> This isn’t unique to Walgreens this is affecting independent convenience stores and markets as well and it’s really disheartening to witness on a nearly day to day basis.

This needs to be repeated.

Some left leaning folks like to say "oh it's Walgreens, they're a corporation and the losses are immaterial."

When this happens to independent mom & pop shops, they close up much sooner.

> left leaning

I don't think it's benefitting us to lump all left-leaning people together. What you're describing is an extremism problem on the left that has largely gone unaddressed or downplayed that is highly agitating, divisive, and nonsensical. As anyone can point out this happened on the right too, and in that time it became fashionable to consolidate all conservatives, but I'd remind you this behavior was absolutely wrong. I encourage all average constituents to push back on extremism in their own parties, very vocally, so that we're less dependent on this cross talk correction.

> left leaning folks

Are you for real? That is far left thinking, where reason was pushed out by ideology. Not left leaning folks.

Its absolutely moronic not going after crime, all it is doing is incentivize people who break it.

The stories of current SF sounds like that meme of a dog sipping a tea in a house on fire saying 'this is fine'.

Left leaning folks will generally not support shoplifting/theft, however many will often qualify with "oh, but at least it's a large corporation, it's not right but they will survive", which is what I think the parent was referring to.

So, CA has massive and growing wealth inequality that has resisted carceral solutions for over three decades. The prisons are already overflowing, and federal courts have ordered the state to reduce its prison population which requires "soft on crime" policies like this. There's literally no legal alternative except to go on a prison-building spree. Glad you found a stimulating meme reference point though.

Well current state of affairs is clearly not working, and you propose to continue doing it?

That's the definition of madness.

If you fall into swamp, not moving will buy you time, but will still lead to drowning.

> except to go on a prison-building spree

Okay, let's do that instead. I'd way prefer to have more prisons than for theft to be legal.

The fact that anyone can see rampant crime in their community and think "that's okay, the victims of this crime are people I don't like anyway" and just ignore it is insane to me.

As a Brit I'm always shocked when visiting America and the high levels of crime and desperate people. I'm talking clearly mentally ill people in wheelchairs on street corners. No-go zones (for white people). Open selling of drugs near tourist hotspots with young families nearby.

It's like a weird mix of a wealthy 1st world country with all the problems of a 3rd world one.

Here in the UK we clearly have our own problems, but stuff like this just wouldn't be tolerated.

Agree. Every time I visited the US it was worse. The desperation, the trash, the roads full of holes, the broken down cars, clearly crazy people walking the streets. Mixed with little islands of smug self-important doing-well people who clearly didn’t care about the misery surrounding their little island. We are no longer planning to visit the US. It is too depressing.

One thing that surprised me last time I was in London were the signs everywhere warning about people in bikes snatching your phone.

Or no go towns for black people. I feel like america demonstrates the worst and best society has to offer.

> Or no go towns for black people.

Yes of course - but I'm white so was just describing my experience.

I visited SF a few years ago on a road trip and was very shocked by all the smashed car windows and feared for my car. This third world vibe intertwined with pricey restaurants was unreal. Added on top of people screaming in the streets and a public freakout (of rich people) in a room in my hotel with police coming in the middle of the night, I ended up really scared of the craziness of that city.

An extreme contrast between poor and rich is common in third world countries. In many poor nations, you can find high end places for the ultra-wealthy not too far from slums. What I'm saying is that you're not seeing "third world intertwined with pricey restaurants", you're simply getting the full third world vibe in SF.

This. I was in Pune, 5* hotel district. One foot out of the district and boom you are metal scrap district. I think its probably understandable that poorest allocate close to the richest - better left overs, hand wave charity etc. (Charity is good, but just giving money to drug addicts is not really working out, just to clarify distinction)

It was really odd experience, but I was the only one from the hotel traversing the city map on foot. In the night a lot of folks without "metal scrap real estate" would spawn at the edges of the district, put a card board and sleep. They would sleep there since its safe and nobody had heart to force them out in the night. Daytime different story -> go be someones else problem.

SF was not this crazy, but similar vibes.

