Even Folks on the Left Are Tired of the ‘Reform’ From Progressive San Francisco DA

There’s a terrible case out of San Francisco that perhaps encapsulates, in a very simple way, the problem that we now face with rising crime, “reform,” and progressive district attorneys. This from redstate.com.

According to KGO, a 75-year- old woman was beaten, grabbed by the hair, and dragged in an attempted car-jacking outside of a supermarket. A Good Samaritan had to rush in to save her.

There were many witnesses to the crime. And multiple suspects were involved, including one minor who was arrested and charged with robbery, elder abuse, aggravated assault, and conspiracy.

But now, those charges against the minor have reportedly been dropped, according to what KGO’s Dion Lim had been told by multiple sources. Why? Allegedly because there was a “lack of DNA evidence.” This, despite multiple witnesses to the event.

Lim said she wanted an explanation, so she reached out to Rachel Marshall, who was the Director of Communications for District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

She didn’t get any real explanation. They refused to comment, saying they were “legally prohibited from discussing anything related to a juvenile case,” and they refused to confirm the status of the case. They also failed to clarify the status of the cases against the non-minor defendants.

The Good Samaritan who saved the woman is infuriated.

“This is cut and dry. I watched them beat this old woman and drop her across the concrete,” says the Good Samaritan, who doesn’t want to be identified. He witnessed the 75-year-old victim return to her vehicle at a Richmond District Safeway and get grabbed by the hair and dragged along the pavement in an attempted daytime carjacking.

“I just punched through the back window and it was loud. Loud enough and kind of scary enough to freak them out,” he told ABC7 News back in March after the incident happened.

“I really put myself in a position where I could have lost my life…I would have hoped we could have seen some kind of justice.”

The Good Samaritan also said he believed in “restorative justice,” and that “[he] understand[s] Chesa has a model but…his way of going about it is not working.” So, the Good Samaritan was obviously left of center, but even he got how this wasn’t working, because he got a very hard lesson with a real-life example.

The victim decried the decision, saying in part, “That is truly pathetic. Give a bunch of thieves some gloves and let them loose to do whatever they want and to enjoy stolen money.”

It also sounds like Lim has some pretty good sources within the DA’s office, who are, themselves, not really happy with what’s going on. As Lim writes, “A source within the DA’s office who has filed hundreds of cases tells Lim it is illogical not to file this case given the state of the evidence.”

In addition to the witnesses, including the Good Samaritan, they had surveillance video from multiple angles. So, it sounds like the case was pretty much a lock. Indeed, it’s unclear why “DNA evidence” would even be needed.

Democrats who say they wanted reform are not happy with Boudin, that they didn’t just want people to be released. Now, they are moving to recall him.

Other citizens came out to communicate their unhappiness over Boudin, who was supposed to show up to address their concerns about repeated theft and robberies. He didn’t show up, although members of his office met with a victim of an assault who had tried to stop a shoplifter and got pepper-sprayed.

The shoplifting has become such an epidemic, 17 Walgreens have packed it in. The shoplifting is at 4x the rate as in the rest of the country. Why? Because there are no criminal consequences for the action — and the criminals know it, so there’s more of it.

It sounds like folks on the left are learning a hard lesson with Chesa Boudin. But he told people exactly where he was going to go, that a lot of crime wasn’t going to be prosecuted. Now, they really understand what that means — and what a bad idea that is.

San Francisco, once a jewel of a city in a jewel of a state that most people dreamed about, has long become a progressive socialist sh*t hole. And other parts of the state likewise. Witness here a demonstration of socialist democrat reform badly in need of conservative republican reform.

How much further must America fall before the democrat party, communism, socialism, progressivism, and Big Money financing of these unethical district attorneys are all outlawed? Those who scream that any of this (excluding the Soros, et al illegal financial support) would be an infringement of their First Amendment rights are being selfish and self-centered. Simply put: One person’s freedoms should not, no, MUST NOT infringe upon another person’s freedoms.

Read through Amendment One to the U.S. Constitution (see below) carefully and identify where it is said one person’s right to anything is a right to infringe upon the rights of another:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The five freedoms the First Amendment protects are speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Now, if I’m a shop keeper and people are expressing their right to do whatever it is they want to do while blocking the street to my business, is this not an infringement of one or more of my rights? I believe the expression of freedoms of one should not, no, MUST NOT disallow the expression of freedoms by another.

I’m not saying not to allow gatherings or expressions of First Amendment rights. I’m saying there should be a requirement of pre-approval and during this pre-approval process all possible ramifications should be explored with the goal of precluding any problems. This, of course, is all too over-simplified and would be fraught with abuse, but it’s only an off-the-cuff initial thought. Clearer heads will produce a more thought-out procedure.

Final note: If laws can require a background check before allowing the purchase of a firearm, laws can require pre-approval of gatherings, protests, demonstrations, etc. and commensurate fines for failure to do so.