Police allow car break-ins to become a Seattle growth industry
seattletimes.com
seattletimes.com
I lost my phone a few times. I have a habit of lolling over when dozing on trains. This encourages my polished iPhone to slip out. The Metro-North line tours a wide socioeconomic spectrum. I understand the temptation I was taunting some of my fellow passengers with.
Most of the time the opportunists were savvy enough to turn off the radio. Not always. Once I saw my phone blinking in from Rye. I stopped at their police station and showed the officer my iPad. Without question, we were on our way. The address I pinpointed resulted in a mother subjecting her son to an Inquisition. Nothing came of it. We apologised. Copper suggested we try the house across the street. Embarrassed from the last encounter, I demurred. He walked up to the door.
A young man answered and yes: he had an iPhone. A few minutes later, I was (mentally) $650 richer. (I went back to the lady at the first house with a bottle of wine and the local bookstore's encyclopaedia of steamships—he had boat models in his room).
New York City and State get a lot of shit for our police forces. And yes, we have a high frequency of idiocy. But swinging the other way, towards ineffectual policing—as Seattle appears to have—doesn't create strong societies. +1 New York.
This is the flip side of increasing police powers: the police are increasingly immune to criticism, so they are increasingly lazy about going after the kinds of criminals that ordinary people actually care about.
Surely it's possible to use the same database collecting info on Patriot Act violations to sift through and report on petty crimes also, even predict where and to/by whom they might happen? If the police won't do it then surely there's someone out there who could hack into the machines running the algorithms for such terrorism and high profile crime prediction to do the same for car breakins?
you were sane right up until you hit NCIS hacker territory.
The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further vandalism and escalation into more serious crime[1].
From the article: There also was no proof who did the smash-and-grab, so even if [the police] had come, it would have been tricky to charge them with anything.
That's hogwash. Possession of stolen property is a criminal offence in Washington State[2].
The crime and disorder in downtown Seattle is shocking, even to people from other big cities[3]. In 2013, Seattle had 2,356 property crimes per 100,000 population[4]. By comparison, New York City had a property crime rate of just 795 per 100,000[5].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
[2] http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/possession-stolen-prope...
[3] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021696782_westneat28...
[4] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/p...
[5] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/p...
Every time they have temporarily relaxed drinking laws to try something similar here like DC movie night it resulted in brawling, stabbings, street hobos showing up to scream gibberish and aggressively pan handle, and the audience got so wrecked ambulances had to be called. It's like the heavy regulations that the West Coast cities screws into society creates a community that turns to bedlam the moment those chains are temporarily removed.
Consider that 25 year CHP officers can collect lifetime pensions at the highest pay, including overtime accumulated from previous years and cashed out. At a US inflation adjusted bond discount rate of 0-1% typical over the past decade and usual life expectancy tables, that adds up to 1.5-3 extra years of pay in pension benefits for each year of service. That's computed according to what you'd have to put into a 401(k) to pay for the pension; the state of California is putting somewhat less into CalPERS and hoping to get bailed out by private sector taxpayers or the Federal Government someday. (CA isn't doing as badly as MA or IL or some others on pension funding, though)
NYC is paying much more rationally and budgeting better than other big city and coastal governments which is one reason there are enough cops there to keep order.
Could you provide a source for this? I checked the salary database for the city and county of San Francisco and, while there were 2099 people in the police department with total pay over $100,000, nobody had total pay of $500,000 - and the maximum was $345,000.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/databases/?appSession=45847910566...
I have no clue if this extra pay would be shown in city salary databases, but I wouldn't be surprised if not.
Then generous pensions kick in. CA cops and firemen usually get full pensions after 20-25 years but the pension is paid not just on salary but a multiple of final year vacation and comp time. Pensions can be 2x-3.5x final 'base' salary and higher than any overtime adjusted salary. CalPERS is hoping for 5% above inflation returns but for a decade has made about 1%. At 1%, you essentially have to save or take on future liability for the whole pension during working life. No private employer provides these benefits after 20-25 years or on this basis at all because it would mean bankruptcy.