I think they see it as less crime as asset redistribution. The wealth that they feel ought to have been transferred by taxes is being taken more directly in the sense of Anatole France's "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor ... to steal bread."

Nb: I am explaining a viewpoint not taking a position myself

the knuckleheads will tell your insurance covers everything as if business is in to lose money guaranteed...

Some "left leaning folks"? Are you legitimately attempting to politicize theft?

Unfortunately, it already is. See the looting =reparations that was common on social media during the blm riots. Similarly, the "fuck the corporations, it's just property" crowd that was really prevalent on reddit then. Those are both solidly left, just as qanon is solidly right.

Amp links cause I'm on mobile

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/reparati...

I think saying these fringe "political" groups are "solidly left" or "solidly right" really feeds into the hate and divisiveness they are designed to create. They're all either misled and disinformed or misleading and disinforming. They have no place in politics and are largely designed to generate that "us vs them" mentality. These groups are the fringest of the fringe and are far from "solid"

I believe you might be misunderstanding me here. I mean you're not going to find left-aligned people supporting QAnon, while the same applies to BLM reparations talk for the right.

I recall seeing an interview of random people in SF, and most of them say that this is simply redistribution of wealth for equity. Some politicians/pundits also publicly said last year that shoplifting or destroying properties are for social justice.

So I guess SF progressives welcome shoplifting? Maybe there is a way to force Walgreen to reopen their stores for more wealth redistribution?

In so cal there's a rather terrible chain of grocery stores called Stater Brothers. Like (nearly?) all grocery stores they have two entrances-- one that drops you into alcohol section, the other in the dairy.

Theft of alcohol has become such a problem that they've started remodeling stores to remove the entrance directly in front of the alcohol. Meaning, if you now wish to steal alcohol, you have to enter from the opposite side of the building and walk behind or in front of 10 cashiers.

I've witnessed many alcohol thefts in my day. The staff isn't authorized to stop the people (nor should they frankly), and the official position of the police department in my area is they do not respond to calls for anything less than an assault.

Shouldn't a suitcase's worth of products be valuable enough to do something? I could somewhat understand ignoring say, if a person stole a single item under $10. There's not enough resources to go after truly petty theft.

I'd be surprised if a suitcase-sized quantity of things didn't reach the $950 threshold.

Should be but prop 47 decriminalized property crimes below $950 a day so cops don’t do anything and DAs like Chesa Boudin do nothing even when violent criminals are caught, so they definitely won’t do anything about theft. Even if DAs prosecute, juries won’t convict and judges won’t sentence. The justice system in San Francisco is a farce.

Last time I went to Target in SF (on Geary) I saw a car waiting outside and someone running with their arms full of stuff out the door and hop in the car. Last time I went to a Walgreens I saw people with masks on just taking backpacks full of stuff. It’s starting to feel like anarchy.

> Should be but prop 47 decriminalized property crimes below $950 a day

No, it didn’t:

(1) It didn’t decriminalize anything[0], and

(2) for the acts it reduced the severity of the available criminal pubishment for to which $950 is a relevant amount: (a) the limit applies per act not per day, a d (b) the scope is much narrower than “property crimes”, generally.

[0] try to satisfy anyone advocating decriminalization of X by reducing some instances of X from a felony to a misdemeanor.

>[0] try to satisfy anyone advocating decriminalization of X by reducing some instances of X from a felony to a misdemeanor.

DA Boudin has made it clear that such "minor" crimes won't be prosecuted. Period. That's decriminalization, de facto if not de jure.

> DA Boudin has made it clear that such "minor" crimes won't be prosecuted.

To the extent that may be true that’s DA Boudin, not Prop 47.

The threshold is $950: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47

Thanks, I have updated my comment with the figure.

"I'd be surprised if a suitcase-sized quantity of things didn't reach the $950 threshold" how would that surprise you? A whole cart full of things is under 300.

A 4-pack of razor cartridges is $20 at a convenience store. The markup means a relatively small volume of space can translate to rather significant dollar amounts. Lots of small, expensive products are sold inside these type of stores: makeup/beauty products, etc.

of groceries, sure. Of liquor?

