By Vanguard Staff
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin announced Thursday that he will personally prosecute Patrick Thompson, who has been charged in the stabbing of two elderly, AAPI women on Market Street earlier this week. He’s being arraigned Friday, May 7.
The charges against Thompson included two counts of premeditated attempted murder, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of elder abuse with enhancements for great bodily injury, great bodily injury on elders, and personal use of a deadly weapon. These charges carry a potential life sentence
“San Francisco must be a safe place for all—where no one walks down the street in fear of an attack. Public safety demands urgent, new approaches to treating those with mental illness in order to protect everyone,” said DA Boudin.
DA Boudin said he visited both victims and their families at the hospital Thursday, and after one of the victims didn’t want to be identified, he decided to not release the name of either victim and asked the news media to “respect their privacy.”
“The strength and courage of these women is inspiring,” said Boudin. “Their pain was tangible and will serve as a constant reminder of the importance of our work to make San Francisco safer for all. I am grateful to the medical team at San Francisco General Hospital, who helped to make sure the victims are still with us today.”
The evidence submitted to the District Attorney’s Office by the police depicts a brutal attack, alleging Thompson “approached the elderly victims and stabbed each of them with a knife. The 
knife punctured one victim’s lungs, requiring extensive surgery. A knife had to be removed from another victim at the hospital,” prosecutors said.
“The police, bystanders, responding medics, surgeons, and attending staff at San Francisco General Hospital are to be commended for their life-saving responses. The case is also a reminder of the need to improve language access throughout the investigative and legal process,” said the DA.
“These facts support charges of attempted murder, elder abuse, and assault with a deadly weapon. We are still investigating whether there are other charges or allegations that can be brought in this case, and are working with the police department to determine if there is evidence to support hate crime allegations,” said Boudin.
In a statement, DA Boudin detailed the “tragedy.”
“What happened is a devastating tragedy, and we will use the full force of our office’s resources to prosecute this case. We also need to work hard to stop the next crime from happening, and that involves prevention and treatment. Mr. Thompson needed intensive supervision and services—which he received during Mental Health Diversion and which prevented new criminal behavior.
“We need far more intensive tools that keep people who are mentally ill treated and supported so that they do not reoffend even when there is no pending criminal case. We have always known that we need to strengthen mental health services in this city so that we can prevent crimes from happening in the first place.
“We also must implement stronger responses to addressing the mental health crisis in our streets in order to keep our community safe. For over 40 years, we have failed to invest resources into treatment, supportive housing, and other necessary services for those who are mentally ill and their families. We are all less safe as a result of that legacy.”
Boudin noted that change must come from legislation, stating “I call on all legislators and those who control city and state budgets to join me in addressing this problem with the urgency it demands.”
He cited “One example of legislators coming together to commit to public health responses to this crisis is Mental Health SF. The program, currently in pilot form, passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors via an ordinance in 2019 and relies on an interdisciplinary team of mental health professionals committed to 24/7 care of those who are living on the streets with mental illness.
“The program aims to provide access to mental health services, substance use treatment, and psychiatric medications to all adult San Francisco residents with mental illness and/or substance abuse who are homeless, uninsured, or enrolled in Medi-Cal or Healthy San Francisco. In addition to full implementation of Mental Health SF, we need new tools to prevent those on our streets living with mental illness from remaining untreated when they do not have court supervision.”
Thompson’s last arrest was in April of 2020, when a judge issued an arrest warrant for missing court and, when he was arrested on that warrant, he was in possession of a drug pipe.
According to the DA, Thompson was arrested in 2017 in separate cases. “A judge found him incompetent to stand trial and he was sent to Napa State Hospital. Upon his return, in 2018, his defense counsel requested he be sent to Mental Health Diversion, a program available pursuant to California state law. That program gives judges discretion to divert a case in favor of intensive, court-monitored treatment and services based on specific, enumerated criteria regarding a defendant’s mental health status and its relationship to the charges.”
“Mr. Thompson was released from custody in October 2018 to participate in Mental Health Diversion. After almost two years of complying with the program, Mr. Thompson’s defense counsel moved to terminate him from the program, which a judge granted. During that time, Mr. Thompson was not charged with any new offenses and was only arrested on warrants for missing court dates and once for possessing a drug pipe.”
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
This was mistakenly reported as a hate crime in the Vanguard a few days ago. The error was pointed out at the time, but no redaction was made.
https://davisvanguard.org/2021/05/2-more-hate-crimes-in-sf-district-attorney-says-hes-outraged-pledges-more-resources/
There are no hate crime charges at this point, as noted in today’s article.
Good point Ron. Conclusions should not be jumped to when all the facts are not in.
We never reported that there were hate crime charges. (Also redacted means blocked out, censored or obscured, the word you want is edited).
The title from your article the other day literally states the following:
The first sentence literally states the following:
Are you actually denying this error? Really?
Some quotes from Boudin (noted in that article) literally state the following. Though unlike the text quoted above from your article, it is more of an implication:
Differentiation between calling it a hate crime and it falling into the legal definition can be backed by evidence to file charges to that effect.
Your article literally labeled it a hate crime. This was (and still is) factually incorrect, and is not an opinion.
Nothing like doubling-down in the face of direct contradiction.
You’d think that you would have corrected it was pointed out to you – when it first appeared.
There are no hate crime charges, at this point.
“Your article literally labeled it a hate crime. This was (and still is) factually incorrect, and is not an opinion.”
That’s actually the point in dispute. The fact that the DA’s office has not filed it as a hate crime does not make it factually incorrect to label it as a hate crime. Do you really want to use up all five of your comments on this issue when there is actually a far more interesting issue that emerged yesterday?
Yes, it does. Factually, at that.
Do you want to use up your 5 comments on this, as well? Assuming that limit applies to you?
No, whether it is a hate crime is a matter of opinion. Whether it has been charged (it has not) is a matter of fact. The DA’s charging decision is not just based on whether they believe it is a hate crime, it is based on whether whether they believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. They have a different and much higher standard for charging than we do in picking our headline.
Ron wrote:
The actual article wrote:
David, you’re actually trying to argue against this? Really?
If it was your “opinion” that it was a hate crime, that stipulation should have been noted, rather than reporting it as a hate crime. Followed by your reasoning that you believed it was a hate crime.
Given that the Vanguard is viewed as a news source by some, it’s irresponsible to put forth misleading information. There are folks who would look at that headline and subsequent text, and would mistakenly believed that it was being charged as a hate crime. Going further, this type of reporting would likely cause some to mistakenly conclude that there is a wider epidemic of hate crimes occurring, than actually exists.
At this point, I have not even seen any evidence at all that it was a hate crime. None – other than perhaps the skin color of the victims. That seems to be “enough” for some to arrive at a conclusion, these days. (But this is usually reserved for those instances where the perpetrator is “white” – and no other skin color.)
We’ve already seen examples (in the mainstream media, no less) where the reality did not match what was initially “reported”. (I’m referring to another example, in San Francisco.) This is a dangerous trend.
I don’t know what the DA “believes”, but I’d suggest that you review your standards for reporting.
As Ron pointed out, it was reported as a hate crime:
Hate Crime or Mental Health Issue ? Which P.C. path to take . . .
. . . Decisions . . . Decisions . . . Decisions . . .
Good luck with that. Sounds like a dare to the news media. Will the trial also be a ‘special’ non-public trial? (Of course there won’t be one).