Hacker News Reader

Comment by astrange | Hacker News Reader

The SFPD just refuse to do work because they know refusal will cause people to blame it on "overtly liberal policy" and give them even more funding to do no work.

(In the 70s they also once bombed the mayor's house when they didn't like him.)

View on HN

I don't own a gun, but honestly, if I lived in a place like this, I would try to get a concealed carry license, and frankly if that didn't work I'd probably carry anyway.

In civilized society, you make a pact with the state. They have a 'monopoly on violence' and in exchange, you and your property are protected. That pact seems to be broken in SF, and to a lesser extent in CA at large. People should do what they need to in order to keep themselves safe. If that means a gun? So be it.

The county is notorious for not giving out concealed carry licenses. Only a local business owner who has been robbed multiple times before would qualify essentially.

Not anymore! California became a CCW “shall issue” state (instead of “may issue”) last June, under NYSRPA v Bruen. There’s a backlog of people applying, but it’s finally possible. https://calmatters.org/guns/2023/03/california-concealed-car...

TIL. Thank you for sharing this with me.

While I agree with your sentiment, the problem with gun ownership in a place like SF is the risk of manslaughter charges. Shooting someone committing a property crime may be seen as justifiable from the eyes of the property owner, but not in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately you’re best off just letting yourself get robbed, or moving away if you don’t want to accept the risks of living with an ineffectual local government.

Your probably right, it's probably better just to move. The only time I could ever see myself shooting someone is if my life is in danger, though where I'm from a shotgun loaded with rock salt used to be a common deterant against theft

> shooting someone committing a property crime may be seen as justifiable from the eyes of the property owner, but not in the eyes of the law

One can fire non-lethal rounds, and aim around a person (or into the ground), instead of at them. I'm not a believer in urban gun ownership. But there are ways to responsibly be one and benefit from it without putting others' lives or your own freedom at risk. (Counterfactual: pulling a gun on a criminal is a good way to have a criminal pull a gun on you.)

perverse how the places where you probably need a gun most, it's hardest to get.

i pray i never need it but i'm glad to live in a place that's not without its problems, but where i can at least defend myself and my property.

also @JumpCriscross since his comment is dead: that's silly, you shouldn't make a threat you aren't willing to follow up on. more importantly "warning shots" are a really good way to cause collateral damage. might be you shoot through a wall. plus your eye is on the threat so it's irresponsible to shoot elsewhere bc you aren't actually evaluating what's there and what's behind it.

What do the police have to do with the fact that prosecutors and DAs aren't filing charges and judges aren't handing out meaningful punishments?

"Oh look, Ricky is stealing again, should we bother arresting his aggressive angry ass again for the 7th time this year? Nah."

They should do their job they're paid for. Do you get to just not do your job when you don't feel like it?

Is this actually true? I remember seeing SFPD post stuff on twitter like, "13th time this perp has been brought in, still no charges". They were getting the same guy over and over. It could have been a one-off, but I suppose they were using their platform to show that they _were_ working, and it was a policy of no teeth that let the perpetrators get off easy.

Edit: found the tweet: https://twitter.com/SFPDTenderloin/status/133728051660988416...

Do you have evidence for the claim that cops in SF stopped working because they didn't like the DA?

No one is being honest in this debate. I would not take either sides word. I don't live in SF, but a similar city and the police use the same rhetoric while they refuse to do anything except sit in their car all day. No one trusts the police to accomplish anything here because they've been silent striking since covid began and I would not be surprised if the same was happening in SF. The DA is also a shit show though, it's not like you can point to any one person or action and in good faith say "here's the problem"

Here another fun example of the sf police refusing to work — only this one has a happy ending - they actually face consequences.

An la times article said: “ San Francisco police officers Kevin Lyons and Kevin Sien have been temporarily suspended after they were arrested last year in connection with the destruction of evidence. They’re accused of destroying credit cards, identification records and suspected methamphetamine discovered in the luggage of a person staying in a hotel.

Lyons and Sien allegedly told staff that cataloging the evidence would take too long and instead disposed of the credit cards and IDs in a shred bin and flushed the drugs down a hotel toilet, according to state court criminal complaints.”

It’s a story mentioned here https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-04-03/twenty-p...

This is not true from my experience. I’ve been the victim of a crime in SF and while they are severely understaffed they were very cooperative and willing to help.

I'm sure the defund the police rhetoric helped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com