Leave car keys 'at front door' to avoid violent confrontations: Toronto Police
toronto.citynews.ca
toronto.citynews.ca
"Hello?" I ask groggily.
"This is the police," the voice says. "Do you know who's driving your car?"
I look out the window at the parking lot below. "It's... gone," I say. "I... have no idea."
They send an officer to take a report. I do remember someone who had come to the door a couple weeks earlier. I hadn't let him in, but from the porch he had been able to see that I kept my car keys hanging on a hook by the front door.
That night, he had manipulated the back sliding door into opening, crossed through the apartment, and retrieved the keys from where they hung near the front. All downstairs.
After a high-speed chase, which ended at his girlfriend's house, the police caught him hiding under the bed with the keys in his pocket.
Anyway, that's my personal anecdote. I don't propose that anyone confuse it with data or use it to decide policy. But I still sometimes thank the stars that I and my new family slept peacefully that night.
AFAIK in most states, the police have say in their jurisdiction. So a lot of theft crime can’t be caught because the thief drives to another jurisdiction and the chase can’t go on.
So they can get away.
That being said unlike Seattle and San Francisco, Florida cops don’t fuck around. At-least on Polk county, the are tough on crime.
You also can't outrun the radio.
you are thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_California_Kid universe :) I dont think thats the case for a very long time.
My mom had her car stolen in the Baltimore area around 15 years ago, and they actually chased down the guy and got her car back. It was all in one piece as well.
We wouldn’t accept, in any corporate environment, a computer system where the only form of authentication was a yubikey with no password, the fact that our cars essentially still work like this in 2024 is appalling.
I'm the only employee in the company. :)
I guess it could help with climate goals, so I can see your point.
The main problem is not that a key is enough to use a car, but that owning the car is not enough to keep others out of it.
Tesla has had multiple recall issues with the interface pad malfunctioning or not even turning on.
Meanwhile I can just put a key in my car and go. Sure, someone could steal the key - but statistically that is far less likely that a software or hardware failure.
Ofc, then you run risk of blood being taken by force, but it would be bit more secure.
Whenever people get a hard on for biometrics I tell them exactly that.
No I don't want to loose a finger. I'd rather just give them my password.
It's same as having keys tho. Authorization vs authentication.
p.s. pin to drive exists already.
Despite the tradeoffs, I think our current approach is better than the alternatives.
For example Face ID in iPhones works pretty well, and your face data is stored on the phone only.
Not listed: living in a region known for shooting home invaders.
I understand that for the average HN reader the known presence of guns in an area is probably going to move the probability of robbing a stranger from 0.001% to 0.0005% or something, but I'm not convinced the thought process of actual criminals works the same way.
/s, if anyone misses the sarcasm.
I think the only thing you’ve said that’s correct is the increase in homicide, but don’t forget a homeowner killing a home invader is technically considered homicide, and the RAND study pointed that out. There’s no evidence of any statistically significant increase of criminal activity.
I for one wouldn’t want to live in a place where my first thought if someone breaks in is to avoid them and hope everyone else in my house can find an exit, home break ins are super rare but why would I take the chance.
They are arguing the opposite, that there isn't a statistically significant decrease, that the increase in homicides is the primary difference.
Why wouldn't this be the case?
Easy to throw claims around. Let me try.
"There are thousands of studies out there that show armed homeowners prevented one million crimes in 2023"
Modulo stray bullets, shooting does in fact seem to address this
The good news is that reality does not care whether or not you lack imagination. One can only marvel then, at the sequence of events that lead to the "unthinkable".
In the industry we love using the 5 whys to get to the bottom of an issue. I just wish folks would apply the same to their daily life.
1) Why did this man steal your car? > Because he's poor. 2) Why is this man poor? > Because his previous job paid too little. 3) Why did his previous job pay so little? > Because he can only accept terms of a contract, try to find a better contract, or face homelessness 4) Why does he have to make that terrible choice? > Because there is a power disparity between the employer and the employee 5) Why is there a power disparity between the employer and the employee? > Because employees, despite being the real wealth creators, do not have any oversight and democratic control over their workplace.
A society that rewards theft will breed thieves. The alpha thief being the capitalist. Thats why "the west is falling"; it's only sowing the seeds of its destruction.
That's a very simplistic line of reasoning. People who aren't as well off as you aren't automatons without agency, driven by their base desires. This is proven by the people without cushy IT jobs you meet every day who don't choose to rob you every chance they get.
Naturally, desperate ppl act in desperate ways.
In Republics where there is a valid class compromise, or where there is class domination by the working class, you don't see all those violent issues.
Bullet as bandage is a poor metaphor!
And a bullet usually slows/halts an attacker, which is all a defender requires.
deprecative sez >" murder for something so insignificant is beyond reprehensible."<
I think you misspeak: murder is always illegal but killing a person may be legal. You may be killed for property crimes in some states.
Whenever you have a home invasion article, inevitably the “Internet Rambos” come out of the woodwork with their “simple” solution to a complex problem.
They are criminals. They are not trying to feed their families in a way commiserate with a peaceful society. They’re probably not trying to feed their families but even if they are it doesn’t matter if they are doing so by brutalising their neighbours.
In many ways, one could make the argument, a world where everyone is on an equal footing to do violence is preferable to one in which it is restricted to only a few.
On your way you’ll notice a lot of people headed in the opposite direction. Turns out anarchy sucks way more than our capitalist democracy.
So instead of real policing or understandable self defence laws the answer is all of us have to calculate the exact amount of inconvenience layers between free giveaway vs getting into violence?
> Nobody wants to steal your stuff if they can have what you have anyway.
That is blatantly false. People don't steal cars since they want cars, they steal cars to sell them. They step on others to get ahead, usually those poorer than themselves.
Your comment doesn't make any sense in this thread. Why are you talking about Canada or ideals? You can't eliminate poverty without eliminating crime, since crime causes poverty, people steal a workers car now he is poor since he spent so much to get it, the car is usually the most valuable thing a person has.