Comment by bdrool | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdrool | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

An earlier version of this article said something like "BART did not immediately report the incident" (can't recall exact wording). This statement or any equivalent appears to be removed. It looks like newsdiff.org doesn't track sfgate.com, so I can't find the exact change. Regardless, the article originally indicated BART didn't report the incident to the public right away.

That leads me to say: sweeping this kind of crime under the rug will not help. Instead, it will lead to a repeat of the Goetz vigilante incident in NYC in the early 1980s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...

http://nypost.com/2011/12/23/one-of-bernhard-goetzs-victims-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/bernie-goetz-t...

That last link in particular contains a stunning statement:

> The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically — so much so the authorities even held back the numbers — the truth hurt too much.

The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works. Please note I hate the idea of vigilantism and hope with every fiber of my being that things do not come to that, but it at first glance appears that things are headed in that direction, which I am immensely sad and scared to see.

I'm not really sure what point you're making. Or rather I violently disagree with you that vigilantism works. How does it work? Are you saying Goetz shooting people on the NYC subway led to a dramatic reduction in crime? Are you basing your claim from one line from a Huffington post article from this author?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/sogfeld-774

Somehow info from BART officials made it to the various news outlets. The news outlets wrote stories on it. I knew about the incident by Sunday. I read about it somewhere. I was not on the train.

BART didn't pretend the robbery didn't happen.

I noticed you replied to me twice (once here and once in another subthread), saying you'd spent time looking and "wasted [your] life". You also seem to be going further down the road of ad-hominem, describing the author of the first article I wrote as an "NRA spokesman". You seem ideologically driven and therefore unlikely to listen. But here goes anyway:

"Vigilante Mobilization and Local Order: Evidence from Mexico"

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522fc0aee4b06bf96fa60...

> Our empirical approach traces the sources of recent self-defense groups to the early twentieth cen- tury Cristero rebellion and, using an instrumental variables approach, we show that contemporary community mobilization has succeeded in reducing a broad range of crimes.

Also I note that you're pushing back against my statement regarding things being swept under the rug (e.g., your statements about "somehow" this making it to the news). Did you also notice that the link to this article is gone from the HN front page? My intuition is that the public in general is going to turn a blind eye to this topic, until they can't any more (that's usually when something really bad happens). Note again that I am very unhappy with that idea and wish it were not so, but it strikes me as unfortunately very likely. I'd love to be wrong, but I see nothing to indicate otherwise. There is always hope I suppose.

> describing the author of the first article I wrote as an "NRA spokesman"

Go read the 1,000 articles Richard Feldman wrote for the NRA and his own gun lobbying group.

> "Vigilante Mobilization and Local Order: Evidence from Mexico"

Comparing current conditions in America with the Cristero Rebellion or the Mexico drug war is odd. I argue we're not there yet.

What I really wanted from you is evidence that Goetz shooting people on the NYC subway resulted in lower crime rates.

> Also I note that you're pushing back against my statement regarding things being swept under the rug (e.g., your statements about "somehow" this making it to the news).

You were claiming BART was deliberately not informing the public about the robbery incident, just like Richard Feldman was claiming that the NYC subway system was deliberately not informing riders that crime plummeted because of the Goetz shooting.

I argue that BART was not withholding details of the shooting. As evidence of this, I maintain that there are tons of newspaper articles about the robbery out there. If BART was suppressing the incident, they're not doing a very good job of it.

> Did you also notice that the link to this article is gone from the HN front page?

No I don't pay attention.

> My intuition is that the public in general is going to turn a blind eye to this topic

We're all talking about it!

> things are headed in that direction

crime rates are at 40 year lows and trending down

I realize that, but vigilantism is not always driven by a rational view of crime statistics. Fear can be a very powerful force. If people fear crime and feel they are being ignored and not protected by the state, they may take matters into their own hands, quite often irrationally. See for example the reaction to terrorism, despite the vast statistical unlikelihood of being a victim of it.

I notice that several people are responding to me as though I am advocating vigilantism even though I am doing the opposite, so I feel I must reiterate once again that I am fully opposed to it. Instead, I am trying to raise the alarm that if highly visible crimes like the one described in this article are not addressed sufficiently, the public may react with vigilantism. That is an outcome I want to avoid.

> The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works.

[ citation needed ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Committee_of_Vig...

I already gave one, just a few sentences above.

You're justifying writing "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works" by including a link to an article written by a NRA spokesman that basically says "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works", without backing it up.

I've actually spent the last hour looking for statistics to back or not back you up. I've wasted my life.

> that basically says "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works", without backing it up

That's a quote from me, not from the HuffPo article. The article says "The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically…", as I quoted originally.

> I've actually spent the last hour looking for statistics to back or not back you up. I've wasted my life.

I replied to you here with a source that only took a few minutes to find:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189548

You seem very emotional about this topic. I would urge you to look at it more dispassionately. As I already stated (but it bears repeating), I absolutely do not want vigilantism to be the result of crimes like this, but I fear unless there is an open and honest conversation, things may end up there anyway. I believe the best (and perhaps only) way to avoid such an outcome is to consider the possibilities that may result from various actions (or inactions), unpleasant as they may be.

Superhero comics?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com