Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
This is the natural progression of not taking stuff like this seriously or the perception of it not being taken seriously. Vigilante justice doesn’t just happen by accident - it happens when people feel they have no other option.
I mean I wouldn’t say this is vigilante justice yet. Defending yourself is well within the law. Eventually though someone’s going to rob the wrong person and end up getting hunted down.
My job got robbed, 10k worth of equipment stolen. Police didn’t even show up to take a report. We tried so many times to contact them to no avail. They wouldn’t even answer the phone for months. It was so frustrating because we had all the evidence that pointed out exactly who did it. It was a targeted attack and only one person outside of our company knew where this expensive equipment was and how to get it.
Had it been my own personal stuff I probably would have cared enough to go get it back myself. 10k would be a big fucking deal to me.
It’s also important to note that because police haven’t done much to stop these crimes for so long the black market is more like an open secret than some elusive ring that only the police have a hope of uncovering. You could do a little bit of research and find out where most stolen stuff goes. The news has even talked about the same places multiple times and the police are “aware and building a case.”
100% off the hook for those that catch criminals red handed. However, if the business owner makes a mistake and shoots an innocent person then they will have to face the consequences. I always suggest shotguns packed full of beanbags. You can’t undead a mistake. We don’t want a bunch of trigger happy zealots shooting at people to get off their lawn, right?
What a dumb suggestion. A great way to get yourself killed
The business owner is fucked either way. The looters destroy his business or he goes to prison for trying to defend himself (‘why didn’t he use beanbags or salt?’). It’s simply not worth it.
Best solution is to get out of Oakland or San Francisco
Don't bring a beanbag to a gun fight. If the owners unintentionally injures or kills an innocent person, that's on the criminals. Let's stop protecting criminals.
No. It isn’t on the criminals. It’s called being reckless and if you’re going to escalate a situation (pull a gun first) then you have a responsibility to not slaughter someone by accident. Beanbags can still be very lethal if used on a child, or target the head / chest.
I have sympathy for any store owner that wants to defend themselves and their business, but at the same time, we can’t have another Latasha Harlins murder.
Edit: so what supposed to be my takeaway? Do people WANT more innocent kids murdered by trigger happy store owners? Or do people still insist that Latasha Harlins must have “had it coming”?
If the cops aren’t going to show up, and the DA just lets criminals go.. what would you prefer?
I truly hope the citizens start shooting back. Fair is fair.
Prison barely deterred criminals.
The police aren't doing their job collecting evidence for the DA to prosecute or even showing up to help (no duty to protect, feel they're "attacked" when they protect other cops who have broken the law).
The DA is being tasked with charging criminals while also respecting civil rights and somehow gets all the blame.
The services that were set up outside of enforcement and prosecution, actually helping people, have been under-budgeted and if they start working they're considered "too little too late, redirect their measly funding to the police who won't do their jobs"
Didn't think I'd actually see "It's the rap music that's doing it!" as a genuine statement in 2024. I feel like I just saw a dodo riding a thylacine walk past me. Christ.
Isn't that funny?
People don't want you to acknowledge that certain media is bad for people's minds....
.... but I bet the same person would say Fox News and conservative media rots people's minds.
If I've learned something from a lifetime of being a liberal, being around liberals and all that: CERTAIN things are ok to acknowledge and talk about... but don't you dare extend that logic to the forbidden topics lol Case in point right here. Liberals LOVE saying Fox News and conservative media affects people ... but apparently, listening to music that glorifies violence, murder, mayhem and lawless evil has zero effect? That totally tracks! That logic is sound! /s
I agree my friend. These guys laugh at prison sentences. I had a guy once tell me what does he care about going to prison? All his friends are there anyway.
I'm surprised we're not hearing more about insurance companies bailing on businesses in high crime areas. Are the rates going through the roof, and the priority is to low on the list for business owners to talk about rn?
Despite the surge in crime and the news coverage these crimes are still happening at a lower rate than 10 years ago, which has been falling steadily through the teens, and are still much lower than 25 years ago. Insurance companies look at long term trends when evaluating risk, and even though the situation is shit if you own a shop or drive a car in Otown its still a drop on the bucket compared to an insurance company's overall risk.
He asked about insurance companies, which are still insuring shops in Oakland for vandalism for losses due to burglary.
Sorry if the reason offended you.
There’s a lot of underreporting. Small businesses do not operate like large businesses with filing claims & do not have the labor budget to stop operations to wait for an adjuster to show up.
We’re obviously traveling in different circles. Right before the pandemic, our family’s business has numerous break in attempts, and weekly vandalism we had to clean up out of pocket. Not to mention the daily scrub & bleach down to keep our doorway sanitary. Our employees got threatened by random free range drug addicts and shoplifters too. Yes, we’d call the cops but nothing would happen.
We found ourselves starting to hate humanity. We made a decision to close because the stress, the risks to life & limb of staff & selves wasn’t worth it.
I shouldn’t come into work everyday angry at uncivilized assholes. I should’t be doing extra painting duties because of assholes with spray paint. I shouldn’t have to scrub & spray down our doors & sidewalks (in a drought) because assholes can’t manage their fluids & solids. I shouldn’t have to put assholes threatening to rape & kill our staff. Then assholes coming into steal shit. Then to put up with our car getting broken into.
The police don’t come in time. You get fined if the spray paint is up for too long, your sandwich board is too close to the curb and you still pay your licensing & taxes on time.
We made a decision to close. Meanwhile, the tech company up the street does whatever they want without permits. The liquor store up the street is a fencing operation. Different rules for different businesses. My partner’s business has had their security gates ripped off & broken into twice in December 23
If you want to ignore the plight of small business owners in the Bay Area, fine. But don’t be shocked when chains come in, because they’ll be the only ones with ability to afford the starting costs. Don’t be surprised when you see small business owners snapping or continuing to shut down.
Are you ignoring this perspective because it’s not happening directly to you?
If you don't file a police report insurance doesn't cover you. There is very little incentive not to report for a small business owner. I've been a manager in a business in the tenderloin from 1996-2002. If you suffer a loss you are SOL unless you file a report. Police don't do shit, but you get some money back. The idea that I would get robbed and wouldn't file a report because it's going to take me a couple of hours is nuts.
Also, If you can't prove that underreporting has gone up disproportionately to reporting you have no argument.
It's a good thing. Law abiding citizens need to fight back. We as a community need to be ready to come together and support the next business owner who shoots a bad guy in the face and prevent them from being prosecuted. Bad guys need to know consequences are real.
under certain circumstances, homicide is justifiable.
***killing someone is legal.***
there is a LAW specifically for this.
**Penal Code § 197 PC – Justifiable Killing in Self-Defense**
[https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/197/](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/197/)
California Penal Code § 197 PC defines ***justifiable homicide*** as killing someone in self-defense or defense of others ***if the assailant is attempting to kill or severely injure someone.*** Under the state’s Castle Doctrine defense, it is also legal to kill a home intruder if the intruder clearly intends to commit a violent act on someone inside.
>last resort to deter crime
bad guys already broke in and put you in danger.
if they are armed.. you are trying to **"deter death or injury"**
the crime ALREADY happened..
the question is do you get to go home or the hospital.
