"America is just downright mean." ~Michelle Obama
Posted on 08/19/2011 10:50:16 AM PDT by Justaham
Thank you for speaking the truth. Keep doing it.
Not good. The dogs have no way of knowing which humans are the criminals and which were just shopping. A well trained clerk with a shotgun, on the other hand...
Yes.
So one answer is comprehensive security cams, esp. of people as they enter the store, and face recognition technology.
All photos are posted on the web.
Those caught are prosecuted for their crimes PLUS permanently removed from any kind of public assistance (including those free cell phones we give “poor” people that then may be used against us in anti-social ways).
Maybe you could also have everyone who leaves the store get hit with a paintbomb as they do with stolen money from banks. Yes, this would hit some innocent people, but the tapes would show who was and was not involved in the mob. The paint would make it much harder for the perps to blend away out of sight.
Finally, security cams should be trained on the parking lot or other entrance area, at a distance giving some notice of a mob forming. Then software needs to be developed that constantly analyses the tape and can identify quickly that a mob or a mob-like crowd is approaching the store entrance. The clerk could be alarmed and possibly use a shut-down button to lock the door BEFORE people entered.
Oh, another tactic: when I was a kid, the first convenience stores in beachtowns were open-air. There was no door to enter, only a big grate that rolled up like a garage door and was brought down when the store closed. Well, as you might imagine, groups of kids could swarm in and out and shoplift, or kids could just shoplift pretty easily because there was such a large space from which to get in and out fo the door and the clerk could be occupied in another part of the store.
So what they finally did was set up basically rope lines and they would only allow, say, 5 people in the store at a time. We literally waited in a line to get in. This allowed the clerks to keep an eye on everyone and make sure they paid.
It may be that something like this will have to be reinstituted. Sad as that is.
I agree. I posted some ideas downthread and wanted to add:
I noticed that some of my local banks, particularly the smaller ones, now do not allow anyone to enter who has on a hat, a hoodie, sunglasses, etc. They list the stuff you can’t wear into the bank on the door.
You enter the bank by entering a rather large area between the exterior doors and the interior doors that access the bank lobby.
I recently learned from a friend who is a teller that if someone comes into that space is wearing, say, a hoodie, the teller quickly locks the interior door, locking the person out of the bank. If the person complies with the “dress code,” the door is unlocked and he is allowed in.
I figured that was the case. What I didn’t know: she told me one of the reasons for the “dress code” is not only to keep out people who may want to conceal their identity (would-be bank robbers), but because while you’re standing in that space or entering the lobby, they cam you and they want a clear photo of your face (thus, no sunglasses, etc.).
Something like this may have to be insituted at stores, too.
The great Thomas Sowell writes, in Race and Economics,
Andrew Young's statement that blacks have been "ripped off" by stores run by Jews, Koreans, and Arabs has been rightly criticized and he has apologized. But these irresponsible remarks have wider implications than Andrew Young and wider implications than their political repercussions.
For decades, one of the biggest blind spots of most civil rights "leaders" and "spokesmen" for the black community has been their utter lack of knowledge of economics.
As a purely factual matter, prices do tend to be higher -- and the quality of service and products lower -- in stores in low-income neighborhoods. But the knee-jerk assumption that this represents "exploitation" or "racism" ignores the economics of the situation.
Many of the ghetto stores charging high prices are struggling to survive, while supermarkets in other neighborhoods are very profitable charging lower prices. There are many reasons for this.
The reason least likely to be acknowledged by those who blame the store owners is that crime, shoplifting, vandalism, and riots have raised the costs, both directly and by causing insurance rates and the costs of security to be higher in ghetto neighborhoods.
(more at the above link . . . )
"America is just downright mean." ~Michelle Obama
Wow. That was an excellent post. Thank you.
“One loan clerk with a gun is not going to be able to stop 10 or 20 yutes, who may also be armed.”
Depends on who he is, and what he’s armed with. Might be a good idea, though, to have more than one clerk on the robbery shift.
“You need to remove the incentive. It’s much less tempting to come enmasse when, due to a lockable revolving door or security gate, no more than three people can come in.”
So, we have to modify our way of life and endure inconveniences because we’re too weak to handle savages?
Welfare may have been an emerging response, but at this point it seems the difference was that there was not yet an entrenched entitlement mentality.
In general, poor people were helped by *charity,* which is very different from an anonymous handout from a bureaucracy. For one thing, there was a form of accountability to charitable givers (they need not keep supporting those who were anti-social) and there was also social shame in taking charity unless it was absolutely necessary -- and then one was expected to be, and usually was, grateful for the voluntary assistance given by one's fellow man.
