5 ms·

"Nor are the police blameless. In the fourth quarter of last year, the “clearance” rate for robbery (which measures the share of reported crimes that result in

by redm 5y ago

"Nor are the police blameless. In the fourth quarter of last year, the “clearance” rate for robbery (which measures the share of reported crimes that result in an arrest) was half that of New York City. The police are notoriously unresponsive." This. Not only do I RARELY see a police officer in SF, but when I do, they look "beat down" or ambivalent. I'm sure years of police being the political "whipping boy" has taken its tole.

hn8788 5y ago
I was watching a twitch streamer who lives in SF, and he told a story about a time he was walking down the sidewalk at night and saw a homeless person peeing on someone's car. He said there was a cop nearby that saw him doing it, but he told the streamer that the homeless guy looked gross and he didn't feel like dealing with him, so the homeless guy just walked away when he was finished.
- Jackpillar 5y ago
  You want a cop to physically detain a homeless person which will just result in sending him through a pointlessly cruel and expensive criminal justice system where he'll pop-out the other side with nothing but unpayable debts that'll drive him through the same cycle again - all because he urinated on a car of someone who won't even realize it happened?
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    How much of a bubble do you have to be in to think someone peeing on cars is a non issue
    - swearwolf 5y ago
      Unfortunately that viewpoint is fairly common among contemporary West Coast liberals. A shocking amount of anti-social behavior is tolerated for this reason.
      - nicoffeine 5y ago
        (This got long, I'm not directing this at you or trying to needle you. I hope this will help you or someone else understand what some of the homeless are facing) I think we see someone peeing on a car as less of an anti-social behavior than puritanical approaches to solving anti-social behavior that are more about punishment than rehabilitation. We are more upset that society wants to pay 70-100k a year to imprison people who likely have neurochemistry or behavioral problems, than to spend a fraction of that on solving the root problems instead of treating symptoms. I've been in psych wards and rehabs. I would say close to three quarters of people in both institutions were capable of living a somewhat normal life, if they could get meaningful and stable assistance in dealing with their issues. The rest at least deserved a comfortable, safe place to live the best they could under full supervision. If you do any reading about state mental institutions in the US, you will understand they receive the exact opposite. After my last psychotic episode I was pretty sure I would never be able to work again, but I still wanted to be independent if possible, even if that meant living in public housing and scraping by. I had already maxed out my SS benefits because I was productive up until that point, despite having undiagnosed mental illness and addiction problems. Of course I didn't have any savings and was relying on family. At this point I had over 100k in hospital bills, thankfully almost completely paid by health insurance before I lost my job. That included multiple hospital visits, trips to psych wards, and visits to rehab. My family had saved paperwork for all of it, and I had two different psychiatrists who agreed I may never be able to work again. I was told point blank by every single person I talked to, from the non-profits (who were totally worthless), to the disability lawyers I called, to the disability processing agents that it would be at least two years before I had a chance at receiving a dime. So I stayed with family for many months, they paid for my mental health care, and eventually I got on the right meds and I can now work again. My economic privilege is probably the only reason I am not on the streets or dead. As a society, our expectation is that someone with a mental illness is going to take on that bureaucracy while they are in the most difficult period of their illness in order to get better. And if they display anti-social behavior, what do we do? We imprison them. Some of my behavior during my psychotic episode was violent. I am lucky I was not beat or shot, by a stranger or by the police. The whole point of my rambling is that I hope we can consider the history of the person that is displaying anti-social behaviors. Some of the smartest, kindest, and most ingenious hackers of every stripe I have ever met were in rehab and in psych wards, but only after they had been stabilized by meds or sobriety. Before they returned, they were different, sometimes scary people. There is so much potential being wasted, and so much low hanging fruit to help them rehabilitate and give back to society. Even from a purely economical perspective, I think it makes sense to overhaul our safety net so it catches people as early as it can. It serves individual rights, makes efficient use of our collective wealth, and I think it's the right thing to do.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      I don't think arresting people solves problems. Just makes them shittier people when they get out a week later.
      - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
        What use is the law anyway...
      - ianhawes 5y ago
        I'm fairly certain it is permitted in California, but police offers do have the power to write a citation that acts as a summons for the suspect to appear in court. No arrest, likely no jail time, just ~$20 in court costs plus whatever fine the judge imposes.
        Jackpillar 5y ago
        Ahh yes the common scenario of a mentally unstable homeless person showing up for a court appearance and having the ability to pay $20 in court costs and fines.
  - gjs278 5y ago
    yes
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
thatguy0900 5y ago
Doesnt sf not prosecute robberies? Why would they show up?
koheripbal 5y ago
Because they know their arrests won't be prosecuted by the DA. So what's the point?

by redm 5y ago

hn8788 5y ago

I was watching a twitch streamer who lives in SF, and he told a story about a time he was walking down the sidewalk at night and saw a homeless person peeing on someone's car. He said there was a cop nearby that saw him doing it, but he told the streamer that the homeless guy looked gross and he didn't feel like dealing with him, so the homeless guy just walked away when he was finished.