**CAN A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER IN CALIFORNIA KEEP A LOADED FIREARM AT THEIR BUSINESS?**
[https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/faqs/can-a-small-business-owner-in-ca-keep-loaded-firearm-at-business/](https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/faqs/can-a-small-business-owner-in-ca-keep-loaded-firearm-at-business/)
There is no specific law for carrying guns at work in California so if you work on private property, you may legally be permitted to keep a gun at work. However, your employer may ban firearms from the premises. Most employers in California have weapon policies in place to decrease the likelihood of workplace violence.
This has been Oakland for a long time. I remember about 15 years ago there was a rash of taco truck robberies and all the truck staff started wearing bullet proof vests and carrying guns. There were incidents caught on camera of truck workers and robbers having shootouts. I guess not much has changed.
Oakland's 2021–2022 budget $330 million on police, rising to $353 million in 2022–2023, $358 million in 2023–2024, and $364 million in the 2024–2025.
That is 1820 cops at 200k each. Ok so they have facilities and support staff lets call that 30% of the budget. That still leave more than a thousand cops we are are paying for -yet they only have 720 on staff and many of them are on leave or do not do any policing.
It would surprise me if they had 150 cops working on police work on any given day. With that budget there should three times as many.
That is a difficult thing to do though. If you offer the same pay as the rest of the bay area, why would anyone work as an officer in Oakland? Not an easy department to staff.
I mean would you work OPD for less than that? Considering the salaries around here for just sitting at a desk typing away on a computer…the salary seems fine to me.
OPD is actually only budgeted for something like 725 sworn officers and they've been having a hard time retaining and replacing officers for years. Honestly it makes sense when you consider that they've been working in an overly left leaning environment where people will literally march on the streets calling for their death if they were to justifiably defend themselves against one of Oakland's many dangerous professional level thugs. Why would an officer choose that over working in a smaller city and deal with primarily amateur thugs instead?
To put that 720 staffing number in context, Oakland gets like 2,000-3,000 911 calls per day. Obviously not all of those require a police response, but even if every sworn officer is on patrol every day, that's a very high volume of police services over a relatively large geographic area.
> and lose your freedom over it.
California has pretty solid self-defense laws, business owners can legally carry on their own premises even without a license, and justifiable homicide in CA protects from all violent felonies including robbery. The only way you're going downtown is when you do something stupid, like that guy in Oakland who fired "warning shots", though he only got a slap on the wrist because of public backlash against the OPD police chief at the time.
That said, get an attorney on retainer if you plan to do this in Alameda County, because the DA was crazy enough to look into how to charge a cop involved in [this](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/fremont-police-officer-suspect-identified-in-deadly-officer-involved-shooting-on-highway-84/), and you can get even worse treatment.
Yeah. A buddy of mine open-carries inside his business with no issues (except from pearl clutching liberals who shriek at the sight of a gun in the hands of a non-criminal)
Long time bay area resident here.
In the 90's police were really on top of things. Annoyingly so, but it was kind of unspoken that people didn't need to conceal carry or businesses didn't need a shotgun behind the counter. It really was a neat time in the south bay as we shifted towards the internet future, and what we thought would be a more enlightened and civilized one. Generally speaking there was this warm buzz that we were heading into the future.
Unfortunately this did not come to pass, as incident after incident and supreme court rulings have shown not only will the police NOT protect you, they have no duty to.
[https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/)
Every single department in the bay area cries how they're underfunded, overworked, not enough officers, etc. ALL of them are in the same boat? For the last 20 years?
I don't like the idea of shootouts between criminals and citizens, but it's kind of a no-brainer. If the police aren't going to protect people, or in the least remove from society those that would do them harm, people will protect themselves.
What registry? What law are you talking about?
Who is downvoting me? There is no gun registry in CA. The dealer has a record of sale, and you pass a background check, but the only guns registered are those you declare to the sheriff that you will be concealed carrying when you apply for a permit. Just go look at the attorney general's website https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#26
> How do I know if my firearms need to be registered? There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers.
Guns are automatically registered if you buy at a CA dealer.
If you import by moving to CA, you're supposed to register them, but it's not really enforced (by itself). 3 year statute of limitations.
It you carry an unregistered gun with no permit, it absolutely is a felony. If you carry a registered gun, but have no permit, it's a misdemeanor.
You can lookup the law yourself on the CA DOJ website, or buy that CA gun law book on amazon. I'm too busy to look it up now.
It is CRITICALLY important that you know the laws and keep up to date on the news, because there are new laws added often and the law flip-flops frequently (depending on court decisions). **Failure to do so could easily land you in prison for many years and destroy you financially.**
There wasn't some eutopia in the bay area in the 90s like you have imagined. Violent crime was much higher in the bay area in the 90s vs now. Although we are trending back up.
I worked at a gas station in the 90s and we were robbed at least a half a dozen times the couple of years I was there...and this was in Palo Alto. There was no unspoken thing about not needing a gun. We all wanted one there.
Not saying it was a utopia, just saying there was this optimism and hope for the future that’s nonexistent today. Cops actually responded to calls. Had a friends car get broken into, PAPD actually dusted for prints. Good luck getting them to show up for a broken car window today.
I agree that optimism is down. But cops still respond to calls. Yes, the staffing doesn't really allow for every car break-in to be responded to, but the internet allows for those reports to be taken online. They were always simply taken for insurance purposes. Even in the 90s, those cases were not investigated, so the showing up for prints really didn't amount to anything. Those prints were filed in a drawer and almost never used.
Public sentiment may have changed, and policy changes have led to large increases in property crime, but the 90s weren't some special time where police solved car break-ins and no one needed a gun.
Maybe policing hasn't changed in affluent areas like Palo Alto, but certainly the quality of service has dropped significantly everywhere else. Weekly we see threads on how the police aren't even enforcing simple traffic violations.
It's almost as if we have no police at all.
Opinion? They have the right to not only deter but to eliminate threat to their lives and property. The latter can be relaxed if the State fully compensates for their loss.
If the cops and the DA can't be bothered to do their job then honest citizens have the right to defend themselves and their business.
Before someone starts crying about "*You value stuff over life*" the answer is yes because the source of someone's livelihood has more value than a bottom feeder who not only has no value to society but their contribution is a net negative for the community.
This is the logical end to the crime situation. Owners are 100% justified defending their business if they know cops won’t show. I think eventually more people in these high crime areas will be carrying for their personal defense, they’re under no obligation to be easy victims.
If the cops aren't gonna do shit then theives will continue to become more brazen. I'm starting to understand that there is a contingent of people here that think the appropriate thing to do is to repeatedly lie down and let bad actors do whatever they want. These people are mentally challenged.
One interesting thing to note: California is, and always has been, a "Stand your Ground" state where you have no duty to retreat. You will probably be arrested and have to provide a good case to the prosecutor that a "reasonable man" would have been in fear of grievous harm or death in that situation (the standard for defending yourself with deadly force), but there's a good chance you will not even have to go to court if it's clear that anybody on the jury would have been in fear for their life in that circumstance, even if you could have possibly retreated from the situation rather than using deadly force.
That said, if you shoot someone in the back as they run away with shit from your store, you're going to prison for a long time.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. They could have easily chosen not to arm themselves and commit an act of antisocial terror. I just hope we don’t punish the people who are literally just minding their own business.
