All property crime crosses the acceptable social contract and has the opportunity to become violent crime. I don’t see the issue with comparing them: if my property isn’t safe and I’ll be battered if I defend it, that’s the same signal.

It's an issue because it misrepresents the rate at which property crimes actually precede or are coincident with violent crime.

It also belies the reality that attempting to protect valuables is likelier than alternative action to turn a property crime into a violent crime.

not really, at least personally I'd rather my car gets smashed than someone assaults me directly. so I'd say there's a bit of a difference.

So, you're saying its just a question of degree. In principle, its really the same thing.

um... suffering bodily damage is the same thing as losing some random thing worth a few hundred bucks? I'd really have to disagree on this one, although i guess this distinction might not be the same for everyone. Of course, I dream of the day when no one in SF is subjected to either.