Connect with us


Yes, It’s That Bad: San Fran Residents Leaving Trunks Open to Deter Thieves from Breaking In

Some residents have begun leaving their parked vehicles with the trunks left open in the hope of discouraging auto break-ins.



San Francisco’s liberal policies have resulted in soaring crime rates and criminals armed with the knowledge that in all likelihood they will never be arrested, let alone prosecuted. Citizens have had to come up with ways to defend their property.

“Imagine having to clean out your car and leaving it open in public, just so people won’t break your windows. Oakland we looking sad man” said one witness. “We’ve heard of cars being left unlocked, windows rolled down, but now some people are leaving their trunks open too. It’s raising eyebrows as reports of car break-ins are on the rise in San Francisco and Oakland” reports abc 7.

Oakland’s Interim Deputy Police Chief Drennon Lindsey said the desperation “doesn’t really surprise me. ”Lindsey continued, “even if you think I’m just going to put my laptop in my trunk…if it’s on, they have technology to detect it in the car…even if it’s hidden.”

Former San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) Chief Garret Tom who spent 40 years on the force lamented “we’re in different times…that’s unbelievable.” SFPD has reported a whopping 32 percent increase in car break-ins this year compared to last year.

The city has seen a 25 percent spike in auto burglaries, with the same happening in Oakland. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said “we have got to do more to get us through this holiday season.”

Schaaf suggested people buy security cameras to protect their belongings, and help with surveillance. “Pointing the cameras towards the street and register it with the Oakland Police Department” said Schaaf.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling



Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading