“Chief of Police driving the wrong way up McKinley in front of Whole Foods at rush hour before knocking over a lamppost and giving chase on foot.”
Absolutely terrible risk management here. For what? Some negligible dollar amount of food taken from a multi-billion dollar company? Not advocating shoplifting of course but can we qualify the response a little bit?
From which budget will the funds be taken to pay for the pole? Where could that (assumedly taxpayer) money gone instead?
Everyone in town knows how crazy that area gets around that time with traffic. How the chief didn’t consider this and instead tried to play cops and robbers and act like a cowboy is fairly disqualifying.
Did we ever get clarity on the issue he had in his last role that resulted in him no longer working there?
Laura - can you please get the formal SPD guide or directive on when to pursue chases like this? I can’t imagine this is in there.
Couldn't agree more- this " hot pursuit" was not worth risking additional public harm. Who's paying for that lamp-post? This food thief- who is likely low income or poor on resources- you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Thankfully, there's no additional blood shed here.
Unless he's a rapist or murderer, I stand by my statement. Is it worth more possible bloodshed to apprehend this guy in the moment? The cop wrecked his card into a light pole, destroying public infrastructure while driving the wrong way down a one way street that is typically very busy with cars and pedestrians as well. Sorry I don't see it as a worthy pursuit in this way for a misdemeanor crime *which I am NOT condoning, for the record.
More bloodshed? Who was bleeding? He didn't wreck his car. Get the facts! Public infrastructure isn't a light post. Well, obviously the street wasn't busy at all or there would have been a pile up.
"Poor food thief?" Good lord. Our society is so doomed if we continue to coddle and "victimize" criminality. I have lived in Bay area for nearly 40 years and watched SF go through this same sort of inane "Criminal Coddling" and watched all of our Walgreens and entire retail landscape become an embattlement of plexiglass. Ironically, it just forces more people to buy from Amazon, the very "Villain" you claim to want to "stick it to." Study recent public policy and you see similarly-minded people, probably with reasonably good intentions, who tinkered and experimented with "decriminalizing." And what we learned is that it lead to organized gangs of shoplifters utterly PILLAGING with impunity in brazen documented attacks, and it happened routinely, nearly ruining Union Square and other shopping districts that are vital to a city's revenue and sense of safety and well being. In SF the entire Retail base was decimated, and, moreover, we developed a reputation all over the world for the awful stuff that "happens when unchecked blue areas run amuck" with bad policy. It was an unmitigatedly disastrous policy to decriminalize shoplifting and celebrating and defending it is so detrimental to our society. It was these same wrongful policy ideas and attitudes that turned SF and other once beautiful cities into a ruinous Batman Dark Knight movie. The city has RIGHTFULLY gone back to policing and DETERRING this type of behavior and crime is way down, they're using drones to chase people peacefully, and, Lurie's approval rating has been at almost 80%. In short, we learned that policing and DETERRING is vital to public health. Your attitude around it is very "vintage" and harkens back to 2014, when Prop 87 was passed. We all thought it sounded great at the time. But 10 years later it was clear to the vast majority of San Franciscans and bay are residents that it was an abysmal failure. We even flat-out recalled Chesa Boudin, the architect of it all! Lessons were learned! Victimizing criminals and villainizing whole foods or any company doing business in our town, along with villainizing law and order is the same kind of thinking that nearly ruined the beautiful, once globally admired city of San Francisco. I get where you're coming from. Most of us do. (again, we all voted to try it with Prop 87 and it FAILED.) If we encourage stealing, just because it's from a company that makes a lot of money the celebration of stealing as "virtue" ruins society and rots the social contract and moral compass that's vital for a healthy community.
I meant poor in the sense of low income. I’m not advocating for someone to steal- but I am questioning the response here and suggesting that it was beyond the level of risk worthy.
This poor food thief, are you serious? He has an extensive criminal record! So many people have been raging about the thefts at Safeway and our Chief and officers are doing their jobs and now you are complaining about that?
Thanks for this. Looks like both were developed prior to the new chief joining the department. I have to wonder if he has come up with his own plan or will commit to adhering to what’s in the 2024 document.
I appreciate the update and don't think you are taking a side by the brevity of it. What I say isn't at you.
How many unhoused have an extensive criminal record, just by being unhoused, addicted, struggling, etc.? The extensive criminal record isn't a justification for repeatedly and irresponsibly putting innocent people in harm’s way.
The city has an ordinance regarding the exigent use of surveillance technologies.
(Ordinance SMC 8.80.040 requires a report to the City Council within 60 days of any exigent use of certain surveillance technologies, including Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs).)
We deserve the same reporting for his chases. Not any chase, but his, because he's the top of the department and we need to know who he's talking with to make risk assessments.
Why is it past police chiefs have not been involved in high speed chases in general- whereas this chief seems to have a monthly routine? Dukes of Hazzard comes to mind, but we're not in the rural south chasing hot rods.
