# Breakdown In Civil Order

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Auto theft by stata law is now treated as a misdemeanor not a felony. Auto tefts rise. Drugs have been decriminalized while drug problems increase.

Car theft a misdemeanor? That's insane.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Oh, no! Not the system working as intended to protect innocent people from being punished for a crime on the mere suspicion of the police! What is the world coming to!
No, the system is working to release people who should not be released. Releasing people for no bail for felony theft is crazy. And California laws also allow people commit crimes over and over again and get released each time. Like in NY (grazie Cuomo!)

LAPD detective Jamie McBride via Fox News said:
I blame the [American Civil Liberties Union]. I think they sold everybody a bag of goods with this zero bail policy as we see. Our chief came out yesterday and said that 14 of these people that were arrested did not stay in jail. They got released and some of them were arrested and out on release from a prior smash and grab robbery
From here.

Presumption of innocence, until convicted by a court of law, is a fundamental element of the legal system in a free country. That's practically the defining freedom; Without it, a police officer can wield absolute power over anybody for any reason or none.

Presumption of innocence is a good thing, but this is taking it too far. Letting people out for felony crimes without even requiring bail is not a good policy. Neither is catch and release upon rearrest for a new crime. Cities like NYC, LA and SF have become playgrounds for criminals.

Calling for suspects not to be released, even on bail, is a call for totalitarianism, and a direct attack on freedom.
Some suspects should be held without bail. Especially when dangerous and/or they continue to commit crimes while out on bail.

Last edited:

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Oh, no! Not the system working as intended to protect innocent people from being punished for a crime on the mere suspicion of the police! What is the world coming to!
No, the system is working to release people who should not be released. Releasing people for no bail for felony theft is crazy. And California laws also allow people commit crimes over and over again and get released each time. Like in NY (grazie Cuomo!)

LAPD detective Jamie McBride via Fox News said:
I blame the [American Civil Liberties Union]. I think they sold everybody a bag of goods with this zero bail policy as we see. Our chief came out yesterday and said that 14 of these people that were arrested did not stay in jail. They got released and some of them were arrested and out on release from a prior smash and grab robbery
From here.

Presumption of innocence, until convicted by a court of law, is a fundamental element of the legal system in a free country. That's practically the defining freedom; Without it, a police officer can wield absolute power over anybody for any reason or none.

Presumption of innocence is a good thing, but this is taking it too far. Letting people out for felony crimes without even requiring bail is not a good policy. Neither is catch and release upon rearrest for a new crime. Cities like NYC, LA and SF have become playgrounds for criminals.

Calling for suspects not to be released, even on bail, is a call for totalitarianism, and a direct attack on freedom.
Some suspects should be held without bail. Especially when dangerous and/or they continue to commit crimes while out on bail.
Yes, some should, and they are.

Shoplifters?

Fuck that. Freedom might be unimportant to you, but I think it's a pretty good thing.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Parents of Michigan school shooting suspect face charges : NPR
Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of the 15-year-old accused of murdering four students at a high school in Michigan, have been charged with four counts each of involuntary manslaughter — an exceptionally rare move the prosecutor said was warranted by laying out a timeline of "egregious" mistakes and missed opportunities to prevent the shooting.

The parents of Ethan Crumbley purchased the handgun used in Tuesday's shooting at Oxford High School, apparently as a Christmas gift for their son on Black Friday, and stored it improperly, said Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald at a news conference midday Friday.

Then, when called to a meeting Tuesday morning by school officials to discuss a disturbing, violent drawing made by their son, the parents did not inquire about the whereabouts of the gun or inform the school that they had recently purchased a gun for him, said McDonald.

After the meeting, the younger Crumbley was allowed to return to class. Shortly afterward, authorities say, he fatally shot four fellow students and wounded six others and a teacher.
In effect, criminal negligence.
If convicted, Jennifer and James Crumbley face up to 15 years in prison for each count. Ethan Crumbley has been charged with 24 felonies, including four counts of murder and one count of terrorism. The younger Crumbley was arrested after the shooting Tuesday. At the time of Friday's news conference, his parents were not yet in custody.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Yes, some should, and they are.
They evidently are not in fauxgressive states like NY and CA, and within CA especially cities like LA and SF.

Another article about the "catch and release" policies in LA:
Arrested 4 times in 3 weeks: L.A. police blame zero bail for rise in repeat offenders

LA Times said:
Eric Medina has been arrested four times on suspicion of grand theft auto in the last three weeks.
It began with the theft of a Ford van April 9, authorities said. Within a day, he was back on the streets, helped by California’s statewide zero-bail policy for lesser offenders fueled by the coronavirus outbreak.
Five days later, officers apprehended him with a stolen Toyota truck, officials allege. Again he went to jail, only to be freed without bail. Police say he stole another Toyota truck on April 20. And then last weekend, Medina was arrested yet again in a stolen 2009 Ford Focus.

People keep committing crimes and they keep getting released, often with no bail at all.

Shoplifters?
These were not mere shoplifters. These were a) robberies, as they used force and b) organized.

Fuck that. Freedom might be unimportant to you, but I think it's a pretty good thing.
Freedom of robbers is pretty unimportant to me, correct.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Yes, some should, and they are.
They evidently are not in fauxgressive states like NY and CA, and within CA especially cities like LA and SF.

