Out of control San Francisco shoplifting forcing Walgreens to close 17 stores
sfchronicle.com
sfchronicle.com
It’s also frustrating as a consumer because I’ve noticed over the past couple years Walgreens’ hours has been reducing, like closing at 7pm at a major intersection for crying out loud. The trend is that operating expenses are increased due to shoplifting thus prices increase and hours reduced which means fewer jobs. We all lose.
This isn’t unique to Walgreens this is affecting independent convenience stores and markets as well and it’s really disheartening to witness on a nearly day to day basis.
This needs to be repeated.
Some left leaning folks like to say "oh it's Walgreens, they're a corporation and the losses are immaterial."
When this happens to independent mom & pop shops, they close up much sooner.
I don't think it's benefitting us to lump all left-leaning people together. What you're describing is an extremism problem on the left that has largely gone unaddressed or downplayed that is highly agitating, divisive, and nonsensical. As anyone can point out this happened on the right too, and in that time it became fashionable to consolidate all conservatives, but I'd remind you this behavior was absolutely wrong. I encourage all average constituents to push back on extremism in their own parties, very vocally, so that we're less dependent on this cross talk correction.
Are you for real? That is far left thinking, where reason was pushed out by ideology. Not left leaning folks.
Its absolutely moronic not going after crime, all it is doing is incentivize people who break it.
The stories of current SF sounds like that meme of a dog sipping a tea in a house on fire saying 'this is fine'.
That's the definition of madness.
If you fall into swamp, not moving will buy you time, but will still lead to drowning.
Okay, let's do that instead. I'd way prefer to have more prisons than for theft to be legal.
It's like a weird mix of a wealthy 1st world country with all the problems of a 3rd world one.
Here in the UK we clearly have our own problems, but stuff like this just wouldn't be tolerated.
Yes of course - but I'm white so was just describing my experience.
It was really odd experience, but I was the only one from the hotel traversing the city map on foot. In the night a lot of folks without "metal scrap real estate" would spawn at the edges of the district, put a card board and sleep. They would sleep there since its safe and nobody had heart to force them out in the night. Daytime different story -> go be someones else problem.
SF was not this crazy, but similar vibes.
Nb: I am explaining a viewpoint not taking a position myself
Amp links cause I'm on mobile
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/reparati...
So I guess SF progressives welcome shoplifting? Maybe there is a way to force Walgreen to reopen their stores for more wealth redistribution?
Theft of alcohol has become such a problem that they've started remodeling stores to remove the entrance directly in front of the alcohol. Meaning, if you now wish to steal alcohol, you have to enter from the opposite side of the building and walk behind or in front of 10 cashiers.
I've witnessed many alcohol thefts in my day. The staff isn't authorized to stop the people (nor should they frankly), and the official position of the police department in my area is they do not respond to calls for anything less than an assault.
I'd be surprised if a suitcase-sized quantity of things didn't reach the $950 threshold.
Last time I went to Target in SF (on Geary) I saw a car waiting outside and someone running with their arms full of stuff out the door and hop in the car. Last time I went to a Walgreens I saw people with masks on just taking backpacks full of stuff. It’s starting to feel like anarchy.
No, it didn’t:
(1) It didn’t decriminalize anything[0], and
(2) for the acts it reduced the severity of the available criminal pubishment for to which $950 is a relevant amount: (a) the limit applies per act not per day, a d (b) the scope is much narrower than “property crimes”, generally.
[0] try to satisfy anyone advocating decriminalization of X by reducing some instances of X from a felony to a misdemeanor.
DA Boudin has made it clear that such "minor" crimes won't be prosecuted. Period. That's decriminalization, de facto if not de jure.
To the extent that may be true that’s DA Boudin, not Prop 47.
Generally that's the exact opposite that police in SF have faced over the past few years. Rather than being recognized and respected, they've been repeatedly told, by their own superiors, that they're abusive, reckless and part of a system of oppression. Rather than making a difference, they're participants in a Kafka-esque circus where the criminals they arrest in the morning are released and committing crimes by the afternoon.