At the same time, because government was not robbing a substantial segment of society so that those in government-defined "poverty" could live at the standard to which the government had accustomed them, there was a much more generalized robust understanding of private property, the work involved in amassing private property, and the lengths to which individuals would go to protect their property.
Today? None of those things that put very real social constraints on wanton greed --- and it is the "POOR" who are greedily exploiting the rich at this point in history -- exist.
People born onto the welfare plantation are brought up to believe that they are owed other people's property. End of story.
Maybe end of Western Civilization.
You can bet that this is not the first crime these "ladies" have committed. One thing they realized in Giuliani's New York City was that a relatively small number of habitual criminals did most of the crime. Deal with habitual criminals in a way that terminates their crime sprees early in the game, and you keep crime under control.
yes, you modify your life on account of idiots. You already do when you obey speeding laws. Speeding laws exist because of the idiots who drive 100 mph through areas where kids cross the street. It is because of them you get to have your decision to drive as you see fit taken away from you. Or, if you go into the bar and they wand you down for weapons, guess why they do that?
“yes, you modify your life on account of idiots.”
I didn’t say “idiots.” I said “savages.” Entirely different matter.
“You already do when you obey speeding laws.”
False analogy.
“Speeding laws exist because of the idiots who drive 100 mph through areas where kids cross the street.”
And the idiots who drive 30 mph and don’t keep a close lookout. That, however, is an entirely different matter from handling savages.
Streets are public. We have a legitimate interest in keeping them safe. Speed limits and police to enforce them are one way we handle those who endanger others on the roads. This is one proper role of government.
You want to handle savages by admitting that they cannot be eradicated; by handling them rather than eliminating them. This, IMO, is the wrong approach.
“It is because of them you get to have your decision to drive as you see fit taken away from you.”
As I said, streets are public. We have a legitimate interest in keeping them safe. Speed limits and police to enforce them are one way we handle those who endanger others on the roads. This is one proper role of government.
Savages have no right to act as they do, and those they would victimize have every right to gun them down on the spot, without warning or mercy.
To hell with turnstiles, locks, and alarms. Give them to know that the odds of coming home are slim to none, and that crap will stop.
“Or, if you go into the bar and they wand you down for weapons, guess why they do that?”
Now you’re in entirely different territory. You seem to be equating the privilege of using public streets with the God-given right to self-defense. In addition, private property rights may enter in there.
If the bar bans guns because the owner wants to, that’s his right. Live with it or go somewhere else. If he has to hire people to wand patrons because the whacko gun-grabber nutbars have had an unconstitutional law or ordinance passed, then both owner and patrons are being denied a right.
BTW, I’ve never been wanded when entering a bar. In what part of the country does this go on?
Sigh. Even here on FR people no longer address the arguments actually at issue.
“Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee - when did any of these states have an anti-gun or anti-defense regime? The answer is never.”
Anti-gun or anti-defense regime? Great straw man. Of course, it completely ignores the myriad forces that militate against the use of deadly force to protect property. If the state doesn’t prosecute, the feds may charge you with a “civil rights” violation, or an unscrupulous lawyer may file a lawsuit against you. And let’s not forget how a shooting of a black can set off a riot.
The good are afraid of the bad, and the bad are afraid of nothing. (Lew Rockwell)
“Yet, crimes of this nature have plagued and created ghettos in Houston, New Orleans, Birmingham, Memphis, Jackson, Atlanta and Charleston.”
That statement is not factual. This flash mob crime is too new a phenomenon to have created any “ghettos” (more correctly termed “slums”).
“No, guns while they will help in an immediate situation, aren’t going to help transform the problem when dealing with people who don’t consider repercussions before they act anyway.”
Are you saying that Negroes are too stupid to stop engaging in a given behavior when it becomes obvious that the behavior in question is generally fatal? I rather imagine that (1) if a few dozen of these flash mob savages reaped the whirlwind, and (2) if a few thousand savages took that excuse to riot and also met with a dose of Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5, and (3) this was repeated in a dozen cities, things would get pretty damned quiet in the slums.
“What did the government do differently in 1927 that kept the lid on this? You can say welfare”
Why in the world would I say a stupid thing like that? Another poster has already addressed that, so I’ll just add that we were a great people because we were a good people. It wasn’t that the government did things differently; it was that we were a different people. Our scumbag-to-decent person was much, much lower. Black families were intact. Illegitimacy among blacks then was lower than it is among whites today.
“they don’t have no-go city areas.”
No-go areas are what happens when you stop shooting criminals.