Another article about the "catch and release" policies in LA:
Arrested 4 times in 3 weeks: L.A. police blame zero bail for rise in repeat offenders

LA Times said:
Eric Medina has been arrested four times on suspicion of grand theft auto in the last three weeks.
It began with the theft of a Ford van April 9, authorities said. Within a day, he was back on the streets, helped by California’s statewide zero-bail policy for lesser offenders fueled by the coronavirus outbreak.
Five days later, officers apprehended him with a stolen Toyota truck, officials allege. Again he went to jail, only to be freed without bail. Police say he stole another Toyota truck on April 20. And then last weekend, Medina was arrested yet again in a stolen 2009 Ford Focus.

People keep committing crimes and they keep getting released, often with no bail at all.

Shoplifters?
These were not mere shoplifters. These were a) robberies, as they used force and b) organized.

Fuck that. Freedom might be unimportant to you, but I think it's a pretty good thing.
Freedom of robbers is pretty unimportant to me, correct.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
Yes, some should, and they are.
They evidently are not in fauxgressive states like NY and CA, and within CA especially cities like LA and SF.

Another article about the "catch and release" policies in LA:
Arrested 4 times in 3 weeks: L.A. police blame zero bail for rise in repeat offenders

LA Times said:
Eric Medina has been arrested four times on suspicion of grand theft auto in the last three weeks.
It began with the theft of a Ford van April 9, authorities said. Within a day, he was back on the streets, helped by California’s statewide zero-bail policy for lesser offenders fueled by the coronavirus outbreak.
Five days later, officers apprehended him with a stolen Toyota truck, officials allege. Again he went to jail, only to be freed without bail. Police say he stole another Toyota truck on April 20. And then last weekend, Medina was arrested yet again in a stolen 2009 Ford Focus.
So do you believe that if Mr Medina had had to post bail, he would have given up his life of crime?

Or how do you explain the claim that the policy increases the total number of repeat offenders?

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Yes, some should, and they are.
They evidently are not in fauxgressive states like NY and CA, and within CA especially cities like LA and SF.

Another article about the "catch and release" policies in LA:
Arrested 4 times in 3 weeks: L.A. police blame zero bail for rise in repeat offenders

LA Times said:
Eric Medina has been arrested four times on suspicion of grand theft auto in the last three weeks.
It began with the theft of a Ford van April 9, authorities said. Within a day, he was back on the streets, helped by California’s statewide zero-bail policy for lesser offenders fueled by the coronavirus outbreak.
Five days later, officers apprehended him with a stolen Toyota truck, officials allege. Again he went to jail, only to be freed without bail. Police say he stole another Toyota truck on April 20. And then last weekend, Medina was arrested yet again in a stolen 2009 Ford Focus.
So do you believe that if Mr Medina had had to post bail, he would have given up his life of crime?

Or how do you explain the claim that the policy increases the total number of repeat offenders?
I think the point is not to release someone over and over particularly if accused of the exact same crime.
Bottom line is the optics are terrible. If politicians want to keep their jobs, they’ll make the necessary changes. People read these stories or worse, read the first couple paragraphs of these stories or worse still, just hear the headlines and and they get scared. Scared for themselves. Scared for their families. See, even liberals want to feel safe in their own communities. Well, maybe the well-heeled ones in gated communities can hold out a little longer. But when we have to go to Santa Monica Place, we have to go to Santa Monica Place, don’t we?

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Yes, some should, and they are.
They evidently are not in fauxgressive states like NY and CA, and within CA especially cities like LA and SF.

Another article about the "catch and release" policies in LA:
Arrested 4 times in 3 weeks: L.A. police blame zero bail for rise in repeat offenders

LA Times said:
Eric Medina has been arrested four times on suspicion of grand theft auto in the last three weeks.
It began with the theft of a Ford van April 9, authorities said. Within a day, he was back on the streets, helped by California’s statewide zero-bail policy for lesser offenders fueled by the coronavirus outbreak.
Five days later, officers apprehended him with a stolen Toyota truck, officials allege. Again he went to jail, only to be freed without bail. Police say he stole another Toyota truck on April 20. And then last weekend, Medina was arrested yet again in a stolen 2009 Ford Focus.
So do you believe that if Mr Medina had had to post bail, he would have given up his life of crime?

Or how do you explain the claim that the policy increases the total number of repeat offenders?
I think the point is not to release someone over and over particularly if accused of the exact same crime.
Bottom line is the optics are terrible. If politicians want to keep their jobs, they’ll make the necessary changes. People read these stories or worse, read the first couple paragraphs of these stories or worse still, just hear the headlines and and they get scared. Scared for themselves. Scared for their families. See, even liberals want to feel safe in their own communities. Well, maybe the well-heeled ones in gated communities can hold out a little longer. But when we have to go to Santa Monica Place, we have to go to Santa Monica Place, don’t we?
I think the point is not to release someone over and over particularly if accused of the exact same crime.

Bottom line is the optics are terrible. If police want to keep their jobs, they’ll make the necessary changes. People read these stories or worse, read the first couple paragraphs of these stories or worse still, just hear the headlines and and they get scared. Scared for themselves. Scared for their families. See, black people want to feel safe in their own communities.

