We're not even getting into the incidents where he was caught baldly lying about Time Magazine stories related to climate change. I went to look up the articles and proved they were not what he said they were. Silence.SFCityBear said:OK. Thanks. I get it now. Kind of sad.dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
SFPD pro-burglary?
6,645 Views |
77 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by oski003
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
If anything, it's that combination of dull, vindictive nastiness and complete lack of self-awareness of a dude who refers to himself in the first person plural that might have contributed to me staying away from this board. That, and our sports programs not being up to par...
Cal88 said:dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
If anything, it's that combination of dull, vindictive nastiness and complete lack of self-awareness of a dude who refers to himself in the first person plural that might have contributed to me staying away from this board. That, and our sports programs not being up to par...
Still can't acknowledge any errors. TypiCal88.
sycasey said:We're not even getting into the incidents where he was caught baldly lying about Time Magazine stories related to climate change. I went to look up the articles and proved they were not what he said they were. Silence.SFCityBear said:OK. Thanks. I get it now. Kind of sad.dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
The degree of lying and character defamation you are engaging in here is outright pathological. You know exactly what you're doing here, it's completely dishonest and of poor moral character to resort to outright lies to smear someone just because you happen to disagree with him on an issue.
I guess we;re far beyond that though, unfortunately this kind of behavior is fairly pervasive on message boards these days, a manifestation of a broader social phenomenon of intense cultural polarization, and one of the main reasons this board has been on the wane lately.
Cal88 said:sycasey said:We're not even getting into the incidents where he was caught baldly lying about Time Magazine stories related to climate change. I went to look up the articles and proved they were not what he said they were. Silence.SFCityBear said:OK. Thanks. I get it now. Kind of sad.dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
The degree of lying and character defamation you are engaging in here is outright pathological. You know exactly what you're doing here, it's completely dishonest and of poor moral character to resort to outright lies to smear someone just because you happen to disagree with him on an issue.
I guess we;re far beyond that though, unfortunately this kind of behavior is fairly pervasive on message boards these days, a manifestation of a broader social phenomenon of intense cultural polarization, and one of the main reasons this board has been on the wane lately.
lol, everything sycasey said is true. You can't acknowledge your error on that topic either.
Tell us. How much did you lose on your election bets? Or are you refusing to pay because, "Trump really won". hahaha
Cal88 said:sycasey said:We're not even getting into the incidents where he was caught baldly lying about Time Magazine stories related to climate change. I went to look up the articles and proved they were not what he said they were. Silence.SFCityBear said:OK. Thanks. I get it now. Kind of sad.dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
The degree of lying and character defamation you are engaging in here is outright pathological. You know exactly what you're doing here, it's completely dishonest and of poor moral character to resort to outright lies to smear someone just because you happen to disagree with him on an issue.
I guess we;re far beyond that though, unfortunately this kind of behavior is fairly pervasive on message boards these days, a manifestation of a broader social phenomenon of intense cultural polarization, and one of the main reasons this board has been on the wane lately.
I'll let everyone read the thread and decide who is being dishonest here.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380719#1380719
Eastern Oregon Bear said:You're smarter than this.BearForce2 said:Symptoms of COVID-19, per Biden’s White House:
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 2, 2021
Fever or chills
Cough
Fatigue
Sudden urge to loot Home Depot https://t.co/T72BmVjOgv
Shoplifting is a symptom of Covid? See Jen Psaki.
Yes, this is complete nonsense.
Remember when Cal88 said everyone would stop dying of COVID just like they had in Europe? Any day now as of what ... July 2020? And I think he was big into the HCQ nonsense as well. He spills so much ink pretending like he knows what he's talking about and when his predictions invariably ring hilariously false, he doesn't even acknowledge what he's done and just moves onto the next fantastical narrative.sycasey said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:We're not even getting into the incidents where he was caught baldly lying about Time Magazine stories related to climate change. I went to look up the articles and proved they were not what he said they were. Silence.SFCityBear said:OK. Thanks. I get it now. Kind of sad.dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
The degree of lying and character defamation you are engaging in here is outright pathological. You know exactly what you're doing here, it's completely dishonest and of poor moral character to resort to outright lies to smear someone just because you happen to disagree with him on an issue.
I guess we;re far beyond that though, unfortunately this kind of behavior is fairly pervasive on message boards these days, a manifestation of a broader social phenomenon of intense cultural polarization, and one of the main reasons this board has been on the wane lately.
I'll let everyone read the thread and decide who is being dishonest here.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380719#1380719
Yes, and his repeated maneuver was all called out back then too. He hasn't changed. Same B.S. in this thread too.Unit2Sucks said:Remember when Cal88 said everyone would stop dying of COVID just like they had in Europe? Any day now as of what ... July 2020? And I think he was big into the HCQ nonsense as well. He spills so much ink pretending like he knows what he's talking about and when his predictions invariably ring hilariously false, he doesn't even acknowledge what he's done and just moves onto the next fantastical narrative.sycasey said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:We're not even getting into the incidents where he was caught baldly lying about Time Magazine stories related to climate change. I went to look up the articles and proved they were not what he said they were. Silence.SFCityBear said:OK. Thanks. I get it now. Kind of sad.dajo9 said:SFCityBear said:Thanks for the explanation. But I am now having trouble understanding what that election has to do with a San Francisco Safeway having an increase in shoplifting. Biden getting elected, or Trump losing, is not responsible for what happened to Safeway, is it? Neither Biden or Trump, if he won, would then have the ability to influence or control how San Francisco handles shoplifters if arrested, or influence or control how Safeway tries to prevent shoplifting, would he? And those shoplifters don't seem to fit the profile of the unhappy Trump supporter.sycasey said:Here's Cal88 gloating about Trump's impending reelection right before the walls caved in.SFCityBear said:What election was that?dajo9 said:How much alcohol did you have to buy your relatives after the election?Cal88 said:Quote:
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, whose district includes the Safeway, said in a statement that shoplifting at the store "is out of control."
"When I met with Safeway representatives last month, they informed me that this [Market St] store had the worst six-month loss of inventory at any location in the history of the company," he said. (Safeway declined to confirm this claim).
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/safeway-2020-market-street-problems-16663711.php
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/98570/replies/1810540
After years and years of smarter-than-thee lying on these boards, Cal88 started gloating on election night about Trump's impending victory. He bragged about the bets he was going to win. He bragged about his sources.
Subsequently Trump lost and Cal88 disappeared from these boards. Now he reappears for this SF thread.
His m.o. when he is caught in a lie has been to just keep doubling down. The least Cal88 can do is acknowledge his errors the last time he engaged with us. If he can't do that, what's the point of engaging with him at all?
The degree of lying and character defamation you are engaging in here is outright pathological. You know exactly what you're doing here, it's completely dishonest and of poor moral character to resort to outright lies to smear someone just because you happen to disagree with him on an issue.
I guess we;re far beyond that though, unfortunately this kind of behavior is fairly pervasive on message boards these days, a manifestation of a broader social phenomenon of intense cultural polarization, and one of the main reasons this board has been on the wane lately.
I'll let everyone read the thread and decide who is being dishonest here.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380719#1380719
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380740
Quote:
I have already demonstrated lies about at least four magazine covers. He chose not to acknowledge that part of my findings and moved on to something else. Exactly as I predicted he would.
And of course, after being called out on these lies, he cries about civility. This is not an honest person.
Guilty Pleas In Huge Bay Area Retail Theft Ring; Ringleader Gets 6-Year Prison Term CBS San Francisco
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/12/03/retail-theft-ring-busted-smash-and-grab-attorney-general-bonta/
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/12/03/retail-theft-ring-busted-smash-and-grab-attorney-general-bonta/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
Ok, the California law was basically ineffective. Did nothing. Crime went down across the country. California crime went down too with the rest of the country riding the Clinton wave of peace and prosperity.
