Liberal policing and policies in San Francisco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Honest question though. Why is it considered a massive Republican crackdown when it is literally enforcing the law and protecting property rights? This is an opportunity to stop playing partisan games and identify bad policy and do something about it.

+1

It’s disgusting that caring about our laws and not wanting a business robbed or looted or people to be assaulted is apparently a “republican” idea now.

You might not like “stop and frisk”, and I think there’s a valid discussion to be had about that. But we’d better start cracking down hard on criminals or next year there’s gonna be a red wave like we’ve never seen before.

Bring back law enforcement and policing practices that lead to inherently unequal justice outcomes? Yea keep trying to reimpose this through fear-mongering.

Dude, California is seeing mobs of people looting stores day after day after day. It’s not fear-mongering when it’s actually happening.

You know what the definition of looting is. Here is a hint. It is not organized gangs breaking in to high end stores to steal things.

Can you clarify why you see this distinction as important?

There's definitely organized crime going on, whether gangs or otherwise. I recall a video from Chicago during the height of BLM protests, where someone at 2AM filmed an entire fleet of U-Hauls and a crew of around 20 people breaking in to and cleaning out a CVS store. Clearly organized and preplanned.

So what? They’re all degenerate losers with zero self respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Honest question though. Why is it considered a massive Republican crackdown when it is literally enforcing the law and protecting property rights? This is an opportunity to stop playing partisan games and identify bad policy and do something about it.

+1

It’s disgusting that caring about our laws and not wanting a business robbed or looted or people to be assaulted is apparently a “republican” idea now.

You might not like “stop and frisk”, and I think there’s a valid discussion to be had about that. But we’d better start cracking down hard on criminals or next year there’s gonna be a red wave like we’ve never seen before.

Bring back law enforcement and policing practices that lead to inherently unequal justice outcomes? Yea keep trying to reimpose this through fear-mongering.

Dude, California is seeing mobs of people looting stores day after day after day. It’s not fear-mongering when it’s actually happening.

You know what the definition of looting is. Here is a hint. It is not organized gangs breaking in to high end stores to steal things.

Can you clarify why you see this distinction as important?

There's definitely organized crime going on, whether gangs or otherwise. I recall a video from Chicago during the height of BLM protests, where someone at 2AM filmed an entire fleet of U-Hauls and a crew of around 20 people breaking in to and cleaning out a CVS store. Clearly organized and preplanned.

The question wasn’t what the distinction was, it’s why is the distinction important?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Does it “disproportionately” hit people if it is the people responsible committing the crimes getting arrested?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Honest question though. Why is it considered a massive Republican crackdown when it is literally enforcing the law and protecting property rights? This is an opportunity to stop playing partisan games and identify bad policy and do something about it.

+1

It’s disgusting that caring about our laws and not wanting a business robbed or looted or people to be assaulted is apparently a “republican” idea now.

You might not like “stop and frisk”, and I think there’s a valid discussion to be had about that. But we’d better start cracking down hard on criminals or next year there’s gonna be a red wave like we’ve never seen before.

Bring back law enforcement and policing practices that lead to inherently unequal justice outcomes? Yea keep trying to reimpose this through fear-mongering.

What exactly is “inherently unjust” if the result is the people responsible for the crimes getting arrested?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The repubs on here want America to turn back the clock on inequitable policing and bring back the mass incarceration of the lower classes and poc so as to defend their privilege.
Plus it’s in San Francisco and they’ll handle it has they see fit.
Your wasteful, precious suburban McMansions are safe.

Yes, because enforcing laws against SHOPLIFTING promulgates the racist structural issues underneath society. .......or you know, you can simply also not break the law.

End thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Does it “disproportionately” hit people if it is the people responsible committing the crimes getting arrested?

Excellent question. Could one of the crime apologists on this thread please explain why you're so outraged about - wait for it - *criminals being arrested for committing crimes*? I'd really love to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Honest question though. Why is it considered a massive Republican crackdown when it is literally enforcing the law and protecting property rights? This is an opportunity to stop playing partisan games and identify bad policy and do something about it.

+1

It’s disgusting that caring about our laws and not wanting a business robbed or looted or people to be assaulted is apparently a “republican” idea now.

You might not like “stop and frisk”, and I think there’s a valid discussion to be had about that. But we’d better start cracking down hard on criminals or next year there’s gonna be a red wave like we’ve never seen before.

Bring back law enforcement and policing practices that lead to inherently unequal justice outcomes? Yea keep trying to reimpose this through fear-mongering.

What exactly is “inherently unjust” if the result is the people responsible for the crimes getting arrested?

I think the left does acknowledge that it’s a certain demographic committing the vast majority of crime in this country. I think they claim it’s our fault though. Like we forced them to be criminals because all the social handouts and free housing and stuff isn’t enough and we owe them more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Does it “disproportionately” hit people if it is the people responsible committing the crimes getting arrested?

Excellent question. Could one of the crime apologists on this thread please explain why you're so outraged about - wait for it - *criminals being arrested for committing crimes*? I'd really love to know.

No one has said they're outraged about people being arrested for the crimes they've committed. The only "solutions" offered in this thread are stop and frisk, which is unconstitutional and would do nothing to prevent shoplifting, and lowering the threshold for theft to be considered a felony, even though California has a threshold at around the same level as most states. Objecting to those ideas isn't being a "crime apologist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that progressive policies are too lax towards crime and troubling. The problem is that conservatives don’t offer a good enough alternative. Stop and Frisk is not an option. The cavalier way in which some would throw out our constitutional rights for lower crime outcomes is scary. We need to uphold order and constitutional protections simultaneously. This should not be rocket science.