Public finance allows it so the total compensation of a cop getting $200k in salary, adjustments, and benefits is often over $500k all in. Some of that will be the bankruptcy and bailout.
Google "Vallejo firefighter bankruptcy" for details of CA's future public safety service.
If any of them had tried to help, the police that didn't care about your so would have been plenty eager to destroy the life of a middle class citizen for so much as jostling the attacker. There's no point in blaming them when they're terrified of what the authorities will do to a do-gooder.
Nothing. The staff is used to it, I'm used to it, the other patrons are used to it, we just let them do their thing and hope they don't throw anything at us in the process. This is right on Market St, you'd think the city would be proud of its downtown.
What am I supposed to do as a resident? I'm not a cop, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a psychiatrist, I can't fix this. I'm just a guy who gives away something like half of his income in taxes and it's not clear what's happening to all that cash. If we're going to keep this place in an embarrassing state, I would at least like some of my money back.
Your attitude is the reason people with mental health issues often are reluctant to seek help. Because they are stigmatized, and mental health is quickly becoming criminalized.
I would however love to feel safe when being outside of my apartment, instead of wondering if one of these dozens of visibly infirm people I pass by on the way to anything is about to assault me or do something else completely unpredictable to me.
Most violent crime is not committed by people with a mental illness.
While I appreciate the concern you show for the piss-poor inhumane brutal lack of treatment your country provides to those with a mental illness (despite spending more per capita on health) it'd be nice if you could do it without stigmatising mental ill-health.
> Right next to her is a hole in the wall punched by some other mentally infirm person that same day.
BadassFractal didn't witness that, but assumes it was done by someone with a mental health problem rather than someone who's just an angry arsehole.
> I would however love to feel safe when being outside of my apartment, instead of wondering if one of these dozens of visibly infirm people I pass by on the way to anything is about to assault me
This is directly linking mental ill health to violence, and it's just as abhorrent as linking violent crime to African Americans.
Those visibly infirm people are far more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence -- even if you remove self-inflicted violence.
[1] to property, not as far as I know to people.
EDIT: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
> - "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)."
> - "…the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."
> - "The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small. . . only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)."
> -"People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)."
> The effects of stigma and discrimination are profound. The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health found that, “Stigma leads others to avoid living, socializing, or working with, renting to, or employing people with mental disorders - especially severe disorders, such as schizophrenia. It leads to low self-esteem, isolation, and hopelessness. It deters the public from seeking and wanting to pay for care. Responding to stigma, people with mental health problems internalize public attitudes and become so embarrassed or ashamed that they often conceal symptoms and fail to seek treatment (New Freedom Commission, 2003).”
Rather than lecture on what not to do, what do you propose as steps towards resolving these problems?
Stigma prevents people getting help, even for mild MH problems that respond well to talking therapy. Stigma increases social isolation and reduces opportunities for work. We know that both of these make mental illness worse.
I still have hundreds, if not more people, with mental illness roaming downtown, living on the streets, regularly leaving feces on sidewalks, screaming at passerbys and expressing what appears violent behavior and nothing is being done about it.
What I can do is to ask you to not assume that violent behaviour is a result of a mental health problem; or to not assume that a person with a mental illness is going to be violent. (Apparently I can do that more politely than I have so far.)
You're just arguing about words.
"Don't discriminate against people with a mental illness when recruiting for a job" becomes "give people with a mental illness the same treatment at job interviews".
But if you want a bigger list:
Reform the broken healthcare model in the US
Push for evidence based treatment. This will usually be a short course of CBT; sometimes it'll be a talking therapy and meds. Sometimes it'll be meds and talking therapies and weekly / monthly visits from a nurse or an occupational therapist. Rarely it'll be a stay in hospital. Even more rarely it'll be a forced stay in hospital against the patient's wishes. Even more rarely it'll be a forensic hospitalisation - a forced stay in hospital ordered by the courts instead of a prison stay.
Push for employment programmes to get people with a mental illness back into employment. See for example the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health documents http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/dwp_commissioni...
