San Francisco, the shoplifter's paradise!

[Gospel]

When people are bold enough to ride a bike into a store with a large garbage bag to shoplift in broad daylight, there's a problem. I like Derec's solution. Now If we can add Critical Race Theory to police training & increase their pay that would be a bonus. Don't trip yawl, cops should be trained to see the difference between a black man who really did nothing wrong, a black man who just doesn't want to go to jail & a black man who wants to kill them.

 

[Politesse]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

Personally, I would rather do the work to create an educated populace free of demonization through induction to the criminal justice system. That will largely solve the problems of generational poverty that contribute to such negative behaviors in the first place.

 

[Elixir]

One wonders what level of degradation a city needs to reach before voters stop voting for Democratic mayors and administrations for their cities.

Two weekends ago, Chicago had 77 victims of shootings (including mass shootings). Of course, 99 per cent of criticism of Chicago's mayor is 'motivated' by her status as a black woman.

EDIT: For people elsewhere in the Western world, I cannot stress enough how batshit crazy warzone 77 shootings in one weekend in a single city sounds.

But how many of them are criminals shooting criminals? So long as the violence doesn't impact the innocent much there's not the pressure to deal with it.

The vast majority, I would say, but that doesn't make it not insane. There's also collateral damage. I wouldn't want to live in a city with 77 people shot in a weekend, even if I had nothing to do with criminal gangs.

...but that's hypothetical, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

The vast majority, I would say, but that doesn't make it not insane. There's also collateral damage. I wouldn't want to live in a city with 77 people shot in a weekend, even if I had nothing to do with criminal gangs.

...but that's hypothetical, right?

Of course when anyone happens to make some proposal for alleviating generational poverty and disparity, the things that would overwhelmingly alleviate the instantiation of gang activity, the Reactionary Right goes apoplectic.

They have fought for decades to stand in the way of anything that would give "poor" kids access to quality educations, and freedom from criminal desperation.

 

[Gospel]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

It is a start. We also don't necessarily need to pick based on party affiliation either. Just good policy and leadership. Proposition 47 was basically in place already. We just had law enforcement from the street to the courts going overboard and filling the prisons when they didn't have to. Now with Proposition 47 it's just forcing the idiots to do what could have been done to begin with by good judges and state prosecutors. The only difference now is they're announcing to those who don't need to hear it, that "we won't be doing shit". Unless I'm just a big dummy on the issue.

 

[Politesse]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

Personally, I would rather do the work to create an educated populace free of demonization through induction to the criminal justice system. That will largely solve the problems of generational poverty that contribute to such negative behaviors in the first place.

I definitely think systemic inequalities have a role to play here, though it's a bit more complicated than the usual American city paradigm of generational poverty and entrenched wealth; a lot of San Francisco's wealth and spiraling inflation are of relatively recent origin, and many factors have plagued any attempts to mitigate runaway crises of housing and food availability. You've also got this factor of the national news media obsessing over the city's problems that I think act as an attractor to "professional" crime rings like the one which pulled off the recently famous Neiman-Marcus robbery. The idea that London Breed or anyone else is personally responsible for shoplifting is of course ridiculous, but I do think that weak and self-consuming civic leadership has also played a role in creating a general atmosphere of confusion and inconsistency in both policing and social services.

 

[steve_bank]

Same in Seattle. Get caught stealing, go to court, get released, go back and steal at the same store.

Shoplifting is essentially decimalized. I don't know if it is enacted yet, Seattle is looking at situation justification for shoplifting. No penalty if the theft was deemed necessary.

 

[Politesse]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

It is a start. We also don't necessarily need to pick based on party affiliation either. Just good policy and leadership. Proposition 47 was basically in place already. We just had law enforcement from the street to the courts going overboard and filling the prisons when they didn't have to. Now with Proposition 47 it's just forcing the idiots to do what could have been done to begin with by good judges and state prosecutors. The only difference now is they're announcing to those who don't need to hear it, that "we won't be doing shit". Unless I'm just a big dummy on the issue.

