It began with police responding to an incident near the Stonestown Mall, involving a stolen Audi Q7. It ended during a police chase, with that same Audi crashed into the parklet outside the Napper Tandy sports bar on 24th Street and South Van Ness Avenue, and six people injured.
It could have been worse. Before crashing into the parklet, the stolen SUV careened into a car and traffic pole near the 24th Street BART station. Near the demolished parklet, officers arrested two suspects: Taylor Ross, 27, and Eureeka Abrams, 29.
The chase and subsequent arrest is exactly the kind of incident for which Proposition E, which voters passed in March 2024, was intended: Both suspects were known to the authorities for alleged organized retail theft, according to an internal police bulletin obtained by Mission Local. Under the department’s previous car-chase policy, pursuits were largely limited to suspects of violent crimes, which means that officers, barring special circumstances, would likely not have been able to pursue and apprehend Ross and Abrams.
At the same time, the dangerous pursuit, violent crash and subsequent hospitalization of six people, including a mother and daughter, was also exactly the kind of calamity Prop. E’s detractors feared.
“Every respected law-enforcement organization warned us that Prop. E would herald needless carnage on our roadways, without any accompanying benefit,” said Police Commission Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone.
“This tragedy didn’t need to happen,” Carter-Oberstone added.
On Tuesday, District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder sent a letter of inquiry to the police department to understand the circumstances prompting the pursuit.
“When there is an imminent threat to people’s lives, I understand the need for a vehicle pursuit, however, in this case, the public deserves to know whether there were other options that could have avoided such a confrontation,” wrote Fielder.
“Public safety requires holding all people accountable for the harm they cause, no matter who causes it,” she added.
Sunday’s crash not only resulted in six people being hospitalized, but also the complete destruction of a parklet outside the Napper Tandy, an Irish bar where many locals had gathered to watch the big game.
It is unclear exactly what prompted the police response on Sunday at Buckingham Way and Winston Drive. The department initially referred to the incident as a “burglary in progress,” and later as “regarding a wanted vehicle.” An investigation is currently open, and the department declined further comment.
But Prop. E was aimed at suspects like Abrams and Ross, alleged serial criminals who had hitherto evaded the police. As one veteran officer told Mission Local last year, Prop. E “likely will put more people in danger. If we are willing to accept that in order to arrest people, okay, fine.”
Ross had several arrest warrants for violent felonies outside of San Francisco, and was also arrested on other charges: Reckless evading of a police officer, driving a stolen vehicle, fleeing from a scene of injury and resisting arrest, according to the police department. Abrams had an arrest warrant related to property crime in Los Angeles and, like Ross, was also arrested for resisting arrest.
According to police materials obtained by Mission Local, Ross was already connected to a dozen felony cases, and that was all the way back in 2019.
Under the previous pursuit policy, which was adopted by the Police Commission in 2013, officers generally could only engage in a pursuit involving a violent crime or when the suspect posed an immediate threat to public safety. Now, following the passage of Prop. E by 54 percent of voters, officers can engage in a pursuit in response to any felony or “violent misdemeanor,” in addition to when the suspect poses an immediate threat to public safety.
Proponents of the measure include former Mayor London Breed (who sponsored it) and Mayor Daniel Lurie (who raised $738,870 in support of it). Both touted the initiative as a means to reduce police oversight and help law enforcement pursue emboldened criminals.
Lurie’s administration did not respond when asked to comment on the crash. On Sunday, Lurie posted on social media: “I am aware of the emergency situation in the Mission District at 24th Street and South Van Ness. I remain in contact with SFPD and SFFD and wish those injured a full recovery.”
“Accidents like this are a tragedy, and we must do everything we can to prevent them,” said Chris Larsen, the Ripple founder and cryptocurrency billionaire who gave $500,000 in support of Prop. E (half of that went to a joint committee supporting both Propositions E and F). “But it’s the criminal crews that are responsible; they might have caused the same tragedy trying to flee police, regardless of Prop E. Holding these criminals accountable and reducing their ranks is what makes our streets safer,” he added.
Larsen also added that Prop. E has led to a number of positive outcomes, namely the installation of 400 license plate readers, the addition of drones as first responders and the reduction of administrative functions within the police department.
Still, the law gives officers more discretion to initiate chases, and that discretion often leads to collateral deaths.
A year-long San Francisco Chronicle investigation into police chases found that at least 3,336 people were killed in police pursuits in the United States between 2017 and 2022, and at least 551 of those deaths were bystanders. The report also found that many of these chases begin with low-level crimes, and officers, who are not held to any binding national standards about what is and isn’t a risky pursuit, are rarely held accountable when their actions result in death or injury.
“Violent misdemeanor,” which was written into San Francisco law with Prop. E, is also not a term that is defined in California’s penal code, said Yoel Haile, the director of the Criminal Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California. The consequence of that vagueness is that the decision of whether a crime is deserving of a car chase is left to the discretion of an individual police officer or their police department. “Either of those options are recipes for disaster,” said Haile.