It’s not violating anyone’s constitutional rights to lock them up after we know they’ve committed a crime.

Of course it isn’t. The issue is that too many Republicans are fine with stripping away the rights of those who are not known to commit a crime via stop and frisk type tactics, which is utter nonsense. We shouldn’t have to choose between soft on crime policies and authoritarian tactics. We need policies that make sense and communicate crime will not be tolerated nor will overturning our value that individuals are innocent until proven guilty and have a right to free movement.

[Anonymous]

SF is out of control and the people saying "then don't live there" are not recognizing that SF is the cradle of our tech industry. The number of people flowing in and out of SF for business make it a national problem, not a local one. Even a few years ago, things were rough but I would still take my kids. Now, absolutely not. It's a dystopian nightmare, and possibly a glimpse into our grim future if we adopt these policies nationally. I absolutely can't believe we let a city like SF fall in this manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that progressive policies are too lax towards crime and troubling. The problem is that conservatives don’t offer a good enough alternative. Stop and Frisk is not an option. The cavalier way in which some would throw out our constitutional rights for lower crime outcomes is scary. We need to uphold order and constitutional protections simultaneously. This should not be rocket science.

It’s not violating anyone’s constitutional rights to lock them up after we know they’ve committed a crime.

Of course it isn’t. The issue is that too many Republicans are fine with stripping away the rights of those who are not known to commit a crime via stop and frisk type tactics, which is utter nonsense. We shouldn’t have to choose between soft on crime policies and authoritarian tactics. We need policies that make sense and communicate crime will not be tolerated nor will overturning our value that individuals are innocent until proven guilty and have a right to free movement.

Those are just words with no solutions. The more Americans witness utter lawlessness and leftist DAs unwilling to enforce laws the more the pendulum will swing towards stop and frisk. Nobody wants to live in a country where animals roam the streets and commit crimes with impunity. What is happening nowadays is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SF is out of control and the people saying "then don't live there" are not recognizing that SF is the cradle of our tech industry. The number of people flowing in and out of SF for business make it a national problem, not a local one. Even a few years ago, things were rough but I would still take my kids. Now, absolutely not. It's a dystopian nightmare, and possibly a glimpse into our grim future if we adopt these policies nationally. I absolutely can't believe we let a city like SF fall in this manner.

So much hysteria, so few facts. The homeless/crime problem in SF is concentrated in around Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin, which were never that great to start with. There are dozens of other neighborhoods in SF that are perfectly safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people jump on the bandwagon for these, obviously less effective criminal justice laws, and then are shocked when their political party loses power as crime rises. Like shocked pikachu face how did I not know that ending policing in a violent neighborhood would result in a 30% murder increase? Or who knew taking shoplifting less than $1000 would only result in a misdemeanor would somehow spur a shoplifting crimewave?

This has me concerned because I am liberal. Not a progressive a moderate liberal.

What happens when republicans win and the pendulum swings the other way and there is a massive crack down on crime that disproportionately hits people…basically it’s hard to find a good policing middle ground, but this lax crap needs to stop.

Honest question though. Why is it considered a massive Republican crackdown when it is literally enforcing the law and protecting property rights? This is an opportunity to stop playing partisan games and identify bad policy and do something about it.

+1

It’s disgusting that caring about our laws and not wanting a business robbed or looted or people to be assaulted is apparently a “republican” idea now.

You might not like “stop and frisk”, and I think there’s a valid discussion to be had about that. But we’d better start cracking down hard on criminals or next year there’s gonna be a red wave like we’ve never seen before.

Bring back law enforcement and policing practices that lead to inherently unequal justice outcom? Yea keep trying to reimpose this through fear-mongering.

Why some of the pp assume that the looters or robbers are certain minority? Are there plenty lof poor people or homeless are white? The robbers wore long sleeve top wear with hood and masks so it is hard to tell if they are black, brown or white. Please remember the three people who were shot by Kyle are white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF is out of control and the people saying "then don't live there" are not recognizing that SF is the cradle of our tech industry. The number of people flowing in and out of SF for business make it a national problem, not a local one. Even a few years ago, things were rough but I would still take my kids. Now, absolutely not. It's a dystopian nightmare, and possibly a glimpse into our grim future if we adopt these policies nationally. I absolutely can't believe we let a city like SF fall in this manner.

So much hysteria, so few facts. The homeless/crime problem in SF is concentrated in around Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin, which were never that great to start with. There are dozens of other neighborhoods in SF that are perfectly safe.

BS it's endemic. When they're invading high end retailers like Nordstrom and LV it's not just happening in the crap neighborhoods. Pay attention and try your best not to be an imbecile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The repubs on here want America to turn back the clock on inequitable policing and bring back the mass incarceration of the lower classes and poc so as to defend their privilege.
Plus it’s in San Francisco and they’ll handle it has they see fit.
Your wasteful, precious suburban McMansions are safe.

Yes, because enforcing laws against SHOPLIFTING promulgates the racist structural issues underneath society. .......or you know, you can simply also not break the law.

It’s not your stuff. So don’t worry about it. It’ll be so much better for your obviously suffering mental health. Therapy’s good, too. Be well!

When stores raise prices to make up for shoplifting losses - or close down entirely, as is already happening in SF - then it definitely affects everyone. So it really IS “my stuff” (“our stuff”) in a sense.

I’m sorry you lack even a basic understanding of business economics. That’s really tragic.