Maybe we should start charging killer cops FIRST.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
Ah, "optics". The real issue.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
How this will end:

The police aren't guilty of not solving crimes, and the legal system isn't guilty of not prosecuting them. What they are damned for is not keeping pace with the 24 hour news cycle and its tireless culture of outraged hot takes. "Optics", not effectiveness.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
So do you believe that if Mr Medina had had to post bail, he would have given up his life of crime?
It certainly would have been more of a deterrent if he had to post bail vs. just being released. No bail sends a message tat that the system does not treat grand theft as a serious crime.
Also, if you commit another crime while out on bail, being remanded to custody should be a real option or else the bail should be much steeper than the first time around: frequent flyer bonus.
Third time's the charm? Remand should be the default, and his lawyer should come up with some damn good reasons why he should be granted bail.
Instead we get repeat offenders being released on bail over and over again. No wonder they do not treat the system seriously, when it has become a laughingstock!

Or how do you explain the claim that the policy increases the total number of repeat offenders?
They do not perceive their actions to have any consequences, so they do it again. No consequences again? So they do it the third time.
Not exactly rocket surgery, but evidently well beyond the cognitive abilities of California politicians and judges.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
So do you believe that if Mr Medina had had to post bail, he would have given up his life of crime?
It certainly would have been more of a deterrent if he had to post bail vs. just being released. No bail sends a message tat that the system does not treat grand theft as a serious crime.
Also, if you commit another crime while out on bail, being remanded to custody should be a real option or else the bail should be much steeper than the first time around: frequent flyer bonus.
Third time's the charm? Remand should be the default, and his lawyer should come up with some damn good reasons why he should be granted bail.
Instead we get repeat offenders being released on bail over and over again.
Nope.

By definition, a person who is suspected of a crime while on bail is not a repeat offender, because they have yet to be convicted of the offense for which they were bailed.

Suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

That's a fundamental principle in a free country; You cannot claim to support freedom if you take the position that the law should treat someone more harshly due to a crime for which they have not been convicted.
No wonder they do not treat the system seriously, when it has become a laughingstock!
The system hasn't become a laughing stock; Rather, as usual, authoritarian madmen in the media have invited you to become outraged at changes they completely fabricated, and you have swallowed their bait unquestioningly, and are now calling for a move towards an authoritarian police state.

Fuck that.
Or how do you explain the claim that the policy increases the total number of repeat offenders?
They do not perceive their actions to have any consequences, so they do it again. No consequences again? So they do it the third time.
Not exactly rocket surgery, but evidently well beyond the cognitive abilities of California politicians and judges.
Criminals don't care about consequences, because they expect to get away with their crimes.

That was true even when people were hanged for petty theft; The severity of the punishment did bugger all to reduce crime, because the criminals didn't contemplate possible detection, much less punishment, before acting.

The entire history of criminology shows that harsh punishments do nothing to reduce the incidence or severity of crime; The uninformed opinions of right-wing media buffoons do not constitute a rebuttal of this fact.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
How this will end:
Given that this is California, they will likely be out within a year or two.

The police aren't guilty of not solving crimes, and the legal system isn't guilty of not prosecuting them. What they are damned for is not keeping pace with the 24 hour news cycle and its tireless culture of outraged hot takes. "Optics", not effectiveness.
Often, the prosecutors are refusing to prosecute. Look at 2020 #BLM and Antifa rioters. Most were never prosecuted, and of those who were, most were prosecuted federally. The fauxgressive DAs in lefty cities like Portland, Minneapolis, NYC or Seattle - cities that saw most of the destruction - preferred to look the other way most of the time.

And even when prosecutors prosecute, they are always liable to get out early. Overcrowding is a popular excuse, especially in California. Then you have overly eager parole boards, that give us cases like this one:

Gang member fatally stabs Columbia U. teaching assistant, knifes second victim before arrest in Central Park: NYPD

NY Daily News said:
Ex-con Vincent Pinkney, on parole for a Queens gang assault conviction and owner of a long rap sheet, cried out in delight after the second Thursday night stabbing of man walking along Columbus Ave. near W. 110th St., a witness told the Daily News. Police sources indicated the blood-thirsty attacker, arrested in Central Park after he was identified by the dog-walking couple, belonged to the Queens-based EBK gang, an acronym for “Everybody Killas.”
[...]
Pinkney, 25, of Manhattan, was previously arrested 16 times, including multiple charges of robbery and assault, according to law enforcement sources. He was out on parole for the Queens gang assault conviction that landed him behind bars for four years.
The victim in the 2013 beatdown was attacked by Pinkney and four other men, and he needed 25 stitches to close a cut on the face and another 20 staples for a gash to his head.

We need to remove nonsensical crimes from law books (marijuana, sex work being prime examples) but then really go after real crimes like thefts, robberies, assaults, murders etc.

#### Derec

##### Contributor

There is already a dedicated thread on this case. No need to post this here.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Nope.

By definition, a person who is suspected of a crime while on bail is not a repeat offender, because they have yet to be convicted of the offense for which they were bailed.

To quote one bilby, "nope". And to paraphrase Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

A society should be able to defend itself against criminals. That includes requiring bail and remanding suspects to custody when appropriate. Own recognizance release should be limited to minor misdemeanors and even then for first offense only. And flagrant abusers of the bond system - as Medina certainly is - need to be in jail pending trial.

Suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
True, but pretrial detention does not violate that principle.

