Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is comedy gold here, for anyone who didn't read the article:

[b]“In hiring Kavanaugh, to what extent did you consider the mental health of the survivors on campus and how that might affect them and their education?" asked another — a question which HuffPo describes as earning "snaps" from the gathered students (clapping is, it seems, now considered triggering).

The response should have been "we are not lunatics so we did not consider how lunatics would react". Lol@ snapping their fingers. Best part:

"Others were left simply baffled.

“Oh, my God,” one female student said aloud.

“Why?” asked another, to no one in particular."

These sad souls legit are shocked people didn't bend the knee to their crazed demands.

It doesn't stop here, there were multiple epic fails recently when it comes to progressive whining:

Students Try To Get Famous Professor Fired; University President Smacks Them

Only thing better would be if the headline was literal and the university president legit slapped these kids(they sure could use it). [/B]

This part is good:

Paglia has since responded to the letter, praising it as an "eloquent statement affirming academic freedom was a landmark in contemporary education" and expressing her hope that it will be "a turning point in how American colleges and universities deal with their rampant problem of compulsory ideological conformity."

These hysterical morons need to be told that they cannot silence people they disagree with. They cannot bully others to conform to their crazy beliefs. They need to be taught that another human being can think and believe something that they don't and they simply have to accept that they cannot force others to think and feel however they'd like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This part is good:

These hysterical morons need to be told that they cannot silence people they disagree with. They cannot bully others to conform to their crazy beliefs. They need to be taught that another human being can think and believe something that they don't and they simply have to accept that they cannot force others to think and feel however they'd like.

Yep, sometimes they are too stupid for words.

YouTube video

Lol.

Dallas County District Attorney Addresses City Council Members About Plans for Criminal Justice Reform

"Gates referred to Creuzot's plans to curb the prosecution of certain low-level crimes, including marijuana offenses and theft of personal items worth less than $750, unless the theft was for financial gain.

Sandy Greyson, council member from District 12, expressed concern over Creuzot's policy not to prosecute thefts for crimes of need.

"We're not really considering the business owner in this, What if six people come in and steal diapers, how does he recover that loss if he doesn't prosecute?" Greyson said."

Would anyone care to offer up a defense of this?

Originally posted by Surtur
Dallas County District Attorney Addresses City Council Members About Plans for Criminal Justice Reform

[b]"Gates referred to Creuzot's plans to curb the prosecution of certain low-level crimes, including marijuana offenses and theft of personal items worth less than $750, unless the theft was for financial gain.

Sandy Greyson, council member from District 12, expressed concern over Creuzot's policy not to prosecute thefts for crimes of need.

"We're not really considering the business owner in this, What if six people come in and steal diapers, how does he recover that loss if he doesn't prosecute?" Greyson said."

Would anyone care to offer up a defense of this? [/B]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this law or suggestion.

Those are not crimes. Those are people trying to survive.

Civil cases are not out of the question. But good luck recouping costs from a person who stole diapers in a civil case. 👆

Surt, somewhere along the way, you lost your humanity and compassion.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Surt, somewhere along the way, you lost your humanity and compassion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this law or suggestion.

Those are not crimes. Those are people trying to survive.

Civil cases are not out of the question. But good luck recouping costs from a person who stole diapers in a civil case. 👆

Surt, somewhere along the way, you lost your humanity and compassion.

So the guy who runs the business who is robbed isn't trying to survive? Interesting, he's just running a business for the fun of it? And if one person gets away with it, the next person won't hesitate to try the same because...?

Originally posted by Surtur
So the guy who runs the business who is robbed isn't trying to survive?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Civil cases are not out of the question. But good luck recouping costs from a person who stole diapers in a civil case. 👆

So let me get this straight. You want to send a person to jail for stealing diapers because they couldn't afford them?

You'd rather spend tens of thousand of dollars (or hundreds of thousands of dollars) sending people through the justice system and incarcerating them for petty theft for items needed for basic human survival? Brilliant idea. I think in your sense for absolute justice, you lost track of the holistic view: you're punishing everyone else in your pursuit of unrelenting justice (hint: you and I pay the bills for this and I don't to pay for someone to be sent through the system and incarcerated for stealing baby food, diapers, or fresh produce - that's utterly retarded).

But, hey, they can still take them to civil court and sue. It's not like they (store owners) don't have loss mitigation and loss insurance for these specific kinds of insurance. It's literally built into the cost of operation. In this story, the only difference is taxpayer dollars aren't going to be wasted on petty theft cases that were for survival (notice the article says it excludes people who stole for profit).

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting, he's just running a business for the fun of it? And if one person gets away with it, the next person won't hesitate to try the same because...?

You seem quite upset that a supermarket will lose a few dollars over stolen diapers. Tell me more about this.

Originally posted by Surtur
Dallas County District Attorney Addresses City Council Members About Plans for Criminal Justice Reform

[b]"Gates referred to Creuzot's plans to curb the prosecution of certain low-level crimes, including marijuana offenses and theft of personal items worth less than $750, unless the theft was for financial gain.

Sandy Greyson, council member from District 12, expressed concern over Creuzot's policy not to prosecute thefts for crimes of need.

"We're not really considering the business owner in this, What if six people come in and steal diapers, how does he recover that loss if he doesn't prosecute?" Greyson said."

Would anyone care to offer up a defense of this? [/B]

$750 or less is incredibly reasonable. The cost of prosecuting a person through the criminal justice system would be FAR more.

