… Looters will be shot.
intercst
4 Likes
This text is not in the WSJ linked piece. Not even the word “shot,” by itself, is in the piece.
Yesterday I listened to a lawyer talk about the California laws regarding shooting looters. Deadly force can be used only in a very limited circumstances which does not include looting by itself.
The Captain
3 Likes
The article mentions extensive police presence to protect neighborhoods, even to the extent that home owners can’t access their home. Are we to believe the police are keeping out homeowners but allowing looters in? Not questioning that looting is occurring, it most certainly is. I’m wondering about the extent of the problem.
The comments section of the article is enlightening. We live in sad times, people blame and hate after disasters strike. We used to come together.
Here’s an article describing efforts to secure neighborhoods -
Updating to provide a link to damage maps - https://recovery.lacounty.gov/eaton-fire/
2 Likes
It varies by neighborhood. My sister had to evacuate, but after a couple of days was allowed to return, although there was no electricity.
DB2
2 Likes
Thanks Bob, I hope your sister is safe and her home survived. Any looting issues in her area?
Maybe the text wasn’t intended to imply the article mentioned shooting looters. I’m guessing the text refers to what will likely happen because of the hysteria being promoted about looters running rampant through wildfire impacted areas. Illegals are pouring in to steal our stuff, terrible politicians are allowing this to happen through lax sanctuary city / state policies. Liberal government is bad and destroying our country, we’ve got to arm ourselves! And on, and on, and on. It’s easy to see how this could lead to people shooting looters or suspected looters.
I dunno, I’m taking a stab into the dark, maybe @intercst can explain further what was meant by the text.
1 Like
The fire got within 6-8 blocks of her house. The fire also was stopped across the street from the house my late uncle built in Sierra Madre.
Not that she has heard.
DB2
2 Likes
Suppose it is minor by some measure, for the homes that get looted its 100% bad. The current administration reduced the penalty for looting below a certain amount. How does that not encourage looting?
The Captain
1 Like
I think you’re mistaken. I’m guessing you read something on X. You should research before you post misinformation.
2 Likes
Yep. If you feel the need to walk around a disaster area with a firearm, you better be prepared to use it.
intercst
3 Likes
You need a better guessing machine.
The Captain
Is this perhaps what you’ve mistaken as an “invitation to looting”
intercst
1 Like
Closer to the mark but not:
AP ASSESSMENT: False.
Instead:
Proposition 47 was passed in California in 2014 and reclassified felony theft offenses as misdemeanors.
If you are convicted of misdemeanor grand theft, you face up to 364 days in county jail and a maximum fine of $1,000. If you are convicted of felony grand theft, you face a sentence of 16 months, two or three years in county jail and maximum fine of $10,000.
The Captain
So you’re blaming the current administration for a proposition that was passed by voters?
I think my guessing machine is working just fine.
Here’s something else to consider - the $400 threshold for felony theft started in 1982. $400 in 1982 equates to more than $1300 today. Raising that threshold from $400 to $950 seems reasonable.
Looters are gonna loot. I wonder what encourages them more, lowering the threshold for felony charges, or misinformation being spread about looters not being prosecuted.
2 Likes
I’m guessing cilck bait.
The Captain
Guess who voted in the current administration. Three guesses and the first two don’t count.
- Martians
- Lunatics
- Xxxxs
The Captain