701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand why it can’t be both: SF is degenerating when it comes to random crime AND this murder wasn’t by some random thug. I remember reading blog after blog on HN about people moving out of SF specifically for what the city had become.
The linked article specifically shows that violent crime in SF is at an all time low, and lower than most other comparably sized cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why wouldn't a homeless guy take his wallet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there were about 130 gun injuries/deaths per 100k in a recent year -- in SF, about 30! Which is worse, getting shot, or avoiding poop on the sidewalk San Francisco is number 23 for violent crime in the list of cities on wikipedia. Your options are not "get shot in another city Vs avoiding poop on the sidewalk in San Francisco", it's "don't get hurt or killed in the average city Vs get hurt or killed in San Francisc…
> San Francisco is number 23 for violent crime in the list of cities on wikipedia. No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet). It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k.
I checked, you're correct, but my point that it is more dangerous than the average city is still correct, even at #37.
> It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k.
So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. When people talk about safety, which is what I was responding to[1], they literally talking about violence, not "only violence that results in death".
I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, while in SF all he has to do is step over poop.
The clear fact is that you're, on average, less safe in San Francisco than elsewhere; the gun argument doesn't factor into this so using it to show how "safe" SF is, is pointless ideology that is both irrelevant and dishonest.
[1] This is verbatim from the post I responded to:
> I generally haven't felt nearly as unsafe as people always play up.
Am I the only one who does NOT feel unsafe in SF at all ? I mean, I choose not to walk in TL and SOMA at night. But why would anyone feel unsafe in North Beach, Marina, Russian Hill, Richmond, Sunset, GG park, Lower Haight, Valencia etc. I have spent many nights walking in Valencia and took Uber home at 2am. Doesn't feel remotely unsafe.
I've lived in SF for almost 30 years. I agree 100%. Sure, there's a lot more sad/ugly homelessness in the post-covid era. The shantytowns out by Candlestick are depressing. The Tenderloin continues to be a mess. But do I feel less safe? Absolutely not! The neighborhoods (where most people live) are just fine. I regularly walk home from the bars at midnight without a care. It's simply not a problem. Compare back to th…
But if you equate homeless people near me = unsafe, then that's a different discussion.
As the news media and twitterverse peddled the whole "crime-ridden SF" angle, I felt myself getting drawn into the same topic and agreeing with numerous friends on how much the city has declined. This is a good reminder of how we gravitate towards powerful emotional narratives, which in the moment can feel absolutely true despite an utter lack of supporting facts on an individual murder case. I hope this brings some…
After the murder, I had to read scores of comments like this ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35456168 ) about the homeless, need for more law enforcement (although the US already incarcerates more of its population than any industrialized country) etc. I had to read scores of tech bros in the professional-managerial class whinge about the poor, about black lives matter and how this was due to "progressivism".…
While some, including me, think this drug problem is an example of the hypocrisy of NeoLiberalism...I also think it's a centuries old playbook of wreaking havoc on whole populations of people by introducing vices such as drugs. The Opium Wars & what lead to the Opium Wars is an example.
Side note, I would like there to be a graph based form of communication that can better express the context of statements. It's too easy to take a couple of sentences on a forum out of context.
Joe Eskenazi, the author of this piece, is a solid journalist who helps run the tiny donation-funded Mission Local. They've done incredible reporting on corruption in the SF city government and punch way above their weight in the stories they break. I have respect for how Joe refused to join in reporting this murder as evidence of a violent crime epidemic, while still reporting on homelessness and property crime.
I'm in doubt if is ethical journalism reveal the name and LinkedIn profile of an alleged killer, sounds like doxing to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand why it can’t be both: SF is degenerating when it comes to random crime AND this murder wasn’t by some random thug. I remember reading blog after blog on HN about people moving out of SF specifically for what the city had become.
Gravity is a force that attracts two massive objects. While that statement is true, it is completely irrelevant to the Bob Lee case. People using this tragedy as an excuse to flog their favorite scapegoat is disappointing.
That's why we call them scapegoats right? That's what people who scapegoat others do.
Logic, Rational Thought, Dispassionate Analysis, these are all good. And one day, all humans will hopefully practice these disciplines as a matter of course. But right now, the vast majority of people are controlled by their emotions. What do they want to be true? What do they wish to be true?
Well, that's what becomes "true". At least, true to them.
