Assessing a Claim: Is San Francisco's Shoplifting Problem Fake?(residentcontrarian.com)
residentcontrarian.com
Assessing a Claim: Is San Francisco's Shoplifting Problem Fake?
https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/assessing-a-claim-is-san-franciscos
27 comments
Does reducing a crime from a felony to a misdemeanor constitute decriminalization? I'm honestly curious. That's not how I've understood the term to be used.
The author of the article admits that they don't know the answer to the question.
Do you have any suggestions for a better, data driven articles that address this particular issue?
Do you have any suggestions for a better, data driven articles that address this particular issue?
I mean I am seeing this with my own eyes, and I am seeing numerous incidents go totally unreported that aren't going to show up in statistics anyway.
Or, you could just take the word of people living in the Bay Area. Not all social situations are best analyzed by passive data observation. Instead, you should listen to people who live or work in these neighborhoods, as they see this happening (going unreported, because why report something if the police don't do anything?) constantly. Really, constantly.
As someone in retail there is only one cause to the flooding of shoplifting - stores asking their employees not to deal with it
It is perfectly legal in California for an employee to use non-lethal force to detain a shoplifter. Its also legal to put them in a cell and call police, and not let them out until the police come (even if they will just free them)
Once a store is known to not do any of this, then yeah - every shoplifter will come flooding into those small subsets of stores
Ignoring extreme cases like shoplifting flash mobs - i'm just writing about the people who come in, empty a shelf into a bag and leave. You can't do that in 90% of stores. The employees will become violent with you.
There was the very famous case of the Rite Aid that closed in NYC. That block is wall to wall stores. Duane Reed, some expensive clothing stores. None of them had the hourly shoplifting Rite Aid had, because only Rite Aid made it known they will not attempt to stop anyone
Again in NYC, it costs $50/hr to bring in an armed uniformed off-duty NYPD officer to stand in your store. They get overtime and its run through the city, officers sign up for it. If you can't justify $50/hr to help shoplifting, then you probably have different issues going on causing you to close (the rent for that Rite Aid was probably $10k+/month)
It is perfectly legal in California for an employee to use non-lethal force to detain a shoplifter. Its also legal to put them in a cell and call police, and not let them out until the police come (even if they will just free them)
Once a store is known to not do any of this, then yeah - every shoplifter will come flooding into those small subsets of stores
Ignoring extreme cases like shoplifting flash mobs - i'm just writing about the people who come in, empty a shelf into a bag and leave. You can't do that in 90% of stores. The employees will become violent with you.
There was the very famous case of the Rite Aid that closed in NYC. That block is wall to wall stores. Duane Reed, some expensive clothing stores. None of them had the hourly shoplifting Rite Aid had, because only Rite Aid made it known they will not attempt to stop anyone
Again in NYC, it costs $50/hr to bring in an armed uniformed off-duty NYPD officer to stand in your store. They get overtime and its run through the city, officers sign up for it. If you can't justify $50/hr to help shoplifting, then you probably have different issues going on causing you to close (the rent for that Rite Aid was probably $10k+/month)
> Again in NYC, it costs $50/hr to bring in an armed uniformed off-duty NYPD officer to stand in your store. They get overtime and its run through the city, officers sign up for it. If you can't justify $50/hr to help shoplifting, then you probably have different issues going on causing you to close (the rent for that Rite Aid was probably $10k+/month)
That doesn’t prove much, the expensive clothes store didn’t have things that could be fenced easily for drug money while the drug store is much more convenient for that. Sure the things in the clothes store are worth more, but to a grifter looking for their next fentanyl hit, they can’t do anything with whatever they lift there (as opposed to an organized flash mob who has plans to fence the goods online somehow).
The downtown Seattle target hires off duty officers, yet their lego section is still depleted (there was a fence for legos at pike place market that wasn’t shutdown until a few months ago) and people still shoplift like crazy since the city and county won’t prosecute.
That doesn’t prove much, the expensive clothes store didn’t have things that could be fenced easily for drug money while the drug store is much more convenient for that. Sure the things in the clothes store are worth more, but to a grifter looking for their next fentanyl hit, they can’t do anything with whatever they lift there (as opposed to an organized flash mob who has plans to fence the goods online somehow).
The downtown Seattle target hires off duty officers, yet their lego section is still depleted (there was a fence for legos at pike place market that wasn’t shutdown until a few months ago) and people still shoplift like crazy since the city and county won’t prosecute.
There is a happy medium between open shoplifting sprees and the state murdering people over $20. I'm hopeful we will find it with more experimentation and personally suspect that it looks like UBI.
That’s only if you see it as a people in need problem. If you see it as a drug addiction problem, UBI could actually make things worse.
Hard for me to say which is worse.. It's not obvious whether drug addicts with adequate means of procuring a steady supply would be more dangerous to society than ones in desperation.
Portugal may have the answers but I have yet to look into this deeply enough to make a claim either way.
Portugal may have the answers but I have yet to look into this deeply enough to make a claim either way.
> It's not obvious whether drug addicts with adequate means of procuring a steady supply would be more dangerous to society than ones in desperation.
It would definitely be worse for them, if we moralistically care about their well being. They would also probably still need housing and food given to them, as their addiction would often prevent them from prioritizing those things with the UBI they got. UBI isn't a panacea to these problems, at least.
It would definitely be worse for them, if we moralistically care about their well being. They would also probably still need housing and food given to them, as their addiction would often prevent them from prioritizing those things with the UBI they got. UBI isn't a panacea to these problems, at least.
I've been told in training at every retail store that I've worked for not to attempt to stop shoplifters. Because the cost of the goods is less than the cost of a dead employee. It's pretty damn dangerous to square off with someone when you don't know if they're armed or what they're willing to do if they're caught.
