6 ms·

I think it heavily depends on what local district attorneys policies are. Police may not see a point in taking a risk by apprehending someone just for them to b

I think it heavily depends on what local district attorneys policies are. Police may not see a point in taking a risk by apprehending someone just for them to be released hours later anyway. Not a huge fan of US police departments in general but this isn't necessarily all on them.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
longbrass 2y ago
One contributor is the fact that law enforcement rarely strikes but used their FOP and “union” organizations to slow, or sandbag work as a negotiation tactic. With membership that is largely unaccountable the blue wall is a political tool to leverage public funds by threat of crime and alternatively allowing or shutting down private unionization efforts. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-police-union-power-helped-increase-abuses https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-police-union-po... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapolis-kroll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo... https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend-millions-lobbying-to-retain-their-sway-over-big-us-cities-and-state-governments/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend... https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/historical-overview-police-unionization-united-states https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/historic...
marcusverus 2y ago
I can see how this would be the natural response to a situation where the DA refuses to prosecute crime. That said, simply giving in to lawlessness is clearly not the answer, and I doubt many cops find this to be a preferable path. It just validates the DA's backwards worldview! How are you going to replace them when the elections roll around, and they're able to argue "I'm not refusing to prosecute anyone! Just look, arrests are way down!" The only way to keep them honest is to continue doing the work and ensuring that the taxpayers have a clear understanding of what is happening.
- NorthTheRock 2y ago
  > DA refuses to prosecute crime Have there been any actual documented instances of this? I see it cited a lot, but rarely any specific names of DAs or cases attached to it, and it feels like an easy excuse for police to not even attempt to do their jobs.
  - newfriend 2y ago
    read all about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin You can disagree with me all you want, but this guy was recalled as SF DA for letting criminals go. His wikipedia enumerates several cases of him doing just that. > In March 2020, Boudin charged 20-year-old Dwayne Grayson with elder abuse after he filmed 56-year-old Jonathan Amerson in February 2020 swinging a metal bar at an elderly Asian man in Bayview–Hunters Point, San Francisco and stealing his aluminum cans. Amerson was charged with elder abuse and robbery. The video later went viral online. Boudin dropped charges against Dwayne Grayson after a spokesperson in Boudin's office said the victim expressed his intent to pursue restorative justice. > Boudin has been criticized for his alleged lack of prosecution of drug-related crimes, with only three drug convictions in 2021, none of which were for fentanyl dealing. Boudin has defended his actions saying that many of the drug dealers in the Bay Area are from Honduras, and would face deportation if convicted of drug dealing.
    - abeppu 2y ago
      Except that even when the DA was trying to pursue stuff, the SFPD refused to help, and forced the DA's office to do stuff like move evidence in a U-haul truck. https://www.ksbw.com/article/sfpd-refused-to-help-stop-san-francisco-quickly-car-burglary-ring-report-alleges/40106042 https://www.ksbw.com/article/sfpd-refused-to-help-stop-san-f...
      - newfriend 2y ago
        I agree with you on this one case. But this was after years of him letting criminals go. This case was in the run up to the recall in which he was removed from office by SF voters for being too soft on crime.
macNchz 2y ago
> apprehending someone just for them to be released hours later Should this not be the expectation for low-level/nonviolent offenses, under the presumption of innocence?
- garrettgarcia 2y ago
  It's not releasing them that is the issue. It's that the charges are dropped.
- creer 2y ago
  Some San Francisco Bay Area police departments were whining also recently that minor crimes spread out in different cities and counties made the work harder. And celebrated a case where they HAD done the work and arrested a group for spread out offenses. Release after a minor arrest should be as expected of course. In most isolated offenses, not even an arrest preferably even - since "arrest" can come with massive baggage in the US. It's refusing to even bother collecting records, documenting, tracking, and in the end arrests which means that the initial offences essentially did not exist. So that the next offenses are still initial offenses - and don't exist.
abeppu 2y ago
I've seen press about police departments making such an argument, and it seems really disingenuous. The implied claim is that if no charge will be pursued by the DA then there's "no outcome" or point in doing any police work or arrest. However, when cops feel any kind of animus, it's really apparent that they can make life awful for people by harassing, intimidating, or assaulting who aren't doing anything illegal. They understand that even if the DA will never pursue anything, being a victim of over-policing is itself a shitty position to be in. Further, it can create the basis for claims of resisting arrest. For example, in my city there's press about a woman who was physically accosted by an officer for jaywalking. There's video of an officer doing a rapid U-turn after seeing a woman walk through a crosswalk, follow her down the street and slam her int a wall. The officer claims that the woman, who was just walking down the street with headphones, disregarded his (impossible?) instruction to show him an ID without reaching into her pockets or purse. So we supposed to believe that cops have the energy to rough up random jaywalkers (who we're pretty sure the DA isn't interested in pursuing, and which is actually legal in my state now), but not enough to pursue people doing car break-ins, mail theft, vandalism, etc because of the DA's lack of interest? If you were a mail thief, and not a priority for the local DA (... though isn't mail theft actually a federal crime?) but the police decided that you should be picked up and detained for 1-hour less than the window at which they're obliged to release you if no charges are forthcoming, and also all the stuff you stole, and some other stuff that you didn't steal, was confiscated and you didn't get your actual property back for an indeterminate period, you might understandably reconsider the pro/con list of stealing mail, even if you never went to court. I think the explanation for why cops don't direct their harassment power at actual criminals is not that cops are rationally not doing work that won't lead to convictions. Rather: - police budgets increase with the severity of the perceived "crime problem". Solving problems doesn't get you more money next year. - priorities get set by political pressures. Mail theft, package theft, car break-ins, etc have diffuse harms over a broad set of the population but not necessarily against organized political blocks. But the X Neighborhood Merchants Association that donates to the campaign fund of the incumbent supervisor can probably organize to get more policing in their area. - policing isn't about stopping or even responding to crime; it's about being seen projecting power. Report a theft in my neighborhood, and the cops will at best take a report that you can send to your insurer. If you have video footage of the crime, no one will look at it. The won't come to the location where the crime occurred. But routinely I will see 5 cops standing around talking, with 3 cop cars blocking traffic/bike lanes/lightrail tracks, while one cop is looming over/talking at a homeless person sitting on the sidewalk. There aren't enough cops to look into serial theft, but we need all hands on deck for this one disruptive unhoused person, b/c the world needs to see how we respond when you visibly step out of line. https://missionlocal.org/2024/08/black-woman-injured-by-sfpd-after-jaywalking-files-legal-claim-against-city/ https://missionlocal.org/2024/08/black-woman-injured-by-sfpd...
Gibbon1 2y ago
You are right about that, friend in Nevada county had his house broken into, guy stole some stuff including a rifle, drank one of his beers. Cops came dusted for prints, took the empty beer can. And nothing came of it. Two years later gets a call from a detective they got the guy. He got arrested they took his DNA and it was a match for the DNA on the beer can. So they charged him for the break in and stealing the rifle. Cops in the Bay Area would never even bother with that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

