6 ms·

> “A small minority has tried to weaponize this tragedy to advance a narrative about a crime wave that just isn’t borne out by the data in San Francisco,” Kevin

> “A small minority has tried to weaponize this tragedy to advance a narrative about a crime wave that just isn’t borne out by the data in San Francisco,” Kevin Benedicto, a police commissioner and lawyer, said on Thursday. At a commission meeting earlier in the week, Mr. Benedicto complained that some on social media “are exploiting this horrific incident for political gain.” When someone makes spiteful accusations based on thin air it usually is a based on a reflection of themselves; AKA confession through projection. Who usually weaponizes tragedies about crime waves? Who usually misuses or misreport the city's crime data? Who usually complains on social media for political gain?

colpabar 4y ago
The answer to all three of your questions is “anyone who thinks they’ll benefit from doing so.” To claim any of those things are unique to one group is ridiculous.
asveikau 4y ago
I agree with Mr. Benedicto. I think all the tough on crime shit doesn't work and it's a huge distraction from solving issues in San Francisco. Our recall of the district attorney was a huge waste of time. We now have a DA who has the mayor's approval and the support of the tough on crime jackals and nothing has changed, actually people say it's gotten worse since then. Because as recall opponents have said from the start, the causes of crime are more complicated than who the district attorney is. That's not projection, that's being pissed off at political misinformation. It's a line straight out of Trump speeches, "carnage in our cities" and all that, it isn't reality based and it helps no one.
- shuckles 4y ago
  Tough on crime policies can mean a lot of things, but more police officers on the streets definitely improve both crime rates and the perception of safety. So does higher rates of clearance and prosecution. This is not a controversial fact in research. The question is always whether it's worth the cost, since police departments are very expensive.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    No, it is not uncontroversial. The current wave of this thinking is a rehashing of the '80s and '90s crime wave politics. Increased prosecution and incarceration is a harmful consequence of that, one we should not repeat.
    - jvmfjvfjvflkj 4y ago
      Why doesn't it work when it's worked for NYC?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        At extremes "tough on crime" obviously works; if every person who ever did a crime was summarily executed by the state, very quickly you'd run out of crime-doers. Obviously, even the worst societies have considered "death for every offense" a bit too tough. The problem is complex and involves multiple things - any "simple" solution likely has glaring issues. And a glib answer to some of these could be "NYC cracked down on crime so criminals moved elsewhere, perhaps to San Francisco".
        shuckles 4y ago
        More policing and consistent prosecution also work at the margins, not just the extremes.
      - asveikau 4y ago
        I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you're referring to the popular myth that Giuliani cleaned up New York? What actually happened is that crime declined everywhere starting around 1994. Same reasons Dolores Park is now routinely filled with yuppies instead of gang violence.
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        It created other socio-economics problems. 'Tough on crime' is a short-sighted solution.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  There's a difference with dispensing over-harsh punishments and actually addressing and responding to crimes promptly and efficiently, the later which SF is clearly not doing.

colpabar 4y ago

The answer to all three of your questions is “anyone who thinks they’ll benefit from doing so.” To claim any of those things are unique to one group is ridiculous.

asveikau 4y ago

I agree with Mr. Benedicto. I think all the tough on crime shit doesn't work and it's a huge distraction from solving issues in San Francisco. Our recall of the district attorney was a huge waste of time. We now have a DA who has the mayor's approval and the support of the tough on crime jackals and nothing has changed, actually people say it's gotten worse since then. Because as recall opponents have said from the start, the causes of crime are more complicated than who the district attorney is. That's not projection, that's being pissed off at political misinformation. It's a line straight out of Trump speeches, "carnage in our cities" and all that, it isn't reality based and it helps no one.

shuckles 4y ago
Tough on crime policies can mean a lot of things, but more police officers on the streets definitely improve both crime rates and the perception of safety. So does higher rates of clearance and prosecution. This is not a controversial fact in research. The question is always whether it's worth the cost, since police departments are very expensive.
- asveikau 4y ago
  No, it is not uncontroversial. The current wave of this thinking is a rehashing of the '80s and '90s crime wave politics. Increased prosecution and incarceration is a harmful consequence of that, one we should not repeat.
  - jvmfjvfjvflkj 4y ago
    Why doesn't it work when it's worked for NYC?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      At extremes "tough on crime" obviously works; if every person who ever did a crime was summarily executed by the state, very quickly you'd run out of crime-doers. Obviously, even the worst societies have considered "death for every offense" a bit too tough. The problem is complex and involves multiple things - any "simple" solution likely has glaring issues. And a glib answer to some of these could be "NYC cracked down on crime so criminals moved elsewhere, perhaps to San Francisco".
      - shuckles 4y ago
        More policing and consistent prosecution also work at the margins, not just the extremes.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you're referring to the popular myth that Giuliani cleaned up New York? What actually happened is that crime declined everywhere starting around 1994. Same reasons Dolores Park is now routinely filled with yuppies instead of gang violence.
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      It created other socio-economics problems. 'Tough on crime' is a short-sighted solution.
TeeMassive 4y ago
There's a difference with dispensing over-harsh punishments and actually addressing and responding to crimes promptly and efficiently, the later which SF is clearly not doing.