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.

  • dtc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know every time I’ve had something stolen and filed a police report I have not even once had my stolen shit returned. They don’t even call back after weeks to say “hey we didn’t care enough to follow any leads, good luck”.

    And yet they take every fucking chance they can to write my as many moving violations as possible, whether or not they apply.

    The police don’t serve the people, never have.

      • MajorJimmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fuck the officer for going along with it. They can quit and find a different job that doesn’t make them out to be a piece of shit like the rest of us. Nobody forces them to become a cop, but by choosing to become one, they’ve branded themselves as part of that fucked up system. That’s on them. ACAB

          • abraxas@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • smattering82@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • abraxas@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • smattering82@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • abraxas@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.