SF is now the third most dangerous city in CA, behind only Vallejo and Oakland, which are both dumps. A D.A. that truly wanted to make SF safer would look to the policies of the safest BIG cities in California--San Jose and San Diego (not counting smaller places like Danville, Palo Alto, etc.). Even LOS ANGELES is safer than SF now except for minor differences in a couple of categories.
If cash bail is eliminated as Chesa proposes, what will make anyone show up for their court date? Seriously--if I robbed a store or assaulted someone, and my family put $10K on the line I'd show up for court because I wouldn't want them to lose their money. But if there's nothing at stake, I'd just skip town.
Cash bail has sorta already been banned statewide. The legislature passed it, the governor signed it, and the bail bond and police lobbies qualified a referendum, so it's on hold until the voters confirm or disconfirm next November.
The problem they are trying to solve is that if your family is so poor that they can't come up with 10k you spend years in jail awaiting trial, and if your family borrows 10k they are out a substantial chunk of money even if you show up, which they probably couldn't afford.
Bail acts in effect as a massive fine on people who have been convicted of nothing.
In this thread: conservative tech bros (and other rich people who can afford to sit on reddit every day) who like to think that living in SF should be as pristine and easy to use as the snack room at Google, and that simply living here allows them to label themselves as “liberal” or “progressive”, when in reality, they hate poor people and don’t want to have to see them or encounter them or deal with the realities of living in a community with some semblance of economic diversity.
Yep. The big tech companies’ university recruiting arms harvest entire crops of new grads every year from top schools who generally come from privileged backgrounds. Then they’re consistently discouraged from interacting with people outside of the tech bubble. It’s a breeding ground for this kind of shit.
It's ironic that I'm reading so much about this guy now....after the election. Where before the election this sub was pretty much silent on it. I didn't even cast a vote for DA because I didn't know who any of the candidates were.
That’s your fault and shame on you for being so lazy. This is how we wind up w aholes like Trump in office.
There were plenty of candidate forums, neighborhood voting groups, articles in the press, and friggin Google you could have utilized.
Instead you want to be spoon fed by Reddit on who to vote for?!?
GTFOH with that lazy approach! People die to have a voice in their government and you take it for granted.
Hah! This was an odd year local election, calm the fuck down. You also make a lot of salacious assumptions based on nothing. I brought up the silence about the election on this sub before the election and I don't seem to remember seeing you chiming in with any relevant information.
Who’s blaming anyone? You’re the one who seems all up in arms about it. I’m just pointing out the irony of all these people making posts about Boudin now. But where were they prior? If you think normal people have the time to properly research random nobodies running for a local DA position then you’re delusional. What the hell do you think the purpose of Reddit is?
I'm in Ecuador at the moment. It's sad how many hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans there are living in the Andean countries, begging on the streets, hoping for handouts because their government drove them into complete misery.
Pues, sí, que viva Chavez en el infierno.
Boudin and Loftus's current job descriptions on the ballot seemed the most related to the position (I didn't read the information book). I picked Boudin #1 and Loftus #2
I saw way more Boudin campaign signs, compared to just 1 Loftus sign. To me, that felt like there were way more Boudin supporters so I went with what I thought was the 'crowd'.
Sourdough. I thought there was a remote chance he/she was related to the sourdough inventors (I thought 'Chesa' was lady until I saw a flyer with him on it last week).
I know I voted superficially for DA, but maybe what I said will give insight to supporters of the other candidates? My real goal was to just vote, and I've been getting better at showing up at the polling station every election day (I think it's 3 straight years in a row now).
People like you are the problem with this country. Uneducated voting is worse than not voting at all. If you don't know the candidates, don't fucking vote for them. If you have enough energy to drag your lazy ass to the polls, you better be prepared ahead of time. The bread? Seriously?! Yes, because a good sourdough means this person is fit to be the DA.
Honestly, I was depressed yesterday after the yesterday's results clearly indicated that Chesa was going to win. I then went back and hear his interview with Heather Knight in the City Insider podcast. What I came to understand after the podcast that he is an extremely intelligent person. Yale, Oxford, and has travelled to 100 countries. That gave me some hope that he is not extremely naiive like Gascon. I double clicked on some of his controversial headline statements like DUI and recividisim and did find his ideas actually pretty meaningful to break the cycle of crime. One of the things he spoke about was how most of the visitors in his parent's prison were black women and young black women and their kids and how by the time he was an adult all those kids were in jail too. I understand his approach better, but I do fear that this is actually a federal approach that is being applied locally and will overwhelm local authorities
I think you have a very good write-up above. As for the federal approach, I think he has quite a bit of SF City experience which will be applied, and most every case prioritized will be based on the data.
