Life-threatening' windstorm fans fires in Southern Calaifornia as blazes burn in Los Angeles

The Fourth Turning is heating up in California

1) Easy times make weak men.
2) Weak men make tough times.
3) Tough times make strong men.
4) Strong men make easy times.

 

This just describes the Dems in a nutshell.

 

How stupid does someone need to be to vote for Newsom.

 

The original tweet which Musk boosted on his platform said this (without any community note attached to it):

LOOTING: Newsom and California Democrats literally decriminalized looting baring police from arresting looters and prosecutors from prosecuting them. Now he’s opposed to looting.​

How does Musk’s grok AI judge this claim?

I used the direct chat tool from here:

https://lmarena.ai/

Prompt:

Is it accurate to say they CA decriminalized looting by barring police from arresting looters and prosecutors from prosecuting them?​

Response:

The claim that California has "decriminalized looting" by barring police from arresting looters and prosecutors from prosecuting them is an oversimplification and can be misleading. Here's a more nuanced explanation:

1. **Proposition 47**: In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified certain theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Specifically, it raised the threshold for what constitutes felony theft from $450 to $950. This means that theft of goods valued under $950 is typically treated as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

2. **Arrests and Prosecution**:
- **Police Arrests**: Police can still arrest individuals for looting or theft, regardless of the value involved. However, the classification of the crime as a misdemeanor might influence how police handle such situations, often resulting in citations rather than physical arrests for lesser amounts.
- **Prosecution**: Prosecutors have not been barred from prosecuting these crimes. They can still prosecute theft under $950 as a misdemeanor. However, due to the lesser severity of the punishment and the priorities of the criminal justice system, prosecutors might focus on more severe crimes or use discretion in pursuing these cases.

3. **Recent Misinterpretations**: There have been claims, especially during times of civil unrest or in discussions about crime rates, that this change effectively "decriminalizes" looting or shoplifting below the $950 threshold. This interpretation stretches the reality:

- **Decriminalization** implies that an act is no longer considered a crime. Under Proposition 47, these acts are still crimes, just lesser ones with reduced penalties.
- **Enforcement**: The practical enforcement might have changed, with less incentive for aggressive pursuit of minor theft due to overcrowded jails, court backlogs, and the broader move towards criminal justice reform.

4. **Impact on Looting**: Looting often occurs in contexts like riots or natural disasters, where the dynamics are different from typical shoplifting. Even if individual acts of looting might fall under misdemeanor theft, the context of widespread looting can lead to other charges like burglary, vandalism, or inciting a riot, which are not affected by the Proposition 47 thresholds.

5. **Public Perception and Policy Debate**: This policy has led to a debate about its effects on crime rates, retail theft, and law enforcement's ability to manage these issues. Critics argue it reduces deterrence, while proponents say it helps focus resources on more serious crimes and aids in reducing prison populations.

In summary, California has not completely barred police from arresting or prosecutors from prosecuting looters; rather, it has changed how certain thefts are classified and prosecuted, which might affect how these crimes are handled in practice. The term "decriminalized" in this context is inaccurate since the acts are still illegal, but the legal response to these acts has indeed been modified.

​

Follow up prompt:

But is it accurate to say looters were barred from being arrested or prosecuted?​

Response:

If someone is caught looting, regardless of the value, police can still make an arrest. However, if the value of the stolen goods is under $950, the crime might be treated as a misdemeanor rather than a felony due to Proposition 47.

- **Prosecution**: Prosecutors are not barred from prosecuting looters either. They can prosecute theft or looting; however, the decision to prosecute might be influenced by:

- **The amount stolen**: If it's under $950, it's a misdemeanor, which might be less likely to be prosecuted with the same vigor as a felony due to resource allocation and prioritization within the justice system.

- **Context of the crime**: Looting during civil unrest might lead to additional charges like burglary, rioting, or vandalism, which can still be felonies or serious misdemeanors.

