Tech Executive Arrested In San Francisco Killing of Cash App Creator (missionlocal.org) 100
"Early Wednesday, San Francisco police made an arrest in the April 4th killing of tech exec Bob Lee," writes Slashdot reader xevioso. "Lee was stabbed in the early hours of April 4th, and later died. His killing prompted a host of claims that this was yet another example of San Francisco's slide into chaos, but the person arrested is reportedly another tech exec." Mission Local reports: The alleged killer also works in tech and is a man Lee purportedly knew. We are told that police today were dispatched to Emeryville with a warrant to arrest a man named Nima Momeni. The name and Emeryville address SFPD officers traveled to correspond with this man, the owner of a company called Expand IT.
Multiple police sources have described the predawn knifing that last week left the 43-year-old Lee dead in a deserted section of downtown San Francisco as neither a robbery attempt nor a random attack. Rather, Lee and Momeni were portrayed by police as being familiar with one another. In the wee hours of April 4, they were purportedly driving together through downtown San Francisco in a car registered to the suspect. Some manner of confrontation allegedly commenced while both men were in the vehicle, and potentially continued after Lee exited the car. Police allege that Momeni stabbed Lee multiple times with a knife that was recovered not far from the spot on the 300 block of Main Street to which officers initially responded.
Multiple police sources have described the predawn knifing that last week left the 43-year-old Lee dead in a deserted section of downtown San Francisco as neither a robbery attempt nor a random attack. Rather, Lee and Momeni were portrayed by police as being familiar with one another. In the wee hours of April 4, they were purportedly driving together through downtown San Francisco in a car registered to the suspect. Some manner of confrontation allegedly commenced while both men were in the vehicle, and potentially continued after Lee exited the car. Police allege that Momeni stabbed Lee multiple times with a knife that was recovered not far from the spot on the 300 block of Main Street to which officers initially responded.
But but but (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't fit the desired narrative!
Re: (Score:1)
But what if, in the gun-filled paradise where you live, that someone pulls a gun and shoots you?
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
FUCK NO
Re: (Score:2)
https://datavisualizations.her... [heritage.org]
https://www.realclearinvestiga... [realcleari...ations.com]
http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-co... [gunfacts.info]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
>"It's worth it, even if a few children get murdered while they're at school every week."
1) It is nowhere near a "few every week."
2) Good people being armed doesn't create the problem.
3) If schools had armed staff and wasn't a so-called "gun-free." zone, the problem would be far, far smaller.
4) As would be with better physical security of the building perimeter.
7) The majority of school mass shootings involve serious mental health issues and medications. Many are FINALLY starting to pay attention to the
Re:But but but (Score:4, Informative)
>"288 shootings last year"
"Shootings" does not equal murder. It doesn't even mean anyone was shot. The correct number averages around 7 or 8 people killed per year in mass school shootings in the USA. http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-co... [gunfacts.info]
To put that in some perspective, almost 10,000 children 14 and younger die in the USA per year. From age 0 through 18, more than 7,000 children die per year from unintentional injuries, the leading causes being car accidents, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, fires, and falls. Mass school shootings is 0.1% of that number. And yes, we should work to make even that tiny number less by addressing the security of schools and mental health issues of students.
>"Except that everywhere else in the world nobody goes about armed and no school children die in shootings at school, so that's wrong. "
Nowhere else in the world is there the constitutional right to be armed to protect yourself, either. And the idea that you could snap your fingers and we would be free of criminals with guns is not rational. And it is not "nowhere else" in the world there are no school *killings*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
>"Schools should be prisons then? Nice."
Many buildings have such security and are not "prisons." That is an emotional, not rational response. Trained staff being armed doesn't make schools a prison any more than everywhere else where there are good people with guns. And enhanced security is good for all buildings. Prisons are places you are not allowed to leave, not places that restrict entry.
>"Guns are the problem"
No, bad people and mental health are the problems. Guns are tools. And they exist. They are neither good nor bad. You can't just wish guns away from only bad people, or wish them away completely (and if you did, then the strong would even more prey on the weak). And good people with guns ALWAYS end conflict with bad people with guns. We have plenty of existing gun control, much of which is stupid or worthless, and the parts that DO make sense aren't being enforced nearly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
The page you linked to says the 288 number is over a decade ("total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN"), not last year. It's also a deceptive number: not only does it include incidents at universities, it includes shootings with BB guns, shootings at schools that were permanently closed before the shooting, shootings between adults that just happened to be on school grounds, accidental discharges, and other things that most people would say should not be counted as "school shootings".
