Excellent article, I really appreciate the succinct explanation of the real issues with the reform law. I think people on both sides get overly fixated on the dollar amount increase which was never really the issue (out here in Nevada it's over $1200 and we don't have the issues San Francisco does with enforcement).
You briefly mentioned it in a foot note but I'd love a deeper explanation of the SFPD specific rules that hamper or delay officers for routine things like foot chases and detention. This is the sort of morale and functional limits that are mostly invisible and get written up as a police strike that only people experienced with the system can explain. There was a great episode of Peter Moskos' podcast that talked to a Seattle cop who explained how their new use of force paperwork regime can take half a precinct out of service for hours if someone gets tackled during an arrest.
Eh-Jay - ALl you say sounds good except the $1,200 limit for a felony - how is that not doing the same thing $950 did here? It's hard to imagine the criminals in NV are different from CA, but maybe you can explain that one better. It's very big deal here with car break-ins.
I'm not intimately familiar with it but in Vegas at least:
1) Misdemeanors are are split between misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor. Nevada cops can arrest on PC without witnessing a gross misdemeanor (larceny is not a gross misdemeanor, but some forms of property damage and indecent exposure are)
2) Misdemeanors are prosecuted and taken more seriously here than in California, and you can get a police response for them.
3) this may have changed, but when I worked LP you could still get people on shoplifting burglary charges that were more serious (like the burglary charge California had)
4) organized retail theft is a felony in Nevada and a lot of our time in LP was spent making cases for theft rings as opposed to individuals. One of those cases ended in a SWAT raid of a fencing operation.
Gascón is responsible for the increase of crime in this state. Yet, the morons continue to elect him into office. It's like Donkey (Pleasure) Island from Pinocchio - You (the voters) had your fun, now you have to pay for it.
The children in Pinocchio were innocent and led astray. The voters of CA are adults who ought to have known far better, but did not. They were already mostly Donkeys, and proud of it! That's our problem, not LA DA George Gascon. He full of gas, and he's a conman what's his name?
Hi Lou - It's really sick that the penal codes are written as they are with too many terms that differ from what the average person thinks they mean. Then they get subdivided from there.
The goal of LEO ought to be 1. Deterring crime
2. Protecting the innocent and their property.
3. Securing crimes scenes.
4. Capturing suspects.
5. Testifying as needed.
6. Community safety education & training.
Based on what you wrote about the way it used to be decades ago, and how the oversight commissions have changed the rules of engagement, it is crazy stupid!
We need rules that; 1> Protect the LEOs, because they put their life on the line.
2> Protec the public from the hopefully exceptional overly aggressive/abusive
LEO.
3> Leave no doubt about our laws will be enforced.
4> Backed up by DA and judges who are tough on crime, and put community
safety and the victims rights first not the criminal's.
5> Make policing simpler, easier, and more effective.
6> Send a clear message that doing a crime in San Francisco is NOT going to be
a good experience for you. Stay out of San Francisco!
Excellent article, I really appreciate the succinct explanation of the real issues with the reform law. I think people on both sides get overly fixated on the dollar amount increase which was never really the issue (out here in Nevada it's over $1200 and we don't have the issues San Francisco does with enforcement).
You briefly mentioned it in a foot note but I'd love a deeper explanation of the SFPD specific rules that hamper or delay officers for routine things like foot chases and detention. This is the sort of morale and functional limits that are mostly invisible and get written up as a police strike that only people experienced with the system can explain. There was a great episode of Peter Moskos' podcast that talked to a Seattle cop who explained how their new use of force paperwork regime can take half a precinct out of service for hours if someone gets tackled during an arrest.
Eh-Jay - ALl you say sounds good except the $1,200 limit for a felony - how is that not doing the same thing $950 did here? It's hard to imagine the criminals in NV are different from CA, but maybe you can explain that one better. It's very big deal here with car break-ins.
I'm not intimately familiar with it but in Vegas at least:
1) Misdemeanors are are split between misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor. Nevada cops can arrest on PC without witnessing a gross misdemeanor (larceny is not a gross misdemeanor, but some forms of property damage and indecent exposure are)
2) Misdemeanors are prosecuted and taken more seriously here than in California, and you can get a police response for them.
3) this may have changed, but when I worked LP you could still get people on shoplifting burglary charges that were more serious (like the burglary charge California had)
4) organized retail theft is a felony in Nevada and a lot of our time in LP was spent making cases for theft rings as opposed to individuals. One of those cases ended in a SWAT raid of a fencing operation.
Gascón is responsible for the increase of crime in this state. Yet, the morons continue to elect him into office. It's like Donkey (Pleasure) Island from Pinocchio - You (the voters) had your fun, now you have to pay for it.
The children in Pinocchio were innocent and led astray. The voters of CA are adults who ought to have known far better, but did not. They were already mostly Donkeys, and proud of it! That's our problem, not LA DA George Gascon. He full of gas, and he's a conman what's his name?
Thanks for the clarification. Still angry over 47 and 59!!!!
A clear and concise explanation of the impact of Proposition 47, thanks!
Hi Lou - It's really sick that the penal codes are written as they are with too many terms that differ from what the average person thinks they mean. Then they get subdivided from there.
The goal of LEO ought to be 1. Deterring crime
2. Protecting the innocent and their property.
3. Securing crimes scenes.
4. Capturing suspects.
5. Testifying as needed.
6. Community safety education & training.
Based on what you wrote about the way it used to be decades ago, and how the oversight commissions have changed the rules of engagement, it is crazy stupid!
We need rules that; 1> Protect the LEOs, because they put their life on the line.
2> Protec the public from the hopefully exceptional overly aggressive/abusive
LEO.
3> Leave no doubt about our laws will be enforced.
4> Backed up by DA and judges who are tough on crime, and put community
safety and the victims rights first not the criminal's.
5> Make policing simpler, easier, and more effective.
6> Send a clear message that doing a crime in San Francisco is NOT going to be
a good experience for you. Stay out of San Francisco!
I'm not holding my breath!