This is a take so bad it’s borderline negligent.

If you are referring to the “progressive prosecutors”, I suggest you actually spend some time to hear long-form interviews with them. They have a genuine interest in lower crime and crime rates; they just don’t believe that the current pattern of prosecutions and warehousing criminals together in mass numbers achieves the goals.

It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize their solutions and outcomes, but to say they have no interest in prosecutions is flat wrong.

Chris Hayes interview with Chesa Boudin: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1307198

California recently passed a law banning employees from confronting shoplifters, exempting trained security guards. So now businesses have to comply with this nonsense or be prosecuted for stopping crimes. I don't believe the state has any interest in prosecutimg crime.

https://sd15.senate.ca.gov/news/governor-signs-senator-corte...

Ordinary employees should never be the frontline defence against criminals.

That is what trained security guards are for.

That's a very blanket statement that I believe is quite wrong.

Hopefully we don't end up in a society like that.

Where minimum-wage cashiers are pitted up against violent criminals in order to protect the theft of a company's insured products.

I think the point should not be that we expect cashiers to stop criminals. Rather the issue is that the state forbids their intervention. Why should people be disallowed from protecting their private property?

They may have such an interest, but their misguided methods are absolutely destructive.