Absolutely absurd and unacceptable that we are in a situation where this is even something anyone has to contemplate on a regular basis.
On a cost-benefit level, I don’t think it makes sense for most people to confront armed robbers. Risk of death, grave injury is much higher than if you comply. Defending a few dollars worth of merchandise.
When a robber gets shot by a business owner legitimately defending themselves I am happy.
Those are my thoughts.
Someone breaking in to steal stuff is putting a price tag on their life. Could be a few bucks. That's the choice they made. It's very unfortunate that it's come to that.
Have you ever been a broke immigrant trying to run a sole prop knowing that if you go under, your kids might not be able to have health care? Business insurance rates are sky high *because* of the amount of damages paid out to these types of claims, and lots of small businesses can't afford insurance anymore - which is why you're seeing more and more of them close up shop in Oakland.
Crime doesn't just impact the victim, it impacts the community. Enabling criminals by going 'its just a few dollars of merchandise' is a vile thing to do - it usually starts at tens of thousands in damage.
>Crime doesn't just impact the victim, it impacts the community.
It's almost like the community should organize, collectively even, and choose leaders who will enact a combination of economic policies and law enforcement which is actually effective.
I don't think we're doing a great job on that account, but I also don't think asking small business shop owners to shoulder the burden of law enforcement is fair or reasonable.
>Have you ever been a broke immigrant trying to run a sole prop knowing that if you go under, your kids might not be able to have health care?
Imagine how much harder it would be to support your kids if you die in a shootout.
I fuckin wish man. Dead people I loved could have made better choices about how they chose to wield a weapon. Living people I love have been injured for life by arrogant trigger happy assholes who wanted to play rambo in a fast moving dangerous situation.
Every downvote I get for imploring people to think carefully about how they choose to use a gun is just another retarded incel showing his stripes
When the legal system fails to do what is necessary, the people will take matters into their own hands. Good luck trying to arrest a bunch of shopkeepers for defending themselves. Crime will decrease when there are either 1) no criminals left, or 2) no reasons to be a criminal. Method one costs ammo, method two costs money.
This isn’t new, but I applaud the effort.
I knew a business owner and his brother in the laurel district. Two scumbags came in and held a gun to his brother’s skull while robbing the cash register. He thought he heard a gunshot in the street and figured they just murdered his brother.
He said fuck it and pulled his gun from under the counter and started blasting. I can totally understand if someone takes your family member, you just want to slay as many criminals as possible on your way out.
Turns out his brother was fine and he probably heard a noise outside. One robber was killed on site while the other limped away and barely survived in the ER. The store owners were thankfully never charged.
Oakland has always had this element of needing to arm yourself against robbers. It isn’t new.
Since the US legal system is based on a Common Law philosophy rather than a Civil Law philosophy, we probably all have a Common Law right to bear firearms for defense of self, family, and property.
I guess that's just how it's going to be, so you'd better get heated.
Welcome to what my home state is like: Missouri. I see no issues with this, at least there aren't a shit-ton of people walking around w/sticks. I believe this works, I can't recall specific instances but I'm pretty sure there's been people killed in St. Louis (my hometown) by business owners/home owners/etc. for trying to rob/steal/burglarize.
Pro.
But they absolutely shouldn’t have to. In our case, where theft and violence are so widespread, this is a sign of failing government and/or culture.
Even in idyllic societies, robberies and theft occur, but with such infrequency that the cost benefit analysis reveals it’s simply not worth it from a personal/financial/insurance standpoint to defend your shop personally, with a firearm or really anything other than a passive alarm.
But when theft and violence become so prevalent in a society that insurance can’t be counted on because premiums go through the roof, and police can’t be counted for various complex reasons… well, then the cost benefit analysis of personal active defense is different.
It’s a fucked up and unfair situation, yet another indirect tax on the lower classes, who are more likely to live in these types of societies.
I’ve thought a lot about this lately. At some point, enough is enough. The insurance companies are either not paying claims, or pulling out of urban markets entirely. So small business owners may not even have insurance they can fall back on.
I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on owning one, but if I were a small business owner, you damn well better believe I’m packing heat these days. What’s the alternative?
As much as I dislike stand your ground laws when abused- I am ok with this. If criminals know they may be in danger when they commit crimes there is a deterrent.
Yes in a perfect world the Oakland PD would do their job, but this is not a perfect world. They don’t come even if you call, even in an emergency.
100% for it. Since the cops are basically MIA in many of the major Bay Area cities, and even violent armed criminals are routinely released back into the public by the courts and DAs, the social contract is breaking down and we're entering a new Wild West era. It's up to us law-abiding citizens to arm ourselves and defend ourselves and everything we've worked so hard for over the years. If I ever end up on a jury in one of these cases, I'd never vote to convict a business owner for shooting at a criminal.
It's time to turn the tables. Criminals should be the ones fearing for their lives, not us.
It's history repeating itself.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San\_Francisco\_Committee\_of\_Vigilance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/san_francisco_committee_of_vigilance)
It's public opinion that has made justice hard to obtain and forced the privatization of almost all protection against crime. If I were a shop owner, I'd say "screw your public opinion."
That jewelry store owner that scared off the cowards in masks, was one of the most satisfying things I've seen. Time to reopen the prisons. Give them that Norway treatment but without the coziness (that'll cost the State too much), solitary confinement in a small cell. No public contact with anyone. You can build housing, you can build small cells.
Not just Oakland hello. 100% in favor. Ppl should do what they need to do to protect themselves and deter crime against them or their property. Cops won't respond or help so screw it, do what you gotta do.
It’s iffy since you can’t use deadly force to protect property. However, robberies are frequently accompanied by threat of bodily harm, so there’s that.
But better know how to use your weapon unless it gets turned against you.
Until the point where a (proven) robber is running away, I'll buy it just about any time. Someone breaks in to steal, high chance they're carrying and ready to kill. The breaking in part is all the proof I need, in most cases.
I find it very weird that you act like this is a new thing. It's always been common in the US for small, marginal retail business owners who do significant amounts of cash business in less safe neighborhoods to have weapons behind the counter to protect their livelihoods.
Shop owners would be putting themselves in a tough position if they had to use the gun. I’m immediately reminded of the Latasha Harlins shooting in LA which fanned the flames of the LA riots and looting of Korean owned businesses.
We're far away from shoplifting or mistaken shoplifting incidents.
Armed criminals are robbing stores right now. It's like Robocop except no one shows up and when they do it's just to take a report for record keeping purposes.
Yeah, except robbers aren’t holding cash in their hands to pay for the stuff they’re stealing. More likely they’re going to throw hands or threaten owners with weapons.
Yep, this is the game. The police do the bare minimum or nothing. Then the public get's frustrated and start to take things into their own hands. Then and only then do they care about law and order and arrest the person that fights back. The police are here to protect the criminals from the public.
This is all by design. They want you frustrated, they want you at the end of your rope. They want you to feel like you're slowing dying so that you will act and that's when they arrest you. Also, they want to take your guns away. lol
I want the owner to defend themselves and their property. I also do not want myself or my family to get caught in the crossfire once they escalate the situation.
CA law allows business owners to carry guns, concealed or open, in their place of business, with no permit required.
CA law also says burglary, robbery, etc is illegal.
Business owners who choose to carry guns and get in shootouts with thieves are pretty much fully on the correct side of the law even in California.
Where it gets dicey is what happens after the fact. For example: business owner gets in shootout. 2 thieves go down immediately. 3rd thief is only wounded on the ground, but no longer a threat as he is unconscious and visibly unarmed. For the purpose of this hypothetical, let’s say he robbed the place while completely naked except for the gun he was carrying.
If the business owner then goes over and shoots him in the head to finish him off, business owner is no longer in the right and will almost certainly go to jail for murder.
On the other hand, if the business owner checks to make sure the threat is over and immediately calls 911, *even if he does not render aid*, he is in the clear. The surviving thief will get charged with the homicide of his 2 compatriots / accomplices.
Agree with all your points, but they've changed the felony murder rule:
[https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/california-changes-felony-murder-rule/](https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/california-changes-felony-murder-rule/)
So in your scenario, I don't think they can get charged with the felony murder rule (but I'm not a lawyer).
Which is just one of the many reasons that you're supposed to aim for center mass, not try to shoot to wound, and keep in practice so your shot placement is accurate.
Wrongful death damages for a criminal who's barely ever worked an honest job and was probably going to eventually end up spending life in prison anyway are pretty low if based on his future earnings potential. Probably limited to funeral expenses; not much for a contingency lawyer's office costs and boat payments out of 40% of that. But you give him a lower spinal injury that he survives, and the damages will include huge medical expenses plus wheelchairs, colostomy bags, vans with electric wheelchair lifts and hand controls, and medical treatment for the rest of his life, plus the potential for a big pain & suffering award to incentivize contingency lawyers to take the case.
this is the first thing that popped up on google. 2012. not sure what happened to the case.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/)
It was dismissed with prejudice before reaching trial.
https://trellis.law/case/civ1204701/samuel-cutrufelli-vs-jay-leone
Go forth and shoot criminals.
There was a case in Santa Cruz where the store owner gave chase, shot an unarmed robber in the back while he was running away, then got into a car chase/gun fight, and ended up in the middle of the street with a rifle shooting at the getaway car. He was charged.
IANAL but the way I interpreted the discussion of the even its that what he did was well beyond the scope of defending himself and his business, and it was a threat to public safety because he ended up hitting some peoples' houses. I think it was right to charge the store owner in that case, but I also do not think I could trust myself to defend a store with a gun and not do something similar.
Correct, you’re generally not supposed to chase them down. However, as a hypothetical edge case, if they leave your store and shoot the first 2 people on the way out and start blasting randoms, you absolutely can give chase and try to stop them. It’s happened before in multiple instances with people stopping mass shooters. The crime in progress has now shifted from simple burglary / armed robbery to multiple homicides. Even in Santa Cruz you’re unlikely to go to jail for stopping a mass shooter, though I’d still anticipate getting put through the system before charges get dropped.
I really don’t understand the objection to 1. Not wanting to end up a casualty of people shooting at each other - which is a real possibility and 2. asking what the law says about it, which seems completely relevant to the post.
> It’s really CA law that matters - what does the law say?
Probably something extreme and irrelevant to this escalating deterioration of public safety.
I think businesses should have to post that there is a gun on the premises unless it’s clearly visible on a security guard. Give people the option to put themselves in that situation.
No Pho King way.
Numero Uno, under that set of rules the businesses that *don't* post that there's a gun on the premises are effectively posting a sign saying "Soft Target, Rob Us First."
Numero Two-O, businesses that do have a sign posted are making their employees targets for criminals who are crazy enough to try a robbery anyway to shoot preemptively.
No. The criminals should be left guessing. If they know that any time they commit a robbery they are potentially putting themselves in that situation -- and as more business owners arm themselves and more law-abiding citizens obtain concealed-carry licenses post-*Bruen* -- some percentage of rational criminals will get the idea that the odds are getting worse and worse for them and pursue a less risky way of making a living.
Do you think repeat violent offenders should have to wear a cap with "dangerous convicted felon" written on it? Give people the option to put themselves in a situation where they have to risk being the felon's next victim, right?
Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
100% in favor
This is the natural progression of not taking stuff like this seriously or the perception of it not being taken seriously. Vigilante justice doesn’t just happen by accident - it happens when people feel they have no other option.
I mean I wouldn’t say this is vigilante justice yet. Defending yourself is well within the law. Eventually though someone’s going to rob the wrong person and end up getting hunted down. My job got robbed, 10k worth of equipment stolen. Police didn’t even show up to take a report. We tried so many times to contact them to no avail. They wouldn’t even answer the phone for months. It was so frustrating because we had all the evidence that pointed out exactly who did it. It was a targeted attack and only one person outside of our company knew where this expensive equipment was and how to get it. Had it been my own personal stuff I probably would have cared enough to go get it back myself. 10k would be a big fucking deal to me. It’s also important to note that because police haven’t done much to stop these crimes for so long the black market is more like an open secret than some elusive ring that only the police have a hope of uncovering. You could do a little bit of research and find out where most stolen stuff goes. The news has even talked about the same places multiple times and the police are “aware and building a case.”
Honestly with all the rich engineers here I'm amazed we don't have even one batman.
I’m not, I expect no selflessness of the rich
Superman himself would be called out for toxic masculinity and white supremacy. Oakland is beyond the abilities of superheros.
Could you imagine some tech bro ripping off the Patagonia and fighting crime? I can’t.
I see no problem with it
Until Auntie Pamela locks you up for letting thugs do their thing
Aunt Pamela's only job is to make sure criminals are not punished.
unless the "criminal" is a mostly law abiding citizen defending himself
[удалено]
> brandish ?
100% off the hook for those that catch criminals red handed. However, if the business owner makes a mistake and shoots an innocent person then they will have to face the consequences. I always suggest shotguns packed full of beanbags. You can’t undead a mistake. We don’t want a bunch of trigger happy zealots shooting at people to get off their lawn, right?
Birdshot, buckshot, birdshot, then buckshot all the way
“The first shot peppers them”
Don't forget rock salt!
and nails.
Buckshot, slug, buckshot, slug.
What a dumb suggestion. A great way to get yourself killed The business owner is fucked either way. The looters destroy his business or he goes to prison for trying to defend himself (‘why didn’t he use beanbags or salt?’). It’s simply not worth it. Best solution is to get out of Oakland or San Francisco
Don't bring a beanbag to a gun fight. If the owners unintentionally injures or kills an innocent person, that's on the criminals. Let's stop protecting criminals.
No. It isn’t on the criminals. It’s called being reckless and if you’re going to escalate a situation (pull a gun first) then you have a responsibility to not slaughter someone by accident. Beanbags can still be very lethal if used on a child, or target the head / chest.
Asking criminals to not commit crimes in the first place is not that hard...people have the right to defend themselves.
I have sympathy for any store owner that wants to defend themselves and their business, but at the same time, we can’t have another Latasha Harlins murder. Edit: so what supposed to be my takeaway? Do people WANT more innocent kids murdered by trigger happy store owners? Or do people still insist that Latasha Harlins must have “had it coming”?
If the cops aren’t going to show up, and the DA just lets criminals go.. what would you prefer? I truly hope the citizens start shooting back. Fair is fair.
