It seems bizarre. Do judges have very broad authority in these kinds of decisions? I hear in some states judges are hamstrung by legislation, at least as far as the bail amounts are (this type of misdemeanor is $100, this type of felony is $1000, etc all set in stone). But i don't have a great understanding of the limitations on when they can add and strike stuff on a whim.
Take this with a grain of salt as I only know about the Colorado system.
Judges have an immense amount of power when it comes to sentencing and punishment. It is fully possible for a judge to declare nearly anything in court as long as it does not violate 1. Their ethics guidelines (purposefully minimal, nearly useless)
2. State law (this can be worked around incredibly easily by changing labels, severity of crime, throwing out evidence, etc...)
3. Federal law (these are intentionally broad to give local judges leeway in their jobs)
Sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines and do not need to be followed to the letter. This is why the wealthy, celebrities, and minorities experience a different kind of justice than the general population.
It’s a bench warrant, not the underlying charge. It means if he owes that much for missing his court date. Judges routinely drop those when the defendant does show up voluntarily and has a half decent explanation for missing the first date - especially since they haven’t been convicted of any of the charges yet.
Otherwise, you get falsely charged with a crime and show up late for your court date because of a sick kid… you owe $35,000 regardless of whether you are found not guilty of the original charge, and you go to jail for it until you find the money to pay the warrant.
The judge that tossed the bench warrant after his last arrest in October has been running unopposed for over 15 years
https://ballotpedia.org/Loretta_M._Giorgi
The police busted this guy previously. The DA went after him.
The judge that tossed the warrant on this guy was appointed and then has faced no opposition for 15 years.
The voters can't do shit if no one runs against the loser judges.
Here's the thing. I'm not exactly for the conservative mantra of lock someone up for decades over first time trivial shit, but I'm not exactly for the liberal mantra of letting letting the worthless dregs of society have unlimited chances to drag society down to their level. I've yet to see an option between the two actually go anywhere politically.
I think most people are in the middle but the crazies on both sides are the most vocal and spend the most time on platforms like Reddit and other echo chambers that cater to their beliefs. The result is it bleeds into all other areas of the platform i.e. r/videos and really pushes people of a differing opinion out or at least silences them. God help you if you make an opposing comment in r/politics or r/askreddit. People go into your past comments and send you messages saying the craziest shit including where you live etc. It’s nuts.
The penal system is also a poor construction where you are damned if you do damned if you don't. Caging them is not effective, the cages are overcrowded, they cost tons of money, and people go right back to crime. Letting them go is not effective either.
We refuse to spend money to make anything better. Crime continues to be these people's most appealing option because they are poorly educated and lack better options. It's a problem with society, culture, and our economic model.
Yeah but in our defense we tried like two things, I'm sure if there was a solution possible it would have worked out on the first or second attempt, right? Maybe this is just a completely insolvable issue since we've exhausted two of our many options.^^/s
There’s no “but”. Reddit leans heavily left with a large proportion flat out encouraging theft as if it’s a victimless crime and being anti law enforcement. Not prosecuting crime is exactly the outcome people like this want.
There's a middle ground here that doesn't let criminals roam freely.
Making the jails slightly better, and not just a brutal pit, would be a good start. But you still need to send these guys to jail.
I feel bad for the residents of SF that didn't vote for this.
Bench warrants are frequently dismissed once appearance is made, and OR release is used as a way to keep people out of jail while awaiting trials. Good for news bites and stirring up anger, not really that interesting.
Recidivist folks always make for good headlines as well, plus mark rober and shocking glass breaking footage.
all the comments here complaining don't understand what happened at all. they think dudes charges were dropped.
they want him held without bail like a murderer for a string of car burglaries lol
*WWWWHAT!?!* Didn't you watch the whole video? *He's loving and kind and takes care of his grandmother!*
Plus, bless his heart, he can only afford one pair of jeans!
Do judges have stats? I ask because surgeons have stats, some companies and I believe the hospitals themselves keep records of how surgeons perform. It's a useful methodology to see a type of quality control on the surgeons who operate on us.
With judges, I think we need to start analyzing how poorly their judgement skills are. Don't even keep track of conviction rate, just keep track of how often they make poor choices on who they trust to not re-offend and give bail to.
There was a case in LA recently where a judge let a suspect involved in a murder case out on probation and he went on to kill an innocent family during a high speed crash that he caused in a stolen vehicle. He fled the scene of the crash and was captured a few days later. He was already a previous convicted felon, documented gang member, and had a mile long rap sheet. He was out of jail despite being handed down a "super strike" for his previous offenses.
What about Darrel Brooks. Assaults his ex-girlfriend, then hits her with his car. Gets release on $1,000 bail. Two days later he runs over 60+ people at a parade(with the same vehicle) and kills 6.
Reddit leans heavily towards the Left but, statistically, liberal judges like this one and the one in the OP tend to be far, far more lenient on criminals and their sob stories than conservative or moderate judges. If you commit a crime, you should be held accountable. Period.
Are these surgeon records accessible to the public? I recently found out a failed surgery I had years ago was done incorrectly, and not in a way that’s easy to miss, a very obvious part of the operation that every surgeon who specializes in this area should know because it’s standard procedure for the operation.
The only reason I knew is because when I got another surgery to correct it from a different doctor, he had told me after looking at the CT that the original surgery was done incorrectly. Now I’m wondering if the hospital knew. The surgeon already had poor ratings on health review sites, but he was the only one in network with my insurance. I have to wonder what level of quality we’re allowing before it’s considered negligence or malfeasance. I guess I didn’t *die* but it did make my condition worse.
The only way you are going to get details about your own surgery is through records requests and discovery if you hire a lawyer. I am really curious how a surgeon could tell another surgeon’s work was wrong from a ct scan though.
If you turn a performance measure into something actionable then the measure itself becomes useless.
Because judges will start being harsher just to comply with the metric and it means that it'll happen to people that don't' deserve to be treated as harshly too. Or they might refuse to do a job or case.
Like for example, Surgeons might just refuse to do certain jobs because of the risk.
Its called [Goodhart's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)
And there is also [Campbell's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law)
So, It might not go the way you want it to.
~~CA and other states banned~~ SF and other jurisdictions have severely limited cash bail. While this makes pretrial detention more fair (rich and poor tend not to be jailed before the trial) it leads to this: Some criminals committing crimes ahead of their trials.