When I moved to SF in 1996, the murder count that year was 86. Last year it was 56. I haven't been back in a very long time, but I guarantee you it's a far safer city than it was back then. I lived on Market between 6th and 7th and had knives pulled on me, and watched a car get blown up across the street underneath Hollywood Billiards, which is long gone now - according to Google Maps, they're building new apartments…
so how do you avoid getting knifed by a junkie in the alleyway? this is important information to me
First and foremost, avoid alleyways, avoid junkies. It seems like simple advice and it is.
What I learned as a nerdy white kid living in TL was that there is a largely non-verbal communication system, a kind of thieves' cant (although, as I mentioned, it's largely non-verbal, almost like a sign language but with subtle facial expressions and body postures rather than specific signs. (Actual gangs do use specific hand signs to recognize each other.))
If you "know the score" you can just tell someone, e.g. "Hey, don't mug me." using this communication system and they will leave you alone. This happened to me. I was walking through the 'loin when a dude comes up off the wall and starts to fall in behind me. I caught the motion out of the corner of my eye, and I gave him the slightest shake of my head, "nah", and that was it. He fell back and posted up on the wall again, and it was over.
Just being aware of what's going on differentiates you from the clueless "mark". That's the main thing: you're part of the "in-group". You have heard of "woke"? This level of awareness of the nature of life on the street is part of what one is woke to, or not, eh? This cant would seem like telepathy to an unaware outsider.
So, I was able to tell my would-be mugger that, although I look and walk like a clueless tech nerd, I'm actually a resident who knows what's up, so please mug someone else? And, as neighbors do, he kindly preferred to look for someone wandering in from the nicer parts of downtown. A tech worker or tourist, eh?
(I saw those interactions too: Three "gentlemen" corner a fellow up against a wall, one of them displays an empty 40oz bottle, and an agreement of sorts quickly emerges to the effect that it would be much preferable for the victim to give up his wallet rather than receive the bottle to the head. They even gave him his wallet back afterwards. The whole thing took thirty seconds.)
There's also an element of stotting involved in what I'm saying, "an honest signal to predators that the stotting animal would be difficult to catch" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stotting ) Since I "know the score" I'm not going to panic or freeze up if this guy tries to rob me. There's a way to say with your body language, "I'm not going to be easy to rob."
If you don't have that naturally, for whatever reason, there is something called "adrenaline re-imprinting" self-defense courses. Without going into a long tangent about it, the essence is to re-program your adrenaline response to be coherent and defensive. If you haven't seen it, it's hard to imagine the intensity of a controlled adrenaline response. Even small, weak people can be extremely dangerous under the influence of adrenaline. Adrenaline is a hellofa drug. (I mean, in the course I took the instructor at one point has on one of those bear-proof suits, and it still seems like he's gonna get hurt. And the other people in my class were small women! They were destroying this guy.) Basically, the attacker would have to be literally psychotic to continue trying to attack someone in the throes of a controlled adrenaline response. Trying to approach someone in that state... it's like a force-field. There's something deep within you that is like "nope" when confronted with such a fury, and the effect gets stronger as you try to approach. It literally feels like a force-field. I have only had to use the training once, Thank God, and it stopped three guys in their tracks, literally. They were running up behind me, and I stopped and the adrenaline triggered and I spun around and did the thing (there's a posture and you shout "back off!") and they stopped in their tracks. I started a conversation with them and they were scared of me. As in I made a gesture and one of them jumped back a little. Anyway, the thing to search for is "adrenaline re-imprinting".
I like you Kragen, I hope it's not too weird to say that, so I hope this was helpful or at least interesting. Cheers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that's so weird about that confirmation bias is that some folks held these inconsistent views even within a single HN comment . There was a comment that was on that initial thread where the commenter said that they heard from "very well placed sources in the US Intelligence community this is probably a hit", and the commenter still went on to blame San Francisco for being a "crime ridden shithole". I respon…
I don’t understand, is it that hard for both to be true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great; in general, people should be, and I'm not looking down on them for doing so. However, property crime is absolutely irrelevant when presented with the news of someone's murder, yet so many people here are quick to conflate them as somehow equivalent vis a vis personal safety, etc. (Sidenote: I personally don't understand anyone thinking that property crime is "scary". Your car is not your kid. Your walle…
People (on the whole) aren't afraid of losing stuff. They're afraid of someone coming into their home or grabbing them on the street and things going south. If you somehow had a device which 100% guaranteed your personal safety (but somehow still allowed theft) then (for most people) most of these crimes would merely be an inconvenience/irritation on the same level as low level credit card fraud (where you lose no mo…
Luckily, this isn't a real thing that happens.