The police aren't defunded in San Francisco. They have consistently gotten budget increases. It's just that instead of hiring more, they spend it on overtime pay (1.5X normal rate) for people driving around and doing nothing. https://sfstandard.com/criminal-justice/sfpd-pay-millions-mo...

It's crazy how effective the narrative is that the police were "defunded" when you're in here dropping facts showing the opposite.

Yup. It's crucial to flag the bad-faith rabble-rousers to ensure HN doesn't become as bad as, say, reddit.

The article doesn't really support the post, though:

" SF’s police department has 335 fewer full-duty police officers than it did in 2017, with a total of 1,537 officers as of January, according to Supervisor Matt Dorsey, a former police communications staffer.

A police staffing analysis indicated that the department needs upward of 2,100 sworn officers to satisfy city demands. As fewer officers are available to patrol streets or respond to incidents, the department says it has been forced to ask staff to work longer hours or pick up extra shifts. "

When the force is at 75% capacity, officers are overworked and deprioritizing non-emergency responses. It's a recipe for more George Floyds, not less.

a lot of police departments are running these kinds of manpower deficits due to lack of applicants

It is crazy to me how many people just straight up lie on here.

The article the poster linked to does not show the overall department budget, rather that was spent on employees' wages. I don't see you or the other poster mentioning this at all though. Here is an article you can see the overall budget of numerous police departments including SF

https://abc7news.com/sfpd-budget-defund-the-police-departmen...

18-19: 629.8M 19-20: 692.3M 20-21: 667.9M 21-22: 657.4M

I believe I see one increase and two decreases. Between 18-19 to 19-20 the departments funding increased. While the department had funding decreased from 19-20 to 20-21 and again from 20-21 to 21-22. Now whether or not this defunding (funding decrease) was due to "defund the police" or some other factor I cannot say. However I can say for a fact that the narrative police were NOT defunded is wrong. I have provided 2 overall budgets that show they were defunded for two separate time periods.

Its also worth noting we are not adjusting for inflation or cost of living increases.

Your numbers don't include supplemental $27.5 million to fund police overtime in 21-22 or the increase to $761.9 million in 22-23. By my count, that's 3 increases and one decrease.

https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/sf-mayor-27m-police-overtim...

https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BLA.SF_Police_Dept._Bu...

So just be clear you are claiming there is 0 defunding but then admit by your count there is one decrease which is also known as defunding?

Also based on the timeline for 21-22 they defunded, then recognized the need more money because you know they defunded from the previous year so then allocated more funding.

The article I linked didn't have 22-23.

And just to be clear, you're agreeing with somebody who claimed that SFPD is defunded and is only acting differently because they are currently defunded.

You're also saying that 3 out of 4 isn't consistent. Fine. Does that make me a liar, or are you picking nits?

> The article I linked didn't have 22-23.

That's what I said.

>>And just to be clear, you're agreeing with somebody who claimed that SFPD is defunded and is only acting differently because they are currently defunded.

I responded to you, you responded to someone claiming "The police aren't defunded in San Francisco. They have consistently gotten budget increases."

I pointed out the police have been defunded depending on the time span you look at. I also pointed both of you misrepresenting the data pretending it was the overall budget when it was in fact the employees wages.

>>You're also saying that 3 out of 4 isn't consistent.

I disagree with you. You claimed a link said there was a "$27.5 million to fund police overtime in 21-22". Could you point specifically to where that is?

One does reference a 27.5 million proposal and says "The Budget and Appropriations Committee of the Board of Supervisors approved a $25 million budget supplemental Wednesday to fund police overtime in San Francisco. It next goes to the full Board of Supervisors on March 21st." No where does this say that this is being added to last years budget. In fact the article is from March 2023.

Even if it was for 21-22, if original budget allocated less money than the previous year, they defunded the police that year. Rushing to add in extra funding AFTER the budget was done so people can pretend it never happened does not erase the original budget that defunded them.

So I still see it as 2-2 even with your added 22-23 data which is not consistent in my eyes.

> I pointed out the police have been defunded depending on the time span you look at

And what does "have been" have to do with "are?" You seem to be having some difficulty understanding tense. That explains it.

