The “Walgreens is closing SF stores because the DA won’t prosecute shoplifting” narrative is complicated by a couple things:
1) reported shoplifting in the city is down.
2) the store announced it was closing hundreds of stores in the fall of 2019, before Boudin took office.
1) reported shoplifting in the city is down.
2) the store announced it was closing hundreds of stores in the fall of 2019, before Boudin took office.
https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1408455506075717635
Moreover, a 2014 CA law makes shoplifting less than $950 a misdemeanor. So *no* DA in CA can throw the book at those shoplifters.
Retailers are lobbying to repeal the law. Which they have every right to do. But it’s also worth considering that they might have some incentive…
Retailers are lobbying to repeal the law. Which they have every right to do. But it’s also worth considering that they might have some incentive…
… to exaggerate the problem, or to retroactively blame pre-planned store closings on a shoplifting surge.
*Maybe* shoplifting really is up, and the contradictory crime data is due to under-reporting. But that’s an unfalsifiable claim, and it at least deserves some skepticism.
*Maybe* shoplifting really is up, and the contradictory crime data is due to under-reporting. But that’s an unfalsifiable claim, and it at least deserves some skepticism.
I recommend this episode of the Citations Needed podcast for more analysis:
m.soundcloud.com/citationsneede…
m.soundcloud.com/citationsneede…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
