There is a quote I love from a Mr. Maves from a debate on a crime bill in Ontario, Canada.

Crime will expand according to our willingness to put up with it.

He was 100% right.  As long as people are willing to look the other way, crime will get worse.

New York was far safer in the early 2000’s because Mayor Rudy Giuliani was not going to tolerate anything.  Now that Bill de Blasio is willing to tolerate homeless pissing on the streets, crime has gone up.

London is now more dangerous and New York city because the mayor is willing to put up with criminals getting away on mopeds if they are not wearing helmets.  What he will not put up with is the majority of Wikipedia editors being men.

Only 17% of Wikipedia biographies are of women, which means countless women’s achievements are missing online. We held a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to get more women’s stories on this crucial site. Thank you to all who took part @Bloomberg @WikimediaUK #BehindEveryGreatCity #LTW pic.twitter.com/H2wwR9vbM2

— Mayor of London (@MayorofLondon) June 12, 2018

San Francisco is having an epidemic of car breakins. Over 30,000 in 2017, over 80 per day.

Many of them target tourists.

It seems as though the residents of San Francisco, at least some of them, are sick of it.

So what is one of the problems?

Well, in the state of California, if a car is unlocked and a person breaks in, than it is a misdemeanor.  The the car is locked and and window is broken, it is a felony.

BUT… a smashed window and broken glass is not evidence of a felony.

Nope, the victim has to testify that he or she did in fact lock the car.  No, I’m not kidding.

New Bill Seeks To Deter San Francisco Vehicle Break-Ins

Senate Bill 916 would allow prosecutors to prove that a defendant committed an auto burglary if the burglar broke a window in the vehicle, which to date has been deemed insufficient to get a conviction.

Under current law, one of the elements prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the vehicle was locked, according to Wiener’s office.

But there are situations that make that hard to do. An offender could break a window and then open the door and leave it open after a break-in. An offender could also break a window and the victim could forget whether they locked the door.

“Common sense would tell you that, if you have broken glass, obviously someone broke into the vehicle,” said SF District Attorney George Gascon. “This is a crime of opportunity, but a crime for organized gangs that has very little consequences.”

Throw in the fact that a tourist would have to return to San Francisco to testify in court that he locked his car and there is no chance of getting a conviction and under those circumstances any attorney would tell his client to plead down.

In those cases, a victim may be unavailable to testify whether the door was locked.

“We want to really clarify, that if the prosecution proves you bashed in the window to a car to get in, you’re guilty,” said Wiener.

Like I said.

So, part of the fix is to make a smashed window prima facie evidence that the door was locked and the crime is a felony.

So what did the California legislature do?

Car break-in crackdown bill made perfect sense. California lawmakers killed it.

Yep.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and District Attorney George Gascón teamed up in January to propose closing the loophole by ensuring that forcible entry into a vehicle for the purpose of stealing items from inside it would constitute unlawful entry. That would mean smashed windows would count as proof, and the victim wouldn’t have to come to court. Sounds pretty obvious, right?

The bill, SB916, made it through the Senate’s Public Safety Committee unanimously, but the Senate’s Appropriations Committee killed it. And under the weird way that committee works, bills can die behind closed doors, and the members aren’t under any obligation to say why. Wiener is on the committee but said the group never even discussed it.

So there is a severe problem in San Francisco and the state won’t even discuss a tiny improvement to the system.  Why not?

“We had essentially no opposition to it,” he said. “But there’s a strong belief not just in the Legislature but by the governor, too, that we should be cautious about expanding criminal liability. It’s a challenge we have to overcome.”

NO. FUCKING. SHIT.

The sanctuary state of California is the mecca of anti-cop social justice.  California is where coffee shops advertise that they won’t serve police.  Churches say that they won’t ever call the police again.  A news paper publishes an OpEd telling white people to stop calling the police on black people when they (whites) see black people breaking the law or being suspicious.

Why would California give the police more power?

They won’t.  If the legislature is going to do anything, it is going to make it even harder for police by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

And how is all this working out for San Francisco?

Expand criminal liability? That would imply criminals are being held liable at all. Let’s review. Last year, there were 31,122 reports of car break-ins in San Francisco. Less than 2 percent of those led to arrests. And even less were prosecuted.

Dystopian hell-hole.  Got it.  I guaran-fucking-tee that these same people who are tired of being victimized will go out and vote for the same people who favor the criminals over the victims.

Crime will expand according to our willingness to put up with it, the legislature of the Golden State is willing put put up with just about anything as long as they keep getting elected, and the voters are willing to put up with it more than they are willing to vote for someone who isn’t a far Left wing progressive.

And that is why California is the way it is.