Push for social inclusion programmes; volunteer for those programmes;
San Francisco has a death by suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000. There is probably some work to do around funding suicide prevention work (which happens earlier than a suicide attempt) and funding suicide intervention (which happens around the time of an attempt). http://www.sfhip.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Indicato...
"Reform the broken model" is a positive, actionable step in the same way that "Change the culture!" is a positive, actionable step. Which is to say it's a statement of a goal rather than anything immediately useful. But more "arguing about words", right?
You shouldn't cite the suicide rate without context. Following your link, SF is doing better than average in California.
But suicide is still a significant cause of death, especially for middle aged men, even in San Francisco.
What I have said is that when you see violence in public you should not assume the perpetrator has a mental illness because they probably don't; and when you see someone with a mental illness you should not think that they are violent, because they probably aren't.
I can understand the downvotes for tone - it's too late to edit so I'm stuck with those.
I can't understand the downvotes for this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8548999
Edit: downvoters - please let me know why you're downvoting my later posts.
And I'd have to disagree - anyone who is acting out in public has certainly got some mental problem, pretty much by definition. Whether its a persistent illness is between them and their doctor. But from the coffee shop's point of view, they gotta be dealt with, period.
Vote to repeal Prop 13 when the opportunity arises, and tell others to do the same.
At some point, polling will indicate that it has a chance of happening, and then someone will put it on the ballot.
Firstly: the City has no shortage of money. The City's budget this year is a whopping $8.6 Billion dollars. For a city of 850,000 people, that's quite a lot.
Secondly: the City already spends a lot on homelessness; the direct spending per homeless person exceeds $12,000/year. There are task forces galore on this problem, and nothing makes a dent.
Thirdly: SFPD is already among the highest paid in the country. Rookie officers can make more than $100K/year with overtime. There is no accountability; and they'd rather shoot than treat a mentally ill person properly: http://www.vice.com/read/most-of-the-people-killed-by-the-sa...
And finally: this "throw more money without accountability" approach is a part of the problem. It provides an economic incentive to do a shitty job, because hey, doing a bad job gets more money!!
Seriously!?
/me heads to the googles
Severely mentally ill and violent people wandering the streets, committing rampant property crime to feed drug habits which make them even more unstable.
Please Do Not Leave The City
If you can, own a home ( I know that is asking a lot in the current climate ). Home ownership is key to instilling a sense of belonging to the city. This is one of the areas in which, the gay population of Castro has succeeded mightily. Good for them.
If you just pick up your things and leave - like previous middle class residents of SF have done, to Oakland or even beyond - this city will never change.
This city needs sensible people.
[1] SFPD Police Commission Agenda Calendar
How is it possible for the leftists to have an absolute stranglehold on San Francisco politics, especially for so long?
Is there not even a moderate wing, here?
Left and right is the wrong way to look at it.
There has always been a different social contract between the cops and each social class. The cops have no idea why an urban person is calling them because if they're upper class they are rich so they don't care and a normal personal assistant isn't going to go all batman and hunt down thieves, and if they're poor then they have their own ethnic / gang type of ways to fix this in addition to deep seated victim shaming (she was asking for it, what kind of idiot leaves her purse in a car in an urban area, etc). The urban cops just don't know what to think about middle class people, or middle class outlooks on policing.
In the burbs they'd do exactly what the author was expecting, dispatch a squad, take care of business. In a rural area they wouldn't have a crime like this, but something similar would be handled like the burb example. There's a social contract and developed protocols and expectations and it would all be OK.
Not saying its right or wrong, just saying its a fact that pioneers skeletons always end up having arrows sticking outta their backs.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean in regards to the the ethnic / gang type way of fixing things in poor neighborhoods.
Also, I'm not sure if you've been to Seattle. I lived there for two years, recently. I wouldn't really call Seattle ethnic, gang-type, or poor.
Perhaps one explanation is that the police get enough zany people calling in about enough zany things that they don't take any info from ordinary people seriously because it's that unreliable. But not sure if I even buy this explanation myself.