“The risk of injuring people or killing people, innocent bystanders or others, is way too high to be loose with these policies for when to engage in a high-speed chase,” said Haile. “This was precisely the thing we feared.”
Additional reporting by Joe Eskenazi.
Note: This article was updated to include Supervisor Fielder’s letter of inquiry.
So one of the criminals has outstanding warrants from various jurisdictions for assault with a deadly weapon, grand theft, burglary, conspiracy, and carjacking. The other has an outstanding warrant from LA for grand theft. One way to avoid the need to consider car chases is to simply act on outstanding warrants and arrest people who are already under a warrant. This is low-hanging fruit. Yes, criminals hide, but tracking down criminals under a warrant is far more sensible than waiting to catch them in the act on the next crime and chasing them in a cop cruiser. In my view, the biggest failure here was failing to round these two up on existing warrants before they committed even more crimes and put people in danger.
So which police agency are you saying “failed” then? Be specific.
I would argue that anyone who attempts to evade arrest by engaging in egregiously dangerous driving that endangers the public like we see here is EXACTLY the type of person we need to get off the streets immediately. What’s the alternative? Teach them that if they drive fast and recklessly enough that they can get away with anything?
These were not just shoplifters / car thieves. They had outstanding warrants for piles of charges including violent ones like carjacking and assault with a deadly weapon. Frankly it’s a shame that some judge probably gave them pre-trial release.
Thank you SFPD for getting these hardened criminals off the streets. My heart goes out to the innocent victims. The criminals are at fault 100% for their injuries and I hope they finally face some real consequences. Stop blaming the police. Stop coddling criminals.
it’s sad that people are so gullible and trust the police like this.
It sucks that it came to this, but clearly, these violent, career criminals needed to be taken off the streets. The assumption that we shouldn’t pursue property crimes is myopic at best. No pursuit means violent criminals 1) get away with the current crime and 2) remain at large and further enabled to commit additional violent crimes against other innocent victims. If we want violent criminals caught, they need to be pursued. Any damage as a result is the fault of the offenders, not the police.
If the cop car had damaged a parklet then I could perhaps understand the concern here. But of course it was not, but rather a pair of dangerous criminals who needed to be caught. And the silver lining here is that as a result the pair will serve much more time, which is good for everyone.
As for Prop E, the voters decided it knowing that there might be the odd incident like this, but deciding that the benefits were worth the risk.
ML forgot to post Assault with Deadly Weapon from Alameda County for Ross. At the most, she spent 1-night in jail for everyone of those 15+ felonies she has committed.
Perhaps Fielder could also try investigating how these two career criminals were allowed to roam the streets for years despite their panoply of priors and outstanding warrants.
Max Carter-Oberstone knew that under the Police Commission’s old chase policy, criminal suspects could easily evade capture by the police by basically just driving away. And that became an evident and growing problem during the pandemic. But Max and many of his fellow Police Commissioners refused to revise the old policy to make it any better. That’s how we got 2024’s Prop E as a ballot measure, which the citizens passed because the situation had become too much and there was no other option. It was shameful that the Police Commission neglected their own duty to provide workable policies, instead preferring the old status quo of letting criminals easily escape by driving away, often in stolen cars. A vehicle shouldn’t provide such blanket sanctuary.
Was that the soon to be former comish?
After reading this article, I’m glad Lurie is trying to fire this idiot:
“…needless carnage on our roadways, without any accompanying benefit,” said Police Commission Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone
Wrong Max. Getting violent felons off the street is actually a huge benefit. There was clearly a cost in this case, but getting these ladies off the street is the benefit.
“This tragedy didn’t need to happen,” — Correct. It didn’t have to happen if the criminals didn’t drive like maniacs with no regard for others in an attempt to evade consequences for their laundry list of crimes.
The entire point you’ve somehow missed is that you can get these people off the streets WITHOUT THE CAR CHASE by using technology assets and tracking. The car chase is sometimes necessary but sometimes overkill – obviously – for certain types of crimes and situations. It’s called cost/benefit analysis and you really ought to know more about it before trying to suggest policy.
Carter-Oberstone is basically Chesa reincarnated on the Police Commission. Lurie is right to fire him. The voters do not see criminals as victims.
“Violent misdemeanor,” which was written into San Francisco law with Prop. E, is also not a term that is defined in California’s penal code, said Yoel Haile, the director of the Criminal Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California. The consequence of that vagueness is that the decision of whether a crime is deserving of a car chase is left to the discretion of an individual police officer or their police department.” – I’m sure you read this part, right?
Unfortunately SF has long railed against commonsense public surveillance and the sharing of facial recognition with other law enforcement agencies. Until these commonsense steps take place, police will need to go chase after criminals. Absolutely sickening so much blame on the police and not the criminals.
Sorry that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. They had the suspects descriptions and vehicle info disseminated already before the chase began. You don’t seem to understand the question isn’t between surveillance or not here, it’s about the circumstances under which PD is authorized for potentially dangerous vehicle chases. Who is “blaming” the police? It’s pointing the finger at a very specific policy decision that affects police and the public at large, and it’s not a settled question. Try to read better. Facial recognition doesn’t stop police chases, that’s just red herring BS.
