Looters strike high-end San Francisco-area stores for third day in a row(thehill.com)
thehill.com
Looters strike high-end San Francisco-area stores for third day in a row
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/582665-looters-strike-high-end-san-francisco-area-stores-for-third-day-in-a-row
39 comments
New York City solved this about 30 years ago. From rampant crime, scary sidewalks; to family walkable streets. Surely San Francisco could do it too? (and Portland.)
If they chose to, yes, they could. The difficulty is that they don't choose to, because they empathize more with the criminal than with the victim.
Do we truly want to live in a world like that?
No.
It's true that some races and classes are more likely to receive unfair treatment from the police and the justice system. It's true that they may receive disproportionate sentencing. It's true that those things need to be corrected.
But stopping prosecuting theft is not "correcting". It's insane. It's creating a a new set of injustices to try to "fix" the old. But that doesn't fix anything. It just creates more injustice.
It's true that some races and classes are more likely to receive unfair treatment from the police and the justice system. It's true that they may receive disproportionate sentencing. It's true that those things need to be corrected.
But stopping prosecuting theft is not "correcting". It's insane. It's creating a a new set of injustices to try to "fix" the old. But that doesn't fix anything. It just creates more injustice.
The SF Chronicle[0] seems to have a bunch of information about this. Including arrests of some of the alleged miscreants.
I don't live in the Bay area, but I'd imagine that a local outlet like the Chronicle would be better situated to report on this than a Washington, DC based outlet focused on government/politics.
That's not a swipe at The Hill at all, just that local news organizations likely have more boots on the ground, and better access to local officials/law enforcement.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Dozens-of-robbers-...
I don't live in the Bay area, but I'd imagine that a local outlet like the Chronicle would be better situated to report on this than a Washington, DC based outlet focused on government/politics.
That's not a swipe at The Hill at all, just that local news organizations likely have more boots on the ground, and better access to local officials/law enforcement.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Dozens-of-robbers-...
Please, though, do swipe at the Hill
This feels like a big turn to me. This just feels super significant, super different than where we were.
I also feel like there's way less discussion around this topic than most topics. I find myself with almost nothing to say about this. What it means, what it indicates, what we do, how to feel about it... I got nothing. This feels unknown, less clear to me, than the regular stream of current events that break across this planet & the west in specific.
I also feel like there's way less discussion around this topic than most topics. I find myself with almost nothing to say about this. What it means, what it indicates, what we do, how to feel about it... I got nothing. This feels unknown, less clear to me, than the regular stream of current events that break across this planet & the west in specific.
Sort of agree, sort of disagree. Before the pandemic, Great America Park was a place where groups of teens would jump the fence and rob people with tasers, so this is just another example of that kind of thing. Is it happening more often, or are we just getting national coverage more often?
Crime definitely feels up, but I live in the bay area and I don't really feel at all unsafe.
We're likely to see a lot of new anti-social behavior as a follow up from a year and a half or more of social and physical isolation, but I don't think it's a dramatic change towards some new normal of roaming bands of teens robbing stores in the bay area. Give it some time to make an example of the ones who were caught, and bring their friends to justice too, and others will do less of it.
Crime definitely feels up, but I live in the bay area and I don't really feel at all unsafe.
We're likely to see a lot of new anti-social behavior as a follow up from a year and a half or more of social and physical isolation, but I don't think it's a dramatic change towards some new normal of roaming bands of teens robbing stores in the bay area. Give it some time to make an example of the ones who were caught, and bring their friends to justice too, and others will do less of it.
These "flash robs" have been a thing (in the US, at least) since at least 2011: https://www.npr.org/2011/11/25/142780596/flash-robs-worry-re...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_rob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_rob
I was thinking about moving to SF in 2022, but these scary headlines are making me less sure. For SF HNers - how is the city right now? Are there any areas that DON'T have any crazy people or crime? For me personally my day will be ruined if I have to deal with this stuff, so it's kind of a dealbreaker for me.
Most neighborhoods in SF have very little crime and homeless. Look at the Sunset and Richmond districts, Seacliff, Presidio Heights, Marina and Pac Heights (some of these might/will be prohibitively expensive because they're extremely nice), Forest Hill, Twin Peaks, Diamond Heights, Glen Park, Noe Valley, Bernal Heights, Parkside, Sunnyside and Portola if you don't mind being a little further south.
Basically just avoid SoMA, Civic Center, Financial District, Tenderloin, and any immediate surrounding areas. I also avoid the Mission but some people like it.
