Aggressive robbery in Golden Gate Park on Thursday

Glad you're OK - what a messed up situation.

Geez.  Really sorry that happened.  What a crazy scenario!   

So what happens if you accidentally run them over with your car as you are trying to flee?  Maybe you accidentally back up over them, then in a panic, you don't realize they may still be under your car when you put it in drive and haul ass away?  Speed bump or human... couldnt tell it happened so fast.  Also, if they are driving aggressively, and you just happen to accidentally smash them or accidentally pin their asses against a tree or another car b/c you were trying to escape and felt threatened?  Assault is still assault and unintentionally harming someone that is making you fear for your life while trying to get away from said person still must be protected.  I think where the law becomes less popular is when people want to engage in vigilante justice.  All Im saying is that accidents happen when people are threatened.   

Sorry this happened to you, glad you're ok and you didn't lose any gear. London Breed is cool, but the rest of San Francisco's government is messed up. Chesa Boudin is a complete ass-hat. It used to be a nice city.

What ever you do to protect yourself, don't get caught with a CCW in SF.  You'd do more time that the thief.

Geez.  Really sorry that happened.  What a crazy scenario!   

So what happens if you accidentally run them over with your car as you are trying to flee?  Maybe you accidentally back up over them, then in a panic, you don't realize they may still be under your car when you put it in drive and haul ass away?  Speed bump or human... couldnt tell it happened so fast.  Also, if they are driving aggressively, and you just happen to accidentally smash them or accidentally pin their asses against a tree or another car b/c you were trying to escape and felt threatened?  Assault is still assault and unintentionally harming someone that is making you fear for your life while trying to get away from said person still must be protected.  I think where the law becomes less popular is when people want to engage in vigilante justice.  All Im saying is that accidents happen when people are threatened.   

I agree 100% but it seems like the law, at least in California, seems to be pretty ass backwards. Stuff that happens out of fear, even in our own homes have some serious consequences.  I agree, vigilante justice vs shit that happens in moments like these are completely different and should be treated as such.     

Chesa Boudin is doing all he can to ruin the city. He is definitely more concerned with protecting criminals than their victims. Hope the recall effort is successful.

Glad you didn't get robbed. It's a shame the laws and attitudes regarding crime are being rewritten and abandoned. Hopefully this trend will cycle back to favor hardworking law abiding people.

Wow. Glad you are alright.

Its just screwed up that people arent able to just walk down the street without having to look over their shoulders.

I was at turners sporting goods and they carry bear spray. May have consider purchasing some.

Would be fun to spray an attacker ,kick the crap out of him and drive off before the cops get there. Unfortunately as mentioned i would be the one charged.

This is a result of CA Prop 47.

In our expensive neighborhood, burglars broke into a house while the residents were inside (why not?), threatened them, stole their things, and ran away. And my neighbors’ wife still won’t let him get a gun. And as much as I understand her, if you’re asking me, this is the real problem; not the police.

This is the public face of the pissing match between the police union and Boudin.  Cops want you to be mad at the DA so don’t do their jobs.  DA is a feckless son of actual literal terrorists that refuses to enforce the rule of law at all.

What a shitshow.  Glad you’re physically unharmed.

This is a result of CA Prop 47.

No, I don’t think so in this case. A photogs equipment set is well beyond that threshold.

IE: “The law made some non-violent property crimes, where the value does not exceed $950, into misdemeanors. It also made some simple drug possession offenses into misdemeanors.”

I don’t find the described attack to be non-violent at all. Doug’s comment was interesting.

Ok, as a 25 year LEO, I gotta chime in here. There are a lot of issues to address so this may take a bit. Believe me when I say, your frustration is a fraction of what is felt by most of us in law enforcement. Especially those of us that have been around a minute.  As far as the crime you witnessed, yes, it is a property crime (vehicle burglary) which your STATE LEADERSHIP AND VOTERS have all but decriminalized.  It is still a felony but yes it is considered non-violent. For it to be Robbery (a violent crime) there has to be a theft by use of force (against a person) or fear. In this case you could make the case that the person would have been in fear but it is more meant to be used in the context of ‘give me the money or I will shoot you’. Even if you don’t see a gun a reasonable person would be scared. Again it is important to remember that this is not the officers doing, it is your state leadership and the laws they wrote.   These things are occurring more often because the punishment is a joke.  Again, not law enforcement’s fault (none of us in LE voted in support of these law changes.   Your state leadership came up with prop 47-decriminalizing many crimes, prop 57-early release for violent and non-violent criminals,  Pc 36- decriminalization of drug offenses, zero bail, you name it.  Your state leadership is making it all but impossible for LE to do their job. Add to that, state leaders are actively going after the law enforcement profession and you get a lot of cops that are scared to do anything. As far as the ‘evening they saw it occur, they wouldn’t chase them’ part, that is strictly a financial decision that many agencies are adopting (and this one I support completely).  If we chase someone and they crash into an innocent person, guess who they will come after? Is someone else’s family member worth recovering your camera?  The answer is no.  Regarding you shooting the person of you were armed, completely depends on how you articulate yourself.  If you see someone break into your car with a hammer and you shoot them, yeah it ain’t going to work out well for you. If the crook turns towards you with the hammer fire away. If you are inside the car they are attacking, you would probably be ok too.  Let’s see what else, as far as the cop leaving you there, yep, totally agree, that was chicken shit and unprofessional.  I tell my guys every day, 10 percent of people hate us and will hate us no matter what.  90 percent support us but treating them poorly can chip away at that number.  Anyway, just my 2 cents. I am going to end my rant here.   I have a lot more to say but I’m doing this on my phone and I have dumb thumbs which makes it hard.  Sorry this happened to you. Glad you made it through it.

Im no expert here but surely the 'hot pursuit' element would have resulted in some charges? They put you in significant danger in forcing you to flee at high speeds and trying to cut you off. That would be reckless endangerment to say the least, if not something worse.

Doesnt really change your situation now, but i dont think that officer was right in their assessment of this case.

‘Hot pursuit’ has nothing to do with this. It is a doctrine that allows police to follow a subject into a home if they are actively chasing them. There is no such thing as ‘reckless endangerment’ in California. There is reckless driving which is a misdemeanor.  Although I don’t have all the facts, the original poster did possibly describe what could be considered assault with a deadly weapon (automobile) but I would need more details. 

Grim Reefer -

Do you think the situation described here can be considered a robbery?
And if so, California law defines robbery as a felony.
Not a misdemeanor.

Furthermore, according to California law
“The use of deadly force in protecting property is authorized in the following circumstances:
In defense of habitation or property against one who intends, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony; or...”

So, if I’m being robbed, can’t I use deadly force against the attacker? And especially if the attacker turns from the victim to me, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume they are coming to hurt me or my property and I can use deadly force against them?

I know that if this were to happen, everything would be questioned in court, so I’m not asking about that. I’m asking if the above understanding is correct.