3 ms·

Suggest a better alternative so it takes the wind out of the 'we need this to stop crime' sails. I'd suggest SF instead create a website where citizens can upl

Suggest a better alternative so it takes the wind out of the 'we need this to stop crime' sails. I'd suggest SF instead create a website where citizens can upload their own private videos of crimes being committed and actually expect a police follow-up. There are thousands of SF citizens that have the exact GPS location of their stolen phone, bike, etc. You know where there's one stolen item there are likely many more, why not use the evidence we have that citizens are pleading with SFPD to take action upon (to no avail).

rabuse 4y ago
The first step, is to actually have consequences to the commission of crimes again. How is it so surprising that when you get lax on penalties, there will be more crime?
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You could prevent crime from ever happening in the first place. The more mentally ill, drug addicted and homelessness you've got in a city, without any kind of support for them, the worse the crime is going to get. Punishment doesn't fix anything, just keeps them with nothing to lose.
soulofmischief 4y ago
Interestingly, I think a more effective approach would be to invert, reporting crimes without the expectation for police follow-up, shining a spotlight on the disgustingly lazy SFPD and their handlers. The only problem with either of these approaches is that it exposes the accused to vigilante action without due process.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Therein lies the problem. You have many thousands of pieces of evidence but limited manpower and resources. Even more so when politicians and residents are pushing to shrink your budgets. Couple that with a DA that is letting some pretty spicy characters walk on serious charges, and you have a recipe for todays conditions. If only someone saw this coming...
- rrradical 4y ago
  > Even more so when politicians and residents are pushing to shrink your budgets. Besides the public discussion which we all heard, do you have any evidence that policing budgets actually shrank? My understanding is that they largely did not (and mostly grew). So you really don't seem to be arguing in good faith.
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    So what you're saying is that all the municipalities and cities that cut budgets is not evidence of budgets getting cut? Seems to me that you're not arguing in good faith when all of this is public record, and could be discovered as such with a 10 minute stroll through google results.
- aeternum 4y ago
  I'm not convinced budget is the issue. Many police still perform patrols around the city, and the data does not support the efficacy of that. Data shows that crime occurs in highly concentrated areas, and those are typically the undesirable areas of the city where police rarely patrol. I also question the efficacy of city-wide patrols now that every citizen is carrying a phone and can easily call in an issue. How would crime change if we committed just 2% of the 2000+ SF police force on permanent patrol in tenderloin? That's something like 20 officers walking around tenderloin at all times, it would make the open-air drug market significantly more difficult. You could commit 10% or 200 officers to tracking down citizen-sourced live-GPS crime. Car breakins where a GPS device was taken (airtag is present, or cellphone/airpods was taken). I'd wager that those 12% of officers would make more total arrests than the 88% doing patrols throughout the rest of the city.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > Many police still perform patrols around the city, and the data does not support the efficacy of that. There's a lot of value in having patrols even in low crime areas. It means that when something does go horribly wrong, or even when residents just need help, that help isn't terribly far away. It also prevents "police free zones" which criminals would quickly discover and be happy to exploit. That said, police certainly should be patrolling areas where crime is more prevalent more frequently.

rabuse 4y ago

The first step, is to actually have consequences to the commission of crimes again. How is it so surprising that when you get lax on penalties, there will be more crime?

lamontcg 4y ago
You could prevent crime from ever happening in the first place. The more mentally ill, drug addicted and homelessness you've got in a city, without any kind of support for them, the worse the crime is going to get. Punishment doesn't fix anything, just keeps them with nothing to lose.

soulofmischief 4y ago

Interestingly, I think a more effective approach would be to invert, reporting crimes without the expectation for police follow-up, shining a spotlight on the disgustingly lazy SFPD and their handlers. The only problem with either of these approaches is that it exposes the accused to vigilante action without due process.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

Therein lies the problem. You have many thousands of pieces of evidence but limited manpower and resources. Even more so when politicians and residents are pushing to shrink your budgets. Couple that with a DA that is letting some pretty spicy characters walk on serious charges, and you have a recipe for todays conditions. If only someone saw this coming...

rrradical 4y ago
> Even more so when politicians and residents are pushing to shrink your budgets. Besides the public discussion which we all heard, do you have any evidence that policing budgets actually shrank? My understanding is that they largely did not (and mostly grew). So you really don't seem to be arguing in good faith.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  So what you're saying is that all the municipalities and cities that cut budgets is not evidence of budgets getting cut? Seems to me that you're not arguing in good faith when all of this is public record, and could be discovered as such with a 10 minute stroll through google results.
aeternum 4y ago
I'm not convinced budget is the issue. Many police still perform patrols around the city, and the data does not support the efficacy of that. Data shows that crime occurs in highly concentrated areas, and those are typically the undesirable areas of the city where police rarely patrol. I also question the efficacy of city-wide patrols now that every citizen is carrying a phone and can easily call in an issue. How would crime change if we committed just 2% of the 2000+ SF police force on permanent patrol in tenderloin? That's something like 20 officers walking around tenderloin at all times, it would make the open-air drug market significantly more difficult. You could commit 10% or 200 officers to tracking down citizen-sourced live-GPS crime. Car breakins where a GPS device was taken (airtag is present, or cellphone/airpods was taken). I'd wager that those 12% of officers would make more total arrests than the 88% doing patrols throughout the rest of the city.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Many police still perform patrols around the city, and the data does not support the efficacy of that. There's a lot of value in having patrols even in low crime areas. It means that when something does go horribly wrong, or even when residents just need help, that help isn't terribly far away. It also prevents "police free zones" which criminals would quickly discover and be happy to exploit. That said, police certainly should be patrolling areas where crime is more prevalent more frequently.