Easily disproved. So much inaccurate malarky on this thread. I would assume it's bots AstroTurfing, if American zeitgeist wasn't already so demonstrably poisoned.

▲

copper-float 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've lived in California my whole life, and I'm just basing it off my experiences over the years.

California enacted a law in 2014 that turned all theft under $950 into a misdemeanor instead of a felony (reverted last year). Theft became so common that police wouldn't even respond to theft calls unless it was over $950, which enboldened theives. During covid especially, entire stores would be looted and robbed constantly.

When people were caught, the judges would often give them minimal sentences, and release them over and over. Then the same people would commit more crimes because they knew the judges were lienent.

I'm not saying every single person fits into this box, but it's common enough to be recognized as a trend that happens in liberal areas. Los Angeles, Oakland are prime examples.

▲

mrguyorama 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>California enacted a law in 2014 that turned all theft under $950 into a misdemeanor instead of a felony (reverted last year)

So all states with $1000 Felony cutoffs or higher should have this issue, right?

So why don't they?

You know the National Retail Federation had to stop posting their annual shrink numbers after they demonstrated that shoplifting was not meaningfully higher than previous years.

	▲	johnsmith1840 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. Those other places are just lying they don't have clean streets and stores without bars over the windows they're secretly just like us we have the numbers to prove it!

▲

bflesch 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Someone is spending $500M per month on AI to generate grassroots support...

▲

copper-float 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not AI, but thanks for the rudeness.

▲

AlexErrant 7 hours ago | parent [-]

My man, if your comments can't be distinguished from a bot's, you're no better than one. Also if you can't tell that your comment's unsubstantiated bait, you really need to go touch grass.

Everyone has an annecdote. "it's common enough to be recognized as a trend" is equally justification for racial profiling, and at least racial crime statistics are easily citable. And you still haven't even put forth that modicum of effort.

▲

copper-float 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Hi Alex,

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never once suggested racial profiling as acceptable, and I wasn't insinuating it either. I know you were just using it as an adjacent example, but I don't appreciate that.

I'm just giving my experiences man, I lived in Los Angeles for years. Have you ever been here or lived here? There is very little respect for the law because the law is not enforced. I'm not saying I have all the answers, it's just what I've noticed.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not a stupid bot. Am I not allowed to have a point of view and express it?

▲

AlexErrant 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No one is saying you can't have an opinion and you can't express it.

I'm just saying there's a predictable result when you express it with the level of detail and amount of effort that you _did_. And frankly, your comments are no better than pre-reasoning era LLM rage-bait.

What level of engagement are you looking for here; support for your lack of citations, or "yeah that's also my personal experience rah rah"?

I'm having a meta-level discussion, if you can't tell. I'm not "putting words in your mouth", I'm trying to discuss: the quality of your discussion. I'm discussing the quality of your arguments and your evidence. If you think that "racial profiling" is too hot, substitute in something else; that's not the point.

▲

bflesch 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The way you're using the word "liberal" is technically wrong and your comment was basically a cheap fox news talking point aimed at below-average TV viewers.

It's totally fine if those talking points resonate with you, but it makes me sad that you don't have the mental capability to actually think about what the career path of a judge entails, what kind of room for decision making they have, and what kind of trade-offs they might need to consider in order to adjust the punishments.

Ignorance is bliss.

	▲	7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]