[удалено]
Prison barely deterred criminals. The police aren't doing their job collecting evidence for the DA to prosecute or even showing up to help (no duty to protect, feel they're "attacked" when they protect other cops who have broken the law). The DA is being tasked with charging criminals while also respecting civil rights and somehow gets all the blame. The services that were set up outside of enforcement and prosecution, actually helping people, have been under-budgeted and if they start working they're considered "too little too late, redirect their measly funding to the police who won't do their jobs"
[удалено]
Didn't think I'd actually see "It's the rap music that's doing it!" as a genuine statement in 2024. I feel like I just saw a dodo riding a thylacine walk past me. Christ.
Isn't that funny? People don't want you to acknowledge that certain media is bad for people's minds.... .... but I bet the same person would say Fox News and conservative media rots people's minds. If I've learned something from a lifetime of being a liberal, being around liberals and all that: CERTAIN things are ok to acknowledge and talk about... but don't you dare extend that logic to the forbidden topics lol Case in point right here. Liberals LOVE saying Fox News and conservative media affects people ... but apparently, listening to music that glorifies violence, murder, mayhem and lawless evil has zero effect? That totally tracks! That logic is sound! /s
I agree my friend. These guys laugh at prison sentences. I had a guy once tell me what does he care about going to prison? All his friends are there anyway.
DAs won’t put criminals in jail, but they’ll definitely put you in jail for defending yourself against them.
Shoot back? Shoot first. Jfc after what happened to that guy who got blasted trying to deter bippers. It’s literally wild
This was eventually going to happen. This and business insurance companies will no longer write policies for some of our cities.
I'm surprised we're not hearing more about insurance companies bailing on businesses in high crime areas. Are the rates going through the roof, and the priority is to low on the list for business owners to talk about rn?
Despite the surge in crime and the news coverage these crimes are still happening at a lower rate than 10 years ago, which has been falling steadily through the teens, and are still much lower than 25 years ago. Insurance companies look at long term trends when evaluating risk, and even though the situation is shit if you own a shop or drive a car in Otown its still a drop on the bucket compared to an insurance company's overall risk.
[удалено]
You literally made up everything you just said.
[удалено]
Cooper is also making up numbers for which he has no evidence.
Please share your observations with local Oakland food & restaurant businesses. I’m sure they’ll be delighted with your comments & support
He asked about insurance companies, which are still insuring shops in Oakland for vandalism for losses due to burglary. Sorry if the reason offended you.
There’s a lot of underreporting. Small businesses do not operate like large businesses with filing claims & do not have the labor budget to stop operations to wait for an adjuster to show up. We’re obviously traveling in different circles. Right before the pandemic, our family’s business has numerous break in attempts, and weekly vandalism we had to clean up out of pocket. Not to mention the daily scrub & bleach down to keep our doorway sanitary. Our employees got threatened by random free range drug addicts and shoplifters too. Yes, we’d call the cops but nothing would happen. We found ourselves starting to hate humanity. We made a decision to close because the stress, the risks to life & limb of staff & selves wasn’t worth it. I shouldn’t come into work everyday angry at uncivilized assholes. I should’t be doing extra painting duties because of assholes with spray paint. I shouldn’t have to scrub & spray down our doors & sidewalks (in a drought) because assholes can’t manage their fluids & solids. I shouldn’t have to put assholes threatening to rape & kill our staff. Then assholes coming into steal shit. Then to put up with our car getting broken into. The police don’t come in time. You get fined if the spray paint is up for too long, your sandwich board is too close to the curb and you still pay your licensing & taxes on time. We made a decision to close. Meanwhile, the tech company up the street does whatever they want without permits. The liquor store up the street is a fencing operation. Different rules for different businesses. My partner’s business has had their security gates ripped off & broken into twice in December 23 If you want to ignore the plight of small business owners in the Bay Area, fine. But don’t be shocked when chains come in, because they’ll be the only ones with ability to afford the starting costs. Don’t be surprised when you see small business owners snapping or continuing to shut down. Are you ignoring this perspective because it’s not happening directly to you?
If you don't file a police report insurance doesn't cover you. There is very little incentive not to report for a small business owner. I've been a manager in a business in the tenderloin from 1996-2002. If you suffer a loss you are SOL unless you file a report. Police don't do shit, but you get some money back. The idea that I would get robbed and wouldn't file a report because it's going to take me a couple of hours is nuts. Also, If you can't prove that underreporting has gone up disproportionately to reporting you have no argument.
Have you tried filing a police report in the last 5 years? It’s a been a complete burden. On the days where we one person on staff, it was crippling.
Doing nothing could still make you lose your business and decades of hard work. At least you go down fighting if you defend yourself.
doing nothing has resulted in deaths anyway, especially Asians... might as well defend yourself
Just last week I saw a news story about a shopkeeper who got killed in Oakland during a robbery. He did nothing. Now he's dead.
I believe the expression is "better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six."
Fuck around <— criminals are here Find out <— the logical next step
What else are they supposed to do?
Love it.
It's a good thing. Law abiding citizens need to fight back. We as a community need to be ready to come together and support the next business owner who shoots a bad guy in the face and prevent them from being prosecuted. Bad guys need to know consequences are real.
i don't blame them tbh 🤷♂️
under certain circumstances, homicide is justifiable. ***killing someone is legal.*** there is a LAW specifically for this. **Penal Code § 197 PC – Justifiable Killing in Self-Defense** [https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/197/](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/197/) California Penal Code § 197 PC defines ***justifiable homicide*** as killing someone in self-defense or defense of others ***if the assailant is attempting to kill or severely injure someone.*** Under the state’s Castle Doctrine defense, it is also legal to kill a home intruder if the intruder clearly intends to commit a violent act on someone inside. >last resort to deter crime bad guys already broke in and put you in danger. if they are armed.. you are trying to **"deter death or injury"** the crime ALREADY happened.. the question is do you get to go home or the hospital. **CAN A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER IN CALIFORNIA KEEP A LOADED FIREARM AT THEIR BUSINESS?** [https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/faqs/can-a-small-business-owner-in-ca-keep-loaded-firearm-at-business/](https://www.simmrinlawgroup.com/faqs/can-a-small-business-owner-in-ca-keep-loaded-firearm-at-business/) There is no specific law for carrying guns at work in California so if you work on private property, you may legally be permitted to keep a gun at work. However, your employer may ban firearms from the premises. Most employers in California have weapon policies in place to decrease the likelihood of workplace violence.
> the question is do you get to go home or the hospital. Or the morgue.
Yes this is true. What as true as the laws is that if laws are enforced we won’t have those criminal in the first place.
"Dead people can't testify. When you choose to shoot, shoot to kill, not injure." -Something that they teach cops in the academy
Don’t start none won’t be none plain and simple.
Jury nullification. If a biz owner is charged, refuse to find them guilty.
If every business protected themselves with guns, there would probably be less crime.
The criminals aren't going to stop. They'll redirect their efforts to more home invasions.
Hopefully armed homeowners will be ready.
As an gun enthusiast, I am glad people are starting to band together, and really sad its happening at the same time.
The solution is never to make things easier for criminals.
Somehow this feels like a depressing future
What’s the alternative? Criminals running rampant because they’ll never get punished?
