2 ms·

> Let that sink in Or go do some research. I'm a left-leaning grow-in-SF person who voted to recall Boudin. I've had Progressive friends tell me to my face t

> Let that sink in Or go do some research. I'm a left-leaning grow-in-SF person who voted to recall Boudin. I've had Progressive friends tell me to my face that I was fooled by the police. Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's say that your presentation of the story is roughly accurate. (Let's ignore what the Asian political bloc was saying, they were fooled by the police too, in this scenario; and let's ignore all the folks who worked for Boudin in the DA office and then came out against him. Ignoring all that...) So the police don't want to work with this DA. They say the rise in crime is due to him being soft on crime. We vote him out. Next, one of two things will happen: crime will go down, or it stays the same or goes up. If crime goes down, great! That's what we want, yeah? But if crime goes UP then-- Aha! --we then know that Chesa Boudin wasn't really the factor after all and the police were playing games with the data and enforcement, eh? And that plays (back) into the hands of the Progressive bloc, no?

setr 4y ago
If the concern is police was artificially increasing crime through intentional lack of enforcement, your outcomes aren’t right If DA exits, and crime increases, then it probably wasn’t the police artificially fiddling with things (because they would revert to norm after exit). But then whatever the DA was doing was apparently working, so his exiting isn’t so great. If DA exits, and crime decreases, then: 1. If police were artificially meddling, and stopped meddling after exit, then this is what we’d expect 2. If police were not artificially meddling, and DA was the cause due to soft-on-crime, then this is what we’d expect If DA exits, and crime stays the same, then artificial meddling and DA policy either didn’t occur, or had no impact. Item 1 of crime decrease is not what “we” wanted. Item 2 is a good outcome. But I don’t see how you’d differentiate in this simplification.
- carapace 4y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. The police said that they couldn't do their jobs because the DA wasn't prosecuting. The Progressive bloc said that the police were fudging the reported numbers and shirking their duty just to make the DA look bad. (Pretty strong accusations IMO.) But we don't really have the data. The Progressives claim is that the official figures are cooked. But anyone who has spent time here has seen the crime for themselves. So which is it? Are the cops doing their job but the DA lets the criminals walk? Or are the cops lying and shirking their duty to get rid of a DA who is willing to prosecute their misconduct? In the event, we voted the DA out. The Asian-American political bloc and many Democrats went with the police version of the story, and the Progressives said that they (we) were all just bamboozled by the Republicans and the Police. So now if crime does not go down after removing Boudin then the Progressive bloc will be handed a PR victory (not a real victory, because more crime is bad even if it helps your side politically, eh?)

setr 4y ago

If the concern is police was artificially increasing crime through intentional lack of enforcement, your outcomes aren’t right If DA exits, and crime increases, then it probably wasn’t the police artificially fiddling with things (because they would revert to norm after exit). But then whatever the DA was doing was apparently working, so his exiting isn’t so great. If DA exits, and crime decreases, then: 1. If police were artificially meddling, and stopped meddling after exit, then this is what we’d expect 2. If police were not artificially meddling, and DA was the cause due to soft-on-crime, then this is what we’d expect If DA exits, and crime stays the same, then artificial meddling and DA policy either didn’t occur, or had no impact. Item 1 of crime decrease is not what “we” wanted. Item 2 is a good outcome. But I don’t see how you’d differentiate in this simplification.

carapace 4y ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. The police said that they couldn't do their jobs because the DA wasn't prosecuting. The Progressive bloc said that the police were fudging the reported numbers and shirking their duty just to make the DA look bad. (Pretty strong accusations IMO.) But we don't really have the data. The Progressives claim is that the official figures are cooked. But anyone who has spent time here has seen the crime for themselves. So which is it? Are the cops doing their job but the DA lets the criminals walk? Or are the cops lying and shirking their duty to get rid of a DA who is willing to prosecute their misconduct? In the event, we voted the DA out. The Asian-American political bloc and many Democrats went with the police version of the story, and the Progressives said that they (we) were all just bamboozled by the Republicans and the Police. So now if crime does not go down after removing Boudin then the Progressive bloc will be handed a PR victory (not a real victory, because more crime is bad even if it helps your side politically, eh?)