And every single bit of modern research suggests compassion, understanding, and rehabilitation in the long-run are far more beneficial from an economical, social, and moral viewpoint. This goes from drug users to petty theft criminals. Adding a criminal record to a person already destitute enough to steal items necessary for survival is just unreasonable.

Basically, our innate instinct to punish a crime....is like almost every other basic innate instinct we have. Reactionary, and borne of a flight-fight model of thinking that is outdated.

Also, the individual quoted there makes a confusing argument. How would prosecuting someone like this help a business owner recoup losses?

Obviously keeping track of repeat offenders should be done. There should be a well-designed framework. But a criminal justice system that focuses on punishment clearly does not work better in the long-run. Assault, murder, and other such extreme cases should be handled differently.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So let me get this straight. You want to send a person to jail for stealing diapers because they couldn't afford them?

You'd rather spend tens of thousand of dollars (or hundreds of thousands of dollars) sending people through the justice system and incarcerating them for petty theft for items needed for basic human survival? Brilliant idea. I think in your sense for absolute justice, you lost track of the holistic view: you're punishing everyone else in your pursuit of unrelenting justice (hint: you and I pay the bills for this and I don't to pay for someone to be sent through the system and incarcerated for stealing baby food, diapers, or fresh produce - that's utterly retarded).

But, hey, they can still take them to civil court and sue. It's not like they (store owners) don't have loss mitigation and loss insurance for these specific kinds of insurance. It's literally built into the cost of operation. In this story, the only difference is taxpayer dollars aren't going to be wasted on petty theft cases that were for survival (notice the article says it excludes people who stole for profit).

You seem quite upset that a supermarket will lose a few dollars over stolen diapers. Tell me more about this.

The diapers thing wasn't my example it was the example from the article.

I'm more concerned with shit that's closer to the $750 maximum. Sorry, $750 is a lot of money to me bro.

Though if it encourages people to just steal shit the little things will add up. But no I'm not specifically concerned about diapers.

EDIT: I have no clue how much diapers cost, but I assume you'd need to steal a f*ckton for it to be $750 worth. F*ck that diaper bandit if they do that.

Originally posted by Surtur
The diapers thing wasn't my example it was the example from the article.

I'm more concerned with shit that's closer to the $750 maximum. Sorry, $750 is a lot of money to me bro.

Though if it encourages people to just steal shit the little things will add up. But no I'm not specifically concerned about diapers.

EDIT: I have no clue how much diapers cost, but I assume you'd need to steal a f*ckton for it to be $750 worth. F*ck that diaper bandit if they do that.

My brother in law used to work as a store manager. Petty theft laws changed under his "command." The limit was raised where he was working (the city).

Theft decreased. Theft rates are a product of the SES of the location rather than the laws. The fact that theft rates dropped had nothing to do with the petty theft ceiling being raised. It would be easier on this conversation if I could be dishonest and trick you but there was no correlation.

So why did theft decrease in his store after the law changed? It was policies, processes, and procedures (they call these "PPP"😉 that he implemented. It was the implemented loss mitigation PPPs that resulted in theft reduction. Had nothing to do with the law.

To make it simpler, you're wanting laws to obtain an theft reduction outcome when the two aren't correlative.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

Since 2001, 35 states have raised felony theft thresholds – the value of stolen goods above which prosecutors may charge the offense as a felony. Critics have warned that higher felony cutoffs will embolden thieves and cause property crimes, including shoplifting, to rise.

However, in spite of critics’ warnings and common-sense conclusions, studies show that increased felony thresholds have not, in fact, negatively affected theft rates.

https://losspreventionmedia.com/changes-in-shoplifting-penalties-make-it-tougher-for-retailers/

All I'm saying is 750 is a lot of money. I agree the law can't prevent theft.

Florida House Passes A Bill Banning Sanctuary Cities. ACLU Issues Travel Warning.

Lol

Originally posted by Surtur
All I'm saying is 750 is a lot of money. I agree the law can't prevent theft.

If someone steals $500 in diapers, I do not believe it is not for profit. If someone steals a package or two of diapers and they are the same size as their baby? Yeah, let's not send that person to jail anytime soon.

Let's get that person a job or something.

Edit - Check out this wholesome police officer who refused to arrest a grandmother stealing food for her grandkids. Instead of jail, he bought her food. This story got me in the feels. The look on her face. cry

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/12/12/cop-who-caught-hungry-mother-stealing-eggs-brings-her-two-truckloads-of-food-164880

Well sure I'm not saying jail a starving guy for taking some food. But the max number here should be like $100 not frickin $750. That shit is wack jack.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well sure I'm not saying jail a starving guy for taking some food. But the max number here should be like $100 not frickin $750. That shit is wack jack.

In Oklahoma, it's $500, I believe. That's considered low.

I think they are targeting 95% of cases or something. Many places are adopting Lean Six Sigma and they go for 3 or 4 sigma values to save the most money (taxpayer dollars). Of course, this law excludes for profit thefts. People stealing to sell stuff. You can rack up quite a hefty grocery bill stealing just a few things. But $750 would be hard to hit.

Edit - Check my edit in my previous post.

Well I certainly wouldn't have wanted granny arrested. But yeah, I'm sure most of the time it won't be near $750, but just the fact that technically it's possible...that is hard to stomach.

FBI, IRS Raid Home Of Baltimore Mayor

Intriguing!

‘Leaving Neverland’ Director’s Attempt To Spin Reported Discrepancy Appears To Backfire

So did he molest kids or not?

Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:

Brunei Uses "Diversity" As Excuse For Stoning Gay People

YouTube video

All cultures are equal.