I've been to a couple of debates, and one thing is clear that sets him apart. He is a numbers guy, and when he cites data and facts, their accurate and based on the records, and none of the three candidates has ever questioned his presentation of data. It's their policy approach that differs.
yeah, all those wrong people who like...studied law and chose a pay cut to work in government over the private sector because they generally care. What do they know? I hope they all leave the DA's office too. Do we even need a DA's office?
Boudin's idea for DUI's during the debate made zero sense, and show absolutely 0 understanding of how it works or how the legal system handles those cases...which is frightening. He has also said that prosecuting quality of life crimes has clogged up our courts to the point that we are unable to prosecute murders...I would REALLY like to see his proof for that.
DUI's are not always a slam-dunk with juries.
I spoke with the judge at my DUI trial (weeks after the case) and he explained that private expensive attorneys are very good at defending DUI cases. Eventually, the Public Defender's Office gained similar knowledge and experience following many of the DUI trial precedents.
More than ever, police officers really need to dot their I's, cross their t's, and get their ducks lined up in a row.
As an impartial juror, oftentimes picked by DA's, I can tell you accurate police reports and solid credible testimony are crucial.
Serving as a juror on criminal cases, I vote as follows:
Prosecution proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt -- guilty.
Defense shows elements of reasonable doubt, not guilty.
Also, guilty votes must be unanimous.
The burden lies upon the prosecution, and decent DA's get frustrated with sloppy police work.
You've told me nothing new except what they teach you in highschool about jury duty, or that 30 year old video they show you in the jury room. And even then, it's still better than his solution of doing nothing, and Boudin does not take into account at all what we already have established to deal with first time DUIs without injury, and repeat offenders.
You've been told time and time again about the limitations of courtroom space, judges, resources, and trials. If you fill something something up with B, you have to vacate A.
You really don't care though, you just want to ignore pragmatic reasoning behind this.
[This is from 2018](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Budget-Cuts-to-Courts-Now-Affecting-Criminal-Cases-Creating-Backlogs-Similar-to-Civil-Case-Calendars-473857843.html), but I'm sure it's still true: San Francisco has a massive backlog of court cases and one of the lowest 12-month felony disposition rates in the state (68%). The problem appears to be one of funding, but in the meantime I'm glad to have voted for a DA willing to acknowledge the problem and identify possible solutions. We'll see how well those work, but the status quo was not working.
And Chesa is a public defender...I guarantee his understanding how of the legal system handles any of these cases goes well beyond yours.
How much of this backlog is due to the Public Defender's stance of taking every case through trial and multiple appeals even when their clients are offered pleas? The recent Potrero porch pirate story says a conviction came after 2.5 years of procedure, and the defense attorney plans to appeal it. Part of the length, in addition, was due to missed court dates by defendant who was released unconditionally and fail to appear.
In a more conspiratorial note, how much of this is a deliberate strategy to muck up court dates: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Did-late-SF-Public-Defender-Jeff-Adachi-keep-plea-13672451.php
Read the article. There's many misdemeanor crimes that have probation, community service, rehab or similar offers if they plead. Yes, that'd be a great outcome in many cases.
I'd certainly like for defendants that are high risks for failure to appear or reoffending to be detained before trial.
I mean I literally linked you to a study showing major court backlogs and terrible felony dispensation rates; murder is a form of felony. The article includes an example of a murder that's been outstanding since 2007 because of this in Santa Clara county, indicating that yes, it affects murders. But since facts don't matter to you, I'll just bid you a good evening.
For me, hoping more and more criminals and homeless flock to SF so my wonderful Bay Area city remains a safe and productive refuge from the inevitable decline in society in the Bay Area for at least long enough for my kids to move to college and I can cash out 7 figures to go live by the ocean leaving behind a bunch of progressive piggies to step on each other’s throats between worshiping their murals of autistic teenagers.
You can drive drunk in SF and [not worry about being prosecuted for it.](https://medium.com/nancyforsfda/nancy-tung-to-chesa-boudin-reverse-your-position-and-admit-that-drunk-driving-is-never-acceptable-4e1e4504918d)
The crime rate is the lowest it's been in decades but people in this sub are still willing to justify racially biased mass incarceration and a heavily militarized police force with impunity to execute unarmed black people as a necessary evil in the interest of preventing extremely petty property damage.
>The crime rate is the lowest it's been in decades
False. property crime is highest in the nation, with increases from previous years in both violent and property crime. https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/
>racially biased mass incarceration and a heavily militarized police force with impunity to execute unarmed black people as a necessary evil in the interest of preventing extremely petty property damage.
