Armed Robbery By Car Break-in Crew Outside of Dreamforce (Not in The Chronicle)
Marc Benioff, a priority over more cops is ensuring that current officers are dealt less red tape by the Police Commission
Last week, before his annual Dreamforce conference Marc Benioff told the Chronicle:
When the city of San Francisco wants to look good and look shiny and safe, it can do it. It looks great. It looks very safe right now. Unfortunately, the city doesn’t always take itself as seriously as it does during Dreamforce. If they can do it for Dreamforce, why can’t they do it every day? We have to enforce our laws, he said, adding that the city should address its police staffing shortage. Homelessness remains a major issue in our city, and we’ve got to continue to directly address it.
First, I agree with Benioff’s take on addressing broken windows, but wasn’t it his wisdom that created the November 2018 Proposition C, which imposed $300 million in new taxes on businesses to address homelessness? How did that work out? (It seems more taxes equated to more homeless.) How many businesses departed SF because Prop C passed?
Second, during Benioff’s 2014 surge in philanthropy, who was it that anonymously donated $1.1 million to the temporary and now defunct San Francisco Police Foundation? A foundation with a board composed of an SFPD command staff officer, and two members of a future command’s officer’s family. No accusations, just pondering whether the dots are connected. That type of funding purchases a lot of sway and residual influence that we have trouble raising on the westside of the city.
The armed robbery at Dreamforce
On Thursday the 14th, at 10:30am, Dreamforce attendees Prakash and Singh parked their Hyundai Santa Fe at 665 Harrison Street, just 4/10ths of a mile from the entrance to Moscone Convention Center.
Prakash and Singh exited their rental car to feed the parking meter. During the next few seconds, they heard the rear window of the Hyundai shattering. Two suspects masked up in black balaclavas (I guess, still fearful of Covid?) entered the front passenger and driver’s side doors and imposed their San Francisco hoodlum tax on the visitors by taking two passports, 2 Mac laptops, and a Windows laptop.
As the suspects moved towards their getaway van (with a 100% chance that either the car or the license plates were stolen), Singh tried to grab his possessions back and specifically his passports, which included visas. The suspect then pointed a 9mm handgun at Singh before jumping in the car and driving away.
The two reasons why car break-in robberies in San Francisco persist:
Reason #1: They’re really robbers cloaked in car break-in clothes.
Singh told me that there were scarecrow SFPD officers within “100 meters” (300 feet) of the robbery as SFPD Chief Scott saturated SOMA to protect Dreamforce attendees. Per SFPD Department General Order 5.05, those officers are not allowed to chase fleeing car break-in crews because these crimes are considered merely insurable nonviolent property crimes.
Despite the sheep’s clothing of property thieves, as I have previously and extensively documented, car break-in crews and catalytic converter thieves are all packing guns and have the propensity to turn violent if they are challenged. Doesn’t the 99.9% probability that the crew possesses a gun or multiple guns escalate these break-in crimes to quasi robberies?
If someone tries to steal your wallet without you knowing, but has a gun in their pocket in case you resist, is the thief’s underlying intent a theft or a robbery? How about if a thief reaches over the counter to steal money from the cash register, but has a gun in his jacket in case things escalate? How is that different from the car break-in crews that are ready to transition to a robbery if the victim shows up or is uncooperative? The thieves’ intent is robbery!
Reason #2: With regards to interpreting DGO 5.05, why is the San Francisco Police Commission allowed to act as both legislators and judiciaries?
There is a conflict in that the San Francisco Police Commissioner can both create rules for SFPD and then adjudicate the officer’s application of those rules. Think about the disruption our country would experience if the legislative role of the US Congress were transferred to the US Supreme Court, giving the court both legislative and judicial powers. Every word in the Supreme Court’s 2023 rulings would forecast how the Supreme Court would decide in 2024 on events that occurred today-- in 2023.
(Theoretically) an officer, under DGO 5.05 (IV)A)(1)(b), could chase after a break-in crew because, through their training and experience, they know there is a 99.9% probability the crew is armed and the thieves “pose a risk to public safety.” However, SFPD officers would be foolish not to factor in the Police Commission Four’s[i] legislative intent and political direction conveyed through their discussions at commission meetings and opinions pitched to the Chronicle, Mission Local, and the San Francisco Standard.
Currently, the Police Commission-Four are in the process of creating policy to require SFPD to only search criminals’ public social media or chase after fleeing criminals if the officer can first establish the criminal already committed a specific crime. So, when tourists point to a fleeing car break-in crew, an SFPD officer thinks: “If the direction of the commission is to fire me for merely running after a guy that just stole an iPhone, then surely I better not chase after a fleeing car even though there is a 99.9% chance there are guns in it.” Even if the officers were to catch the break-in crew and recover 20 guns, who can predict if the Police Commission-Four would fire the officer for not being able to establish beforehand that he knew the guns were in the car.
The Supreme Court taking over the function of legislation would be unacceptable to 95% of US citizens, yet San Franciscans (unknowingly) have accepted this relatively recent transfer of policy creation to an overworked police commission. A transition that coincidentally is correlated to the drastic decline in SFPD’s arrests and a corresponding decrease in conventions coming to San Francisco.
SFPD doesn’t need more cops, we need cops that are allowed to employ effective policing techniques
Ok, scratch that. SFPD is severely understaffed and needs more police officers, but scarecrow policing only goes so far. The robbery of Prkash and Singh was an anomaly. Benioff’s Dreamforce was a success for a small section of the city. But while Chief Scott stacked his defense-with SFPD’s scarecrows-to SOMA, the under-policed outer neighborhoods suffered some egregious crimes.
The brazen robbery of our guests, Prakash and Singh, is an example of how the Police Commission-Four’s overreach and conflicts of interest, coupled with Chief Scott’s failure to embolden his officers’ skills (i.e., elimination of anticipatory spike strips), is going to lead to fewer conventions and tourist dollars coming to San Francisco.
[i] Max Carter-Oberstone (Breed’s Betrayer), Cindy Elias (who is conflicted because her husband makes a living off suing SFPD), public defender Ilona Yanez’ husband, and Max Carter-Oberstone’s running mate, Kevin Benedicto.
I signed the letter to our governor and hope that others will, too. We have to tell elected officials that we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore. Remember "Network"? Lou ... thank you very much for your hard work and courageousness. You have earned the sobriquet "Dirty Harry". 😂
Thank you for keeping us San Franciscans informed, Lou B. For those reading the comments, if you can, attend Police Commission meetings to see for yourself (and oppose) the Tyranny of the Few, every Wednesday of the month except the first, starting at 5:30pm in Rm. 400 of City Hall. The power of rational residents can work if....they assert it. Start by attending.