Basically just avoid SoMA, Civic Center, Financial District, Tenderloin, and any immediate surrounding areas. I also avoid the Mission but some people like it.
Thank you for the advice! This is exactly what I was looking for. Very strong chance I end up renting some 1BR in the Presidio Heights / Marina area. I may have to commute to Mountain View 3 days a week though, so maybe the southern options would work better for me. We will see.
Yeah to be honest I recently moved here and the news/press coverage is way heavier. Life is chill (I'm in North Beach), people are friendly, I see heaps of families and friends enjoying the city. Even Downtown/SOMA which are pretty dodgy are not as bad as the news suggests. South Bay is great as well.
Yeah I lived in the south bay for a while after graduating. Awesome place, but I'm reaching a point in my life where I'd like to meet more people, which seems tough in the south bay. Thanks for the info.
The US seems to struggle with a balance between security of property and police violence against minorities. I can't believe that we can't have a save and secure society without extreme police violence. It seems like many other countries manage this, why can't we?
The US has problem of people of placing the problem of police brutality at a higher priority over solving the actual problem of crime. Most logical countries focus more on the latter and have less empowered criminals due to laws and policies that deter crime.
I'm very much in favor of Blackstone's Formulation[0], myself.
What you appear to be suggesting would very much be against that.
If I misunderstand you, please correct me.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
What you appear to be suggesting would very much be against that.
If I misunderstand you, please correct me.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
What does this looting have to do with police violence?
It goes like this: police violence leads to increased scrutiny, city and police leaders decrease direct engagement, opportunistic low-level criminals become more active. This has definitely been happening in Portland, OR, not sure if the SF cases follow a similar pattern.
There's no question police need to be reformed, also no question there are a ton of criminals exploiting the situation. Prediction: it gets even worse for minorities and other overpoliced groups.
There's no question police need to be reformed, also no question there are a ton of criminals exploiting the situation. Prediction: it gets even worse for minorities and other overpoliced groups.
Why does it get worse for minorities and overpoliced groups? Because there's a backlash, and police need to "prove a point" or "demonstrate that they're in control"? Or because the police remain nerfed, and the majority population classifies every minority as a criminal, and conducts themselves accordingly?
If you simply assume as a given that "violence against minorities" is inextricably baked into the culture of policing in general in the USA, then it makes obvious sense that as you ramp up police activity, you therefore also ramp up violence against minorities. Whether or not that assumption is true is up for debate, but if it is, it simplifies the equation.
Not sure I parsed your question exactly but I think it'll get worse because police will back off in minority neighborhoods except for the most extreme cases. That puts the average inhabitant of those neighborhoods at greater risk and gang violence will increase.
Is there actually evidence of this though? Is crime actually increasing in places where police are decreasing direct engagement or are people just paying more attention?
Just anecdotal for me. During the protest phase and after we had a bunch of breakins at our and neighboring condo buildings, which was very unusual in the past. It was impossible to get the cops interested. These types of crimes probably don't even show up in statistics. I think Portland might be an extreme example because it's a very liberal city with lots of protesting and a poor police track record and now the situation has deteriorated a lot, lots of attrition and low morale.
This is what post-capitalism looks like.
Perhaps they should just lock up all the expensive stuff like Home Depot does.
Perhaps they should just lock up all the expensive stuff like Home Depot does.
This is what post-order society looks like.
People are doing massively parallel theft, betting that they are too many for the police to arrest. So far, it seems to be working. If it continues to work, there are only a few options:
- Businesses accept this as a price of doing business.
- Businesses close because they can't live with this as a price of doing business. Now, if it's high-end stores, that may not be a huge loss to society. But something similar is also happening to drugstores, and people actually need drugstores.
- Businesses beef up their physical security. Maybe something like outside security cameras plus electronic locks on the doors that can only be opened by the people inside.
- Businesses beef up their security by hiring guards. But there probably aren't that many people who are willing to go the rounds with intruders armed with crowbars while unarmed themselves. Sooner or later, that's going to result in looters getting shot. And when it does, that's going to result in widespread outrage, at least among some segments of society.
If you (as a society) won't provide sufficient policing to protect stores, and you won't let the stores protect themselves, then you're either going to have very expensive stores, or you aren't going to have stores. And even the very expensive stores option is facing a feedback loop: They're expensive, so more people feel justified in stealing, so the store becomes even more expensive... That's not sustainable.
So the end result will be no stores. That's a kind of post-capitalism, but I'm pretty sure it's not what most people have in mind by the term.