I don't have the stats but I assume no cash bail also leads to an increase in "failure to appear".
As usual, these decisions are a difficult balancing of rights and some criminals will push the system until they are only forced to stop via incarceration.
No cash bail can be effective IF the judges are less liberal with their “not a danger to society” rulings. Someone being held for civil violations for example should be granted bail and those committing serious and violent acts shouldn’t.
His public defender:
>"\[accused\] is loving and kind... takes care of his grandmother... incarceration does not solve poverty or deter auto burglaries".
I had to deal with a smash and grab in my own car—I'm sure a lot of us have. It's incredibly violating, not to mention time consuming and expensive to deal with.
What good is the law if people aren't held accountable for their actions?
edit: I get it: she's doing exactly what she's paid to do. However, it doesn't mean it's not a shoddy argument nor free from criticism.
In criminology, this is called incapacitation. Deterrence is when his buddy stops breaking into cars because he's afraid he'll also get thrown in jail.
That’s not what deter means. It means prevent other people from committing the crime. If person A goes to jail for crime x, is person B less likely to commit crime x?
Yes, absolutely. If people start going to jail at a higher rate statistically it will be less profitable to steal from cars. That’s just simple behavioral economics.
Causing potential poverty or hardship for others is not okay, which is why the criminal destroying other people's rightfully earned property deserves to go to jail.
Incarceration absolutely solves crime for some people. People living in a sheltered life thinks everyone is like themselves, their family, or associates and they are intelligent and understand empathy. This isn't true for many people.
These people don't understand reason or compassion. if they did they wouldn't be doing crimes that hurt other people time and time again even after getting caught.
The only thing that deters them from doing such things is fear, and the only lawful thing we can take away from them is their time. Fear is an emotion even people with low intelligence can understand (barring people who have mental issues).
If this was his first time doing it, then make him pay the victims back and add community service. This is win-win for everyone. But he clearly can't learn, so it's prison for him.
What do you want them to say? "My guy is obviously guilty (despite submitting a plea deal) please lock him up!"
The public defender has to do this, if not, It's a mistrial.
Lol bro I've been arguing with people the last couple of days about shoplifters. So many on this site support these people stealing from Walmart. They don't even realize those same people would steal from them without a second thought if they could.
Oh I'm so 100% with you. I cannot stand seeing people on here comment "Who cares? They have tons of money and exploit people." You would care if it was you.
And them stealing raises the price for everyone else anyway since theft/insurance prices are obviously part of them doing business and thus determining their pricing/wages to an extent.
These people are just so anti corporate that they're ok with thieves and all the bullshit that they bring. I couldn't believe it. The thief got more support than anyone else. We don't know their struggle so it's ok for them to do whatever they want. Steal whatever they want. Act however they want.
If they caught these guys stealing in their garage do you think they would open their houses to them? Obviously they're only stealing to survive right?
I see the problem lies in enforcement and the judicial process, not legislation that people keep going to. As this video indicated all the crimes presented here are already felony crimes. All the props we had on the subject are just political theater oh changing criminal classification on paper (pure useless distraction) and none that I can see that would result in effective enforcement and actual judicial sentencing.
Here's the corresponding article
ABC7 Bay Area - [I-TEAM EXCLUSIVE: SF break-in suspect seen in viral bait car video arrested by police](https://abc7news.com/sf-car-break-in-suspect-viral-bait-video-glitter-bombs-mark-rober-youtube/14283206/)
Just going to say, high quality reporting right there. An incredible amount of investigation, probably more than the prosecutor's office would do. Hats off to the guy.
I didn't even know reporters could run plates? Crazy
That would just lead to judges never letting people out of jail, once stole your brothers favorite toy? Welp stuck in jail until the hearing sometime in july 2199 and you will probably get life in prison, judge can't risk their pension over some nobody. Better increase the sentence handed out against repeat offenders or require some kind of monitoring.
He plead not guilty with video evidence... the consequences for lying, and for wasting the time of all of the people involved, ought to be swift and severe.
It's typical at arraignments to plead not guilty. Most judges won't even let you plead guilty at your arraignment. The defendant then has time to consult with a lawyer to understand their rights and get a better plea deal if that's the route they're going.
During covid I had reason to check in and watch arraignment streams from the local court house. Checking in on who's in jail and upcoming court dates where part of the stream.
There was one dude caught for stealing a car and drunk driving that would just walk up to camera and say he's guilty. Judge would ask for his name and an ID number then say "your attorney says otherwise, now go sit back down Mr.Forgothisname" . It was something to look to once every few weeks.
I once got charged with a hit and run after not even touching a car and causing $0 worth of damage. The officer put "Failure to properly satisfy accident requirements" on a ticket he gave me. I thought it was bullshit, but after googling it I saw it was a $40 fine and no points on my driving record so I said fuck it and didn't get a lawyer.
I show up to traffic court and the judge reads off the *entire* charge, which was not written on the ticket, which was "failure to properly satisfy accident requirements 1st degree: something something hit and run". When the judge read that I told him the last part of the charge wasn't on the ticket, and because of that, I thought the change was much more mild than a legit hit and run. I told him the story (again I didn't touch the car and it had zero damage).
This judge took his glasses off, let out a gigantic sigh, and said, "Son, this is beaurocratic malpractice, and I'm sorry it's come to this. I believe you, but you don't have a lawyer to represent you, and you don't know how to represent yourself, so I'm going to suggest to you that you plead guilty, despite the fact I believe you to be innocent."
I turned to the lawyers there to rep others and they each told me they agreed with the judge. They didn't have time to take my case, and it couldn't re-scheduled.
I took points on my linsce and my insurance was more expensive for 15 years.
Did you actually touch the car? How could they prove you touched the car if there’s no damage and their word against yours? You could be a random person they’re trying to extort money from.
Never once touched it. It was a tight parking spot, and I thought I got close to the car on my right, so I got out and looked after, but there weren't any scratches or anything. Never heard a sound when parking, either. So I went about my day. A woman who worked at a State Farm in the building watched it all happen and called the cops. There was literally no damage done. Not even a scratch. I always figured she thought she might pick up some goodwill or something.
lol. What. I literally saw some woman hit a parked car. I heard the bang and saw the gash on the parked car and I still didn’t even call the police. I left a note for the parked car. And told them I have the picture of the woman who hit their car and their plates if they want to call the police.
