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

321–330 of 390 posts

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

#321

Post by smsm42 »

ma2rten wrote: post #41
throwaway1959 wrote: post #7

I do not think that the current crime situation in San Francisco appeared by some fluke or an accident. Specific policies were put in place by the progressive government officials and progressive people in San Francisco voted for these policies. I think is a cautionary tale for the rest of the country on what happens when progressive utopia gets voted in.

I actually don't know if the crime rate in SF is higher than elsewhere, but if it is I think cause is the opposite. It's what happens when capitalism goes unchecked. Cost of living is on the rise while wages are stagnant. Crimes are often committed by people who are desperate. Also there are no facilities for people who are mentally ill, who will go on to commit crimes.

[flagged]

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

#322

Post by smsm42 »

ako wrote: post #141
epicureanideal wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism isn't what's happening in SF. NIMBYism, cronyism, inability to build, tons of regulatory red tape to do anything, high taxes, etc. is not capitalism.

All of those may be true, but the bad effects of uncontrolled capitalism most likely also have something to do with the situation. If you expect people to live by the rules, they should have a honest opportunity to do so. But if all they can get is a job that doesn't even pay for a small room, what are your possibilities to live a honest live? If you remove punishment, but the only option people have is to break the…

From all the videos I've seen of people robbing stores in San Francisco (and there are a few), none of them looked like people on the brink of starvation stealing food or medicine to avert certain death. They looked like a criminal gang taking expensive items with high resale value in order to make a quick profit. Because that's exactly what they were. They didn't do it because they couldn't survive otherwise. They did it because it's profitable and nobody was going to prosecute them for it.

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

#323

Post by paxys »

RobertoG wrote: post #260
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When the data supports your views – "here, look at this".

When the data doesn't support your views – "it isn't reported correctly anyways".

This is standard online discourse.

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

#324

Post by jwilber »

yupper32 wrote: post #245
josephcsible wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing acid attacks in London to San Francisco's problems is like comparing plane crashes to car crashes. The former is worse per occurrence and gets more attention, but the latter is much, much more common and so worse overall.

You've missed my point entirely. My point is that just because I heard an acid attack outside my hotel in London, it does not make me qualified to criticize London or those who choose to live there. Just as someone who visited SF a few times and saw some feces (etc) is not qualified to criticize SF or those who choose to live here.

Right, but if you heard an acid attack outside of your hotel three visits in a row, it’d be a different story.

I’ve spent six years in the Bay (SF and Berkeley), and the unfortunate truth is that the feces, homelessness, and public drug use have become prominent features of today’s SF.

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

#325

Post by smsm42 »

imgabe wrote: post #50
olivermarks wrote: post #30

SF District Attorney Chesa Boudin ran for office in November 2019 focusing his campaign on ending mass incarceration with restorative justice models, rather than punitive incarceral methods. Since then crime in SF has absolutely exploded, fuelled by proposition 47 which reduced stealing less than $900 day to a misdemeanor. Add in a massive opioid crisis and the result is a rapidly growing crisis of shoplifting, petty…

It seems like a group of 10 concerned citizens could get together and steal $9000 per day from Chesa Boudin until he realizes this is a bad policy.

[flagged]

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

#326

Post by jollybean »

anonAndOn wrote: post #236
jollybean wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so SF doesn't have the same amount of murder as the most rough and ugly ghettos in the Western World? That's good and true, but I'm not sure it helps make an argument.

The difference is in the level of violence. The property crime is ubiquitous in SF, but it's largely crimes of opportunity. Having something stolen when nobody is looking is very common while being mugged (at knifepoint or gunpoint) is quite rare. I once directly confronted a would be bike thief and he merely walked away. I would not recommend such confrontation in other cities where the possibility of violence was g…

The difference is more stark.

In St. Louis and Baltimore it's crime inside the ghetto - very violent.

In SF it's homeless, semi-homeless and jerks stealing from the upper middle class who have an odd view on community and crime.