I agree that criminal justice reform is important. But there's no politically viable route to that end if it means a mass decline in public safety. And there's no way to ensure public safety, unless police officers feel valued, empowered, motivated and proud to show up for work. You can't just repeatedly demonize and bureaucratize the police, and not expect their performance to degrade because you throw money at them.
2) Unlike most professions, police officers enjoy qualified immunity which prevent civil charges from being pursued in all but most extreme cases.
He's in his early 30's and may have some sort of residual pay from his time in the armed forces. But I think a lot of it comes from overtime pay, which can really add up.
who in their right mind would want to protect and serve when they are called "murderers" and "racists" on daily basis and any routine arrest can potentially lead to country wide riots and years in prison for the officer.
He won't even prosecute DUIs or home robberies; they're 'victimless'.
Someone who committed robbery was out committing another robbery, and DUI, on New Years Eve and fatally ran over two young women in a hit-and-run. [1]
A prominent investor, Cyan Banister, has delayed deleting Twitter solely to help the Recall Chesa campaign [2], because the DA is still in office, destroying the city and countless lives.
I genuinely believe that Chesa's parents being found guilty of murder and not being around to raise him [3] likely impacts him and his policy to this day; that's more than a kid should ever have to go through. I hope he finds peace, but not at the cost of an entire city [4].
[1] https://abc7news.com/pedestrian-safety-sf-san-francisco-hit-... [2] https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-burglary-da-chesa-boudin-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin [4] https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/lawlessness-in-san-fra...
The pendulum is going to swing the other way on this stuff. The only question is how painful it's going to get before people realize that we need both carrots and sticks.
If it were truly impossible to follow up on someone stealing in broad daylight, that would be the case whether they could secure a conviction or not. If there are officers nearby (as there often are near downtown Walgreens), you might think they would respond once in a while. Presumably they are not, or the staff wouldn't be under the impression that they "don't care".
Organized crime groups just steal $949 per person from each store, and hit multiple stores in a day.
The law makes it difficult for the police to prosecute them — a given person would need to be caught and prosecuted once for multiple crimes (that were probably committed in multiple districts, etc.).
Even then, with all that effort, they get to bust someone for shoplifting.
They could go after the leaders of the organized crime groups. I wonder why they haven’t.
The standard approach is to charge the lackeys and have them roll on their superiors. If the only threat to the lackeys is a slap on the wrist, they’re not going to rat out anybody.
[1] https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2020/11/17/down_here...
And in places like Costco, if you want to buy a gift card you bring a cardboard token from the aisle up to the register. They ring you up and instruct you to take your receipt to a special room where they fetch the real gift cards after verifying your receipt.
1. Perp steals the inactivated gift card, takes it home
2. At home, they scratch off the activation code, record it, and re-apply some scratch off coating
3. They reverse shoplift the gift card and return it to the store
4. They then set up some script to continuously try the gift card activation code
5. Legitimate customer buys and activates the gift card
6. Perp now gets access, and drains the funds before the legit customer can use them
1. Require a CAPTCHA when attempting to redeem a gift card's code
2. If someone has tried to redeem an unactivated gift card's code before, the point-of-sale system should refuse to let that gift card ever be activated, instead telling the cashier to throw it away and get the customer a different one
Someone trying inactive code repeatedly is a huge red flag.
Lots of things that are trivial simply do not occur.
Or it could just be that they want to have a big display with cardboard logos that will catch the attention of shoppers.
- https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GSXubTkd6ak/UxxWpzd4E8I/AAAAAAAAI...
- https://jetsettlersmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/dr1.jp...
- https://www.colonialzone-dr.com/images/Colmado-Pilona-Colmad...
The West coast is lacking in small independent convenience stores. Something like the land got parceled out and ballooned in value before the thrifty shop owner types were able to set up at a cost accessible to a private citizen. Thats my guess at least.
https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/13/19795398/redbox-kiosks-cl...
The pivot to only renting DVDs came shortly afterward.