That's a fundamental principle in a free country; You cannot claim to support freedom if you take the position that the law should treat someone more harshly due to a crime for which they have not been convicted.
Do you guys not have pretrial detention down under? Here it is not a novel concept and it is not necessarily violating principles of a free society. A society cannot be free when people like Medina can steal cars, get arrested, and get released right away only to steal cars again and again. There must be a balance.

The system hasn't become a laughing stock; Rather, as usual, authoritarian madmen in the media have invited you to become outraged at changes they completely fabricated, and you have swallowed their bait unquestioningly, and are now calling for a move towards an authoritarian police state.
The changes in bail laws and practices in places like CA, WA or NY pushed by so-called progressives are not "fabricated". They are real And they have real consequences.
And I am not an authoritarian, but at the same time, stealing cars should not be an "own recognizance" offense. Again, there must be a balance. Some people should be in jail pending trial. Medina is one of them. That does not mean there is no place for criminal and bail reform. It just means that it should not be kneejerk release of people who flaunt the system.

Fuck that.
My sentiments exactly!

Criminals don't care about consequences, because they expect to get away with their crimes.
And being released with no bail after you've stolen your fourth car is merely reinforcing that expectation.

The entire history of criminology shows that harsh punishments do nothing to reduce the incidence or severity of crime;
If you really believe that lack of real consequences is not an encouragement to steal stuff etc., then I have some oceanfront property in Reno to sell you.
The uninformed opinions of right-wing media buffoons do not constitute a rebuttal of this fact.
So your brilliant solution is slaps on the wrist (at the very most!) for stealing cars or robbing stores?

Last edited:

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member

More than a thousand people reported lasting health effects after being exposed to teargas during protests in Portland, Oregon, last summer, according to a newly published scientific study.

Nearly 900 people reported abnormal menstrual cycles, including intense cramping and increased bleeding, that began or persisted days after their initial exposure to the teargas. Hundreds of others complained of other negative health impacts, including severe headaches, nausea, diarrhea, and mental health concerns.

The new research, based on an online survey of more than 2,200 people, challenges claims that the health consequences of being teargassed are minor and temporary, said Dr Britta Torgrimson-Ojerio, a researcher at Kaiser Permanente Northwest and the lead author of the study.

Teargas used on Portland protesters risks ‘grave health hazards’, says lawsuit

It is also the first published, peer-reviewed study to confirm a link between teargas and abnormal menstruation, a connection that was widely discussed by American protesters on social media and in news reports last year.

Participants in racial justice protests against police violence last summer in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Rochester and other cities told media outlets that their exposure to teargas had been followed by unexpected bleeding, unusually painful cramps, and other disruptions of their typical menstrual cycles.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
if you have money, property, wealth, possessions, whatever... you don't have it because you earned it. you only have it because everyone else decided to let you have it.

there is a cabal of political and economic fascists in america who evidently are completely unaware of the existence of the french revolution.
if you shit on the lower class long enough, eventually the lower class will have a "let's chop everyone's heads off" parade.
Like they chopped off the heads of Robespierre and other social revolutionary leaders who promoted universal suffrage and abolition of slavery and privilege. And like they chopped off the head of socialist agitator Gracchus Babeuf, who championed for the poor and against private property and the rich and powerful. And also today's populist lower-class Revolution will resume this parade of crushing the Leftist social reformers and liberals and democratic leaders.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member

More than a thousand people reported lasting health effects after being exposed to teargas during protests in Portland, Oregon, last summer, according to a newly published scientific study.

Nearly 900 people reported abnormal menstrual cycles, including intense cramping and increased bleeding, that began or persisted days after their initial exposure to the teargas. Hundreds of others complained of other negative health impacts, including severe headaches, nausea, diarrhea, and mental health concerns.

Duh! Know what else messes with menstural periods? Stress. Think getting tear gassed isn't stressful?

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
12 Major US cities shatter their homicide records;

Philadelphia has shattered its 30-year-old record for annual murders, surpassing the much larger cities of New York and Los Angeles as a dozen major cities post all-time records for homicides -- all of them with Democratic mayors. As of December 6, Philadelphia had recorded 521 homicides for the year, surpassing New York's 443 and Los Angeles at 352. This is despite the fact that with a population of 1.5 million, the City of Brotherly Love is less than half the size of Los Angeles and one-fifth of New York.

DailyMail

Just a coincidence I'm sure;

#### Derec

##### Contributor
12 Major US cities shatter their homicide records;
Just a coincidence I'm sure;

Of course. Far from me to suggest it may have anything whatsoever to do with fauxgressive mayors and DAs (like Garcon in LA or Krasner in Phily) in those cities.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Participants in racial justice protests against police violence last summer in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Rochester and other cities told media outlets that their exposure to teargas had been followed by unexpected bleeding, unusually painful cramps, and other disruptions of their typical menstrual cycles.
"Racial justice protests" my ass. These were radical anti-police riots that led to looting, vandalism and arson of businesses and government buildings.

The new research, based on an online survey of more than 2,200 people, challenges claims that the health consequences of being teargassed are minor and temporary, said Dr Britta Torgrimson-Ojerio, a researcher at Kaiser Permanente Northwest and the lead author of the study.
So, this "study" relied solely on self-reporting on an online questionnaire. Obviously #BLM and Antifa rioters have a vested interest in exaggerating or even making up negative effects of being tear gassed.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
Of course. Far from me to suggest it may have anything whatsoever to do with fauxgressive mayors and DAs (like Garcon in LA or Krasner in Phily) in those cities.