Re: (Score:2)
2) Good people being armed doesn't create the problem. Except that everywhere else in the world nobody goes about armed and no school children die in shootings at school, so that's wrong. 7) The majority of school mass shootings involve serious mental health issues and medications. Many are FINALLY starting to pay attention to the latter. Every country has mental health problems. None of us have school shootings. Guns are the problem.
No, the problem is neither with guns nor with mental health. Guns are tools, if a normal person has a gun it does not mean the person wants to kill somebody. If there is a mental issue the person may be dangerous, but usually this does not meant that the person wants to shoot up a school.
The problem is with current widespread divisive narrative. Every politician tries to divide and conquer the electorate to gain political benefits. You divide males and females and promise some group something and you have
Re: (Score:2)
None of the many guns I own, nor the ones of my friends and neighbors own...have spontaneously jumped up and shot anyone.
The problem is not guns...they are just a tool.
The problem is, we have more mentally sick people these days, apparently....
That, and somewhere in the past couple of generations, parents forgot to teach their children the value of a human live.
Prior to the Brady Bill in 1996...the US didn't even have any requirements at all for background checks for gun purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not the one living in a fantasy.
And I am sure your "vast numbers" include those bad people killed during self-defense, violent criminals justifiably killed by police, suicides, and bad-on-bad actors (like gang violence). Yet also ignore all the violent deaths NOT by guns. And also believe that if guns were magically disappeared, violence and murder wouldn't shift to any number of other options. Convenient.
There *is* a violence problem, on that we can probably agree.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.tonymappedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/gun-ownershop-vs-gun-deaths-by-us-state.png
Owning guns is not saving American lives, it is costing American lives.
Re: (Score:2)
>"% of gun deaths is proportional to % firearm possession:"
* Correlation is not causality.
* "Gun deaths" is a meaningless statistic in that comparison. Murder or Non-justsified homicide is meaningful. 65% of gun deaths are suicide.
* "By State" totally discounts cities, where is where there is the most gun control and where most murder occurs.
* "Gun possession" may or may not include illegal possession, which changes the picture.
* Gangs are responsible for up to 90% of all gun deaths.
I could go on and
Re: (Score:1)
Hahaha, the levels of denial gun owners will go through...
We have five times the gun violence and homicide rates of the first world average, no one else in the first world is even close to our death count from guns. What's the one absolutely glaring difference between countries here that could be pertinent? Our ridiculous level of gun ownership as not even third world war zones like Yemen have even close to as many guns per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
- 'Gun deaths' is meaningful. We don't want people to die.
- 'Illegal possession' does not change the picture. We don't want people to die.
- We can see that gun control means fewer deaths by state but you are trying to suggest that gun control means more deaths in cities. Citation for that.
- Gangs are responsible for around 13% and not *&%$ing 90%! of gun deaths: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not in one of those two categories, you have precious little chance of getting shot in normal day-to-day US citizen life.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, PolitiFact. Where "we couldn't find any good data" is proof that a claim is false. Note, I am not suggesting that the claim is true, either--I also don't have any actual data to bring to the table. While I agree the burden should rest on the person making the claim, the actual status here is "undetermined" rather than "false."
I would also note that your 13% number, picked from that "fact check" is sources from data that is specifically marked as "unreliable" which is a pretty strange thing to do whe
Re: (Score:2)
You did the same.
Well done. The lies and utter nonsense are refuted.
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree that your 13% number is also "lies and utter nonsense?" Because you were quite emphatic with your self-censored expletives that th13% number was true and accurate. You were both incorrect. You being off by a (minimum) factor of 3.8, and him being off by a (maximum) factor of 1.8 suggests he was "less wrong" which is an interesting position for you to make an argument from. Glass houses, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
And then compare factors off those ?
Really? That's lame.
Americans should be ashamed that their children are dying. Regularly and needlessly.
Gun control prevents gun deaths. Deal with it. Act on it.
Re: (Score:2)
So we are supposed to take your numbers as definitive ?
Snarky response: well, that's what you did, and you did so pointing at numbers that are marked as unreliable... so, where's the problem?
Real response: no, of course not. I stated in my initial response that the city of Chicago was by no means a proxy for the US as a whole. However, unlike the data that results in your 13% number, my data is not marked by the people who created it as "unreliable" and I will go out on a limb to state that "Chicago" can be used as a reasonable proxy for other large US cities
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that one day even you are going to have to accept that fact, like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You can probably go on an on with your lies and utter nonsense."
