Video shows decimated San Francisco Louis Vuitton store after massive smash-and-grab robbery

The difference between your solution and mine is you want taxpayers to solve your problems. It is that free money mentality that has racked up the debt. You want everyone across the board to pay more. My solution is let the private sector deal with it. Business can bear the cost of more security and pass the price onto the consumers. If the price is unbearable these shop will disappear. If the price doubles the consumer has the choice to not buy it and choose an alternative.

You said we should continue to pay until the problem is solved and I say enough is enough. At what point do you put your foot down? It is not like we do not pay a ton of tax dollars for law enforcement, judicial system and prisons already. Would you be ok raising your taxes by 10, 20, 50 percent more. What if crime still exist should we just continue paying more? You asked what happens if the price doubles and I answered you. Now I ask what happens if your taxes double? Unlike my solution you do not have the option of not paying for it unless your answer is to move to another country.

 

Dude, learn to read. Did I say one security guard? Did you look at the rest of what I said and that was just a start. My point is it is up to the business to implement security.

From my response YOU quoted:

BUT in my opinion I think the simplest way to stop crimes like I see in the video is have an electronic lock on the door like many jewelry stores where once you are in the store you need security or an employee to buzz you out and simply put long cables on expensive display items. Secure other display items in cases and hire a security person by the door. Make yourself a hard target so they choose someone else. Take responsibility.

 

You’ll have to go do some backflips to explain what he has to do with this. TDS much?

 

Not completely untrue:

 

WTF….

No “felony laws”………..

Which police got defunded ?

Just more made up mahmba jamba

 

Yes raising the numbers so they can steal up to $1000 and it's a misdemeanor not a felony.

You're joking right? Yes defund, not support, attack and drive away the people who are willing to serve as police officers.

 

How many are they supposed have and what different are they supposed to do? And they simply wait until someone is about to enter the store and get by the door buzzer.

Why do you not want to go after the criminals and stop it you know what we all including the stores pay the police to do?

And you ignored what I asked, if there is a rash of break-ins in you neighborhood is it your responsibility to hire extra security or is the the responsibility of the police to stop it?

 

I want the police to stop crime in our community, what is your problem with that proposition? You want vigilante justice? You want to allow criminals to dictate which private lawful business will be allow to operate and which private business we the lawful citizens will be able to shop at and what we will have to pay for that merchandise for this extra security?

Why have police at all then? Someone murder your child then YOU hire detectives to find who did it and YOU hire a court to prosecute them and YOU hire someone to incarcerate them. How about that?

You said we should continue to pay until the problem is solved and I say enough is enough.[/QUOTE]

So let's turn it over to the criminals?

ROFL well YOU tell me. Is this the point we just give in to the criminals?

It is not like we do not pay a ton of tax dollars for law enforcement, judicial system and prisons already. Would you be ok raising your taxes by 10, 20, 50 percent more. What if crime still exist should we just continue paying more? You asked what happens if the price doubles and I answered you. Now I ask what happens if your taxes double? Unlike my solution you do not have the option of not paying for it unless your answer is to move to another country.[/QUOTE]

So what exactly is your solution here since you want to do away with law enforcement and a judicial system?

 

Imagine being a democrat who thinks police weren't defunded.

Imagine thinking defunding the police was a republican idea.

You can't make this level of dishonesty up.

Par for the course.

 

I ignored what you asked because in one of my first reply to you I already addressed it.

In post #163 in this thread I wrote to you:

If my home gets broken into I can call the police and they will file a report. Do I expect police to guard my home? If someone breaks into a home and steals a television how much effort do you think the police should put into recovering that tv or catching the criminals. When someone snatches and grabs from a business how much effort do you expect the police to put into catching that person and returning the merchandise. It seems I am on the side of consistency.

I believe I have a duty to protect my home and valuables and to deter criminals by making myself a hard target. I have secure locks, safes, monitored alarms and have 7 surveillance cameras outside my property and quite a few inside. I have full insurance and my collectibles are fully documented and insured. If I arm my home when I leave everyone window, door and motion sensor along with all cameras will send information to my phone, the cloud and my monitoring service. That is called taking responsibility and not asking other taxpayers to bail me out.

 

You asked me to answer your question again, (which I have done),but you did not answer mine. How much more taxes are you willing to pay to make sure things like this do not happen anymore? I asked you 10, 20, 50%? Would you pay double to increase police enforcement, judicial system and prisons.

Now lets assume we go with your idea and tax everyone 25% more to hire more police, more prosecutors, more judges, more prison guards and the countless number of other support staff. Let's not forget about purchasing more police cars, weapons and equipment, build more court rooms and jails, pay for more food and upkeep for the prisoners. Lets assume after spending all that money some group rushed into around LV store and snatches and grabs a bunch more merchandise. How much more will you ask for then? You said until we stop this. IMO you can never spend enough to stop all of these type of crimes.

