In the Progressive Utopia, the criminal has an absolute right to help themselves to your property.

You probably obtained your property through privilege and exploitation and the poor criminal is probably an oppressed person.

Your defense of your property is illegal and will be prosecuted.

The theft of your property may be nominally illegal but the thief will never be seriously punished for taking from a privileged person.

If you think the system is there to protect you as a taxpayer, that’s where you’re wrong.

You don’t pay taxes for services.

You pay taxes because you are afraid of going to prison if you don’t.

The services are incidental.

It’s best to just watch your property go out your door until you go broke then resign yourself to living on government assistance.

It may not be right, but it’s legal.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

12 thoughts on “Don’t be a hero, Leftists love criminals and hate citizens”
  1. ALAMEDA, Calif. (KGO) — A frustrated customer took matters into his own hands, wrestling with, and even body slamming a suspected shoplifter and his associate at an Alameda Walgreens. [emphasis added]

    Wow. So much to pick apart in such a short opening paragraph.

    “took matters into his own hands” == “vigilante”

    “even body slamming” == “excessive force / violent assault”

    “suspected” == “innocent until proven guilty … and since the store didn’t press charges, just plain innocent”

    And that’s not even touching the disparate language used to describe both parties. “Kevin” “wrestling with, and even body slamming,” is presented as undisputed fact, but even with video evidence the shoplifter is still only “suspected”.

    Let’s re-work this to match what the reporter likely wanted to say — and absolutely would say if the story were about a J6 protester: ALAMEDA, Calif. (KGO) — A frustrated vigilante confronted, and even violently assaulted, an innocent customer and his friend at an Alameda Walgreens.

    The last questions on my mind: Why do the stores never press charges? Because (according to the article) they “don’t want to participate in an investigation”? They’d rather bleed inventory and be forced out of business slowly than do something to stem the loss?

    That must be the PR and Legal departments talking; I doubt the just-over-minimum-wage workers — who have to live it every day — feel the same way.

    1. Also, that headline on the tweet: Walgreens Customer Body Slams Suspected Shoplifter & Associate

      “Associate” of whom?

      Like many retail businesses, Walgreens refers to its employees as “associates”.

      So did the frustrated customer body slam a Walgreens employee, or a shoplifting co-conspirator? Unless you watch the videos, you can’t know for sure.

      Is that vague headline a reporter error? Editorial oversight? Or was that double-entendre intentional, with the knowledge that a plurality of readers will assume the customer assaulted a Walgreens employee and won’t click through to the videos?

    2. They’d rather bleed inventory and be forced out of business slowly than do something to stem the loss?
      The other alternative is they just keep raising the prices on everything to cover the costs of theft.
      If all the competitors do the same thing, the area gets more expensive to live in, not that store. Misery loves company.

  2. So the police continue prosecuting and persecuting the average citizen while turning a blind eye to criminal behavior. There are only three logical outcomes to this:
    1 Many citizens decide that they have had enough and move away, leaving the area to the cops and criminals. This will cause a complete collapse of the economy of the area, or
    2 The citizens decide that they have had enough and begin taking the law into their own hands. This will result in violence between police and citizens and cause a collapse of the economy of the area, or
    3 The citizens quietly sit by and allow things to continue until the businesses are bled dry and go out of business. This will result in a collapse of the economy of the area.

    Once the rule of law has ceased to exist, the only end result is economic collapse. The only variable is the route that is taken to get there.

    1. In theory there is a fourth option:
      4. Enough citizens vote for sane politicians that the offending police bosses and DAs and other lowlife lose their jobs and are replaced by honest and competent civil servants.
      In CA that may be implausible, but it has been known to happen in some other places.

      1. Name one place where the rule of law has collapsed like this and managed to vote their way out. I can’t think of one

  3. IF, and we know its a big if… IF Americans get rid of prosecuters who feed on citizens maybe We the People could start making a difference… its going to take thousands more citizens to start doing this to make it change.

  4. FIDO. Drive on, walk away. The corporations don’t want your help. The police don’t want your help. the politicians sure don’t want your help. Drive on, Just like the three customers that nonchalantly walked out the other door as he wrestled the scumbag to the ground.

    1. I have said this before. After watching the Martin/Zimmerman case play out, I came to one big conclusion:
      No matter who you think you are helping, they won’t be there to help pay your legal bills or damage your destroyed reputation after the legal system gets ahold of you. I don’t care if I see a guy with a hockey mask and a bloody machete standing over a dead body, if he doesn’t pose a direct threat to me and mine, I am not getting involved. I just don’t have $200,000 in the bank that I can waste on a legal defense from getting involved in something that doesn’t directly affect me.

  5. They need to bring back the Service Merchandise business model. It’s the only way to turn a profit out there.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.