We’re blaming the wrong things for San Francisco retail theft | Hacker News Reader

We’re blaming the wrong things for San Francisco retail theft

sfgate.com

14 pointsfrumper32 comments

Maybe the solution is to decentralize the protection of personal property and let law abiding citizens carry protection. I travel to SF/Oakland here and there and really would like to carry my pistol, but I know it's illegal unless it is locked is a way that defeats the purpose of bringing it. I have called the police to report a theft and they tell me to come in to file a police report with no intention of sending an officer to asses the situation. To me, that means the police only want to respond to larger valued thefts which implies they are there to protect those with enough wealth to warrant protection. To me, the defund the police movement was a cry against centralized law enforcement and their ability to skirt most methods of accountability (qualified immunity, frat/cult like behavior from the departments, etc).

What actions would you like to take to protect personal property with your pistol?

(genuine question)

That's a great question. Honestly. I don't think I can answer it without context. Some situations don't require that kind of escalation, but others do.

EDIT: I think the point is that I feel like I have the choice to escalate and take action in a way that eliminates the threat if I see that it is required.

I’m not seeing how a pistol would help here. In most circumstances that I can think of, drawing a weapon against a shoplifter—to say nothing of using it—is more likely to result in charges against you than the thief. Unless you can prove you were in imminent danger—you tried to stop a thief and they produced a weapon, say—I think a lot of juries are not going to look kindly on your decision to brandish a weapon in a crowded store or street. The risk of harm to bystanders is too high. (And a gun isn’t going to be any use against a thief who’s already gone, or apathetic cops who don’t give a damn.)

I don’t have any problem at all with people resorting to lethal force as a means of self defense, and if this was violent crime we were talking about, I’d probably see it differently. As far as shoplifting, I do believe that a community of armed, on-edge people looking for criminals is likely to be more of a threat to public safety than the criminals themselves. I think more effective surveillance and forceful prosecution—as well as whatever social measures can proactively reduce crime—is a better approach here.

It seems to be a commonly repeated american fantasy to be a cowboy stopping the big bad guys with their big good guns even when there's no actual threat to anyone's life

I think the general idea is that the thief would have to escalate to physical violence in order to steal the prize. The physical violence escalation would then justify pulling out the pistol and shooting. Roughly the thief would have to escalate to mugging.

Yeah, that just seems crazy. The OP said he wanted to feel like he had the option to escalate, but as far as I’ve seen, it’s typically the act of escalating a situation that harms a self-defense argument.

I mean, maybe you could block a thief’s exit while producing a handgun, and create a standoff until the cops arrived. That still sounds pretty reckless for something like shoplifting; getting into an altercation that results in firing a gun in a store is a risk to everyone in the vicinity. I remember when some woman shot out the tires of somebody trying to steal a ton of stuff from Home Depot—she was arrested. Both the cops and other gun owners thought that was incredibly irresponsible.

I think what you're saying is that the person getting stolen from has a duty to surrender their property to avoid escalating. That sounds absurd to me? The person doing the stealing is the one escalating as the natural state is the original owner keeping possession of their property. "Give me your wallet." "No." -- What happens next and who is the one escalating?

I doubt a thief would stick around for the cops to arrive. And I do think everyone knows you don't pull a gun until you're ready to fire it to neutralize a threat. (A truck is probably not a theat unless it's trying to run you over.)

That’s a mugging you’re describing. There’s an implicit threat of violence in being confronted by someone who demands your property, and drawing a weapon would likely be seen as justified.

Retail theft—someone grabbing stuff and fleeing the store—is a different deal. If you blocked the person from leaving and they threatened you, again, you might be able to justify drawing a weapon. But threatening deadly force against someone who’s running away isn’t the same situation.

As you said, you don’t draw a gun unless you’re willing to use it. If I were a store customer or employee, I’d be more worried about armed hero-types overreacting and possibly killing me, rather than someone stealing stuff and trying to escape.

This sounds like a good way to get a lot more Ahmaud Arbery type murders. Are you not concerned of that effect?

Or the average person can simply move out of SF and no longer have to worry about their social experiments. Let SF continue on the path they have chosen and just avoid the place completely.

Oddly,

The article seems to have forgotten to say what is/are the things one should blame other than two sentences:

- We must work to reduce crime. Investments in the social safety net — providing safety for all — goes far.

- We should be focusing resources on opportunists who intentionally seek out to commit these crimes

but aren't the under-privileged and the opportunists already the ones being blamed? If it is not these groups, what groups are being incorrectly blamed?

He is saying that they shouldn't blame him. He is the district attorney.

He is also the son of Weather Underground terrorists, and a longtime volunteer and apologist for the regime of Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro.

Pondering whether a supporter of communist revolution is committed to his role of defending property rights is not unwarranted as he is implying.

