Just reread the article and I see nothing to support that claim. It would depend on whether the value was under $750.
No. It does not say this is limited to food and diapers. It does not say electronics will be excluded. Reasonably, you want it to have said that but it does not. Those are just used as examples to make the decision seem reasonable.
"The district attorney said in his statement Wednesday afternoon that some people had misinterpreted what he meant by not prosecuting thefts of personal items under $750.
“Personal items are limited to necessity items,” he wrote in the statement. “Personal items would include items such as necessary food, diapers and baby formula.”
He said anyone who shoplifts for economic gain will still be prosecuted."
Good. He is already back tracking under pressure.
I didn’t say only food and diapers, I gave them as examples. “Necessity items” are what he’s talking about, he could do with making a list but you’d have to wilfully misinterpret him to make the claims the OP is.
Lol.
Some media outlets picked up the policy proposal and misconstrued it for clicks.
2 Likes
Here is the original letter…
And here is the paragraph people intentionally misconstrued to get clicks:
“Theft of Necessary Items
Study after study shows that when we arrest, jail, and convict people for non-violent crimes
committed out of necessity, we only prevent that person from gaining the stability necessary to
lead a law-abiding life. Criminalizing poverty is counter-productive for our community’s
health and safety. For that reason, this office will not prosecute theft of personal items less than
$750 unless the evidence shows that the alleged theft was for economic gain.”
If you think it’s a bad policy, fine. I’d agree 750 is way too high. But don’t fall for pretty blatant ■■■■■■■■ bad info and spin purely out of laziness.
2 Likes
"For that reason, this office will not prosecute theft of personal items less than $750 unless the evidence shows that the alleged theft was for economic gain. "
Ok. He provided a very ambiguous letter. The title says necessities but his statement does not describe personal items, only the $750 item. Most people would consider a computer to be a personal item.
IF we are talking about diapers, for example, then the only place those could be stolen would be like in a warehouse of store. If this results in increased thefts and shoplifting of diapers, what does he think that will do to the price law abiding people have to pay for those diapers…especially in the poorer parts of town? Clearly he has not thought this through. I would hope and expect that the state legislature would intervene here.
Can the state legislature intervene? I thought in Texas they were only there four months every two years or something like that?
So it will be okay to steal only certain things? Sure that’s going to work. What do you say to the business owners who are subject to this theft?
Raise your prices on covered items to recover the additional losses. And what does that say to poor people who actually pay for those items?
I can imagine small business owners being very pissed.
But keep in mind the actual policy, not the spin. This is aimed at offenders who are dead broke and stealing food and supplies to get by.
Sending that person to prison doesn’t solve anything, they’re not a druglord on a crime spree. And it ends up costing a ■■■■ load of taxpayer monies in court fee’s, police time and jail upkeep.
I do agree that 750 is way too high, and there needs to be some way to reimburse and protect the small businesses regardless.
If you did that, it’d probably work extremely well. There’s a bunch of ways the criminal justice system fails the poor in pretty amazing fashion, this really isn’t a terrible method of addressing some of that imbalance.
You haven’t tried to eat at the Mansion.
in any event, we all know what this is really about.
Hookers. The high priced ones at least,
The ones that high ranking city officials go to must cost too much in Dallas. Now they’ll have to charge under $750 a trick if they want to avoid attention.
/attempt at comedy
Don’t these people qualify for Food Stamps/SNAP? Supplies for what, diapers? Again a woman who is poor and has a child can get numerous Welfare benefits.
Small government does not apply to prosecuting crimes committed by the poor or regulating the lives of people of limited means. Small government is a means of allowing corporations to operate without restraint and of looking the other way at high value financial crimes. Please get with the program.
Can you imagine the underground/black market that will certainly develop from this type of policy? So steal $750 dollars worth of food, diapers, etc., that is on the “acceptable” list of stealable items, and then sell the things you don’t need at a reduced cost.
Here is another question, does the business owner have any rights to protect their merchandise? Or does the criminal have every right to walk into a store and be “allowed” to steal the items on the “decriminalized” items list?
No.
“I have not directed a police department to stop making arrests for theft offenses,” he said. “In fact, I have not directed a police department to stop making arrests for any offense where there is probable cause.”
The funny thing is his “research” is bull ■■■■■ Poor people don’t steal, thieves do.
Annnnd, in Texas property owners have a right to use lethal force to protect their property. Somebody is probably going to get killed over this.
This was stupid.
Why would the police arrest them if they know they aren’t going to be prosecuted? That’s like impeaching when the other party has the Senate.
Because the intention of the policy is pretty clear to people who don’t have a motivation to pretend they don’t understand it.
