471–480 of 763 posts
There's a simple solution to this: just leave, and take your taxable income with you. If a jurisdiction can't do a basic function of government, why the fuck would you want to perpetuate the administrative disease any further? Paying taxes to these jurisdictions is like enabling an abusive relationship
There is another engine driving this phenomenon: addicts "boosting" to feed their addiction. Drug use is another crime that society seems uninterested in prosecuting or punishing as of late. Add illicitly manufactured Fentanyl (1) to that recipe and you have an absolute onslaught of retail theft.
In interview after interview with addicts, it's clear that boosting is one of the primary methods of funding drug use. (2) If we are not interested in curbing drug trafficking, sales, and abuse, we will continue to have a huge problem with retail theft. (And also an unconscionable death toll that is growing rapidly.)
(1) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34603876/ (2) https://www.youtube.com/@SoftWhiteUnderbelly/videos
There's a simple solution to this: just leave, and take your taxable income with you. If a jurisdiction can't do a basic function of government, why the fuck would you want to perpetuate the administrative disease any further? Paying taxes to these jurisdictions is like enabling an abusive relationship
New York is where the jobs are. Just leave and get another 200k job as a banker where?
What percentage of New York makes over 200k? They can stay, the rest can leave.
IOW, it takes all sorts to make a city work, and if you have labor (those people who work, at whatever wage) move away because the policies favour non-labour (those people whose income is from theft) it doesn't really matter how many 200k stockbrokers want to stay - they'll have to move eventually too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ooooooooohhhhhhh!! So I steal some consumer goods, put them in individual boxes, send them to Amazon warehouse and they distribute for me. I simply never put that together. But surely Amazon is literally handling stolen goods? Is there a smoking gun email?
I have bought a lot of books from Amazon, and if you look past the scrubbing with a marker, it's always some library within America - so yes even books from Amazon are just books taken from public libraries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One prevalent narrative in NYC is that there’s an epidemic of people being pushed onto the tracks. We need more police in the subway to prevent this from happening. I was in Singapore recently. Most people there take the subway. Yet no one gets pushed onto the tracks. Why is that? It has nothing to do with cops — you rarely see them on the subway there. Instead, they have a wall between the platform and the tracks. S…
So we should use public caning and ramp up the use of the death penalty for illegal drug possession?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further underline your point, if the chain is (thief)→(amazon)→(end user) then the fence isn't "anyone with an Amazon" account: the fence is amazon .
Except products like deodorant are considered health products. Amazon doesn’t just let you easily sell health products, you need to produce invoices, receipts, etc. More likely this stuff is sold on ebay
I have doubts about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s simple. Get a job and stop blaming the system and asking for handouts. Petty shoplifters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Shoplifting is actually one of the least harmful forms of theft, in terms of dollars stolen. Wage theft costs orders of magnitude more. A few years ago, money stolen by police via civil forfeiture surpassed the amount stolen by burglars. Yet the form of theft I hear the most about, by far , is shoplifting. Why do you think that is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s a new company doing selling old spice deodorant? What possible legitimate angle could it have?
Same as any small business reselling stuff bought in bulk that people need like one or two of every year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who wants to buy a $10 deodorant from a NYC CVS when you can buy the same thing for much cheaper online. The thieves are only accelerating the demise of overpriced brick and mortar stores. Plus the experience of going into a CVS and having to press a button and wait for an employee to hand you a deodorant is horrible. (Not condoning theft, but at least the free market is speaking here somewhat)
> Who wants to buy a $10 deodorant from a NYC CVS when you can buy the same thing for much cheaper online. …people who do not have any deodorant, who are in NYC, and would like to not stink now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No it isn’t. That’s a pretty basic part of living in a country with rule of law. This is an incorrect framing: the law is that companies must know their suppliers, at least to the extent that they can demonstrate good faith compliance with laws around stolen, counterfeit, smuggled, etc. goods. Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defen…
That is not the law, you’re just making up things out of whole cloth. > Given that Amazon has repeatedly been supplied evidence of fencing on its platform, it would be difficult to accept a defense from ignorance That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.
Every US state that I'm aware of makes it a crime to knowingly receive stolen property. Most additionally make it a crime to re-sell stolen property. On top of that, it's a Federal crime if the stolen property crosses state borders.
Here, for example, are NY's statutes on stolen property: Penal Law Ss. 165.40 through 165.65[1] (you'll need to navigate on that page to each section). In particular:
* It is not a sufficient defense to claim that the original thief has not been convicted or identified: § 165.50, bullet 1.
* Possession of stolen property encompasses the intent to sell that property: § 165.55, bullet 1.
> Amazon being generally aware that there is fencing activity happening on their platform does not make Amazon liable.
This implies passivity, when the relationship is an active one. If Amazon was an unstructured marketplace with individual business relationships between buyers and (potentially criminal) sellers, this argument might work. But that's not what FBA is, and it's not how these products are sold (you aren't buying Honest Abe's Big Brand Shampoo, you're buying Amazon-fulfilled Big Brand Shampoo).
[1]: https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/c...