SF/Bay Area Crime Thread (Arnold: robbery, rain, frequency)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No one is “missing the point.” Several of us believe context is valuable in tamping down internet-driven myth-creation.

No some of you definitely are and it's largely to this knee-jerk defensive reaction. What you consider "context" is more like "stating the obvious" and really just a distraction.

BTW I'm still waiting for these alleged posts of mine regarding crime not being prosecuted leading to increased crime.....

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Except they aren't asking how it compares to other cities, just whether or not these urban property crimes in the news are "typical or elevated" for SF. Like I said, you and others have been doing this since the very beginning of the thread; bringing up other cities when no one was trying to do that type of comparison.
.

Yes the poster definitely was asking a question of relative comparison of crime. Absolutely. And I provided exactly that.

[tikkasf]

An analysis, opinion article


https://www.cnn.ph/business/2021/11/...explainer.html

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I am not sure how to break it to you, but "flash rob" is exactly what it's called by law enforcement and apparently that's the term the participants use as well when organizing one of these events. A looter is a person who steals from a business that is probably unattended due to natural disaster or the aftermath of a riot, i.e. people who went into homes in Paradise when the occupants had been evacuated were designated as looters. But you don't have to believe me:

California Penal Code 463 PC defines the crime of looting as taking advantage of a state of emergency to commit burglary, grand theft or petty theft. Looting can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony and is punishable by up to 3 years in jail.

Is this a law enforcement message board or something? Why does this even matter? Wouldn't your time on this subject be better spent alerting the media who used the term "looters" here as well?

Arguing over semantics like that is just a distraction. Trying to draw attention away the fact that this is unprecedented and pretty much a national embarrassment at this point.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

No some of you definitely are and it's largely to this knee-jerk defensive reaction. What you consider "context" is more like "stating the obvious" and really just a distraction.

BTW I'm still waiting for these alleged posts of mine regarding crime not being prosecuted leading to increased crime.....

Your defensiveness is hilarious. No, what is being provided is definitely NOT stating the obvious … or, for example, you wouldn’t have asked for examples of similar flash robs from elsewhere, as have since been provided.

Hard to keep up with all these posts … gotta move on till another break in the day or week. Sheesh!

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Is this a law enforcement message board or something? Why does this even matter? Wouldn't your time on this subject be better spent alerting the media who used the term "looters" here as well?

Arguing over semantics like that is just a distraction. Trying to draw attention away the fact that this is unprecedented and pretty much a national embarrassment at this point.

But it’s NOT “unprecedented.” I even provided examples from nearly 30 years ago in Brazil for cryin out loud.
And numerous from a decade ago.
And more (5 in two months) from Chicago.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

It’s not one bit “besides the point” of the issue. Any fool can see that politicization of non-political issues is a destructive force. Stop feeding it.

It's besides the point of the article and the topic at hand. There weren't many outlets reporting on that story/tweet and I knew the reaction I would get from some of you for linking a Fox News article because some of you partisans are so predictable. I even prefaced it with a "yeah I know its from Fox News" and directed people to the more important point of it. Yet even with all that people still chose to solely focus on the source rather than the actual story.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes the poster definitely was asking a question of relative comparison of crime. Absolutely. And I provided exactly that.

Not to other cities but to the typical level of crime seen in SF.

Loved how you excluded the rest of my post there though

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Your defensiveness is hilarious. No, what is being provided is definitely NOT stating the obvious … or, for example, you wouldn’t have asked for examples of similar flash robs from elsewhere, as have since been provided.

Hard to keep up with all these posts … gotta move on till another break in the day or week. Sheesh!

Again the severity and frequency is the obvious point you keep, and will continue to keep, missing.

An ATM smash and grab was used as an example, which isn't a flash rob, and has been occurred for decades everywhere.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

It's besides the point of the article and the topic at hand. There weren't many outlets reporting on that story/tweet and I knew the reaction I would get from some of you for linking a Fox News article because some of you partisans are so predictable. I even prefaced it with a "yeah I know its from Fox News" and directed people to the more important point of it. Yet even with all that people still chose to solely focus on the source rather than the actual story.

It’s not one bit besides the point of this topic. It feeds the controversy and anyone with half the brain god gave a gnat knows that. Further, YOU don’t get to define the topic. Absurd defensiveness. Absurd.