Full disclosure: I voted for Prop 47, and I don't agree that its strictures, which primarily involved turning many petty offenses into misdemeanors rather than felonies under state law, was already in place. Even if that was effectively true in San Francisco County, it certainly wasn't true in Stanislaus County where I grew up, and where I still work. California is not a political monolith, and the over-criminalization of adolescent misdeeds was a nearly routine method of racial persecution where I grew up, resulting in the creation, not the termination, of a teeming criminal class. The idea that being shipped out of state to a prison in the desert somewhere for a few years will "reform" someone from a life of crime is ridiculous and illogical if you know anything about the kind of shit that goes down in said prisons. They're good places to get recruited into a gang or pick up a drug addiction, terrible places to set someone on a good and moral path in life.

 

[Gospel]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

It is a start. We also don't necessarily need to pick based on party affiliation either. Just good policy and leadership. Proposition 47 was basically in place already. We just had law enforcement from the street to the courts going overboard and filling the prisons when they didn't have to. Now with Proposition 47 it's just forcing the idiots to do what could have been done to begin with by good judges and state prosecutors. The only difference now is they're announcing to those who don't need to hear it, that "we won't be doing shit". Unless I'm just a big dummy on the issue.

Full disclosure: I voted for Prop 47, and I don't agree that its strictures, which primarily involved turning many petty offenses into misdemeanors rather than felonies under state law, was already in place. Even if that was effectively true in San Francisco County, it certainly wasn't true in Stanislaus County where I grew up, and where I still work. California is not a political monolith, and the over-criminalization of adolescent misdeeds was a nearly routine method of racial persecution where I grew up, resulting in the creation, not the termination, of a teeming criminal class. The idea that being shipped out of state to a prison in the desert somewhere for a few years will "reform" someone from a life of crime is ridiculous and illogical if you know anything about the kind of shit that goes down in said prisons. They're good places to get recruited into a gang or pick up a drug addiction, terrible places to set someone on a good and moral path in life.

State prosecutors can drop charges, are seek the lessor charge & the Judge can use diversion programs instead of jail time. Both have the same effect as Prop 47 minus the megaphone saying we ain't doing shit. Unless again I'm just plain dumb on how things work in California.

 

[Politesse]

They can, they just don't.

 

[Gospel]

And that's the problem. Californians need to clear their garages of shitty judges, state prosecutors, and law enforcement officials before they can see the walls closing in. While they are at it, get the State government to tax the holy ballz off foreign investors buying up properties. Crime is already at an all-time high so if they threaten to leave and tank property values so fucking what. At least people can afford to buy homes again & just maybe feeling a sense of ownership will help. If they stay those would be some sweet funds for the community at large. Californians just need to know which asses to flat out kick rather than obfuscating with laws like Prop 47 which Is just pushing the mess elsewhere (like people taking a leisure bike ride down the aisle).

Edit: all-time high is Hyperbole (admittedly).

 

[Toni]

St Louis has had Democrat mayors only, since 1949. Having a look at the others in your list, Baltimore has had Democrat mayors since 1967, Detroit from 1962, New Orleans since 1872(!), Kansas City since 1991, Memphis since at least 1982 (the Wiki is not well documented), Cleveland since 1990, Washington DC since 1961 (depending on the definition of 'mayor'), Cincinnati since 1984, Newark since 1953, Buffalo since 1966. Buffalo is just before Chicago.



I don't think any mayor could do it on her own.

Your argument about how dangerous Chicago is is basically the equivalent of, "Sydney is more dangerous than Nimbin, because there are more murders in Sydney."

That does not resemble my argument, at all, and it isn't implied by anything I've said.

You're smart enough to figure out the flaw in that argument.

It's interesting--I looked up the population of Chicago when I read the story about the 77-shooting weekend. It's less than the population of Sydney. And so I looked up Sydney's shooting rate. I didn't find a like-for-like comparison, but Sydney probably has 150 shootings a year. The Chicago figure is astonishingly high for a city of any size. And it was a 'what the fuck' moment for me. What the fuck.

Now, I realise it's not a 'fair' comparison. Australia's gun laws are completely different to the US. But more importantly, although I would expect a mayor of Sydney to be active in any Sydney crime crisis, police in Australia are state-run affairs.

I agree 100% that gun violence in the US is about as fucked as a porn star during their last set of the day. Where we differ is in believing Chicago is the worst or even atypical. Baltimore and St Louis are far more dangerous and that generally comes from Republican Governors playing partisan fuckery with peoples lives towards Democrat run cities.