Jackpillar 5y ago
You want a cop to physically detain a homeless person which will just result in sending him through a pointlessly cruel and expensive criminal justice system where he'll pop-out the other side with nothing but unpayable debts that'll drive him through the same cycle again - all because he urinated on a car of someone who won't even realize it happened?
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  How much of a bubble do you have to be in to think someone peeing on cars is a non issue
  - swearwolf 5y ago
    Unfortunately that viewpoint is fairly common among contemporary West Coast liberals. A shocking amount of anti-social behavior is tolerated for this reason.
    - nicoffeine 5y ago
      (This got long, I'm not directing this at you or trying to needle you. I hope this will help you or someone else understand what some of the homeless are facing) I think we see someone peeing on a car as less of an anti-social behavior than puritanical approaches to solving anti-social behavior that are more about punishment than rehabilitation. We are more upset that society wants to pay 70-100k a year to imprison people who likely have neurochemistry or behavioral problems, than to spend a fraction of that on solving the root problems instead of treating symptoms. I've been in psych wards and rehabs. I would say close to three quarters of people in both institutions were capable of living a somewhat normal life, if they could get meaningful and stable assistance in dealing with their issues. The rest at least deserved a comfortable, safe place to live the best they could under full supervision. If you do any reading about state mental institutions in the US, you will understand they receive the exact opposite. After my last psychotic episode I was pretty sure I would never be able to work again, but I still wanted to be independent if possible, even if that meant living in public housing and scraping by. I had already maxed out my SS benefits because I was productive up until that point, despite having undiagnosed mental illness and addiction problems. Of course I didn't have any savings and was relying on family. At this point I had over 100k in hospital bills, thankfully almost completely paid by health insurance before I lost my job. That included multiple hospital visits, trips to psych wards, and visits to rehab. My family had saved paperwork for all of it, and I had two different psychiatrists who agreed I may never be able to work again. I was told point blank by every single person I talked to, from the non-profits (who were totally worthless), to the disability lawyers I called, to the disability processing agents that it would be at least two years before I had a chance at receiving a dime. So I stayed with family for many months, they paid for my mental health care, and eventually I got on the right meds and I can now work again. My economic privilege is probably the only reason I am not on the streets or dead. As a society, our expectation is that someone with a mental illness is going to take on that bureaucracy while they are in the most difficult period of their illness in order to get better. And if they display anti-social behavior, what do we do? We imprison them. Some of my behavior during my psychotic episode was violent. I am lucky I was not beat or shot, by a stranger or by the police. The whole point of my rambling is that I hope we can consider the history of the person that is displaying anti-social behaviors. Some of the smartest, kindest, and most ingenious hackers of every stripe I have ever met were in rehab and in psych wards, but only after they had been stabilized by meds or sobriety. Before they returned, they were different, sometimes scary people. There is so much potential being wasted, and so much low hanging fruit to help them rehabilitate and give back to society. Even from a purely economical perspective, I think it makes sense to overhaul our safety net so it catches people as early as it can. It serves individual rights, makes efficient use of our collective wealth, and I think it's the right thing to do.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    I don't think arresting people solves problems. Just makes them shittier people when they get out a week later.
    - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
      What use is the law anyway...
    - ianhawes 5y ago
      I'm fairly certain it is permitted in California, but police offers do have the power to write a citation that acts as a summons for the suspect to appear in court. No arrest, likely no jail time, just ~$20 in court costs plus whatever fine the judge imposes.
      - Jackpillar 5y ago
        Ahh yes the common scenario of a mentally unstable homeless person showing up for a court appearance and having the ability to pay $20 in court costs and fines.
- gjs278 5y ago
  yes
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

thatguy0900 5y ago

Doesnt sf not prosecute robberies? Why would they show up?

koheripbal 5y ago

Because they know their arrests won't be prosecuted by the DA. So what's the point?