longbrass 2y ago

One contributor is the fact that law enforcement rarely strikes but used their FOP and “union” organizations to slow, or sandbag work as a negotiation tactic. With membership that is largely unaccountable the blue wall is a political tool to leverage public funds by threat of crime and alternatively allowing or shutting down private unionization efforts. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-police-union-power-helped-increase-abuses https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-police-union-po... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapolis-kroll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo... https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend-millions-lobbying-to-retain-their-sway-over-big-us-cities-and-state-governments/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend... https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/historical-overview-police-unionization-united-states https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/historic...

marcusverus 2y ago

I can see how this would be the natural response to a situation where the DA refuses to prosecute crime. That said, simply giving in to lawlessness is clearly not the answer, and I doubt many cops find this to be a preferable path. It just validates the DA's backwards worldview! How are you going to replace them when the elections roll around, and they're able to argue "I'm not refusing to prosecute anyone! Just look, arrests are way down!" The only way to keep them honest is to continue doing the work and ensuring that the taxpayers have a clear understanding of what is happening.

NorthTheRock 2y ago
> DA refuses to prosecute crime Have there been any actual documented instances of this? I see it cited a lot, but rarely any specific names of DAs or cases attached to it, and it feels like an easy excuse for police to not even attempt to do their jobs.
- newfriend 2y ago
  read all about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin You can disagree with me all you want, but this guy was recalled as SF DA for letting criminals go. His wikipedia enumerates several cases of him doing just that. > In March 2020, Boudin charged 20-year-old Dwayne Grayson with elder abuse after he filmed 56-year-old Jonathan Amerson in February 2020 swinging a metal bar at an elderly Asian man in Bayview–Hunters Point, San Francisco and stealing his aluminum cans. Amerson was charged with elder abuse and robbery. The video later went viral online. Boudin dropped charges against Dwayne Grayson after a spokesperson in Boudin's office said the victim expressed his intent to pursue restorative justice. > Boudin has been criticized for his alleged lack of prosecution of drug-related crimes, with only three drug convictions in 2021, none of which were for fentanyl dealing. Boudin has defended his actions saying that many of the drug dealers in the Bay Area are from Honduras, and would face deportation if convicted of drug dealing.
  - abeppu 2y ago
    Except that even when the DA was trying to pursue stuff, the SFPD refused to help, and forced the DA's office to do stuff like move evidence in a U-haul truck. https://www.ksbw.com/article/sfpd-refused-to-help-stop-san-francisco-quickly-car-burglary-ring-report-alleges/40106042 https://www.ksbw.com/article/sfpd-refused-to-help-stop-san-f...
    - newfriend 2y ago
      I agree with you on this one case. But this was after years of him letting criminals go. This case was in the run up to the recall in which he was removed from office by SF voters for being too soft on crime.

