> There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

#1 2025-07-20 18:58:13

Baggers take your head out of Trixon's ass

"950 shoplifting in california
Shoplifting laws in California with a $950 threshold
In California, shoplifting is generally treated as a misdemeanor when the value of the stolen goods is $950 or less. This is a result of Proposition 47, which reclassified many non-violent property crimes, including shoplifting, from felonies to misdemeanors in 2014"

#2 2025-07-20 19:12:32

Doesn't matter, baggers don't do nuance. Periood.

#3 2025-07-20 19:34:35

That sounds like a good idea!
\
 

#4 2025-07-20 20:43:04

 

Let the punishment fit the crime?

#5 2025-07-20 20:58:52

The leftist enemy FORGETS to mention that the misdemeanor crime for STEALING (not just shoplifting) has been redefined for this crime, including:

It is a NON ARRESTABLE offence.  This means that NO detention of any kind is allowed except by a POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS WITNESSED THE CRIME, who can detain the criminal for the purpose of writing a citation (AKA "ticket").

If you impede, try to stop, delay or accidentally get in  the way of a thief, you can be personally held liable for FALSE ARREST.   

The MAXIMUM PENALTY for stealing $950 or less (the actual value will be determined by the SOROS backed DA), is a $50 fine.   The right to a JURY TRIAL is preserved.

Some minor changes have been made recently, but it is still a place where you are not allowed to have nice things.

#6 2025-07-20 22:08:02

 wrote:Baggers take your head out of Trixon's ass

"950 shoplifting in california
Shoplifting laws in California with a $950 threshold
In California, shoplifting is generally treated as a misdemeanor when the value of the stolen goods is $950 or less. This is a result of Proposition 47, which reclassified many non-violent property crimes, including shoplifting, from felonies to misdemeanors in 2014"


Split hairs all you like, the world now sees it for the failure it was. 
It will be redone with a mandatory prison sentence. 
The pendulum always overswings.

#7 2025-08-30 01:33:55

 wrote:Split hairs all you like, the world now sees it for the failure it was. 
It will be redone with a mandatory prison sentence. 
The pendulum always overswings.
The only thing that swings is your ass as Tyrone penetrates you

#8 2026-08-05 16:42:24

 wrote:The only thing that swings is your ass as Tyrone penetrates you

laughhard.gif

#9 2026-08-05 17:18:40

Tom Leykis wrote:The leftist enemy FORGETS to mention that the misdemeanor crime for STEALING (not just shoplifting) has been redefined for this crime, including:

It is a NON ARRESTABLE offence.  This means that NO detention of any kind is allowed except by a POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS WITNESSED THE CRIME, who can detain the criminal for the purpose of writing a citation (AKA "ticket").

If you impede, try to stop, delay or accidentally get in  the way of a thief, you can be personally held liable for FALSE ARREST.   

The MAXIMUM PENALTY for stealing $950 or less (the actual value will be determined by the SOROS backed DA), is a $50 fine.   The right to a JURY TRIAL is preserved.

Some minor changes have been made recently, but it is still a place where you are not allowed to have nice things.
More bagger lies.

California Penal Code § 459.5 PC defines “shoplifting” as entering a commercial establishment during regular business hours with the intent to steal merchandise valued at $950 or less. Shoplifting is typically a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to six months in jail and/or $1,000 in fines.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/459-5/

#10 2026-08-05 17:39:03

Tom Leykis wrote:The leftist enemy FORGETS to mention that the misdemeanor crime for STEALING (not just shoplifting) has been redefined for this crime, including:

It is a NON ARRESTABLE offence.  This means that NO detention of any kind is allowed except by a POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS WITNESSED THE CRIME, who can detain the criminal for the purpose of writing a citation (AKA "ticket").

If you impede, try to stop, delay or accidentally get in  the way of a thief, you can be personally held liable for FALSE ARREST.   

The MAXIMUM PENALTY for stealing $950 or less (the actual value will be determined by the SOROS backed DA), is a $50 fine.   The right to a JURY TRIAL is preserved.

Some minor changes have been made recently, but it is still a place where you are not allowed to have nice things.

#11 2026-08-05 17:59:32

 wrote:More bagger lies.

California Penal Code § 459.5 PC defines “shoplifting” as entering a commercial establishment during regular business hours with the intent to steal merchandise valued at $950 or less. Shoplifting is typically a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to six months in jail and/or $1,000 in fines.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/459-5/
THAT'S total made up leftist bullshyt.   YOU live there for awhile.

#12 2026-08-05 18:04:01

Tom Leykis wrote:THAT'S total made up leftist bullshyt.   YOU live there for awhile.
Who should I believe a California law firm or an insane bagger?
\

#13 2026-08-05 18:08:24

 wrote:Who should I believe a California law firm or an insane bagger?
\

#14 2026-08-05 23:12:10

 wrote:Baggers take your head out of Trixon's ass

"950 shoplifting in california
Shoplifting laws in California with a $950 threshold
In California, shoplifting is generally treated as a misdemeanor when the value of the stolen goods is $950 or less. This is a result of Proposition 47, which reclassified many non-violent property crimes, including shoplifting, from felonies to misdemeanors in 2014"


Pedantic libfag tries to justify encouraging crime.

#15 2026-08-05 23:15:54

Does that also exempt them from three strikes laws so they can rack up 30 convictions?

bagcry.png

> There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Tom Leykis wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Tom Leykis wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Tom Leykis wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

wrote:

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY

Re: There is NO legal <=$950 shoplifiting in CA. What proposition 47 says is that shoplifting with a value of =<$950 can be treated as a MISDEMEANOR rather that a FELONY