I can't help but wonder if this is one of the ways the police "get back" at our local DA (whom they obviously don't like). If the police simply refuse to respond to crimes, they can then blame the increased crime rate on the DA.

It's not to "get back" at the DA or because the police don't like him. It's to best utilize their finite resources. There's no point in wasting time arresting people whom the DA is basically certain to immediately drop the charges against.

I live in SF but I admit I don't really keep up with politics and policy as much as I should. Is our police force actually strapped for resources? I saw an ad on a muni stop the other day for SF Police that highlighted a starting salary of $95k which seems pretty attractive.

Decades of research in management has shown that money is not the sole, or even major, driver of workplace motivation. Workers of all type, including cops, are motivated to put in hard work when they feel like their efforts are recognized and contribute to making a tangible difference.

Generally that's the exact opposite that police in SF have faced over the past few years. Rather than being recognized and respected, they've been repeatedly told, by their own superiors, that they're abusive, reckless and part of a system of oppression. Rather than making a difference, they're participants in a Kafka-esque circus where the criminals they arrest in the morning are released and committing crimes by the afternoon.

I agree that criminal justice reform is important. But there's no politically viable route to that end if it means a mass decline in public safety. And there's no way to ensure public safety, unless police officers feel valued, empowered, motivated and proud to show up for work. You can't just repeatedly demonize and bureaucratize the police, and not expect their performance to degrade because you throw money at them.

If the police force becomes useless, do you think the CCSF laws might change for self protection to become easier? I know guns are outlawed and knifes of certain length (as an example).

95K is not that much when two of your largest thoughts every day are; 1) how do I not die, and 2) how do I not get sued.

1) there has not been police officer death in SF in 15 years [1]

2) Unlike most professions, police officers enjoy qualified immunity which prevent civil charges from being pursued in all but most extreme cases.

For sure. But every cop has to deal with those thoughts, and most do it for far less than $95k. At the very least it seems enticing enough to attract a sizable pool of applicants.

Are you comparing incomes in different locations without factoring in the cost of living difference?

I factored it in casually but didn't do any arithmetic. My point wasn't really that 95k is a lot, but it's a pretty solid starting salary in any city. Certainly more than my starting salary out of college.. by about 30k. And I lived in NYC on my starting salary so I understand the COL factor. I've also lived in SF on less than 100k and as long as you have a roommate or two, which most 'starting salary'-age people do, then 95k can go pretty far. This wasn't even really my main point which was essentially "are these criminals not being arrested because our police force is understaffed / strapped for resources, or is it the case that we have plenty of cops but they just don't bother to go after these criminals"...

Bay Area cops can make a decent chunk of change. I was surprised when I saw a FB announcement by a local officer who purchased a $2M home in Millbrae.

He's in his early 30's and may have some sort of residual pay from his time in the armed forces. But I think a lot of it comes from overtime pay, which can really add up.

To be clear, a $2M home in Millbrae is no mansion. Homes in Millbrae cost an average of $964/ft². The national average is $123/ft². It's equivalent to about a $250K home in an average town.

Not a mansion, but it's still notable that an officer could accumulate a 20% downpayment with post-tax earnings. That's $400,000, which would require banking $40,000 of after-tax earnings per year for 10 years. That's perhaps $60,000 in pre-tax earnings.

Or he formerly owned a home which cost a lot less and could easily sell for $500k profit.

Also the annual property taxes on that place would be substantial

that salary is less attractive considering the current trend of blaming and even defunding police for doing their job.

who in their right mind would want to protect and serve when they are called "murderers" and "racists" on daily basis and any routine arrest can potentially lead to country wide riots and years in prison for the officer.

There's no point in "wasting time" stopping someone from walking out of a store with a suitcase full of stolen goods? Seems to me like that's a worthwhile service to provide whether or not you can rack up some vanity points with a conviction.

I don't know if you're aware of the details of the DA you mentioned previously, but he won't prosecute these crimes, so they'll be back to steal again in a few hours.

He won't even prosecute DUIs or home robberies; they're 'victimless'.