In the case of Portland, there is a problem where there are virtually no independent mom & pop corner stores and rightfully no one really cares if the earth's 20th most profitable corporation gets looted.
$950 seems extremely high as the threshold for punishment (especially considering many crimes won't be caught and prosecuted), but also how can you shoplift $950 worth of stuff at a Walgreens?
They had an entire warehouse full of product: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
Prop 47 made this the threshold for a Felony. Misdemeanor shoplifting can still be up to 6 months in prison. In practice it's not, but that's something to take up with the police, prosecutors, and judges.
The judges could reduce sentences if these cases ever got in front of them, but in reality they never have the opportunity to weigh in.
Prop 47 reduced certain categories of crimes to misdemeanors. You can be sentenced to up to 12 months in prison for a misdemeanor, which seems like plenty for shoplifting. If nothing else, a year in jail prevents people from shoplifting for that year, and they probably would be less likely to do it openly the second time.
It's the "broken window" theory. Ignore minor crimes and you just create an environment that encourages more serious crimes.
It doesn't necessary have to be fenced via a criminal org.
A certain pocket sized paint tube from hobby lobby sells on Amazon for 10$.
Criminals who are above the level of drug user/shoplifter, like a dealer, for example, can and do have to time to set up shops and sell online.
Its all part of the larger hustle.
If it makes money, they do it.
Traditional economics and game theory all apply, its not following the law that differentiates the criminal.
Criminals are extensively aware of sentencing of crimes. Its one of the main subjects of conversion in jails. I know this from being acquainted with many criminals as a result of taking drugs for many years. "That's theft over 1000, Bubbles" -Trailer Park Boys
[Shoplifters Steal from Walgreens in San Francisco Unimpeded.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLbvtRIo3i8)
[Customer Seen Jumping Over Counter to Shoplift at Walgreens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FmN4e1fNUo)
[Sting Operation Busts Professional Theft Ring With Millions In Stolen Merchandise](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8iKPRYfugA)
It's becoming clearer by the day how bad policies and lack law of enforcement is degrading the Bay Area and is driving people away in droves.
A while ago drug courts were popular. Then someone realized that in order for drug courts to work, you have to charge people with drug offenses. So they stopped sling drug courts.
It’s dumb.
- City expands, lots of jobs, people move there
- City is mismanaged, middle class flee, city gets worse
- City stagnates for a while and either dies or makes a comeback
- Rinse and repeat
their "restorative justice" policy is sending criminals back to the streets as soon as they're arrested
https://www.zenger.news/2021/02/16/jogger-killed-by-repeat-o...
I’ve seen people in the middle of a mental health episode wander in, and a security calmly “manage” them until the pharmacist can figure out and fill their prescription.
These are literally medical facilities being shut down - facilities that serve those most in need.
If 17 reproductive health clinics shot down, the feminists would be up in arms.
If 17 HIV clinics shut down, gay rights activist would be up in arms.
These pharmacies provide birth control, plan b, HIV medication, etc.
Not to mention COVID vaccines …
This is a crisis, not an inconvenience.
Hmm while I agree with you this is a crisis, but to directly relate feminists to birth control and gays to HIV treatment will raise some eyebrows.
To pretend it never happened is to deny credit where credit is due.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-souther...
Regarding my comment about gay rights groups and HIV, I was specifically thinking of ACT UP: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP
People want the homeless to simply go away and die quietly somewhere, but no, people need to survive, and if need be petty theft is the way to continue living. People need food and people need to fed their chemical addictions. With the lack of services theft is an answer.
If people don't want to experience petty theft well then we need to ensure that every person has food and housing. Create a safe supply of free prescribed drugs so that people don't need to steal to get cash to buy drugs from the street.
These are simple solutions but of course they cost money, so if your top priority is keeping taxes low, well they're impossible and so the status quo of systemic poverty, misery and crime continues.
Source: I ran out of money in CA in 2009, ended up homeless.
Can you take advantage of the landlord by not paying rent for several months? Sure. But that's not a social safety net. It's an inefficiency in the system that will screw you if you use it, kind of like overdrawing a checking account & calling it free money.
