DebunkThis
Debunking pseudoscience, myths, and spurious hogwash since 2010.
We are an evidence-based Reddit/Lemmy community dedicated to taking an objective look at questionable theories, dodgy news sources, bold-faced claims, and suspicious studies.
Community Rules:
Posting
Title formatting on all posts should be "Debunk This: [main claim]"
Example: "Debunk This: Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay."
All posts must include at least one source and one to three specific claims to be debunked, so commenters know exactly what to investigate.
Example: "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"
NSFW/NSFL content is not allowed.
Commenting
Always try to back up your comments with linked sources. Just saying "this is untrue" isn't all that helpful without facts to support it.
Standard community rules apply regarding spam, self-promotion, personal attacks and hate speech, etc.
Links
Suggested Fediverse Communities
• RFK Jr. Watch @lemm.ee - Discuss misinformation being spread by antivaxxer politician, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
• Skeptic @lemmy.world - Discuss pseudoscience, quackery, and bald-faced BS
• Skeptic @kbin.social - The above, just on Kbin
• Science Communication @mander.xyz - Discuss science literacy and media reporting
Useful Resources
• Common examples of misleading graphs - How to spot dodgy infographics
• Metabunk.org - a message board dedicated to debunking popular conspiracies
• Media Bias / Fact Check - Great resource for current news fact checking + checking a source's political bias
• Science Based Medicine - A scientific look at current issues and controversies
• Deplatform Disease - A medical blog that specifically counters anti-COVID-vaccine claims
• Respectful Insolence - David Gorsky's blog on antivax shenanigans, politics, and pseudoscience
view the rest of the comments
Let's start with claim one. This claim is specifically referencing Senate Bill 553 in California. The bill has so far cleared the Senate and is currently working it's way through committees within the house.
I have not done a thorough reading of the bill, but there is only two parts I see that reference shoplifting, and only one in relation to confronting shoplifters. That reads:
It would prevent companies from having policies that would try and stop shoplifters/active shooters. Anecdotally, I work in retail and it's my store's policy to let all shoplifters be. I don't live in California but a southern state. So even with the politics of the area it isn't encouraged to confront shoplifters.
And in my (unasked for) opinion realistically it's just not worth it; even if they end up stealing hundred or thousands of dollars in merchandise it's not worth my life to fight over it. Especially at the wage I make.
For part two, it's entirely hyperbole to completely factitious. Shoplifting in California is illegal and always has been to my knowledge. In order for it to qualify as felony shoplifting it has to be over $950 as of 2014. But it is still a misdemeanor if it's any amount up to $950. Here is the specific text for those interested.
Good job finding the bill in question, and thanks for the sources!
You're right - this is the key part that is being misrepresented, I think:
So the law is actually intended to prevent employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters or active shooters, which makes much more sense. That's not the same thing as making the act of stopping the shoplifters illegal, per se.
Does the proposed bill apply to retail employees only or employees of all kinds? I see how it makes sense to protect people like cashiers by NOT telling them to jump out in front of an active shooter and shield customers with their bodies, but what about private security/loss prevention? Say, police already do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. If you are hired and trained as a security guard and then refuse to stop any shoplifters, does it mean you cannot be fired for that under this bill?
The section referring to the shoplifting mentions specifically all employers. So that would include anyone.
There is a very important note though. There was an update to the line to include dedicated safety personnel when it comes to dealing with suspected shoplifters or active shooter:
I imagine that this is mostly to keep safely in mind without forcing standard employees into action. Being a dedicated safety personnel most likely applies to positions like a school body guard that isn't a police officer or someone handling security for something like an armored truck. Someone who is working as dedicated safety personnel could get fired for failing to act. A regular employee would not be fired in the same situation: at the very least legally speaking.