Anybody with good knowledge of police workings have insight into why things happen like they do in the linked article?
It wouldn't surprise me if there were policies or protocols around when reported information is considered actionable considering all the silly stories I've heard about loonies calling the local PD.
Before we even woke up in the morning, the police were knocking at our door.
They'd caught the thieves, sitting in some office park parking lot at night with all their loot. The cops didn't know what they were up to, just that they were where no one was supposed to be, so they pulled up to talk to them. They arrested them and made them ride in the police car showing where they'd stolen everything from. All before my brother even knew it was stolen.
They were convicted, my brother got his stereo back, and restitution checks that totaled more than the damage to his car.
Life in suburbia does have benefits.
http://www.cracked.com/article_21830_cops-wont-help-you-7-th...
Unfortunately, police work isn't really appealing to your typical idealist who wants to better his/her community, so appealing to officers' sense of morality/duty won't work. This line of work is much more attractive to former high school bullies who want to carry a service weapon and wield power. That and lazy civil servants who won't lift a finger unless it's for overtime.
And the cream of the crop, those officers who rise in the ranks and guide department policy, are the ass-kissers who figure out how to make police work easier, not more effective. This story comes as no surprise to me.
I get the impression that the HN crowd interacts with those of who end up working as cops or firemen not a whole hell of a lot. Did you go to school with cops' and firemen's kids?
If single sourced anecdotal evidence is all we need I'll share mine: In the past two years my house has been broken in to once & prowled twice (that I know of). My car has been broken in to twice. My neighbors cars have been broken in to three times, at least. In every incident Seattle PD have been on scene within 7 to 15 minutes. Reports after the fact usually get a single car/officer. In progress has been multiple cars boxing in a sweeping the neighborhood. As I recall canine has come out twice to try and track perpetrators on foot. For the home burglary the responding officer spent about an hour walking the scene, taking photos, and trying to recover prints. Dispatch and responding officers have never been anything less than responsive, courteous, and professional. But that's not enticing link bait, is it?
Edit: The plethora of downvotes without comment are fun. Do you object to my characterization of seattle media as "link bait" or posting my own anecdotal incidents?
For context this is my neighborhood: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/24/shooting-suspect-in... http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/18/police-arrest-man-f...
With regards to the high crime rate maybe Im just lucky. Some of those incidents had overlap, like both my car and the neighbors. It's totaled about 5 calls in the past two years. The city of Seattle does a good job on publishing crime & emergency services data in a timely manner. You're welcome to browse from the original source or a number of third parties. For reference my neighborhood is "Beacon Hill" bordering "Rainier Valley", south of I90. http://www.seattle.gov/police/crime/onlinecrimemaps.htm
From time to time, post their responses on some public forums.
My mom has accident in Sacramento downtown uneven sidewalk once, bruise pretty badly. Her doctor take care of her. I just email the city manager + couple elective officials 's public email addresses. I got 10+ follow up emails from various folks in couple day and the issue was fixed in a few days.
But, when it's a "nobody important" tax paying citizen, then go f-yourself.
Congrats goes out to everyone who voted in the current representatives.
Wonderful job.
Perhaps there are more fundamental issues than "people voted for the wrong person". For example, there may be problems with the governmental structure itself, not just who populates the structure.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-offi...
Spending two gazillion dollars on a stupid tunnel that is already going to cost 2x estimates is just another fine feature of this idiotic bureaucracy in my area.
I would hope that it would not take too many incidents of private security 'resolving' issues to see that a police force doing its job is a far more preferred solution.
Seriously, how much would you pay for private security to return your stolen iPhone?
(Even the police are not supposed to be using deadly force to apprehend property crimes; the justification for deadly force is officer safety or the safety of others.)
Paying collectively for security is much better.
0.) alleged the Police are out chasing bank robbers and allow car break-in
1.)why important? the new 'cartel' pays extra for your PERSONAL info for medical ID theft.
2.) the meth addicts who are up all night strike your mailbox to make sure they have a complete profile on U.
