Thanks for the interview. It wandered here and there and I’m not sure what the shot at the Supreme Court’s decision has to do with anything. (I think the Court’s decision was wrong btw). Here’s my gripe. We have the Commission we have. I’d love a turnover of Commissioners as much as the next person. But that’s not happening any time soon. This problem needs some light (and maybe some heat). Every time I read about this stuff, I read that the Chief is accepting these reforms. And maybe when push comes to shove, he has to. But I’d suggest that rather than shrug his shoulders and say, hey, we’ll police with the tools we are given, that the Chief publicly air this stuff. He’s not an elected official, I get this, but he has to know that there is an increasingly un-silent majority of people who simply do not get why SFPD can’t crack down on car theft with the resources it has. This stuff needs to be aired publicly and not at 10 am on a Tuesday publicly. And the Mayor should join the Chief. And so should the Supervisors. If they think this is all mistaken. And if they do not, they should say that and run on that in 24. But to date, we have a problem which the Mayor and BOS either deny is a problem (“crime is down”) or they just pass the buck to these unelected Commissioners. Which is a great re-election strategy but meanwhile nothing gets done, tourism plunges and we all just say, well, don’t leave stuff in your car. Go right to and from your hotel and do not stop on the way ever - 5 minutes in Alamo Square with a suitcase in your car is 5 minutes too many. It’s insane the extent to which we’ve defined deviancy down here.
Thanks Erica and Lou - You've managed to condense and clarify a complicated relationship between the Mayor, the BOS, this Commission and the other one.
Unlike Lou - who learned it from living it, most of us learned it from watching TV, and reading news stories of real life cases.
It seems there should be a Police Commission with similar responsibilities, but it should be the top management of the Dept. including administering Internal Affairs. And it should be strongly pro police, and pro public safety, and not in anyone's pocket = the Mayor or the BOS, or the POA union.
Being a form LEO should not be a requirement to serve on this commission, but being anti law enforcement should be a definite reason to reject a person.
Whatever SOP rules and requirements the commission wants to consider should be openly debated, and vetted for constitutionality, police officer safety, and public safety. There should be no shortage of qualified experts like Lou retired and active duty officers, academy instructors, and APJ professors who could help with facts and experience that would drive best practices. Copying or stealing the best of proven ideas from other departments/agencies in state and nationally should be encouraged and expected. If the field officers aren't part of the decision how to do their job, then there is likely to never be 100% buy in to following the commission's rules.
Does the Dept. the employees need the Commission, or does the Commission need the Dept's employees?
If the Mayor would as the news and social media outlets to conduct a public poll on this subject, here are the Qs I'd like to see asked;
1> S.F. has a 7 member Police Commission which is currently appointed by the BOS.
Would like to leave is just as it is, or would you prefer to have the BOS pass a Charter Amendment
to make all Commissions subject to election by the voters at large (not by Districts)?
2> If you believed that SFPD was not out to get you, but actually out to protect you.
Would you approve of Commissioners scrapping anti LEO rules that prevent effective police work,
and make the SFPD once again attractive for cadet candidates and transferring LEOs?
3> Do you believe that a city with some 900,000 residents of which maybe 3% are Black, benefits
from having leadership which fails to reflect both the majority or larger groups of residents, and
also has the competency to most effectively lead?
4> When you hear that SFPD can't do anything to deter and stop crime, and homelessness, do you
believe it, or do you think political decisions are preventing effective policing?
Personally - I want to see the SFPD grow to a size where the can run three full shifts providing enough
street experienced officers to not cover each shift like Swiss Cheese, but cover the City like a blanket.
I want our police trained to de-escalate, even to strategically disengage at times, and to fight if needed, armed with both proven low tech tools, as well as the high tech innovations. Understanding that the time for an officer to react to a suspect who suddenly produces a gun is too short in seconds, the risks of an I felt threatened shooting are extremely high when officers go in ready to shoot first. Certainly there are times when that is 100% appropriate, not that is not 100% of all contacts.
From the public's perspective, SFPD needs to address the terrible optics of either shooting a person who has no gun, or has a knife and can be disarmed. And the outrage that brought the DOJ to town was the perception of a firing squad on City streets. That's not professional, necessary, nor justifiable.
Lastly is the mundane dealing with common drunks who unsurprisingly occasionally fail to cooperate, and even resist arrest. SFPD should not be breaking bones unless they actually being viciously attacked. A review of the City's very long list of settle lawsuits should easily identify these types of cases.
Conclusion: Could SFPD be in even worse shape than it is now? Absolutely. And if these clowns are
not all replaced ASAP, and the SFPOA doesn't come to the party to help instead of just
milking the old cash cow, it will definitely get worse. And it can get much worse!
