Skip Navigation
News @lemmy.world
MicroWave @lemmy.world

S.F. bakery won't serve cops, police union claims. Store says it's about the guns, not the cops

San Francisco’s police union says a city bakery chain has a “bigoted” policy of not serving uniformed cops.

The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. wrote in a social media post last week that Reem’s California “will not serve anyone armed and in uniform” and that includes “members of the U.S. Military.” The union is demanding that the chain “own” its policy.

Reem’s says, however, its policy isn’t against serving armed police officers. It’s against allowing guns inside its businesses.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
303 comments

  • Considering studies show dollar-for-dollar we can effectively do what good police do by putting their budget money in other services (mental health, welfare, etc), I'm ok with having a LOT fewer cops with a lot more limited mandate.

    • So this way not only will petty crimes not get solved but the bigger crimes will also go unsolved.

      • Honestly, I'm not super married to the idea of "solving" crimes. I would rather prevent 1 crime than solve 2. The idea that solving crimes is more important than preventing them only works for the punitive model of justice, one that I do not ascribe to.

        If we could cut the crime rate 90%, but the people who committed crimes went free, I'd still strongly consider it.

        That's despite the fact I don't agree that big crimes wouldn't get solved. Of over 650,000 police officers, only 10,000 are detectives, who are trained and tasked with solving crimes. That's a LOT of cops that solve crimes for a living at all. They "keep peace". Sometimes you DO need a cop to keep peace, when the most important thing is the presence of mitigating force. The rest of the time, a social worker is more effective.

        • What do you do for work, and how much time do you spend in depressed areas? I have seen babies shaken to death mothers cutting their wrists while their children are in the next room, people placing gasoline bombs in banks around town, a guy set his ex wife’s house on fire with her in it, a guy shot in the stomach for the cash in his register, a pregnant woman stabbed in the belly 9 times by a stalker abd Countless other awful things and for these reasons I am glad cops are working. Obviously there are douche bags. But the real world is really hard and at times evil. So without police and the idea of punishment I think it would be chaotic. There has to be a better way to deliver public safety and I am on board with it but for now it’s better than nothing.

          • What do you do for work, and how much time do you spend in depressed areas?

            I grew up adjacent to two cities with some of the highest crime rates in the US. The one that went easier on the cops and heavier on local programs and improvements had its crime rate plummet. The one that doubled-down on policing still has a gang problem (and drug OD problem) today. The former had the higher crime rate, including a street that hit the top 10 deadliest streets in the country.

            As for what I do, immaterial. But I live with emergency workers, and they are saints who put their lives at risk every day. They also don't like cops, but are afraid to say it because cops can fuck up their lives. Yes, sometimes they need cops for the direct prevention of a violent situation (see my point below), but as often the cops get in their way. They are required to obey a lawful order even when they're doing their job, and sometimes that costs a patient's life. Very often, accountability on that is more politics than justice.

            I have seen babies shaken to death mothers cutting their wrists while their children are in the next room, people placing gasoline bombs in banks around town, a guy set his ex wife’s house on fire with her in it, a guy shot in the stomach for the cash in his register, a pregnant woman stabbed in the belly 9 times by a stalker abd Countless other awful things and for these reasons I am glad cops are working

            How many of those didn't happen because of the cops' presence? The math (see below) says zero of them. If you could be confident that 50% defunding police and replacing them with social programs would cut the rate of those things substantially, what would your opinion be? More crime and more thugs to punish it, or less crime?

            I'd like to take note that everything you said in your last reply might be appropriate if I were some punk kid saying "let's get rid of all the cops in the world" or somesuch. I'm saying let's stop funding them beyond their need and stop trusting them to do the things they are not qualified for. Of all the horrible things you've seen, police still cause more deaths than they prevent, committing 5% of homicides themselves... while police budget and saturation does not have any detectable correlation to homicide figures. That means, $1 spent on policing causes a net increase to homicide rates.

            Again, that's NOT saying those figures would stay the same if we cut 90% or 95% or 100% of police funding, but they sure as hell would if we cut 30% or 40%, and if we reallocated that into programs that DO solve those problems? We have those programs. They're just underfunded by people who don't think we deserve free mental healthcare, free food, etc. EVERY $1 that goes into welfare does more to cut crimes than $1 into police.

            • Never in my above posts did I say the police are perfect and nothing needs to change I too have had dealings with some real shit police. Even if you cut the budget in half you are going to have a really hard time funding and finding people like social workers that want to do that job at 3am. I am all for it though if it’s possible. I am getting crushed because I said not all cops are monsters I definitely think the system needs to change.

              • I'm not sure you know what you're arguing. You seemed to get really defensive when I said we should reduce the police. So I explained why it is smart to reduce the police.

                It's a knee-jerk reaction for people who have experienced criminal behavior to want more police and harsher sentencing. Often times it helps to shake them out of it to discuss efficacy. To ask "what if more police and harsher sentencing doesn't work, or has the opposite effect?" Ultimately, you seem to want the same thing as me - less crime, less violent crime. So why not support things that are more likely to work over things that are less likely to work?

                Even if you cut the budget in half you are going to have a really hard time funding and finding people like social workers that want to do that job at 3am.

                You're not going to have a hard time finding/training social workers, and they tend to make less than half of what police officers do in most states. They actually spiked really high unemployment rates a few times, and the low demand and low wages of social work is the only thing keeping people from pivoting to that field. You are right about one thing. Social workers are actually required to be properly trained, unlike police (who often don't even know the law they're supposedly enforcing). But I guarantee if the funding showed up, the workers would as well.

                There is a part 2 to that of course. There are a lot of people who would more readily spend $1b in police than $1m in social work because "poor people don't deserve anything for free". But you talked like you care about violent crimes not happening, and you aren't getting that by maintaining the current huge police spend.

                I am getting crushed because I said not all cops are monsters I definitely think the system needs to change.

                I don't like the term "crushed". I expanded upon you saying "Cool let’s not have cops" with pointing out the value of changing from a police-oriented society to a solution-oriented society. Your points were:

                1. With fewer police, crime will go unsolved, to which I pointed out that only a tiny percent of police are tasked with solving crimes and pointing out that "solving crimes" means we failed to prevent those crimes from happening
                2. That you've seen horrible things, therefore we need to support police. To which I tried to dismantle that and show you that the police did not, and do not, prevent those horrible things from happening, including referencing (without citation I'm afraid. I was tired/lazy) studies that showed reduction in police funding does not actually increase crime rates.

                I'm sure other people are giving you more harsh replies, but I'm sticking to just the facts of the situation. In most (but not all) situations, the need for police represents failure by society to do something, something they could have done cheaper without the police. The #1 such failure is insufficient welfare and safety nets, that benefit far more per-dollar to reduce crime than police ever will.

                A small "response" crew dealing with volitile situations like a domestic disturbance being escalated beyond the scope of a social worker, and a smaller "combat" crew dealing with things like hostage situations and ultra-high-risk situations... that's mostly all the police need/do that could effectively protect us. Hell, you don't even need a guy with a gun to handle most common infractions like DUIs.

303 comments