After violent robberies, some photographers opt to stay away from San Francisco | Hacker News Reader

After violent robberies, some photographers opt to stay away from San Francisco

abc7news.com

78 pointsokasaki176 comments

San Francisco has disgustedly and unfortunately became a third-world country.

And who’s to blame for that? It’s population of wealthy entitled tech employees who are disconnected from local politics? Or something else?

Disconnected of not, the wealthy snobs aren’t doing violent crime. The criminals are mostly from outside the city. The criminals commute to their crime targets because the risk reward balance is on their side.

To be fair, the rich wealthy snobs are doing plenty of criming as well. It’s unfair to label only those who commit crimes against the wealthy snobs as “criminals”. We should at least realize that the wealthy snobs are criminals as well in their own right.

Unfortunately, wealthy snobs can sustain crime --they can buy bigger houses with guards, cameras, fences and beckon the DA when needed.

It's your poor and middle class who do not have the means to deal with the crime who suffer the crime brought on by opportunistic criminals. Mundane examples are people have had their third and fourth catalytic converters stolen. It may not be a lot of money to you, but for your average worker, it's a day or two of inconvenience and a few hundred each time --money that now has to be reallocated.

I've been victim to two home burglaries when my wife and I were starting out and living in Prince George's county, Maryland. At the time I was working at DIA as a measly GS-9, which means that I was basically 2 or 3 paychecks away from being completely broke.

The few possesions we had were taken. The most unfortunate was my wife's grandmather's wedding band. It probably wouldn't have fetched more than 20 or 30 bucks, but given that it was a family heirloom from WWII-wrought Finland, the sentimental value was high.

Being white and working for the government in a predominantly minority area, I'm sure I was stereotyped as being able to handle some abuse (in fact my neighboor informed me so). Fortunately we didn't own anything of serious financial value, but having your personal space violated by petty theives is not a pleasant experience.

Totally. I remember working with friends of thieves during HS who'd say, yeah, "my friends hit the rich areas because rich people call their insurance instead of coming at you with a baseball bat".

Violent crime is lower than 10 years ago, and much lower than 30 years ago.

"Domestic Violence is lower than X years ago", [let's not worry about it].

Eh, so you name drop a nasty topic and I'll look bad defending it. Cheap trick.

Do you think that people in healthy relationships should fear that outcome? Do you think people should become celibate because some percentages of relationships end up that way? The point is you are encouraging living in fear of low likelihood events.

The world is not perfect, crime and poverty exist, as do disease, many types of suffering, it's bad, but we don't need to be afraid and motivated by irrational fear.

No, you're proposing that if things are statistically demonstrably better and also low probability events, then we can look elsewhere for problems and de-emphasize resources to fight these things not warranting attention.

There are lots of things that were statistically demonstrably worse in the past and also statistically miniscule in occurrence, but I think you would get righteously clobbered if you proposed defending their current rate of occurrence as acceptable. Lots of things.

I agree with your first paragraph unironically. If we don't measure it as an important problem, it probably does not deserve disproportionate resources.

There are outliers to that. I think medical research for something like a rare disease is a good one. High cost, and by some metrics, low payout, but worthy. I don't think this recent right wing paranoia about crime is a good example. Especially since the "tough on crime" policies that people want to enact in reaction to it do not work and have a tendency to incarcerate innocent and undeserving people as collateral damage.

It's not paranoia in SF. It's gotten worse. It's affected poor and middle class working people's quality of life. It's not a clinical, detached exercise. It affects people's ability to pay their bills afford rent, mental health, etc. There is a Reason more a moderate like J Engardio won this time round. People are getting fed up.

I've spent the last 11 years in SF. It's largely paranoia. It is a funny sight, I do see people who got here more recently than I have are describing things as new, but they are old problems, I've heard the same complaints the whole time.

One small anecdote, the first year or two I got here, I felt I was being sized up for muggings a couple times. Has not happened in a long time.

What you want to be looking at is murder rates, as they are always counted the same way.

By that measure the us seems to be the most violent it’s been in 25 years, roughly equivalent to 1997.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murd...

Since you made duplicate claims, I'll refer to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33830274

“Measured” violent crime is lower.

Conspiracy theory. I feel unsafe, therefore all the crime stats are wrong!

Let's say x% of crimes are reported. This would mean the stats are not an accurate count. But a huge enough spike in crime, like the phantom ones I see claimed in fear mongering internet threads, would not evade some number of them being reported.

For those of us (myself included) that have had their vehicles broken into and been personally told by police "there's no point in filing a report", it sure seems like more than a conspiracy theory. It seems like a new standard for how crime is defined.

I got my home office broken into and filed a police report. Big fucking deal.

The cops will absolutely NOT say that to you in SF. They know the report is necessary for your insurance claim. They will do it for you. They will recommend it.

Your situations were not the same. One is a car where the criminals may not have taken anything of significant value (and this the police suggested futility) and presumably when they broke into your home, they took something of value where a report would be necessary to make insurance claims.

No, I do not keep lightweight valuables in my home so nothing major was stolen and the glass bill was the only thing worth putting on the insurance claim.

I would suggest to you that you don't simply guess what happens in the world due to preconceived notions and instead listen to people and ask questions.

