[akomtu]

The situation in question doesn't involve violence: three dudes grabbed some merchendise from a cannabis shop. From the cop's perspective it's a lose-lose situation: some of the burglars may turn out career criminals and attempt to avoid arrest by any means possible, because getting arrested would reveal some other crimes, and the cop would have to use force or a gun, possibly killing a burglar. The media would predictably paint the cop as a merciless thug and the actual thug as a saint, riots would follow, legislators would further handicap police. The cop wisely decided that it's better to stay aside and engage only if things turn really violent.

SF has a cognitive dissonance right now: it doesn't want crime, but it doesn't want to punish criminals, so when criminals come uninvited, SF can't decide what to do.

[sudosysgen]

Alright. So for this to be dangerous to the cop, the criminal has to react violently to any risk of arrest. In that case, how would the criminal react to the inhabitants coming out? In any case, it seems reckless not to arrest them as it would risk someone's life.

Also, career criminals very rarely use violence to resist arrest. That is something that inexperienced or impulse criminals do. Any career criminal knows that using violence against the police will end up in a worse outcome than getting caught.

I would be interested to see a story where a criminal, in the comission of a crime, initiated deadly force against a policeman and was painted as a saint after their death or injury, leading to riots. This happens almost every day and no one cares about it.

[ergocoder]

The point is police cannot tell the future.

They will have to wait for a violent event to happen first before doing anything.

Police is safe, SF voters get what they vote for, and thieves get goods. Win win win.

[sudosysgen]

They don't have to predict the future. In any case they are protecting life.