The Democrat Utopia

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

The Bill doesn't spell it out

Oh, but wait didn’t you just say this…

 

1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.  

Wouldn’t you be just as guilty of posting bulls#!t as what you claimed I did??

[funhusker]

18 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I do, what’s your point?

Are you okay with Walmart requiring an 18yo check out worker to stop shop lifters or not?

 

It’s not super clear, but section the bill does allow security personnel as part of the safety plan.  And the “environmental risks” and job responsibilities makes it pretty likely that guards can be asked to stop potential threats including shoplifters.

 

There actually isn’t a section 12 to the bill.

 

I’m assuming when you said “section 12” you are referring to Section 4, sub B, sub 12.  That’s a pretty small chunk of the bill to look at.

 

 

[Decoy73]

27 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Oh, but wait didn’t you just say this…

 

Wouldn’t you be just as guilty of posting bulls#!t as what you claimed I did??

Maybe in your mind.  Call me out if it makes you feel better. I don’t care.  I’m not a hired poster.  

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Are you okay with Walmart requiring an 18yo check out worker to stop shop lifters or not?

No.  Does Walmart require them too? 
 

Speaking of what I’m ok with, I’m not okay with a State having a law that does not allow companies to have people trained in intervening with shoplifters.  Should be up to the company on how they want to handle those situations.  

 

12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

It’s not super clear, but section the bill does allow security personnel as part of the safety plan.  And the “environmental risks” and job responsibilities makes it pretty likely that guards can be asked to stop potential threats including shoplifters.

LOL.  Shoplifting now goes under “environmental risks”.  
 

If you have to try this hard with the pretzel language, I think we can all agree now that the shoplifting component in what really is a safety bill, is pretty dumb.  (And before you try and conflate things like before to try and get me suspended, I’m calling the bill dumb, not you).  

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Maybe in your mind.  Call me out if it makes you feel better. I don’t care.  I’m not a hired poster.  

Not in my mind, in reality.  You were quite certain with your statement security guards were exempt.    When asked to show proof, you then said the bill doesn’t spell it out, I.e., not certain.  LOL
 

What’s a hired poster?  The Mods? Do people get paid just to post on Huskerboard?   That would be a sweet gig depending on the pay.  

[funhusker]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

No.  Does Walmart require them too? 
 

Speaking of what I’m ok with, I’m not okay with a State having a law that does not allow companies to have people trained in intervening with shoplifters.  Should be up to the company on how they want to handle those situations.  

 

LOL.  Shoplifting now goes under “environmental risks”.  
 

If you have to try this hard with the pretzel language, I think we can all agree now that the shoplifting component in what really is a safety bill, is pretty dumb.  (And before you try and conflate things like before to try and get me suspended, I’m calling the bill dumb, not you).  

Security personnel is part of a potential safety plan.

 

Try reading more than one sentence out of a bill.

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Security personnel is part of a potential safety plan.

 

Try reading more than one sentence out of a bill.

[Decoy73]

44 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Not in my mind, in reality.  You were quite certain with your statement security guards were exempt.    When asked to show proof, you then said the bill doesn’t spell it out, I.e., not certain.  LOL
 

What’s a hired poster?  The Mods? Do people get paid just to post on Huskerboard?   That would be a sweet gig depending on the pay.  

Hired/planted. Whichever. 

[funhusker]

56 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Have you actually read all of section 4 of the bill and it’s definitions?

[funhusker]

nm

[Archy1221]

42 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Have you actually read all of section 4 of the bill and it’s definitions?

Yes.  Now what? 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

Hired/planted. Whichever. 

People hire/plant/whichever other people to post in the political forum of an extremely small sports messaging board of which those political forum members number less than 15 people who are regular contributors   Whoooof when thinking about The ROI of that tin foil conspiracy theory.  

 

  I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that isn’t happening.  

[sho]

19 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

of course they are.   

Luckily I don't have a job that I have to worry about customers stealing.   But I tell my kids who both work in retail, it's not your stuff, you aren't the law.  You report it, you get as much information as you can, but you do not escalate it.   You don't know how desperate that person is and what they are willing and capable of doing.  

 

I repeatedly tell them, with the way people are w/guns, and how prevalent they are in society today, you better be willing to die for what ever it is you are trying to prevent, otherwise don't interfere.   The way this bill reads to me, store employees, don't escalate the situation and potentially turn a shoplifting situation into a gun battle.  I'm OK with this.  I don't want people to shoplift, but I'd rather it be shoplifting than getting people shot.

[Guy Chamberlin]

18 hours ago, teachercd said:

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.

 

I guarantee you that the on-camera talent on MSNBC was genuinely thrilled with the Trump indictment. 

 

The Fox announcers may be posturing and performing, too, but they're not necessarily acting. They are honestly giddy when the news breaks their way. 

 

A handful of on-air reporters and personalities are genuinely trapped in the middle, and this usually turns up when they quit or are fired.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 hours ago, teachercd said:

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?  

 

 

Do you mean to tell me the dudes at the store were not intimidated by an adolescent shoplifter on a Huffy? 

 

They should have b!^@hed slapped you just for owning a Huffy. 

 

I'll chalk this up to another Teach rant against something he hasn't bothered to learn about.