> And who’s to blame

Left-wing policies enacted by left-wing city governments.

Not sure if I'd call a government that isn't expanding housing in a very constrained housing market a left-wing government. It might have traces of progressivism in some social areas, even to a fault as I'm reading from these SF's reports on crime, but calling a government that sides with the current rich/millionaire houseowners left-wing is quite disingenuous.

Maybe that's my foreign view as I don't see any political stance in the USA as left-leaning, some Democrats are, at most, left-adjacent in some social policies.

Failing to understand Supply and Demand law of basic economics is a defining characteristics for left-wing politicians.

Protecting their turfs and their own is quite common across both sides of the spectrum.

They may understand it. It's just inconvenient so its downplayed.

They understand it, but they actively work to undermine it by engineering the human race.

Whether or not you agree with their classification, I'd posit nearly any seated SF politician self-categorizes as "left-leaning." Pretending this isn't the case is what's disingenuous, most Americans I've met don't really care how their politicians compare to ones across the pond, and why should they?. Saying they're not left-wing enough when compared to foreign politicians doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

the same left wing government that allows police to use lethal robots? That's doing little to nothing to address homelessness, income discrepancy & the housing crisis? The one that is beholden to big tech? That one?

'left wing policies' are typically social safety nets (healthcare, housing etc). You're describing failed government, left or right.

San Francisco sunk huge piles of money in "solving" the housing crisis. Without allowing people to actually build, of course.

It also has driven out big tech with with idiotic policies and taxes. Remember the anti-Uber law? The Twitter tax?

I agree that San Francisco has idiotic zoning and an overactive planning department that caters to the whims of NIMBYs.

And there's plenty of big tech still here, more than enough, really. Idiotic policies, sure, sometimes, however, the taxes are probably still too low.

But no, actually, I don't remember the anti-Uber law. nor the Twitter tax. It's amusing that you'd cite two made up things to support your case.

Are you referring to the Prop 22 that Uber, Lyft, Door Dash, and Instacart spent $224 million to enshrine their mistreatment of workers into the California Constitution? (kinda crazy that they couldn't just use that money to pay the workers better, huh?) But I'm not sure if a law could really be anti-Uber as their whole strategy was just to flout the law, screw regulations, and blast through billions while playing a game of chicken with Lyft.

And maybe you weren't here at the time, but it was the Twitter Tax Break. That's what started the whole mess anyway, puppet Mayor Ed Lee wanting to kiss Ron Conway's ass.

Oh no, I was referring to AB5, the law a politician (Lorena Gonzalez) owned by a huge multinational syndicate (Teamsters) pushed through so that even gig workers could be pressured to join the union and pay the fees.

A law so incredibly inept that had to be amended to exclude any other part-time employees, from musicians and designers to writers and journalists, remaining in the end what was clearly from the beginning: an anti-high-tech law.

A law so evil no actual gig worker supported (voting Prop 22 instead) because it obviously gave them less options and money and more paperwork. But a huge cash grab for the state and the unions who could tax and control yet another avenue left us to make some money. Because nothing annoys leftists more than independent people, people who just want to be left alone to work and live and don't need them and their f-ing "favors".

And finally, I was in SF before Twitter even existed. But I left, a long time ago, seeing clearly where thing were heading. And it looks I was quite right... what a mess.

> the same left wing government that allows police to use lethal robots?

Yes.

There are lots of factors. But at this point liberal policies are buttressing the problem.

Agreed. Progressives identified a problem and tried to fix it. Their choice of DA was recalled by others (including liberals) and was replaced with a “tough on crime” DA who they promised would fix the problem. So far, this DA hasn’t made a dent, things have gotten worse, and all we hear is “it takes time to fix things! Give them a chance!” Yeah no shit, but that courtesy that was not extended to the progressive DA before the recall campaign started.

There are many factors. The biggest is the failed drug war. Conservatives thought that by getting tough on crime and drugs that those problems could be eliminated. The result was the most full prisons on the planet. The prisons are so full that even the huge California GDP can barely pay for them. So something had to ease up. Now there is a breakdown in the justice system regarding what crimes are worth convicting and incarcerating people for and it is not unusual for even violent criminals to be quickly released.

But the conservative tough on crime folks are completely unable to come to terms with the consequences of their actions on society. So we end up with a stalemate where liberals are trying to trim down the prison population and focus on violent crime while most conservatives still want to fix the problem by getting tough and imprisoning more people for longer.

Should we see a mass pardon now that drugs are becoming more and more legal in the US?

That’s exactly what’s happening. Governors around the country and even the President have been issuing pardons for weed “crimes”.

For some context: California imprisons about 550 people per 100k. Florida imprisons about 750 per 100k.

Interestingly, Florida refuses [1] to even allow a vote on whether you can force prisoners to work (unlike 20 other states [2]):

"Died in Criminal Justice & Public Safety Subcommittee"

1. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/39

2. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

This is so hilariously backwards.

The conservative tough on crime policies may have been inhumane or even immoral, but they did reduce crime.

The soft on crime policies have allowed increased crime. Here are US murder rates:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murd...

That chart doesn't support your conclusion. It's not detailed enough to conclude anything except that crime and policing policy is not driving that number at all.

