Anyone compiling examples of the pompous, arrogant, sophistic blindness to property rights exhibited by many running the halls of so-called “US justice” can add another to their ever-expanding list. This time, it’s from San Francisco, and, this time, it’s from the lips of none other than the San Fran District Attorney who’s willingly taken on the mantel of the city’s top prosecutor of criminals and crime.
Go figure, he’s a left-collectivist.
LawOfficer.com reports that San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin already has prejudiced the case against the infamous “Walgreens Shoplifter” who was caught on video in mid-June as he packed a trash bag full of products off the Walgreen’s shelves, then hopped on his expensive-looking mountain bike and rode out the store, untroubled.
LawOfficer referred to a gushing New Yorker interview in which Boudin – the child of leftist Sixties radicals – offered all kinds of excuses for the suspect.
When I watch that video, I think about five questions that people are not asking that I think they should. Is he drug addicted, mentally ill, desperate? Is he part of a major retail fencing operation? What’s driving this behavior and is it in any way representative, because it was presented as something symptomatic?
“Did the suspect commit the crime of property theft?”
That seems a much more pertinent question, especially for those who WERE ROBBED.
Supposedly, the polis (i.e. government) exists to protect people from being robbed, defrauded (another form of robbery), or physically harmed.
But Boudin goes on issuing excuses, equivalencies, and what might be seen as indirect threats.
If Walgreens has insurance for certain goods or they expect a certain amount of loss, if they would rather not risk lawsuits or escalation to violence—then maybe that’s something we should know about.
Again, the question, from a traditional Natural Law standpoint, is whether the state is going to fulfill its supposed rationale for existence and prosecute someone for committing property theft. Period. Why are those other facets of Walgreen’s business structure in any way “things” about which anyone “should” know?
And why does Boudin issue what could be perceived as a threat?
Why does Boudin -- the son of leftist radical David Gilbert (who went to prison for his involvement in the 1981 crime that took three lives in NY state) and Weather Underground member Kathy Boudin (who pled guilty to felony murder in connection to the same triple homicide and also pled guilty to robbery) – talk about an “escalation to violence” simply for Walgreens staking its claim to property rights as all people should be able to do?
Related: San Francisco's New DA Says City Will No Longer Prosecute Public Urination or Prostitution
Because collectivists don’t recognize private property rights. All property, in their eyes, should be in the hands of the state, to be divvied-up according to the rulers’ view of “equity.”
In the mold of tired and tiresome Marxist hypocrisy, Boudin discounts and dismisses peace and respect for property, even as he derives his livelihood off the bounty that property rights and free trade facilitate.
He shows absolute contempt for market exchange, and coughs-up excuses upon seeing “the video,”, a video of a crime perpetrated in HIS city, against HIS neighbors – the very people who are forced to pay his salary.
Perhaps likening that taxation to the theft of property by this shoplifter is not a stretch.
Perhaps Mr. Boudin’s comments offer a clear window to recognize the fact that government -- the very entity that we’re told is there to “protect property” from aggression -- is the ultimate machine of theft and aggression, and that Mr. Boudin has settled into a comfortable position as one of its major lever-pullers and parasites.