People are doing massively parallel theft, betting that they are too many for the police to arrest. So far, it seems to be working. If it continues to work, there are only a few options:
- Businesses accept this as a price of doing business.
- Businesses close because they can't live with this as a price of doing business. Now, if it's high-end stores, that may not be a huge loss to society. But something similar is also happening to drugstores, and people actually need drugstores.
- Businesses beef up their physical security. Maybe something like outside security cameras plus electronic locks on the doors that can only be opened by the people inside.
- Businesses beef up their security by hiring guards. But there probably aren't that many people who are willing to go the rounds with intruders armed with crowbars while unarmed themselves. Sooner or later, that's going to result in looters getting shot. And when it does, that's going to result in widespread outrage, at least among some segments of society.
If you (as a society) won't provide sufficient policing to protect stores, and you won't let the stores protect themselves, then you're either going to have very expensive stores, or you aren't going to have stores. And even the very expensive stores option is facing a feedback loop: They're expensive, so more people feel justified in stealing, so the store becomes even more expensive... That's not sustainable.
So the end result will be no stores. That's a kind of post-capitalism, but I'm pretty sure it's not what most people have in mind by the term.
Perhaps what’s old will be new again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(theater)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(theater)
all of the above is happening in downtown Portland
Sure, security is a good idea, but how far do you want to escalate it? If you visit a higher-end store or a bank in Latin America or the Caribbean you'll likely see a security guard or two with a shotgun. I'm not anti-gun, but I don't want to live in an environment where this is the norm.
The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out. If people's lives are generally tolerable, fewer will feel justified in stealing a luxury item. I think it's less about the handbag and more about giving a middle finger to the established order. And no, I'm not saying we should give criminals carte blanche, or that the status quo is fine. But there is certainly a correlation between inequality and crime and focusing only on security isn't the whole answer.
The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out. If people's lives are generally tolerable, fewer will feel justified in stealing a luxury item. I think it's less about the handbag and more about giving a middle finger to the established order. And no, I'm not saying we should give criminals carte blanche, or that the status quo is fine. But there is certainly a correlation between inequality and crime and focusing only on security isn't the whole answer.
I'm not sure that I want to live in an environment where, while I'm peacefully shopping in a store, a bunch of people with crowbars race in and start smashing things either.
> The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out.
Inequality isn't driving opportunistic looting. Inequality really doesn't drive organized retail crime rings. Those are convenient excuses for persons who have chosen not to participate in mainstream society.
The number of zeros in Elon Musk's daily net worth has nothing to do with the actions of opportunistic criminals who are able and willing to rationalize their actions with no need for anyone's help ("insurance will pay"; "big corporations" "they have lots of money anyway"; "the stores overcharge"; "I have Righteous Anger"; "only violence and crime draws attention to protests"; and, of course, "I want that now").
Inequality isn't driving opportunistic looting. Inequality really doesn't drive organized retail crime rings. Those are convenient excuses for persons who have chosen not to participate in mainstream society.
The number of zeros in Elon Musk's daily net worth has nothing to do with the actions of opportunistic criminals who are able and willing to rationalize their actions with no need for anyone's help ("insurance will pay"; "big corporations" "they have lots of money anyway"; "the stores overcharge"; "I have Righteous Anger"; "only violence and crime draws attention to protests"; and, of course, "I want that now").
I get it, I really do. This is an attack on our collective sense of security and it's close to home. The people who did this are in the wrong.
But: do you generally associate a calm peaceful society with a lot of security or little? Typically it's dictatorships that have soldiers with automatic rifles patrolling the streets, or failed states that are being run by the military. Tons of security, but does it feel safe?
But: do you generally associate a calm peaceful society with a lot of security or little? Typically it's dictatorships that have soldiers with automatic rifles patrolling the streets, or failed states that are being run by the military. Tons of security, but does it feel safe?
That's the wrong question, though. A calm peaceful society, with low enforcement of security, is obviously the ideal. But increasingly it is not an available option. The available options are mayhem with low security, or higher enforcement of security. So far as I can tell, those are the only available options. So, which of those do you prefer?
Sure, tons of security feels unsafe. But a mob charging into a store with crowbars and smashing things doesn't feel very safe, either. (I mean, so far they're just smashing display cases instead of customers' heads, but still...)
Sure, tons of security feels unsafe. But a mob charging into a store with crowbars and smashing things doesn't feel very safe, either. (I mean, so far they're just smashing display cases instead of customers' heads, but still...)