I didn't say Chicago was the worst. I mentioned Chicago because it had an astonishingly remarkably bad weekend even by Chicago standards.

Democrat administrations preside over the most violent cities in America, by per-resident violent crime rate.

Nationally, crime has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. This affects small, rural areas as well as big cities. You just hear about what happens in Chicago because most of the world recognizes Chicago as a famous large city.

The biggest factor in violent crime no matter where you are in the US is alcohol and drug use. Sure, a bunch of it has to do with the illegality of recreational drugs, but talk to any law enforcement person or DA or public defender or small town lawyer or bit city lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing: It's not the political party that is the big factor: it's substance abuse. The rate of domestic assaults has really gone up during the pandemic.

If you are trying to convince most of the US citizens posting here that there is a very, very serious problem with guns in America, most of us are already way past that and those who aren't will never be convinced. Political party has very little to do with crime rate in a city. In a large city that sits near the border of multiple states as Chicago does (as well as being just across the river from Canada--which is NOT the problem re: violence) the issue is compounded as noted above with differences in laws regarding firearms in neighboring states. I'd very much love to see much tighter gun regulation and many fewer guns.

 

[Toni]

And that's the problem. Californians need to clear their garages of shitty judges, state prosecutors, and law enforcement officials before they can see the walls closing in. While they are at it, get the State government to tax the holy ballz off foreign investors buying up properties. Crime is already at an all-time high so if they threaten to leave and tank property values so fucking what. At least people can afford to buy homes again & just maybe feeling a sense of ownership will help. If they stay those would be some sweet funds for the community at large. Californians just need to know which asses to flat out kick rather than obfuscating with laws like Prop 47 which Is just pushing the mess elsewhere (like people taking a leisure bike ride down the aisle).

Edit: all-time high is Hyperbole (admittedly).

HUGE agree about foreign investors. Housing costs are out of control almost everywhere.

 

[Elixir]

Same in Seattle. Get caught stealing, go to court, get released, go back and steal at the same store.
Shoplifting is essentially decimalized. I don't know if it is enacted yet, Seattle is looking at situation justification for shoplifting. No penalty if the theft was deemed necessary.

I'm sure that all the desperation shoplifters are booking their flights to Seattle right now.

 

[KeepTalking]

St Louis has had Democrat mayors only, since 1949. Having a look at the others in your list, Baltimore has had Democrat mayors since 1967, Detroit from 1962, New Orleans since 1872(!), Kansas City since 1991, Memphis since at least 1982 (the Wiki is not well documented), Cleveland since 1990, Washington DC since 1961 (depending on the definition of 'mayor'), Cincinnati since 1984, Newark since 1953, Buffalo since 1966. Buffalo is just before Chicago.



I don't think any mayor could do it on her own.



That does not resemble my argument, at all, and it isn't implied by anything I've said.



It's interesting--I looked up the population of Chicago when I read the story about the 77-shooting weekend. It's less than the population of Sydney. And so I looked up Sydney's shooting rate. I didn't find a like-for-like comparison, but Sydney probably has 150 shootings a year. The Chicago figure is astonishingly high for a city of any size. And it was a 'what the fuck' moment for me. What the fuck.

Now, I realise it's not a 'fair' comparison. Australia's gun laws are completely different to the US. But more importantly, although I would expect a mayor of Sydney to be active in any Sydney crime crisis, police in Australia are state-run affairs.

I agree 100% that gun violence in the US is about as fucked as a porn star during their last set of the day. Where we differ is in believing Chicago is the worst or even atypical. Baltimore and St Louis are far more dangerous and that generally comes from Republican Governors playing partisan fuckery with peoples lives towards Democrat run cities.

I didn't say Chicago was the worst. I mentioned Chicago because it had an astonishingly remarkably bad weekend even by Chicago standards.

Democrat administrations preside over the most violent cities in America, by per-resident violent crime rate.

Nationally, crime has increased since the beginning of the pandemic. This affects small, rural areas as well as big cities. You just hear about what happens in Chicago because most of the world recognizes Chicago as a famous large city.

The biggest factor in violent crime no matter where you are in the US is alcohol and drug use. Sure, a bunch of it has to do with the illegality of recreational drugs, but talk to any law enforcement person or DA or public defender or small town lawyer or bit city lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing: It's not the political party that is the big factor: it's substance abuse. The rate of domestic assaults has really gone up during the pandemic.

