with a gun” trying to stop these a**holes and them shooting back is far scarier than walking a few blocks in the city or even being in the general area when one of these thefts goes down. I haven’t changed my shopping habits or areas where I walk in the city due to crime or fear of crime. I know things happen but things happen everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that progressive policies are too lax towards crime and troubling. The problem is that conservatives don’t offer a good enough alternative. Stop and Frisk is not an option. The cavalier way in which some would throw out our constitutional rights for lower crime outcomes is scary. We need to uphold order and constitutional protections simultaneously. This should not be rocket science.

The trick with conservatives is that they only care about their own rights and freedoms. But they will gladly strip rights and freedoms away from anyone else in a heartbeat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The repubs on here want America to turn back the clock on inequitable policing and bring back the mass incarceration of the lower classes and poc so as to defend their privilege.
Plus it’s in San Francisco and they’ll handle it has they see fit.
Your wasteful, precious suburban McMansions are safe.

Yes, because enforcing laws against SHOPLIFTING promulgates the racist structural issues underneath society. .......or you know, you can simply also not break the law.

It’s not your stuff. So don’t worry about it. It’ll be so much better for your obviously suffering mental health. Therapy’s good, too. Be well!

When stores raise prices to make up for shoplifting losses - or close down entirely, as is already happening in SF - then it definitely affects everyone. So it really IS “my stuff” (“our stuff”) in a sense.

I’m sorry you lack even a basic understanding of business economics. That’s really tragic.

Why is it tragic? The world needs manual laborers as well.

Are you arguing that shoplifting is manual labor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF is out of control and the people saying "then don't live there" are not recognizing that SF is the cradle of our tech industry. The number of people flowing in and out of SF for business make it a national problem, not a local one. Even a few years ago, things were rough but I would still take my kids. Now, absolutely not. It's a dystopian nightmare, and possibly a glimpse into our grim future if we adopt these policies nationally. I absolutely can't believe we let a city like SF fall in this manner.

So much hysteria, so few facts. The homeless/crime problem in SF is concentrated in around Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin, which were never that great to start with. There are dozens of other neighborhoods in SF that are perfectly safe.

Either you don't spend any time in SF or you do and are willfully ignoring the way it's changed. The homeless are not taking up every piece of sidewalk like they do in the Tenderloin, but even places like Nob Hill have large amounts of homeless, open air drug injections, and feces on the ground. I don't need to cite facts for you, everyone who goes to SF regularly knows it is a hellhole right now. As a woman I have to uber everywhere. I can't even walk a few blocks safely. Wake up, it's not left like Sweden, it's left like Venezuela.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Does it “disproportionately” hit people if it is the people responsible committing the crimes getting arrested?

Excellent question. Could one of the crime apologists on this thread please explain why you're so outraged about - wait for it - *criminals being arrested for committing crimes*? I'd really love to know.

I’d also like them to explain why it’s fine for people to steal stuff, but they then call it murder when someone shoots a person intent on harming/killing them.

Another fascinating contradiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The repubs on here want America to turn back the clock on inequitable policing and bring back the mass incarceration of the lower classes and poc so as to defend their privilege.
Plus it’s in San Francisco and they’ll handle it has they see fit.
Your wasteful, precious suburban McMansions are safe.

Yes, because enforcing laws against SHOPLIFTING promulgates the racist structural issues underneath society. .......or you know, you can simply also not break the law.

It’s not your stuff. So don’t worry about it. It’ll be so much better for your obviously suffering mental health. Therapy’s good, too. Be well!

When stores raise prices to make up for shoplifting losses - or close down entirely, as is already happening in SF - then it definitely affects everyone. So it really IS “my stuff” (“our stuff”) in a sense.

I’m sorry you lack even a basic understanding of business economics. That’s really tragic.

Why is it tragic? The world needs manual laborers as well.