How to Stop Mob Looting

 

Very simple; strengthen the law and then, enforce it. Define mob looting as a crime as follows: when more than one person cooperatively enters a retail establishment with the intent to steal merchandise. Aggregate the loss in determining the level of felony charged so that each person involved in the theft, including those aiding and abetting (drivers and those obstructing response, fences, persons who receive stolen property, etc.) are charged with the full value of all merchandise stolen and the costs of all damage.

Allow up to triple damages as compensation upon conviction. Allow a weapons charge if implements are used in the theft that could be classified as a weapon or used to intimidate a response. Arrest the perpetrators.

Stack up the felonies and dare the prosecutors to dismiss.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 30 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Doug Kimball: Define mob looting as a crime as follows: when more than one person cooperatively enters a retail establishment with the intent to steal merchandise. 

    Would more than one person cooperatively entering a retail establishment and stealing merchandise also be defined as mob looting?  Or does it only include intent?

    • #1
  2. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Define mob looting as a crime as follows: when more than one person cooperatively enters a retail establishment with the intent to steal merchandise.

    Would more than one person cooperatively entering a retail establishment and stealing merchandise also be defined as mob looting? Or does it only include intent?

    I don’t think that theft would have to be successful to meet the definition of mob looting;  if there is damage but the theft is thwarted, the charge would still be valid.

    • #2
  3. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Define mob looting as a crime as follows: when more than one person cooperatively enters a retail establishment with the intent to steal merchandise.

    Would more than one person cooperatively entering a retail establishment and stealing merchandise also be defined as mob looting? Or does it only include intent?

    I don’t think that theft would have to be successful to meet the definition of mob looting; if there is damage but the theft is thwarted, the charge would still be valid.

    There could be a separate conspiracy charge if law enforcement thwarts a planned mob looting.  This would be a more difficult case and hard to prosecute.

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Doug Kimball: Very simple; strengthen the law and then, enforce it.

    I love the idea, Doug, but the very prosecutors who should be doing just this will likely not follow through. It’s not like they don’t understand these are crimes; they just don’t care. I’m becoming so cynical. . . 

    • #4
  5. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Looting is probably not the correct word; From the Oregon Revised Statutes

    ORS 164.395
    Robbery in the third degree

    (1)A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing or attempting to commit theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle as defined in ORS 164.135 (Unauthorized use of a vehicle) the person uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with the intent of:

    (a)Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to retention thereof immediately after the taking; or

    (b)Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver the property or to engage in other conduct which might aid in the commission of the theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle.

    (2)Robbery in the third degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §148; 2003 c.357 §1]

    There’s more:

    ORS 164.098
    Organized retail theft

    (1)A person commits the crime of organized retail theft if, acting in concert with another person:
    (a)The person violates ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described) or aids or abets the other person to violate ORS 164.015 (“Theft” described);
    (b)The subject of the theft is merchandise and the merchandise is taken from a mercantile establishment; and
    (c)The aggregate value of the merchandise taken within any 90-day period exceeds $5,000.
    (2)As used in this section:
    (a)“Merchandise” has the meaning given that term in ORS 30.870 (Definitions for ORS 30.870 and 30.875).
    (b)“Mercantile establishment” has the meaning given that term in ORS 30.870 (Definitions for ORS 30.870 and 30.875).
    (3)Organized retail theft is a Class B felony. [2007 c.498 §2]
    Note: 164.098 (Organized retail theft) was added to and made a part of ORS chapter 164 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

    Organized retail theft might also be a violation of Federal RICO statutes.

    • #5
  6. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Doug Kimball:

     Allow up to triple damages as compensation upon conviction……. Stack up the felonies and dare the prosecutors to dismiss.

    I don’t think you even need to go over the top with damages and stacking charges.  Just normal enforcement of existing laws would be enough to stop this madness.  When a city announces to the public that it will no longer enforce certain crimes, what the Hell did they think was going to happen?

    • #6
  7. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball:

    Allow up to triple damages as compensation upon conviction……. Stack up the felonies and dare the prosecutors to dismiss.

    I don’t think you even need to go over the top with damages and stacking charges. Just normal enforcement of existing laws would be enough to stop this madness. When a city announces to the public that it will no longer enforce certain crimes, what the Hell did they think was going to happen?

    I agree. There are probably adequate laws on the books. [California might be an exception, since California law has explicitly decriminalized a lot of theft.] Most of the current problem is that prosecutors are declining to enforce existing laws. In some cases other politicians are pressuring prosecutors not to enforce the law. 

    • #7
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Make it legal,  no questions asked, no possibility of prosecution for owners to shoot the looters 

     

    • #8
  9. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Make it legal, no questions asked, no possibility of prosecution for owners to shoot the looters

    Or, as I said elsewhere, public hanging upon conviction, like we used to do with horse thieves. You’d probably only have to do it once, with YouTube around.

    • #9
  10. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Make it legal, no questions asked, no possibility of prosecution for owners to shoot the looters

    Tend to agree.  Although the law always values life over property, I believe these hammer-wielding, gun-toting thugs are a clear exception to that concept.

