> San Francisco decriminalized thefts under a dollar value of $950. This is direct, object-level proof of the original point in question.
Even a cursory search will inform you this is false, so let's not swing around accusations of acting in bad faith. Shoplifting under $950 is a misdemeanor and still punishable by jail time.
The argument that the only way to stop shoplifting is to have tougher sentences is the kind of galaxy brain take that gave us five decades and counting of the War on Drugs.
And as I noted in another comment, there was no evidence of this rash of shoplifting these stories so breathlessly repeated, and Walgreens themselves now admit it
>In an interview with NBC News last week, Scott suggested that California's Proposition 47, which voters passed in 2014 and lowered criminal sentences for certain nonviolent crimes like shoplifting and check forgery, is being exploited by those who want to commit theft. The initiative set a threshold of $950 for shoplifting to be considered a misdemeanor, which doesn't prompt law enforcement to make an arrest, rather than a felony, which could incur harsh penalties like jail time.
Just give up the semantic games already. Walgreens is closing many of their stores in SF due to crime. Your last link pulls the trick of acknowledging objective reality in the first paragraph, then inventing fanfiction to handwave it away for the rest of the article:
>One of the stores set to close, on Ocean Avenue, had only seven reported shoplifting incidents this year and a total of 23 since 2018, the data showed. While not all shoplifting incidents are reported to police, the five stores slated to close had fewer than two recorded shoplifting incidents a month on average since 2018.
Store owners aren't reporting thefts of under $950 to the police because the DA and police told them they won't do anything about it, which is the point I have proven that you keep trying to dodge.