Figured the answer was going to be stupid but that just blew me away.
Stop the crime that is occurring lol. “Hey stop that!....okay see ya later!”
Also they are operating under the insane assumption that police offers prefer to do their jobs by “murdering in cold blood”. Dude. 99.99% of them are just doing their jobs and hoping to make it home to their families. Ya dingus. This isn’t the Purge.
While it is true that the percentage of cops murdering people in cold blood is small, the percentage of cops resisting measure that would hold cops accountable for murdering people in cold blood is not a small minority, it is, in fact, most of them. Hence, "Fuck the POA"
Saying that you personally don't care about race does not erase the fact that our criminal justice system produces demonstrably biased outcomes, putting aside even the asymmetric cultural causes of crime.
But that's not how ranked choice works.
Like, if those people really cared about tough on crime moderates, their 2nd or 3rd choices would have reflected that, but they didn't, giving Chesa both the plurality in the first ballot, and the most votes after all the elimination rounds.
The voting pattern indicates that lots of people have no consistent policy preferences and are motivated by other factors, counter to your claim that SF is "more progressive" as a policy matter than this subreddit.
I'm not the person who said that.
And even if I did, you made a statement that, while technically true, is meaningless to the selection of a single candidate to hold office. Maybe "moderate" ideology isn't as popular as you think.
But that's incoherent. If they were the first choice *because* of heir moderateness, that would have carried through to the 2nd and 3rd choice votes. But they didn't.
We're talking in circles, if you're just going to ignore how ranked choice voting works to make an analysis, that's fine. But nobody is going to take it seriously.
A different candidate than what you thought was popular won, and on the fairest kind of ballot that exists.
Stop trying to de-legitimize that win just cuz you're salty.
I don't see your point. The first choice of 2/3s of SF voters, again, was a radically different set of policies. To the extent you don't believe that, you diminish the perceived difference between Boudin and the rest. This election should not in any terms be interpreted as some kind of popular mandate.
I mean, if you look at their platforms there's actually a fair bit of overlap.
Lief and Chesa got along fine and many people I know were deciding between them. Chesa got painted as super radical, but his platform and debate performances don't really read the same. Meanwhile, the other candidates generally took some effort to appeal to progressive values and reform.
I can't say for sure why voters supporting the other candidates felt Chesa was a better choice than Suzy, but that's what happened.
More people wanted him first choice. More people ranked him higher than the competitors overall. It's a solid outcome.
Now, feel free to cite sources and prove me wrong, but I'm 99% certain you can't be arrested for taking a shit on the sidewalk. It's a citation. A fine. Homeless people get fined hundreds of dollars every day very commonly. It's a waste of time for everybody.
What you REALLY want to do is address
*Mental health services
And he actually had platform points which address those issues, because he does care about solving them, and has reasonable actionable plans for going about that.
All things you would know if you actually cared enough to read or tell the truth.
If you really are a former DA it's pretty unprofessional to go around anonymously calling other lawyers lying pieces of shit. If he really acted dishonestly in one of your cases then you should have fucking proven it to a Judge, to the bar, to his former boss, to someone. The People are (or were) your client, that's your duty. If you can't, stop debasing yourself and your former employer with this crap.
I'm living in the world of published platforms and objectively demonstrable evidence, not the one where anonymous people just randomly say insulting shit which is factually untrue.
Sooooooo kinda looks like you're the piece of shit unless you can actually make a cogent point based on real world information.
Honestly, I could. And I have. Many times. His election is a result of an ignorant populace. And alternatively, if the populace was fully in the know about him, then SF deserves him.
For now, do the arguments matter? He won. You can enjoy the objectively demonstrable results with time.
And my source is professional experience as to knowledge of him and why he would be bad for SF.
Cite sources or GTFO. You can talk about how you have totally proved your point and totally have firsthand evidence, but what I know about you is that you're a liar so all that means shit to me.
And if arguments don't matter, then why did you jump into one? If they do matter enough to participate in, then why not cite evidence if you have it?
You're a liar and a troll.
The only person lying here is you, to yourself, if you think this plan is going to work. Until then, park your car near Alamo square with your backpack in front seat and prove me wrong with statistics. I’ll be shooting up heroin and pitching a tent in front of your house in the meanwhile.
Use decoy cars to track and take down whole networks for fencing goods, instead of simply going after individual criminals.
"encourage and support a dedicated police unit that addresses property crime city wide by appointing officers at each station whose job it is to report investigate and address these crimes"
Cooperate with other local govs by sharing data and creating regional strategies to attack criminal networks.
