• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will this increase shoplifting .

Will this increase shoplifting .

  • No I am not sure .

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No it will not.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Maybe, just maybe, some Dems realize that downplaying crime may affect them in next year's election.

Our new Dem mayor of Los Angeles seems sincere in her promise to crack down on these flash mobs.

She really, really does not want L.A. to become another San Francisco!!!

And hear tell that even the NAACP (yes, the NAACP!!!) in Oakland is demanding a state of emergency to deal with the outrageous (outrageous!!!) amount of violent crime in that notorious city.
 
it's you republicans that are soft on crime. Defund the police, defund the IRS, "look away" from the orange legal troubles.
First defund is spelled wrong .Its de-fund.
Next You say we wanted to de fund the police .LOl that's funny as heck . That was a demo rat plan and you know it. And we didn't want to de fund the irs we just saw no need for 87.000 new agents .And the expense .
 
First defund is spelled wrong .Its de-fund.
Next You say we wanted to de fund the police .LOl that's funny as heck . That was a demo rat plan and you know it. And we didn't want to de fund the irs we just saw no need for 87.000 new agents .And the expense .
IRS, Capitol Police, FBI are all law enforcement. Now who has been beating this drum?? Tell me.
 
First defund is spelled wrong .Its de-fund.
Next You say we wanted to de fund the police .LOl that's funny as heck . That was a demo rat plan and you know it. And we didn't want to de fund the irs we just saw no need for 87.000 new agents .And the expense .

I've never seen of the conservative way of spell defund
 
No, of course non-security staff should not be required to risk their lives to prevent shoplifting. Duh.
 
First defund is spelled wrong .Its de-fund.
Next You say we wanted to de fund the police

Make up your mind. I recommend CoverGirl.
 
it's you republicans that are soft on crime. Defund the police, defund the IRS, "look away" from the orange legal troubles.
Citizens on both sides of the aisle would like to see the IRS defunded for obvious reasons.
 
Citizens on both sides of the aisle would like to see the IRS defunded for obvious reasons.

I like when people post tripe that cant be proven.

which political party is gunning to defund the capitol police, FBI, and IRS?

I noticed how no one has replied about the capitol police and fbi, but goes for the the lower hanging fruit that is the IRS.
 
A very well-constructed argument. Well done. :rolleyes:

I do not agree with legislation that turns store clerks into security people. It's unwise and will cause more issues that it solves.

Democrats are not now, nor have they ever been, soft on crime. They are simply not the death penalty type. The right doesn't want justice, it never has, the right wants revenge.

This whole argument is the brainchild of an angry GOP member who doesn't like that minorities are not given life sentences simply because they are minorities.
 
Again a example of demo rats being soft on crime.
Oh stop with the demo rat bullshit. Did you even read the article? I'm guessing no.

Whether this bill would increase shoplifting is anyone's guess. There isn't even an agreement on what it says. Does it mandate a "no confrontation" policy by businesses or not? One person says yes, the other no.

I have no issue with this bill. If someone isn't hired for nor trained in security, they should not be required by employers to stop shoplifters. Hire a security guard.

Wanna know who never gets ripped off around here? Dispensaries. They have armed security. Shop owners can do the same.
 
Again a example of demo rats being soft on crime.

You're mischaracterizing things again.




& ftr,
all Hundal has to do is re-classify his employees as security guards/cashiers

and Hundal and crew can go about their business as usual
 
That bill is common sense. A business owner that asks their minimum wage service employees to confront suspected shoplifters is insane. That liquor store owner should have his head looked at. I fully support someone telling the owner to get a clue and hire people with loss prevention training or think of ways to make changes in his store to reduce loss. Telling minimum wage service employees to start confrontations ... my gosh.
 
Maybe, just maybe, some Dems realize that downplaying crime may affect them in next year's election.

Do you know anything about real crime statistics or do you work strictly off MAGA media editorial designed to bullshit their customer?
 
Maybe, just maybe, some Dems realize that downplaying crime may affect them in next year's election.

Our new Dem mayor of Los Angeles seems sincere in her promise to crack down on these flash mobs.

She really, really does not want L.A. to become another San Francisco!!!

And hear tell that even the NAACP (yes, the NAACP!!!) in Oakland is demanding a state of emergency to deal with the outrageous (outrageous!!!) amount of violent crime in that notorious city.
You got all this from a law that says an employer can't require non-security personnel to physically engage shoplifters?

I see you didn't read the article either. OP and #2 slot don't read article. What a waste of time and words.
 
Back
Top Bottom