The failed drug war has historically been a bi-partisan mess. Here is one example: https://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/where_mandatory_minimums_ca...

You can find similar stories for every congressional term and presidential administration going back decades.

I know this one.

Republicans. San Francisco just needs more liberal representation.

> who’s to blame for that?

Illegal drug suppliers, as they keep the vulnerable population (born poor and/or not educated) within the vicious circle of being too high on drugs to perform any decent type of work. This in turn reduces their income and increases their social risk at the same time. The root causes to this problem are far from the reach of local government, and this explains why the problem looks/feels unsolvable.

Then legalize drugs, voila.

Well, once the problem identified, the local government would be in the right position to enact policies and implement programs to educate and help those in need. But that would be called "socialism" thus a big no-no.

it's almost like extreme inequality is bad or something

The people who commit crime and the people who make excuses for criminals are to blame. No one else.

There are plenty of places all over the earth full of wealthy entitled people who do not have such violence problems. Eg Geneva is approximately as boring as SF, but certainly doesn't have the crime.

You forgot the authorities which are elected/nominated there exactly for this aim: to make the place a good place to live. And they so obviously fail at their job.

How about blaming the criminals? The inadequate policing and utter lack of investigative follow-through? The half-asses leadership?

The people attacked in these reports are photographers helping people at their weddings. Are those people disconnected, entitled people who need to be violently robbed to teach them a lesson or something?

How about blaming the people who do wrong? That’s a novel thought. Or maybe even stretch and blame the people whose entire job is catching and punishing the small number of people who are ruining things for normal people.

Don't believe everything you read. Crime was worse in the 90s.

I’m not sure if that’s as true as we want to believe.

The only stat that is reliable is murder. And murder is way up, not 90s level, but way up.

Meanwhile the non-policing of property crimes is a completely new phenomenon, so I don’t know if we’ve even seen this much shoplifting, public defecation, window smashing, etc.

Actually I was wrong the murder rate is as bad as the late 90s:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murd...

But look at 1993. You're citing a graph and asking to ignore the huge peak.

Crime was worse in the early 90s.

Crime has gone way up recently, so bad that it is similar to 1997. 1998 and 1999 had lower crime than now.

This is at minimum a bad trend, and 1997-level crime is not great.

You're calling the pandemic spike a long term trend. I haven't checked in a while, but last I knew it was already showing signs of reversing.

This says 2021 was lower than 2020: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-...

This is inane. These claims are obviously false on their face. All you have to do is go outside in NYC and it is obvious crime is up.

Maybe the trend will reverse, but there is zero evidence of this and, again, all one has to do is live here.

I’ve lived in NYC since 1985. I know what it looks and feels like at different crime levels.

This is what I don't like about these discussions, and the attitude of people who share your position in them.

I try to have a discussion about what the numbers are showing, and you essentially tell me you don't care because your intuitive feeling overrides the numbers.

New York had fewer murders in 2020 than it did in 2010.

The national trend shows crime decreasing in 2021. I haven't looked at the New York specific data, or preliminary 2022 numbers, but that is the national trend for 2021.

I'm in San Francisco and I have to say that all of the rhetoric on this topic regarding this city is pretty heavy on bullshit. Your governor just said "we will never become San Francisco", so if that's the yardstick for terrible, I've got to say that New York is probably doing all right. But I haven't visited since 2021 so I cannot say. None of my friends there are telling me about an out of control crime situation.

You keep using bad data. Only look at murder rates. Murder is the only crime that is reliably recorded.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191223/reported-murder-a...

Bad data to you is data that contradicts your intuition. That ain't how it works.

I'll say again: New York had fewer murders in 2020 than it did in 2010.

That’s actually a very good point, and does in fact contradict my intuition.

I visited SF recently and they smashed by trunk, found nothing and left me with the repair service from the rental company, it was a Friday morning at a park.

Don't park a rental in sf. They specifically target rentals.

This is a silly statement. It’s victim blaming and not actionable. Don’t park a rental in the city? Ok where am I supposed to park? Or should I not drive here to start with. But then I’m walking in San Francisco and I hear that’s not safe either. Or perhaps not come here at all?

Don’t be a photographer in San Francisco. Don’t go to a public park. Don’t drive home from a photo shoot in San Fran because thieves will follow you and steal from you.

Stop blaming the victim for doing normal life things.

There’s plenty of blame and plenty of heads to put it on before you need to stoop to that level.

When I had to visit for work few months back they specifically said I was not allowed to park in SF. So it seems that if the car is damaged while there the rental company is going to make you pay, even if you're the victim of the crime.

You're right. The first sentence reads as advising what to do. I should have skipped it and gone just for the statement of fact in the second sentence.

Also, the first sentence is not inclusive enough, as they target rentals even when not parked. Cars have had windows smashed and bags stolen while occupied and sitting at a red light.

Can we talk about the fact that people are paying 10% of their income to live in this dirty crime ridden city? I don't think people comprehend how much money they are spending. If you manage to keep your salary (which some people are able to do), moving out of California to a no tax state means you instantly get a 22% raise. Meaning for every 5 years you will earn the equivalent of 1 extra year of salary, factor in compound interest from investments and it's significantly more in reality.

