Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 390 posts

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#251

Post by psychomugs »

sneak wrote: post #192
psychomugs wrote: post #65

It was my last day in SF after a semester-long internship, and I decided to take photos around downtown. I was passing through Union Square on my way home when I saw a guy weaving through traffic, with two people chasing after him and yelling at him to give something back. I instinctively started booking it after him, caught up to him in the middle of a food truck area, grabbed him by his hoodie collar, and pinned hi…

What you did was illegal. Additionally, that's a misuse of "instinctive".

I know my photographic rights; I was in public on public property photographing someone else on public property, which is legal in the US [1]. The only illegal happening here was theft on the part of the thief. I realize that you’re probably not based here if you think otherwise.

I’m a photographer and a distance runner and I’m good enough at both to have made money off of them. Both reactions were instinctive.

[1] https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-...

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#252

Post by josephcsible »

xiphias2 wrote: post #246
josephcsible wrote: post #2

> The police officer said he was glad to have the license plate number but that robbery is so low-profile in the courts right now that even if they did catch him, without video proof, the thieves would be let go within a day or so. Even with video proof, there's a good chance that Chesa would drop all charges anyway. Related topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27216343

Can't a person go to supreme court in that case?

No. The legal system doesn't work that way.

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#253

Post by sneak »

psychomugs wrote: post #251
sneak wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you did was illegal. Additionally, that's a misuse of "instinctive".

I know my photographic rights; I was in public on public property photographing someone else on public property, which is legal in the US [1]. The only illegal happening here was theft on the part of the thief. I realize that you’re probably not based here if you think otherwise. I’m a photographer and a distance runner and I’m good enough at both to have made money off of them. Both reactions were instinctive. [1] h…

> grabbed him by his hoodie collar, and pinned him down

I was referring to the battery.

> I’m a photographer and a distance runner and I’m good enough at both to have made money off of them. Both reactions were instinctive.

The experiences and training you have had post-birth have no bearing on your innate human instinctual responses, which are shared in common with all members of your species, including the ones that aren't runners or photographers. It is likely you meant "subconscious" or perhaps "automatic".

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#254

Post by exporectomy »

ryandrake wrote: post #99
Ansil849 wrote: post #19

Was the equipment not insured? This is the underlying point of theft coverage: the realization that even if police investigate a case, they will likely be unable to get the stolen items back.

This is what I always ask in these threads. Most homeowners and car insurance policies cover losses from theft in your home or car, minus maybe a deductible. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing insurance is for?

Insurance doesn't make sense for small losses that you can pay for yourself. If you don't like the feeling of paying for stolen things, you could be your own insurance company instead, putting the regular premium into a savings account that you spend only to replace lost items. Over your whole life, it'll average out. Plus you get the advantage of better aligned interests and no profit skimmed off the top.

What insurance is good for is catastrophic costs that will probably never happen in your life but if they do, they'll ruin you. Things like crashing into a million dollar car or having your house burn down.

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#255

Post by robsf »

pretty messed up that the cops won't do anything even with a picture of the license plate on the getaway car. thieves know this which is why they continue to rob so brazenly. another consequence of growing wealth inequality. when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose. relatedly, i moved out of sf last year after about 5 years there. i really love the geography and other aspects, but couldn't live comfortably anywhere in the bay area while saving any money even with a $200k/year tech job. who is SF for?

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#256

Post by bosswipe »

mardifoufs wrote: post #75
bosswipe wrote: post #20

A lot of people blame SF's prosecutor but that makes no sense, this is a policing problem. The police is lazy and won't do their job. The police union sees their role as deflecting blame while working as little as possible and collecting their six figure salaries. The reason to defund the police is because they're awful at their jobs, throwing more money after bad won't help. I know I'll be downvoted here because peo…

Honest question, why would police arrest people that won't get prosecuted as a matter of fact. It's effectively not a crime if the AG officially states that he won't prosecute an entire category of crimes. But even if just arrests (followed by immediate release) alone were enough of a disincentive for petty criminals, it would be the police arresting people for the sake of arresting people, for what is effectively no…

Police should do their job because we pay them to do it. If they're involved in some kind of work slow down because they don't agree with the prosecutors policies then they're playing a dangerous game with public safety and they should be fired.

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#257

Post by darkhorse22 »

kardianos wrote: post #97
yupper32 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was my third time in SF. > Also, I've always refused to move to Silicon Valley > The author is in denial. > it is a really expensive shithole I'm always amazed by people who have visited a place a few times as a tourist and think "I'm qualified to shit on people who choose to live here". What makes you think you have any say in the situation? SF has massive neighborhood diversity as far as living situations go…

Because we walk around our own cities for YEARS and see less of this then we do on a random walk on a single day.

SF is a very densely populated place, so that shouldn't be a surprise (if you live in NYC, I don't believe you).

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#258

Post by scottlamb »

josephcsible wrote: post #177
elygre wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a foreigner, though a frequent watcher of American crime shows: what exactly is a misdemeanor, and why is it bad that stealing is one? What changed when it was reclassified?

The short answer is that misdemeanors are crimes that aren't that bad (e.g., trespassing), and felonies are crimes that are really bad (e.g., kidnapping). Felonies carry stricter sentences than misdemeanors. By saying that stealing up to $950 worth of product per day is only a misdemeanor, a lot of the deterrent effect goes away.

And besides that, I've heard many times recently [1] that police and/or courts do not enforce misdemeanor property crimes at all. So it's not just that it's only a fine but rather that there are believed to be no consequences at all.

I don't understand why. I hear talk about "priorities". Perhaps it's true that it's not "worth" enforcing these because the people responsible don't have any money to pay fines. But on the other hand, I don't think police actually got defunded, so if they've de-prioritized a major chunk of their job, what are they doing instead? I have basically no idea. Extra public safety things during the pandemic? It'd be nice to think they're doing a better job closing felonies but I haven't heard any evidence of that. Are they sitting around doing nothing? I almost hope they are; my more pessimistic take is that they now can really spend extra quality time harassing minorities...

[1] meaning it seems widely believed, correctly or not

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#259

Post by asdff »

Clewza313 wrote: post #77
throwaway_dcnt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

decarceration, even for repeat violent criminals and no penalties for property crime.

California already incarcerates 5x more people than any European country, and 10x more than the Nordics: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/CA.html There are many, many problems in CA, but putting more people in jail is not going to solve any of them.

I think the biggest disparity is the lack of any meaningful mental health or addiction treatment, and the law allows people who are out of their mind to refuse treatment and die on the street.

Re: I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

#260

Post by RobertoG »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185
pvg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

half US homeless are in California with migrants arriving daily crime in SF has absolutely exploded These don't seem to be reflected in easily googleable stats https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1400&fn[]=2... https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim...

Devil’s advocate: a lot of crime in San Francisco isn’t reported. For example, the case mentioned in the article.

Is crime in San Francisco reported in a lower percentage than in other places? That sounds weird, why should?
Post reply on HN