The Democrat Utopia

[teachercd]

On 6/8/2023 at 1:03 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

One thing I'll say for Gavin Newsom, he handles himself extremely well in these situations. I'm almost surprised they are giving him the platform. 

 

Wait a minute. Did CNN and Fox News just flip their DNA? 

All about eyeballs, it always has been.

 

Some of you (not you, just people), just got tricked thinking the station/person on the station cared about what they were saying...they are acting.

 

The only people on TV/Radio that are honest about their "feelings" are homer announcers.  That is it.  The rest are acting, because it is their job.

[teachercd]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

of course they are.   

It is not shoplifting!  People should get to take what they want.  

 

It is funny that there are posters here that are okay with people shoplifting...

 

I used to be!  As a 13 year old I was caught twice...once at a Kmart stealing a KISS tape and at a Venture (Anyone remember that store) stealing a tape, not sure which one.

 

Before getting caught, I bet I stole 100 different tapes.

[Decoy73]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

of course they are.   

I took the bait and researched California SB553.  It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters.  Are you against that?  Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters.  I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

I took the bait and researched California SB553.  It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters.  Are you against that?  Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters.  I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.

The “garbage site” literally puts it in their article.   We’re you against the site doing that? 
 

SB 553, authored by Democrat Senator David Cortese (San Jose), requires employers to maintain violent incident logs, provide active shooter and shoplifter training, and to discard policies requiring workers to confront suspected active shoplifter 

 

 

HOWEVER…..if one would keep reading (which you didn’t and seem to be pro-shoplifting) one would see the following….

 

According to the California Realtors Association (CRA), the bill will apply to all industries - not just retail, if passed. CRA president and CEO Rachel Michelin told Fox2/KTVU that the bill "goes way too far."

"I think it will open the doors even wider for people to come in and steal from our stores," she said. 

According to the CRA, most retailers already prohibit regular employees from approaching someone who is shoplifting. These situations are handled by employees specially trained in theft prevention instead.

If employees trained in theft deterrence are not allowed to do their job per the bill, “What does that mean? We are opening up the door to allow people to walk into stores, steal, and walk out,” Michelin added.
 

 

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

I took the bait and researched California SB553.  It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters.  Are you against that?  Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters.  I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.

I think that sounds like a good bill to me. When I worked at Menards the managers were required to help chase down shop lifters, they all hated it because more than once somebody pulled a knife on them. $10 of drill bits at a s#!tty retail store isn't worth not being able to go home and see your kid at night.

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I think that sounds like a good bill to me. When I worked at Menards the managers were required to help chase down shop lifters, they all hated it because more than once somebody pulled a knife on them. $10 of drill bits at a s#!tty retail store isn't worth not being able to go home and see your kid at night.

I got caught stealing twice, by dudes that worked at the store...one stopped me on my bike (a huffy) and one stopped me when I tried to run.

 

Yes, they should try and stop people from stealing.  More so, people should stop stealing.

 

99.9999999% of shoplifters are not going to kill anyone.  If you owned a store, would you be okay with people just taking what they wanted?  Why not just let people come into your house and take what they want?  Don't answer, we all know the answer...if it is not your s#!t, you don't care, neither do I.

 

While I agree with what you are saying, should cops also "let the person go" and just hope they catch them later?  

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

I took the bait and researched California SB553.  It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters.  Are you against that?  Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters.  I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.

Yeah, every normal person is against this.

 

People should not steal.

 

 

[Decoy73]

56 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The “garbage site” literally puts it in their article.   We’re you against the site doing that? 
 

SB 553, authored by Democrat Senator David Cortese (San Jose), requires employers to maintain violent incident logs, provide active shooter and shoplifter training, and to discard policies requiring workers to confront suspected active shoplifter 

 

 

HOWEVER…..if one would keep reading (which you didn’t and seem to be pro-shoplifting) one would see the following….

 

According to the California Realtors Association (CRA), the bill will apply to all industries - not just retail, if passed. CRA president and CEO Rachel Michelin told Fox2/KTVU that the bill "goes way too far."

"I think it will open the doors even wider for people to come in and steal from our stores," she said. 

According to the CRA, most retailers already prohibit regular employees from approaching someone who is shoplifting. These situations are handled by employees specially trained in theft prevention instead.

If employees trained in theft deterrence are not allowed to do their job per the bill, “What does that mean? We are opening up the door to allow people to walk into stores, steal, and walk out,” Michelin added.
 

 

The first paragraph you conveniently left out. 
 

Shoplifting in California may get a lot easier, after the state Senate passed a controversial bill on May 31 that would make it illegal for store employees to confront thieves.

 

simply not true.  It’s misleading garbage and you know it.  And don’t be a d!(k and accuse me of being pro shoplifting.  I’m anti bulls#!t.  Which means I’m anti-posts like this. 

[Archy1221]

10 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

The first paragraph you conveniently left out. 
 

Shoplifting in California may get a lot easier, after the state Senate passed a controversial bill on May 31 that would make it illegal for store employees to confront thieves.

 

simply not true.  It’s misleading garbage and you know it.  And don’t be a d!(k and accuse me of being pro shoplifting.  I’m anti bulls#!t.  Which means I’m anti-posts like this. 

You might be anti your own posts then I guess.  You think it’s not going to be harder to prevent shoplifting after this bill.  And then combine it with the change from $400 to $900 to be considered felony shoplifting.   It’s no wonder “petty” shoplifting is out of control.  You should be more outraged at the “bulls#!t” shoplifting than people calling out CA for their pro shoplifting crime laws. 
 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553

[Decoy73]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You might be anti your own posts then I guess.  You think it’s not going to be harder to prevent shoplifting after this bill.  And then combine it with the change from $400 to $900 to be considered felony shoplifting.   It’s no wonder “petty” shoplifting is out of control.  You should be more outraged at the “bulls#!t” shoplifting than people calling out CA for their pro shoplifting crime laws. 
 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553

So you think employers should be able to require employees to confront shoplifters.  Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.  

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

 Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.  

 

9 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

So you think employers should be able to require employees to confront shoplifters.  Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.  

Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters.   An 18yr old check out clerk, no.  
 

Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards.  Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill.   If so please copy and paste.  

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters.   An 18yr old check out clerk, no.  
 

Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards.  Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill.   If so please copy and paste.  

Just to head this off before someone tries to make it a thing, when talking confront shoplifter, we are obviously talking those not brandishing weapons.  

[funhusker]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters.   An 18yr old check out clerk, no.  
 

Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards.  Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill.   If so please copy and paste.  

I thought you disagreed with the bill…

[Decoy73]

40 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters.   An 18yr old check out clerk, no.  
 

Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards.  Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill.   If so please copy and paste.  

You can disagree with the bill or not, I don't care.  I do care about your original post's source was intentionally misleading and false.

 

The Bill doesn't spell it out, but this was in Newsweek.

Quote

 

The California bill, if enacted in law, would require employers to provide active-shooter training to workers, keep a log of any violent incidents, and allow companies to apply for workplace violence restraining orders.

SB 553 is not targeted at—and does not affect—trained security guards. In fact, the bill highlights the need for dedicated safety personnel.

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.newsweek.com/store-retail-violence-robbery-theft-stealing-california-1804565

[Archy1221]

34 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I thought you disagreed with the bill…

I do, what’s your point?