SF/Bay Area Crime Thread (Los Angeles, San Francisco: driving, freeway, road)

[nowhereman427]

Originally Posted by mattja

BLM has everything to do with this. And you made my point for me: Multiple police agencies are reporting a shortage of recruits, in spite of probably the best retirement benefits in the world.

Dayton police get $4.58 million grant to help with recruiting, payroll
https://www.daytondailynews.com/loca...PRVEYV3HW3AYA/

Why police forces are struggling to recruit and keep officers
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/us/po...ers/index.html

Epic Recruiting Addressing Nationwide Police Shortage
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-re...age-2022-07-28

Cities are afraid to empower police to police, and that is the direct result of the BLM riots.

What does the Bureau of Land Management ( A federal Agency) have to do with this?

Who wants to go into law enforcement these days?
It's too dangerous Too much paperwork let alone much more difficult job nowadays with more stress and lawsuits unlike in the 1980's. Even back in the 80's the paperwork was considered to be too much but now it's worse. Makes the 80's a much better time to go into LEO work/career.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by nowhereman427

What does the Bureau of Land Management ( A federal Agency) have to do with this?

Who wants to go into law enforcement these days?
It's too dangerous Too much paperwork let alone much more difficult job nowadays with more stress and lawsuits unlike in the 1980's. Even back in the 80's the paperwork was considered to be too much but now it's worse. Makes the 80's a much better time to go into LEO work/career.

That fat pension lures many into law enforcement. Two of my neighbors went into it. One is now SFPD (a sgt with 20+ years in) and another retired from a local PD and now works for a local city. The later guy will end-up with two fat govt. pensions. He had a plan that included military service providing his education, police work his first career, and working for a city his second career. This guy has never worked in the private sector. His son is going down the same career path. His pensions will provide more income than even two good-sized 401ks can provide. That's why they do it.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by mattja

That fat pension lures many into law enforcement. Two of my neighbors went into it. One is now SFPD (a sgt with 20+ years in) and another retired from a local PD and now works for a local city. The later guy will end-up with two fat govt. pensions. He had a plan that included military service providing his education, police work his first career, and working for a city his second career. This guy has never worked in the private sector. His son is going down the same career path. His pensions will provide more income than even two good-sized 401ks can provide. That's why they do it.

I believe most are not in Soc Sec ......so, they may have just a pension to rely on

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by mattja

That fat pension lures many into law enforcement. Two of my neighbors went into it. One is now SFPD (a sgt with 20+ years in) and another retired from a local PD and now works for a local city. The later guy will end-up with two fat govt. pensions. He had a plan that included military service providing his education, police work his first career, and working for a city his second career. This guy has never worked in the private sector. His son is going down the same career path. His pensions will provide more income than even two good-sized 401ks can provide. That's why they do it.

You can't retire with a CalPERS pensions then go work somewhere else and get a second CalPERS pension. So your neighbors are lying or maybe you just heard them wrong?

[sav858]

I'm sure this will work out well.... lol

Alameda County D.A. directs staff to seek lower prison sentences and probation for many crimes

Alameda County District Pamela Price, who has charted a progressive path since taking office in January, has directed her prosecutors to seek the minimum prescribed sentences for people accused of crimes, and to offer probation whenever possible, marking a pronounced shift in her office.

Price released the new guidelines Wednesday, while cautioning they were still in draft form and could evolve. Her policy, among other things, generally bars her staff from filing enhancements or special circumstance allegations to extend prison time, except in extraordinary situations with approval from supervisors.”

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'm sure this will work out well.... lol

Alameda County D.A. directs staff to seek lower prison sentences and probation for many crimes

Alameda County District Pamela Price, who has charted a progressive path since taking office in January, has directed her prosecutors to seek the minimum prescribed sentences for people accused of crimes, and to offer probation whenever possible, marking a pronounced shift in her office.

Price released the new guidelines Wednesday, while cautioning they were still in draft form and could evolve. Her policy, among other things, generally bars her staff from filing enhancements or special circumstance allegations to extend prison time, except in extraordinary situations with approval from supervisors.”

It costs more than $100,000 to keep an inmate in prison for one year, and unless it's an inmate who presents a threat to the public it's real hard to figure out why anyone would buy into locking up a non-violent offender for long periods of time, they are worse when they are released than when arrested - California prisons are great places to learn how to commit crimes.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It costs more than $100,000 to keep an inmate in prison for one year, and unless it's an inmate who presents a threat to the public it's real hard to figure out why anyone would buy into locking up a non-violent offender for long periods of time, they are worse when they are released than when arrested - California prisons are great places to learn how to commit crimes.

This isn't "violent" or a "threat" to you:

"For example, a prosecutor might tack on firearm allegations when charging a person who committed a robbery with a gun, or shot a car and wounded somebody. By largely eliminating that tool — and coupling it with a mandate to make probation offers whenever possible — Price would create scenarios in which people accused of armed robbery or other serious gun offenses would not be sent to prison and would potentially receive the same punishment as a person accused of a robbery with no gun."

They clearly already learned how to if they're there to begin with.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by sav858

This isn't "violent" to you:

"For example, a prosecutor might tack on firearm allegations when charging a person who committed a robbery with a gun, or shot a car and wounded somebody. By largely eliminating that tool — and coupling it with a mandate to make probation offers whenever possible — Price would create scenarios in which people accused of armed robbery or other serious gun offenses would not be sent to prison and would potentially receive the same punishment as a person accused of a robbery with no gun."

They clearly already learned how to if they're there to begin with.

Violent crimes already carry substantial sentences, 'enhancements' are a tool that prosecutors use to persuade people not to go to trial, i.e. "plead guilty now and we won't add on the enhancement". Personally I think that's dirty pool, if the case is so serious that enhancements are warranted then add them but don't use them to persuade someone not to go to trial because that is their right and shouldn't be bargained away. But seriously, if someone is going to get a sentence of 20 years, what is it about another 5 years for an enhancement that makes the public so much safer?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Violent crimes already carry substantial sentences, 'enhancements' are a tool that prosecutors use to persuade people not to go to trial, i.e. "plead guilty now and we won't add on the enhancement". Personally I think that's dirty pool, if the case is so serious that enhancements are warranted then add them but don't use them to persuade someone not to go to trial because that is their right and shouldn't be bargained away. But seriously, if someone is going to get a sentence of 20 years, what is it about another 5 years for an enhancement that makes the public so much safer?

That really didn't answer my question. So it seems like you're okay with people with people who commit armed robbery not going to prison?

5 years a likely repeat offender is off the streets is better than none imo. I don't really see how the

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by sav858

That really didn't answer my question. So it seems like you're okay with people with people who commit armed robbery not going to prison?

5 years a likely repeat offender is off the streets is better than none imo. I don't really see how the

You know that I never said people who commit armed robbery shouldn't go to prison, and it's unlikely that a person committing an armed robbery with a gun would get the DA to drop the enhancement. But the use of enhancements just to elicit a guilty plea are wrong, one of the most abused enhancements has been 'gang enhancements' which can be added to any sentence and can be based on a gang tattoo, even though the individual might not have been involved with gang activity for years.