“Look, little old ladies didn’t need to pack a pistol in 1927 to travel anywhere in this country safely. And they shouldn’t have to now. That’s defeatist and frankly tyrannical in my opinion to say to the defenseless old and infirm “hey, you want to be safe, you better pack some heat.””
That’s the second time in this thread that I’ve run across a statement so illogical that it defied sanity.
(1) It is your approach that fails to defeat the savages and leaves the old and infirm at their mercy. My approach significantly ameliorates the problem and results in much safer cities.
(2) Given the situation that exists now, it is foolish not to arm one’s self. There are many bad outlaws who have weapons, and will kill you even if you cooperate. Your best chance is to shoot first.
“That’s not civilization, that’s anarchy, when society says “screw it, you’re on your own for protection”. What’s the point of a society in that condition anyway?”
That’s exactly what we have now. How many crimes do the police actually prevent? Far fewer than do armed citizens, year in and year out. The police don’t even have a legal duty to protect us. That is established law.
The scumbags in the government today are not going to do anything to improve this situation. If it is to be improved, it will be Americans with guns in their hands who do it.
“The situation we’re dealing with is much uglier and deeper than pistols in purses will fix.”
When did I say anything about pistols in purses?
Although if 9,000 of the 10,000 or so white women raped by black men every year pulled pistols out of their purses and killed the would-be rapists, I’d just bet that some changes in behavior would be noted.
“And even worse, it’s taboo to talk about in a frank manner.”
Yeah, well, I’m not putting up with that any more.
These Amish, Mormons and Quakers really need to stop with these flash mobs.
What a great post (#44). I’ve often had the exact same thoughts. I’ve looked at people who live in gated communities with private security or a swipe lock and said that’s silly, what a waste of money. If you can afford it though, is it really? I don’t think so anymore. Of course, that only protects you when you’re at home.
We get wanded up here at bars sometimes (NY). With all the strict and oh-so-effective gun control laws that we have, why bother? Oh wait...
Why is it that three white college students who play lacrosse at Duke are railroaded and falsely accused of rape by a black stripper and a cooperative and racist DA, and everyone assumes they are guilty? Why does the media assume it? If they looked at the FBI crime statistics, they would see that less than 10 rapes a year are reported that involve Caucasian men allegedly raping African-American women.
“If they looked at the FBI crime statistics, they would see that less than 10 rapes a year are reported that involve Caucasian men allegedly raping African-American women.”
I spoke of savages because some of them are white, hispanic, asian, etc.
I consider the problem we have with *some* blacks to be a moral, spiritual, and educational problem rather than a racial problem.
Be that as it may, I fear that this problem cannot be solved without recourse to either tyranny or bloodshed.
Oh, I don’t know...perhaps if we had an exceptional leader, advised by men who were both ridiculously intelligent *and* wise, and if we decided to spend our resources on problems within our own borders—or affecting matters within our borders—some solution could be found that didn’t involve offering savages a choice between acting right and taking a dirt nap.
Not holding my breath.
No, I understood what you were saying as well. Take the shop owners, for example. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. As one shop owner noted, he can’t afford to hire a security guard for the low-traffic night shift. Unless the police are RIGHT there, the perps are going to get away with their haul. The more this happens and the more it is reported, the more frequent it will probably come, as perps and prospective perps realize that they can get away with the shoplifting without repercussions. Some have suggested shooting them. I gotta say that even though I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter, I have a real problem with shooting someone over them stealing food from your store. Obviously these people are not stealing the food because they are starving, but the idea of shooting someone for stealing property just strikes me as overkill and disproportionate to the crime committed. It would probably reduce the occurrences of these flash mobs, but at what price? Some of these states don’t have the death penalty and we’re going to have store owners shooting people for stealing $60 worth of stuff? If one of the perps has a weapon or makes any threatening advances to the store owner, I could definitely see the justification for firing off some shots, but I don’t know if I like the shop owner’s chances against 8 or 9 perps, some of whom may be carrying knives or guns (concealed) themselves. I know I wouldn’t take those odds. The police cannot be everywhere at once so as someone else mentioned in their post, the only real solution for the store owners seems to be to move their stores out of these bad neighborhoods. That will buy them 10 years or so until the bad neighborhood catches up with THEM again.
“Some of these states don’t have the death penalty and we’re going to have store owners shooting people for stealing $60 worth of stuff?”
No, for rejecting and threatening to bring down civilization itself. Do you really want to be held hostage by these savages? “Let us get away with this or we’ll riot?”
It is a time to remember Neville Chamberlain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