Going back to the 22% raise number. Why 22% if California income tax is 10%? The 10% income tax takes away after-tax money. So to earn that 10% back you need to make the equivalent of 122% your income in California.

It's just absurd. Either move to a part of California that makes the income tax worth it or get out of the state. San Francisco's weather is not worth 4 years of your life (assuming you work there for 20 years, it's 8 working years if you factor in returns from investments on the money you are saving.)

Your tax math is wrong.

Assume you make $100k, and your effective federal income tax rate is 25%.

You make $75k after federal taxes and no state taxes in somewhere like Florida or Texas.

In CA - if you assume 10% state income tax - you make $65k.

You have 15% more disposable income in FL or TX.

You need to earn 15% more in CA to have the same disposable income.

The average worker in SF is getting paid 10%+ more than the average worker in FL or TX.

If you factor in SALT, CA's low property tax, prop 13, and the mortgage interest deduction - you're way better off owning a home in CA financially.

And if you rent - the average person isn't meaningfully that much worse off that they're going to leave their friends & family & community for a <5% tax arbitrage.

If you want to, no one is stopping you.

Calculate how much more you need to earn in CA to make $75k.

Im assuming higher federal taxes than you are.

Half of Sf is transplants, they arent living close to family

> The average worker in SF is getting paid 10%+ more than the average worker in FL or TX

10pct more is not enough to cover the difference. Also if you are good you can make sf salary anywhere in places where the cost of food is a third of the price

All employers that I’ve seen adjust your salary down to wherever you end up living.

> Calculate how much more you need to earn in CA to make $75k.

I did. It's 15%. You ignored it.

> Also if you are good you can make sf salary anywhere in places where the cost of food is a third of the price.

If you are skilled in The Bay - you can easily make $500k+ per year.

Saving $700 per month on food would not be a consideration for almost anyone at that income.

At the $500k+ budget - almost all companies are paying 10-15% less if you move elsewhere - at which point - financially alone - it rarely make sense to leave.

Hey - but you can get cheap Leica cameras on the streets and eBay [1].

1 - https://petapixel.com/2022/11/28/leica-store-in-san-francisc...

I'm sorry this sounds like a very simplistic and callous question but I'm not from the US. I know there are a lot of guns. Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis and it just doesn't make headline news? Or when a gun is being used in self defence against a robbery is it more likely that the potential thief sees the gun, runs away, and isn't shot (because most people don't actually want to shoot someone).

for the most part, California does not have concealed carry laws

California does have Concealed Carry laws, and residents can get Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) licenses which has to be renewed yearly.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#4

It's very difficult to get one in SF, which is a city and a county.

It's very difficult in general compared to "anything goes" states. I found data that shows that California has granted around 121,000 concealed carry licenses as of August 2021, which is 0.31% of the population.

San Francisco (the county) issued three between 2010 and 2015.

But can you open carry?

With few exceptions, my understanding is "no".

Not from the US. What is a concealed carry law exactly and what does that mean with respect to robberies? Thieves will be able to see whether the person they are trying to rob is armed before they approach them?

Is the situation different in other states that do have concealed carry laws?

> What is a concealed carry law exactly

It means a person can get a license to carry a concealed gun on their person. Typically it requires a bit of training and a test. I live in a more free for all state, and you can get a CCW with a couple Saturdays of class and a hand gun shooting test.

In the "free for all" states judges and juries are also generally more understanding of victims rights in self-defense situations so you are less likely to be branded a murderer in a self-defense situation. In victim-hostile states and counties you have a much higher burden of proof of innocence before the law system as a victim acting in self-defense.

People will rob you and take your gun off you if they see your gun before you notice you're getting robbed. If you draw on someone pointing a gun at you you will get killed.

Some states allow you to protect property with deadly force and others do not. You have to read state law to understand the nuance.

In San Francisco you can generally take anything you want from anybody and the victim will generally get in trouble trying to stop you. You may get arrested for the crime but there is no guarantee. The police will release you soon after you are arrested, often on a signature bond with zero deposit [1]. You can rinse and repeat this process dozens of times per year because it is unlikely you will spend any significant time in jail or prison. You'll have a database record but no problem making ends meet upon release.

[1] https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/no-cash-bail/

> The police will release you soon after you are arrested, often on a signature bond with zero deposit [1]. You can rinse and repeat this process dozens of times per year because it is unlikely you will spend any significant time in jail or prison.

Sounds like what happens to the rich and well connected when they get in trouble with the law. Seems like equal justice to me.

They also aren't following people for 40 miles to bust them up and rob them.

If you think the rich and well connected are above robbing the poor or even you… I mean, I’d love to live in that world.

'Concealed carry' means that you are allowed to carry a firearm on your person, concealed from view. The typical example of this would be a pistol in a holster, in your waistband, inside of your shirt or jacket.

California doesn't allow 'open carry', which many other states do. This allows you to carry a pistol in a holster outside of your jacket/shirt so that it can be seen.

Additionally, in some states, it's legal to open carry without a permit, while concealed carry requires a permit. The vast majority of people carrying will choose not to advertise it.

> Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis and it just doesn't make headline news?

It depends on your definition of "regularly".