I think one of the comments sums up the issue perfectly:
> Come to San Francisco, ask me or any of my long-time neighbors if we feel safe? We will talk your ears off. The data calestenics you've done means zilch.
This essentially comes down to "I feel unsafe, your data be damned." Feelings do matter, but we don't make laws depending on what the media is trying to make people of the city feel like.
> Come to San Francisco, ask me or any of my long-time neighbors if we feel safe? We will talk your ears off. The data calestenics you've done means zilch.
This essentially comes down to "I feel unsafe, your data be damned." Feelings do matter, but we don't make laws depending on what the media is trying to make people of the city feel like.
> we don't make laws depending on what the media is trying to make people of the city feel like
Don't kid yourself, that absolutely happens all over the place.
Don't kid yourself, that absolutely happens all over the place.
Yeah, The Common Law has been in print since 1881 where we see "felt necessities of the time" show up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#The_...
And while it does feel uncomfortable to think that the laws of the land just come from what amounts to low to high levels of mass hysteria, it also means that we can enact and/or ignore/repeal laws which just don't work.
Imagine a law which looks good on paper and is "proved" to be "good" with stringent mathematical underpinnings, but which fails to serve the people due to some higher order outcome which we simply do not have the cognitive or mathematical understanding to explain. You had better hope that "felt necessities of the time" lets us do something else.
[Of course 'felt necessities of the time' can also do some really messed up stuff. I have no defense. I only argue that just because something happens due to feelings or mass hysteria instead of reason, mathematics, or logic doesn't mean it has to be bad. The feelings or hysteria might be coming from some issue which we cannot otherwise verbalize.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.#The_...
And while it does feel uncomfortable to think that the laws of the land just come from what amounts to low to high levels of mass hysteria, it also means that we can enact and/or ignore/repeal laws which just don't work.
Imagine a law which looks good on paper and is "proved" to be "good" with stringent mathematical underpinnings, but which fails to serve the people due to some higher order outcome which we simply do not have the cognitive or mathematical understanding to explain. You had better hope that "felt necessities of the time" lets us do something else.
[Of course 'felt necessities of the time' can also do some really messed up stuff. I have no defense. I only argue that just because something happens due to feelings or mass hysteria instead of reason, mathematics, or logic doesn't mean it has to be bad. The feelings or hysteria might be coming from some issue which we cannot otherwise verbalize.]
Well, shouldn't, I guess.
It should if we still want to call representatives representatives. If it's truly safe, then the discrepancy between feelings and reality should be addressed in good faith.
This is the same in NYC which is also having a supposed shoplifting spree. People "feel" very unsafe because the crime situation has gotten marginally worse than it has been the past few years. Having lived here since the 90s when the situation was much, much worse by any measurable statistic, everyone was calm back then because they knew what to expect. Now expectations are higher. In reality the danger remains quite low. We lost more people to covid in the last two years than 100 years of homicides. Yet we elected a mayor who promised to be tough on crime and soft on Covid.
This is sort of a brain failure on Hacker News: "I won't believe anything unless you show me some ostensibly unbiased data and a reasonable analysis".
Garbage. The city has a serious theft problem that is obvious if you go visit a number of places (and then go visit the mission or other sales locations to see your stolen goods).
Garbage. The city has a serious theft problem that is obvious if you go visit a number of places (and then go visit the mission or other sales locations to see your stolen goods).
This ignores the bigger question, "In these times, is San Francisco's Shoplifting Statistics worth our national concern?"
San Franscisco is definitely unsafe now. Before, I was able to walk dog on the ocean beach in morning and everything was was fine. Yes there always homeless people. Now I’m getting harassed by scary looking 100% drugged out young homeless all the time.
Or take example of sunset: in last 20 there were no home invasions in our block: last two years we had two.
Or Walgreens in Richmond: we were always taking a walk thru the park and we would ended up in that Walgreens to pick up random things. But in last two years that Walgreens is like a war zone. I think the latest robbery was on the internet.
So these are anecdotal evidence. And this is why I feel it is unsafe. Stats will not change this feeling.
Or take example of sunset: in last 20 there were no home invasions in our block: last two years we had two.
Or Walgreens in Richmond: we were always taking a walk thru the park and we would ended up in that Walgreens to pick up random things. But in last two years that Walgreens is like a war zone. I think the latest robbery was on the internet.
So these are anecdotal evidence. And this is why I feel it is unsafe. Stats will not change this feeling.
There seems to be a marked increase in unreported incidents, at least where I live. I don't trust any armchair statistical analysis of this, particularly when the author clearly has an agenda and a narrative.
I’ve seen many shoplifting cases at my neighborhood Walgreens in SF. Security guard present and all. The problem is not fake.
I feel some of these analyses focus on rate of crime but what strikes me has been the brazenness of the crimes. I’m SF and elsewhere you can see videos of people walking out of a Walgreen/Home Depot/Walmart knowing no one is really going to try to stop them (and nor should they).
Also slight nit to pick. A lot of San Francisco analysis compares SF county numbers to other counties. This is rarely and apples to apples comparison as SF county is the same geography as SF City so it’s numbers don’t get “softened” by having surrounding suburban cities. I had this argument a lot during COVID when people would try to compare SF county numbers to Miami-Dade.
Also slight nit to pick. A lot of San Francisco analysis compares SF county numbers to other counties. This is rarely and apples to apples comparison as SF county is the same geography as SF City so it’s numbers don’t get “softened” by having surrounding suburban cities. I had this argument a lot during COVID when people would try to compare SF county numbers to Miami-Dade.
And does so with nothing but it's own, new guesses.
When they do deal with data, they are both unclear and, it seems, aim more at manipulating emotion or finding "but"s than honestly considering probable causes/consequences/correlations
Skip this article in favor of better, data driven ones