What about prosecution? I agree the police aren't defunded, but aren't prosecutors and judges becoming more lenient? This has to be demoralizing for police. Combined with housing costs and you have a vicious cycle of a recruitment issue. I would expect overtime pay to be up if hiring is difficult.

Why should it be demoralizing? After they make the arrest and submit the case report, their job is done. If the DA decides to prosecute and the defendant requests a jury trial, they have to go to court and submit testimony. Whether the DA decides to divert a drug offender to rehab or tries to put them in prison is not SFPD's problem. Whichever one results in higher recidivism will make their job of finding a new person to arrest easier. The problem is they're not making arrests, even when the evidence is handed to them on a silver platter, and they haven't been making arrests for decades.

Well I guess it doesn't matter if code ships either. Work hard coding it, and if it gets thrown out and never used despite your hard work, that's the way it goes.

As for not making arrests, isn't that self reinforcing? Of course police will slow down arrests if the other end is not completing the process.

I find your view of this unusual and puzzling.

They get paid to do a job. I find your view that it's reasonable for them not to do a job because they would do somebody else's job differently utterly incomprehensible.

Well it's nice to know that organizations such as the Trump Presidential Campaign and Exxon-Mobil will never have any difficulty recruiting any task-bots, I mean, employees.

If I want to get paid for working for the Trump Presidential Campaign, I should do the work that is required. I don't want to work for the Trump Presidential Campaign, so I should not collect a paycheck from it.

If these people don't want to do policing, they should not collect a police officer salary.

I’m guessing it could be because every time they go out in public with the uniform on they risk their life, even more so when they engage a criminal. It’s a sacrifice they’re probably not willing to make if they don’t believe it’s for a good reason.

Then they should stop collecting a salary for the work they aren't doing, and taxpayers should criticize them for not doing the work they are paying them to do. Each of the DAs has been doing pretty much exactly what they told voters they would do. I really don't understand why this is so complicated.

Not everyone voted for or agrees with the current DA’s opinion. As a taxpayer, I don’t mind keeping cops doing nothing on the payroll as I know when the backlash begins and we get a new DA they’re ready to start work again with no delay. Doesn’t seem complicated to me personally.

And yet they haven't. Who'd have thunk that being fine with people not doing their job encourages bad behavior instead of what you were hoping to encourage?

Eh. A lot of people are ignoring that most cities did move in the defund police direction in 2020 and 2021, and then tried to reverse course and pretend it didn’t happen. For instance, this is from 2021[1]: “San Francisco Mayor London Breed announces cuts to police in new city budget”. The problem is you can’t suddenly reverse course, and cuts can have an impact for years to come, especially with the long lead time for things like recruitment and training.

[1] https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-budget-announcement-defun...

And you're ignoring that this proposed budget cut never happened. The Dream Keeper Initiative was paid for from the general fund instead of from SFPD budget. https://www.sfweekly.com/archives/is-san-francisco-re-fundin...

According to your article, the police department budget for 2019-20 was $692, and the proposal for 2021-22 was $661. Which would definitely be less. But even worse when you adjust for inflation - the 2019-20 budget would be $733 million in 2021 dollars, compared to the $661 for the 2021-22 budget.

Also worth quoting this section of the article you linked to:

> That means over the two year budget period, the city reduced law enforcement spending to the tune of $110 million. As the budget process continues, supervisors will have the opportunity to propose further cuts that could get closer to $120 million, like they did last year.

The number of police departments that actually got defunded after "defund the police" can probably be counted on 0 hands. SF certainly did no such thing[1].

[1] https://abc7news.com/sfpd-budget-defund-the-police-departmen...

According to the article, that's a 4.4% increase during a 3 year period with 14.5% cumulative inflation. Which would be a large cut in real dollar terms, no?

San Francisco Budget has been cut 2 years in a row.

$692.3 million in 2019-2020

$667.9 million in 2020-2021

$657.4 million in 2021-2022

Source: your link.

The article's headline says it's up 4.4% but that's compared to 2019.

San Francisco police officers start at over $100,000 per year.

That's not what the phrase means from my understanding.

It refers top the whole department, not what individual officers make.

Has the SFPD been defunded? It looks like their budget is higher now than at any point in their history…

Not accounting for inflation

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?

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...

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

I'm sure the defund the police rhetoric helped.

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.