The insufferable prick Gavin Newsom is so dumb he said out loud about all the shit happening in California is not down to policies because the same shit is happening in other parts of the country. Yeah dumbass, the same things happen in places with the same policies. He really is as dumb as a rock.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.
No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.
No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

A disturbing sentiment. If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being. The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes. The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
A disturbing sentiment.
Only if you take everything so literally you should change your handle to "Amelia Bedelia".

If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being.
It's a commonly used phrase outside of fishing, specifically about lax crime policies.
Example:
Catch-and-release policies create revolving door of crime as pending cases pile up

The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes.

I disagree that organized retail robberies or car thefts are "minor crimes", especially repeat offenses.
And they certainly should not result in just a fine. That said, I never said anything about life imprisonment or worse either.

The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.
Well, they should not be "relased[sic] pretty quickly". Minor shoplifting, yes, I can see a fine for first offense. Retail robbery is another kettle of fish altogether. As is stealing a car. Both of those should result in prison time, especially for repeat offenders.
Now, before trial a judge should impose bail for serious theft/robbery crimes and a judge should be able to remand suspects until trial if they get picked up again. Unlike what is happening in places like CA and NY where criminals commit crimes over and over again and are released every time, often with no bail requirement whatsoever.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
A disturbing sentiment.
Only if you take everything so literally you should change your handle to "Amelia Bedelia".

If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being.
It's a commonly used phrase outside of fishing, specifically about lax crime policies.
Example:
Catch-and-release policies create revolving door of crime as pending cases pile up

The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes.

I disagree that organized retail robberies or car thefts are "minor crimes", especially repeat offenses.
Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail. The Republican lies about prop 47 forbidding the police from fighting organized crime are just that: lies. And lies that are especially insulting to the police themselves, who are thus groundlessly accused of inaction.

I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one. Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
A disturbing sentiment.
Only if you take everything so literally you should change your handle to "Amelia Bedelia".

If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being.
It's a commonly used phrase outside of fishing, specifically about lax crime policies.
Example:
Catch-and-release policies create revolving door of crime as pending cases pile up

The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes.

I disagree that organized retail robberies or car thefts are "minor crimes", especially repeat offenses.
Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail. The Republican lies about prop 47 forbidding the police from fighting organized crime are just that: lies. And lies that are especially insulting to the police themselves, who are thus groundlessly accused of inaction.

I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one. Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.
I would pose more that human beings are clearly capable of being compatible with the idea of society and so we each have both the expectations of responsibility and the benefit of the doubt as regards treatment that any given "human" is capable of being a "person".

I would note several "animals" that are a sight closer to personhood though than a fair number of "humans", and I think both deserve the consideration of quarter their behavior allows.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.
No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

A disturbing sentiment. If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being. The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes. The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

I don't see that he's saying they never should be released, but there seems to be no punishment for shoplifting.

#### Emily Lake

##### Might be a replicant
The point was prisons and the other costs of failing to address homelessness is probably substantially more of a fiscal drain than it would be to address those problems. I realize that American prisons are not up to the standards of Norway's "comfy prison" model, but even with that, the cost of keeping those people incarcerated and of paying for their healthcare costs is ludicrous. Furthermore, the cost of paying for their emergency room visits whenever they get sick or injured due to the hazards that are related to homelessness is ludicrous.

The UCLA study that I provided a few posts back was actually very interesting. I think there is a very strong economic case for simply providing shelter for the homeless. Several models for it already exist.

As a person that has been through intermittent homelessness around the time of the recession, I can tell you that being homeless does not make you want to work. It makes you want to be dead. It makes you want to lie down and give up. It puts you into vicious cycles of self-defeating behavior. The idea that making people sleep outside is going to make them more moral is outright unhinged. It just doesn't work that way.

I think one of the complications here is that solutions that are good for intermittent homelessness aren't necessarily good for long-term homelessness. They have different underlying causes.

Someone homeless due to job loss, temporary housing loss, fleeing an abusive relationship, etc. is in a very different situation from those who are long-term homeless due to severe mental illness or drug addiction. They need different solutions. Providing short-term housing and support for intermittent homelessness is a good idea... but I think it also produce a risk if that housing is also provided for long-term homelessness.

#### Emily Lake

##### Might be a replicant
It is getting worse in Seattle every week.

I was at a bus stop in downtown Seattle. There was a walk in tent on the sidewalk. People walking up making transactions at te door.

From a local report roughly 1/3 of homeless camps are mental ilnness and drug addiction, 1/3 people gaming the system, and 1/3 a front for crime.

We all know it, yet there is no strong response.

It took over a year to begin to clear a camp on a school property. Meddles, kids being threatened.

Multiple shootings within a few miles of where I live.

Auto theft by stata law is now treated as a misdemeanor not a felony. Auto tefts rise. Drugs have been decriminalized while drug problems increase.

Stores being robbed by smash and grab gangs multiple times.

Our city and county govt refuse to acknowledge the connection to policy.
I don't miss the Seattle area. It was already developing problems when I left, but it just seems to keep getting worse. Most of the west coast seems to be having very similar problems.