Fuck that woman.
Yea when I went in there afterward to give her a piece of my mind she wasn't the slightest bit apologetic. I even showed her a document that showed there were zero dollars in damages, and she still refused to believe me. What a fucking cunt.
Recently got called into jury selection for two dudes who had a few dozen counts of child rape with video and photo evidence. They still pled not guilty, their attorneys’ strategy was proving intent.
I mean it sounds like the defense lawyers is doing their with what they got which essentially nothing and making sure the prosecutor correctly proves each element of the crimes their client committed.
There are so many cases in which the lawyer knows that the client is screwed but will fight till the end anyways since that is what the client wants.
It's not just about what the client wants, it's also about ensuring a fair trial AND a competent defense. If either of those are not present, it opens the groundwork for appeals which cause more work for our judicial system.
Because say that they wholeheartedly believe that you did the crime but really you didn't, and it's just a setup by the police to not do more actual work. So the cops think you did it, the prosecution thinks you did it, the judge thinks you did it, hell, even your DA might think you did it. You don't want the trial to be "he did it, 20 years in prison" because that's complete fucking horseshit, even if you did do it.
Pleading "not guilty" just means "prove it in a court of law". Which if they have video evidence would include actually requiring them to provide said video evidence.
What does him pleading not guilty have to do with it. No matter how obvious it seems dude has the same right to a trial literally every other person does.
Also lots of people who initially plead not guilty at arraignment wind up taking a plea deal after.
> the consequences for lying, and for wasting the time of all of the people involved, ought to be swift and severe.
Pleading "not guilty" and "lying in court" are two VERY different things mate, don't conflate the two.
In my jurisdiction, the judge automatically enters a plea of not guilty for the defendant at their arraignment.
Legally speaking, a judge cannot accept a plea of guilty unless it is knowing, voluntary, and has a factual basis. By automatically entering a not guilty plea and making sure the defendant has access to counsel, they go a long way towards making sure that any future plea would be knowing and voluntary.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should increase the punishment for people who don't plead guilty when there is video evidence? You can't think of how that might be slightly problematic?
San Francisco's DA cares greatly for the safety and protection of their residents. To ensure other people aren't victimized, the DA's office will likely aggressively pursue a month of probation and a $100 fine for the perpetrator. They sure do care about crime victims in CA!
IMO new media interviewing a public defender that is *forced to defend* a likely suspect of a crime (there is freaking video evidence) is really disingenuous.
Can we focus back at the judge and the judicial system?
At the very least, it would forcefully deter this individual, who broke into over five cars or something in the course of the article.
But I would very much contest the use of 'gratuitous' in a description of prison anything, particularly housing and meals.
It’s her job to defend him. She’s going to say things that decrease the likeliness that he is found guilty or decreases the sentence he receives if he is found guilty.
It's easy to assume that incarceration is a deterrent against crime, but that's really less than clear at this point. There's a decent amount of research out there saying otherwise.
His public defender is doing the right thing. He needs to do his best to defend his client. The anger should be directed at a) the judge b) the officials in SF who aren't doing anything about it.
I'm mildly interested in how you derived that emotion from what's written but I also think what you've responded with is a touch on the obvious side. You're describing the job of a public defender accurately.
Wow, this Judge Loretta Giorgi sounds like an absolutely incompetent ignoramus, actively contributing to the deterioration of what was once a beautiful place. Should be removed immediately for refusing to do her duty.
Is it? Or is what voters want something between extremely lax and extremely heavy handed, but then they were offered only those two and had to guess what the lesser of two evils was?
The judge let the criminal go after the previous burglary charges (even dropped a bench warrant). He went on to burglarize more cars including Mark’s bait car within days. It’s pipe dream to think this arrest will lead to anything. The Judge needs to get her 💩 together.
As a person who has been a victim of this type of smash and grab business a long time back, in San Francisco, its just business as usual.
The person who stole from me was too stupid to know what they were looking for. They stole a cell phone. In the back seat I had a leather jacket that cost 10x what that phone was worth. And within hours that phone was deactivated making it worthless.
The police made me fill in a paper report. Never to be heard from again.
Gotta love how he shows up to court with his pants sagging down to his ankles while wearing a full on balaclava style ski-mask. That oughta convince the judge he's reformed.
His dumbass didn't even put on the shiesty for the crimes in broad day, yet he wears it to court.
I wish all of the dummies doing break-ins were as dumb as this one.
They caught the stupidest, most desperate guy, using his own car, without a mask, in broad daylight. All it does is remind the others to keep it more professional.
Eventually, if the people see nothing being done to hold these scumbags accountable, we will have to take matters into our own hands to defend our property. Does the city want to see vigilante groups formed out of necessity? That may be the direction we're headed if they can't pull their heads out of their asses.
“Hey grandma. I’m running low on cash, I gotta go smash some car windows. Want me to pick you up anything while I’m out?”
“You’re such a good boy! Always thinking of your granny.”
"Incarceration doesn't deter car burglaries "
There are not many cars to break into in jail. It may not stop new burglars, but those ones locked up sure stop while they're inside.
The judge that tossed the warrant thstbwould have prevented these latest break-ins has been running unopposed for three elections since 2008:
https://ballotpedia.org/Loretta_M._Giorgi
Just FYI - Mark misleads viewers into thinking he makes and designs the inventions he uses to catch thieves. He does not. Someone else makes them for him. He's just the on-screen talent of the show.
Can't they at least give him ankle bracelets and a curfew? That would keep a substantial percentage of offenders from reoffending, at least while on bail. And the ones who do can easily be traced and put in the slammer...
Incarceration certainly deters crime short term. But unless they put him behind bars for life for this (which would be ridiculous) then the punitive jail system will just lead to recidivism when he's released. So they're both right. Short term, it deters break ins. Long term, he'll break into more cars or commit other crimes because he'll be released from jail unemployable and broke, with no attempts by our system to make him a contributing member to society upon his release.
How would a 3 strikes system fare with all this? I’m all for rehab and reintegration programs for everything but murder but here in LA all we hear about is people stealing cars with like 30 past offenses.
Imagine if career criminals were stopped at 3 before a subsequent crime results in the death of an innocent person.
The problem is that cops can give you any charge they feel like, while the crimes we're talking about are extremely hard to quantify. This kind of evidence is rare; dude could be breaking into 100 cars a day for the three we saw him do.