Nothing I said was a lie, nor nonsense.
>"- 'Gun deaths' is meaningful. We don't want people to die."
So if someone is threatening you or your loved one with great bodily harm or death you don't want them to die instead of you or your loved one? Right. Get back to me after than happens.
>"- 'Illegal possession' does not change the picture."
Yes, it most certainly does change many pictures. Someone in illegal possession of a gun is muc
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, PolitiFact. Where "we couldn't find any good data" is proof that a claim is false. Note, I am not suggesting that the claim is true, either--I also don't have any actual data to bring to the table. While I agree the burden should rest on the person making the claim, the actual status here is "undetermined" rather than "false."
I would also note that your 13% number, picked from that "fact check" is sources from data that is specifically marked as "unreliable" which is a pretty strange thing to do when "checking facts":
But the Center had concerns about the reliability of its gang-related homicide numbers and stopped collecting them after 2012. It put an asterisk on top of its chart with the note urging "caution" in interpreting the results. In footnotes, the Center explained that localities had different ways of defining the term "gang-related."
With all of the above said, I felt motivated to try to answer this question. Like Politifact, I, too, found that this data is simply not reported in any kind of standardized way. You can, however, find some if you look--some jurisdictions DO do this work on their own. Contemporary with the data in the PolitiFact article is the Chicago PD's 2011 murder report [chicagopolice.org]. The conclusion drawn from this (data on pages 27-28) is that a full third of murders in the city of Chicago were "gang related" (either "gang altercation" or "narcotics.")
There are no specific "murder reports" available post 2011. However, data does exist in their annual reports. The most recent of which, for 2021 [chicagopolice.org] states on page 85:
In 2021, of the 800 criminal homicides, with the known motives, 49% were reported as death from “Gang Altercation.”
While this is certainly not 90%, it's almost four times your claimed number. Further, that 49% number is a floor as of those 800 homicides, a full 35% of them have motive listed as "unknown."
While Chicago is certainly not a proxy for the entire US, and "the murder rate would drop to almost zero" if you "removed with an x-acto knife specific neighborhoods" is at the very least hyperbole, the data suggest that "gang related" is certainly a major contributing factor, to a far greater extent than you claim in an attempt to refute "lies and utter nonsense."
Man, I hate getting drawn into religious wars, but I'm a bit of a number nerd, so:
That Chicago PD report referenced said 800 murders
515 murders with known motives.
of the 515 murders with known motives, 253 or 49.1% were gang-related
So, the 49.1% isn't the floor, 253 is the floor, so by percentage 253/800*100 or 31.6% is the floor. It is a mistake to make any assumption about the makeup of murders where no motive is assigned, in the absence of other data.
So, it is not 13%, but it is nowhere near 90% e
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think many people support ban ALL guns, there is a middle ground where let people have guns but don't allow people with severe mental illness to be able to get an assault rifle without a background check.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they cannot readily get an "assault rifle". While it *IS* possible to own and use a full auto weapon in the US, you have to go through a LOT of hoops to get your tax stamp....get fingerprinted, and apply and wait likely close to half a year or more for the ATF to approve your purchase of a full auto firearm.
And even if you get past that, you'd better have $$$.
The 1986 passage of the Hu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless, y'know... you're Han Solo or something.
How about: guns, at best, don't make a difference, and at worse easy access to guns enables more people with bad intentions to acquire them and to do more harm. It's harder to sneak around with a chainsaw as they stand out, and so far there aren't any automatic knives capab
Re: (Score:2)
Han fired first.
Re: (Score:2)
Han fired first.
Ever hear of Bad Editing?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reading Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Han fired first.
Han fired ONLY. Greedo did not get a shot off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. SodaStream was definitely being overly generous.
Re: But but but (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Murderer was a douchebag Republican, with a violent streak.
I think that totally fits the narrative.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see his registered party affiliation, but his legally recordable US political donations are available here (as are yours):
https://www.fec.gov/data/recei... [fec.gov]
A sustained and regular donation history like that is strongly suggests strongly Republican leanings.
Whether or not this individual did anything wrong, I cannot say. Just rebutting the false "Republican he was not" statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? He was clearly blue since the start of his history at late 2013 until mid-2020 when his donations flipped red.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if he changed political parties...
Crazy, I know!
Re: (Score:2)
until mid-2020 when his donations flipped red.
The phrase you're looking for is, "was radicalized".
Re: (Score:2)
Busted!
Re: (Score:2)
In fact he said he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen.