What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
I think that she was being skeptical about news reports of these crimes because she thought that it was news outlets liking drama.

Seems like an honest mistake on her part.

The way some people talk about crime they won't be happy unless they can kill everybody that they dislike, because they are all evil monsters.
No need to go that far. But let's stop this inane "catch and release".

A disturbing sentiment. If a person shoplifts, they should never be released? I presume that isn't what you meant, but it's how it comes across when you use a fishing metaphor to describe a living human being. The alternative to releasing a fish is killing it, not giving it a fine. Whether it's a night in the hoosegow then release or a year in county jail then release, minor crimes have always been and still are... minor crimes. The people who commit them are relased pretty quickly. Because this isn't a totalitarian hellhole. The question is how long to keep someone, not whether to release them.

I don't see that he's saying they never should be released, but there seems to be no punishment for shoplifting.

Which is why I said "I presume that isn't what you meant", rather optimistically. But his point makes no sense unless that is what he means, as "detain for a while, then release eventually" is the current status quo, the only disagreement is how long to hold someone, especially without charging them with a crime, perhaps prosecuting them through a public court process in which both sides of the legal exchange are likely funded by the state, and jailing them, again at great expense to taxpayers and an already-overrun state prison system. The position of the state is that given our limited resources, state prosecutors should prioritize major crimes over minor misdemeanors. Shoplifting is still illegal, and in every single case that has been brought for our consideration in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have either already been arrested or are actively being pursued. Mall security just isn't the priority of the police in the field. And cannot be, practically speaking. Not in conservative states either, they just have to pretend to be brutal on petty criminals in order to impress their base. Ultimately, they don't arrest everyone accused of minor crimes either, they don't have any more room in their prisons than the rest of the country, nor the money to fund a mass jailing and extended legal process for every citizen who has ever been accused of shoplifting.

Republicans are under-educated as a rule, and though in theory they oppose taxation, they also seem to think that money, time, and the patience of the citizenry will grow on trees, as long as they're being spent in the cause of doing nasty things to those nasty people they've been taught to hate.

#### SigmatheZeta

##### Senior Member
The point was prisons and the other costs of failing to address homelessness is probably substantially more of a fiscal drain than it would be to address those problems. I realize that American prisons are not up to the standards of Norway's "comfy prison" model, but even with that, the cost of keeping those people incarcerated and of paying for their healthcare costs is ludicrous. Furthermore, the cost of paying for their emergency room visits whenever they get sick or injured due to the hazards that are related to homelessness is ludicrous.

The UCLA study that I provided a few posts back was actually very interesting. I think there is a very strong economic case for simply providing shelter for the homeless. Several models for it already exist.

As a person that has been through intermittent homelessness around the time of the recession, I can tell you that being homeless does not make you want to work. It makes you want to be dead. It makes you want to lie down and give up. It puts you into vicious cycles of self-defeating behavior. The idea that making people sleep outside is going to make them more moral is outright unhinged. It just doesn't work that way.

I think one of the complications here is that solutions that are good for intermittent homelessness aren't necessarily good for long-term homelessness. They have different underlying causes.

Someone homeless due to job loss, temporary housing loss, fleeing an abusive relationship, etc. is in a very different situation from those who are long-term homeless due to severe mental illness or drug addiction. They need different solutions. Providing short-term housing and support for intermittent homelessness is a good idea... but I think it also produce a risk if that housing is also provided for long-term homelessness.
So people with severe mental illnesses should sleep on the ground, since we have concluded that that is a cure for mental illness. That is apparently what Americans think, and who am I to argue? After all, I am just a miniature dragon. I am of no consequence.

My opinion is that we should not even allow people to sleep out in the elements. It is very bad for their mental health, and if their mental health becomes damaged, then they are a liability to everybody else. Damaged people are a liability. I have a feeling that the Christians would get mad if we started euthanizing them, but we should either euthanize them or provide them with shelter so that their minds will not go completely weird.

I have been without adequate nutrition and shelter before, and I'll tell you what it did to me: it took me from being merely weird to being seriously not well, mentally. I was having florid hallucinations at night, and I was having seizures, at one point. Believe me, it did not cure me of anything. If somebody had not rescued me, then I would have either seriously hurt somebody or gotten seriously hurt.

If somebody seriously just does not give a shit about the homeless, then they should just drop pretenses and call for the homeless to be euthanized. Let's eat them, too. We'll make them into a new health food. We'll call it Soylent Green.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member

I think one of the complications here is that solutions that are good for intermittent homelessness aren't necessarily good for long-term homelessness. They have different underlying causes.

Someone homeless due to job loss, temporary housing loss, fleeing an abusive relationship, etc. is in a very different situation from those who are long-term homeless due to severe mental illness or drug addiction. They need different solutions. Providing short-term housing and support for intermittent homelessness is a good idea... but I think it also produce a risk if that housing is also provided for long-term homelessness.

I partially agree. Low earning potential in a high cost city could be a long term problem.

I do agree that there are two very different issues that can't be handled with a one-size-fits-all solution.

#### Trausti

##### Deleted
What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

Cynicism may be appropriate. In Seattle, homelessness is blamed on big business and rents - not mental illness and drug addiction. Obviously, a person with severe mental illness or drug addiction can not hold down a job, let alone pay rent. But it’s politically incorrect to notice that. Instead, the homeless are used as a means to increase spending; e.g., direct public funds to special interests. Plans to open injection sites are not companionate but callous.