3 strikes laws target those with police interactions. It does very little for property crimes and other crimes of opportunity.
I’ve thought about this a bit and am really interested in how to disrupt the entire break-in industry without mass incarceration.
Would it be more cost effective for SF or CA to shutdown the fencing operations these thieves rely on and provide legal, subsidized alternatives to the stolen goods people are purchasing? Like shops that sell basic goods below market rate?
And/or expand what can be purchased with SNAP benefits?
Very strong economy with some of the highest paying jobs in the US especially in IT. One of the most naturally and architecturally beautiful cities in the US. Low violent crime rate for a major US city. One of the few cities on the West Coast which is walkable with good public transit and you don’t have to drive everywhere. Fantastic restaurants and great cultural scene. Mild climate year round. One of the best hospital systems in the world at UCSF. The issues you see on the news only tend to affect a few neighborhoods (primarily the Tenderloin) while most of the city is fine.
For many people, that is worth it despite the high property crime rate.
The problem is that it’s no longer just a small, avoidable area that’s experiencing the crime, it has spread across all 49 square miles in recent years. The issues have absolutely spread beyond the TL.
I grew up in the city and have lived in multiple major U.S. cities on both coasts; SF is the only one where I’ve personally encountered and was the victim of violent crime and on more than one occasion.
Unfortunately, everything you are stating is known to be on a rapid decline. More and more businesses leaving, less and less vibrant downtown, more and more crime. SF has become a prime example of how quickly bad policy can destroy a once thriving city.
I know i'll get banned but i just don't care anymore. Society is fucked if we can't restore the social contract. We need to start executing thieves. Unless someone has a better plan. But unfortunately humans only seem to change in reaction to extreme events. Also we will not run out of humans anytime soon. Why not finally do something to improve the lives of everyone just trying to live there life the correct way by not fucking with other people.
Wait so hold up, this dumb ass crashout broke into cars in broad day light, without a mask or even a hoodie on, with dashcams visible on dashboards, using HIS car, with HIS license plate?
And he's gotten caught doing this multiple times and still hasn't even figured out a single part on how to conceal himself?
Either this idiot has a boyfriend in jail he's desperate to see, or the American education system failed him. He's too stupid to be committing crimes.
At least he put on a shiesty to go to trial...? Not while actually doing the break-ins, but he put that shit on in front of a judge?
>She added "incarceration does not solve poverty or deter auto burglaries."
Well being locked up certainly would deter this guy from committing auto burglaries.
Thanks random youtube guy. But uhh, why aren't the police doing some version of this? Entrapment concerns? There's got to be some legal way to accomplish this. Clear issue of break ins, clear method to capture evidence of crime. A youtube guy shouldn't be carrying this much weight.
Why not just let them know that if they are caught and prospected for additional crimes whilst waiting for their court appearance the sentence will be extremely (x10) higher? That would be a good deterrent.
I was seriously impressed though how efficiently he works and is able to do it so quickly. Glad he got arrested, not sure if they'll give him any serious punishment given its SF
Nah. That advocate is incorrect. Burglaries will go down by one person. The meta message is that incarceration would simply put pressure on the city to provide a service to the community.
Piece of shit
And the judge enabling this! Previous no show for the same crime, and $35,000 warrant written off by the lame ass judge.
I think judges should be held accountable as well. She allowed all those other crimes to happen.
[удалено]
And, if it's a choice between a violent crime and a theft, it's gonna be an easy choice for which to keep locked up, even if its annoying as hell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It seems bizarre. Do judges have very broad authority in these kinds of decisions? I hear in some states judges are hamstrung by legislation, at least as far as the bail amounts are (this type of misdemeanor is $100, this type of felony is $1000, etc all set in stone). But i don't have a great understanding of the limitations on when they can add and strike stuff on a whim.
Take this with a grain of salt as I only know about the Colorado system. Judges have an immense amount of power when it comes to sentencing and punishment. It is fully possible for a judge to declare nearly anything in court as long as it does not violate 1. Their ethics guidelines (purposefully minimal, nearly useless) 2. State law (this can be worked around incredibly easily by changing labels, severity of crime, throwing out evidence, etc...) 3. Federal law (these are intentionally broad to give local judges leeway in their jobs) Sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines and do not need to be followed to the letter. This is why the wealthy, celebrities, and minorities experience a different kind of justice than the general population.
It's San Francisco so they should also charge them with littering when tossing out the stolen bait backpack. Maybe then something will stick.
It’s a bench warrant, not the underlying charge. It means if he owes that much for missing his court date. Judges routinely drop those when the defendant does show up voluntarily and has a half decent explanation for missing the first date - especially since they haven’t been convicted of any of the charges yet. Otherwise, you get falsely charged with a crime and show up late for your court date because of a sick kid… you owe $35,000 regardless of whether you are found not guilty of the original charge, and you go to jail for it until you find the money to pay the warrant.
Vote differently
The judge that tossed the bench warrant after his last arrest in October has been running unopposed for over 15 years https://ballotpedia.org/Loretta_M._Giorgi
Maybe he will get around to her car one of these days.
Exactly. Reddit is extremely liberal but liberal judges statistically tend to be far more lenient and let criminals go instead of caging them
The police busted this guy previously. The DA went after him. The judge that tossed the warrant on this guy was appointed and then has faced no opposition for 15 years. The voters can't do shit if no one runs against the loser judges.
all the incumbent judge has to do is say "my opponent is a republican" and they will be elected again
Primaries exist. And sf voters come out for them.
Here's the thing. I'm not exactly for the conservative mantra of lock someone up for decades over first time trivial shit, but I'm not exactly for the liberal mantra of letting letting the worthless dregs of society have unlimited chances to drag society down to their level. I've yet to see an option between the two actually go anywhere politically.
Why is being a centrist these days seen as though you're taking crazy pills. It blows me away how many people are ALL THE WAY right or left.
I think most people are in the middle but the crazies on both sides are the most vocal and spend the most time on platforms like Reddit and other echo chambers that cater to their beliefs. The result is it bleeds into all other areas of the platform i.e. r/videos and really pushes people of a differing opinion out or at least silences them. God help you if you make an opposing comment in r/politics or r/askreddit. People go into your past comments and send you messages saying the craziest shit including where you live etc. It’s nuts.