3.)since your garage door opener or home address allows the HOME INVADERS to get a copy of keys to your home.
4.) Mexican drug cartels have great stories they tell the neighbors, including pesticide pest control, lost cat animal control with uniforms, etc. when a gun is held to the head of your children, you will give up your pin, passwords to online bank accounts and combination number to the secret safe.
5.) USA citizens Trust the Police, especially the Detroit ones who never sent the rape kits to the lab. So, the serial criminals kept raping and home invading.
6.) This pattern is nationwide. Police never use the Internet. In Florida, the popular women fitness center car trunks break-ins target your wallet. Someone keeps an eye on you while you are exercising at the fitness center. The new master keys make it easy to take your WALLET, smartphone, HOME KEYS and even spare set of car keys.
Does this happen during the day in broad daylight, with visitors from out of town driving a 'rental car'?
when is your HOME INVADER going to invade?
Here in Santa Cruz we have a very high property/lifestyle crime problem, thankfully the PD haven't given up, but the courts have made things here basically catch and release.
The story basically comes down to laziness on the part of the police. Seattle doesn't have the budget problems of Oakland where this same situation has basically been going on for a decade.
I'm a big believer in the Second Amendment. It's not about duck hunting. And in an ideal world what you suggest would be OK.
HOWEVER, we don't live in an ideal world. So IMO concealed carry is now about personal protection and not about retrieving stolen iPhones.
Yeah, it's about suppressing slave revolts.
[President] Washington responded by sending peace
commissioners ... while at the same time calling on
governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax.
With 13,000 militia provided ... Washington rode at
the head of an army to suppress the insurgency
An individuals CPL status is nearly orthogonal to any armed confrontation. The police will arrest of you brandishing a weapon, CPL or not. Conversely if you use a firearm for self defense a CPL is irrelevant to the appropriate use of force. And in any offensive use of a weapon you will go to jail. Just the other week a homeless man down the street was arrested as he continued to shoot at two criminals after they were no longer a threat: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/18/police-arrest-man-f...
This is a terrible idea. I'm about as pro 2nd amendment as you can get, but when you carry a concealed weapon your goal should always be to avoid a confrontation, not seek one out.
Getting your back iPhone isn't a life or death situation and you shouldn't use a firearm to resolve it. Also it's very likely you're going to jail if you shoot a guy while trying to make a citizens arrest.
If they thought the victim was going to get shot, then you should have said, I am going right over there now to 123 Main Street to confront them in so-and-so colored car.
Then you wait and when the police show up at that car THEN you go over and make the theft claim.
Victim was entirely too polite with dispatch.
This leads to interesting hacker-cultural questions: How will policing adapt, if at all? Can more tech help?
http://crosscut.com/2014/10/20/law-justice/122409/judge-toss...
But they won't use any force against known criminals who are right in front of them.
Could the two be related? Especially because the "non-arrest" policy for break-ins appears to be recent.
Or you could become an important politician. Couple of years ago whole police force of my country capital city was mobilised because member of parliament wifes car got stolen. Took them an hour to track it down using GSM triangulation (purse with phone in the car).
Guess what happens when you tell cops your car was stolen, but you have active tracker in it and can tell them where it is. Easier to get few big guys and deal with it yourself.
No one is saying they expect the police to carry your groceries inside. They are law enforcement officers whose job description is to enforce laws. If they can't/wont' do that because of external factors, then citizens should be told the truth about why that is. Vigilantism comes from a sense of injustice, that the system doesn't work for unknown reasons. Without that transparency, we are left to fill that void in understanding with our imaginations.
If you're saying that law enforcement will never render aid, thats prima facie incorrect.
What could have gone wrong? Nearly all crime rates have gone up.
You get the idea. Call it in from the nearest pay phone and leave. Guaranteed response.
I'd only do this if I lived in an area with a bunch of deadbeat cops. In MA our cops do their job without having to be tricked into doing it...the courts on the other hand seem to let everyone off.
