8 ms·

I echo the point that this is merely a symptom of SF's inability to be a little bit more hardnosed and solve its problems. As an example: I called 311/911 to r

I echo the point that this is merely a symptom of SF's inability to be a little bit more hardnosed and solve its problems. As an example: I called 311/911 to report a trio of homeless guys, operating a bike chop shop in broad daylight on a Saturday in downtown (and blocking the sidewalk, and creating piles of junk). The operator said that she would report this to the "neighborhood outreach / management team" or something similar I've forgotten the name of. And she said they would likely be dispatched to resolve it within 2-3 days. I asked, incredulous, "isn't this a police matter that you should pursue right now? How will they still be here in 3 days?" She gave some unsatisfactory answer of course. Any other rational city, and the police would be cuffing these guys and hauling them in for questioning about clearly stolen bikes. But here in SF, it's "too inequitable" to be targeting homeless people for actively and visibly engaging in criminal behavior. This is to the point that car break-ins are considered minor acceptable crime. This city has lost its senses, in the name of thinking it's some post-modern utopia that has to treat everyone equally and naively, and ignore the obvious bullshit going on right in front of our noses.

pesfandiar 7y ago
This has been the trend in Vancouver, BC as well. Property crime under a certain amount has (de facto) been decriminalized, especially if the perps are perceived to be drug addicts or living in the streets otherwise. The main problems here are limited law enforcement budget, and lenient justice system that merely results in catch-and-release operations for the police.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Just wait until every restaurant is Taco Bell.
- thephyber 7y ago
  <Fry Meme> Not sure if this reference is for Idiocracy or Demolition Man...
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    It's not clear that these stories take place in different fictional universes.
shados 7y ago
That's a trend all over the country. I read an article about Seattle almost completely giving up on this type and other non violent crimes. The east coast, like in Boston is getting there too. If no one is about to die, just shut up and deal with it.
- noodle 7y ago
  AFAIK one of the causes in Seattle (can't speak to SF) is a lack of police resources - the population boom left them kind of far behind. Seattle has ~20 officers per 10k residents. To compare, Atlanta has ~30, NYC has ~40.
mav3rick 7y ago
I've seen open drug trade and violence unprosecuted. A lot of police officers complain that the DA lets most cases go.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  And we just elected a new DA whose promise is to reduce inequality in the system, presumably by ignoring yet more crime. It's a combination of it being too expensive to hire police officers with the cost of living here, part of the citizenry thinking that "equity" and disincentivizing police from doing their jobs properly = good, and the divide between rich and poor insulating some people from seeing what their decisions cause. I was not surprised at all at the stabbing / murder on Bart last week. In my travels in Bay Area, I have not seen 1 officer on a Bart train in my entire 10 years here. Even on Caltrain, the conductors have no authority to do anything. It's like we actively try not to enforce laws here.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    Conductors not enforcing laws is mostly a manner of safety and liability. Conductors are not trained police officers, so them trying to enforce laws will probably end up poorly for them, most likely severely injured or killed. And then Caltrain would have to deal with an injured/dead employee and also whatever the perpetrator was doing in the first place. Requiring police training for a conductor position would probably just make the job impossible to hire for.
    - supernova87a 7y ago
      Your relative sense of what's possible and proper contributes to the lack of impetus to enforce rules and have real consequences . Cities on the East Coast, cities in Europe, Asia, conductors are always checking tickets, and in some cases have police powers. In New York, not having a ticket can get you arrested. Same in many other cities. Here, on Caltrain, all they can do is make you get off at the next stop. You don't even have to show your ID if you don't want to. Tell me what that incentivizes for people cheating the system?
larnmar 7y ago