Don't you know it's unlucky to shift the goalposts right before a game?oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
So you think this faulty reporting has been happening for the last 20 years? How do we know the three strikes law worked, then?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:Don't you know it's unlucky to shift the goalposts right before a game?oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
Where were the goalposts? Where are they now?
Most crime is not violent crime. More nonviolent crime has been defacto decriminalized. Therefore, the crime rate is lower.
sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
So you think this faulty reporting has been happening for the last 20 years? How do we know the three strikes law worked, then?
I have never been a fan of the three strikes law or mandatory sentencing. I largely speak about what is happening today. Today's environment makes it difficult to arrest and prosecute property offenses.
oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
So you think this faulty reporting has been happening for the last 20 years? How do we know the three strikes law worked, then?
I have never been a fan of the three strikes law or mandatory sentencing. I largely speak about what is happening today. Today's environment makes it difficult to arrest and prosecute property offenses.
Okay, but we're talking about the long term trend here.
oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
So you think this faulty reporting has been happening for the last 20 years? How do we know the three strikes law worked, then?
I have never been a fan of the three strikes law or mandatory sentencing. I largely speak about what is happening today. Today's environment makes it difficult to arrest and prosecute property offenses.
My niece had a drug habit and hung out with some bad people. She did some things she shouldn't have done and got caught with a stolen piece of jewelry. However, because of bad representation by a public defender and a fear of being hurt by the person who actually committed the burglary she plea bargained and ended up being sentenced to two years in jail at age 17. She was the youngest person in that State prison (Chowchilla.) The other inmates really looked after her so her experience was decent - I mean for being in prison anyway. It was a long drive for her mom to come visit her. She was released just short of a year in prison.
A couple years later she was on probation when the police came to her home looking for one of her former associates. They wanted to know if she knew her whereabouts. While there they asked if they could search her home. She had nothing to hide so she allowed them in. They found a bong in her bedroom dresser (drug paraphernalia) although no drugs and because she was on probation she went back to jail. She spent another 6 months in Chino.
She had a felony on her record (burglary) and no one would hire her when she got out so she basically lived at home and collected welfare.
She is now FINALLY (after many years!) employed as an Amazon delivery driver and putting her life together.
All of that because of possession of stolen goods and the fact that she smoked some pot now and then to help alleviate the pain of her arthritis. (She has very bad arthritis because of autoimmune disease.) She also got some crappy legal advice from a crappy public defender because she couldn't afford an attorney and was scared that some bad people she knew would hurt her or her family.
I realize these property crimes are a way to keep our cities from being overrun with homeless druggies living in tents but I also think that relaxing sentencing guidelines for minor crimes is a positive thing. A lot of people have their lives ruined because some cop wants an arrest and some DA somewhere wants a conviction in order to get promoted.
dimitrig said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
So you think this faulty reporting has been happening for the last 20 years? How do we know the three strikes law worked, then?
I have never been a fan of the three strikes law or mandatory sentencing. I largely speak about what is happening today. Today's environment makes it difficult to arrest and prosecute property offenses.
My niece had a drug habit and hung out with some bad people. She did some things she shouldn't have done and got caught with a stolen piece of jewelry. However, because of bad representation by a public defender and a fear of being hurt by the person who actually committed the burglary she plea bargained and ended up being sentenced to two years in jail at age 17. She was the youngest person in that State prison (Chowchilla.) The other inmates really looked after her so her experience was decent - I mean for being in prison anyway. It was a long drive for her mom to come visit her. She was released just short of a year in prison.
A couple years later she was on probation when the police came to her home looking for one of her former associates. They wanted to know if she knew her whereabouts. While there they asked if they could search her home. She had nothing to hide so she allowed them in. They found a bong in her bedroom dresser (drug paraphernalia) although no drugs and because she was on probation she went back to jail. She spent another 6 months in Chino.
She had a felony on her record (burglary) and no one would hire her when she got out so she basically lived at home and collected welfare.
She is now FINALLY (after many years!) employed as an Amazon delivery driver and putting her life together.