"From 2000 to 2021, fewer than 3% of 433 active attacks in the U.S. ended with a civilian firing back, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. The researchers define the attacks as one or more people targeting multiple people." https://www.fox13news.com/news/how-often-does-a-good-guy-wit...

Obviously, the solution is more good guys with guns.

I'm just going to sound more callous and clarify that I didn't mean mass shootings just the kind of robberies shown in the article.

FWIW I don't think you sound callous at all. To clarify my response, the data I shared on mass shootings ("mass" being >3 people) is just meant to illustrate that the "good guy with a gun" scenario is very rare.

As another data point, a Harvard University analysis of a National Crime Victimization Survey concludes that people defended themselves with a gun in almost 0.9% of crimes from 2007–2011: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...

That survey is almost the answer to my question so thank you for linking to it.

Guns were used in self defence in 0.9% of crimes where the victim of the crime was present. It doesn't state whether the gun was fired or not but given the low percentages of a gun being involved at all I guess there aren't many 'bad guys' being shot (or shot at).

That data is not applicable to gp's question. It's about shooting back at an active shooter, not drawing on a robber.

No. In fact if you shot a person robbing you in San Francisco you would be jailed and likely charged.

This is not the case in all states but in California you cannot shot a thief unless he is threatening you will deadly force.

For shop robberies, it's at least culturally normal/unsurprising enough that it's common in TV & film for the shopkeeper to pull a shotgun or something from under the counter. (Also not from the US.)

I think it's a really interesting question though - if the point of allowing firearm ownership is self-defence etc., then surely should be looking at the usage metrics for that - when people own them, do they actually use them in such circumstances, is it effective, do non-owners have worse outcomes, etc.

I would submit this would not be a very informative metric. Simply because the purpose of owning a gun to defend yourself is that you don't ultimately have to use it. There are many gun owners who never find themselves in that position, but just the knowledge that there are a lot of guns out there is an implicit threat that keeps the peace.

To be clear, by 'using' I meant drawing, not (necessarily) discharging.

> just the knowledge that there are a lot of guns out there is an implicit threat

which makes the comparison against the outcomes of non-owner victims that I suggested valuable right?

Perhaps, but not sure you can separate gun owners from non-owners for such a study. Criminals do not always know beforehand which of their victims have a gun. The element of surprise creates hesitation to commit a crime.

I'm not a lawyer but I've lived in some very gun-friendly places.

Every state has different laws about when/why you are allowed to engage with deadly force against another human being. Generally it is permitted when you face a threat of inescapable, serious bodily harm. Sometimes the law is more permissive than that. Look up "duty to retreat," "stand your ground law," "castle doctrine," and "justifiable homicide."

If an unarmed person is stealing your car in California, it's unlikely that shooting at them would be lawful. However, California law imposes no duty to retreat, this article is about "violent robberies," and it specifically discusses getting held up at gunpoint. Someone under those circumstances would likely be permitted, under law, to kill the robber. That may not be true in states with duty to retreat laws.

The fact that every state has a unique approach to this question means that there really isn't a satisfying and succinct answer to your question.

And, depending on the state, if you do use force in self-defense, it may be an open question if you will or will not be prosecuted, and (more importantly), if a jury is willing to convict.

Seems to me that when robbery becomes robbery with a gun its too late to be a hero shooting robbers. Not many people want to test if unknown person pointing at them from 1-2m is slower than you getting your own gun from some hidden holster, clicking safety / loading a bullet ie on glocks, pointing and actually hitting back with immediate deadly force.

Its either 'redneck' approach when any such encounter is a gun encounter (with its consequences), or just give them wallet/phone and accept the loss&hassle in exchange of much higher chance of surviving.

The part you glossed over totally (or just didn't consider) is the ASSUMPTION that the guy robbing or assaulting you or your family will honor the CONTRACT that you imagined he agreed to, that being to just take your stuff and leave you all unharmed.

Many perps aren't completely stupid. They realize you'll call cops if they missed your phone. You'll cancel credit cards immediately. An APB will be issued for your vehicle. You can IDENTIFY them. Everything they took may be rendered useless in minutes.

So instead, they may shoot you, or take your daughter hostage, or ignore your cries that the baby is in the child seat in back.

If you give them complete power maybe they take you to three ATMs, then force you and your family back into your home, and terrorize you, doing or threatening unspeakable things. Think this is made up crap, cherry-picking stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_a...

30 yrs ago a young single woman I know had most of this happen to her. She was held captive, bound, gagged, blindfolded, tased, and raped for 3 days. She escaped by total dumb luck while the perp was paying for a pizza delivery from her purse. Her life is fucked up forever. She moved to the midwest, in with her parents. She's terrified of people.

All true. But if they've already got the gun pointed at me, and I try to pull a gun in response, are you assuming that they're going to just walk away?

Make your own decision. Your mileage may vary.

I do what I can. I train.

Even most ardently pro-gun people do not recommend killing to protect property; only to protect human life.

It does occur and it isn’t usually terribly newsworthy (here’s a recent one: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/calumet-heights-shootin... ) unless there is something else around it.

If the robber has a gun - like here - isn't it usually easy to argue shooting back was to preserve life? Your comment is also directly contradicted by the numerous Stand-your-ground laws [1], quoting Wikipedia: "Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In that case it can be - assuming the victim has a gun, and legally.