This. And yet, in a sort of collective Gell-Mann amnesia, I’m pretty sure that tomorrow I’ll load up HN, there’ll be an article on prisons, and people will be upvoted for solemnly intoning how terrible it is that so many Americans are in prison, with dissenters greyed out and soon shadowbanned. So let me take this opportunity to say: there are far too few Anericans in prison. The number should be much higher. Prison sentences should be mandatory, they should be long, and they should be severe.
- indemnity 7y ago
  Even if what you are proposing doesn’t work, in the sense that recidivism remains high, the alternative proposed by Western countries seems to be just to give up on enforcing any kind of punishment. Rehabilitation as practised in the Scandinavian countries works for the homogenous populations they have. In countries like New Zealand they are “addressing” the issue of overrepresentation of certain demographics in the crime stats by arresting them less. Yep. All I know is, I have never felt as safe as I have in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, with conviction rates of 99%, in the US and other Anglophile countries I’m always worried shit is going to go down, it does, and I have seen it go down several times. And in the non-US Anglo countries, the cops are basically useless and want the crime to happen with physical evidence, before they do jack about it. I want the criminals to shit bricks when the cops come, not laugh and outgun them.
- xnyan 7y ago
  What makes you say too few in jail? Do you have any evidence that more people in jail=better outcomes? I’m willing to listen in good faith.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    I'd say not having bicycle chop shops out in the open in broad daylight is a better outcome, wouldn't you?
    - xnyan 7y ago
      Sorry out of town. Do you have any empirical evidence that will work?
ryandrake 7y ago
> As an example: I called 311/911 to report a trio of homeless guys, operating a bike chop shop First of all, I hope you called 311 and not 911 for this. It's obviously not a life-threatening emergency. > I asked, incredulous, "isn't this a police matter that you should pursue right now? How will they still be here in 3 days?" She gave some unsatisfactory answer of course. As (hopefully) established above, this is not an emergency, so I don't understand why you'd expect a squad of detectives to race out there right away. From your description, it doesn't sound like anyone was in danger. Sorry, but the police are not bellhops that you can just summon when you feel irritated about something that's happening outside.
- catalogia 7y ago
  In most of the country, if you call any number other than 911 to report any crime you'll be told to call 911 next time. When I called in my smashed car window, they told me to use 911 next time. I've heard similar from others. Anyway, reporting a crime that is in progress certainly warrants 911. There is no ambiguity there.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    Where on earth did they tell you to call 911 over a broken window?? Everywhere I’ve ever lived, 911 is for emergencies only. It is not a general “call the police” line. People treating it as such is why many PSAPs are overloaded and sometimes real emergencies get dropped. Please don’t call 911 unless it is a life threatening emergency!
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > Where on earth did they tell you to call 911 over a broken window?? The obscure backwater of Seattle. 911 is not exclusively for life-threatening emergencies as you are suggesting. It's for emergencies more generally, and that generally includes crime reports. Particularly reports of crimes that are in progress. The crime I was reporting (the burglarizing of my car) was not in progress which is why I didn't call 911 (and consequently received a brief lecture about using 911 in the future.) But had I witnessed the crime in progress, I wouldn't have hesitated to call 911 and nor should anybody else. Here is the advice of Mary Ellen Carroll, executive director of the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management: https://abc7news.com/when-to-call-911-vs-311/5300051/ https://abc7news.com/when-to-call-911-vs-311/5300051/ When to call 911: * Is there danger to life, property or the environment? * Is a crime in progress? * Is there a medical emergency / need for immediate help? * Is there a fire? Note that the advice she gives is contrary to the advice I received from Seattle's 311, in that she says to use 311 to report crimes that aren't in progress. However she says that 911 should be used for crimes that are in progress without the requirement that those crimes be life threatening. (And also for injuries which require medical attention but aren't necessarily life threatening.) So, to reiterate, when it comes to crimes that are in progress there is really no ambiguity.