Also don't you dare try to move the goal post on this. We were talking about petty snatch and grab crimes and now you are trying to bring in violent crimes like murder. That is exactly where I think police resources should be focus on. Protecting the public from violent crimes. Also I am not saying not to spend any money on crimes like theft. My opinion is we already spend plenty and I do not want to pay anymore. Tell me what measure it would take in your opinion to ensure the snatch and grab crimes like that never happen again? Would you assign half a dozen police officers to each business that experiences theft? Would any plan you come up with guarantee this will not happen again? And if your plan does not work how much more money will you ask for next time?

 

Or... you know... the alternative is to stop implementing stupid ass policies and perspectives like rioting is racist in an attempt to excuse the behavior.

These aren't difficult concepts.

 

I reject the premise of you argument that it will cost more, simply ENFORCE THE LAW and stop letting them out of jail.

Smash-and-grab robberies: 14 arrested in 11 incidents, all released on CA's zero-bail
https://www.foxla.com/news/smash-an...in-11-incidents-all-released-on-cas-zero-bail

A police officer has been killed. When stores are looted for tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise and have thousands in damages that is not petty. These are VIOLENT robberies endangering the public.

 

And if there is a rash of break-ins in you neighborhood is it your responsibility to hire extra security or is the the responsibility of the police to stop it? If gangs are coming to your neighborhood every night and randomly breaking into home where all the cameras in the world will not stop them or your barricaded door you will not be demanding the police send extra patrols to put an end to it? I HIGHLY doubt it.

Do you NOT expect the police to patrol your city, your neighborhood, they are ONLY there for AFTER a crime has been committed to take a report?

 

Dude, it is simple economics. If you want to hire more police officers, put more people through the court systems and jail more people it cost money and resources. We are tapped out. I agree that it sucks we release those arrested but the bottom line is we have no places to jail and house those people if they do not pay bail. Why do you think there are so many convicts released early and have some form of in-home incarceration.

I know finances are hard to understand but imagine the jails and prisons are full or near capacity already already. Lets assume for argument we have 10 spaces available now. Now in your example we arrest another 14 who choose to not pay bail. Do we throw them in jail? Where is the space? How do you get the money to build more jails, hire more staff etc... The logistics of the problem is we have limited resources and we have to make the best of it. I would rather they reserve that prison space for dangerous offenders rather than petty criminals. On the surface I agree it sucks to let these criminals go but the bottom line is we already pay enough.

 

The only way the police could deal with this issue on a short term basis is to divert resources from another location. That would mean less coverage or protection of the other area. So now you are playing whack a mole.

In the long term if my level of home security failed me and people say broke into my home say twice I would move, to a more secure neighborhood. I would be moving not because of financial loss because my items are insured. Maybe some sentiment loss if they stole a particular collectible but I would move because the neighborhood I live in no longer represents the type of neighborhood I would want my family to live in. My view point is I am will to pay for a certain level of security. Secure doors and locks, monitored alarms, cameras, motion sensors, technological devices etc... but if all that failed to be a deterrent I would have no problems moving my family into a more secured neighborhood. Maybe even with a gated community with private security as you suggest.

 

I have thought about your question some more since my initial response and I wish to amend it a bit. I originally said if my home was broken into twice I would probably consider moving into a different neighborhood. I would like to update that answer. Even if no one broke into my home because of my deterrents, if other homes in my immediate neighborhood were being broken into on a regular basics say between once a week and once a month I would probably move to another neighborhood. I would look for a neighborhood with very little crime or look to a secure gated neighborhood that employs private security. Although we love our home and have spent a ton of money to renovate it to meet our needs I would have no problems with starting over again in a new location in order for my family to live in the type of neighborhood we would be comfortable in.

 

Police move resources around on a daily basis, specious. In fact why don't you propose getting rid of ALL policing for that matter and you hire your own. And the criminals will go to wherever there are the targets. What are you going to do then move again? And you don't think stores, which have as much right to police protection as you do, have those security measures? How do you think we have the videos? They have cameras. I already showed you in one where there was a security guard standing there at the door trying to stop it.

But you go ahead and in your city go to your city council and propose they stop police patrols and stop patrolling your neighborhoods and stores and only RESPOND to a report of a crime telling them how much tax money they could save and see how that goes over.

Dude, enforce the current laws and keep them in jail, and yes build more jails if we need them. I find your solution we just let the criminals commit the crimes and just move around trying to stay one step in front of them totally absurd.

 

I will repeat one more time and stop moving the goal post

And if there is a rash

Definition of rash
(Entry 1 of 3)

1: an eruption on the body
2: a large number of instances in a short period
a rash of complaints

of break-ins in you neighborhood is it your responsibility to hire extra security or is the the responsibility of the police to stop it? If gangs are coming to your neighborhood every night and randomly breaking into home where all the cameras in the world will not stop them or your barricaded door you will not be demanding the police send extra patrols to put an end to it? I HIGHLY doubt it.