#### SigmatheZeta

##### Senior Member
What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

Cynicism may be appropriate. In Seattle, homelessness is blamed on big business and rents - not mental illness and drug addiction. Obviously, a person with severe mental illness or drug addiction can not hold down a job, let alone pay rent. But it’s politically incorrect to notice that. Instead, the homeless are used as a means to increase spending; e.g., direct public funds to special interests. Plans to open injection sites are not companionate but callous.

Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.

Best evidence from cohort and modeling studies suggests that SISs are associated with lower overdose mortality (88 fewer overdose deaths per 100 000 person-years [PYs]), 67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections. Effects on hospitalizations are unknown.

And when I say "cheap," I mean it costs less to society than not having them:

With very conservative estimates, it is predicted that the addition of each supervised injection facility (up-to a maximum of three) in Montreal will on average prevent 11 cases of HIV and 65 cases of HCV each year. As a result, there is a net cost saving of CDN$0.686 million (HIV) and CDN$0.8 million (HCV) for each additional supervised injection site each year. This translates into a net average benefit-cost ratio of 1.21: 1 for both HIV and HCV.

The cost-benefit analysis strikes again.

It might be even cheaper to just deal with the homeless by having them shot, but that would make the Christians mad.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
So people with severe mental illnesses should sleep on the ground, since we have concluded that that is a cure for mental illness. That is apparently what Americans think, and who am I to argue? After all, I am just a miniature dragon. I am of no consequence.

It's not that, it's that we don't have a better answer. Providing accommodation just results in destroyed accommodation.

My opinion is that we should not even allow people to sleep out in the elements. It is very bad for their mental health, and if their mental health becomes damaged, then they are a liability to everybody else. Damaged people are a liability. I have a feeling that the Christians would get mad if we started euthanizing them, but we should either euthanize them or provide them with shelter so that their minds will not go completely weird.
And how does it harm one's mental health? Camping is something people do!

I have been without adequate nutrition and shelter before, and I'll tell you what it did to me: it took me from being merely weird to being seriously not well, mentally. I was having florid hallucinations at night, and I was having seizures, at one point. Believe me, it did not cure me of anything. If somebody had not rescued me, then I would have either seriously hurt somebody or gotten seriously hurt.
Yes, nutrition is a problem.

If somebody seriously just does not give a shit about the homeless, then they should just drop pretenses and call for the homeless to be euthanized. Let's eat them, too. We'll make them into a new health food. We'll call it Soylent Green.
It's not a matter of not giving a shit, it's a matter of not having good solutions.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
What I find frustrating is that it's an overdose of good intentions paving a highway to hell... and it should all have been pretty easily foreseeable if the people in charge had used their brains. They're so intent on helping those in need that they ignore obvious loopholes, and they give no thought at all to the effects of their policies on other people.

Cynicism may be appropriate. In Seattle, homelessness is blamed on big business and rents - not mental illness and drug addiction. Obviously, a person with severe mental illness or drug addiction can not hold down a job, let alone pay rent. But it’s politically incorrect to notice that. Instead, the homeless are used as a means to increase spending; e.g., direct public funds to special interests. Plans to open injection sites are not companionate but callous.

Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.
Yup, they reduce lots of drug-related problems.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.
Hooray for the Second Amendment.

Seriously, you need to choose between routine shootings and repealing that stupidity in your constitution.

Whinging about it and falsely attributing it to some kind of breakdown in civil order is just blatantly deliberate ignorance.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Watched a 90s show o English injection sites. Crime decreased around the sites.

If you were a registered addict you could get a daily maintenance dose.

What is not being discussed much i media is a reltion between decriminalizg drugs and a rise in drug use. Drugs were popularized in music and movies. Remeber Cheech and Chong?

Peoplke are suing drug campanies and even pharmacists who fill legal oresriptins.

You can not avoid culture irself. TV is flodded for ads on drugs for just about anything.

One commercial ran through a lengthy list of symnpoms telling yiu to ask yiur doctor about their drug if you had any of the syntoms.

Then there is te ridiculous supplements adverting.

The drug problem is economics and culture.

The profit motive. The idea behind decriminalizing pot was to get organized crime out of it and let people grow their own. Seeing potential for taxes states now regulate sales for tax revenues.

The image used to be of people hnaging out on the street drinking chap wine from paper bag, whinos. Now it is pot. You smell it everywhere in downtown Seattle. People sitting or laying on the sidewalk smoking pot. With decriminalization people openly shoot up in public, I see it. We have peole passed out in our dorrway and those who OD.

#### Trausti

##### Deleted
Multiple recent shootings within walking distance over the last few days.
Hooray for the Second Amendment.

Seriously, you need to choose between routine shootings and repealing that stupidity in your constitution.

Whinging about it and falsely attributing it to some kind of breakdown in civil order is just blatantly deliberate ignorance.
How many of these shootings were by lawful gun owners?

#### Trausti

##### Deleted
Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.
Aiding addiction is not caring, it is abuse. You may reduce mortality at the site because of the availability of Narcan, but you are continuing the person's drug addition which will surely end in death. This drug addicted person has little chance of returning to society. That should be the metric - are we helping people get clean and be functioning members of society?