All of that because of possession of stolen goods and the fact that she smoked some pot now and then to help alleviate the pain of her arthritis. (She has very bad arthritis because of autoimmune disease.) She also got some crappy legal advice from a crappy public defender because she couldn't afford an attorney and was scared that some bad people she knew would hurt her or her family.
I realize these property crimes are a way to keep our cities from being overrun with homeless druggies living in tents but I also think that relaxing sentencing guidelines for minor crimes is a positive thing. A lot of people have their lives ruined because some cop wants an arrest and some DA somewhere wants a conviction in order to get promoted.
That is unfortunate what happened to your niece. Laws that effectively decriminalize property crimes are not the solution to the challenges she faced.
oski003 said:dimitrig said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:Well, crime rates fell for two decades with mostly Democrats in charge, so I guess they got results.oski003 said:calpoly said:They are still in office and are tough on crime. What happened to the republicons that say they are tough on crime? They approve of invading congress to overthrow the presidential election.oski003 said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Then you should do some research to learn that that 1994 three strikes law I referred to was enacted in California as a state law, signed by Governor Wilson (and later affirmed by initiative), and has nothing to do with the Federal Crime Bill.dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:I have no idea how your post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. It is a bizarre knee jerk reaction. When you're confronted with the realities of policy failures in cities controlled for DECADES by dems, you respond with "Republicans are political." As if dems are not?dajo9 said:BearGoggles said:Agreed - context matters. Maybe the same principle applies to comparing 1996 homicide rates to 2019? Seems to me some important things happened between the 1990s (period of heightened gang violence and post Rodney king tensions) and 2010s.sycasey said:They need to be tracked the same way across the board to measure a real increase, though.oski003 said:
Crime rates go up when you track them. Imagine that. LOL.
One thing was the Republican led government enacting the 3 strikes rules in 1994. And, not surprisingly, the murder rates started dropping that very year.
http://lapd-assets.lapdonline.org/assets/crime_statistics/digest/1998/homicidestats.htm
The people of SFO, NY, LA and Chicago are free to elect Mayors and District Attorneys who are soft on crime and choose not to enforce quality of life laws. I'm sad for the people who live there, but that is their choice.
I hope the dems continue to dissemble about, ignore and minimize the current crime wave. It will be good for republicans in 2022 and 2024. Most people look at the conditions in SFO, NY, Philly, LA and Chicago and reject those policy choices.
I'm old enough to remember an election in which Biden was the bad guy for being tough on crime and supporting the 1994 Crime bill and Trump was the good guy for SAYING he wanted to end mass incarceration.
Policy means nothing to Republicans. It is all politics.
Then you should re-read your second paragraph in which you got political on a bipartisan bill signed by a Democratic President, which the Republicans disavowed just last year to attack Biden.
So during those years following 1994, which party largely controlled government in major cities?
Which party held the majority in the state legislature when that law was passed?
Are you saying the California democrats used to be tough on crime? What happened to them?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/09/no-bail-just-part-of-it-las-new-da-totally-eviscerating-basic-law/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/12/03/14-arrested-for-l-a-smash-and-grab-robberies-all-released-on-zero-bail-policies/amp/
https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california
This topic has very little to do with what happened in D.C. So, your take is that California democrats are tough on crime. Do you have support for that?
Crimes that Democrats care about (which are generally the crimes that are more important) are down because law enforcement is more focused on preventing them.
On the other hand, crimes that Democrats care less about are up but the reporting of them are down because they are de facto decriminalized.
It is a win-win for crime statistics.
It is also a loss for property and business owners.
So you think this faulty reporting has been happening for the last 20 years? How do we know the three strikes law worked, then?
I have never been a fan of the three strikes law or mandatory sentencing. I largely speak about what is happening today. Today's environment makes it difficult to arrest and prosecute property offenses.
My niece had a drug habit and hung out with some bad people. She did some things she shouldn't have done and got caught with a stolen piece of jewelry. However, because of bad representation by a public defender and a fear of being hurt by the person who actually committed the burglary she plea bargained and ended up being sentenced to two years in jail at age 17. She was the youngest person in that State prison (Chowchilla.) The other inmates really looked after her so her experience was decent - I mean for being in prison anyway. It was a long drive for her mom to come visit her. She was released just short of a year in prison.