You're saying you would just move and let the criminals run you out?

 

What should be the minimum for a felony? 2 bucks?

 

I am really getting tire of this. I really have to break this down point by point for you.

I have no problems with police re-assigning current resource however they want. My ENTIRE issue from my first post on this thread is not to raise taxes to increase more spending to a problem we already spend ample taxpayers money on. Your position was spend whatever it takes to stop the problem.

Again another example of you misrepresenting my position. Which part of not raising taxes to increase spending translates in your mind into defunding and getting rid of the police to you. Is there a language barrier or do you believe that if we do not give them more taxpayer's money it is the same as taking away all of their existing money? So you would equate not wanting to give someone more than we have already committed, to taking away all of their money? If a business does not give a raise it is the same thing as paying them nothing?

Again we are going back to my old post in this thread where I am pretty sure I already stated this twice but I will do it for a third and final time. I stated right at the beginning I was not a security expert but these we suggestion I proposed off the top of my head from experience in these stores.
1. Have an electronic locking mechanism. Once in a store people cannot leave unless an employer or security person presses a release switch. I have seen this on many jewelry businesses. In this example people snatching and grabbing the merchandise are locked in the store.
2. Put locking cables on valuable merchandise. When we were in the LV store in Paris purses were secured by a thin steel cable to a ring in the shelf. There is some freedom to inspect the bag but if you want more you had to ask an employee to unlock it. If you have this it would be a major deterrent to snatch and grab.
3. Place expensive merchandise in secured display cases. The most expensive items behind counters. (Kind of common sense).
4. Hire security guards. They act as deterrent and are there to keep the doors clear. (This is my one suggestion you keep harping back to ignore the rest)
5. Hire a security consulting firm to evaluate your companies security and review their suggestion. (I manage a department of programmers and engineers. I have no retail security knowledge so my final suggestion was seek expert advice. I work in financial services where our clients move hundreds of millions a day if not per hour. We have entire departments and teams of people working on cyber and site security and we still hire multiple external security companies for regular evaluations and training. You have to harden the target and keep ahead of the criminals.)

See you are at it again. In your mind I want to take away funding. You equate to not getting more as taking away what you already get. This is like those childish leftist whining away those fiscally responsible people won't increase our amount free money. That is the same as getting nothing. (Just because we already give them 100s million already, it is not good enough.) WAH!!!

In a perfect world I would agree because I would like to get rid of crime too BUT we live in a world of limited resources. We have built plenty of prisons and incarcerated more people per capita then any other country but still we have ridiculous levels of crime. Taxpayers have sacrificed plenty in this strategy and it is not working. I am simply saying it is time to try something new and you are going old school and saying lets spend more and do more of the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries

 

orange man trump set the standard by his constant lying and thieving behavior so why do you expect other people to be paragons of virtue? He was never punished for his crimes.

 

A 70-year-old man in Pennsylvania is facing 7 years in prison for stealing a $2.19 candy bar.

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...rs-prison-alleged-candy-bar-theft/4746339001/

 

I really don't see why this is so hard for you and you are the one moving the goal post. Remember what the whole point of our discussion is about.

ME: I do not want to increase taxes to pay for MORE, ( NOT LESS, NOT TAKE AWAY EXISTING, JUST NO MORE), police expenditures, judicial resources or incarceration resource. One more time just in case I am not being clear. My whole issue is NO NEW TAXES. EXISTING TAXES ARE OK. WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT BUT WE ALREADY PAY ENOUGH. That pays for the current level of the criminal justice system. NO DEFUNDING NO ABOLISHING POLICE.

YOU: In reply #171 you said to me "as many as it takes to stop this lawlessness that cost us all money and endangers private citizens and their property."

Essentially you advocated spending whatever it takes to hire more police officers and police equipment. More police cars, weapons, uniforms, desk space etc... More judges, prosecutors. Build more prisoners, hire more prison guards, support staff etc... As much as it takes to stop this type of lawlessness we are discussing in this thread.

Now tell me how does your solution address the definition of rash you outlined. In the short term are you going to be able to collect more taxes? Train and hire more police? Hire more judges and prosecutors? Build more prisons and the infrastructure to run them. What is the difference you are advocating?

In the short term the best you can do is re-allocate existing resources which is what the police currently does. That is what I called the whack-a-mole solution. I don't care about that because that does not translate into new taxes or increased spending. They are just using current resources. You and I are debating a totally different thing. In you last reply (218, you said build more prisons. That is a long term plan. I told you my long term plan and still stand by it. I am not going to restate it but look to my post #216 and 217. I am pretty sure it would take me less time to move then for you to build another prison.

 

Yeah because no one ever stole before Trump came around...

He should have threatened to withhold foreign aid if the investigator investigating his son, whom he got a lucrative job in a foreign Nation for which he was completely unqualified, was not removed from the case.


Then went on to brag about it on national TV.....

Oh wait wrong guy.....