    These thugs are not just run-of-the-mill thieves hitting the local Qwik Shop; they are very organized and ready to do violence on anyone who would dare to try and stop them.  That being the case, I believe that business owners are justified to use deadly force.

    • #10
  11. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball:

    Allow up to triple damages as compensation upon conviction……. Stack up the felonies and dare the prosecutors to dismiss.

    I don’t think you even need to go over the top with damages and stacking charges. Just normal enforcement of existing laws would be enough to stop this madness. When a city announces to the public that it will no longer enforce certain crimes, what the Hell did they think was going to happen?

    I agree. There are probably adequate laws on the books. [California might be an exception, since California law has explicitly decriminalized a lot of theft.] Most of the current problem is that prosecutors are declining to enforce existing laws. In some cases other politicians are pressuring prosecutors not to enforce the law.

    A nation of men, not laws.

    • #11
  12. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    The idea here is to provide a new law for organized looting.  It is more than just retail theft.  It should qualify for the highest felony.  Every participant should be charged with the full value of the theft and destruction and there should be additional charges for damage (equivalent to wanton destruction) and for using weapons to aid in the theft and intimidate (equivalent to mayhem.)  Make it clear that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.  Damage calculations should include lost profits and losses required to restock and reopen.

    • #12
  13. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Honestly, I’d have no problem with just gunning the perpetrators down in the street.  Put me on the jury and no one’s getting convicted.

    • #13
  14. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Make it legal, no questions asked, no possibility of prosecution for owners to shoot the looters

    Tend to agree. Although the law always values life over property, I believe these hammer-wielding, gun-toting thugs are a clear exception to that concept.

    These thugs are not just run-of-the-mill thieves hitting the local Qwik Shop; they are very organized and ready to do violence on anyone who would dare to try and stop them. That being the case, I believe that business owners are justified to use deadly force.

    Sadly the politicals in power do not share your point of view.  Quite the opposite. 

    • #14
  15. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Very simple; strengthen the law and then, enforce it.

    I love the idea, Doug, but the very prosecutors who should be doing just this will likely not follow through. It’s not like they don’t understand these are crimes; they just don’t care. I’m becoming so cynical. . .

    You are not cynical enough.  It is not that the prosecutors don’t care, they do care and they want criminals running amok in the hope that it ushers in a strong-arm commie government.  It is all part of a plan.

    • #15
  16. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    Organized retail theft might also be a violation of Federal RICO statutes.

    It might also count as terrorism, since some people consider looting to be political speech.

    • #16
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Make it legal, no questions asked, no possibility of prosecution for owners to shoot the looters

    Tend to agree. Although the law always values life over property, I believe these hammer-wielding, gun-toting thugs are a clear exception to that concept.

    These thugs are not just run-of-the-mill thieves hitting the local Qwik Shop; they are very organized and ready to do violence on anyone who would dare to try and stop them. That being the case, I believe that business owners are justified to use deadly force.

    The law should not do so. Property is mine too. Deadly force to protect it makes sense. 

    I spent my time, which I cannot get back, to get my property. That is stealing my life. 

    • #17
  18. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    The idea here is to provide a new law for organized looting. It is more than just retail theft. It should qualify for the highest felony. Every participant should be charged with the full value of the theft and destruction and there should be additional charges for damage (equivalent to wanton destruction) and for using weapons to aid in the theft and intimidate (equivalent to mayhem.) Make it clear that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Damage calculations should include lost profits and losses required to restock and reopen.

    Very good suggestions, but we are talking about California. A more simple and direction solution would be to follow Florida’s example and make it clear that crimes will be prosecuted.

    • #18
  19. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Honestly, I am eating this up with a SPOON.  Pass stupid laws, get stupid behavior.

    These flash movs will continue to be overwhelmingly black too, unless the hispanics want to get in on their own raids.  Theyw ill not be integrated even between black and brown in any meaningful way.  Why?  Among other reasons, the whole way this works is that so long as the looters are black, then doing anything about it is “racist”.  Mentioning or even noticing this is also “racist”. 

    The whole process is a race weapon aimed at law and order, at western civilization, and almost incidentally, at white people.  Once the Marxists who continually refine this weapon have taken over, only then will all races be equally worthless in the eyes of The Party.  Khmer Oakland.

    So I’m not too concerned about how to stop this sort of thing.  It’s obvious — roll back the changes that led to it.  The communities which refuse to do that are not actually going to countenance any other proposal to stop it.  So let it roll.  Pass stupid laws, get stupid behavior.

    /popcorn

     

    • #19
  20. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    The failure to prosecute, and the failure of prosecutors to request a bail amount in a bail hearing is leading to organized retail theft. This failure has also lead to more serious violent crimes committed by repeat offenders.

    Criminals understand the system, and they know to take advantage of this breakdown. They will commit crimes in cities, and counties that have a Soros prosecutor. They will avoid cities and counties that will prosecute crimes.

    • #20
  21. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    The failure to prosecute, and the failure of prosecutors to request a bail amount in a bail hearing is leading to organized retail theft. This failure has also leads to more serious violent crimes committed by repeat offenders.