I’m more than ok with officers pursuing criminals in chase. The 2 career criminals shouldn’t even be on the streets with all of the previous mayhem they are responsible for. Don’t lose your nerve good law abiding citizens. The gaslighting has begun
Can we follow the causality a little bit more carefully?
6 people were injured;
-Because two suspects crashed their car into a sidewalk
-Because they were fleeing police
-Because the police were chasing them
-Because they had likely stolen the car
-Because they were not afraid of stealing
-Because they had been caught stealing before and suffered no consequences
-Because people feel it is wrong to punish nonviolent crime
So taken at the extremes: 6 people were injured because people don’t want to punish nonviolent crime
This is exactly why San Francisco needed Proposition E. Criminals have been running wild with zero consequences, knowing that SFPD’s hands were tied. This chase proves that when officers are allowed to do their jobs, they can take dangerous criminals off the streets. The only people complaining about police chases are the same ones who let crime spiral out of control in the first place. Protecting citizens on the street doesn’t mean letting criminals go free—it means enforcing laws while also considering other public safety measures that keep innocent people out of harm’s way. We need to stop coddling criminals and start prioritizing law-abiding residents.
There is no safe police chase in an SUV. Police SUVs greatly increase the risk of harm to other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Our police dept should not be buying SUVs and they definitely should not be allowed to participate in a chase.
The sole responsibility for this horrible event lies with the jackasses who stole and wrecked some innocent San Franciscan’s car, destroyed and damaged all kinds of property, then injured (and easily could’ve killed) at least a half dozen bystanders! The notion that somehow these sociopaths should be let go, to threaten and victimize more innocent San Franciscans, is insane. These are grownass men, who know exactly what they’re doing, and deliberately choose to hurt people for profit. They need to be separated from civilized people until they’re no longer a threat. (Which yeah, sadly might be a while.) There ARE dangerous humans, and the process of getting them off the streets can only start AFTER they are arrested. Letting them go to do more crimes another day, simply because they drive recklessly, is giving sociopaths a “get out of jail” free pass, and the opposite of keeping the public safe.
“The notion that somehow these sociopaths should be let go”
Is not actually the notion, in fact.
Soft on crime is not working. Years of not allowing the police have embolden criminals to run from police.
If you read S.F. Standards article, the driver of the stolen car had warrants from multiple jurisdictions (including a warrant for carjacking) in the bay area. The passenger also have warrants from multiple jurisdictions.
These criminals are the reason why stores are closing. They are stealing millions of dollars of merchandise.
This isn’t their first rodeo. Maybe a lengthy stay in state prison will change their behavior versus blaming the cops, their race, their social economic status, or how they were wronged by sociality or whatever other reason you can think of. Wrong is wrong no matter how you look at it
Being “hard” on crime without doing the proper work to make it legit doesn’t work. There are policy decision that affect how these things play out in terms of human lives and it’s not simple. They want to always appear as “hard on crime” as possible but the result of some courses of action do not act in the interests of the dept. That’s why they want to inform those decisions, not because they’re soft on crime but because they want to be as advantageously positioned long term as possible, and those are not mutually inexclusive.
Sitting literally in the street, to eat or drink is madness. This would have not happened, if they where eating and drinking at least on the side walk and not in the actual street.
Two of the victims were just walking by — they were on the sidewalk, on 24th St. If the parklet weren’t there, the car could just as easily have hit them and others.
I agree with you. It’s absolutely perilous, and this is not the first time that a car has crashed into a parklet. The shacks are obstacle courses for drivers and cyclists and really have no business on our narrow streets. The business owners aren’t about to give them up, because they are free real estate (fees are waived if the parklet was permitted pre 2024).
I would like to see them limited to where sidewalks are wide as other cities have done.
They are not free, exactly 3 were destroyed by car crashes and the other 2 were late at night DUI affairs where nobody was injured. Drivers obviously aren’t impeded by them because they’re only where parking was, not lanes. Cyclists should be used to avoiding obstacles because they’re in an urban environment where that’s the reality anyway, people walking around happens. You don’t have to like it that some people prefer to sit outside with a cocktail/meal though…
the bootlickers and sfpd apologists are out here in these comments.
Cool, six people were seriously injured and a business significantly impacted so the cops could chase some robbers for property theft, not even violent crime. Ridiculous. End police chases, we live in a police surveillance state where SFPD can look at your nest cam footage. They have drones, helicopters, all kinds of gross tech, why do they need to put lives at risk with high speed chases? SFPD is a joke and endangers our communities.
Wrong, and wrong again.
From the article: “Ross had several arrest warrants for violent felonies…” The SFPD does not have helicopters.
SFPD has drones they already use. They should be leveraged in situations just like this.
If you disagree you are prioritizing property over human lives.
You can’t have private property without a system to defend property rights via the threat of violence.
How does a drone arrest a perp?
It could do a good job of successfully watching the perps abandon their stolen car and run into a crowded place in order to vanish however.