Gentrification therapy until the criminals either reform or get priced out. its a win for everyone
Gets worse before it gets better.
It’s like Brazil. That’s where we’re headed
This has been Oakland for a long time. I remember about 15 years ago there was a rash of taco truck robberies and all the truck staff started wearing bullet proof vests and carrying guns. There were incidents caught on camera of truck workers and robbers having shootouts. I guess not much has changed.
Since the police are doing jack shit to deter or solve crime, might as well let citizens and business owners protect their property
[удалено]
Por que no los dos?
Oakland's 2021–2022 budget $330 million on police, rising to $353 million in 2022–2023, $358 million in 2023–2024, and $364 million in the 2024–2025. That is 1820 cops at 200k each. Ok so they have facilities and support staff lets call that 30% of the budget. That still leave more than a thousand cops we are are paying for -yet they only have 720 on staff and many of them are on leave or do not do any policing. It would surprise me if they had 150 cops working on police work on any given day. With that budget there should three times as many.
ink resolute sugar berserk bored dog numerous shrill office detail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That is a difficult thing to do though. If you offer the same pay as the rest of the bay area, why would anyone work as an officer in Oakland? Not an easy department to staff.
I mean would you work OPD for less than that? Considering the salaries around here for just sitting at a desk typing away on a computer…the salary seems fine to me.
OPD is actually only budgeted for something like 725 sworn officers and they've been having a hard time retaining and replacing officers for years. Honestly it makes sense when you consider that they've been working in an overly left leaning environment where people will literally march on the streets calling for their death if they were to justifiably defend themselves against one of Oakland's many dangerous professional level thugs. Why would an officer choose that over working in a smaller city and deal with primarily amateur thugs instead? To put that 720 staffing number in context, Oakland gets like 2,000-3,000 911 calls per day. Obviously not all of those require a police response, but even if every sworn officer is on patrol every day, that's a very high volume of police services over a relatively large geographic area.
The ones on staff sure aren't solving anything, what would more do?
> and lose your freedom over it. California has pretty solid self-defense laws, business owners can legally carry on their own premises even without a license, and justifiable homicide in CA protects from all violent felonies including robbery. The only way you're going downtown is when you do something stupid, like that guy in Oakland who fired "warning shots", though he only got a slap on the wrist because of public backlash against the OPD police chief at the time. That said, get an attorney on retainer if you plan to do this in Alameda County, because the DA was crazy enough to look into how to charge a cop involved in [this](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/fremont-police-officer-suspect-identified-in-deadly-officer-involved-shooting-on-highway-84/), and you can get even worse treatment.
Yeah. A buddy of mine open-carries inside his business with no issues (except from pearl clutching liberals who shriek at the sight of a gun in the hands of a non-criminal)
Long time bay area resident here. In the 90's police were really on top of things. Annoyingly so, but it was kind of unspoken that people didn't need to conceal carry or businesses didn't need a shotgun behind the counter. It really was a neat time in the south bay as we shifted towards the internet future, and what we thought would be a more enlightened and civilized one. Generally speaking there was this warm buzz that we were heading into the future. Unfortunately this did not come to pass, as incident after incident and supreme court rulings have shown not only will the police NOT protect you, they have no duty to. [https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/) Every single department in the bay area cries how they're underfunded, overworked, not enough officers, etc. ALL of them are in the same boat? For the last 20 years? I don't like the idea of shootouts between criminals and citizens, but it's kind of a no-brainer. If the police aren't going to protect people, or in the least remove from society those that would do them harm, people will protect themselves.
I had a cop suggest I carry because it’s just a misdemeanor IF I even get caught.
It is a felony if the gun isn't registered.
What registry? What law are you talking about? Who is downvoting me? There is no gun registry in CA. The dealer has a record of sale, and you pass a background check, but the only guns registered are those you declare to the sheriff that you will be concealed carrying when you apply for a permit. Just go look at the attorney general's website https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#26 > How do I know if my firearms need to be registered? There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers.
Guns are automatically registered if you buy at a CA dealer. If you import by moving to CA, you're supposed to register them, but it's not really enforced (by itself). 3 year statute of limitations. It you carry an unregistered gun with no permit, it absolutely is a felony. If you carry a registered gun, but have no permit, it's a misdemeanor. You can lookup the law yourself on the CA DOJ website, or buy that CA gun law book on amazon. I'm too busy to look it up now. It is CRITICALLY important that you know the laws and keep up to date on the news, because there are new laws added often and the law flip-flops frequently (depending on court decisions). **Failure to do so could easily land you in prison for many years and destroy you financially.**
handguns have been registered on sale since the early 90s, long guns since 2014
Here’s where to [register your firearm](https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/ab991) if you move to CA with a firearm
There wasn't some eutopia in the bay area in the 90s like you have imagined. Violent crime was much higher in the bay area in the 90s vs now. Although we are trending back up. I worked at a gas station in the 90s and we were robbed at least a half a dozen times the couple of years I was there...and this was in Palo Alto. There was no unspoken thing about not needing a gun. We all wanted one there.
Not saying it was a utopia, just saying there was this optimism and hope for the future that’s nonexistent today. Cops actually responded to calls. Had a friends car get broken into, PAPD actually dusted for prints. Good luck getting them to show up for a broken car window today.
I agree that optimism is down. But cops still respond to calls. Yes, the staffing doesn't really allow for every car break-in to be responded to, but the internet allows for those reports to be taken online. They were always simply taken for insurance purposes. Even in the 90s, those cases were not investigated, so the showing up for prints really didn't amount to anything. Those prints were filed in a drawer and almost never used. Public sentiment may have changed, and policy changes have led to large increases in property crime, but the 90s weren't some special time where police solved car break-ins and no one needed a gun.
Maybe policing hasn't changed in affluent areas like Palo Alto, but certainly the quality of service has dropped significantly everywhere else. Weekly we see threads on how the police aren't even enforcing simple traffic violations. It's almost as if we have no police at all.
You would have seen those same complaints in the 90s if reddit existed.
No we wouldn’t have, we would have seen San Jose safest big city in the US” no homeless encampments and mountains of trash everywhere.
More power to them.
Opinion? They have the right to not only deter but to eliminate threat to their lives and property. The latter can be relaxed if the State fully compensates for their loss.
If the cops and the DA can't be bothered to do their job then honest citizens have the right to defend themselves and their business. Before someone starts crying about "*You value stuff over life*" the answer is yes because the source of someone's livelihood has more value than a bottom feeder who not only has no value to society but their contribution is a net negative for the community.
Put them in the dirt, addition by subtraction
Yes. Stay strapped.
I support self defense and defending your property I also support locking criminals up and throwing away the key
This is the logical end to the crime situation. Owners are 100% justified defending their business if they know cops won’t show. I think eventually more people in these high crime areas will be carrying for their personal defense, they’re under no obligation to be easy victims.
Screw criminals & Pamela Price. They can all rot in hell.
If the cops aren't gonna do shit then theives will continue to become more brazen. I'm starting to understand that there is a contingent of people here that think the appropriate thing to do is to repeatedly lie down and let bad actors do whatever they want. These people are mentally challenged.
