> ATX has the security measures of a third-world country
That's a pretty dramatic way to describe police not wanting to spend resources to get your $200 headphones back..
That's a pretty dramatic way to describe police not wanting to spend resources to get your $200 headphones back..
Take a look at this phone thief at a concert [1].
AirPods Max? Only $549. A MacBook? Only $2000. A car? Only $20000.
Does someone have to burn my house down for it to be worthwhile for the police?
Are you saying that police shouldn't bother investigating crimes that aren't felonies? Why even have misdemeanors at all then?
> What's the threshold over which you believe crime is no longer okay?
You completely missed the parent's point. It's not that they don't think crime should be "no longer be okay", it was addressing the the grandparent's point of "we're living in a third world country because my $200 AirPods got stolen" is simply out of touch with reality.
> Does someone have to burn my house down for it to be worthwhile for the police?
In third world countries this is pretty much how it works. As an American, going to Brazil or South Africa (for example), you're basically told "don't wear/carry anything of value". It's not that there is a chance that you'll get mugged, it's that it's likely it'll happen. I live in Austin and carry my AirPods on me all of the time. The likelihood that I experience what the OP experienced is so unlikely that it rarely crosses my mind. The grandparent's comment is hyperbolic drivel.
Fake news: there's actually very few places where this would be true. You are being told that because in these countries most people are poor and afraid of losing their hard earned money/stuff more than in America generally. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen at all. Most of the times directly violent crimes don't pay as well as drug dealing, and the criminals sure know it: there's favelas in Sao Paulo and Rio where if there's a thief on the territory, drug gangs will hunt him down: they know drug clients need to feel secure to go in there and spend money.
Once I had my car stolen near the uni I was attending, and also near a favela. One of my colleagues lived there, and I told him the fact: next day he told me drug gangs assured him, and he was assuring me, that they would investigate and if the thief was found to be a local resident they would find him and return my car. The car was found 2 days after the fact, in very bad condition with a hole underneath the motor (they were probably using it to go into ramps/offroad), by the police, in another favela a few miles away - by the looks of it, the thiefs didn't want to gain money on this: they took the car only to have drinks and fun and trash it, then abandon it.
Conversely, let's say I accuse an Uber driver of stealing a $1 bill I left in his car, is that a good use of police time? Where do you draw the line?
However, the big problem with spending resources to investigate a theft is that the vast majority of the time there will be no leads, and no way to pursue them.
My laptop was stolen out of my truck, window smashed and backpack gone. Unless I had video evidence or witness testimony to go off of.
There are only so many detectives and forensics experts and only so much time and they typically have multiple cases going on at a time.
Meanwhile, countries in America's league do not.