    Criminals understand the system, and they know to take advantage of this breakdown. They will commit crimes in cities, and counties that have a Soros prosecutor. They will avoid cities and counties that will prosecute crimes.

    Zackly. Like I said, /popcorn. 

    • #21
  22. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Define mob looting as a crime as follows: when more than one person cooperatively enters a retail establishment with the intent to steal merchandise.

    Would more than one person cooperatively entering a retail establishment and stealing merchandise also be defined as mob looting? Or does it only include intent?

    I don’t think that theft would have to be successful to meet the definition of mob looting; if there is damage but the theft is thwarted, the charge would still be valid.

    Doug,

    Thanks, but you didn’t answer my question.

    • #22
  23. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Define mob looting as a crime as follows: when more than one person cooperatively enters a retail establishment with the intent to steal merchandise.

    Would more than one person cooperatively entering a retail establishment and stealing merchandise also be defined as mob looting? Or does it only include intent?

    I don’t think that theft would have to be successful to meet the definition of mob looting; if there is damage but the theft is thwarted, the charge would still be valid.

    Doug,

    Thanks, but you didn’t answer my question.

    Mark, I’ve learned to read your comments for a subtext (you’re one fart smeller) but in this case, it seems the answer is obviously a case of the more obvious being clearly implier by the statement of the less obvious.  The answer to your first sentence is YES, and the answer to your second is NO. 

    I feel justified in answering this for the author of the OP as it is indeed obvious.

    • #23
  24. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    BDB (View Comment):
    Mark, I’ve learned to read your comments for a subtext

    Good.

    Now we must both learn never to do that.

    We must make it our second goal not only to know what the other meant by what he or she did write, but to not assume that he meant something that he did not write.

    Each of us must learn to take every statement, and every question, from the other literally.  Every question the other writes is only a question, never a statement.  He means everything he writes, but only what he writes.

    It’s fine to guess where something, a line of questioning, is going, because it will help us to avoid careless reading and thinking that will waste our time.  Obviously, in searching for the truth, a person only raises a question for some reason. But we must leave these guesses out of our responses.  To wait for the response.

    • #24
  25. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    Mark, I’ve learned to read your comments for a subtext

    Good.

    Now we must both learn never to do that.

    We must make it our second goal not only to know what the other meant by what he or she did write, but to not assume that he meant something that he did not write.

    Each of us must learn to take every statement, and every question, from the other literally. Every question the other writes is only a question, never a statement. He means everything he writes, but only what he writes.

    It’s fine to guess where something, a line of questioning, is going, because it will help us to avoid careless reading and thinking that will waste our time. Obviously, in searching for the truth, a person only raises a question for some reason. But we must leave these guesses out of our responses. To wait for the response.

    Inconceivable, Jamie!

    • #25
  26. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    We must make it our second goal not only to know what the other meant by what he or she did write, but to not assume that he meant something that he did not write.

    Gotta complete the square here: we must also make it a primary goal to know what the other meant or did not mean by what he or she did or did not write, and to self-flagellate (enunciate carefully!) for any failure.  Anything less is not worthy of the duck-pond philosophers’ conversation.

    • #26
  27. Hank Reynolds Member
    Hank Reynolds
    @HankReynolds

    That’s essentially what the RICO Act does. It was passed to combat organized crime, and that’s exactly what the looting sprees are. The federal law was also implemented by many states. So the laws are in place. The prosecutors are not. Maybe public opinion will catch up with the problem soon.

    • #27
  28. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball:

    Allow up to triple damages as compensation upon conviction……. Stack up the felonies and dare the prosecutors to dismiss.

    I don’t think you even need to go over the top with damages and stacking charges. Just normal enforcement of existing laws would be enough to stop this madness. When a city announces to the public that it will no longer enforce certain crimes, what the Hell did they think was going to happen?

    I agree. There are probably adequate laws on the books. [California might be an exception, since California law has explicitly decriminalized a lot of theft.] Most of the current problem is that prosecutors are declining to enforce existing laws. In some cases other politicians are pressuring prosecutors not to enforce the law.

    A nation of men, not laws.

    See the source image

    • #28
  29. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball: Very simple; strengthen the law and then, enforce it.

    I love the idea, Doug, but the very prosecutors who should be doing just this will likely not follow through. It’s not like they don’t understand these are crimes; they just don’t care. I’m becoming so cynical. . .

    You are not cynical enough. It is not that the prosecutors don’t care, they do care and they want criminals running amok in the hope that it ushers in a strong-arm commie government. It is all part of a plan.

     

    Yes, it is, and has been for some time.  Y0u can put all the tough-guy laws on the books all day but if they don’t prosecute, or don’t prosecute to the fullest extent, you reinforce the messaging that you’ll get away with it.

    https://capitalresearch.org/article/soros-funded-district-attorneys-linked-to-increases-in-violent-crime/

    • #29
  30. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Good discussion.  The minorities that live in areas affected have to raise political hell.  The urban upper classes aren’t affected and run things so won’t fix it. Leave the cities and states run by liberal Democrats and concentrate on ways to avoid the same problem in cities and states still run by sane people.

    • #30