19 ms·

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 push

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.

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.