Someone who committed robbery was out committing another robbery, and DUI, on New Years Eve and fatally ran over two young women in a hit-and-run. [1]

A prominent investor, Cyan Banister, has delayed deleting Twitter solely to help the Recall Chesa campaign [2], because the DA is still in office, destroying the city and countless lives.

I genuinely believe that Chesa's parents being found guilty of murder and not being around to raise him [3] likely impacts him and his policy to this day; that's more than a kid should ever have to go through. I hope he finds peace, but not at the cost of an entire city [4].

[1] https://abc7news.com/pedestrian-safety-sf-san-francisco-hit-... [2] https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-burglary-da-chesa-boudin-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin [4] https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/lawlessness-in-san-fra...

In fact I am aware of that, which is the whole premise of this thread. As I mentioned elsewhere, the police can do things to affect a situation even if they don't lead to a conviction. The question is why they may choose not to.

As much as we hate to admit it the threat of punishment probably has some amount of deterrent effect on crime. If a particular crime is sure not to be punished then people will make a different calculation when deciding whether to do that crime.

The pendulum is going to swing the other way on this stuff. The only question is how painful it's going to get before people realize that we need both carrots and sticks.

Literally what is the point of stopping him if he will not be convicted and will be back at the store with his suitcase within a week?

Are you expecting police to be posted at the doors of all these stores?

Yes, because crime is so bad that almost every department, convenience, and grocery store has armed security patrolling outside and guarding the entrance. This isn't a thing in other cities. Even in the south side of Chicago. As a new transplant to SF it seems like shoplifting is actually encouraged here. If I was poor and broke, i would 100% be shoplifting every day. Could probably make a pretty easy 50k a year shoplifting tactically.

Of course not, my point is that there are things the police can do without a conviction, and they do those things in many circumstances. For example, police can famously seize property they believe was involved in a crime.

If it were truly impossible to follow up on someone stealing in broad daylight, that would be the case whether they could secure a conviction or not. If there are officers nearby (as there often are near downtown Walgreens), you might think they would respond once in a while. Presumably they are not, or the staff wouldn't be under the impression that they "don't care".

I can't speak to SF, but this is exactly the dynamic that's been happening for years up here in Portland. The PPA tells officers to slow roll on crimes that create political pressure every time a candidate for mayor or council that will reform them appears viable. Sadly it's a very effective tactic.

The police have given up on property crimes in Seattle for the most part, and the shoplifting has in some cases gotten quite brazen and violent.

Based on how weak Portland is on prosecutions, can you blame them? I mean, why arrest and book if they are out on the street that afternoon?

That's not what's driving the dynamic here, particularly since the election of our current DA. He wants to hold the police accountable and they're at all out war vs him.

The article claims this is a direct result of Prop 47, which lowered penalties for shoplifting stuff worth less than $950.

Organized crime groups just steal $949 per person from each store, and hit multiple stores in a day.

The law makes it difficult for the police to prosecute them — a given person would need to be caught and prosecuted once for multiple crimes (that were probably committed in multiple districts, etc.).

Even then, with all that effort, they get to bust someone for shoplifting.

They could go after the leaders of the organized crime groups. I wonder why they haven’t.

> They could go after the leaders of the organized crime groups. I wonder why they haven’t.

The standard approach is to charge the lackeys and have them roll on their superiors. If the only threat to the lackeys is a slap on the wrist, they’re not going to rat out anybody.

Considering consumer tech like Apple Airtags exist, it seems like it’d be easy to tag some frequently stolen goods and track them back to where they’re fenced and resold. They should punish the buyers of stolen goods since they obviously aren’t going after the thieves.

It's these areas it's not politically possible to prosecute the thieves. How will it be politically possible to prosecute the people just buying groceries?

It's not exactly getting back. If the DA isn't going to do anything why would you arrest someone?

I'm thinking the police aren't involved what-so-ever and this is more about the shop owners' senioritis now that their mission to deliver huge amounts of opioids into suburban areas[1] has been accomplished and it's time to go home.

[1] https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2020/11/17/down_here...