- **Misconceptions**: The notion that looters are "barred" from arrest or prosecution likely stems from misunderstandings or misrepresentations of how law enforcement and the judicial system handle misdemeanor theft post-Proposition 47. The law did change the threshold for what constitutes felony theft, potentially leading to:

- **Different law enforcement responses**: Officers might issue citations instead of making physical arrests for lower-value thefts due to the misdemeanor classification.

- **Prosecutorial discretion**: Prosecutors might choose not to pursue charges for minor thefts as aggressively, focusing instead on more severe crimes or those with greater public safety implications.

So, it's not accurate to say looters are **barred** from being arrested or prosecuted. Instead, the legal framework has shifted how these acts are categorized and potentially how they are handled in practice, which might give the impression of leniency but does not remove the legal consequences entirely.

Continuing from the previous points:

- **Practical Implications**: The changes brought by Proposition 47 have led to several practical implications:

- **Reduced Penalties**: Since many thefts under $950 are now misdemeanors, the penalties are less severe. This might include shorter jail times, fines, or alternative sentences like community service.

- **Law Enforcement Focus**: Police might prioritize more serious crimes or those that pose a greater threat to public safety, which can affect how they respond to reports of looting or shoplifting.

- **Public and Retail Response**: There has been an ongoing debate about whether this change has led to an increase in petty theft and shoplifting. Some retailers claim that it has emboldened thieves, knowing the consequences are less severe, although empirical evidence on this varies.

- **Legal and Social Debate**:

- **Advocates** of Proposition 47 argue that it helps to reduce the prison population, focuses law enforcement on more serious offenses, and addresses issues of over-criminalization for minor offenses.

- **Critics** argue that it has inadvertently encouraged crime by reducing deterrence, impacting businesses, especially small retailers, who might see an uptick in theft without adequate legal recourse.

- **Potential for Misinformation**: Statements suggesting that California has "decriminalized looting" can be misleading because:

- **Misdemeanor vs. Decriminalization**: A misdemeanor is still a crime, just with lesser punishment. Decriminalization would mean the act is no longer illegal, which is not the case here.

- **Context of Looting**: During events like riots, even if individual acts might fall under misdemeanor theft, the collective action can lead to more severe charges due to the broader context of public disorder.

In conclusion, while it's inaccurate to say that California has barred police from arresting or prosecutors from prosecuting looters outright, the state has indeed altered the legal landscape regarding how such crimes are treated. This change has implications for how law enforcement, the judicial system, businesses, and the public perceive and react to theft and looting. The discussion around Proposition 47 reflects broader conversations about criminal justice reform, the balance between punishment and rehabilitation, and how best to manage petty crime in society.
​

My conclusion: While there may be some merit to criticisms that CA laws supported by Newsom were overly lenient for some looting, the original tweet that Musk boosted on his platform was inaccurate. It’s interesting that Newsom’s post that the tweet was a lie was Community Noted, but not the original tweet.

 

why does this matter to you?

 

You should apply to become a "fact checker".

 

This is insane. You don't really expect it in winter. Hopefully they get this under control to prevent further tragedy and make needed change to prevent in future.

 

When I hear "hurricane Force winds" in the West Coast in this time of year...

Ya we can blame climate change.

People understand the concept of what "temperature" measures right?

Global warming means increased temperature. Increased temperature means more energy on a system. The system is our climate. More energy means more ability to do work on fluids like gases in a atmosphere. Which means higher wind speeds.


This is why for the past decades we've experienced winters of deep artic blasts of deep chills that last for a few days and all of a sudden after those few days you experience temps in the 60s. Its because more energy in our system means artic air gets blasted down further more violently. That artic air does its thing and then moves away and now we are back to the average high temperatures that global warming also causes.

Wild fires, increased violent storms, massive fluctuations in temperature week to week during winter....

 

Lol. You don’t live in California.

 

That little incompetent socialist, Castro lover has got to go. Can you even imagine once the walking broccoli even considered her to be his VP?

 

And apology from the guy who falsely started that disgusting rumor that you now post with glee