I know that the status quo of not housing people is not going to solve homelessness.
If California feels it is "tapped out" of taxing its citizens and yet is unable to build housing to house its population, maybe it needs to have a look at what it's spending its money on.
(Of course the fact that Prop 13 exists means there's plenty of more tax room...)
What are you talking about? San Francisco has one of the most comprehensive, robust, and we'll funded social safety nets in america, and probably on par with some Scandinavian countries. The amount of resources spent per homeless and crime-commiting citizen is world class. What do you think is missing in terms of social safety net?
If the safety net was good you would not have street homeless.
As if is not stealing if you are a druggie or homeless.
It's arguably a different thing if you're stealing out of necessity or because you're systematically stealing in a large fashion for personal enrichment. Yes, both is a loss, but the latter one is arguably more malicious.
That being said, if stores need to close down because your homeless/addict population is so large that they're basically raiding the stores, you have a far bigger problem on your hands.
But sure, you're welcome to be as cynical as you'd like.
After all the public bathrooms were eliminated, the city made an app so you can send them pictures of human feces. That way they can send someone out to clean it up. I guess that’s cheaper than maintaining actual restrooms.
The reason public bathrooms were eliminated is because they become dens for heroin use. Always fun going to the bathroom with your kids to find druggies rolling on the floor with heroin needles scattered about. How do you maintain a bathroom with homeless people injecting heroin? You need police for that, not simple bathroom cleaners. I'm ultra leftist, but this degeneracy of enabling drug addiction and encouraging crime and homelessness only serves to produce more crime, more homelessness, and more suffering.
In European countries, it’s quite common to find public bathrooms with attendants who charge a nominal fee.
In Japan, public bathrooms are common and amazing. (Public trashcans are a different story.)
In cities near SF (excluding Palo Alto), perfectly nice public bathrooms are common in parks.
The sad truth is the easiest way for a homeless person to get a place to sleep and a reliable food supply is to be incarcerated. It is something I don't hear a lot of people talking about but a non-trivial part of our absurdly large prison population are people who habitually reoffend because they have nowhere else to go to begin with. Once you've got a criminal record and you already have no support system on the outside, breaking the cycle is damn near impossible.
We end up paying for it either way so it is a problem worth addressing, at least in my opinion.
I don't live in SF, but homeless shelters are oftentimes disgusting and terrible places. I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to stay in them if they can figure out other accommodations. Nonreligious based shelters sometimes provide very little in terms of hygiene/necessities/food, sometimes basically nothing other than a small cot or gym mat (aka no food, no shower, etc).
Religious shelters often require religious involvement. Forced praying as an example.
There is also the issue of frequent abuse/sexual assault in homeless shelters.
> Being homeless or poor is only an excuse for stealing if you cannot reasonably get your basic needs met in a legal way.
I don't really think shoplifting food to survive is an "excuse". Again, they're not stealing CD players.
If there was a specific location in which sexual abuse was prevalent, and you had to decide whether to go to that place or not, would you?
> Is it even logical to assume that there would be less sexual abuse in the streets than in a shelter?
Is this a serious question? "There is a place with a high percentage of sexual abuse, are you more likely to experience sexual abuse there or not-there?"
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
A specific account of sexual abuse in a shelter here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mayor-orders-probe...
There's plenty of reporting on it. As with all news, it's tough to get realistic accounts of what's going on in shelters because a lot of the people being asked are involved with shelter administration, so obviously there wouldn't be as much emphasis on the bad living conditions. Getting more info from actual homeless people would be helpful, but obviously the entire point is a lot of them are battling substance abuse issues and/or mental health problems, so there are complications on getting decent information out of them.
> Retailers attributed a majority of losses to professional thieves instead of opportunistic shoplifters who may be driven by poverty, with one CVS leader calling San Francisco a hub of organized retail crime.
> Although the majority of CVS shoplifting incidents in the city are by opportunists, Dugan said, professional crime accounts for 85% of the company’s dollar losses.
15 percent might be a sizable sum, but its clearly not the core problem here.