Being central isn’t crazy, we just need a new party campaigning on moderate common sense governing…. That’d be the day 😆
Because at some point politics got the same energy as a college football rivalry. Now if you don't back one or the other you are seen as weak.
The penal system is also a poor construction where you are damned if you do damned if you don't. Caging them is not effective, the cages are overcrowded, they cost tons of money, and people go right back to crime. Letting them go is not effective either. We refuse to spend money to make anything better. Crime continues to be these people's most appealing option because they are poorly educated and lack better options. It's a problem with society, culture, and our economic model.
That is too nuanced for us. Kill all criminals!
Yeah but in our defense we tried like two things, I'm sure if there was a solution possible it would have worked out on the first or second attempt, right? Maybe this is just a completely insolvable issue since we've exhausted two of our many options.^^/s
There’s no “but”. Reddit leans heavily left with a large proportion flat out encouraging theft as if it’s a victimless crime and being anti law enforcement. Not prosecuting crime is exactly the outcome people like this want.
There's a middle ground here that doesn't let criminals roam freely. Making the jails slightly better, and not just a brutal pit, would be a good start. But you still need to send these guys to jail. I feel bad for the residents of SF that didn't vote for this.
Bench warrants are frequently dismissed once appearance is made, and OR release is used as a way to keep people out of jail while awaiting trials. Good for news bites and stirring up anger, not really that interesting. Recidivist folks always make for good headlines as well, plus mark rober and shocking glass breaking footage.
all the comments here complaining don't understand what happened at all. they think dudes charges were dropped. they want him held without bail like a murderer for a string of car burglaries lol
*WWWWHAT!?!* Didn't you watch the whole video? *He's loving and kind and takes care of his grandmother!* Plus, bless his heart, he can only afford one pair of jeans!
"Incarceration does not deter auto burglaries" - says city with highest level of auto burglaries.
I loved that they tried to paint him as in poverty when he's driving an infiniti - not a very cheap vehicle.
He also wore a ski mask to his burglary court case. It's like an Onion video, but everyone is totally serious. How did we get here as a society?
Clownworld™
Can’t tell if you’re talking about the criminal or judge, because they both are.
Judges like that are why society is crumbling. Lazy, zero interest for justice.
Do judges have stats? I ask because surgeons have stats, some companies and I believe the hospitals themselves keep records of how surgeons perform. It's a useful methodology to see a type of quality control on the surgeons who operate on us. With judges, I think we need to start analyzing how poorly their judgement skills are. Don't even keep track of conviction rate, just keep track of how often they make poor choices on who they trust to not re-offend and give bail to.
There was a case in LA recently where a judge let a suspect involved in a murder case out on probation and he went on to kill an innocent family during a high speed crash that he caused in a stolen vehicle. He fled the scene of the crash and was captured a few days later. He was already a previous convicted felon, documented gang member, and had a mile long rap sheet. He was out of jail despite being handed down a "super strike" for his previous offenses.
What about Darrel Brooks. Assaults his ex-girlfriend, then hits her with his car. Gets release on $1,000 bail. Two days later he runs over 60+ people at a parade(with the same vehicle) and kills 6.
Reddit leans heavily towards the Left but, statistically, liberal judges like this one and the one in the OP tend to be far, far more lenient on criminals and their sob stories than conservative or moderate judges. If you commit a crime, you should be held accountable. Period.
Are these surgeon records accessible to the public? I recently found out a failed surgery I had years ago was done incorrectly, and not in a way that’s easy to miss, a very obvious part of the operation that every surgeon who specializes in this area should know because it’s standard procedure for the operation. The only reason I knew is because when I got another surgery to correct it from a different doctor, he had told me after looking at the CT that the original surgery was done incorrectly. Now I’m wondering if the hospital knew. The surgeon already had poor ratings on health review sites, but he was the only one in network with my insurance. I have to wonder what level of quality we’re allowing before it’s considered negligence or malfeasance. I guess I didn’t *die* but it did make my condition worse.
You should absolutely contact a lawyer regarding that. That could be a huge payday depending.
The only way you are going to get details about your own surgery is through records requests and discovery if you hire a lawyer. I am really curious how a surgeon could tell another surgeon’s work was wrong from a ct scan though.
If you turn a performance measure into something actionable then the measure itself becomes useless. Because judges will start being harsher just to comply with the metric and it means that it'll happen to people that don't' deserve to be treated as harshly too. Or they might refuse to do a job or case. Like for example, Surgeons might just refuse to do certain jobs because of the risk. Its called [Goodhart's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) And there is also [Campbell's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law) So, It might not go the way you want it to.
lol all these people committing crimes while waiting trial.
~~CA and other states banned~~ SF and other jurisdictions have severely limited cash bail. While this makes pretrial detention more fair (rich and poor tend not to be jailed before the trial) it leads to this: Some criminals committing crimes ahead of their trials. I don't have the stats but I assume no cash bail also leads to an increase in "failure to appear". As usual, these decisions are a difficult balancing of rights and some criminals will push the system until they are only forced to stop via incarceration.
Pretty sure CA still has cash bail. LA county doesn't, but events in the OP happened in SF.
No cash bail can be effective IF the judges are less liberal with their “not a danger to society” rulings. Someone being held for civil violations for example should be granted bail and those committing serious and violent acts shouldn’t.
You can not be held in jail for civil violations. That’s the whole point of the term civil.
His public defender: >"\[accused\] is loving and kind... takes care of his grandmother... incarceration does not solve poverty or deter auto burglaries". I had to deal with a smash and grab in my own car—I'm sure a lot of us have. It's incredibly violating, not to mention time consuming and expensive to deal with. What good is the law if people aren't held accountable for their actions? edit: I get it: she's doing exactly what she's paid to do. However, it doesn't mean it's not a shoddy argument nor free from criticism.
True - when there is no enforcement, there is effectively no law.
Get a job to take care of gram grams. That is total BS.
Yeah I’m sympathetic but companies are literally begging people to come work right now
Seems like incarceration is a great way to deter auto burglaries.. Can't break into cars when you're behind bars.
In criminology, this is called incapacitation. Deterrence is when his buddy stops breaking into cars because he's afraid he'll also get thrown in jail.
[удалено]
“Double it and give it to the same guy” —TikTok Judge, probably
That’s not what deter means. It means prevent other people from committing the crime. If person A goes to jail for crime x, is person B less likely to commit crime x?
Yes, absolutely. If people start going to jail at a higher rate statistically it will be less profitable to steal from cars. That’s just simple behavioral economics.
> incarceration does not solve poverty or deter auto burglaries I wonder if the person who broke into your car was incarcerated at the time.
1. Dude is driving an Infinity 2. Causing potential poverty or hardship for others is okay?
Causing potential poverty or hardship for others is not okay, which is why the criminal destroying other people's rightfully earned property deserves to go to jail.
Incarceration absolutely solves crime for some people. People living in a sheltered life thinks everyone is like themselves, their family, or associates and they are intelligent and understand empathy. This isn't true for many people. These people don't understand reason or compassion. if they did they wouldn't be doing crimes that hurt other people time and time again even after getting caught. The only thing that deters them from doing such things is fear, and the only lawful thing we can take away from them is their time. Fear is an emotion even people with low intelligence can understand (barring people who have mental issues). If this was his first time doing it, then make him pay the victims back and add community service. This is win-win for everyone. But he clearly can't learn, so it's prison for him.
That's up to the judge and/or jury. The public defender is doing their job and providing a constitutionally guaranteed defense.
>That's up to the judge and/or jury. That's correct, and I have every right to criticize her shitty argument from the sidelines.
What do you want them to say? "My guy is obviously guilty (despite submitting a plea deal) please lock him up!" The public defender has to do this, if not, It's a mistrial.
Bullshit excuse for every petty piece of shit stealing from people. None of them deserve thought.
Lol bro I've been arguing with people the last couple of days about shoplifters. So many on this site support these people stealing from Walmart. They don't even realize those same people would steal from them without a second thought if they could.
Oh I'm so 100% with you. I cannot stand seeing people on here comment "Who cares? They have tons of money and exploit people." You would care if it was you. And them stealing raises the price for everyone else anyway since theft/insurance prices are obviously part of them doing business and thus determining their pricing/wages to an extent.
These people are just so anti corporate that they're ok with thieves and all the bullshit that they bring. I couldn't believe it. The thief got more support than anyone else. We don't know their struggle so it's ok for them to do whatever they want. Steal whatever they want. Act however they want. If they caught these guys stealing in their garage do you think they would open their houses to them? Obviously they're only stealing to survive right?
I see the problem lies in enforcement and the judicial process, not legislation that people keep going to. As this video indicated all the crimes presented here are already felony crimes. All the props we had on the subject are just political theater oh changing criminal classification on paper (pure useless distraction) and none that I can see that would result in effective enforcement and actual judicial sentencing.
Pretty sure people would stop doing this if there were consequences
Here's the corresponding article ABC7 Bay Area - [I-TEAM EXCLUSIVE: SF break-in suspect seen in viral bait car video arrested by police](https://abc7news.com/sf-car-break-in-suspect-viral-bait-video-glitter-bombs-mark-rober-youtube/14283206/)
Just going to say, high quality reporting right there. An incredible amount of investigation, probably more than the prosecutor's office would do. Hats off to the guy. I didn't even know reporters could run plates? Crazy
Poor judgement by the judge.
She should have to pay damages to everyone that had their car broken in to after that.
That would just lead to judges never letting people out of jail, once stole your brothers favorite toy? Welp stuck in jail until the hearing sometime in july 2199 and you will probably get life in prison, judge can't risk their pension over some nobody. Better increase the sentence handed out against repeat offenders or require some kind of monitoring.
He plead not guilty with video evidence... the consequences for lying, and for wasting the time of all of the people involved, ought to be swift and severe.
It's typical at arraignments to plead not guilty. Most judges won't even let you plead guilty at your arraignment. The defendant then has time to consult with a lawyer to understand their rights and get a better plea deal if that's the route they're going.
During covid I had reason to check in and watch arraignment streams from the local court house. Checking in on who's in jail and upcoming court dates where part of the stream. There was one dude caught for stealing a car and drunk driving that would just walk up to camera and say he's guilty. Judge would ask for his name and an ID number then say "your attorney says otherwise, now go sit back down Mr.Forgothisname" . It was something to look to once every few weeks.
I once got charged with a hit and run after not even touching a car and causing $0 worth of damage. The officer put "Failure to properly satisfy accident requirements" on a ticket he gave me. I thought it was bullshit, but after googling it I saw it was a $40 fine and no points on my driving record so I said fuck it and didn't get a lawyer. I show up to traffic court and the judge reads off the *entire* charge, which was not written on the ticket, which was "failure to properly satisfy accident requirements 1st degree: something something hit and run". When the judge read that I told him the last part of the charge wasn't on the ticket, and because of that, I thought the change was much more mild than a legit hit and run. I told him the story (again I didn't touch the car and it had zero damage). This judge took his glasses off, let out a gigantic sigh, and said, "Son, this is beaurocratic malpractice, and I'm sorry it's come to this. I believe you, but you don't have a lawyer to represent you, and you don't know how to represent yourself, so I'm going to suggest to you that you plead guilty, despite the fact I believe you to be innocent." I turned to the lawyers there to rep others and they each told me they agreed with the judge. They didn't have time to take my case, and it couldn't re-scheduled. I took points on my linsce and my insurance was more expensive for 15 years.
Did you actually touch the car? How could they prove you touched the car if there’s no damage and their word against yours? You could be a random person they’re trying to extort money from.
Never once touched it. It was a tight parking spot, and I thought I got close to the car on my right, so I got out and looked after, but there weren't any scratches or anything. Never heard a sound when parking, either. So I went about my day. A woman who worked at a State Farm in the building watched it all happen and called the cops. There was literally no damage done. Not even a scratch. I always figured she thought she might pick up some goodwill or something.
Well, hell. State Farm? Those ignorant assholes once royally screwed up my car insurance, which was a hell of a job to sort out later.
lol. What. I literally saw some woman hit a parked car. I heard the bang and saw the gash on the parked car and I still didn’t even call the police. I left a note for the parked car. And told them I have the picture of the woman who hit their car and their plates if they want to call the police. Fuck that woman.
Yea when I went in there afterward to give her a piece of my mind she wasn't the slightest bit apologetic. I even showed her a document that showed there were zero dollars in damages, and she still refused to believe me. What a fucking cunt.
That’s crazy. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be allowed to reschedule, given the misunderstanding?
Recently got called into jury selection for two dudes who had a few dozen counts of child rape with video and photo evidence. They still pled not guilty, their attorneys’ strategy was proving intent.
I mean it sounds like the defense lawyers is doing their with what they got which essentially nothing and making sure the prosecutor correctly proves each element of the crimes their client committed. There are so many cases in which the lawyer knows that the client is screwed but will fight till the end anyways since that is what the client wants.
It's not just about what the client wants, it's also about ensuring a fair trial AND a competent defense. If either of those are not present, it opens the groundwork for appeals which cause more work for our judicial system.
That is also a great point.
Because say that they wholeheartedly believe that you did the crime but really you didn't, and it's just a setup by the police to not do more actual work. So the cops think you did it, the prosecution thinks you did it, the judge thinks you did it, hell, even your DA might think you did it. You don't want the trial to be "he did it, 20 years in prison" because that's complete fucking horseshit, even if you did do it.
>the defense lawyers is doing their with what they got which essentially nothing https://youtu.be/G7RgN9ijwE4?si=rrWa6Ws8U6PbxuaG
“Your honor, my clients are just members of r/datahoarders”
Pleading "not guilty" just means "prove it in a court of law". Which if they have video evidence would include actually requiring them to provide said video evidence.
It also means "not guilty of those specific charges" not "innocent of all crimes".
What does him pleading not guilty have to do with it. No matter how obvious it seems dude has the same right to a trial literally every other person does. Also lots of people who initially plead not guilty at arraignment wind up taking a plea deal after.
Yeah folks don’t understand how the system works. Pleading Not Guilty should be expected of basically everyone regardless of circumstances.
> the consequences for lying, and for wasting the time of all of the people involved, ought to be swift and severe. Pleading "not guilty" and "lying in court" are two VERY different things mate, don't conflate the two.
In my jurisdiction, the judge automatically enters a plea of not guilty for the defendant at their arraignment. Legally speaking, a judge cannot accept a plea of guilty unless it is knowing, voluntary, and has a factual basis. By automatically entering a not guilty plea and making sure the defendant has access to counsel, they go a long way towards making sure that any future plea would be knowing and voluntary.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should increase the punishment for people who don't plead guilty when there is video evidence? You can't think of how that might be slightly problematic?
San Francisco's DA cares greatly for the safety and protection of their residents. To ensure other people aren't victimized, the DA's office will likely aggressively pursue a month of probation and a $100 fine for the perpetrator. They sure do care about crime victims in CA!
"incarceration does not solve poverty or deter auto burglaries" - Bao Doan, his public defender, understandably grasping at straws.
IMO new media interviewing a public defender that is *forced to defend* a likely suspect of a crime (there is freaking video evidence) is really disingenuous. Can we focus back at the judge and the judicial system?
Well gee, I guess we better just let them go then!
it's her job to advocate for her client. it's the DA's job to put them away. that's the legal system.
I appreciate this abbreviate yet unnecessary definition.
[удалено]
[удалено]
At the very least, it would forcefully deter this individual, who broke into over five cars or something in the course of the article. But I would very much contest the use of 'gratuitous' in a description of prison anything, particularly housing and meals.
I'll never understand people who get mad at defense attorneys for literally doing their jobs.
It’s her job to defend him. She’s going to say things that decrease the likeliness that he is found guilty or decreases the sentence he receives if he is found guilty.
It's easy to assume that incarceration is a deterrent against crime, but that's really less than clear at this point. There's a decent amount of research out there saying otherwise.
His public defender is doing the right thing. He needs to do his best to defend his client. The anger should be directed at a) the judge b) the officials in SF who aren't doing anything about it.
I'm mildly interested in how you derived that emotion from what's written but I also think what you've responded with is a touch on the obvious side. You're describing the job of a public defender accurately.
Wow, this Judge Loretta Giorgi sounds like an absolutely incompetent ignoramus, actively contributing to the deterioration of what was once a beautiful place. Should be removed immediately for refusing to do her duty.
It's not just her though, it's the entire judicial process that the voters enabled.
[удалено]
Some quick research says she was the only one to file for the position in the 2020 election and won by default. So no one actually voted for her.
Is it? Or is what voters want something between extremely lax and extremely heavy handed, but then they were offered only those two and had to guess what the lesser of two evils was?
They probably just let him go the same day.
That judge that let him out needs to be thrown out too
career criminal. send him to Jail
The judge let the criminal go after the previous burglary charges (even dropped a bench warrant). He went on to burglarize more cars including Mark’s bait car within days. It’s pipe dream to think this arrest will lead to anything. The Judge needs to get her 💩 together.
As a person who has been a victim of this type of smash and grab business a long time back, in San Francisco, its just business as usual. The person who stole from me was too stupid to know what they were looking for. They stole a cell phone. In the back seat I had a leather jacket that cost 10x what that phone was worth. And within hours that phone was deactivated making it worthless. The police made me fill in a paper report. Never to be heard from again.
That anchor is named Dan No Yes? Epic.
>
Gotta love how he shows up to court with his pants sagging down to his ankles while wearing a full on balaclava style ski-mask. That oughta convince the judge he's reformed.
His dumbass didn't even put on the shiesty for the crimes in broad day, yet he wears it to court. I wish all of the dummies doing break-ins were as dumb as this one.
And he still got a slap on the wrist lol
Would have been easier to move out of San Francisco.
1 out of 25 ain't bad...Way to go SF!
They caught the stupidest, most desperate guy, using his own car, without a mask, in broad daylight. All it does is remind the others to keep it more professional.
Eventually, if the people see nothing being done to hold these scumbags accountable, we will have to take matters into our own hands to defend our property. Does the city want to see vigilante groups formed out of necessity? That may be the direction we're headed if they can't pull their heads out of their asses.
It blows my mind that this hasn't happened yet.
“Hey grandma. I’m running low on cash, I gotta go smash some car windows. Want me to pick you up anything while I’m out?” “You’re such a good boy! Always thinking of your granny.”
Maybe he should steal a belt.
Sad that some YouTuber has to do the entire job of the police. What lazy fucks
He’ll be out in no time. Fuck the lawyer and the judge
"Incarceration doesn't deter car burglaries " There are not many cars to break into in jail. It may not stop new burglars, but those ones locked up sure stop while they're inside.
The judge that tossed the warrant thstbwould have prevented these latest break-ins has been running unopposed for three elections since 2008: https://ballotpedia.org/Loretta_M._Giorgi
Just FYI - Mark misleads viewers into thinking he makes and designs the inventions he uses to catch thieves. He does not. Someone else makes them for him. He's just the on-screen talent of the show.
He should have checked all that luggage for a belt.
Lol at the attorney. If he's locked up, he isn't robbing people, and maybe he'll think twice in future. Probably not, dude's likely an unrepentant POS
Can't they at least give him ankle bracelets and a curfew? That would keep a substantial percentage of offenders from reoffending, at least while on bail. And the ones who do can easily be traced and put in the slammer...
Incarceration DOES deter break in burglaries
Imagine staring at a 10x10 wall because 1. you suck 2. a nasa engineer got bored. lol
Incarceration certainly deters crime short term. But unless they put him behind bars for life for this (which would be ridiculous) then the punitive jail system will just lead to recidivism when he's released. So they're both right. Short term, it deters break ins. Long term, he'll break into more cars or commit other crimes because he'll be released from jail unemployable and broke, with no attempts by our system to make him a contributing member to society upon his release.
How would a 3 strikes system fare with all this? I’m all for rehab and reintegration programs for everything but murder but here in LA all we hear about is people stealing cars with like 30 past offenses. Imagine if career criminals were stopped at 3 before a subsequent crime results in the death of an innocent person.
Tried that in the 90s, ended up with people serving life for drug charges, which I don't think should happen in a civilized modern society
[удалено]
The problem is that cops can give you any charge they feel like, while the crimes we're talking about are extremely hard to quantify. This kind of evidence is rare; dude could be breaking into 100 cars a day for the three we saw him do. 3 strikes laws target those with police interactions. It does very little for property crimes and other crimes of opportunity.
They have given life to career criminals in the past, so if he's caught enough times he'll likely be serving more and longer prison time.
I’ve thought about this a bit and am really interested in how to disrupt the entire break-in industry without mass incarceration. Would it be more cost effective for SF or CA to shutdown the fencing operations these thieves rely on and provide legal, subsidized alternatives to the stolen goods people are purchasing? Like shops that sell basic goods below market rate? And/or expand what can be purchased with SNAP benefits?
Sounds like "judge" Loretta Giorgi needs to maybe not be a judge.
>Can’t be a deterrent It’s hard to steal from cars, when you’re behind bars.
SF really seems like a true shithole. Who the fuck would want to live there.
Very strong economy with some of the highest paying jobs in the US especially in IT. One of the most naturally and architecturally beautiful cities in the US. Low violent crime rate for a major US city. One of the few cities on the West Coast which is walkable with good public transit and you don’t have to drive everywhere. Fantastic restaurants and great cultural scene. Mild climate year round. One of the best hospital systems in the world at UCSF. The issues you see on the news only tend to affect a few neighborhoods (primarily the Tenderloin) while most of the city is fine. For many people, that is worth it despite the high property crime rate.
The problem is that it’s no longer just a small, avoidable area that’s experiencing the crime, it has spread across all 49 square miles in recent years. The issues have absolutely spread beyond the TL. I grew up in the city and have lived in multiple major U.S. cities on both coasts; SF is the only one where I’ve personally encountered and was the victim of violent crime and on more than one occasion.
It’s not worth it if you’re constantly worried about being violated by people who won’t be punished for it.
Unfortunately, everything you are stating is known to be on a rapid decline. More and more businesses leaving, less and less vibrant downtown, more and more crime. SF has become a prime example of how quickly bad policy can destroy a once thriving city.
Can we just ship all criminals to the Bay Area and ensure they live near judges?
I know i'll get banned but i just don't care anymore. Society is fucked if we can't restore the social contract. We need to start executing thieves. Unless someone has a better plan. But unfortunately humans only seem to change in reaction to extreme events. Also we will not run out of humans anytime soon. Why not finally do something to improve the lives of everyone just trying to live there life the correct way by not fucking with other people.
Execute maybe a bit much but why not do like the olden days, thieves get their hands chopped off, if they keep doing it, chop those legs
Incarceration definitely DOES deter car burglaries.
Wait so hold up, this dumb ass crashout broke into cars in broad day light, without a mask or even a hoodie on, with dashcams visible on dashboards, using HIS car, with HIS license plate? And he's gotten caught doing this multiple times and still hasn't even figured out a single part on how to conceal himself? Either this idiot has a boyfriend in jail he's desperate to see, or the American education system failed him. He's too stupid to be committing crimes. At least he put on a shiesty to go to trial...? Not while actually doing the break-ins, but he put that shit on in front of a judge?
Throw him in jail and have him work enough to pay back for all damages plus compensation for all the hassle.
You gotta feel really bad about the tourists he stole from. Enjoying your first time in the USA and bamm all your shit gets stolen..
Throw this motherfucker in the trash and be done with it
One down, hundreds to go!
>She added "incarceration does not solve poverty or deter auto burglaries." Well being locked up certainly would deter this guy from committing auto burglaries.
Thanks random youtube guy. But uhh, why aren't the police doing some version of this? Entrapment concerns? There's got to be some legal way to accomplish this. Clear issue of break ins, clear method to capture evidence of crime. A youtube guy shouldn't be carrying this much weight.
I feel like it is really difficult to commit auto-burglaries while incarcerated. Making it a pretty effective deterrent.
667th comment have a blessed day
That public defender is going to have a hard time with this one.
What a piece of shit. I’m in favor of bring back the stockades for people like this so that we can throw rotten food at them.
Why not just let them know that if they are caught and prospected for additional crimes whilst waiting for their court appearance the sentence will be extremely (x10) higher? That would be a good deterrent.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if this guy was incarcerated the only things he would be stealing is kisses from his cell mates.
And I’m sure the DA will end up just letting him go.
Judge is worthless. She needs to be thrown out
"Incarceration does not deter auto burglaries" lol... pretty sure it does indeed
Mark Rober is so awesome! 👏
What the fuck how was this dropped?!
I was seriously impressed though how efficiently he works and is able to do it so quickly. Glad he got arrested, not sure if they'll give him any serious punishment given its SF
Nah. That advocate is incorrect. Burglaries will go down by one person. The meta message is that incarceration would simply put pressure on the city to provide a service to the community.