A couple years later she was on probation when the police came to her home looking for one of her former associates. They wanted to know if she knew her whereabouts. While there they asked if they could search her home. She had nothing to hide so she allowed them in. They found a bong in her bedroom dresser (drug paraphernalia) although no drugs and because she was on probation she went back to jail. She spent another 6 months in Chino.
She had a felony on her record (burglary) and no one would hire her when she got out so she basically lived at home and collected welfare.
She is now FINALLY (after many years!) employed as an Amazon delivery driver and putting her life together.
All of that because of possession of stolen goods and the fact that she smoked some pot now and then to help alleviate the pain of her arthritis. (She has very bad arthritis because of autoimmune disease.) She also got some crappy legal advice from a crappy public defender because she couldn't afford an attorney and was scared that some bad people she knew would hurt her or her family.
I realize these property crimes are a way to keep our cities from being overrun with homeless druggies living in tents but I also think that relaxing sentencing guidelines for minor crimes is a positive thing. A lot of people have their lives ruined because some cop wants an arrest and some DA somewhere wants a conviction in order to get promoted.
That is unfortunate what happened to your niece. Laws that effectively decriminalize property crimes are not the solution to the challenges she faced.
Do you really believe 2 years in prison and 7 years without work (because it is classified as a felony) makes sense as punishment for someone stealing a piece of jewelry?
dimitrig said:
Do you really believe 2 years in prison and 7 years without work (because it is classified as a felony) makes sense as punishment for someone stealing a piece of jewelry?
Given what you posted, your niece should not have been a convicted felon. Myself and nobody else here has said she should be a convicted felon.
Do you really think decriminalizing jewelry theft is the solution?
oski003 said:dimitrig said:
Do you really believe 2 years in prison and 7 years without work (because it is classified as a felony) makes sense as punishment for someone stealing a piece of jewelry?
Given what you posted, your niece should not have been a convicted felon. Myself and nobody else here has said she should be a convicted felon.
Do you really think decriminalizing jewelry theft is the solution?
I think that adjusting our classifications of and mandatory sentencing for certain crimes such as property crimes makes a lot of sense.
Right now a crime is considered a grand theft if the item is valued at $950 or more except if it is domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops or fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, algae, or other aquacultural products in which case the value only needs to be $250.
There are three possible sentences for such a crime:
16 months in prison, 2 years in prison, or 3 years in prison
Does that sounds reasonable to you?
dimitrig said:oski003 said:dimitrig said:
Do you really believe 2 years in prison and 7 years without work (because it is classified as a felony) makes sense as punishment for someone stealing a piece of jewelry?
Given what you posted, your niece should not have been a convicted felon. Myself and nobody else here has said she should be a convicted felon.
Do you really think decriminalizing jewelry theft is the solution?
I think that adjusting our classifications of and mandatory sentencing for certain crimes such as property crimes makes a lot of sense.
Right now a crime is considered a grand theft if the item is valued at $950 or more except if it is domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops or fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, algae, or other aquacultural products in which case the value only needs to be $250.
There are three possible sentences for such a crime:
16 months in prison, 2 years in prison, or 3 years in prison
Does that sounds reasonable to you?
Prosecutors should have the ability to bring a grand theft charge for a property crime, even if it means the person could be a felon and potentially serve up to 16 months in jail.
"Grand theft under California Penal Code Section 487(a) is defined as the illegal or unlawful taking of another person's property which is valued in excess of $950. This crime can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor."
What I detest is the legislature taking away the ability of a police officer to write more than a ticket to someone who steals property valued at $950 or less.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Complete Sweep Over Pitt
by Cal Athletics
Bears Beat Out Top Comp for Houston RB AJ Sanders
by Jim McGill
Bears Grab 4 Star Georgia SF Jake Wilkins
by Jim McGill
Bears Embracing 'Daily Process' During Spring Ball
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal’s Men Win 5th Straight Big Meet
by Cal Athletics