Why it’s hard to buy deodorant in Manhattan

Post by throw__away7391 » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 2:46 AM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #25

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #19

The article says prosecutors don't go after these thefts but I'd think the issue is with the cops and the number of arrests. After the BLM protests of 2020 (George Floyd) cops basically went hands off on these so called minor crimes, and so I'd imagine many of them don't even make it to prosecutors. We'd need a graph of incidents and arrests for years prior to 2020 (or months in early vs late 2020) to see the change.

The article claims that the BLM protests made little difference, and include a graph of various states comparing the amount of shoplifting with the amount of prosecution. Generally there doesn’t seem to be a correlation between states with large BLM protests and reduced prosecution. For example, Oregon had huge protests and weak government responses, and yet prosecutes large amounts of shoplifting. Blaming this on th…

Post by prvit » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #233

fragmede wrote: post #53

I've lived in the same city now (not NYC) for 10+ years, so I'm moderately connected with all sorts of people and not just a bubble of affluent tech people. So I'll be real, I know some sketchy people that probably do drugs or at least know where to find some. What I don't know, however, is any "fences". That is, someone that traffics in stolen goods. Or maybe I do, they don't exactly advertise their services. I've n…

> basically anyone with an Amazon account ... Amazon supposedly is cracking down on this but I have yet to see any meaningful evidence of any real enforcement. Amazon has "Amazon Invoice Verification" for sellers selling large quantities of merchandise. But I personally do not want Amazon trying to check if Mr. Doe just wants to sell a couple extra tubes of deodorant he bought by mistake. Can that be abused by thieve…

Post by factsarelolz » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 2:48 AM UTC

qwerpy wrote: post #281

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and it will largely be a government policy failure. You mean feature. If you tell voters in no uncertain terms what will happen if they piss on the electric fence and they piss on it then it's safe to assume they wanted the results. Make no mistake, people were told certain policy would lead to businesses leaving these areas resulting in deserts. Voters voted for it anyway.

I’d be fine with this as long as people then don’t decry the eventual deserts as discriminatory.

Post by pclmulqdq » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 2:49 AM UTC

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #225

blululu wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. In most states (CA for example) it is a felony to sell stolen goods when the amount exceeds a pretty modest threshold. If, as alleged in the parent comment, they are committing a crime on a large scale then the blame is very well placed. *of course this does not exonerate the original thieves, but as a matter of practicality it is going to be easier to hit a single large offender than a myriad of small ones.

I am fairly sure that trafficking in stolen goods is only a crime if the person knew, or if a reasonable person should have known, that the goods were stolen.

Post by factsarelolz » Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

acdha wrote: post #289

nxm wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the penalty be a slap on the wrist and having the person is released same day, it’s essentially the same as not prosecuting them. NY state bail reforms, and in San Fran; “ In 2014, a ballot referendum passed that downgraded the theft of property less than $950 in value from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.”

That’s not the same claim at all - those people can and are being prosecuted: bail wouldn’t matter if they weren’t! Similarly, changing the threshold for a felony theft charge doesn’t prevent anyone from being prosecuted.