> He is also the son of Weather Underground terrorists

Probably not a good idea to blame a child for the activities of their parents. Makes one seem a bit deranged whenever they start arguing that blood carries criminal behaviors.

He has condemned the US for locking up his parents, who are convicted murderers.

Felony murder is a controversial crime. It's not in the Bible.

I had to look this up: (1) Boudin (mother) agreed to a plea deal to get the felony murder result, (2) Gilbert (father) was convicted of murder (not felony murder).

This doesn't sound like a very controversial result. What part do you think is controversial?

Chesa Boudin thinks their imprisonment is an indictment of our racist system of mass incarceration.

He ran campaign ads showing that he is qualified to be DA because his experience growing up with incarcerated parents exposed him to the injustice of that system, and hardened his resolve to end it.

His mother was let out much earlier than his father. Apparently his father got out in 2021, due to Andrew Cuomo making him eligible for parole.

It's possible that Chesa's public position is that while prison was not inappropriate, the extreme difference in the sentences was not justified.

I did have the impression that was what he had claimed.

San Francisco is a place where a Marxist-Leninist seeking elected office as the top prosecutor thought the most viable strategy for obtaining this position was to highlight how his parents, who are convicted murderers, were the real victims, while never once mentioning those they aided in the murder of.

If a conservative talk radio host had made up such a story five years ago about how extreme the San Francisco electorate is, it would be seen as outlandish even by Republicans.

>(2) Gilbert (father) was convicted of murder (not felony murder)

One or the other of us has got wrong information.

I just double checked and read that he was an "unarmed getaway driver" convicted under NY's felony murder law. If this is wrong, that would be good to know.

Again I would suggest not to try and do an 18th century version or the minority report.

If you're really so high-strung about innocent people being murdered, you might want to figure out some way to stop paying taxes.

True, but the pain of his parents being incarcerated was a big part of his campaign, so it seems fair.

No, it's not fair to say that someone who took no part in some crimes is in any way complicit in said crimes because they have differing opinions on how justice ought to be handled.

It is one thing not to hold them complicit in the crime, and another to judge the DA for holding the position that murderers should not be imprisoned.

>It is one thing not to hold them complicit in the crime, and another to judge the DA for holding the position that murderers should not be imprisoned.

Let's say someone says "gee, that's just too far out to believe". A DA who doesn't believe in putting murderers in prison.

What do you support your statement with? Is it purely "he thinks his parents, who are murderers, should be free"?

I was in San Francisco for a while, and I feel so sad for the city. It is a beautiful city, but now a days, all I see is homeless, piss on the roads, drugs, needles. There are some good areas, but most of the downtown and touristy areas are like that. I pass by civic center bart station every day (5+ years now), and there are people standing there selling drugs (often youth 18+ or early 20s), and there are never police there, ZERO times I saw police catch someone. I think the whole city is pretty much corrupt, law enforcement and justice department included. It need a huge political reform with law enforcement and justice department that have great integrity, and I think thats the only way to save the city.

It is a beautiful city

I lived in SF in 20 years ago. I would describe it just as you have described it today. I'm not convinced anything has actually changed.

I’ve been visiting a bunch of cities in the past year and it’s not just SF that’s like this.

I don’t know if income inequality is necessarily the cause but I do know it has drastically gotten worse in the past 15 years and US income inequality is now going to be the worst it has ever been in 120 years.

One way to solve the problem without expensive social safety nets is to have private stores that only allow entry to members. Maybe stores can band together so that a single membership grants entry to all the stores in a neighborhood. (Another way is delivery/curbside pickup which seems more likely in SF.)

Is that a better social outcome than enforcing these retail theft laws?

here's a weird idea: enforce and prosecute the laws that are already on the books.

there's plenty of other "progressive" cities that don't have this problem.

it doesn't take a new idea or viewpoint or effort. just stop with the dereliction of duty from the prosecutors and the problem would disappear almost like magic.

>Some have wrongly accused progressive prosecutors like me of not pursuing accountability despite my office’s high prosecution rates on these kinds of crimes and our transparency on filing rates.

Buddy, if you’re so transparent, why are you [refusing to disclose](https://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/opinion-why-wont-chesa-bo...) the outcomes of your prosecutions?

> Annie Gaus, of the San Francisco Standard, asked for the disposition memos that reveal the final outcomes of criminal cases. Chesa Boudin’s office denied the request, saying there were no relevant public records to her query — and if any did exist, those documents were “privileged.”

>“I can’t emphasize enough what a load of horsesh-t this response is,” Gaus said on a Twitter thread that posted the letter she received from the district attorney’s office. “At a certain point, you gotta wonder why they’re so adamant about keeping this info from the public.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com