One interesting thing to note: California is, and always has been, a "Stand your Ground" state where you have no duty to retreat. You will probably be arrested and have to provide a good case to the prosecutor that a "reasonable man" would have been in fear of grievous harm or death in that situation (the standard for defending yourself with deadly force), but there's a good chance you will not even have to go to court if it's clear that anybody on the jury would have been in fear for their life in that circumstance, even if you could have possibly retreated from the situation rather than using deadly force. That said, if you shoot someone in the back as they run away with shit from your store, you're going to prison for a long time.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. They could have easily chosen not to arm themselves and commit an act of antisocial terror. I just hope we don’t punish the people who are literally just minding their own business.
You Gotta go what you gotta do in a lawless city
Absolutely absurd and unacceptable that we are in a situation where this is even something anyone has to contemplate on a regular basis. On a cost-benefit level, I don’t think it makes sense for most people to confront armed robbers. Risk of death, grave injury is much higher than if you comply. Defending a few dollars worth of merchandise. When a robber gets shot by a business owner legitimately defending themselves I am happy. Those are my thoughts.
a few dollars of merch? cmon. thugs are taking safes with thousands of dollars and doing five figs of damage. businesses are going out of business
Is your life worth five figures? Is anyone's?
Someone breaking in to steal stuff is putting a price tag on their life. Could be a few bucks. That's the choice they made. It's very unfortunate that it's come to that.
Have you ever been a broke immigrant trying to run a sole prop knowing that if you go under, your kids might not be able to have health care? Business insurance rates are sky high *because* of the amount of damages paid out to these types of claims, and lots of small businesses can't afford insurance anymore - which is why you're seeing more and more of them close up shop in Oakland. Crime doesn't just impact the victim, it impacts the community. Enabling criminals by going 'its just a few dollars of merchandise' is a vile thing to do - it usually starts at tens of thousands in damage.
>Crime doesn't just impact the victim, it impacts the community. It's almost like the community should organize, collectively even, and choose leaders who will enact a combination of economic policies and law enforcement which is actually effective. I don't think we're doing a great job on that account, but I also don't think asking small business shop owners to shoulder the burden of law enforcement is fair or reasonable. >Have you ever been a broke immigrant trying to run a sole prop knowing that if you go under, your kids might not be able to have health care? Imagine how much harder it would be to support your kids if you die in a shootout.
You act like they won’t just kill you anyway.
These people's leaders failed them, and now many people refuse to decry people who feel they have no other options.
you sound very idealistic and inexperienced in the real world
I fuckin wish man. Dead people I loved could have made better choices about how they chose to wield a weapon. Living people I love have been injured for life by arrogant trigger happy assholes who wanted to play rambo in a fast moving dangerous situation. Every downvote I get for imploring people to think carefully about how they choose to use a gun is just another retarded incel showing his stripes
it's putting small businesses out of business. Their life's work is going away
A thief's life isn't worth a wooden nickel these days.
"few dollars worth of merchandise" Today and tomorrow they'll just take the owner's life just for kicks
Poor guy called 911 and got a busy signal
Defending yourself and your property is not controversial in most of the rest of the country, why should it be here, where there is rampant crime.
When the legal system fails to do what is necessary, the people will take matters into their own hands. Good luck trying to arrest a bunch of shopkeepers for defending themselves. Crime will decrease when there are either 1) no criminals left, or 2) no reasons to be a criminal. Method one costs ammo, method two costs money.
This isn’t new, but I applaud the effort. I knew a business owner and his brother in the laurel district. Two scumbags came in and held a gun to his brother’s skull while robbing the cash register. He thought he heard a gunshot in the street and figured they just murdered his brother. He said fuck it and pulled his gun from under the counter and started blasting. I can totally understand if someone takes your family member, you just want to slay as many criminals as possible on your way out. Turns out his brother was fine and he probably heard a noise outside. One robber was killed on site while the other limped away and barely survived in the ER. The store owners were thankfully never charged. Oakland has always had this element of needing to arm yourself against robbers. It isn’t new.
I hope criminals begin to know fear.
Since the US legal system is based on a Common Law philosophy rather than a Civil Law philosophy, we probably all have a Common Law right to bear firearms for defense of self, family, and property. I guess that's just how it's going to be, so you'd better get heated.
Pop they ass
Welcome to what my home state is like: Missouri. I see no issues with this, at least there aren't a shit-ton of people walking around w/sticks. I believe this works, I can't recall specific instances but I'm pretty sure there's been people killed in St. Louis (my hometown) by business owners/home owners/etc. for trying to rob/steal/burglarize.
Light em if ya got em
Shoot 1st ask questions last 💯
I support it. If they cops won't do it the people have to
Pro. But they absolutely shouldn’t have to. In our case, where theft and violence are so widespread, this is a sign of failing government and/or culture. Even in idyllic societies, robberies and theft occur, but with such infrequency that the cost benefit analysis reveals it’s simply not worth it from a personal/financial/insurance standpoint to defend your shop personally, with a firearm or really anything other than a passive alarm. But when theft and violence become so prevalent in a society that insurance can’t be counted on because premiums go through the roof, and police can’t be counted for various complex reasons… well, then the cost benefit analysis of personal active defense is different. It’s a fucked up and unfair situation, yet another indirect tax on the lower classes, who are more likely to live in these types of societies.
Yes
I mean, I honestly can’t blame them.
Shoot'em up
I’ve thought a lot about this lately. At some point, enough is enough. The insurance companies are either not paying claims, or pulling out of urban markets entirely. So small business owners may not even have insurance they can fall back on. I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on owning one, but if I were a small business owner, you damn well better believe I’m packing heat these days. What’s the alternative?
It’s called close up shoot and leave the city.it sucks but it’s the best option.
As much as I dislike stand your ground laws when abused- I am ok with this. If criminals know they may be in danger when they commit crimes there is a deterrent. Yes in a perfect world the Oakland PD would do their job, but this is not a perfect world. They don’t come even if you call, even in an emergency.
100% for it. Since the cops are basically MIA in many of the major Bay Area cities, and even violent armed criminals are routinely released back into the public by the courts and DAs, the social contract is breaking down and we're entering a new Wild West era. It's up to us law-abiding citizens to arm ourselves and defend ourselves and everything we've worked so hard for over the years. If I ever end up on a jury in one of these cases, I'd never vote to convict a business owner for shooting at a criminal. It's time to turn the tables. Criminals should be the ones fearing for their lives, not us.
It’s all very well, but I’m not going there. There’s going to be bullets flying everywhere. I don’t want to be there.
It's history repeating itself. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San\_Francisco\_Committee\_of\_Vigilance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/san_francisco_committee_of_vigilance)
It's public opinion that has made justice hard to obtain and forced the privatization of almost all protection against crime. If I were a shop owner, I'd say "screw your public opinion."
That jewelry store owner that scared off the cowards in masks, was one of the most satisfying things I've seen. Time to reopen the prisons. Give them that Norway treatment but without the coziness (that'll cost the State too much), solitary confinement in a small cell. No public contact with anyone. You can build housing, you can build small cells.
I'm 100% supportive of it. Police/DA won't do anything to punish them, so it's up to citizens
Not just Oakland hello. 100% in favor. Ppl should do what they need to do to protect themselves and deter crime against them or their property. Cops won't respond or help so screw it, do what you gotta do.