Stand your ground laws exist but even then the training literature is quite clear - you run the risk of ruining your life at least financially by pulling the trigger so you better have that as the better option compared to death or serious bodily harm.

> isn't it usually easy to argue shooting back was to preserve life?

Depends on the particular laws of where you are. The reality is that even if the laws favor shooting back, if the criminal ends up injured or killed it means years of legal issues for the shooter. This is true for any physical altercation regardless of if weapons are used.

I don’t think OP was referring to the letter of the law. My understanding is that “Stand your ground” /can/ at a minimum be applied to any situation where “a reasonable person would be in fear for their life” - which likely (technically) would cover almost any scenario where any kind of violence or even “crime” is targeted towards you.

That said, as OP was saying the overwhelming take (from what I’ve seen) in the gun/conceal carry community has a pretty high standard for deadly force. In reality the standard for “fear for your life” is actually really high for most people. As you say “shooting back” - which implies you were shot at first. I think in that case “fear for your life” is very reasonable and push come to shove anyone with a gun would use it.

This take even stretches into robberies like this. If someone comes up to you on the street and demands your camera (even with a weapon) it’s best just to cooperate and hand it over. All but the most fervent gun people at their core realize that real life isn’t Hollywood. The vast majority of people who say otherwise are keyboard warriors/wanna be tough guys that have never been in such a situation and have some delusional fantasy of themselves channeling John Wick when/if it happens to them. Obviously that’s not reality.

Clearly the US has a ton of guns and there are many millions of people who are armed at all times. Stories in the news of people using a gun to defend themselves are few and far between because 1) violent crime is actually exceedingly rare statistically and 2) even most gun people realize it’s not OK to kill someone over a camera/wallet/etc even though you may have the means to and the law is technically on your side.

I lived (and loved!) in Northern California for nearly 20 years and left in 2017 for personal reasons.

Without a concealed carry permit, any law-abiding citizen who travels with firearms in California must keep them unloaded and in a locked container [0].

It used to be incredibly difficult (nearly impossible [1]) for regular citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit in San Francisco because they had a "Good Cause Requirement" which essentially meant that your cause was not good enough.

Apparently, that changed in June of 2022 with a recent Supreme Court Ruling [2].

There are also [3] many stories of victims who shoot their attackers either being prosecuted criminally or sued for civil damages.

Lastly, while the views on concealed carry vary widely throughout the US, most social environments that I ever encountered in Northern California would find it repugnant.

[0] https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

[1] https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/nation/california/2022/...

[2] https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/get-service/carrying-conc...

[3] Oregon, not CA https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/man-who-shot-intruder-in-his-...

There are plenty of pro-gun people who advocate killing to protect their property!

Texas is not the only state with castle doctrine, but it's the least surprising one where it's legal to kill intruders to protect your land.

https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property

There's a big difference in protecting property in your domicile vs protecting your property while you're out and about. Most serious gun self defense legal advocates will advocate not protecting your property while out in public, unless your life is truly in danger, simply because you are going to incur immediate legal issues and at least 20k in debt. Whatever you were protecting is not likely going to be worth the legal, or emotional costs of self defense.

When it comes to protecting your property, as in your domicile- you are having your safest place violated. Your life is more likely in danger, and laws are also more likely to favor you, lessening the legal risk.

If I'm carjacked, I have insurance, if someone breaks into my house, where I have several guns and my family- I have much less to lose by killing the intruder.

Not in Texas — the Texas castle doctrine extends to your vehicles and workplace.

See section 9.31 here.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Again, depends on the state. If you're a white person in Texas? It's vanishingly unlikely that your interaction with the state legal apparatus will extend beyond a hat tip and a thank you sir/ma'am.

Think of it as a "barbarians at the gate" type situation. You're defending civilization from lawlessness. Whether or not your life is in danger doesn't matter in many places. You similarly only have an obligation to deescalate in some states.

Real property is one thing. Chattel property is another.

OP used the word property responding to comments using it in the sense of chattel property like a car or a wallet or purse. You're bringing up links to real property like someone's home or livelihood. There's a big difference well recognized in the laws of some states as you point out and totally consistent with OPs point that using lethal force to protect chattel property is not something anyone sane recommends for very practical reasons.

My point is that a disappointing number of people fully believe it would be good and right to shoot a thief dead. They're sane. Radicalized, maybe, but as sane as they come.

In the case of my home, as the user mentioned above, consider me radicalized. If someone breaks in, I'm shooting them. I don't have the time, nor should I be required to carry out this mental calculus about the motivations of the person in my home. If you're in my house uninvited, the onus is on the intruder not to be shot. Luckily, I live in a state that agrees with me.

The other situations are circumstantial, but if I am being accosted by someone in public, I'm drawing on them. As a pizza delivery driver in my younger years, this happened a lot more than I would have liked. No one got shot because they retreated. If they made a motion towards their waist, back, or lunged, they would have been.

In this case, I have issued a warning that this will end badly if you continue, and any further threatening act will get them shot.

If you're talking about witnessing a robbery, even of my own property, and the thief running away, then no, that is insane.

My belongings are not free for anyone to come and take.

The punishment should suit the crime. Extrajudicial killing, as a rule, is bad policy.