Fantastic interview and totally outrageous
Thanks for the interview. It wandered here and there and I’m not sure what the shot at the Supreme Court’s decision has to do with anything. (I think the Court’s decision was wrong btw). Here’s my gripe. We have the Commission we have. I’d love a turnover of Commissioners as much as the next person. But that’s not happening any time soon. This problem needs some light (and maybe some heat). Every time I read about this stuff, I read that the Chief is accepting these reforms. And maybe when push comes to shove, he has to. But I’d suggest that rather than shrug his shoulders and say, hey, we’ll police with the tools we are given, that the Chief publicly air this stuff. He’s not an elected official, I get this, but he has to know that there is an increasingly un-silent majority of people who simply do not get why SFPD can’t crack down on car theft with the resources it has. This stuff needs to be aired publicly and not at 10 am on a Tuesday publicly. And the Mayor should join the Chief. And so should the Supervisors. If they think this is all mistaken. And if they do not, they should say that and run on that in 24. But to date, we have a problem which the Mayor and BOS either deny is a problem (“crime is down”) or they just pass the buck to these unelected Commissioners. Which is a great re-election strategy but meanwhile nothing gets done, tourism plunges and we all just say, well, don’t leave stuff in your car. Go right to and from your hotel and do not stop on the way ever - 5 minutes in Alamo Square with a suitcase in your car is 5 minutes too many. It’s insane the extent to which we’ve defined deviancy down here.
Thanks Erica and Lou - You've managed to condense and clarify a complicated relationship between the Mayor, the BOS, this Commission and the other one.
Unlike Lou - who learned it from living it, most of us learned it from watching TV, and reading news stories of real life cases.
It seems there should be a Police Commission with similar responsibilities, but it should be the top management of the Dept. including administering Internal Affairs. And it should be strongly pro police, and pro public safety, and not in anyone's pocket = the Mayor or the BOS, or the POA union.
Being a form LEO should not be a requirement to serve on this commission, but being anti law enforcement should be a definite reason to reject a person.
Whatever SOP rules and requirements the commission wants to consider should be openly debated, and vetted for constitutionality, police officer safety, and public safety. There should be no shortage of qualified experts like Lou retired and active duty officers, academy instructors, and APJ professors who could help with facts and experience that would drive best practices. Copying or stealing the best of proven ideas from other departments/agencies in state and nationally should be encouraged and expected. If the field officers aren't part of the decision how to do their job, then there is likely to never be 100% buy in to following the commission's rules.
Does the Dept. the employees need the Commission, or does the Commission need the Dept's employees?
If the Mayor would as the news and social media outlets to conduct a public poll on this subject, here are the Qs I'd like to see asked;
1> S.F. has a 7 member Police Commission which is currently appointed by the BOS.
Would like to leave is just as it is, or would you prefer to have the BOS pass a Charter Amendment
to make all Commissions subject to election by the voters at large (not by Districts)?
2> If you believed that SFPD was not out to get you, but actually out to protect you.
Would you approve of Commissioners scrapping anti LEO rules that prevent effective police work,
and make the SFPD once again attractive for cadet candidates and transferring LEOs?
3> Do you believe that a city with some 900,000 residents of which maybe 3% are Black, benefits
from having leadership which fails to reflect both the majority or larger groups of residents, and
also has the competency to most effectively lead?
4> When you hear that SFPD can't do anything to deter and stop crime, and homelessness, do you
believe it, or do you think political decisions are preventing effective policing?
Personally - I want to see the SFPD grow to a size where the can run three full shifts providing enough
street experienced officers to not cover each shift like Swiss Cheese, but cover the City like a blanket.
I want our police trained to de-escalate, even to strategically disengage at times, and to fight if needed, armed with both proven low tech tools, as well as the high tech innovations. Understanding that the time for an officer to react to a suspect who suddenly produces a gun is too short in seconds, the risks of an I felt threatened shooting are extremely high when officers go in ready to shoot first. Certainly there are times when that is 100% appropriate, not that is not 100% of all contacts.
From the public's perspective, SFPD needs to address the terrible optics of either shooting a person who has no gun, or has a knife and can be disarmed. And the outrage that brought the DOJ to town was the perception of a firing squad on City streets. That's not professional, necessary, nor justifiable.
Lastly is the mundane dealing with common drunks who unsurprisingly occasionally fail to cooperate, and even resist arrest. SFPD should not be breaking bones unless they actually being viciously attacked. A review of the City's very long list of settle lawsuits should easily identify these types of cases.
Conclusion: Could SFPD be in even worse shape than it is now? Absolutely. And if these clowns are
not all replaced ASAP, and the SFPOA doesn't come to the party to help instead of just
milking the old cash cow, it will definitely get worse. And it can get much worse!