In the weeks before Monday's formal unveiling, McGinn released several
details of his 2012 proposal, which will now be scrutinized by the City
Council. Councilmembers, who will pass a final plan in November, have
already indicated they're leery of the mayor's idea to reduce the Seattle
Police Budget by $2.4 million by keeping 26 sworn officer positions vacant. [1]
[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/McGinn-budget-cuts-11...
This story is pretty outrageous, but I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice. This could EASILY have led to a shootout. I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt than insist "police are never there to help you."
The point is, that anecdotally, the police have never appeared to be a positive force around me, except intangibly. They only seem to focus on things I myself, and many of my peers, consider acceptable victimless crimes. They focus on padding revenue by stopping speeding violations, and petty drug offenses.
Largely, police appear to regularly abuse their authority, ignore relevant data, and serve an agenda I am diametrically opposed to. Obviously, this isn't a scientific study, but I think it encapsulates the hatred for police.
Also, there are many instances on youtube and the news, of them either covering for fellow officers, or ignoring basic laws, like speeding, cell-phone use ore petty drugs. They need to wear cameras for objective scrutiny rather than be allowed to BE the law.
EDIT: I should say that of course, there are police officers who work hard, are incorruptible and are genuine upstanding citizens who enforce laws and are just. The simple fact is that a percentage of bad actors can disrupt the flow enough to severely damage an institution if given significant power. See the banking industry for an analogy of this. I do not mean to discount all police, and many do positive things in society.
It's a tough job to recruit for, since so many people hate you:
1) Minorities hate you, since an overwhelming proportion of criminals emerge from our ranks and successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors.
2) Liberals hate you because rappers do, and also everyone knows cops love to frame black people for crimes nobody committed, and if they were committed it was probably by a cis-male white patriarchy.
3) Conservatives hate you, because you're a public employee and an agent of the gubmint that wants to seize everyone's guns and force gay sex on God-fearing Americans.
Unsurprisingly, it's tough to recruit for the job. Plus, a huge number of cops need to go undercover and are thereby recruiting from cultures that don't share wealthier standards of etiquette. And even cops that don't come from rough backgrounds are forced to constantly interact with awful people who understand nothing but violence and rage. Mother Teresa would adopt thuggish behavior after five minutes on the force.
This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities. Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops? When you aren't faced with hatred and violence all day, it's easier to be chill at traffic stops.
Not the OP, but yes. All the time, in fact. Then there's also the crucial difference that going to a dentist is a voluntary exchange, whereas being stopped and frisked by police is an unsolicited act of aggression no matter how you put it.
...successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors
Hardly. Locking up families and neighbors is the exact opposite of crime prevention. It's treating the aftermath. Crime prevention should be analogous to preventative medicine: minimizing the possibility of it occurring to begin with.
Police by definition are reactionary agents. They don't have the competence or the will to do anything other than handle aftermaths and create intimidation in a dubiously effective attempt to scare off bad guys.
This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities.
Pareto principle: 20% of people do 80% of the work, or in this case make most of the difference. It's also the reason why "Not all -ists are like that" arguments don't work: they fail to realize that minorities in an in-group can still be highly influential and destructive.
Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops?
They aren't typically covered in international media. You don't see any bad Serbian cops too often, either. Do they not exist?
So... in your opinion, there's no value in removing criminals from the streets because locking them up "is the exact opposite of crime prevention." There is no such thing as a repeat criminal, and the fact that a small number of criminals commit a disproportionate number of crimes is false.
In fact, black and Latino neighborhoods are enriched by the activities of violent felons. Their presence inspires children to study and ensures the safety of women young and old.
I would be very interested to visit your city and see this wonderland.
I should say that of course, there are police officers
who work hard, are incorruptible and are genuine
upstanding citizens who enforce laws and are just.
TBH, the only thing that could possible change things is to apply competition in police work. I'd love to see municipalities maintain two police forces and fund them according to how effective they are. Make them compete and they will improve or go out of business.
[0] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-ar...
(a) You catch small crooks, and they lead you to bigger fish. (b) You catch small crooks, and they can't do the job, so bigger fish recruits new small fish and the cycle begins again. (c) You catch small crooks, the big fish gets angry and starts to cause real serious damage, leading to move and move violent crimes.