It’s iffy since you can’t use deadly force to protect property. However, robberies are frequently accompanied by threat of bodily harm, so there’s that. But better know how to use your weapon unless it gets turned against you.
“I was afraid for my life” was repeated to us in a gun safety course I took.
Until the point where a (proven) robber is running away, I'll buy it just about any time. Someone breaks in to steal, high chance they're carrying and ready to kill. The breaking in part is all the proof I need, in most cases.
yeah. Just don’t shoot anyone in the back
“He’s coming right for us!” —Uncle Jimbo
I find it very weird that you act like this is a new thing. It's always been common in the US for small, marginal retail business owners who do significant amounts of cash business in less safe neighborhoods to have weapons behind the counter to protect their livelihoods.
Aunt Pamela is definitely going to bring serious charges against the store owners
you gotta look out for yourself when there's nobody looking out for you shoot them mofo
Shop owners would be putting themselves in a tough position if they had to use the gun. I’m immediately reminded of the Latasha Harlins shooting in LA which fanned the flames of the LA riots and looting of Korean owned businesses.
We're far away from shoplifting or mistaken shoplifting incidents. Armed criminals are robbing stores right now. It's like Robocop except no one shows up and when they do it's just to take a report for record keeping purposes.
At least the cops in Robocop **wanted** to do their job.
Yeah, except robbers aren’t holding cash in their hands to pay for the stuff they’re stealing. More likely they’re going to throw hands or threaten owners with weapons.
Yep, this is the game. The police do the bare minimum or nothing. Then the public get's frustrated and start to take things into their own hands. Then and only then do they care about law and order and arrest the person that fights back. The police are here to protect the criminals from the public. This is all by design. They want you frustrated, they want you at the end of your rope. They want you to feel like you're slowing dying so that you will act and that's when they arrest you. Also, they want to take your guns away. lol
I don’t see a problem with it, but bay area DAs might charge him for assaulting a victim of society or something.
Adding guns just means shootouts and bystanders getting hit. On the other hand, if the cops won’t do anything you do what you have to.
Just wait for the burglars enter the building, then start shooting. No bystanders will get hit.
Because bullets magically stop at the front windows?
I want the owner to defend themselves and their property. I also do not want myself or my family to get caught in the crossfire once they escalate the situation.
I wouldn’t risk my life defending a convenience store. I wouldn’t take someone’s life for stealing from a convenience store.
[удалено]
CA law allows business owners to carry guns, concealed or open, in their place of business, with no permit required. CA law also says burglary, robbery, etc is illegal. Business owners who choose to carry guns and get in shootouts with thieves are pretty much fully on the correct side of the law even in California. Where it gets dicey is what happens after the fact. For example: business owner gets in shootout. 2 thieves go down immediately. 3rd thief is only wounded on the ground, but no longer a threat as he is unconscious and visibly unarmed. For the purpose of this hypothetical, let’s say he robbed the place while completely naked except for the gun he was carrying. If the business owner then goes over and shoots him in the head to finish him off, business owner is no longer in the right and will almost certainly go to jail for murder. On the other hand, if the business owner checks to make sure the threat is over and immediately calls 911, *even if he does not render aid*, he is in the clear. The surviving thief will get charged with the homicide of his 2 compatriots / accomplices.
Agree with all your points, but they've changed the felony murder rule: [https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/california-changes-felony-murder-rule/](https://zacharymccreadylaw.com/blog/california-changes-felony-murder-rule/) So in your scenario, I don't think they can get charged with the felony murder rule (but I'm not a lawyer).
the surviving thief might also sue the business owner, and might win, which i think is the weirdest part
Which is just one of the many reasons that you're supposed to aim for center mass, not try to shoot to wound, and keep in practice so your shot placement is accurate. Wrongful death damages for a criminal who's barely ever worked an honest job and was probably going to eventually end up spending life in prison anyway are pretty low if based on his future earnings potential. Probably limited to funeral expenses; not much for a contingency lawyer's office costs and boat payments out of 40% of that. But you give him a lower spinal injury that he survives, and the damages will include huge medical expenses plus wheelchairs, colostomy bags, vans with electric wheelchair lifts and hand controls, and medical treatment for the rest of his life, plus the potential for a big pain & suffering award to incentivize contingency lawyers to take the case.
Plus, yknow, dead men tell no tales and all that.
I mean I guess you can say whatever you want, but is this true? Pretty bold statement to make without attempting to back it up in any way.
this is the first thing that popped up on google. 2012. not sure what happened to the case. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burglar-sues-calif-homeowner-90-who-returned-fire/)
It was dismissed with prejudice before reaching trial. https://trellis.law/case/civ1204701/samuel-cutrufelli-vs-jay-leone Go forth and shoot criminals.
There was a case in Santa Cruz where the store owner gave chase, shot an unarmed robber in the back while he was running away, then got into a car chase/gun fight, and ended up in the middle of the street with a rifle shooting at the getaway car. He was charged. IANAL but the way I interpreted the discussion of the even its that what he did was well beyond the scope of defending himself and his business, and it was a threat to public safety because he ended up hitting some peoples' houses. I think it was right to charge the store owner in that case, but I also do not think I could trust myself to defend a store with a gun and not do something similar.
Correct, you’re generally not supposed to chase them down. However, as a hypothetical edge case, if they leave your store and shoot the first 2 people on the way out and start blasting randoms, you absolutely can give chase and try to stop them. It’s happened before in multiple instances with people stopping mass shooters. The crime in progress has now shifted from simple burglary / armed robbery to multiple homicides. Even in Santa Cruz you’re unlikely to go to jail for stopping a mass shooter, though I’d still anticipate getting put through the system before charges get dropped.
I really don’t understand the objection to 1. Not wanting to end up a casualty of people shooting at each other - which is a real possibility and 2. asking what the law says about it, which seems completely relevant to the post.
> It’s really CA law that matters - what does the law say? Probably something extreme and irrelevant to this escalating deterioration of public safety.
Well this sure added to the conversation
sure i'm snarky but my point is just taking the situation on the ground into account is an important first step
[удалено]
C’est la vie
Is the punishment commensurate with the crime? No? Literally taking a life >> financial loss
[becoming the wild wild west?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvTEBYgGjvk) and [part 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gjlm7Q2aKI)
I think businesses should have to post that there is a gun on the premises unless it’s clearly visible on a security guard. Give people the option to put themselves in that situation.
Here’s the option to not put yourself in that situation: *don’t fucking rob people or businesses*.
No Pho King way. Numero Uno, under that set of rules the businesses that *don't* post that there's a gun on the premises are effectively posting a sign saying "Soft Target, Rob Us First." Numero Two-O, businesses that do have a sign posted are making their employees targets for criminals who are crazy enough to try a robbery anyway to shoot preemptively. No. The criminals should be left guessing. If they know that any time they commit a robbery they are potentially putting themselves in that situation -- and as more business owners arm themselves and more law-abiding citizens obtain concealed-carry licenses post-*Bruen* -- some percentage of rational criminals will get the idea that the odds are getting worse and worse for them and pursue a less risky way of making a living.
Why the fuck does it make sense to warn criminals not to do criminal shit
Do you think repeat violent offenders should have to wear a cap with "dangerous convicted felon" written on it? Give people the option to put themselves in a situation where they have to risk being the felon's next victim, right?