> Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and mo

> Let's look at a dirt-poor person who hasn't eaten in multiple days. Sure, there are places you can try to get donated items, but those are getting more and more over-run. Can we please be real about what we're talking about? This isn't early 19th century Paris from Les Miserables. On the contrary, SF has some of the best public services for the destitute of any place in the country. There are tons of places around the city where one can get free food. > But surely at some point a human life is worth more than a bit of money in the store owners pockets? My main concern is not about "a bit of money in the store owners pockets". It's abou signaling that the rules simply do not apply, that laws can be picked and chosen based on how you feel about the perpetrator. Again, I said the punishment should fit the crime: 1. The person should be arrested, and basically be given the equivalent of "We'll show you how to access services in SF so you don't need to steal in the future. If you're not caught stealing in the next X months, your record will be cleared". 2. For further infractions, they should be given escalating warnings and escalating penalties.