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...