#### SigmatheZeta

##### Senior Member
Evidence really suggests that supervised injection sites are really a cheap way to decrease overdose mortality.
Aiding addiction is not caring, it is abuse. You may reduce mortality at the site because of the availability of Narcan, but you are continuing the person's drug addition which will surely end in death. This drug addicted person has little chance of returning to society. That should be the metric - are we helping people get clean and be functioning members of society?
Well, my main problem with what you are saying, here, is that it's a load of horse shit. The fact that you casually waved away the evidence I showed you, above, is not lost on me. I will present you with more, though.

Current literature suggests that supervised injection sites do nothing whatsoever, in aggregate, to increase how often people use the drugs in question. Instead, people that come to the supervised injection sites just have increased access to primary care, and they are less likely to die from an overdose.

Results: Seventy-five relevant articles were found. All studies converged to find that SISs were efficacious
in attracting the most marginalized PWID, promoting safer injection conditions, enhancing access to
primary health care, and reducing the overdose frequency. SISs were not found to increase drug injecting,
drug trafficking or crime in the surrounding environments.
SISs were found to be associated with reduced
levels of public drug injections and dropped syringes. Of the articles, 85% originated from Vancouver or
Sydney.

Based on the current evidence, SIS are just a more cost-effective use of public resources.

It would be even more cost-effective to simply have heroin addicts casually shot and shoved into gutters, but this would make the Christians mad. They do not like it when you deal with people by murdering them. I am not a Christian, myself, but I am a little bit tenderhearted: therefore, you would not have much better luck getting that to fly with me, either.

The SIS have been working quite brilliantly.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.

So you don't think robbers should go to jail/prison?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Which is why organized theft is considered a felony, and anyone caught involved in it goes to jail.
We will see. Right now, they have been released, in most cases without bail.

The Republican lies about prop 47 forbidding the police from fighting organized crime are just that: lies. And lies that are especially insulting to the police themselves, who are thus groundlessly accused of inaction.
It's not usually the police that are inactive, it's the DAs. The fauxgressive DAs take the reclassification of theft below \$900 as a misdemeanor as carte blanche to nolle prosequi many cases of shoplifting or other theft crimes.

I was aware of the metaphor and its routine use on the right, I just find it a distasteful one.
I do not find it distasteful. After all, a defining characteristic of metaphors and all figurative language is that it is not literal.
Criminals are human beings, not animals. And people who have not been charged with a crime aren't either.
Quite the contrary. Humans are animals.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Which is why I said "I presume that isn't what you meant", rather optimistically. But his point makes no sense unless that is what he means, as "detain for a while, then release eventually" is the current status quo, the only disagreement is how long to hold someone,
So your contention is that all finite periods of confinement are equivalent?

especially without charging them with a crime,
Nobody here, least of all me, advocates holding people for an extended time without them charged with a crime. The disagreement is under which circumstances people should be released after being charged but before trial. I think somebody who violates the terms of the bond, by for example stealing another car while out, should be held until trial unless there are some significant extenuating circumstances.

perhaps prosecuting them through a public court process in which both sides of the legal exchange are likely funded by the state, and jailing them, again at great expense to taxpayers and an already-overrun state prison system.
If Governor Moonbeam and other governors hadn't stopped construction of new prisons they would not be so overrun.
Also, why not repeal nonsensical laws and focus law enforcement on real crimes. California is still arresting sex workers and their customers. Stop that, but imprison thieves and robbers.

The position of the state is that given our limited resources, state prosecutors should prioritize major crimes over minor misdemeanors.
Of course major crimes should be prioritized. That does not mean less major ones (stealing cars is not a minor crime!) should be ignored.
And what is this malarkey about "limited resources"? State legislature and governors could have adequately funded courts and prisons. It is a political choice not to do so.

Shoplifting is still illegal, and in every single case that has been brought for our consideration in this thread, the alleged perpetrators have either already been arrested or are actively being pursued.
Well the cases brought up here have been especially brazen cases, so that is hardly surprising. But what of 1000s of cases of regular shoplifting that are ignored by the likes of DA Chesa?

Mall security just isn't the priority of the police in the field. And cannot be, practically speaking. Not in conservative states either, they just have to pretend to be brutal on petty criminals in order to impress their base.
Do you have data on clearance rates of retail theft by state? I know Walgreens are not closing around here because of unchecked shoplifting. They are in San Francisco.

Ultimately, they don't arrest everyone accused of minor crimes either, they don't have any more room in their prisons than the rest of the country, nor the money to fund a mass jailing and extended legal process for every citizen who has ever been accused of shoplifting.
The rest of the country has not been closing state prisons thus shifting felony cases to county jails and releasing county inmates en masse.

Republicans are under-educated as a rule,
That may be true, but then again, Democrats are miseducated as a rule. As your former governor said:

and though in theory they oppose taxation, they also seem to think that money, time, and the patience of the citizenry will grow on trees, as long as they're being spent in the cause of doing nasty things to those nasty people they've been taught to hate.
Well, I am not a Republican, and I do not oppose taxation. And I do not think money grows on trees, but AOC certainly does.
In any case, it's not about hate, it's about the fact that property crimes have real victims. When somebody's car is stolen, they are really harmed. If a store closes because there is too much theft, real people lose a place of work and a place to shop in their neighborhoods.

Again, reduce the number of crimes on the books, and then really enforce what's left.