If you are trying to convince most of the US citizens posting here that there is a very, very serious problem with guns in America, most of us are already way past that and those who aren't will never be convinced. Political party has very little to do with crime rate in a city. In a large city that sits near the border of multiple states as Chicago does (as well as being just across the river from Canada--which is NOT the problem re: violence) the issue is compounded as noted above with differences in laws regarding firearms in neighboring states. I'd very much love to see much tighter gun regulation and many fewer guns.

Not only that, but when Chicago did try to do something about the guns, SCOTUS shot them down:

https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm really not seeing how putting two bulldog Republicans in charge of a mostly Democratic polity and throwing some people in jail for a few weeks is going to meaningfully reduce shoplifting to the point of justifying the expense involved. There's a reason stores themselves seldom try to charge shoplifters. But Derek and co think my money should be thrown at this insoluble issue. Great?

It is a start. We also don't necessarily need to pick based on party affiliation either. Just good policy and leadership. Proposition 47 was basically in place already. We just had law enforcement from the street to the courts going overboard and filling the prisons when they didn't have to. Now with Proposition 47 it's just forcing the idiots to do what could have been done to begin with by good judges and state prosecutors. The only difference now is they're announcing to those who don't need to hear it, that "we won't be doing shit". Unless I'm just a big dummy on the issue.

Full disclosure: I voted for Prop 47, and I don't agree that its strictures, which primarily involved turning many petty offenses into misdemeanors rather than felonies under state law, was already in place. Even if that was effectively true in San Francisco County, it certainly wasn't true in Stanislaus County where I grew up, and where I still work. California is not a political monolith, and the over-criminalization of adolescent misdeeds was a nearly routine method of racial persecution where I grew up, resulting in the creation, not the termination, of a teeming criminal class. The idea that being shipped out of state to a prison in the desert somewhere for a few years will "reform" someone from a life of crime is ridiculous and illogical if you know anything about the kind of shit that goes down in said prisons. They're good places to get recruited into a gang or pick up a drug addiction, terrible places to set someone on a good and moral path in life.

Yup, prisons are great places to learn how to be better criminals.

 

[Derec]

I'm sure that all the desperation shoplifters are booking their flights to Seattle right now.

"Desperation"?

Shades of "how he gonna get his money" yet again ...

 

[Derec]

The idea that London Breed or anyone else is personally responsible for shoplifting is of course ridiculous,

That would be ridiculous. She is professionally responsible for the poor governance of her city.
Same goes with Chesa Boudin's (who once worked for the Hugo Chavez regime btw.) mismanagement of the DA office.

Btw, Chesa wants to free his domestic terrorist father from prison:
Prosecutor son seeks father’s release in fatal Brink’s heist

 

[Derec]

Of course when anyone happens to make some proposal for alleviating generational poverty and disparity, the things that would overwhelmingly alleviate the instantiation of gang activity, the Reactionary Right goes apoplectic.

I am not on the right, and am open to sensible proposals. But what the left always discounts is the role of personal responsibility. If you lease a BMW or a Merc that you can't really afford then it is nobody's fault but your own that you stay in a precarious financial situation.
A lot of Americans live beyond their means because they spend on frivolities - the luxury car, a McMansion, latest iPhone or iBook (an old one is for poor people apparently) or expensive baller sneakers like Nike Lebrons.

These people who stole a bunch of luxury items (presumably for resale) did not do so because they were starving but because it is easier to fund their wants and their conspicuous consumption with theft than with work.

They have fought for decades to stand in the way of anything that would give "poor" kids access to quality educations, and freedom from criminal desperation.

K-12 education is free. "Quality" is another thing. While the American education system has room for improvement (and left-wing idiocies like CRT or calling math "racist" when there is a right and wrong answer etc. are hurting rather than helping) but "quality" of schools depends to a great degree on the quality of the students. I would be in favor of basing school assignments not strictly on geography (or even worse, busing kids cross-city or cross-county based on random assignments) but on having the right fit for the student based on aptitude. But note that merit based elite schools like Stuyvesant in NYC are being fought against by the left because they like assigning seats by race rather than merit.
Past K-12, universities are heavily subsidized, esp. in California. No, "desperation" is just an excuse for wanton criminal behavior. It is easier to steal stuff than to work for it.