There must be some statistic from the past history that would shine a light on this. Thoughts?
Unfortunately, liberals have somehow seized upon such measures as fascist. My parent comment has received at least five downvotes, for nothing more than saying cops are people too. Stop-and-frisk measures in New York, which were enormously valuable in stopping felons from their next murders, have become persona non grata since black people are disproportionately like to be found breaking parole, carrying weapons, or transporting drugs.
I consider myself liberal, but I'm really disappointed by our kneejerk responses to crime prevention. I think a lot of it stems from white guilt, a self-loathing for which police now serve as whipping boys.
You want to enforce smaller laws? Great. You want the police to randomly stop and search citizens? Get the fuck out of my country.
On HN, you probably have a large proportion of people who believe that, like many government services, police will be successfully and peacefully deprecated by voluntary systems yet to be invented.
Reactions to a detailed first person account are "blind"? What, pray tell, is your standard of acceptable sources for a debate?
> I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice.
1. The victim of theft did not "enforce vigilante justice" even when the police refused to help him.
2. The victim of theft did not propose enforcing vigilante justice at any point in the process. All of his suggestions involved letting the police do their job while he assisted from a distance.
What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like you're accusing this guy of doing something he didn't do in order to avoid acknowledging that there is a problem.
> This could EASILY have led to a shootout.
Half of a policeman's duties could lead to shootouts. Should police everywhere avoid confronting criminals because such confrontations could lead to a shootout? No -- that would be ridiculous. Deciding that you aren't going to enforce petty theft laws because the cost/benefit is off is effectively equivalent to making petty theft legal. Even if this petty theft isn't important, you surely must acknowledge the importance of discouraging petty theft in general and the unsuitability of the "eh, not worth it" attitude for achieving that goal. The need for enforcement follows.
> I'd rather give [the police] the benefit of the doubt
It's very easy to pretend there isn't a problem when it doesn't affect you.
The cops ordered the author to stop pursuing the thieves, for fear of a shootout. They were not themselves afraid of shooting the thieves. The author seems to be quite correct in all his actions, and his anger is appropriate. The cops should have pursued his case, and their failure to do so is wrong.
However, scan this thread for idiotic kneejerk reactions to the very existence of police. It may be fashionable to despise cops, but it's pretty damn stupid to hate the very thin blue line between you and truly awful people.
Villainizing the profession is seems to be an emotional outlet for white guilt and class resentment. All most cops want from their jobs is a peaceful world where criminals don't run riot through decent people.
Seattle PD failed to do their jobs in this case, and should step up enforcement of possible car break-ins -- but then the next HN story will be that cops are racist because they arrested felons for having car theft tools. Cops can't win.
How in the hell? A lot of arguments against police come from libertarian perspectives: ones that reject such ideas grounded in identity politics to begin with. Right-wing perspectives, in other words.
All most cops want from their jobs is a peaceful world where criminals don't run riot through decent people.
You certainly do live in a very charitable world.
There's a nice wide middle ground between these two alternatives, where the cops arrest people when there is probable cause that they committed a specific crime.
A woman called the police and told them that her husband, against a restraining order, came and took her children. Police did nothing. The husband then murdered the children, and a woman filed a suit against the police, saying they should've responded to her call.
The Police argued that it was essentially not their job to go after the husband, until an appropriate arrest warrant was issued, and therefore they were not at fault?
Fabulous...
Starting salary for Seattle Police Officer is $65K with full benefits and many earn over $100k with overtime. Unless you really mess up you will not be fired.
Criticizing the services you pay for doesn't mean you are saying all the people who do it are bad.
> I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt
Why do you espouse blind trust and question 'blind' hatred? How can you be blind to what you've seen with your own eyes?
I understand the danger to personal quests for justice. I understand political pressure. But 'pressure' doesn't stop the officers from responding. They could respond to the call, but they choose not to. For political reasons, understandably, but the facts remain.