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

#327

Post by tayo42 »

jwilber wrote: post #319
tayo42 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah its tiring to see the negativity. Ill share my thought that's likely to attract some negative attention... I think it's interesting this shows up a lot on tech discussion site. I see it here, I see similar sentiments on reddit too. Some of it I'm willing to bet is based in insecurity. Sf and the bay area is where a lot of the best work, hardest to get jobs are, prestigious companies exist and compensation is hig…

“We end up with these discussions not based in reality.” I can assure you that these discussions, while anecdotal, are in aggregate largely based in reality. I’m very liberal and enjoy some aspects San Francisco provides (mostly related to me being a lifelong skateboarder and surfer). I spent four of the last ten years in Berkeley and two in San Francisco. That said, I would not want to move there again. Everything (…

If you went to sf, lived there and decided its not for you and you moved on with your life then your not the people I'm talking about. This thread is filled with people who went on a trip or saw some articles online and now need to keep comparing sf to their southern or mid west hometown or random places in asia and declare how horrible it is. Of course there's valid reasons to not live in a city, its a different lifestyle. I moved out of sf too, the density and everything that comes with it wasn't really for me.

Other cities have problems too, you don't see constant articles about Seattle, or NYC. https://www.news10.com/news/ny-news/nypd-shootings-up-166-fu... How come no ones writing large rants about how NYC is an overpriced cesspool?

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

#328

Post by threwawasy1228 »

chrischen wrote: post #235
threwawasy1228 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is VC money in NYC, Chicago, Boston, and Seattle, and I can work at Google or Facebook from most of those cities. I will never move to SF in the condition it is in, and I'm sure many other people feel the same. These opportunities exist elsewhere.

So... why did the people move to SF? To step in poop? Those jobs exist elsewhere, but not at the numbers they exist at in SF and the surrounding area. Most young people who move to The Bay Area would then end up moving to SF because it's the closest "real" city.

I'm a "young person" who chose not to move to the Bay. The market will eventually even out based on the policy and perception of a given city on generational-timescales. SF didn't become tech/VC capital overnight, and it won't decline over night either. It will decline one junior or midlevel dev at a time going to one of the cities I mentioned or Austin/Miami/etc.

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

#329

Post by Apocryphon »

tayo42 wrote: post #327
jwilber wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We end up with these discussions not based in reality.” I can assure you that these discussions, while anecdotal, are in aggregate largely based in reality. I’m very liberal and enjoy some aspects San Francisco provides (mostly related to me being a lifelong skateboarder and surfer). I spent four of the last ten years in Berkeley and two in San Francisco. That said, I would not want to move there again. Everything (…

If you went to sf, lived there and decided its not for you and you moved on with your life then your not the people I'm talking about. This thread is filled with people who went on a trip or saw some articles online and now need to keep comparing sf to their southern or mid west hometown or random places in asia and declare how horrible it is. Of course there's valid reasons to not live in a city, its a different lif…

To be fair, "New York is dying" is a big editorial cottage industry that's been around for decades, people in SV are just less aware of it. It's definitely active now.

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

#330

Post by esyir »

asdff wrote: post #317
esyir wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one huge issue here though, especially for a nation as liberty focused as the US. Many of the mentally ill, especially at higher levels of severity, do not seek nor desire treatment. How would one balance the issue of disrupted mental health, with clear impediments of decision-making, against violations of personal liberty, such as with forcible commitment.

Ideally we would look at things analytically. If you've been hit by a car and are unconcious and unable to consent to treatment, you are still treated. It should be that if you are mentally ill and unable to consent to treatment, you should still be treated. If one day I lose my mind and I am on my own on the street, I would hope that I would get taken to treatment rather than be allowed to die on my own. It's time w…

I'm definitely in agreement here that there is that threshold, but what I'm not so clear about is where that threshold lies. It's one of those things which I feel the boundary is nothing but grey. However, one area where I think might be relatively easy would be the case of crime + health. Rather than jail, forcible internment in said mental health facility might be a better alternative.

On an aside, it's funny how "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" had such an impact on mental health treatment, and how mental health institutions were viewed.

Post reply on HN