Source [wikipedia.org]
Re:But but but (Score:5, Informative)
Where I live, if someone pulls a knife and tries to stab you, you can pull your gun out and defend yourself
I'd pay to see that.
Didn't Mythbusters do an episode where Adam tried to pull a gun and defend himself from Jamie with a knife?
It didn't end well for Adam IIRC - and he was expecting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Where I live, if someone pulls a knife and tries to stab you, you can pull your gun out and defend yourself
I'd pay to see that.
Didn't Mythbusters do an episode where Adam tried to pull a gun and defend himself from Jamie with a knife?
It didn't end well for Adam IIRC - and he was expecting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Obviously that's because Adam is a weak, pansy, beta-male LIEbral and, therefore, is so scared of a gun that he didn't know how to use it. Unlike our manly, alpha Republican AC. (I've even heard he can take out a whole platoon of elite Chinese soldiers!).
Re:But but but (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't Mythbusters do an episode where Adam tried to pull a gun and defend himself from Jamie with a knife?
After watching that video - it sounds like all you have to do is make sure no one is ever, never within less than 20 feet of you! Easy peasy for a Slashdotter...
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't fit the desired narrative!
Sure it does. San Francisco is a bastion of shitty liberal policies.
That's the narrative it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit because he was apparently killed by a guy he knew, another another tech bro, and not by the "huge gay/trans/homeless population with mental health issues" (your words).
Where I live, if someone pulls a knife and tries to stab you, you can pull your gun out and defend yourself
You routinely take a gun with you on plane trips to technical conferences on the opposite coast, just in case one of your friends or collaborators pulls a knife on you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course where I live, there aren't knife fights because we don't have a huge gay/trans/homeless population
Of course not. Bigoted fuckwits are too dumb to use a knife.
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't fit the desired narrative!
I didn't know you were a Fox "News" host/exec.
When will be testifying in the Dominion case?
Better ways to improve your CV (Score:2)
Getting rid of the competition can be achieved through more conventional methods. There is no need to rush through the material, sir, is something the matter?
Tech-on-tech violence (Score:4, Funny)
This tech-on-tech violence is sad but what can you do? Those people just don't have impulse control and morals like the rest of us. The police should be doing more stop-and-frisk of tech bros. It's not profiling, it's just common-sense policing.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't fit the desired narrative!
Who desires that narrative? Hm
You sound like one of those tough guys, that likes (Score:2)
... Fucking Children.
And I seriously doubt you know any marines; they don't hang out with people like you.
Re: (Score:1)
^ Lost hot girlfriend to a liberal, can't get over it.
Much like a douchebag ex- friend. (Score:2)
He went rabidly anti-abortion, after an ex got one; He was too much of a douche to marry, she said.
I'm Pro; My mom had to carry a dead baby to term, because of evil laws, in the 60's.
"The Stupidity of a RWNJ" (Score:2)
The Marines that I know would beat *you* for making such an asinine and stupid suggestion.
I'm calling for the death penalty. (Score:5, Funny)
"A dedicated technology partner supporting a variety of client vertical markets"
Do we need the formality of a trial?
Everyone deserves a trial, even Trump. (Score:2)
n/t.
Re: (Score:2)
Wooooosh
97% of the time it is someone the victim knows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
97% of the time it is someone the victim knows
No, 50% of the time, nobody is charged with the crime.
Of the murders that are solved 80-90% of the time it's someone the victim knows.
At a wild guess... (Score:2)
1-man-consulting-company == Tech Executive? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not a "troll", I'm an Agitation Engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you've never seen credential inflation on LinkedIn before?
Caveat Emptor.
Does not follow... (Score:5, Interesting)
"... His killing prompted a host of claims that this was yet another example of San Francisco's slide into chaos, but the person arrested is reportedly another tech exec."
In the first place, dissociating some random "tech exec" from "San Francisco's slide into chaos" based merely on his job status is, at best, fuzzy thinking. At its worst it's blatant classism.
Second, if SF has indeed suffered a slide into chaos, then Big Tech surely shares at least some, and arguably a large part, of the blame. The writer might want to question whether he or she really wants to be speaking like some acolyte of Big Tech.
Re: (Score:3)
In the first place, dissociating some random "tech exec" from "San Francisco's slide into chaos" based merely on his job status is, at best, fuzzy thinking. At its worst it's blatant classism.
Nice straw man argument. The article is a response to the false the narrative peddled by right-wing media/politicians/personalities was that this was a random crime perpetuated by homeless drug addicts, so the fact that the perpetrator was both well off and had been accompanying the victim is very much relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
So we're only left with literally every other thing about San Francisco as evidence of its slide into chaos?
