The only upside to the election fraud was letting arrogant liberalism, believing it'd never be caught, outdo and expose itself.

So if I want something from the stor I just take it and no one can stop me? Bwahahahahahahaha not many places will stay in business.

Do you actually not know what a misdemeanour is?

1. Do you not actually get that in sane places they're still actual prosecutable crimes that cops may enforce?

2. Are you so spoiled that a grand to you is just contemptible peasant money?

Thought so.

Ok, so you DON'T understand what a misdemeanour is.

Misdemeanours are still crimes. They carry penalties. You still go to jail for doing it. And since security cameras are so ubiquitous, it's not that hard to prosecute offenders without police help.

Imagine you tried to claim that jaywalking and littering have been legalized. That's nonsense, they haven't been, but if you found out that your police force is spending its time chasing down and shooting at jaywalkers, you'd be well within your rights to go "....that's not a good use of city resources, is it?"

Okay. Look at yourself:

1. You asked me if I understood a misdemeanor, but with the implication that a $950 "misdemeanor" was not as big a deal as my meme implied.

2. I replied I did, but that it was still a crime with consequences.

3. Then you tell ME what I just commented at you, as if you were informing me, and I hadn't actually said it.

(PLUS the fact you effectively just equated stealing an iPhone with jaywalking. Apparently my guess at your economic bespoilment was right on the money again. Like so many other things.)

Your head is scrambled Jello.

But since scrambled Jello is not cognizant of its inconsistencies, really, what's even the point?

So why are you saying that San Francisco legalized something when the real story is that they reclassified it as a misdemeanour?

There's no explaining yourself on this: your meme is trying to pedal a go***mn lie.

Nice absolute failure to acknowledge your prior total inconsistencies.

I lived in a state years ago where they misdemeanored pot. Even the cops called it legalization.

Must be nice living off of stores that earn a dollar at a time and you think a thousand is chump change.

That's why cities die from the inside when Dems get elected. I should know, I observed it myself.

All your endless jesuitizings, and yet the validity and point of the meme stand undiminished.

.

Well, then the cops were absolutely wrong.

I live in a place that reclassified pot possession. The police here distribute flyers on which it says prominently "pot is still illegal!" in excessively attentive font. I've no idea what's going on with your guys but police standards of practice is a whole different conversation.

Nonetheless, ANY court or lawyers or person with a dictionary will tell you that a misdemeanour is still illegal. You can go to jail for it. It is not legalized. There are still penalties. You still get punished for doing it. It's something you shouldn't be doing. It's not allowed. You have to pay back what you stole and then some and will probably get some jail time. You go to jail for it. A court punishes you for doing it. The law says you can't be doing it. It is against the law. A misdemeanour is still a crime.

Ergo, you are bullshitting.

You failed to read that the cops were not even allowed to stop the thieves, let alone arrest them.

Ergo, you are less intelligent than you represent.

Of course they are! Proposition 47 just reclassified it as a misdemeanor, that's all - the rest is a big giant porky on your part!

A person who is accused of committing any misdemeanor can be arrested and face jail time under California state law. Shoplifting in the state is punishable by up to six months in county jail.

Until the woke people instruct LEO's otherwise.

A person can tell you something three times over and it still doesn't sink in, you just desperately appeal to theory instead of empirics. You really are not very smart.

Learn from your lessons.

@antithesis re your shoplifting suggestion. You really love doing the fatuous.

I got a better idea. You go to Walgreen's. I think I heard they just started shutting down 17 stores in the Bay Area because they refuse to be victims to asinine f**kwit libtardery.

Tell them how you know so much better than they do about business margin security and loss prevention.

I bet they'll hire you for millions. It'd be great to know your stellar genius isn't going unwasted.

Where do you live, btw?

There's a way to settle this.

Head down to San Francisco and walk into a Zara branch. Shoplift $950 of items and upload a photo of you doing it to the social media account of your choice. If you're right, you'll be fine - even if I turn you in, the cops will be powerless as you say.

If you're arrested, you'll find out just how much of an ass you've made out of yourself on this thread, and for years.

YOu got replied to below.

But hey, holy f***, look at this too:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/05/23/san-francisco-seeing-an-epidemic-of-shoplifting-n1449006

Captain Obvious strikes again.

And it's always the liberals who are last to grasp common sense.

And yet, it is still a crime and ergo IT IS NOT LEGALIZED!!!

Here's the latest.

Feel free to admit you're wrong anytime, byotch.

http://www.womensystems.com/2021/07/crime-is-basically-legal-in-san.html

San Francisco county arrested 278 people on June 22nd alone (as recent as their records go).

That's quite odd for a jurisdiction where crime is "basically legal", wouldn't you say?

All just meaningless technicality to avoid the crushing evidence of social liberalism's failure.

Bet these people vote for a lot fewer dems the next time around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6o2MIuMQc

Ergo meme disproven. I'll take it. Good talk.

Can't reply to antithesis threads below a certain sublevel, forced to reply on level preceding.

Citing a number of existing arrests is not relevant. It's called trying to put a cork in the size of the dam. The size of the cork is not relevant.

.....you seem to still be having trouble with this concept: if you can still be arrested for it, it hasn't been legalized by definition.

You're the only person I know (I hope) capable of claiming .00001% disproven as disproof, and entirely disregarding the 99.9999% evidence. Love to take you to the poker tables.

We saw earlier your complete intellectual failure for technical subtleties like de jure vs. de facto.

Ergo your claims to have any competence in science are what are disproven instead.

Now that's a good - as in useful - talk.

Have you admitted that people are still getting arrested for things that are illegal?

Ok, then, good talk. What's that? You want to change the goalpost to are the arrests keeping up with crime? Not interested. You were wrong. Good talk.