Given that the police did not bother to investigate there is no wonder the DA did not "press charges". I do not really get the grand parent post. Police investigation happens before any charges are pressed. So no matter how incompetent the DA is I do not see how they could possibly be to blame here.
Because if the DA says he won't prosecute certain crimes, why would the police bother to arrest someone that will be released on no cash bail. Why would they risk themselves or being in a situation where they need to use force and come under public scrutiny?
In many of these cities, these DAs are propped up with insane campeign funds, get elected, and refuse to charge, or push for no bail, so someone gets arrested for a felony, they end up back on the street the next day. Just read some of the cases where some people are arrested over and over and keep reoffending before their trial date.
The "certain crimes" that the DA said he would not prosecute are, in his words, "Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc.".
It's a bit of a leap from there to conclude that attempted murder would not be prosecuted.
It's a different DA, but the current Manhattan DA (who appears to be from the same school of thought as the one under discussion), upon taking office in January 2022, issued a written policy memorandum which stated that his office will stop prosecuting, among other things, trespass, jumping the turnstiles, and driving without a license or on a suspended license; and further downgraded burglaries and drug cases, in some cases from what the text of the law classifies as a felony down to a misdemeanor.
Does it say anywhere on that memo that attempted murder would not be prosecuted? Of course not. Do these policies generally increase the feeling of lawlessness in the jurisdiction? Yes. Might that precipitate higher degrees of lawlessness? You be the judge.
You're making a "broken windows" argument here, which may or may not be true. But what I was discussing was a different question: Whether the DAs in question classified stabbing / attempted murder among those crimes not to be prosecuted. And I have not seen any evidence that they have.
People have trouble disentangling the problematic behavior of the police and the consequences of prosecutorial discretion.
The OP's argument is likely that the police didn't arrest an attacker because they knew that the DA wouldn't do anything. There is the plausible alternate explanation that the police were engaged in a bad-faith work stoppage or slow down. The third explanation--nonunique to DA--is that the police were overworked or incompetent.
The third explanation is the only one that makes sense. SF police haven't done their jobs before or after Boudin either. The Tenderloin has had open crime for decades, and that didn't change just because there was a new DA.
They are not mutually exclusive either. It could have been all three. Let me also add that morale is an issue. The police have been taught to value their work in a certain kind of way (chase the bad guy, lock him up, get rewarded), but the world is changing. A lot of these cops feel betrayed by new political positions like "don't arrest for theft," and they legitimately start to wonder what is the point of doing a difficult and dangerous job if they don't have support in their own (I cringe) chain of command? For an external observer it seems like this should not prevent police from e.g. arresting people for murder, but it really has an impact on outcomes.
You can go ahead and call and try to get something done. I spent two years on it and was stonewalled by both the PD and the DA’s office.
It’s incredible when there are so many stories of the police doing nothing and statistical evidence of the previous DA not prosecuting cases, that you choose to, at best, accuse me of being imprecise with my terminology or, at worse, claim that I’m lying about one of the most traumatic events of my life.
I don't think they're accusing you of lying; I think what they're saying is that your expectations (and blame) are misplaced: the police are not empowered to make arrest decisions based on how likely they think the DA is to prosecute. The fact that they're making those decisions extralegally suggests that they were playing political hot potato to sink a DA they don't like.
(It's worth noting that Boudin was recalled nearly a year ago, and so perhaps the SFPD will have discovered the will to cooperate with the new DA.)
In the US, The police are so empowered and do it all the time. I am unsure why gp thinks otherwise. They are not required to nor do they simply get arrest warrants in every case they think they have probable cause. Anything else would be silly. They would get an arrest warrant, arrest, it would get dismissed without charges at the initial hearing a day later.
If the DA is involved already or they know the office policy,
Cops will not get an arrest warrant if the DA is not going to back them.
If DA is not yet involved they may do it for various reasons, but again, they usually aren't going to touch it if they know the DA won't back them. They have too much to do to be that passive aggressive.
As for the other part,
Whether individuals can get arrest warrants actually varies from state to state, though it is very uncommon no matter what.
After being arrested, you press charges against them
You know, folks get charges without being arrested - and folks get arrested without getting charged. These two aren't actually connected.
It isn't just that, but you - the private citizen - aren't really the one that determines whether or not someone gets charges against them. Sometimes, if you won't testify, they won't follow through. This happens in Domestic violence situations. But other times, they simply don't take the case to court or they take the case to court even if the victim doesn't want it.
That’s not how it works. After being arrested, you press charges against them.