So that's not true in the least.
"Bait cars are not considered entrapment because they merely afford criminals the opportunity to steal the car; entrapment, on the other hand, constitutes law enforcement persuading or encouraging a person to commit a crime that they would not have committed otherwise."
Apologize and retract or cite better sources.
No idea, honestly. Sounds like a good question to ask, though.
Car break-in policing and prosecution strategy wasn't the platform point which was my single highest concern here... Though I understand that for many people it probably is.
My point is that people who are saying that Chesa doesn't have a reasonable plan to investigate and prosecute those criminals *are fucking lying.* They are dishonest liars intentionally lying and should not be trusted.
The left-y political talking point for a while now has been that trackers and bait are entrapment. They victimize the poor, who take a chance for income they don't have easy access to, but who otherwise would (by implication) be honest and upright residents absent temptation. This is obviously legally hogwash, but sometimes it washes as PR.
There's also the occasional accusation of racism. Often the bait items are left in areas that are more minority-heavy than the background population. Similarly, arrests do not always reflect the background demographics.
It takes someone willing to take on all that to run a successful bait program.
This article is required reading to figure out why this sub is such a cesspool.
I mean I consider myself a socialist, I supported Chesa and Preston in this campaign... but I’m still a member of YIMBY and I thought the Sierra Club thing was legit.
An old white institution blocking development everywhere for no reason was terrible for the city.
That Vice article paints a pretty distorted picture by just focusing on one trollish guy. Some of us pro-housing activists are in it just because we actually believe in the cause. Because we think more housing will lead to lower rents, less homelessness, and a more vibrant city.
We’re not all secretly on the payroll of some mega developer cartoon villain.
(Although if one wants to subsidize my activism I guess I would consider it. Please PM me super villains! I’m pretty broke rn)
See, this is exactly what’s wrong with our society rn. Because some people don’t support your candidate they’re part of a “cesspool”. Your candidate even won...but the people that didn’t support him are somehow bullies.
*sigh* our country is really wounded. Probably sm is a lot of the problem.
And NO I didn’t vote for Donald.
It's a cesspool because I still remember a thread about a guy lighting homeless tents on fire that had to be locked and deleted by mods because the comments inside were cheering him on.
It's the most concentrated gathering of people who despise the less fortunate.
This is what happens when a bunch of extremely online middle Americans move to your city for jobs. Thank god sanity won out this time, but with the demographics changing so quickly and the race being so close I'm not so hopeful for the next decade.
There's nothing actually progressive about SF.
Being progressive would require being accountable to your actions so you know you're actually helping people, and accountability is a four-letter word in SF.
Imagine being proud of San Francisco for electing a man who celebrated Hugo Chavez’s abolition of term limits (oh and who also worked in his administration). So progressive and brave.
I mean, did you read the article? It's got a click bait title and lead, but the actual article is nuanced and critical of Chavez.
Really, the article should've been titled "the most recent Chavez election is troubling. Here's three reasons it might not be as bad as it seems."
But, because the editors went with a click-bait title, you get to say stuff like that. And because it takes you fewer words to imply he's pro dictatorship than it takes to actually talk about what's in the article, your message propagates more successfully even though it's fundamentally dishonest.
Imagine that kind of cynical propaganda being your best attempt at an argument.
I'm 100% certain that if we looked under your mask you'd be a lizard person.
Anyway, thanks for the random useless conjecture in which you make up something you don't like about a person you don't like in order to dislike them more. Great contribution to the discourse.
Then went on to work as a translator for Hugo Chavez, going on to write articles praising how Chavez eliminating term limits (making himself even more of a dictator) is actually a good thing. Bonus points: his great-great uncle was a devout Marxist. While of course we can't hold someone responsible for the actions of their forbearers, it's hard to argue that they didn't have a deep influence on Boudin. Reading his great-great uncle's CV makes it seem like he would have been happier with the Bolsheviks than living in US.
I'll never judge anybody for wanting to see the best in their parents no matter what they've actually done.
Neither of those things have anything to do with him as a DA, you're just trying to dredge up old personal drama to try and make him look bad.
I don't think any of us would survive that treatment and come out still looking squeaky clean.
What you're doing is transparently hypocritical and petty.
Their belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, their father is somehow still a good person... I can't judge that.
Their ongoing complicity in his scams and crimes. That I can judge.
The situations are completely incomparable and your statement is absurd.
And it's one thing to say "My parents were caught up in things beyond their control and criminal justice was hard on them." Okay, I can get behind that.
"The person they killed deserved to die." Nope, full stop.