Re: (Score:2)
So by "every other thing" you mean plenty right wing idiots looking to bash California in any way possible?
Yup, clearly still plenty of those. California isn't even close to being our most unsafe city in this country https://www.populationu.com/ge... [populationu.com] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] but to hear you idiot culture warriors cry over it you'd think it was something out of the Mad Max universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo: "California isn't even close...." = "San Francisco isn't even close..."
Re: (Score:1)
I've traveled to SF for work 5 times in the past year and it's turned into a complete shithole. Sure, you might not get murdered there, but you'll never want to go back.
- Have to step over homeless people walking thru the financial district
- Have to step over human shit and needles
- Accosted by homeless for money
- I even had a guy rip his shirt off during they day and follow me around repeatedly asking me for my shirt
- 35% of commercial real estate vacant
I recently saw someone ask in a Facebook group where
Re: (Score:1)
You're ignoring that in this context "slide into chaos" is a description of previous coverage of SF, not of SF itself.
The media coverage generally treated it as a forgone conclusion that the man's death was a semi-random act of violence, probably by a drug addicted homeless person, and generally trotted out this murder as evidence that drug addicted homeless people are the real problem in San Francisco. The article is not dissociating the tech exec - it is describing the dissociation that most media outlets
Re: (Score:2)
"... His killing prompted a host of claims that this was yet another example of San Francisco's slide into chaos, but the person arrested is reportedly another tech exec."
In the first place, dissociating some random "tech exec" from "San Francisco's slide into chaos" based merely on his job status is, at best, fuzzy thinking. At its worst it's blatant classism.
Huh? The "slide into chaos" was an unsubtle way of saying it was a homeless person and/or street drug user. Which is pretty clearly classist.
I'm not sure how disproving that thesis is also classist.
Second, if SF has indeed suffered a slide into chaos, then Big Tech surely shares at least some, and arguably a large part, of the blame. The writer might want to question whether he or she really wants to be speaking like some acolyte of Big Tech.
Well the writer was making a big deal of the fact the suspect is a "tech exec" (sounds like an overstatement), so I'm not sure they're trying to be an "acolyte of Big Tech".
Re: (Score:2)
In the first place, dissociating some random "tech exec" from "San Francisco's slide into chaos" based merely on his job status is, at best, fuzzy thinking. At its worst it's blatant classism.
No it's not. The entire premise on "San Francisco's slide into chaos" is that it is caused by drug addicted homeless people. Class is the very core of this debate, and the basis that this is someone with a job is a direct and relevant counterpoint to the typical narrative.
But you don't need to take my word for it. Just look at the discussion we had in this very group on this very site on this very topic: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Most of the highly rated comments range from discussions of people look
Re: (Score:2)
In the first place, dissociating some random "tech exec" from "San Francisco's slide into chaos" based merely on his job status is, at best, fuzzy thinking. At its worst it's blatant classism.
No it's not. The entire premise on "San Francisco's slide into chaos" is that it is caused by drug addicted homeless people. Class is the very core of this debate, and the basis that this is someone with a job is a direct and relevant counterpoint to the typical narrative.
But you don't need to take my word for it. Just look at the discussion we had in this very group on this very site on this very topic: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Most of the highly rated comments range from discussions of people looking for drug money, debates about social welfare for the underprivileged, a debate about addressing the homeless problem, Democrats ruining cities with their policies, alcoholics, methheads, fentyls, homeless encampments, and just to really drive home how much some people here are pieces of shit; a few who said he deserved to die because he was a tech exec.
I stand corrected by several precious commenters and by you. I wasn't aware of the history of the controversy, and I failed to look into it before commenting. I hadn't read the Slashdot story from April 5 which you provided a link for.
Classism is the very core of this debate. Don't try to move the goalpost just because it suddenly doesn't suit you.
What? I wrote - "At its worst it's blatant classism". You wrote "Classism is the very core of this debate" as though you were contradicting me. How is that a contradiction? Also, where and when did I "move the goalpost"?
Nima is an old friend (Score:1)
Narrative #1 still valid (Score:2)
Narrative #2 is that this has nothing to do with SF. I beg to differ. Whoever the killer actually was -- and who knows, maybe the cops are wrong about the guy -- he knew that it is a lot easier to get away with crime in SF than in most places and likely was therefore emboldened. If nothing else, he may have figured that they would be looking for some "homeless" guy.