There are plenty of societal sticks that are not homesteaders with a rifle.

I don't advocate killing to protect your property. But advertising that to criminals is like putting a sign up that says "take what you want".

For people who say "You value object X over peoples lives", my reply is "Why does that criminal value that object of mine more than his own life?"

In the places where most robberies happen, cities like San Francisco, only the criminals have guns. In the parts of the country with lots of gun-owning households, like Idaho, robberies are rare. I’m not saying it’s a cause-effect relationship, it’s just that the issue doesn’t come up that often.

Are you failing to take per capita measurements in that assessment? I think per capita violent crime, gun violence in particular, is high in rural areas. Seems to me what you're saying is "a lot of people live in cities".

> I think per capita violent crime, gun violence in particular, is high in rural areas.

This is very much false. Rural areas have very little violent crime, in both absolute and per-capita terms. I encourage you to spend some time looking into this, with the focus on “why did I ever think this could be true”.

It's a claim I've seen before. Here's some stuff that shows up in Google searches.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rur...

Those articles both conflate murders with auto accidents and gun suicides, which is bizarre.

It’s true that New York City was exceptionally safe from 2000 to 2018 or so. But the same data shows big cities have double the homicide rate of no metro areas.

Why does America not have clear statistics on this?

It has, but the activists are deliberately trying to confuse people. You can look at NCVS, for example:

> The NCVS involves about a quarter of a million interviews each year with a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. The federal government’s field agents ask respondents whether they were the victim of a crime within the past six months. According to the NCVS, violent crime in urban areas rose 29 percent from 2020 to 2021, from 19.0 to 24.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons aged 12 or older. From 2018 through 2020, the NCVS found that the violent-crime rate in urban areas was between 29 percent and 42 percent higher than the rate in rural areas. In 2021, however, the violent-crime rate in urban areas was 121 percent higher, more than doubling the rate in rural areas (24.5 victimizations in urban areas, versus 11.1 in rural areas, per 1,000 persons). In addition, the violent-crime rate in urban areas was 48 percent higher in 2021 than in suburban areas, more than tripling any difference in urban and suburban rates registered from 2018 to 2020. The property-crime rate in urban areas was nearly twice as high in 2021 as in suburban areas (157.5 to 86.8 victimizations per 1,000 households) and nearly three times as high as in rural areas (157.5 to 57.7 victimizations per 1,000 households).

When choosing your sources, you might consider that Bloomberg is owned by Michael Bloomberg. He is the person funding Everytown for Gun Safety (which has nothing to do with gun safety), Moms Demand Action, Mayors Against illegal Guns, and Americans for Responsible Solutions, all with one purpose - to eliminate guns in society.

Bloomberg travels with a contingent of bodyguards armed with FULLY automatic weapons. He caused quite a stir after landing in Bermuda for a stay. Bermuda is so anti-gun that even its own police force isn’t armed, but Bloomberg's guards were.

The American Progress article is interesting. Does the image they used for that article have a certain implication about who is committing the homicide in those rural counties? Some of the items in Figure 1 are not even rural, they appear to be actual cities, despite the labeling.

"On a regular basis" may not be quite the level occurrence, but yes, it does happen, and it often will not become a news story when it does.

As others have pointed out, some states like California have laws and enforcement policies that at times appear to favor criminals over self defense. Other states, like Florida or Texas, tend to better enable self defense with lethal force.

The whole thing is an equation you really do not want to find yourself in. Even with justifiable/legal use of deadly force in a defensive situation you are likely to wind up embroiled in a lot of hassles, law suits, and associated costs.

And I have been told that no matter how precious the lives you were protecting were to you, killing someone isn't a memory you want in your head. Either it will bother you forever, or worse, you'll find you liked it, and that changes you.

I don't know who this is true for, but I am proud of the fact that I was armed and able to protect my pregnant wife. I feel absolutely no remorse for it. I didn't enjoy it and the entire situation was unpleasant at the time.

Had the situation had been different, say I was alone and it was merely a robbery by some kid or something, sure, I would feel differently if I killed them (and I wouldn't). I just don't accept the initial premise of your statement for my experience and those I have spoken to in similar situations.

Yeah, I have met a couple people like that, I shouldn't have tried to lump the mindset of all humanity into two lumps. I was merely pointing out that using lethal force to protect property that isn't critical to your family's well-being could have emotional as well as monetary costs. Because it can have those costs even if you are protecting loved ones, and you won't know until it happens.

Edit: also why is the other post expressing the same sentiment dead? Along with all the other posts by that person? The part about banning healthy violence resonates with me. Young people fight, young animals fight, if it doesn't cause permanent damage it is a healthy part of learning how to relate to each other. And if non lethal violence was less taboo I suspect letha violence would be less common.

> Edit: also why is the other post expressing the same sentiment dead? Along with all the other posts by that person?

He got banned somewhere around here: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=iwillbenice&next=334.... The account name (and the fact there was no mod warning post) makes me think that wasn't the first time.

> And I have been told that no matter how precious the lives you were protecting were to you, killing someone isn't a memory you want in your head. Either it will bother you forever, or worse, you'll find you liked it, and that changes you.