pesfandiar 7y ago

This has been the trend in Vancouver, BC as well. Property crime under a certain amount has (de facto) been decriminalized, especially if the perps are perceived to be drug addicts or living in the streets otherwise. The main problems here are limited law enforcement budget, and lenient justice system that merely results in catch-and-release operations for the police.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Just wait until every restaurant is Taco Bell.

thephyber 7y ago
<Fry Meme> Not sure if this reference is for Idiocracy or Demolition Man...
- jessaustin 7y ago
  It's not clear that these stories take place in different fictional universes.

shados 7y ago

That's a trend all over the country. I read an article about Seattle almost completely giving up on this type and other non violent crimes. The east coast, like in Boston is getting there too. If no one is about to die, just shut up and deal with it.

noodle 7y ago
AFAIK one of the causes in Seattle (can't speak to SF) is a lack of police resources - the population boom left them kind of far behind. Seattle has ~20 officers per 10k residents. To compare, Atlanta has ~30, NYC has ~40.

mav3rick 7y ago

I've seen open drug trade and violence unprosecuted. A lot of police officers complain that the DA lets most cases go.

supernova87a 7y ago
And we just elected a new DA whose promise is to reduce inequality in the system, presumably by ignoring yet more crime. It's a combination of it being too expensive to hire police officers with the cost of living here, part of the citizenry thinking that "equity" and disincentivizing police from doing their jobs properly = good, and the divide between rich and poor insulating some people from seeing what their decisions cause. I was not surprised at all at the stabbing / murder on Bart last week. In my travels in Bay Area, I have not seen 1 officer on a Bart train in my entire 10 years here. Even on Caltrain, the conductors have no authority to do anything. It's like we actively try not to enforce laws here.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Conductors not enforcing laws is mostly a manner of safety and liability. Conductors are not trained police officers, so them trying to enforce laws will probably end up poorly for them, most likely severely injured or killed. And then Caltrain would have to deal with an injured/dead employee and also whatever the perpetrator was doing in the first place. Requiring police training for a conductor position would probably just make the job impossible to hire for.
  - supernova87a 7y ago
    Your relative sense of what's possible and proper contributes to the lack of impetus to enforce rules and have real consequences . Cities on the East Coast, cities in Europe, Asia, conductors are always checking tickets, and in some cases have police powers. In New York, not having a ticket can get you arrested. Same in many other cities. Here, on Caltrain, all they can do is make you get off at the next stop. You don't even have to show your ID if you don't want to. Tell me what that incentivizes for people cheating the system?

larnmar 7y ago

This. And yet, in a sort of collective Gell-Mann amnesia, I’m pretty sure that tomorrow I’ll load up HN, there’ll be an article on prisons, and people will be upvoted for solemnly intoning how terrible it is that so many Americans are in prison, with dissenters greyed out and soon shadowbanned. So let me take this opportunity to say: there are far too few Anericans in prison. The number should be much higher. Prison sentences should be mandatory, they should be long, and they should be severe.

indemnity 7y ago
Even if what you are proposing doesn’t work, in the sense that recidivism remains high, the alternative proposed by Western countries seems to be just to give up on enforcing any kind of punishment. Rehabilitation as practised in the Scandinavian countries works for the homogenous populations they have. In countries like New Zealand they are “addressing” the issue of overrepresentation of certain demographics in the crime stats by arresting them less. Yep. All I know is, I have never felt as safe as I have in Japan, South Korea and Singapore, with conviction rates of 99%, in the US and other Anglophile countries I’m always worried shit is going to go down, it does, and I have seen it go down several times. And in the non-US Anglo countries, the cops are basically useless and want the crime to happen with physical evidence, before they do jack about it. I want the criminals to shit bricks when the cops come, not laugh and outgun them.
xnyan 7y ago
What makes you say too few in jail? Do you have any evidence that more people in jail=better outcomes? I’m willing to listen in good faith.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  I'd say not having bicycle chop shops out in the open in broad daylight is a better outcome, wouldn't you?
  - xnyan 7y ago
    Sorry out of town. Do you have any empirical evidence that will work?

ryandrake 7y ago

> As an example: I called 311/911 to report a trio of homeless guys, operating a bike chop shop First of all, I hope you called 311 and not 911 for this. It's obviously not a life-threatening emergency. > I asked, incredulous, "isn't this a police matter that you should pursue right now? How will they still be here in 3 days?" She gave some unsatisfactory answer of course. As (hopefully) established above, this is not an emergency, so I don't understand why you'd expect a squad of detectives to race out there right away. From your description, it doesn't sound like anyone was in danger. Sorry, but the police are not bellhops that you can just summon when you feel irritated about something that's happening outside.

catalogia 7y ago
In most of the country, if you call any number other than 911 to report any crime you'll be told to call 911 next time. When I called in my smashed car window, they told me to use 911 next time. I've heard similar from others. Anyway, reporting a crime that is in progress certainly warrants 911. There is no ambiguity there.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  Where on earth did they tell you to call 911 over a broken window?? Everywhere I’ve ever lived, 911 is for emergencies only. It is not a general “call the police” line. People treating it as such is why many PSAPs are overloaded and sometimes real emergencies get dropped. Please don’t call 911 unless it is a life threatening emergency!
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > Where on earth did they tell you to call 911 over a broken window?? The obscure backwater of Seattle. 911 is not exclusively for life-threatening emergencies as you are suggesting. It's for emergencies more generally, and that generally includes crime reports. Particularly reports of crimes that are in progress. The crime I was reporting (the burglarizing of my car) was not in progress which is why I didn't call 911 (and consequently received a brief lecture about using 911 in the future.) But had I witnessed the crime in progress, I wouldn't have hesitated to call 911 and nor should anybody else. Here is the advice of Mary Ellen Carroll, executive director of the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management: https://abc7news.com/when-to-call-911-vs-311/5300051/ https://abc7news.com/when-to-call-911-vs-311/5300051/ When to call 911: * Is there danger to life, property or the environment? * Is a crime in progress? * Is there a medical emergency / need for immediate help? * Is there a fire? Note that the advice she gives is contrary to the advice I received from Seattle's 311, in that she says to use 311 to report crimes that aren't in progress. However she says that 911 should be used for crimes that are in progress without the requirement that those crimes be life threatening. (And also for injuries which require medical attention but aren't necessarily life threatening.) So, to reiterate, when it comes to crimes that are in progress there is really no ambiguity.