macNchz 2y ago

> apprehending someone just for them to be released hours later Should this not be the expectation for low-level/nonviolent offenses, under the presumption of innocence?

garrettgarcia 2y ago
It's not releasing them that is the issue. It's that the charges are dropped.
creer 2y ago
Some San Francisco Bay Area police departments were whining also recently that minor crimes spread out in different cities and counties made the work harder. And celebrated a case where they HAD done the work and arrested a group for spread out offenses. Release after a minor arrest should be as expected of course. In most isolated offenses, not even an arrest preferably even - since "arrest" can come with massive baggage in the US. It's refusing to even bother collecting records, documenting, tracking, and in the end arrests which means that the initial offences essentially did not exist. So that the next offenses are still initial offenses - and don't exist.

abeppu 2y ago

I've seen press about police departments making such an argument, and it seems really disingenuous. The implied claim is that if no charge will be pursued by the DA then there's "no outcome" or point in doing any police work or arrest. However, when cops feel any kind of animus, it's really apparent that they can make life awful for people by harassing, intimidating, or assaulting who aren't doing anything illegal. They understand that even if the DA will never pursue anything, being a victim of over-policing is itself a shitty position to be in. Further, it can create the basis for claims of resisting arrest. For example, in my city there's press about a woman who was physically accosted by an officer for jaywalking. There's video of an officer doing a rapid U-turn after seeing a woman walk through a crosswalk, follow her down the street and slam her int a wall. The officer claims that the woman, who was just walking down the street with headphones, disregarded his (impossible?) instruction to show him an ID without reaching into her pockets or purse. So we supposed to believe that cops have the energy to rough up random jaywalkers (who we're pretty sure the DA isn't interested in pursuing, and which is actually legal in my state now), but not enough to pursue people doing car break-ins, mail theft, vandalism, etc because of the DA's lack of interest? If you were a mail thief, and not a priority for the local DA (... though isn't mail theft actually a federal crime?) but the police decided that you should be picked up and detained for 1-hour less than the window at which they're obliged to release you if no charges are forthcoming, and also all the stuff you stole, and some other stuff that you didn't steal, was confiscated and you didn't get your actual property back for an indeterminate period, you might understandably reconsider the pro/con list of stealing mail, even if you never went to court. I think the explanation for why cops don't direct their harassment power at actual criminals is not that cops are rationally not doing work that won't lead to convictions. Rather: - police budgets increase with the severity of the perceived "crime problem". Solving problems doesn't get you more money next year. - priorities get set by political pressures. Mail theft, package theft, car break-ins, etc have diffuse harms over a broad set of the population but not necessarily against organized political blocks. But the X Neighborhood Merchants Association that donates to the campaign fund of the incumbent supervisor can probably organize to get more policing in their area. - policing isn't about stopping or even responding to crime; it's about being seen projecting power. Report a theft in my neighborhood, and the cops will at best take a report that you can send to your insurer. If you have video footage of the crime, no one will look at it. The won't come to the location where the crime occurred. But routinely I will see 5 cops standing around talking, with 3 cop cars blocking traffic/bike lanes/lightrail tracks, while one cop is looming over/talking at a homeless person sitting on the sidewalk. There aren't enough cops to look into serial theft, but we need all hands on deck for this one disruptive unhoused person, b/c the world needs to see how we respond when you visibly step out of line. https://missionlocal.org/2024/08/black-woman-injured-by-sfpd-after-jaywalking-files-legal-claim-against-city/ https://missionlocal.org/2024/08/black-woman-injured-by-sfpd...

Gibbon1 2y ago

You are right about that, friend in Nevada county had his house broken into, guy stole some stuff including a rifle, drank one of his beers. Cops came dusted for prints, took the empty beer can. And nothing came of it. Two years later gets a call from a detective they got the guy. He got arrested they took his DNA and it was a match for the DNA on the beer can. So they charged him for the break in and stealing the rifle. Cops in the Bay Area would never even bother with that.