Though I suppose seeing the people you care about getting killed or injured also "isn't a memory you want in your head," either. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation.

It really varies by state. In Texas it's more like the old days, shoot on sight more or less. Not so much in California, where one would likely be jailed/sued for protecting liberties. You can sort of tell by interacting with the police. In one state they're rather kind/respectful, in the other they are burnt out by all the bs. All in all, America is still so wonderful though. As long as the average citizen retains the right to bear arms I think we'll make it out alive in the long run.

> and it just doesn't make headline news?

It would only make headline news if the perpetrator was white. In the event that the perpetrator was black, the story would be quickly buried.

This is exactly how most confrontations end, especially if the assailant is not armed with a firearm as well - this is their most effective use. The armed victim shows the gun and they run away. It never turns into the Hollywood bloodbath opponents of firearms think that it will.

Surely majority of opponents just point to school shootings as good reason to ban guns

The other replies are correct, but I’ll just add that you’re mixing two things here: - self defense - robbery

For self defense (including cases where the defendant is being personally robbed) there is definitely a deterrent effect of guns.

For robbery where the owner isn’t present (the case you replied to, and also the vast majority, obviously) there doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent.

> headline news?

this is really the crux of your question. gun violence in America is a multifaceted problem, but if your source of information is headline news, you will get 0 meaningful information.

> Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis

this depends drastically on the local/state laws. San Francisco, for example, does not issue permits to carry concealed firearms and openly carrying firearms is illegal. California is simply a very gun unfriendly state, so you will almost never see a citizen defend themselves from a robber with a gun there. Even if you can carry a gun somewhere else, as a sibling goes into more detail, there are various laws with wildly different requirements to be able to employ lethal force. They range from requiring you to attempt to run away first to allowing lethal violence in defense of your property (like a vehicle with cameras in it).

for what its worth, gun violence in america has little to do with so-called mass shootings that make the headlines or the hated "assault rifles". the story of gun violence in america is something like 90% pistol shootings in economically damaged, inner city slums.

Its not easy to get a concealed carry permit in CA.

America spends hundreds of billions on foreign policy while blatantly ignoring domestic issue like these that are detrimental to our way of life. It’s sad to see America turn into a cesspool of crime.

While true that it’s ignored, America was a “cesspool of crime” many times in the past. It’s still much better than 1980s.

I think statistics bear that out.

Does it seem though that specific locales are disproportionately slipping back into crime "cesspools"? Could it be something like the "broken window" theory of crime or might it be areas of heightened homelessness where this is a problem?

I have no idea.

True. But this just shows that we do know how to bring crime under control. Just a question of political will at this point. The recipe is there, if we look to history.

America is a federal union. The policy and spending of the federal government can't and shouldn't be applied to these hyper local issues. San Franciscans are probably the highest taxed individuals on the planet and the San Francisco government was flush with cash. Blame local government policy and politics for these issues. This is what happens when you elect literal communist terrorists (see Weather underground) into government.

There are parts of this country that can be considered paradise in comparison to San Francisco.

Foreign policy is a national issue handled by the federal government. Small crime like this is handled by the local government.

San Francisco and other progressive cities are getting the crime they voted for with defund the police politicians and lax district attorneys. Not all cities are experiencing these issues. Its a local issue from mid-guided policy.

spot on

There is no tradition of American elites joining government for public service, other than a small group who joins the State Dept to control foreign policy.

There is no American nobility who joins government consistently to make a positive impact in America for Americans.

This is a strange claim. The Ivy League is wildly over represented in upper echelons of all three branches of government.

Anyone can join an Ivy League school though. Thousands join every year. Not just anyone can join the nobility.

Sure some of those are legacies, but many are not as well. Every Harvard class has nobodies from nowhere.

You just don’t see the same mobility in other systems. England likes their story about random boys drawing swords from stones and becoming kings, but that just doesn’t happen. Sure maybe our system is not 100% egalitarian, but it’s an improvement I think.

I was interpreting “nobility” in a way that made the dig at Foggy Bottom make sense.

I completely agree that even an imperfect meritocracy of elites beats a hereditary one.

It’s not up to the federal Government to police the state of California or to force them to enforce sane laws.

San Francisco is strongly affected by foreign countries though, through organized crime drug and stolen property smuggling.

https://cis.org/Arthur/Honduran-Migrants-and-San-Francisco-D...

https://www.singletracks.com/community/how-bike-index-used-f...

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/alleged-internatio...

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-milk-...

I think it's insane to expect the SFPD to have the power to stand up alone to the kind of forces it's up against.

You barely ever hear local politicians talk about it even, I think they're afraid for their lives.

Unfortunately this is the result of weakening laws and stripping funding from the agencies that enforce those laws. When thievery is akin to a speeding ticket, the act is going to increase exponentially.

In resume, If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to hide some weapons in your hair?.

Advertising on the video of the theft? LOL

They can hang out at home and let Fox News tell them how scary the world is.

You can extend that to all of cable news. If you watch too much of it you'll come to believe it is a scary world, much better to stay at home and shop online.

Me, I get on a bicycle and spend the day riding a local trail. What a beautiful world.

Amen to that!

or you can watch msnbc/cnn and pretend that their is no crime problem - or make excuses that minimize it. So, it cuts both ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com