It seems crazy to me that we don't even consider a calm and peaceful society as an available option. Those bad people are bad. How they got that way - who cares. Cue the downvotes.
Canada doesn't need to pick either of these extremes. Most of Europe used to not have this problem until they had an influx of people in desperate conditions. Small towns in the US didn't need to pick between these extremes (most people never locked their doors) until recently. Somehow it used to work. Rather than asking what broke we'd rather apply a bandaid fix to the most obvious issue.
It just seems bizarre that the same people who rightly call out a "let's ban all guns forever" type of knee-jerk reaction have knee-jerk reactions of their own when it favors their biases. Security good, welfare bad. Experience from other places could never work here. Never look at the broader picture, if someone tries to then they are changing the subject.
Canada doesn't need to pick either of these extremes. Most of Europe used to not have this problem until they had an influx of people in desperate conditions. Small towns in the US didn't need to pick between these extremes (most people never locked their doors) until recently. Somehow it used to work. Rather than asking what broke we'd rather apply a bandaid fix to the most obvious issue.
It just seems bizarre that the same people who rightly call out a "let's ban all guns forever" type of knee-jerk reaction have knee-jerk reactions of their own when it favors their biases. Security good, welfare bad. Experience from other places could never work here. Never look at the broader picture, if someone tries to then they are changing the subject.
Sure, let's try to fix the people. Let's try to fix the conditions that led to them being that way, too. But while we're doing that, let's not let them destroy society.
So maybe I should say that at the moment we don't seem to have the option of picking a calm and peaceful society without a huge security presence. That's based on the available evidence. But you're right, let's try to make that untrue in the future.
So maybe I should say that at the moment we don't seem to have the option of picking a calm and peaceful society without a huge security presence. That's based on the available evidence. But you're right, let's try to make that untrue in the future.
You're changing the subject.
Also, the UK has famously saturated their streets with CCTV. It's unclear how effective that's been. For a nation whose subjects often criticize the militarization of US policing, their armed police and CT police in major cities look like black- and grey-suited cop-SAS operators, sometimes driven around on the backs of motorcycles (which, admittedly, is kinda cool). And I've noticed that even with CCTV, crime's not great, though it doesn't hurt that the locals there seem to complain less about privacy than we do here.
To your question: if we want things to be better without constant patrols, we need enforcement: early, often, and vigorous. NYC cleaned itself up from what it was to how it was when I lived there (I can't speak to today). Other cities can, too. Hammer the offenders — don't give them the kid glove treatment and then apologize for how their unfortunate circumstance in life really makes this all the victim's fault. Give them some Quiet Time behind bars to reconsider their life's choices. Give 'em the tough love they didn't get as children. It's pretty much too late to fix a blown childhood because their parent wouldn't read to them, at least until offenders age out naturally. When are we going to get realistic?
That said, what with The City's leadership and the habits of our fellow voters, I fear Union Square is going to empty out even more and our economy will continue to hemorrhage dollars towards no real effect (except good feels). And life will get measurably worse for our service industry workers and many others.
Also, the UK has famously saturated their streets with CCTV. It's unclear how effective that's been. For a nation whose subjects often criticize the militarization of US policing, their armed police and CT police in major cities look like black- and grey-suited cop-SAS operators, sometimes driven around on the backs of motorcycles (which, admittedly, is kinda cool). And I've noticed that even with CCTV, crime's not great, though it doesn't hurt that the locals there seem to complain less about privacy than we do here.
To your question: if we want things to be better without constant patrols, we need enforcement: early, often, and vigorous. NYC cleaned itself up from what it was to how it was when I lived there (I can't speak to today). Other cities can, too. Hammer the offenders — don't give them the kid glove treatment and then apologize for how their unfortunate circumstance in life really makes this all the victim's fault. Give them some Quiet Time behind bars to reconsider their life's choices. Give 'em the tough love they didn't get as children. It's pretty much too late to fix a blown childhood because their parent wouldn't read to them, at least until offenders age out naturally. When are we going to get realistic?
That said, what with The City's leadership and the habits of our fellow voters, I fear Union Square is going to empty out even more and our economy will continue to hemorrhage dollars towards no real effect (except good feels). And life will get measurably worse for our service industry workers and many others.
> It's unclear how effective that's been
It seems to be having a positive effect. Looking at the recent case of Sarah Everard [0] the suspect was very quickly tracked down via CCTV.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard
It seems to be having a positive effect. Looking at the recent case of Sarah Everard [0] the suspect was very quickly tracked down via CCTV.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard