policeblotter_sfa.jpg

Blotter map madness, day 2! Too much, not enough, what do you think? (RSS people, sorry, you gotta click through.) Tell us if this makes the blotter more or less useful and/or engaging, OK?

Tuesday, 1/26/10



12:12 PM: A man was sitting in his car on the 600 block of Jamestown when another man reportedly approached him and, after a short conversation, shot him (the guy in the car) in the leg. His wound wasn’t life threatening, and no one’s been arrested.

4:30 PM: A man reportedly broke into a woman’s house in the 100 block of Eucalyptus. The resident, who was there, heard him allegedly break in, and saw him fleeing. The police found the suspect and arrested him.

6:30 PM: A man reportedly surprised a woman from behind (don’t, this is serious) and mugged her at Palou and Lane. No one’s been arrested.

6:51 PM: A store on the 500 block of 3rd Street was reportedly robbed at gunpoint, when a man allegedly entered the store, pulled a gun, and demanded the cash from the register. The store’s employee complied, and was not injured. No arrest has been made.

7:18 PM: A man and woman reportedly got in a fight on the 400 block of Jones, and the man reportedly struck the woman. Her injuries weren’t life threatening, and he was arrested.

8:59 PM: A man reportedly broke into a home on the 2600 block of Bryant, but was confronted by the resident, who chased the suspect down and retrieved the property stolen from the home. The alleged robber has been arrested, and the (kind of badass) victim’s property was retrieved.

11:45 PM: A man and an undescribed victim reportedly got into a fight at 6th and Jessie, and the man allegedly cut the victim’s face with scissors. The cut was not life threatening, and the suspect was arrested.

Wednesday, 1/27/10

1:06 AM: Two men reportedly assaulted an undescribed person in a bar at 24th and Mission in what’s being described as a “gang-related fight” by the SFPD. The victim’s injuries weren’t life threatening, and at least one of the alleged assailants has been arrested.

1:30 AM: An unknown suspect fired shots into a business (closed at the time) on the 800 block of Taraval. No one was injured, though property was damaged. No one’s been arrested.

the author

Eve Batey is the editor and publisher of the San Francisco Appeal. She used to be the San Francisco Chronicle's Deputy Managing Editor for Online, and started at the Chronicle as their blogging and interactive editor. Before that, she was a co-founding writer and the lead editor of SFist. She's been in the city since 1997, presently living in the Outer Sunset with her husband, cat, and dog. You can reach Eve at eve@sfappeal.com.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Shibi

    The Crime Blotter seems so bland and unethnically diverse without the any sort of racial descriptions. But, what about telling us the type of store on 3rd or on the 800 block of Taraval? Were they “Black” or “Asian/Pacific Islander” stores? Hardware or liquor stores?

  • Shibi

    The Crime Blotter seems so bland and unethnically diverse without the any sort of racial descriptions. But, what about telling us the type of store on 3rd or on the 800 block of Taraval? Were they “Black” or “Asian/Pacific Islander” stores? Hardware or liquor stores?

  • modelenoir

    What?

    As far as store type… if it’s not in the incident report, then it most likely won’t show up here unless Eve goes out of her way to include it. Race was excluded as an trial to see how people like it. You apparently like it included? Or are you really just worried about store types?

    If you’re kidding around, point taken, you like race to be included in the report. If you’re serious though, it highlights one of the reasons that including race can be detrimental: classifying stores as “Black” or “Asian/Pacific Islander” is similar to classifying certain types of crimes as “Black” or “Asian/Pacific Islander” crimes.

    The demographics of crime is certainly an interesting debate, and race is a very important data point in some contexts, but I don’t really see what good it does in the context of this blotter. Including race without supporting context could be considered irresponsible, however this is not the forum for that. For the purposes of this discussion, including race without context is just irrelevant.

    Peace.

  • modelenoir

    What?

    As far as store type… if it’s not in the incident report, then it most likely won’t show up here unless Eve goes out of her way to include it. Race was excluded as an trial to see how people like it. You apparently like it included? Or are you really just worried about store types?

    If you’re kidding around, point taken, you like race to be included in the report. If you’re serious though, it highlights one of the reasons that including race can be detrimental: classifying stores as “Black” or “Asian/Pacific Islander” is similar to classifying certain types of crimes as “Black” or “Asian/Pacific Islander” crimes.

    The demographics of crime is certainly an interesting debate, and race is a very important data point in some contexts, but I don’t really see what good it does in the context of this blotter. Including race without supporting context could be considered irresponsible, however this is not the forum for that. For the purposes of this discussion, including race without context is just irrelevant.

    Peace.