High-speed chases for minor crimes. High-speed chases in his unmarked black SUV, outside the city limits. Is he one determining the risk to everyone without another live person that doesn't report to him, checking his assessment of that risk? That's how the law is written. What could go wrong if someone gets hurt or killed? Our insurance will cover it and the city pays $10k for a million-dollar lawsuit, again.
I'm no expert, but this seems like really poor risk management from the chief. I appreciate his commitment, but scary to know that the leader of our police is willing to drive into bicycles/pedestrians and oncoming traffic for non violent crimes. The consequences could have been so much worse.
Laura, maybe an article about the shoplifting epidemic in downtown Sebastopol and the steps finally being taken to at least slow it down. My understanding is the police have conducted a number of operations in stores that have been frequent targets. The fact one occurred at the moment the chief stopped for coffee indicates it is a common problem.
Shoplifting is often credited to Analy students and considered harmless. Obviously, shoplifting is also criminals taking advantage of a small town that doesn't have any cameras. During Covid we learned it was not poor hungry people, it was gangs from San Francisco. It is apparently still criminals, which is one reason the County DA is focusing a task force on stopping the problem.
We are all paying more in all our stores because of this. It also creates danger to the public if someone is even perceived as interfering with a shoplifter who may also have a criminal history of violence and does not want to be stopped. This may send a message to try somewhere else.
Recently, I watched a semi-truck come up McKinley and take out the traffic light, crosswalk pole, and the street sign and then drive away. Who paid for that damage. We might trust the Chief's judgement that it was safe, traffic has been light in town recently - which is strange. Speed limit there is very slow, the curve slows traffic and lights and sirens require people to stop and pull over. Perhaps the witness, who was contradicted by a companion, simply saw cars doing what they are supposed to do…pull over for siren and lights? At least now the city will cough up the money to replace an old light pole. The important thing is no one was injured and maybe that was because the Chief was careful and exercised good judgement.
So, this seems pretty not great:
“Chief of Police driving the wrong way up McKinley in front of Whole Foods at rush hour before knocking over a lamppost and giving chase on foot.”
Absolutely terrible risk management here. For what? Some negligible dollar amount of food taken from a multi-billion dollar company? Not advocating shoplifting of course but can we qualify the response a little bit?
From which budget will the funds be taken to pay for the pole? Where could that (assumedly taxpayer) money gone instead?
Everyone in town knows how crazy that area gets around that time with traffic. How the chief didn’t consider this and instead tried to play cops and robbers and act like a cowboy is fairly disqualifying.
Did we ever get clarity on the issue he had in his last role that resulted in him no longer working there?
Laura - can you please get the formal SPD guide or directive on when to pursue chases like this? I can’t imagine this is in there.
Disappointing to say the least.
Couldn't agree more- this " hot pursuit" was not worth risking additional public harm. Who's paying for that lamp-post? This food thief- who is likely low income or poor on resources- you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Thankfully, there's no additional blood shed here.
According to the update, the suspect had an extensive criminal record.
Unless he's a rapist or murderer, I stand by my statement. Is it worth more possible bloodshed to apprehend this guy in the moment? The cop wrecked his card into a light pole, destroying public infrastructure while driving the wrong way down a one way street that is typically very busy with cars and pedestrians as well. Sorry I don't see it as a worthy pursuit in this way for a misdemeanor crime *which I am NOT condoning, for the record.
More bloodshed? Who was bleeding? He didn't wreck his car. Get the facts! Public infrastructure isn't a light post. Well, obviously the street wasn't busy at all or there would have been a pile up.
How is the light post not public infrastructure? What is it then if not public property in the build shared environment that’s maintained by the city?
Fortunately no one ended up bleeding. Including the chief who’s an asset to our town.
"Poor food thief?" Good lord. Our society is so doomed if we continue to coddle and "victimize" criminality. I have lived in Bay area for nearly 40 years and watched SF go through this same sort of inane "Criminal Coddling" and watched all of our Walgreens and entire retail landscape become an embattlement of plexiglass. Ironically, it just forces more people to buy from Amazon, the very "Villain" you claim to want to "stick it to." Study recent public policy and you see similarly-minded people, probably with reasonably good intentions, who tinkered and experimented with "decriminalizing." And what we learned is that it lead to organized gangs of shoplifters utterly PILLAGING with impunity in brazen documented attacks, and it happened routinely, nearly ruining Union Square and other shopping districts that are vital to a city's revenue and sense of safety and well being. In SF the entire Retail base was decimated, and, moreover, we developed a reputation all over the world for the awful stuff that "happens when unchecked blue areas run amuck" with bad policy. It was an unmitigatedly disastrous policy to decriminalize shoplifting and celebrating and defending it is so detrimental to our society. It was these same wrongful policy ideas and attitudes that turned SF and other once beautiful cities into a ruinous Batman Dark Knight movie. The city has RIGHTFULLY gone back to policing and DETERRING this type of behavior and crime is way down, they're using drones to chase people peacefully, and, Lurie's approval rating has been at almost 80%. In short, we learned that policing and DETERRING is vital to public health. Your attitude around it is very "vintage" and harkens back to 2014, when Prop 87 was passed. We all thought it sounded great at the time. But 10 years later it was clear to the vast majority of San Franciscans and bay are residents that it was an abysmal failure. We even flat-out recalled Chesa Boudin, the architect of it all! Lessons were learned! Victimizing criminals and villainizing whole foods or any company doing business in our town, along with villainizing law and order is the same kind of thinking that nearly ruined the beautiful, once globally admired city of San Francisco. I get where you're coming from. Most of us do. (again, we all voted to try it with Prop 87 and it FAILED.) If we encourage stealing, just because it's from a company that makes a lot of money the celebration of stealing as "virtue" ruins society and rots the social contract and moral compass that's vital for a healthy community.
I meant poor in the sense of low income. I’m not advocating for someone to steal- but I am questioning the response here and suggesting that it was beyond the level of risk worthy.
This poor food thief, are you serious? He has an extensive criminal record! So many people have been raging about the thefts at Safeway and our Chief and officers are doing their jobs and now you are complaining about that?
Poor= no money. Not sympathy use of poor. I should choose a different word
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/SPD-Policy-Manual-Dec-2024-Updates.pdf
Earlier version is: https://sebastopol.planeteria-development.com/SebastopolSite/media/Documents/Police_Dept/SPD-Policy-Manual-April-2022.pdf
Thanks for this. Looks like both were developed prior to the new chief joining the department. I have to wonder if he has come up with his own plan or will commit to adhering to what’s in the 2024 document.
Sad the guy couldn’t just go to a food bank or something other than stealing. Hunger is a problem in America.
Update notes that the suspect had an extensive criminal record.
I appreciate the update and don't think you are taking a side by the brevity of it. What I say isn't at you.
How many unhoused have an extensive criminal record, just by being unhoused, addicted, struggling, etc.? The extensive criminal record isn't a justification for repeatedly and irresponsibly putting innocent people in harm’s way.
The city has an ordinance regarding the exigent use of surveillance technologies.
(Ordinance SMC 8.80.040 requires a report to the City Council within 60 days of any exigent use of certain surveillance technologies, including Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs).)
We deserve the same reporting for his chases. Not any chase, but his, because he's the top of the department and we need to know who he's talking with to make risk assessments.
Why is it past police chiefs have not been involved in high speed chases in general- whereas this chief seems to have a monthly routine? Dukes of Hazzard comes to mind, but we're not in the rural south chasing hot rods.
Because we now have a police chief who doesn't just sit behind his desk.
If only someone could hold him accountable?
High-speed chases for minor crimes. High-speed chases in his unmarked black SUV, outside the city limits. Is he one determining the risk to everyone without another live person that doesn't report to him, checking his assessment of that risk? That's how the law is written. What could go wrong if someone gets hurt or killed? Our insurance will cover it and the city pays $10k for a million-dollar lawsuit, again.
Over food of all things.
I'm no expert, but this seems like really poor risk management from the chief. I appreciate his commitment, but scary to know that the leader of our police is willing to drive into bicycles/pedestrians and oncoming traffic for non violent crimes. The consequences could have been so much worse.
Laura, maybe an article about the shoplifting epidemic in downtown Sebastopol and the steps finally being taken to at least slow it down. My understanding is the police have conducted a number of operations in stores that have been frequent targets. The fact one occurred at the moment the chief stopped for coffee indicates it is a common problem.
Shoplifting is often credited to Analy students and considered harmless. Obviously, shoplifting is also criminals taking advantage of a small town that doesn't have any cameras. During Covid we learned it was not poor hungry people, it was gangs from San Francisco. It is apparently still criminals, which is one reason the County DA is focusing a task force on stopping the problem.
We are all paying more in all our stores because of this. It also creates danger to the public if someone is even perceived as interfering with a shoplifter who may also have a criminal history of violence and does not want to be stopped. This may send a message to try somewhere else.
Recently, I watched a semi-truck come up McKinley and take out the traffic light, crosswalk pole, and the street sign and then drive away. Who paid for that damage. We might trust the Chief's judgement that it was safe, traffic has been light in town recently - which is strange. Speed limit there is very slow, the curve slows traffic and lights and sirens require people to stop and pull over. Perhaps the witness, who was contradicted by a companion, simply saw cars doing what they are supposed to do…pull over for siren and lights? At least now the city will cough up the money to replace an old light pole. The important thing is no one was injured and maybe that was because the Chief was careful and exercised good judgement.