[flagged]
I consider myself liberal, but this sentence highlights the point a lot of people have issue with: that somehow many "on the left" have rationalized theft as being OK if you're poor. That is absolutely the point at which society and the social contract breaks down, because it becomes exceedingly easy for anyone to rationalize taking something from others because "they deserve it" in some way.
I'm all for providing better services and support (not to mention a better structured economy) for those who are poor. I also believe "the punishment should fit the crime", and stealing low-dollar goods should result in commensurate punishment. I'm not for allowing the poor to steal with no consequences just because they can't afford stuff.
But what is the alternative? Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. You can beg and try to get enough together to buy something, but it's not really a good alternative either, especially since it's not guaranteed. So at what point would someone be in their right to steal food to survive? Is it never okay, meaning they'll have to starve in the worst case?
Naturally these problems should be solved long before anyone comes to the place of having to steal - but that's not the world we live in. And I'm strictly talking about absolute necessities, nothing beyond that. But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets?
Can we please be real about what we're talking about? This isn't early 19th century Paris from Les Miserables. On the contrary, SF has some of the best public services for the destitute of any place in the country. There are tons of places around the city where one can get free food.
> But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets?
My main concern is not about "a bit of money in the store owners pockets". It's abou signaling that the rules simply do not apply, that laws can be picked and chosen based on how you feel about the perpetrator.
Again, I said the punishment should fit the crime:
1. The person should be arrested, and basically be given the equivalent of "We'll show you how to access services in SF so you don't need to steal in the future. If you're not caught stealing in the next X months, your record will be cleared".
2. For further infractions, they should be given escalating warnings and escalating penalties.
Correct and irrelevant: they are both forms of theft.
> different causes, different solutions.
Different motivations is more accurate. There also isn’t a “solution” per se, but suppression tactics do exist if you have both a PD and a DA worth a damn.
> Conflating all retail theft is simply misleading.
I didn’t. I pointed out the obvious: theft is theft. This is a commonality between “shoplifting” and “smash and grab”. The first term downplays the violence against the storeowners by people taking their stuff (cuz it could be worse, armed robbery is also a form of theft so as much as I detest softening euphemisms, the distinction isn’t useless) and the other paints a more violent and organized picture of people taking their stuff, but ultimately the act that both describe is theft.
Either way, they are criminal activities that ought to be suppressed. We shouldn’t be tolerant to thieves.
Remember the Fed has stated they have no responsibility to protect you.
Inb4 yeah both sides of the political parties are to blame for restrictions.
Your point is not amplified by doing that.
You have literally everywhere else on the internet to argue left vs right, some people want to have a different style of debate and come here for it (since it is designed for that different kind of debate).
EDIT: To be clear, that different style of debate is trying to understand and solve problems rather than just lay blame for political points.
EDIT2: Please focus on the constructive part of your statements. I think it’s fine you want to hire more police, that was not the rule breaking part of your argument (the entire argument had to follow the rules). The mostly unrelated attacks on straw men political parties and specific politicians are the problem.
EDIT3: I agree that more police officers may be part of the solution. I think they are not, however, a panacea and we should spend more time thinking about the aspirations of what we want downtown SF to be more than thinking about how to remove people we do not like from it.